NationStates Jolt Archive

The country of Bhutan, a very small and isolated country has banned smoking. Should other countries also ban smoking? If they did, would it work?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=9&u=/nm/20041217/ts_nm/bhutan_ban_dc

not outright.

Maybe in government owned buildings or something, but the government shouldn't ban it in private places.

Well if the Governments want to lose huge amounts of tax money, they'll ban it.

No, not at all. Unless you want to create a HUGE black market, give criminals the chance to make huge amounts of money, and cost the government tons of money arresting then imprisoning people who smoke...

Ban it in public places and in homes where under 16s live.

Well if the Governments want to lose huge amounts of tax money, they'll ban it.

Money they already lose because of the morbidity of smokers.

Money they already lose because of the morbidity of smokers.

Don't worry about smokers dying, new ones replace them each day. In my state the government makes $2.25 on a pack that costs $3.50

If they banned it, it would give the police a lot of work.

Don't worry about smokers dying, new ones replace them each day. In my state the government makes $2.25 on a pack that costs $3.50
The government also gets money from the tobacco companies themselves via taxes, and takes a slice of the court settlements, too.

Money they already lose because of the morbidity of smokers.


Also it's not like smokers die a week after smoking. Many live for many years just think if you smoke a pack a day for 40 years at 2.25 in taxes for the gov't that smoker pays $32,850 in taxes (not including leap years). Now say there are 20 million who will smoke for 40 years (at that taxe rate and price) it comes to 675 billion. Quite a bit of cash over 40 years.

Also it's not like smokers die a week after smoking. Many live for many years just think if you smoke a pack a day for 40 years at 2.25 in taxes for the gov't that smoker pays $32,850 in taxes (not including leap years). Now say there are 20 million who will smoke for 40 years (at that taxe rate and price) it comes to 675 billion. Quite a bit of cash over 40 years.

How much does the government pay out in smoking related health costs for those 20 million people during that 40 year period? Of course the other side of that coin is they will probably die younger so long term health costs will be reduced. Sounds like a good paper for school or college; "The long term economic gain or loss to the governmet from smoking." :)

Also it's not like smokers die a week after smoking. Many live for many years just think if you smoke a pack a day for 40 years at 2.25 in taxes for the gov't that smoker pays $32,850 in taxes (not including leap years). Now say there are 20 million who will smoke for 40 years (at that taxe rate and price) it comes to 675 billion. Quite a bit of cash over 40 years.

Morbidity in this sense means sickness. So, you have to factor in how much it costs society to not only care for sick smokers (astronomical figures at that!), but how much it costs in absence from work, tax losses because of lost income and also all the tax money the smokers would have payed, had they lived as long as non-smokers et cetera.

It comes to be quite the amount.

Morbidity in this sense means sickness. So, you have to factor in how much it costs society to not only care for sick smokers (astronomical figures at that!), but how much it costs in absence from work, tax losses because of lost income and also all the tax money the smokers would have payed, had they lived as long as non-smokers et cetera.

It comes to be quite the amount.


I don't think it's that much. Smoking makes healthcare costs for the person go up.

How much does the government pay out in smoking related health costs for those 20 million people during that 40 year period? Of course the other side of that coin is they will probably die younger so long term health costs will be reduced. Sounds like a good paper for school or college; "The long term economic gain or loss to the governmet from smoking." :)
The commonly quoted figure in the UK is 'The government makes twice as much off smoking as it loses', or you pay twice as much tax on ciggies as you cost the NHS.

no, my not smoking is just one of the few things which makes me better than some people.

I suprised anyone even smoked in Bhutan, isn't it just a tiny mountain kingdom populated by a few thousand monks? I don't even know how on earth they would get cigarettes up there, perhaps send them up on the back of a llama?

I'm used to comments like that SNS, so I won't reply in kind :P

I'm used to comments like that SNS, so I won't reply in kind :P

Are you mad that I poked fun at smokers or at Bhutan?

Well, I smoke but to be honest I didn't really take offence, I was just being arsey :)
Sorry man.

Are you mad that I poked fun at smokers or at Bhutan?

God knows NS has a lot of visitors from Bhutan these days. Just a month ago they got electricity.

Well if the Governments want to lose huge amounts of tax money, they'll ban it.

Exactly. Worst move ever, plus it would create more crime. That's why they should legalize marijuana.

I don't think government should ban a personal choice, so long as it impacts no one else.

If you've decided to smoke, fine. Please don't do inside a public building, where non-smokers must breathe in your fumes, and please -- if you contract the various cancers and lung ailments associated with drawing hot air, nicotine, and other substances into your body, kindly don't blame others for your choice and expect the rest of us to pay your medical expenses.

Tobacco is a luxury and a significant health hazard. If Bhutan's economy can't take the stress imposed by its adverse effects on the peoples' health, then the ban is rational.

How much does the government pay out in smoking related health costs for those 20 million people during that 40 year period? Of course the other side of that coin is they will probably die younger so long term health costs will be reduced. Sounds like a good paper for school or college; "The long term economic gain or loss to the governmet from smoking." :)
(not that im criticizing you personally)

but since when do we live for the government?
so what if a bad habit upsets the politicians. so what if it costs a dime more than it saves?

my habits (i have never been a smoker) are MY business and as long as they arent hurting anyone else (and the statistics on second hand smoke are very suspect) then the government should keep its nose OUT of my business.

No.

my habits (i have never been a smoker) are MY business and as long as they arent hurting anyone else (and the statistics on second hand smoke are very suspect) then the government should keep its nose OUT of my business.

I agree, but if your habits increase the cost of my medical insurance, or my taxes for those that are not insured, doesn't it then become my business?

The commonly quoted figure in the UK is 'The government makes twice as much off smoking as it loses', or you pay twice as much tax on ciggies as you cost the NHS.

Then wouldn't it make economic sence for the government to promote smoking? That way they could take in more money and reduce taxes.

No, not at all. Unless you want to create a HUGE black market, give criminals the chance to make huge amounts of money, and cost the government tons of money arresting then imprisoning people who smoke...
I agree. I think tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and all other drugs should be legalised. It would end gangsterism forever if they could be regulated and taxed.

I don't think government should ban a personal choice, so long as it impacts no one else.

If you've decided to smoke, fine. Please don't do inside a public building, where non-smokers must breathe in your fumes, and please -- if you contract the various cancers and lung ailments associated with drawing hot air, nicotine, and other substances into your body, kindly don't blame others for your choice and expect the rest of us to pay your medical expenses.

Agree on the personal choice issue and the medical costs.

However a distinction needs to be made between "public building" and "publically owned building"

Hospitals, Government facilities, schools, fine.

But some people count bars, resturants, clubs, casinos, etc as "public buildings" (A ban on smoking has just been passed in these places in New Zealand). I don't think the government should force property owners to make their facility smoke-free. I don't think it is their role. The owner of a bar should have the right to make the call.

In NZ a bar couldn't even allow smoking if it put a huge "THIS BAR ALLOWS SMOKING" sign ouside and put a clause in all the employment contracts outlining the fact of a smoky bar.

Then wouldn't it make economic sence for the government to promote smoking? That way they could take in more money and reduce taxes.
Yeah, they practically did until they couldn't get away with it (like, the thirties or something.) Public opinion caused them to change.

Yeah, they practically did until they couldn't get away with it (like, the thirties or something.) Public opinion caused them to change.

Not sure, what country you live in, but I do not believe the U.S. government ever promoted smoking. :confused: Unless you are speaking of tobacco subsidies to farmers, but farmers were subsidized for a lot of other crops.

Yes, it should be banned. People kill bugs and crop killing mold with stuff extracted from ciggarettes where I come from, and it works. And those insects are tough as nails, stuff like the Colorado bug.

oddly enough, Bhutan looks oddly like butane...lighter fluid!

:headbang: You will still be able to smoke in your own home in Bhutan, and the government is allowing people to import ciggarettes for their own use (albeit heavily taxed at about 10 times the amount that they were before).

So only rich people will be able to afford to smoke...

that is until the smuggling starts, but who knows, maybe bhutan can keep the smugglers out?

I did read that the country used to be totally closed to tourists and now tourists are still only allowed to visit 3 of the many regions in Bhutan.

Did you guys know the also banned T.V. in 1999???

Blah blah blah

Not sure, what country you live in, but I do not believe the U.S. government ever promoted smoking. :confused: Unless you are speaking of tobacco subsidies to farmers, but farmers were subsidized for a lot of other crops.
I said 'practically', I never really meant they said 'Smoke! It's good for you!' or anything (except maybe in the 18th century or something when they really didn't know better.) I wasn't trying to make a solid point. I was basically whinging about the current prioritisations when not so long ago a successful British PM regularly shot up opium in the House of Lords. Not that I advocate recreational use of narcotics you understand.