What are the financial implications of large numbers of people quitting smoking?
148651
One of many theories about the reasons behind such a move is that due to the increased taxation of cigarettes, many UK smokers have been turning to illegally imported cigarettes, which have actually reduced the amount of money the government recieve from the increased taxation on tobacco, and that by banning smoking in public houses, the availability of imported cigarettes and tobacco will be reduced; as much of the trade in these goods is done within pubs (but this is just a theory).\n\nThe alternate revenue that the government will recieve is already in effect, if you look at the statistics you will find that taxation on purchased goods, petrol and especially coucil tax have increased a staggering amount, while the weekly earning and benifits have remained the same.\nIt is doubtless that once the effects of lessened tobacco sales have reached the treasury, the poll tax will be extremely high, petrol will be as expensive as gold and alcohol and spirits will be taxed through the roof.\n\nI personally decided to quit a couple of weeks ago, just before this decision came in - but I still disagree completely with the governments infringement on civil liberties.\n\nSmoking is legal - cigarettes are legal, therefore it should not be a governmental decision on which public houses should and should not allow smoking. These matters should be left to the discretion of the pub landlord or the brewery. If a landlord chose to allow smoking in his bar, non-smokers would be free to seek out alternative pubs and clubs that would cater to non-smokers.\nThat's what freedom of choice is all about.
518600
No...smokers are not going to quit.  What smokers may begin to do is find alternative ways to purchase cigarettes.  Smokers are already way overtaxed, and as states decide to rape them further, they will find cheaper ways to buy cigarettes (over thi internet, in the next state over, have their cousin Vinny send them UPS, etc).  \n\nI simply can't understand the obsession with trying to screw the smoker these days.  Like you said, smokers are one of the largest contributors to the state budget each year. Larger than sales tax, larger than property tax....\n\nI say, let smokers have a break....if you are going to restrict where they are allowed to smoke, you need to reduce the tax...It should be like a usage tax, the less places in a state that smokers are allowed to smoke, the less tax they have to pay!\n\nBTW 'sunny'.....STFU!  Smoking does NOT cost millions in public health care.  Do a little research and you will find that this 2nd hand smoke bunk is nothing but a myth.  The Supremem court overturned the EPA's decision about ETS (2nd Hand SMoke) and called it junk science with no foundation to stand on.
261298
I guess it is difficult for smokers to appreciate the impact on others as they are addicted and have to satisfy their addiction. It is for this reason that smoke-free workplaces have become mandatory and Governments are putting laws in place to ban smoking from pubs and clubs. On February 28, 2005, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control took effect. The FCTC is the world's first public health treaty. Countries that sign on as parties agree to a set of common goals, minimum standards for tobacco control policy, and to cooperate in dealing with cross-border challenges such as cigarette smuggling. Currently the WHO declares that 4 billion people will be covered by the treaty, which includes 92 signatories. Amongst other steps, signatories are to put together legislation that will eliminate second-hand smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.\n\nIt is not often appreciated that bars and restaurants are workplaces and people have to be exposed to tobacco smoke to earn a living. For that reason, I think that it would be better to patronise bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking rather than smoking so that you can breathe.
456452
lung cancer\nheart deceases\njust stop smoking, no other way, all other therapies and stuff have for only aim taking ur money
718522
They received a ration for free (I'd have to check the exact amount, maybe 10 a day), but everybody's habit is different.  They didn't receive all they could smoke.  So, heavy smokers had to pay (or more often trade) for the number they needed.
942181
The government will always controll us-there's no getting away from that.  I have been living in scotland for 3 months now, and have been working in a pub for the duration, and i've yet to make up my mind whether its a good thing or not.  As a non smoker, i can see the benifits of not stinking of smoke or inhaling second hand smoke all night.  However on the flip side, if i really hated stinking of ciggeretts and inhaling second hand smoke, i wouldn't work in a smokey enviroment, and i would stay away from similar enviroments.  What i DON'T think is a good thing is crowds of 20 to 30 people gathering outside a pub/club for a smoke-in the pouring rain. I think proper ventilation and/or a beer garden.  They are fantastic. especially with BBQs.
362998
Kaiser Permenente has plans if you are in their area. \n\nHold on to yourself, because you are going to be shocked at the cost.  Even for a healthy non-smoking single person under 40, it was close to $200 a month.  A family is probably going to be around $500 or more.  Yikes.
818161
None. don't want to litter. I thought the best protest would be purchasing cigarettes from a state which doesn't have a smoking ban. Have to travel about an hour but gee at least that other state without smoking bans will be getting my cigarette taxes. Imagine if every smoker did that? Might have to purchase a few cartons at a time but let the state feel the lack of smoking dollars.
1060543
Education, as you envision it, is very difficult to implement.  And it certainly won't fix all the health problems.\n\nThere are millions of dollars spent telling people not to smoke.  Every package of cigarettes has some warning telling the smoker that smoking is not good for them.  Yet milions of people smoke.\n\nI don't know if your idea would extend to 'when those smokers get emphysema or lung cancer, let 'em die, since they should have known better....we need to spend more on education', but this is not a very humanitarian health care system.\n\nFurthermore, while the average human life span in the developed world has substantially increased due to technology, as people live longer, there are more things that happen to them.  You can't simply expect to 'educate' away disease.  That just won't work.
26617
I am a non-smoking, smoker. figure that one out! \n\nSmokers are a complete contributor to the health service. \n\nThe NHS could not survive without such a donation as tobacco sales, and cigarette merchandise. Society has made the media give mixed messages on this time after time. They invent treatments, they come up with causes, they say it's highly unethical and unhealthy to smoke, yet they advertize it all at the same time. Why is this such a conflict? I'll tell you why. \n\nA) They advertize this because they know that smokers are one of the biggest donators to the treasury, over 10,000.00 is spent on tobbacco daily. They fear getting sued, so the media makes up for the advertisements, by smashing down smoking economy, and making smoking legal only for people of the ages, 18 and up.. I'm sure though that if 16 year olds could legally start a career at that age, they would lower the smoking age. \n  \nThink about it, 18 and up. Adulthood, where choices can be made, career choices open, college dues must be payed, so on, so forth. \n\nThey just fear getting sued. Honestly, as much as the Health administration would like, NOT to admit it. They would crumble without the daily tobbacco sales.
198496
Here's a small list:\n\na. Smoking (of any kind- ciggs, sheesha, weed, etc)\nb. Obesity\nc. Alcohol consumption\nd. Family history of cardiac problems or if you have a diagnosed heart problem\n\nPlease note that the above mentioned risks (except d.) decrease considerably once you stop the mentioned activity.\nThere are more, perhaps, and you can always verify them with your family doctor.
1020244
I'll disagree with everyone.\n\nIt is true cars, industry, cows, etc., take together represent quite a significant pollutant pool.  However, every small change we make helps some.  \n\nIf the millions of people who smoke all quit at once, we would see\n1) less pollution from the smoke;\n2) no pollution from the companies making cigarettes (they would go out of business); \n3) no pollution associated with transporting them to distributors and then to stores;\n4) no pollution associated with driving to/from store to get them;\n5) no pollution associated with driving to/from hospital for lung cancer treatment;\n6) no pollution associated with heating/cooling outside smoking areas;\n\nAs you can see, the ramifications could be significant.
785002
Money!  And it would not work! Cigs have to be almost the most addictive thing I ever did! I stopped, but it was pure hell.\n\nProhibition didn't work, the govt makes a lot of money alcohol and drugs, including laundering money from cocaine!\n\nPot gets into the country, as does coke and designer drugs!\n\nPeople would still get cigarettes and the govt would be cut out and a lot of rich people would lose money!\nAlcohol is legal and it has probably destroyed more lives than any drug! It just takes a little longer!\n\nThe govt talks out of both sides of their mouths and it is all about money! The states made billions in settlements on alcohol and cigarettes for what they were doing to US!  Try and get the government to pay for patches and smoker cessation programs, or rehab for alcohol or drugs! Not a penny!! Your insurance pays or you don't get it, or you pay, one way or another!!
880827
Yes, it would definitely cause some damage to your lungs (not really sure how serious) and it can also stunt your growth. You also need to consider what if you become addicted and end up smoking more than a pack a week and for longer than a year.
712218
A long time. It will never really go away completely, but at least you won't be getting worse. I grew up in a family of smokers and now not a single person in my family smokes, its one of the best decisions you can make.
4547
I like FirstL's answer.  I found some tips:\nhttp://www.insuremylife.org/quitsmoking.html
450271
How about the effect of possibly not having a father sooner, rather than later. Also, as the child grows it is always more difficult to convince children/young adults not to smoke when their parent(s) smoke.\nFinancially, put the smoking money into a bank account for the child's college education.