Jump to content
NEurope
Raining_again

Getting paid to stop smoking - controversy?

Recommended Posts

Wait....smaller pubs are the ones with smoking, while the larger places where non-smokers could get away from the smoke it's banned.....talk about ass backwards. 40sqm is piss tiny at that. Two smokers at opposite ends could smog the whole place.

 

And, obviously non-smokers weren't happy with the segregation...otherwise they wouldn't be imposing these bans.

Yeah, it's completely backwards here in Denmark.

 

Well, I was certainly happy with the segregation, and I refuse to believe I was the only non-smoker who felt that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care what the fuck people do to themselves but smoking, more so than most other 'self-imposed bad things', second handly affects me (the smell, the smog in the streets etc). Its why it annoys me slightly more than people who go out and get drunk, which affects me less frequently.

 

People who go out and get drunk are usually hand in hand with those who annoy me with smoking.

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it helps someone to quit that couldn't do it otherwise then what's the problem?

 

I think the issue for me is that if someone can't quit without receiving a monetary incentive then their whole character is called into question.

 

In response to the taxpayer argument (seeing as my original post was based in it) - the last time I checked I lived in a democratic society. I don't care how insignificant my taxes may be in terms of how much they actually contribute - I still pay into a system and thus I have every right to complain about things that I feel the system shouldn't be doing - much like how you folk are entitled to the opposite view.

 

If you came to my shop and I sold you something that you wanted because it did X but in fact it did Y and you didn't want or like Y you'd come back to me and complain that it wasn't fit for purpose and demand what you wanted/paid for.

 

In brief, the tax payer argument isn't idiotic, it makes perfectly good sense (unless you don't pay taxes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? I guess I can spell it out if you'd like...

 

I'm against the ridiculous JSA system we have in place - easily one of the most abused systems there is. The number of people I personally know who half-arsedly pretend to be looking for work but have actually no intention of working is close to 10. One of my friends is starting a funded dentistry course in September, but hasn't worked for the past year. I asked how he got by and he said he was on the dole. I then asked which job he was looking for to be going on with, to which he said "I'm not looking for one" (jobseeker, I think not), after which I asked how he proved he had bothered to look and he said "it's dead easy to show you've looked". He laughed; I didn't.

 

 

Well I think we can safely assume that the smoke has gone to your brain. :p As you've said before: No, seriously?

 

Well yay for empirical evidence. So because you personally know some people who take advantage of the system some of the time, we should completely get rid of JSA? What exactly are you proposing we put in it's place? Unless of course you think the unemployed should get no money at all...i mean they're all obviously lazy right?

 

I meant I prefer it to stale alcohol and sweat, in reference to the smoking ban. Though I'm not actually against the ban, just pointing out a weird side effect of it in some places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yay for empirical evidence. So because you personally know some people who take advantage of the system some of the time, we should completely get rid of JSA?

 

 

Yay for assumptions. If you're going to draw the false conclusion that I believe that it should be abolished and that it's wholly evil because it's a heavily flawed system then what's the point in continuing the conversation? Obviously it needs changing so that it funds people through paying off rent and supplying food vouchers and clothes rather than payment in cash form so that people on here who live with their parents don't tell us how they've just gone and bought an iPod with it (this actually happened).

Edited by Sheikah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yay for assumptions. If you're going to draw the false conclusion that I believe that it should be abolished and that it's wholly evil because it's a heavily flawed system then what's the point in continuing the conversation? Obviously it needs changing so that it funds people through paying off rent and supplying food vouchers and clothes rather than payment in cash form so that people on here who live with their parents don't tell us how they've just gone and bought an iPod with it (this actually happened).

 

When reffering to the idea of paying smokers, you said it was up there with unemployment benefit, implying general concept and not execution. I know that's not what you actually meant but I was just being facetious. I know that happened, I didn't have a problem with I then and I don't now. We're obviously of quite different standpoints ideologically, so I'm gonna leave this and just say there's nothing wrong with people spending the already limited JSA how they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the issue for me is that if someone can't quit without receiving a monetary incentive then their whole character is called into question.

 

In response to the taxpayer argument (seeing as my original post was based in it) - the last time I checked I lived in a democratic society. I don't care how insignificant my taxes may be in terms of how much they actually contribute - I still pay into a system and thus I have every right to complain about things that I feel the system shouldn't be doing - much like how you folk are entitled to the opposite view.

 

If you came to my shop and I sold you something that you wanted because it did X but in fact it did Y and you didn't want or like Y you'd come back to me and complain that it wasn't fit for purpose and demand what you wanted/paid for.

 

In brief, the tax payer argument isn't idiotic, it makes perfectly good sense (unless you don't pay taxes).

There's still very little point in complaining about it. You will never make tax universally fair. Tax isn't about receiving direct goods and services in exchange for your money. If there's a rise in tax you can't accredit it to one thing specifically, it is a general aid.

 

You can say whatever you want about MPs, but those who know their beans get the best positions, and they're likely to know the best way to use tax. They'll have the figures, and it's likely that they know the potential positive outcome in bringing this scheme in.

Edited by dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can say whatever you want about MPs, but those who know their beans get the best positions, and they're likely to know the best way to use tax.

Hmm I have doubt in that...it's probably more a case of who you know, whose palms you greased and what school you went to, and who with. If they were all geniuses then we wouldn't be in quite such a pickle.

 

Regarding JSA, I'll never see how it's justifiable to spend money on luxuries when it's supposed to serve to sustain you while you find a job. If it was paid directly as rent, food vouchers and transport to and from job interviews then it would be a great motivation to find a job, rather than people living under parents rooves (of which there are many) that find it's just a nice bit of pocket money. Obviously there are people who are genuinely seeking jobs, but these are the kind of people who will actually go on to then get the job. It's a far better system with much less chance of abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, alot of hate in here for smokers.

 

I just have a few things to say. First, i am a smoker. And no, i am not an idiot. I choose to smoke because i like it.

 

Second. This sounds like a good idea. I know some of you think that paying for smokers to quit seems unfair because they chose to smoke and they brought the problem on themselves, blah de blah. You should remember that the tax a smoker pays is through the roof. When you go to the hospital, it is largely smokers that are paying for your treatments. Is it not fair that we can have the choice to have a piece of the same pie we pay for?

 

Finally, yes, smokers choose to smoke. And yes, there are countless warnings about its addictiveness and health damage. That doesn't mean if there's a way to counter that effect, even if it is with money, that it shouldn't be taken into consideration. It would be like saying drug addicts shouldn't be funded for getting getter. Have we really evolved into such bitter beings?

 

Its like you want praise for not smoking. Like you deserve a reward. Isn't your fresh air, clean teeth and chance at better health reward enough? Let alone the money you save anyway? Just seems petty to me to be angry at the fact smokers could get paid to stop. They have been ripped off for years. Frankly, i think they are due for a bit of payback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Its like you want praise for not smoking. Like you deserve a reward. Isn't your fresh air, clean teeth and chance at better health reward enough?

And why isn't that reward enough for a smoker, in terms of reasons for quitting, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's still very little point in complaining about it. You will never make tax universally fair. Tax isn't about receiving direct goods and services in exchange for your money. If there's a rise in tax you can't accredit it to one thing specifically, it is a general aid.

 

You can say whatever you want about MPs, but those who know their beans get the best positions, and they're likely to know the best way to use tax. They'll have the figures, and it's likely that they know the potential positive outcome in bringing this scheme in.

 

I don't think you read my post - I'm not asking to make tax universally fair - you have to have set certain boundaries because if you tried to cater to every single individual person a) it'd be impossible and b) probably more costly.

 

But like I said, I'm not asking for fairness. And there is a point to complaining, because like I said, it's a democratic system that I pay into and I have the right to say if I think something's a stupid idea. I imagine that yes, the numbers probably add up and there is indeed a positive outcome to it (pretty obvious or else they wouldn't want to do it) - but I'm not evening questioning that. I just don't think people should be given money to encourage them to quit smoking - it's just so pathetic. The fact that people are willing to smoke, knowing full well that there's a good chance that it'll kill them, thus clearly having very little value for their life, yet the minute money is mentioned, suddenly they're willing to stop. It's ludicrous that people need some a materialistic incentive in order to do so - and what does it teach people? Stopping smoking is good not because you become healthier and potentially extend the length of your life and that you should be happy enough with that, but because you can make a quick buck.

 

It just goes to show how utterly pathetic society has become today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm I have doubt in that...it's probably more a case of who you know, whose palms you greased and what school you went to, and who with. If they were all geniuses then we wouldn't be in quite such a pickle.

I disagree. Obviously most of them have received better education, which does make them more likely to have better knowledge in their respective fields. You get the occasional breakthrough public school MP too, if they graft enough. As I said, it's also about knowing the figures and outcomes of making the decisions, as they wouldn't take this action lightly.

 

As for being in a pickle - well it's a global crisis, so you can't really blame individuals. It would've been hard to foresee seeing as so few people did.

 

@Pookiablo - It is purely based on economic grounds, they wouldn't decide to go against lowering costs because some people think it's wrong.

Now your argument is just consisting of your apparent hatred for smokers, when originally the issue was 'why are the government wasting money?'. To which I gave you the answer. Of course addicted people need incentives to quit; because they are indeed addicted.

 

They're obviously aware of the harmful effects of smoking, and whether you think it's stupid or not, people still smoke, so we have to try to help them. Helping them financially is arguably the best way of doing this as many smokers get themselves in debts because of their habits. They definitely aren't thinking of 'making a quick buck'. If that were true they wouldn't have bothered started smoking in the first place, because they could've saved money by not spending it on cigarettes.

 

You have to remember that smokers are placing a high value on these goods because of taste, so you have to make them reconsider how much value they're placing on their next purchase of fags by showing them that they are losing government money if they continue to purchase. Ridiculously taxing fags is one thing, but this could work because they can see the actual money that they are turning down.

 

Monetary incentives make perfect sense. It could give them that extra boost to stop, and when you couple that with existing factors that might make them stop - physical health - we may see a large decrease in smokers.

Edited by dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×