http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/health-17237159

Thoughts?

Might as well just hurry up and ban it, since that's clearly where this is leading.

what b*stards! Making it harder and more expensive for people to make themselves ill and smelly.

Would you support a ban on alcohol too?

I would.

If they ban fags, they absolutely must ban cake, pie, biscuits, crisps and chocolate bars too.

Obesity costs the welfare state an absolute fortune, and the junk-food eaters don't pay the excessive duty us drinkers and smokers pay to adequately compensate the system.

More people in Britain die of self-indulgence than die of Aids or illegal drugs.

If they prove that drinking alcohol causes cancer and and also has serious medical consequences for people around me then absolutely I'd support a ban on alcohol.

Also, I don't take 3 or 4 15 minute breaks a day to drink a pint and then come back into the office stinking of alcohol causing the other people in the office to cough.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4icytv

A lot of innocent people are killed or injured by drunks. It's impossible to put a figure on how much damage passive smoking does, but it's fairly minimal compared to being smashed to pieces by a drunk in a car or being stabbed in the face in a drunken brawl.

It's probably not easy to put a figure on how many lives are adversely effected by alcoholism, but the impact is generally quite devastating on family life. Domestic violence and unemployment are commonly associated with it. I suspect there are more alcoholics than crack or heroin addicts.

From a damage limitation perspective, they should probably ban alcohol and legalise ecstasy, amphetamines and marijuana.

But is that because alcohol is legal and more freely available?

As if they'd give up the tax revenue. Also that would lose them votes. Even a few percent would swing an election, they'd never risk it.

As a non smoker I'm happy for others to smoke, just not in my face indoors. That issue has already been dealt with by the smoking ban.
I don't come home stinking after a night out anymore and that's good enough for me.
In fact I'd say I'm pro smoking. After all, if they banned it, they'd raise another tax to compensate for the loss of revenue. I might have to pay that tax whereas I don't pay it now.

I'd request you get the same breaks at work then. Smoking is done on my time and hours at work, it's either before work, at the start of lunch (if i'm out the office) or after work.

Currently on a £6.50 pack of 20 I am paying over £5 to the goverment, now say I smoke 20 a day (I don't, but it's not off what some smoke) that is nearly £2000 (£1825) that goes into the government coffers of my disposable income, past what I already get taxed from my wages

I would like to see where they can generate another £1000-2000 of tax for every smoker that is forced to quit when it is banned

For a start I don't even pay £2000 on alcohol let alone enough to make £2000 in tax

They'll just put the costs of motoring up.

They'll do that anyway!

On the break thing, I get annoyed by people who are always making tea, or always seem to have a dump on work time. It's just part of the workplace, just put up with it.

I have stress related IBS - on a bad day I have several dumps on office time!

However, I take lunch at my desk while catching up on email and taking more urgent phonecalls. It really pisses me off when some people feel the need to take their legally entitled lunch breaks away from the office... and they're always the ones that turn up at 5 past 9 and leave at 5pm on the dot!

Only 3 or 4?

I also hate visiting friends who smoke, then having to throw all my clothes straight in the laundry basket and taking a shower...

Add to that the habit of restaurants that have a smoking section not to partition it off, so that the smoke doesn't go into the non-smoking section and the waiter/waitress stinking of cigarettes, when serving your food... Really puts you off the food.