Smoking ban
Nov. 16th, 2004 07:49 amHmm, it would appear that the government would like to have their cake and eat it (or should that be have their cigarette and smoke it?). Not only do the governemnt tax the heck out of smokers, but now they are proposing a smoking ban. Surely it would be more logical to ban cigarettes alltogether or would that be too much of a blow to the government's income?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-16 10:09 am (UTC)Hell yes it would. Let's say 25% of the UK smokes 20 a day (I think that might be a bit low, but it'll serve to illustrate a point). That's 15,000,000 times 4 pounds tax (on a 5 pound pack of cigarettes) per day. That's £22 billion per year, or about half of what the government spent on the NHS in 2001 (or all of what they spent on defense).
In comparison, smoking related illness costs the NHS £1.5billion per year. You could say that smokers more than pay their way in Britain, and you can see why the government would rather not ban smoking entirely.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-16 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-16 11:43 pm (UTC)On another note, it's not like they're reducing my choice, just making sure that no-one else has to put up with my polluted air. And if you think of it, it's a risk for the government when you think of possible lost revenues. It seems like they're doing something DECENT about all our health instead of just concerntrating on warring with another country. They're being proactive...shouldn't we be pleased?