Still, they have to wait till they are at least 18 to buy cigarettes. That's like another 20 years more before the phasing out begins.
Tabacco companys would be so very happy with that arrangement. Another 20 years of projection!
This reminds me of the gum. Totally harmless to your body unless you choke and die from it, or you swallow way too much, and you die of indigestion, but it's rare. Gum gets an instant import ban becos ...
NEA says "it uglifies the city state" ..wooo wooo scary.
Compared to a cancer stick that ultimatley destroys your lungs and life, makes you constantly smell like a walking burning twig 24/7, makes clothes smell like bbq charcoal and then second hand smoke, so toxic... Ciggie gets only to slowly pha$e out.
Well, the way I see it. If they did an immediate ban, pharmaceutical companies will first to jump and cry ..."no profit liao no profit liao, share holders stage protest" ...and then MOE will sigh "no more cancer patients liao" ..and then the sector for treatment of cigarette related cancers will be out of business. Suddenly, hospitals in Singapore have more room for other patients.
MOH would frowning, "freak ..no more demand for class B1 B2 lung cancer patients ..*sob sob* can't increase healthcare costs..blah"
MTI will be sad screaming "got no more tax revenue from ciggies liao!"
Then maybe Parliment will bring about the topic on cigrette ban, and some smart alec in white who got thru to parli by walkover suggests phasing out would be better compared to an out right ban on cigarettes, why? becos an out right ban would be considered "draconian" ...wooooo scary
And worst case scenario if an immediate ban was imposed ...maybe smokers would get pissed off with the fellas in white and say "The hell with ya, I'm voting the other team! So that they may restore a slowly phasing out cigarette thingy plan!"
So now you have ...a slowly-phase-out-to-ease-and-sustain-busine$$-on-cigarette-ban
See ..it isn't really about your health after all.
Seriously, the government won't be doing any such thing. Not because of the loss of potential tax revenue (estimated $906M in 2010) which is 2.4% of tax revenues by SG govt but because of other social problem it can create. Imagine people being deprived of a smoke, it will just make it illegal and they will find ways of means of smoking - more illegal activities.
There is for sure health-related issues related to smoking but what is the "incremental" that will be attributed to smoking?
how to get personal with you when i dont know you and we will never meet. i am an avatar and so are you, right? just two invisible and virtual beings interacting on cyberspace. so how to get personal unless i am responding to the contents of what you say? this is an open forum with avatars and only very rarely are people here and create publicity for themselves (eg. scope and his real-life blog). if you dont like it, i will never address something to you again, ok?
i hate smoking and even if someone else said what you said, i would have responded in the same way.
i do not agree that what you say is edifying to anyone. why do you say it for? massively, what massively? SM bothered to research on the % of taxes what about you?
again the question - just why do you say it for? is it to flaunt your wealth or just general self-righteousness? again, i ask of you, how is the content of what you say edifying or even informative?
so i have to say this - i wonder how someone like you will feel if you get hit by a disease due to smoking one day, when your attitude towards smoking is so self-righteous now. i shudder to even think of it but it is your health and none of my business.
good that u have conviction. my 1st post was my way of admitting myself as a smoker, and also to make known that i pay taxes on tobacco, and so do tobacco companies.. whereby they take up a substantial amount without which, revenue will have to come from somewhere else... ie u could pay more taxes.
i am fully aware that many illnesses have found their way to include smoking as a cause, i do not wish to argue this, but i'll put it this way... Can u guarantee 100% that u will not die before me, and perhaps from illnesses whereby smoking is one of the causes - when u have never smoked nor gone near secondhand smoke?
u dun hate smoking, u hate smokers.
lastly, the only person flaunting my wealth is You. i've never even felt wealthy to begin with... any old uncle or auntie earning 1k a month could have said the same thing i said... even a 16yr-old kid can say that statement with regards to taxes. so why isit that i am flaunting my wealth with tat statement? if not for the fact that u are trying to bring external knowledge into the picture to use against me? that would be personal...
your first paragraph is absolute bull. very lame, like a little kid talking. any forummer can get personal with any forummer without having met them... your reasoning really bad.
wanna talk abt my money, we can talk... but dun make it seem like a sin. i've dealt with pple like u who are even more self-righteous, but tend to hide behind that by being the first to point the finger... end of the day, what u do for society and your fellow pple is zero.
u are talking with the 100% cocksureness that all smokers die from smoking... and all non-smokers die peacefully with a wide grin in their sleep.
"income tax in spore will go up massively if i dun subsidise u pple.. including the tobacco companies"
powder, the only issue I have with the statement is "massively"..
No. It won't. That will translate to 1% increase in GST or 2% or 3% in personal income tax - the majority of people already don't pay tax so it won't affect many people.
And no point arguing about the ill-effects of smoking.. it has been debated many times.. the domain in which smokers can affect others are already severely reduced and they are largely responsible for their own health conditions. Already they are paying the taxes on tobacco, higher insurance premium, higher health cost (presumably) and etc etc..
yeah i agree with that... i should not use "massively"...
on the income tax i haven't done any calculations... but there's a ripple effect from just the tobacco industry... u can't just look at tobacco, but also the sub-industries it supports, the co-ills that it comes with...
and not forgetting that also perhaps - u'd be losing talents who'd be moving to other less prohibitive countries... bringing along the financial contributions and taxes that could otherwise have been paid on a personal basis. i'm not sure in what percentage are the top-earners in spore smokers... but it'll be an interesting figure to find. moving to a less-constrained society is not likely to be hindered by any financial constraints...
if companies are moved, what implications would there be?
i guess the saving grace would be the cut-off birthyear. but knowing spore, sporeans... give them an inch and they will want more... like u said, there's already so much restrictions... and now it doesn't end... more is being pushed. i can imagine those young ones who go overseas and dun come back becos they can no longer smoke...
i personally dun think that pple will live longer simply becos they dun smoke... i have peers who have left before me, by exercising... yeah, "doing the right thing".
Death will always be caused by Life, Living. only a fool would believe in the propaganda-ed causes as being solely by smoking, unhealthy living, promiscuity, speeding-accidents, etc etc... death has been a certainty since life begun.
the saddest part is to meet pple who fear death... yet they dun actually bother to do anything to live life to the fullest...
May, try to see the angle from a smoker who has integrated the habit (willingly) as part of his/her lifestyle - despite the health concerns it brings to the individual which everyone won't actually deny
in terms of healthy lifestyle, the proposal is a good move for our young gen (born in 2000 and later) but our govt would sit on it.
i do not pretend to possess enough knowledge to put together a strong and credible argument for the original topic.
but off my head, i, like you, do not agree to the proposal.
first of all, i do not believe it will work. it is not pragmatic, and there are a lot of opportunity costs involved in such a measure.
i believe that anything should be done in the best INTEREST of the country.
so i do support government stand to build casinos and have licenced brothels.
because my motivation is always - ECONOMICS and NATIONAL PROSPERITY is number one.
look at the Great Prohibition of the 1920s. it was instituted because the government feared that the poor economy will cause the population to abuse alcohol. in the end, this artificial control led to bootleg, speakeasy, a vibrant black market and rampant crime.
im not deaf to reality - cigarette smoking is NOT akin to opium smoking and should not be as heavily regulated.
what i cannot stand is the smug attitude underlying some smokers' response. as if smoking were some kind of superior habit. such smug attitude deserves the smack-down it gets and nobody is exempted.
someone who eats unhealthily doesn't make me fat. the problem with smoking is well, the smoke. you can have all the designated areas you want but there will always be inconsiderate sociopaths. not to mention, smoke doesn't stay within the designated areas. a gentle breeze is all it takes to trigger my allergic reaction.
i hate having to legislate against personal choice but not when that personal choice interferes with my access to fresh air. like they say, your right to extend your arm ends where it meets my nose. why should smoking be any different from all other forms of social menace we legislate to eradicate?
i agree with the fact tat there Are inconsiderate smokers... when i was a non-smoker, what i do is walk away... it's more socially tolerant than shutting pple down.
if i wanted access to fresh air, and i Really wanted it... it is rather impossible for me not to find that in spore... we cannot feign ignorance on this. in other words, i'd stand where no arms can meet my nose, or where nobody stretches their arms...
it is very easy to find fresh air non-ciggie-smoke-induced areas in spore...
again, i agree there are inconsiderate smokers... but i reiterate tat we're all fully eqipped to avoid inhaling, whether it be our legs to take us, or our nose to stop breahing for a moment...
ever sat in a coffee shop near the yellow box of designated area? with electric fans blowing all around ya? i am old and my lungs are shot so i dont mind the occasional second hand smoke. really hate it when i have my children with me though. i have gotten into near fisticuffs with smokers because i asked them (nicely) to refrain in places where smoking is forbidden. i dont even care if you snort cocaine but why should my family be forced to take in what's harmful to us? bbq? oh please, until they install bbq pits at bus stops, coffee shops, hawker centers, hdb corridors, etc. it is not even a problem.
i know what u mean... what i do is i normally sit on the inside, or give it a miss altogether... was actually at one of the neighbourhood ChiChar at holland v recently and i changed destination to an air-conditioned one at queenstown. with kids, these days i simply go for aircon places... it just takes a decision from us if pple dun make the decision to be more considerate.
as i've said... if i wanted to be smoke-free in spore... it's really not difficult. there are some days i dun smoke and dun feel like... i have no trouble avoiding cigarette smoke thru'out the day... it's really not that difficult If it really means alot to Avoid.
but if u intend to be aggressive and go on the entrapment mode... then yeah, also as easy to walk near to INCONSIDERATE smokers to throw them a dirty look.
as long as we can see upto 20m ahead... we should be ok. But i do have a feeling that those Against smoking... are more inclined to put themselves in a situation to be irritated, then build on their hate.
to be fair singapore is fairly progressive when it comes to discouraging smoking. unlike some neighboring countries, we have fewer smokers and smoking is forbidden in many places - like you said, it is not difficult to avoid inhaling secondhand smoke. still, this proposal has a lot of merit... if any country can do it, singapore can.
typical mentality that needs to hate and form opinion to restrict when its not really such a hazard. I would agree back then when the rules are not protecting the public interests. Now, with so much policies already in place.... still hearing the same stupid complains. hate this hate that.
The proposal is fine not the hate for smokers in general. This kind of strong emotions is totally irrational and baised.
On the argument that for the super strong emotions over others being irresponsible over their health in particular from smoking. How about people with high cholesterone, bad eating habits and don't exercise? They are not be so responsible too. Many of us have late night sleeps that isn't good for us either. The list goes on.... come... let's hate all these as well.
Kind of far off? That's exactly how irrational this kind of arguments are in the 1st place.
The inconsiderate part is valid. But, can we really ban inconsideration?
i think there's sufficient things in place... except i would like to see an something in place like how we have it in army - yellow boxes. so far most shopping centres already have this in place and pple generally abide by it...
as a smoker, i think it's good... except maybe i have to walk a pretty long way to find the designated smoking areas... but tat's what i do.
and i hope pple dun assume smokers like each other and defend each other just becos they share a common habit. my major peeve would be pple who smoke inside toilets & lifts... irritates the hell out of me... or enclosed spaces...
Can... u can hate alot of things. That alone doesn't justify a ban at all. The air is polluted by many other things that somehow we are totally unconcerned about. Why don't you have any hatred for those?