Louis Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 about time. I think the only reason they didn't do it years ago is because the goverment wanted the money. Both smoking and drinking should go up to 21 imo. All you youngsters are going to be up in arms now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Load of bollox. People under the age of 16 smoke now, so I dont see what difference it will make tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 whens this law coming into place? i think it should have been 18 anyway, all you see is young kids smoking these days, looks fuckin disgusting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 They won't be able to buy it in the shops.. It comes into effect 1st October, They should have just made it compulsory from today (new year, new start etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraccerC Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 yeh 16 is a disgrace... suprised by hte move as may lose a little which they need in tax...but about time smokers are gettin too young Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 They should change the, lottery, driving and sex ages to 18 aswell, makes more sense to have them all at the same age Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Not arsed, dont smoke anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 (edited) nooo not lottery,driving and sex!!! lol i do the lottery and im learning to drive this year!!! and its upto the person if they wanna have sex, there shouldnt be a legal age for that imo. dont change them!!! until im 18 anyway Edited January 1, 2007 by Everton Lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 You've got a hand havn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 The point is though, if you're old enough to have sex at 16 then surely you're old enough to smoke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Theres a lot more risk involved in shaggin and driving though.. the age limit should be raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 i find it funny that you can have sex at 16, but cant watch sex till 18. does that mean you should have sex with your eyes shut??? if i had my way then smoking would be banned, it would be really funny if the government did this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 They can't though SteveO they rely too much on the income it brings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 They can't though SteveO they rely too much on the income it brings i know, but i can dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Hence the massive push in Gambling of Late. ( seen it both sides of the globe) As millions of Smokers walk away the Govt's need to keep the change bag full. ( NSW State Govt in Oz has just passed legislation for Pokies to be allowed in Shopping Centres..!!! + Australia [ Well Eastern sea board ] is but a Pretty Beach surrounded by Giant poker Machines & a tax man hide ion every ditch) Dont no how long has been here but is also 18 Down under. Though I think the jist is it isnt actually ilegal to smoke, but it is not permitted for peeps u/18 to buy or stores to sell cigarettes to what are classed as minors 2. P.s Poker machines is something I now fully understand & am amazed footy clubs @ home havent pushed the envelope. Penrtih Panthers NRL Rugby League club have 25,000 Poker machines, non stop big $$$ lotteries ( every 3 mins) & Full sports/Horse racing Betting facilities @ the clubs licensed premises (Casino Bascially) as do all the Big Clubs ( Have individual what they call leagues Clubs) great way to support & finance a football team. Ide go & drink @ Club Everton or the Everton Peoples club etc etc... P.s Ide love an instantly give up smokin needle, I would have more money to gamble then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamcoffey Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 They can't though SteveO they rely too much on the income it brings exaclty, just like hard drugs, the government has the power to stop it but doesnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 How do you mean Adam? I don't think the goverment make any money from hard drugs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluenose Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 so banning smoking from pubs and raising the limit to 18. good thing that. but unless they do a compulsary check in all shops the limit thing isnt gonna work. i know corner shops who sell cigs and booze to people much younger than me. they're interested in making money. and fags and booze are expensive so more money made. surely there should be tighter laws on these shops as well if its going to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Maybe Adam is referring to "Big Pharma" ? the New "Big Tobacco". Funny that just last week a 5 yr long case study run by US congress to report on the illegal but Commercial Cannabis industry in the states revealed that the green leafy matter in Question has an annual turn over of US$ 40Billion a year in the Us alone. The Wheat & Corn Industries ( world leaders in production) together turned over US$ 36 Billion. Look Im not flying the flag 4 drugs here. ( Most no my stance anyway ) But I did chuckle when certain senatotrs stared sprouting the old..Well maybe if it was controlled & taxed, we can then reduce the availibility to minors etc, pour money from tax in to rehabiltion....Blah blah blah. Blind & oblivious to much else other than $$$..simply coz the dividend they se elike like tobbacoo was blinkers any consionce. Starting to Make excuses to legitimise a Federal review of their constituion in regards to, whilst openly exploring the benefiots no doubt to fund ther War machine amongst other things ( wouldnt be the 1 st time) Typical. Pat's back - The only Pot head in the village to argue against legalising the stuff. P.s I believe the "100" Yrs Of the Genocidal tailor made Cigarette in a Thousand years will be looked back upon as such. State encouraged Genocide. But thats a doctorate 2 be written for when im really old, retired & cranky @ the state. If the fag's havent killed me 1st like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillaGTiR Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 its been at 18+ in australia for ages... i say just put a very high tax on them that will put ppl off them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Fookin hell Killa, dont you think there's enough tax on them already. More than £5 a packet here, same cigs cost £I.25 in Spain, AND THEY ARE MADE IN ENGLAND AND EXPORTED TO SPAIN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluenose Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 but the standard of living in spain is slightly lower than england. so the price would be lower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 i say just put a very high tax on them that will put ppl off them Already massively high over here. Nice angle on genocide Pat...can think of no argument against it. Alcohol is cranking up nicely to follow in the footsteps (you know I'm coming at this from a slightly skewed viewpoint but I really have no problem at all with people getting hammered), the tax has barely moved for ten or more years so theat in real terms the cost of booze has dropped dramatically. The manufacturers actively aim at the hugely lucrative under-age market (whatever they say) and consequently the profile of your average alchy is no longer an awl arse on a park bench but they are everywhere. Treatment..or rehab..varies from totally inadequate to non-existant depending where you live and as the government puts no serious money into it relies largely on the voluntary sector (where I worked for some time but I saw too many people die to do it for free anymore). Gonna get worse and worse. Doesn't kill quite as many as smoking (yet) but causes a huge amount of "collateral damage" that fags don't. Anyway, enough. Happy new year again people. Gotta say again so you don't think I'm being evangelical , loved drinking and had some brilliant times doing it...would never tell anyone to stop, but a significant minority need to be very careful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Just an example, But when i started smoking/drinking a long time ago beer was 10pence for mild and 11pence for Bitter, Fags where 8 pence. (old money) . Now if tax on both had gone up equally, Fags now costing £5.25, therefore Beer should be nearer £6 a pint. But its just a vicious circle, Put more tax on fags cos the government needs our money, more people are tempted to pack in, so less money for the government..................HEY, i know, lets put some more Tax on the fags. If every person in the Country stopped smoking tomorrow, the government, and the country would collapse, so carry on lighting up lads and save the country. Bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 but the standard of living in spain is slightly lower than england. so the price would be lower And do you know why that is. Successive British governments have had no idea how to run a country, they always choose the easy option of adding funds to the Goverment Purse by taxing just about everything there is to tax, Not once but 3 times, Tax on your wages, tax on the the Goods you buy, but they are still not happy, so they make you pay VAT as well. Subsequently, to be able to afford all these increases the Unions got together and decided they wanted some big pay rises for the workers, so their standard of living does'nt suffer, so you see its the vicious circle once again, cos the people in charge havent the brains or the time to find alternative funds. If this happened in Japan or Russia, the houses of parliament would have been destroyed by now, and people would be rioting on the streets, But being british we turn the other cheek and just accept it, and we are well known for being "GOOD LOSERS". GOD HELP YOU YOUNG-UNS COS IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE. GLAD I SHANT BE AROUND TO SEE THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L_Blue Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 If every person in the Country stopped smoking tomorrow, the government, and the country would collapse, so carry on lighting up lads and save the country. Bill. I take it you are a smoker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluenose Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 And do you know why that is. Successive British governments have had no idea how to run a country, they always choose the easy option of adding funds to the Goverment Purse by taxing just about everything there is to tax, Not once but 3 times, Tax on your wages, tax on the the Goods you buy, but they are still not happy, so they make you pay VAT as well. Subsequently, to be able to afford all these increases the Unions got together and decided they wanted some big pay rises for the workers, so their standard of living does'nt suffer, so you see its the vicious circle once again, cos the people in charge havent the brains or the time to find alternative funds. If this happened in Japan or Russia, the houses of parliament would have been destroyed by now, and people would be rioting on the streets, But being british we turn the other cheek and just accept it, and we are well known for being "GOOD LOSERS". GOD HELP YOU YOUNG-UNS COS IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE. GLAD I SHANT BE AROUND TO SEE THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS. very good points. and the reason why we havnt uprisen is because we dont like extremism. a good example is the 1983 election. the labour party put out an extreme socialist manifesto and it was disastrous for them. people are apathetic to how thier country is run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 very good points. and the reason why we havnt uprisen is because we dont like extremism. a good example is the 1983 election. the labour party put out an extreme socialist manifesto and it was disastrous for them. people are apathetic to how thier country is run The reason Labour lost in 1983 was because they were split between the "extreme" left (Tony Benn) and the right (Dennis Healy) and instead sat on the fence with Michael Foot...that and the customary boundary changes put in by the Tories (which gave them thirty-seven more seats than in 1979 with half a million fewer votes). Also the emergence of the SDP/Liberal alliance who took nearly eight million votes (for a pitiful twenty three seats under our criminal election system). The disaster was for the working people of the UK who had to put up with the Tories (and the devil woman), not just for another four years but for nine...though I've yet to meet anyone who admits actually voting for them in 1987. Sadly people are now apathetic about, and ignorant of, how their country is run (though there are some exceptions on here which is encouraging, even if I don't always agree with their views). We had a proud history of student and youth activism, particularly on the left, which has died a sad death in recent years. It's very sad. Pour me a drink someone . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluenose Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 well i certainly not apathetic. but at my age i cant really have much of a say as the government wont listen to people like me. and as for the election system. very unfair. the tories got more votes in the last election but labour still won. reason why. less people in inner city areas ( traditionally labour) and more people in suburbs (conservative) so more votes are needed in suburban areas. plus turnout in elections are dwindeling. riverside only had a 21% turnout in the last election which is appauling. a proportional system is needed if people's votes are gonna be taken seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Jerry Mander cant have a proportional vote susytem He hates it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.