The Welsh Government has held a launch for a Stoptober campaign aimed at discouraging people from smoking. It is the first year that such a campaign will be run in Wales.
The campaign aims to get as many smokers as possible to take up a 28 day smoke free challenge, starting on October 1.
Smoking accounts for more than 5,600 deaths in Wales every year.
Launching the campaign at Cardiff Central train station, Chief Medical Officer Dr Ruth Hussey said: “Research shows that if you can stop smoking for 28 days, you are five times more likely to give up smoking permanently.
“Nearly 70% of smokers already want to stop smoking and by providing a detailed 28-day step-by-step programme to support them we hope we can encourage as many as possible to stop smoking for 28 days.
“Those that do give up smoking for 28 days and longer will begin to experience financial, physical and health benefits including better sense of taste and smell as well as reducing their risk of lung cancer and heart disease.”
Around 570,000 people in Wales smoke, which represents 23 per cent of the adult population.
Arguably ineffective. It's time for the UK government to limit the sale of cigarettes. Gradually outlaw the number of shops that can sell cigarettes eventually banning all shops from selling them. Set ever decreasing limits on the amount of cigarettes that can be brought into the UK eventually outlawing the importation of cigarettes. Hold short of outlawing their consumption as you don't want to prosecute people for a previously legal addiction but make it impossible to legally obtain cigarettes in the UK.
Yes, there will be a black market with people illegally selling them but not all smokers will have access to this market and many will be forced into quitting.
When in combination with stop smoking campaigns, like seen above, the habit can be massively reduced. It will not happen overnight but slowly outlawing them cigarettes and other similar products will give people time to be slowly weeded off their addiction.
In 2011 smokers contributed £12 Billion to the exchequer. If they gave up the habit then others would have to make up the shortfall. I can't see anyone really wanting their taxes to increase which is why governments around the world will take care to protect this valuable source of revenue.
No doubt somebody will say that smokers cost the NHS some large, and imaginary, sum of money but a moments reflection refutes this argument. If smokers gave up they would live longer. By living longer they would draw pension for many more years. In the end, like anybody else, they would fall victim to the chronic diseases of old age and would require care at great expense. The financial markets, free of any judgment apart from their own profit, realises this. A smoker can obtain a pension annuity far more generous than that of a non smoker.
I am offended by the smell of it, and the smell which follows smokers around.
Smokers have dry skin, bad chests, coughing and spluttering all over place, and smelly hair and clothes, they deposit filthy ash into the air, they cost us ratepayers millions of pounds to clear up fag ends, they untidy the outside of pubs partaking of their filthy unhealthy and antisocial activity which they cannot partake of inside those places.
They clog up GP`s surgeries with chest problems, blood circulation problems, bad breath and bad teeth, they clog up hospitals with the same problems as they grow ever more serious, they then clog up beds in hospital causing other clean living citizens to have operations cancelled, then when their breathing gets so bad they take to their Disability Scooters clogging up the pavements.
But, on the bright side, they pay enormous and copious amounts of tax and revenue duty to the government, so, I supposed they should be allowed to aim for an early grave by partaking of the dreaded weed, but, they are not entitled to do that when it effects other more intelligent citizens, in public, do it behind closed doors and spread the poison to your own if you like but leave me to breath clean air.
Opp`s this has got up someones nose all right.
Smokers unarguably contribute a lot to the economy through the taxes they pay whether it be duty on purchases or the taxes the billion pound tobacco companies pay. They also die earlier saving the government pension money.
On the other hand, they usually claim benefits because of their smoking relating health problems, require NHS assistance more often, causing other s health problems through passive smoking and cost councils money in cleaning up fag ends.
It's almost impossible to say if they cost more or if they pay more. However, that is irrelevant.
If they cost more, banning cigarette sales would limit smoker, and cost us less. – WIN!
If they cost us more – we will have to pay more to fund them afterwards, but society becomes healthier which increases our workforce in turn increasing the productive potential of the economy giving economic growth – WIN!
I vote for the second option. Being healthy is always better.
Dean I am surprised, you seem in favour of a Soviet system, a good day at the tractor factory is seen as better than freedom of choice. I favour small government and don't believe that Westminster, or the useless talking shop in Cardiff Bay, has any right to interfere with the minutiae of our lives.
If people want to smoke, drink alcohol, eat until they are obese, climb mountains, hang glide, parachute jump, ride horses, box, play rugby, take their overweight kids 800 yards to school in a car, smoke the neighbourhood out with barbeques and dozens of other activities that are deleterious to the health of the workforce I say let them do it. It is not my business and nor should it be the government’s business.
I am thankful that I grew up in an age where tolerance was the British way, increasingly intolerance is becoming the norm. Some people are offended by smoking, I must admit I am offended by gum chewers spitting the stuff all over town, drunks shouting and screaming every weekend and several other activities that people regularly engage in around me. I react as I was brought up to do, by minding my own business. We have venerable laws that deal with all the real issues, murder, theft, threatening behaviour, etc. Do we really want a situation as in prohibition America where criminals are the ones who control and profit from tobacco? America tried it with alcohol and, being a pragmatic and fair minded people, soon ditched the idea. Live and let live I say.
Smoking is a killer, first and last!!!! Anyone who deliberatly decides to smoke and shorten their lives need their heads read.
Councillor Richard Williams, a person, who`s views and expressions I support, is guilty of parapraxis I`m afraid.
Richard said " I react as I was brought up to do, by minding my own business". This comment from a Councillor MUST be Freudian slip Rich????. Right?
Not really Trefor, there are many things that are legitimately the business of a councillor or anybody else in the community. These include discussing what we want to spend public money on, what sort of governance we would like, what we expect of the police and other public services and so on.
What is not my business is telling people how they should live which include, what to eat, what religion they should adhere to, how many bedrooms they should have at home, whether they should engage in hazardous sports, what language they should speak, how they should dress and what their sexual orientation should be. That is just for starters! I am not in favour of ‘big government’ which is why I am extremely sceptical of the great European Federalisation project which seeks to control aspects of our lives that government should not concern themselves with.
Councillor Richard Williams – And that, I suppose, is why I agree with you.
I see cigarettes as a Class A drug. They should be controlled, highly discouraged and eventually outlawed. Using your arguments, should we legalise all drugs?
Dean- There is an argument for that!
Alcohol is a far more pernicious drug than cigarettes, pipes and cigars. It causes mayhem in our towns, death on the road, poverty, family break up, domestic violence and ill health. For all this I do not believe it is for government to decide whether we should have a drink or not.
There are matters that are in the realm of government such as defence which is ignored by the politicians except when they want to engage our hard pressed armed forces in some foreign adventure.
As a democrat I believe that people should enjoy some basic freedoms. This includes the right to drink alcohol, eat what we like, chew gum and smoke. Some people would like to force society to conform with their views. The results of this process are intolerant regimes such as the Taliban and the Nazis. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said “government is like fire; it can be a good servant but is a terrible and cruel master.” Wise words, keep government small and keep a careful watch on it.
The biggest problem I have with those who support legalising drugs and alcohol on the grounds that it shouldn't be for the government to decide, is where to we stop?
Do we legalise guns and say it's the people's choice knowing that gun crime will likely increase?
Do we legalise carrying knives saying that it's the people's choice on if they want to harm others with them?
Do we do the same with tasers? What about pepper spray?
Let's go on a personal side and say FGM? sex at any age?
"Some people would like to force society to conform with their views. The results of this process are intolerant regimes such as the Taliban…"
After all, the above all come down to personal opinion but I don't for one moment think that you support legalising guns and other weapons, FGM or sex at any age on the ground that it should be for the individual to decide.
Guns are legal Dean, you merely need to apply to the police for a licence. I have no objection to people carrying knives, they are very useful, threatening or hurting people with them has been illegal for centuries. These laws are sensible and have stood the test of time; they meet with my full approval. Tasers and pepper spray? I understand that they are not on sale to the public and it is not legal to cary them in a public area, I agree with this. (Assuming that is the legal position)
I do not know what FGM is (a sheltered, Caerffili life perhaps?) Regarding the age of consent I think it is about right, children do need protection by law. Though it is a little confusing for a teenager to tell them that at 15 years 364 days they may not indulge but one day later they can.
These are just my opinions Dean, make of them what you will. My point is that people are wealthier and happier the less the state intrudes on their lives, especially when it is an artificial construct like the EU. Like you, I suspect, I favour lower taxes (especially those that hit the poor hardest like National Insurance and VAT), a properly funded military that can take independent action, when required, to defend our people or vital interests.
Perhaps unlike you I also believe that the state has a role to provide a safety net for those unable to support themselves adequately. I do not mean that this assistance should be extended to those who make living off the rest of us a lifestyle choice. This is where things have gone wrong and where a substantial chunk of government expenditure is wasted.
"Tasers and pepper spray? I understand that they are not on sale to the public and it is not legal to carry them in a public area, I agree with this. "
That would be correct but using your arguments for the smoking, I could say that it's a personal choice over whether we want to own such items and it's another choice over the use of them. Two choices that the government shouldn't make for us. See where I am going here? The 'government shouldn't enforce their views on us' argument could be applied to legalise pretty much everything. HI have no problem with the views you hold. The only problem I have is with the initial argument you put forward to support such views.
FMG is female gender mutilation (procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia) Some cultures believe it's the step of turning a girl into a woman. Your 'the government should not decide for us' argument would legalise this.
Dean, you keep misunderstanding my point. I do not advocate 'no government' I advocate 'small government.' That is two different terms. I must have spent at least, a cumulative, two years of my life cutting through red tape. We could do without a lot of this but instead of reducing it is on the increase.
Thanks for the explanation of the accronym, we oldies refer to it as 'Female circumcision.' My own view is that it is barbaric and the parent s and doctors involved should serve a long prison stretch.