Will these stop you from smoking?

[sore napper]

Graphic pictures will be used on cigarette packets from next year to show the effects of smoking.


What do you think? Will it stop you smoking? Would it stop you from starting smoking?

 

[Dave]

Most hypocritical thing I've seen in a while.

If the government really wanted everyone to stop smoking then they'd ban it full stop. How hypocritical is it saying "these will kill you" then taking the majority of the price in tax.

Trying to shock smokers is a waste of time anyway, we know better than anyone what it's doing to us and no amount of shock tactics works. We know it's bad for us.

OK, rant over.

 

[dub007]

i was looking at them pics you posted!! with a fag in my mouth

p.s it might make you think about it! but then again how much is forgotton in a few hours.

 

[BAN5HEE]

Anyone see the picture of that old lady who just turned a 100 in the paper yesterday? She was lighting a cig with her bday candles. Said she started smoking when she was 14. Looks fit as a fiddle. Go figure.

 

[Jenn]

As if smokers (and everybody else) didn't know what smoking does to them. It's not like they're not being told left right and centre.
Seeing pictures of the potential damage isn't going to make a difference: the 1st time they may think "Oh my..", second time "it's definitely bad..", third time "oh well, I know already..".

However how long is it going to take for people to complain that they/their children have been traumatised by the images?

 

[Vitalija]

As long as a diseased liver is embossed on every pint glass I don't mind. And while we're at it a close up of furred arteries on chocolate biscuits? How about big posters of road crash fatalities next to each speed camera?
Ridiculous.

 

[mjn]

As long as a diseased liver is embossed on every pint glass I don't mind. And while we're at it a close up of furred arteries on chocolate biscuits? How about big posters of road crash fatalities next to each speed camera?
Ridiculous.

Ah but, the difference is. Smoking IS bad for you, whether it is 5 a day or 50 a day. Lager, chocolate, etc are not bad for you in moderation.

 

[h4rri]

It will scare alot of smokers, when you are scared you reach for the fags ...

Happened with the last round of enforced warnings, as you say everything is bad for you and with the state of the country today we should be focusing on more important issues.

 

[Pezerinno]

Anyone see the picture of that old lady who just turned a 100 in the paper yesterday? She was lighting a cig with her bday candles. Said she started smoking when she was 14. Looks fit as a fiddle. Go figure.

I think she actually started at 7 - 93 years

 

[danmc_82]

Will power will stop you smoking

 

[Pat_C]

Anyone see the picture of that old lady who just turned a 100 in the paper yesterday? She was lighting a cig with her bday candles. Said she started smoking when she was 14. Looks fit as a fiddle. Go figure.

Obviously single statistics prove nothing. And there is no point anyone suggesting that smoking isn't bad for you, or that it doesn't increase your chances of dying early from some dreadful condition. It is and it does. Like others here I've seen it first hand - and despite that, still smoked myself for many years.

These images are claimed to have had some positive effect in other countries, mainly with younger smokers. Whether they work or not I see no valid reason to object to them other than perhaps the unpleasant imagery. Which isn't a great reason. They are intended to inform rather than enforce, and why would anyone object to that?

 

[jojomojo1971]

these types of pictures are already on some foreign packets and most smokers know that smoking os bad for them and i personally plan on ignoring them.

i will quit when i am good and ready to.

 

[wormvortex]

those pics may work on the young but anyone else I sincerely doubt it. Practically everyone who smokes knows the issues with it and the problems it can cause you. In fact if you didn't you must be a complete fool or extremely ignorant. Its even worded brilliantly on cigarette packets now but did that help much? Doubt it. smokers know it ruins your teeth, your lungs, gives you cancer, harms others etc... but its now banned in public places so harming others isn't such a big problem anymore so if people wanna smoke and risk the consequences let them. Can't see how much futher the goverment is going to be able to go without making tobacco an illegal drug.

And yeah I smoke now and again, mostly over the weekend though and yeah i know full well what it could do to me and you know what, I don't care I like smoking and no amount of shock tatics by the government is going to change my mind.

 

[fortean]

If I still smoked I would start collecting them, and be looking for swaps.

I really missed Embassy Vouchers and the catalogue when it stopped. How many vouchers would it have been for a new set of lungs?

 

[RMCF]

Everytime I listen to a Gov official or minister preaching about the effects of smoking I always wonder about how serious they actually are.

After all they lift so much in tax from ciggies. I realise that they would have smaller NHS costs if no-one smoked, but surely people would just get sick in other ways instead.

Plus we are being told about how we will have so many 'older' people in the future and as a result pensions will suffer, so surely letting thousands kill themselves early of their own freewill is good for them/us.

 

[dBrowne]

After all they lift so much in tax from ciggies. I realise that they would have smaller NHS costs if no-one smoked, but surely people would just get sick in other ways instead.

Does the expenditure treating smokers on the NHS outweigh the contribution made by ciggie tax to the exchequer's coughers? If not, it'd be a shame, as you imply, if these people died of untaxed, and thus unfunded, illnesses instead.

 

[RMCF]

Does the expenditure treating smokers on the NHS outweigh the contribution made by ciggie tax to the exchequer's coughers? If not, it'd be a shame, as you imply, if these people died of untaxed, and thus unfunded, illnesses instead.

Can't comment on the maths.

But as an example, say the Gov get 50% of the cost of each packet (£5) in tax.

So if I start smoking 20 a day at 16 and die at 65, this is approx £45K in tax the Gov get off me.

But some treatments for cancer are very expensive I'm sure, so I would say the tax they get wouldn't cover the cost of treatment.

But then again not all smokers die of cancer related illness. Some are hit by buses or die of other things!!

 

[wormvortex]

I'm sure a lot less people get cancer/illness who smoke than those who do. So the gov will still be making all that extra money from people who smoke their wholes lives and never get any illness from smoking.

 

[signs]

Ah but, the difference is. Smoking IS bad for you, whether it is 5 a day or 50 a day. Lager, chocolate, etc are not bad for you in moderation.

Or you could say, because smoking "a" cigarette is a sedative it causes less anxiety, ergo less likely to get worked up and have a heart attack

week i know

 

[williemaykit]

The Australian government did a similar campaign a couple of years back with fag packets having pictures of a gangrenous toe. Did it stop me smoking then? Not really. Sure it was a little gross (especially they have 25 packs there so its alot wider, therefore the pic is quite a bit bigger) but it does become like trading cards. I am sure it's only a matter of time before some does a pictorial version of these

 

[dBrowne]

Can't comment on the maths.

But as an example, say the Gov get 50% of the cost of each packet (£5) in tax.

So if I start smoking 20 a day at 16 and die at 65, this is approx £45K in tax the Gov get off me.

But some treatments for cancer are very expensive I'm sure, so I would say the tax they get wouldn't cover the cost of treatment.

But then again not all smokers die of cancer related illness. Some are hit by buses or die of other things!!

But as you say, we all have to die of something. And that something is likely to involve expensive treatment whether you smoke or don't. It is just a question of when.
You smoke, get cancer, get expensive treatment and die in your sixties. Your productive years were mostly behind you and you are no longer a burden to the state. Plucking numbers out of the air, say that it costs £100 - 150 grand to go through motions of treating you minus your smoking tax contributions £50k+. The state is £50k to £100k in the hole.
You don't smoke, you live to 85-90, state pension expenses, state-funded retirement home expenses, debilitating illness or cancer costs as above but with no ciggie tax contribution. It seems to me that the state would be substantially deeper in the hole.
I don't know the math either, but the second scenario would seem more expensive. When Bismark cynically set the retirement age at 65 it was because German working men died on average well below that. Now we get to sit in God's waiting room for another 20+ years. Surely the government doesn't want us to linger around for too long, so why all this encouragement to stop smoking?

 

[mjn]

Or you could say, because smoking "a" cigarette is a sedative it causes less anxiety, ergo less likely to get worked up and have a heart attack

week i know

But it doesn't, having a fag actually increaes your blood pressure.

 

[mjn]

Does the expenditure treating smokers on the NHS outweigh the contribution made by ciggie tax to the exchequer's coughers? If not, it'd be a shame, as you imply, if these people died of untaxed, and thus unfunded, illnesses instead.

Government earns about £8 billion in tax from smoking, and the NHS spends about £1.5 billion on treatment.

However, the more expensive smoking becomes, the number of people buying imported / duty free cigarettes increases.

 

[Bat-man]

I'm cheesed off with our Government telling me this and telling me that.
Ever since the large warnings came out on ciggy packets I've used a cigarette case so that I'm not bombarded by this stuff whenever I fancy a drag.