Erosion of the snus EU ban? Uk at least...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dave***t
    Member
    • Aug 2006
    • 104

    Erosion of the snus EU ban? Uk at least...

    A report today by the UK Royal College of Physicians has mentioned snus among the products they're advocating further research into with a view to reducing the harm done to the public by smoking.

    There's a piece online about it here. While it says that lifting the ban would be premature, the report calls for more research specifically into snus as distinct from other oral tobacco products.

    Here's hoping...
  • FatLip
    Member
    • Oct 2006
    • 31

    #2
    The BBC are carrying the story too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7027853.stm
    Sadly, a number of smokers in the 'Have your say' area have interpreted the suggestions as an attempt by the government to force them to quit (sigh). If only people in the UK knew something (anything!) about snus, they would stop griping and get logged on the Northerner...
    :roll:

    Comment

    • Craig de Tering
      Member
      • Nov 2006
      • 525

      #3
      I used to be very in favor for dropping the ban.
      I've since reversed my opinion and oppose it.
      If legalized, I know for sure my piece of shit government will tax the living crap out of it as if it were another bad tobacco.
      I'd prolly go from paying €3~4 per can to €6 or more. (50 grams of DRY rolling tobacco was atleast €7 last time I checked almost 2 years ago)

      Comment

      • Dave***t
        Member
        • Aug 2006
        • 104

        #4
        So would ours - a 50g pouch of Golden Virginia is over £10 in shops here. But some might argue that thousands of lives being saved would be more important.

        I can't really see why grey imports would be affected though.

        Comment

        • Craig de Tering
          Member
          • Nov 2006
          • 525

          #5
          [point taken, wrong topic] ;-)

          Comment

          • chainsnuser
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2007
            • 1388

            #6
            Originally posted by Craig de Tering
            Man, people who argue taxation "saves lives" are full of shit and don't see the big picture with regards to the gov't.
            I guess, what Dave***t means is, that, if the EU ban was lifted, people, who don't know about snus or are afraid of using that 'evil, banned stuff' or are afraid of doing 'international business' or using credit cards etc. etc. would benefit, if snus were just a normal tobacco-product, available in every corner shop. So, maybe we would pay higher prices, but many lives could be saved.

            Overall, I too think, the current situation is best for everyone, who already knows snus. Not only the prices are relatively low, but also we get a huge variety of snus-brands via the webshops, that would never reach the stores. I guess, if the ban was lifted, personal imports, using a postal service would be forbidden, just as it is today with polish or spanish cigarettes etc.

            So, what would we (in Europe) get from a lift of the ban? In the short run nothing, but two or three brands of Snus at high prices, often dried out, available only in selected stores in big cities or wintersports-regions.

            I'm quite happy with the current situation.

            Cheers!

            Comment

            • Dave***t
              Member
              • Aug 2006
              • 104

              #7
              Originally posted by chainsnuser
              Originally posted by Craig de Tering
              Man, people who argue taxation "saves lives" are full of shit and don't see the big picture with regards to the gov't.
              I guess, what Dave***t means is, that, if the EU ban was lifted, people, who don't know about snus or are afraid of using that 'evil, banned stuff' or are afraid of doing 'international business' or using credit cards etc. etc. would benefit, if snus were just a normal tobacco-product, available in every corner shop. So, maybe we would pay higher prices, but many lives could be saved.
              Er, yes. You might want to lay off the ranting tablets, Craig. I don't see any implication in what I said that taxes save lives. What I do see is that a ban (nominally on health grounds) of a product that could help people get off smoking cigartettes but that is itself far safer than them costs lives.

              In fact if you follow the logic in the report, it'd advocate low taxation on snus if it were legalised anyway.

              Comment

              • Craig de Tering
                Member
                • Nov 2006
                • 525

                #8
                LOL! Sorry a hundredfold, Dave.
                Yes that was a rant, I let myself go a bit and NO, that was absolutely not directed towards anyone here.
                ops:

                Comment

                • Mazur
                  Member
                  • May 2007
                  • 159

                  #9
                  I support lifting the ban bacause in my country tobbacco prices are much lower than in Sweden or UK. That means that I have chance for cheaper snus and maybe for new brands targeted on Polish market

                  For example in Russia snus from Sweden costs 2 Euro (50g) - http://www.tabachok.ru/shop/?id_group=413&show=1
                  In Poland lot of people smuggle cigarettes from Russia. It's time to smuggle snus ;-)

                  BTW - isn't that strange that former Soviet country is more liberal than EU in this case?

                  Comment

                  • Zero
                    Member
                    • May 2006
                    • 1522

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Craig de Tering
                    I used to be very in favor for dropping the ban.
                    I've since reversed my opinion and oppose it.
                    If legalized, I know for sure my piece of shit government will tax the living crap out of it as if it were another bad tobacco.
                    I'd oppose the ban and the taxes. This is the problem of social medicine - suddenly everyone's health becomes the concern of the country because everyone is paying for it. If we had to pay for our own health imagine the number of people who would quit smoking. Imagine how popular snus would be - etc. Imagine how much healthcare one could buy if we didn't have to pay so much damned tax!

                    Comment

                    • Stargazer
                      Member
                      • Aug 2007
                      • 225

                      #11
                      yes, you would afford some more healthcare, if the insurance companies
                      wouldn’t refuse you treatment (something there is a great probability for).
                      But the poor would be worse off as they will not have shit to go to.

                      or if you are found after an accident, and you don't have ID on you or proof
                      of your insurance policies, you will probably just get your life dependent treatment and then get dumped somewhere.

                      The problem with private healthcare is that private corporations have only one agenda and that’s earning money. And when you add the fact that they lose money every time you get treatment, a problem becomes evident. They will find any reason to not give you your insurance money and deny you treatment.

                      Comment

                      • Zero
                        Member
                        • May 2006
                        • 1522

                        #12
                        Well, I won't get into it, but earning money isn't a bad thing. It means they spend more of it on making people better and less of it on bureaucratic waste. If there's competition, then each company, in order to make money, has to deliver better value or else they lose business. If they're refusing to treat people, then their customers would be free to change companies and that company would go out of business. Nobody says it even has to be a for-profit company. A non-profit but private medical system could probably compete even more strongly against for-profit enterprises, especially with the proper public support (the people, not government).

                        As it is, most social health care systems are enforced monopolies, so they are terribly inefficient - they spend more money than they need to and if they run out they can just beg governments for more, raising taxes and printing money to pay for it. Furthermore, all those things that everyone used to just fix at home with juice and rest, now they go to the hospital because it is free. How many people go to the hospital with non-serious things because nobody knows what to do with a common cold anymore?

                        People spend other peoples' money more recklessly than they spend their own - if it meant that one had to file an insurance claim, then maybe people would learn to be more responsible about deciding when they actually need to go to hospital or not rather than spend €500 or 5000 Kr or whatever on a hospital visit that tells them exactly what my grandma would have told them.

                        As for poor people, clearly one can't envision turning a switch to a new system. Socialist governments have bred entire societies which are dependent on them, including an underclass of poor who can't take care of themselves. They're like oppressive husbands who insist on taking care of their wives so much that their wives become incapable, emotionally or physically, of taking care of themselves. It's a means of control. Any change would require a careful period of transition where societies could be weaned from the mother state. The end result would be governments which spent less of everyone's money and left it in their pockets, raising the purchasing power of the poor above being dependent on the system which keeps them that way.

                        Consider that, for example, the Norwegian government spends 46% of all the money made in the country. Does the government give you half of everything you make use of? Or are they wasting a whole lot of it? It's all an overgrown symptom of the failing Keynsian theory that governments need to waste money in order to stimulate effective demand and, thus, keep people employed. They practically waste money on purpose in rigid adherence to a clearly imperfect macroeconomic theory. Certainly there must be room to suggest that alternate methods may work better. I mean, if you got to spend every bit of money the government spends for you on thing you may or may not use, do you not suspect that you may be able to spend it more wisely?

                        ...ok, so maybe I will go into it. :lol:

                        Comment

                        • Dave***t
                          Member
                          • Aug 2006
                          • 104

                          #13
                          All of which is highly debatable, contentious, and at best only tangentially linked to either the thread or snus.

                          Could we keep the soapboxing down a bit please guys? There is a general discussion section too, you know.

                          Comment

                          • Zero
                            Member
                            • May 2006
                            • 1522

                            #14
                            Apologies. I'm somewhat passionate about politics and reasonably convinced that ignorance of it will be the deathblow of this generation. Let's hope I'm wrong. The ban IS quite intimately linked with politics, however, and taxation as well as the issue of healthcare. Why else would it be banned? Think about the reasons :

                            1) Partisan politics - special interests pulling political favours (tobacco companies, etc)

                            2) Taxation - revenue streams from snus vs tobacco?

                            3) Healthcare - irrational fear of loading public services.

                            What else is there to talk about in the context of the snus ban?

                            Comment

                            • Stargazer
                              Member
                              • Aug 2007
                              • 225

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Zero
                              Well, I won't get into it, but earning money isn't a bad thing. It means they spend more of it on making people better and less of it on bureaucratic waste. If there's competition, then each company, in order to make money, has to deliver better value or else they lose business. If they're refusing to treat people, then their customers would be free to change companies and that company would go out of business. Nobody says it even has to be a for-profit company. A non-profit but private medical system could probably compete even more strongly against for-profit enterprises, especially with the proper public support (the people, not government).
                              I can agree that I non profit private system could work very well.
                              But I can’t see the benefit of being treated by a system that actually loses
                              money on you getting better and receiving treatment.
                              insurance companies in America have entire teams dedicated to finding the smallest faults or holes in you policy or application to deny you treatment that can save your life. I would rather waste money to get more people healthy, than saving and letting people go sick or dying.

                              As it is, most social health care systems are enforced monopolies, so they are terribly inefficient - they spend more money than they need to and if they run out they can just beg governments for more, raising taxes and printing money to pay for it. Furthermore, all those things that everyone used to just fix at home with juice and rest, now they go to the hospital because it is free. How many people go to the hospital with non-serious things because nobody knows what to do with a common cold anymore?

                              People spend other peoples' money more recklessly than they spend their own - if it meant that one had to file an insurance claim, then maybe people would learn to be more responsible about deciding when they actually need to go to hospital or not rather than spend €500 or 5000 Kr or whatever on a hospital visit that tells them exactly what my grandma would have told them.
                              I have never talked about the type of social medicine you got in soviet Russia. spending community money should not be too easy, and getting
                              a free check up because you have the sniffles is not what I am talking about. here in Norway you get covered if you treatment in over a certain
                              amount. This way you won’t get doctors hold up by stupid people that have a soar throat.

                              As for poor people, clearly one can't envision turning a switch to a new system. Socialist governments have bred entire societies which are dependent on them, including an underclass of poor who can't take care of themselves. They're like oppressive husbands who insist on taking care of their wives so much that their wives become incapable, emotionally or physically, of taking care of themselves. It's a means of control. Any change would require a careful period of transition where societies could be weaned from the mother state. The end result would be governments which spent less of everyone's money and left it in their pockets, raising the purchasing power of the poor above being dependent on the system which keeps them that way.
                              again, I'm not talking about soviet Russia. Demands must be put to the people that resive help, so that the money isn't wasted on bums that don't want to help them selves.
                              and anyway it's still better than a underclass of people being held down by a system that doesn’t care or help them. Class mobility would be
                              taken down to almost zero. the wealth and privileges would crystallize into a small part of society.
                              Consider that, for example, the Norwegian government spends 46% of all the money made in the country. Does the government give you half of everything you make use of? Or are they wasting a whole lot of it? It's all an overgrown symptom of the failing Keynsian theory that governments need to waste money in order to stimulate effective demand and, thus, keep people employed. They practically waste money on purpose in rigid adherence to a clearly imperfect macroeconomic theory. Certainly there must be room to suggest that alternate methods may work better. I mean, if you got to spend every bit of money the government spends for you on thing you may or may not use, do you not suspect that you may be able to spend it more wisely?
                              the problem is that as everybody gets higher spending power and use more money, the prices will rise. this means that most people won’t get more money to spend on private things anyway.
                              the only people to profit greatly from a total free marked economy are the rich. Just as the only people to profit from a total plan or socialist economy are the lazy and stupid.

                              I believe non of them to be a good solution for normal people.
                              Only a marginal part of the population will profit.
                              A mixed economy is the only thing that can get a sense of fairness into the whole.
                              But still keep the freedoms that are so important to having a stable and good society. (and economy)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X