Why did cigs go up this week?

dmc17 · 22-02-2014 10:15am

dmc17 wrote: »

In the long run yes, but then again "In the long run we are all dead". I believe a better all round solution would be to quit as opposed to doing away with oneself.

roadsmart wrote: »

So we agree.

Ah....not exactly...

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:18am

dmc17 wrote: »

Ah....not exactly...

I've already stated smokers should quit. You disagree with that?

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 10:20am

I'm an ex-smoker & choose to vape now, but why oh why do all these anti-smoking fook-wits always have to throw their 2 cents/witty repartee into every smoking related thread?

Smokers choose to smoke, get the fook over it, it's called freedom of choice...

No matter how much you pontificate about the evils of smoking etc., surely you realise by now that...SMOKERS DON'T GIVE A FOOK ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON SMOKING :rolleyes:

This thread was about an increase in price on cigarettes, & yet all the anti-smoking diaspora descend upon it like flies to she-ite :mad:

Move along all y'all non-smokers, nothing for you here unless for some reason you have an insight into the price increase

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:24am

MonstaMash wrote: »

I'm an ex-smoker & choose to vape now, but why oh why do all these anti-smoking fook-wits always have to throw their 2 cents/witty repartee into every smoking related thread?

Smokers choose to smoke, get the fook over it, it's called freedom of choice...

No matter how much you pontificate about the evils of smoking etc., surely you realise by now that...SMOKERS DON'T GIVE A FOOK ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON SMOKING :rolleyes:

This thread was about an increase in price on cigarettes, & yet all the anti-smoking diaspora descend upon it like flies to she-ite :mad:

Move along all y'all non-smokers, nothing for you here unless for some reason you have an insight into the price increase

yup, this is the sort of smoker I'm talking about. At least you gave them up.

kneemos · 22-02-2014 10:25am

They should be banned for the same reason Asbestos was banned and why the Authorities evacuate people during a chemical fire...they're dangerous.

dmc17 · 22-02-2014 10:26am

roadsmart wrote: »

I've already stated smokers should quit. You disagree with that?

No. I agree with that part. I disagree that it would be easier all round if they did away with themselves.

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 10:27am

roadsmart wrote: »

It seems to me that it's smokers who are equine-ly elevated, if that's a word. I am saying that the system shouldn't have to bear the burden of willingly self inflicted sickness, and speaking as an ex smoker as well, I do not accept that smokers cannot quit.

Nothing worse than a reformed whore...I'll just run out & get some Brasso to shine up your halo :rolleyes:

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:29am

dmc17 wrote: »

No. I agree with that part. I disagree that it would be easier all round if they did away with themselves.

If they choose to continue smoking, they will become sick and become a burden to the system, and die unnaturally. Why should society have to shoulder the burden of a willingly self-inflicted condition?

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:30am

MonstaMash wrote: »

Nothing worse than a reformed whore :rolleyes:

Says a vaper.

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 10:31am

roadsmart wrote: »

Says a vaper.

At least I'm not trying to force my opinions on others, you hypocrite :mad:

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:34am

MonstaMash wrote: »

At least I'm not forcing my anti-smoking opinions on others, you hypocrite :mad:

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, merely expressing it. It seems to me that you are the one ranting. Maybe you need a smoke?

Mrs Garth Brooks · 22-02-2014 10:34am

MonstaMash wrote: »

At least I'm not trying to force my opinions on others, you hypocrite :mad:

But you'll force your smoke onto other people?

dmc17 · 22-02-2014 10:35am

roadsmart wrote: »

If they choose to continue smoking, they will become sick and become a burden to the system, and die unnaturally. Why should society have to shoulder the burden of a willingly self-inflicted condition?

Do you believe the burden is big enough to justify your alternative solution of doing away with themselves?

kneemos · 22-02-2014 10:35am

MonstaMash wrote: »

At least I'm not trying to force my opinions on others, you hypocrite :mad:

Your first post sounded very much like you were.

wazky · 22-02-2014 10:36am

Smoking doesn't harm anyone, it's government conspiracy to increase taxes.

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:38am

dmc17 wrote: »

Do you believe the burden is big enough to justify your alternative solution of doing away with themselves?

As previously stated, I'm not advocating them doing away with themselves, I am of the opinion that they are already doing just that. I merely suggested they speed up the process, thereby lessening the burden.

Nulty · 22-02-2014 10:41am

Can anyone give a definitive percentage of the price of cigarettes that is tax?

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 10:42am

roadsmart wrote: »

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, merely expressing it. It seems to me that you are the one ranting. Maybe you need a smoke?

The thread is about the increase in the price of tobacco products.

You have nothing to offer on the thread subject, you are only here to spout your own anti-smoking agenda...troll

& if I'm going to smoke, it would be my decision, I certainly don't need you to tell me if I can or not.

Have a nice day now, don't come back y'all

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 10:43am

MonstaMash wrote: »

I'm an ex-smoker & choose to vape now

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

But you'll force your smoke onto other people?

:rolleyes:

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:44am

MonstaMash wrote: »

The thread is about the increase in the price of tobacco products.

You have nothing to offer on the thread subject, you are only here to spout your own anti-smoking agenda...troll

& if I'm going to smoke, it would be my decision, I certainly don't need you to tell me if I can or not.

Have a nice day now, don't come back y'all

I implore the smoking fraternity to elect monstamess as it's spokesperson.

Nulty · 22-02-2014 10:47am

www.thetobaccoatlas.com gives 61.1% as a figure for Ireland...don't know how or where it gets this figure.

73% in the UK apparently

Here, I'll just link to the interesting parts

Prices:
http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/costs/cig_prices/prices/

Tax:
http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/solutions/tobacco_taxes/excise_tax/

dmc17 · 22-02-2014 10:49am

roadsmart wrote: »

I think the opposite is true, smokers are a huge life-long burden on the state and contribute to the hospital bed crisis. It really would be easier all round if they just did away with themselves.

roadsmart wrote: »

As previously stated, I'm not advocating them doing away with themselves, I am of the opinion that they are already doing just that. I merely suggested they speed up the process, thereby lessening the burden.

I still don't understand how you suggest they "speed up the process" and I don't think it would make things easier as it would have worse consequences if smokers just did away with themselves.

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:50am

dmc17 wrote: »

I still don't understand how you suggest they "speed up the process" and I don't think it would make things easier as it would have worse consequences if smokers just did away with themselves.

My point is, they ARE doing away with themselves. Willingly.

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 10:52am

roadsmart wrote: »

I implore the smoking fraternity to elect monstamess as it's spokesperson.

Oh dear, have we resorted to childish name calling now :rolleyes:

Well done sir, the subtle art of debate surely isn't lost on you :pac::pac::pac:

WARNING OFFENSIVE IMAGE...OPEN AT YOUR PERIL...YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Nulty · 22-02-2014 10:52am

roadsmart wrote: »

My point is, they ARE doing away with themselves. Willingly.

Seriously, your off topic.

Nulty · 22-02-2014 10:53am

http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/raise_taxes/en/

And the WHO are behind it all...I knew there was something sinister about that band.

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:54am

Nulty wrote: »

Seriously, your off topic.

Yes in fairness, and so is everyone else bar you.

dmc17 · 22-02-2014 10:57am

roadsmart wrote: »

It really would be easier all round if they just did away with themselves.

roadsmart wrote: »

My point is, they ARE doing away with themselves. Willingly.

I think I'm getting it now. You're in favour of smokers as they are making it easier all round by doing away with themselves? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 10:57am

MonstaMash wrote: »

Oh dear, have we resorted to childish name calling now :rolleyes:

Well done sir, the subtle art of debate surely isn't lost on you :pac::pac::pac:

WARNING OFFENSIVE IMAGE...OPEN AT YOUR PERIL...YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Wow, my iPad insulted you.:rolleyes:

You don't have to roar and shout to make a point, you just have to have a point to make, and IMO shouting that smokers are just going to do it and don't give a fook about anyone's opinion is not really a valid point now, is it? :rolleyes:

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 11:00am

dmc17 wrote: »

I think I'm getting it now.

Oh you get it alright, you just choose to misinterpret it. Did you miss where I stated that smokers should just stop?

dmc17 · 22-02-2014 11:04am

roadsmart wrote: »

Oh you get it alright, you just choose to misinterpret it. Did you miss where I stated that smokers should just stop?

No, I didn't miss it at all. In fact I agreed with you on it if you can recall. I just think the fact you stated that it would be easier if smokers did away with themselves was a little extreme.

22-02-2014 11:06am

Guy I work with said he spends approx £20 a day on cigs. 2 packs a day and an extra pack at the weekend.

That's about 8 grand a year. Mental.

Couple of savage holidays right there

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 11:07am

roadsmart wrote: »

Wow, my iPad insulted you.:rolleyes:

You don't have to roar and shout to make a point, you just have to have a point to make, and IMO shouting that smokers are just going to do it and don't give a fook about anyone.s opinion is not really a valid point now, is it? :rolleyes:

I'm not shouting, I just didn't want to offend your delicate sensitivities...bless

The point I'm trying to make is that this thread is about the increase in price of tobacco products & for nigh on 4 hours you have not offered one single piece of input regarding the thread subject matter, you are just here to further your own agenda

Go preach to the converted, smoker's will make their own decisions themselves in the end, regardless of your brow beating.

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 11:10am

dmc17 wrote: »

No, I didn't miss it at all. In fact I agreed with you on it if you can recall. I just think the fact you stated that smokers should do away with themselves was a little extreme.

Once again. I stated that they are ALREADY doing away with themselves. I am completely against smoking and suicide. I am saying that by willingly smoking they are committing themselves knowingly to a slow painful death and illness in between, that they are purposely killing themselves. The care of such people is a heavy burden on the system. If they quit smoking or did away with themselves quickly, it stands to reason that that burden would be eased.

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 11:12am

MonstaMash wrote: »

I'm not shouting, I just didn't want to offend your delicate sensitivities...bless

The point I'm trying to make is that this thread is about the increase in price of tobacco products & for nigh on 4 hours you have not offered one single piece of input regarding the thread subject matter, you are just here to further your own agenda

Go preach to the converted, smoker's will make their own decisions themselves in the end, regardless of your brow beating.

Condescension does nothing to enforce a pointless post.

Happyman42 · 22-02-2014 11:15am

Somebody light up a fag, that'll get rid of the trolls.

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 11:16am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Somebody light up a fag, that'll get rid of the trolls.

And the smokers.

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 11:17am

roadsmart wrote: »

Condescension does nothing to enforce a pointless post.

:pac::pac::pac:

Have a lovely day...toodles

happypants · 22-02-2014 11:27am

€9.60 is madness! Like another poster mentioned try vaping. They're the new 'in thing' a lot of smokers I know are using them to cut down and quit. I haven't smoked since I found out I'm pregnant 7 months ago and have no intention of starting once the little one arrives but My OH bought a vapor (for himself, they contain nicotine so not recommended during pregnancy) and I think they are a great idea, I can't stand the smell of smoke etc off clothes etc and these have no scent. Plus they're cheap cheap compared to €9.60 per pack, you'd prob spend €9.60 a month instead of per day.

Like most things of this nature the media/ government will soon probably push information how these are bad for you etc etc but they couldn't be worse than cigarettes. The only thing I've noticed is people seem to have them in their gobs the whole time because there's not as many restrictions for using them in public.

rawn · 22-02-2014 11:29am

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

But you'll force your smoke onto other people?

This is the kind of comment that bugs me. Not all smokers stand around blowing smoke in your face, some do, but most of us are more conscientious than that. When I smoked I also never smoked around children, neither did most other smokers I know.

MonstaMash · 22-02-2014 11:30am

happypants wrote: »

I haven't smoked since I found out I'm pregnant 7 months ago and have no intention of starting once the little one arrives

Happy days, congratulations...now there's an incentive to quit, best of luck

Kidchameleon · 22-02-2014 11:35am

roadsmart wrote: »

So we agree. Unfortunately the long run for smokers imposes a huge burden on the system that wouldn't be there if they didn't smoke.

Every time I'm in A&E there are lots of sports related injuries. These injuries impose a huge burden on the health system, should we ban sports?

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 11:36am

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Every time I'm in A&E there are lots of sports related injuries. These injuries impose a huge burden on the health system, should we ban sports?

Sports injuries are not willingly self- inflicted. What's your point?

happypants · 22-02-2014 11:39am

MonstaMash wrote: »

Happy days, congratulations...now there's an incentive to quit, best of luck

Cheers! I had to give up, how could I continue to judge others for smoking during pregnancy if I was gonna do it myself.... and the obvious health benefits for my unborn child of course! :P

But absolutely, for women, there is no better time to quit.

Black People · 22-02-2014 11:42am

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Every time I'm in A&E there are lots of sports related injuries. These injuries impose a huge burden on the health system, should we ban sports?

I'm pretty sure sports has more health benefits than negatives, so that's a pretty weak argument.

Shanotheslayer · 22-02-2014 11:51am

Black People wrote: »

I'm pretty sure sports has more health benefits than negatives, so that's a pretty weak argument.

Not really. Depends on the sports. MMA/Boxers clearly know they are going to get hurt. So is that not self inflicted? And before anyone says well this guy didn't in one match blah blah. I'm talking about the majority here.

rawn · 22-02-2014 11:52am

Black People wrote: »

I'm pretty sure sports has more health benefits than negatives, so that's a pretty weak argument.

There are some health benefits to smoking but shhhh we're not supposed to know this.

roadsmart · 22-02-2014 11:55am

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Not really. Depends on the sports. MMA/Boxers clearly know they are going to get hurt. So is that not self inflicted? And before anyone says well this guy didn't in one match blah blah. I'm talking about the majority here.

A boxer is actively trying not to get injured, whereas a smoker is purposely injuring themselves. The majority of injured fighters will not end up in long term care.

Black People · 22-02-2014 12:00pm

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Not really. Depends on the sports. MMA/Boxers clearly know they are going to get hurt. So is that not self inflicted? And before anyone says well this guy didn't in one match blah blah. I'm talking about the majority here.

Fair enough, but brain injuries and organ damage are the only argument you have here because a guy who has lung cancer will spend more time in hospital than the guy with a broken leg.

With cancer, you need chemotherapy: http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/05/09/cost-of-chemotherapy

Just one month of a cancer medication could run you $10,000—or more. We look at the absurd economics driving cancer patients to pay astronomical prices when they can least afford it.

I'm an ex-smoker and I wish I could turn back time because I'm probably going to regret it more later in life than I do now.

Gran Hermano · 22-02-2014 12:07pm

roadsmart wrote: »

Once again. I stated that they are ALREADY doing away with themselves. I am completely against smoking and suicide. I am saying that by willingly smoking they are committing themselves knowingly to a slow painful death and illness in between, that they are purposely killing themselves. The care of such people is a heavy burden on the system. If they quit smoking or did away with themselves quickly, it stands to reason that that burden would be eased.

Highly misinformed opinion above.

We can agree that smokers die younger?

We can agree that during their lifetime they pay a serious amount of extra tax each day?

Non smokers also end up in hospitals and nursing homes costing the economy money.

Many smokers also have private healthcare cover

In summary smokers pay more tax when they are alive. They are not the people who use bus passes, hospitals and other government services aged 80+. It is basic welfare economics that due to the 'death benefit ' of smokers they are net contributors to an economy.

Why did cigs go up this week?

Comments