Ok, so you all know how I feel about the smoking ban that was ill-conceived and hastily implemented by the Scottish Executive in March this year. Well it appears as if the evidence is begining to stack up against our glorious leaders regarding the promised benefits the ban would bring.
If you remember Scotland's First Minister Joke McConnell proudly announced that by implementing the public ban the health of the nation would be improved as those that wished to quit would have an incentive to stop. My stance has always been that this was merely an attempt to marginalise the smoking community and that all of the "data" used to back up the parliament's arguements was, for want of a better word, a smokescreen and an attempt to obfuscate the real issues.
Well kiddies the latest figures released by The Scottish Grocers Federation show that since the ban was introduced in March this year that tobacco sales have increased by almost 5%. That's 61,000 packets or 1,220,000 more cigarettes being purchased each week.
This increase is broadly inline with the rises experienced by other countries who have also implemented a public smoking ban. At the time of the introducion of the ban Health Minister Andy Kerr was quoted as saying
"As well as protecting people from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke it will help many people to give up smoking. Evidence from Ireland proves this." oooops! wrong again Andy.
Now the cynic in me has wondered if perhaps this was the intention all along. Each packet of cigarettes sold in this country contribues 22% of the retail price plus a further £2 in duty to the treasury. Indeed I am led to believe that the income raised from cigarette duty is comparable to the sums raised from North Sea Oil. Therefore by implementing the ban and making smoking a sign of rebellion the government has driven up tobacco sales which in turn boosts the treasury coffers.
Politicians...can't live with them, can't trust the fuckers.
3 comments:
In New Jersey it is against the law to smoke while driving in your own car. Who knows what things will be like in a few more years. Ugh! Dr. John has a dragon in his fortress that will soon be up for questioning.
Dave,
I read a report recently that said, roughly, that contrary to all numbers released by the government about the cost of smokers to the NHS....
The amount of money contributed in taxes and revenue by smokers not only exceeded any cost to the Trusts of giving them [smokers] medical treatement should they require it from smoking related illness or not,... Cigarette income was, infact, almost single handedly holding together the entire health service for smokers and non smokers alike.
Without the revenue gained by the gov from cigarettes taxes, another source of funding would have to be found. An American style PAYG/insurance type option was also discussed. I am sure that BUPA and other insurance companies must be rubbing their hands at the prospect.
If I can find the original report - I will forward it to you.
Well, wether the sales of cigarette decline or not is another issue. I think it is completely rational to implement the ban. It's the smokers right to smoke, but non-smokers should have the rights to breathe in CLEAN air. In my country, it isn't illegal to smoke outdoors, so I as a non-smoker have to suffer.
Post a Comment