Politically Correct Move?

[linzmac13]

Ok, so I'm by no means politically up-to-date and by no means correct but I have a theory on the possible EU Directive proposed ban on e-cigs/liquid etc.

In the UK they bang on constantly about current and future NHS costs with regards to smokers costing them a fortune...right??? So, with all the converted and possible future vapers, wouldn't it be a good move for NHS and the country??

If, and I mean if, David Cameron has any chance of getting back in to govt, would he really jeopardise his chances by allowing this to happen before 2015???

With all the additional talk of "escaping from the EU", are we just panicking over something that's unlikely to affect us in the near future/if at all???

As I said I'm not the most genned-up person so views on this appreciated.
???

[booblay]

Unfortunately, tax revenue from stinkies earns more than the nhs loses to stinky related death....which is probs why fags have never been banned, despite being one of the biggest killers, drug-wise...

[robby]

Good point Linz, maybe not political suicide but they need all the votes they can get at the moment with no signs of an improvement in their position. I did read somewhere that smokers bring in three times as much revenue by way of taxation as it actually costs to treat smokers which is another negative for them to take in consideration

[linzmac13]

Feb 12, 2013 16:33:58 GMT booblay said:

Unfortunately, tax revenue from stinkies earns more than the nhs loses to stinky related death....which is probs why fags have never been banned, despite being one of the biggest killers, drug-wise...

Yep I totally agree on that, but surely at some point the two would meet and cancel out??

[Skwoddy]

Plus the government gets tax from pharmaceutical companies from all the NRT, Chemo drugs, or any drug that's made to treat tobacco related illnesses, we have an uphill battle.

Add onto this, the cost of pensions and / or benefits for people living longer.

They would never admit it, but they would prefer to take the revenue from smokers and have them die early, rather than lose tax and have them live longer.


--------
Baz

[Banky]

Baz, Unfortunately I think you have hit the nail in the head, no government is going to loose what they get back from the
pharmaceutical Comp, whoever it will be in power the days of getting more revenue from cigarettes is over.
The big guns the money men who lets face it palm the hands of the MPs, to get Bills through parliament. They see e-cigs as a threat to their products, and have the money to pay lawyers to fight the small business men. The vendors cant afford to pay for medical trials to say E-cigs are safer than cigarettes. The government wont pay for it they control the NHS who have come out against e-cigs,
They will pass a bill on e-cigs and products, we will just have to wait and see what or if the restrictions will be, me I'm not holding
my breath for good news, I like many are trying to build up as much stock as I can and at the end of the day this will happen whether
we are a member state that bit makes me laugh of the EU or not.

[booblay]

Remember, cannabis was purported to have been made illegal because hemp was such a threat to other trades, especially cotton. Not that I'm comparing cannabis with e-cigs, but it just shows how powerful corporations can stamp out something which threatens their purse.

[giles]

I really don't think it is about the government money. I can get pretty angry with politicians, but I don't think they sit there and think "lets do things which make people die younger so that we can save on pensions". I don't think they make a profit out of NRT, which is subsidised when prescribed on the NHS. If you ignore the financial effect of early death then smoking costs taxpayers money on balance, because of the cost of extra days sick.

Big Pharma profit is the driving force. They have a lot to lose if vaping wipes out the patches gums and sprays, and their influence on the people making the decisions is massive.

Civil servants tend to try to simplify their lives and play safe. From their point of view legislation is essential because current laws are inconsistent across the EU, inconsistent with medical, tobacco, alcohol and drug legislation, and just plain inadequate.

I happen to think they are right about the need for legislation. As far as I can see, at the moment you could sell a 52mg e-cig to a 6-year old.

What we should try to do is get that legislation modelled on alcohol legislation, not pharmaceutical product legislation.

And I wouldn't bet on us leaving the EU. When people realise what a massive rise in unemployment that would cause they'll vote for staying in.