FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Smoking

Jump to newest
 

By *ovestruck69 OP   Man
over a year ago

Southampton

I'm a smoker and have been for yrs since I was 12/13. I can get 50g of golden Virginia for £10, but I've run out till i go get my next lot for a month, so I went to the shop to buy some and it was £12 for 30g and £19 for 50g I almost fell over lol and I got the cheapest one and a packet of fags that cost £9 I can get for a fiver a packet lol the government are over taxing the wrong thing, soon there will be no petrol cars, so where they gonna get there cash from.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *offiaCoolWoman
over a year ago

Kidsgrove

They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't understand.

Stop smoking it's manky

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Smoking is cool.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking. "

This is the reason the government will not ban smoking because smoking related illnesses cost about 2 billion pounds a year to treat, However the tax revenue the government gets from smokers is nearly 8 billion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *offiaCoolWoman
over a year ago

Kidsgrove


"They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking.

This is the reason the government will not ban smoking because smoking related illnesses cost about 2 billion pounds a year to treat, However the tax revenue the government gets from smokers is nearly 8 billion."

Ah, I didn't realise the figures were that wide apart

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *AYENCouple
over a year ago

Lincolnshire


"I'm a smoker and have been for yrs since I was 12/13. I can get 50g of golden Virginia for £10, but I've run out till i go get my next lot for a month, so I went to the shop to buy some and it was £12 for 30g and £19 for 50g I almost fell over lol and I got the cheapest one and a packet of fags that cost £9 I can get for a fiver a packet lol the government are over taxing the wrong thing, soon there will be no petrol cars, so where they gonna get there cash from."

Surely the higher the tax the better, it hopefully reduces the amount people smoke and perhaps deters young adults from buying them. And if none of the above is true, at least it brings in some extra tax to offset the burden on the NHS.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking.

This is the reason the government will not ban smoking because smoking related illnesses cost about 2 billion pounds a year to treat, However the tax revenue the government gets from smokers is nearly 8 billion.

Ah, I didn't realise the figures were that wide apart "

I haven't looked at the statistics in the last year but it definitely was that it could be slightly different but the diffrence is huge.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxychicWoman
over a year ago

Nottinghamshire

smoking is rank and im a ex smoker

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I don't see any downside to very high taxes on smoking. None at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking.

This is the reason the government will not ban smoking because smoking related illnesses cost about 2 billion pounds a year to treat, However the tax revenue the government gets from smokers is nearly 8 billion.

Ah, I didn't realise the figures were that wide apart

I haven't looked at the statistics in the last year but it definitely was that it could be slightly different but the diffrence is huge.

"

Home / Media and News / Press Releases / True cost of smoking revealed in advance of World No Tobacco Day

True cost of smoking revealed in advance of World No Tobacco Day

30 May 2018

print

30 May 2018

New data published for World No Tobacco Day 31st May, by Action on Smoking Health shows that smoking costs communities in England £12.6 billion a year [1].

The figures show the additional pressure that smoking is putting on the NHS and social care services including annual costs of £2.5 billion to the NHS, and over £760 million to local authorities from smoking-related social care needs [1]. Local authorities can use an easily accessible web tool to break the data down to local level so they can see the impact on their communities [1].

Smoking remains the largest cause of preventable death in England. However, a 2016 audit found that more than 1 in 4 hospital patients were not asked if they smoke and 50% of frontline staff are not given routine smoking cessation training [2].

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking.

This is the reason the government will not ban smoking because smoking related illnesses cost about 2 billion pounds a year to treat, However the tax revenue the government gets from smokers is nearly 8 billion.

Ah, I didn't realise the figures were that wide apart

I haven't looked at the statistics in the last year but it definitely was that it could be slightly different but the diffrence is huge.

Home / Media and News / Press Releases / True cost of smoking revealed in advance of World No Tobacco Day

True cost of smoking revealed in advance of World No Tobacco Day

30 May 2018

print

30 May 2018

New data published for World No Tobacco Day 31st May, by Action on Smoking Health shows that smoking costs communities in England £12.6 billion a year [1].

The figures show the additional pressure that smoking is putting on the NHS and social care services including annual costs of £2.5 billion to the NHS, and over £760 million to local authorities from smoking-related social care needs [1]. Local authorities can use an easily accessible web tool to break the data down to local level so they can see the impact on their communities [1].

Smoking remains the largest cause of preventable death in England. However, a 2016 audit found that more than 1 in 4 hospital patients were not asked if they smoke and 50% of frontline staff are not given routine smoking cessation training [2]."

S0 my figures aren't far off and also you have accounted for 3.1 is billion.

So how does it cost communities a further 9.5 billion?

There is a reason the government has never banned smoking because they could if they wanted to it's because they make too much money in taxes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Smoking is still cool though. You could always have a pop at the Vape wankers. Lots of them who never even smoked before but took it up regardless of the dangers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Death and taxes; almost anything can be taxed so generating a new revenue stream is never going to be a problem.

In case you're worried about HM coffers.

I'm more interested in the social health aspect. High taxing is one way to tackle this obviously - price it beyond most people's reach. Or, at least, those unwilling to use the black market.

The longer-term and better approach is of course - as with most societal ills - better education so that people make better choices and fewer instances

of drug addiction occur. This is a fact borne out by innumerable data.

And that is what smokers are: drug addicts (really, let's not quibble here - yes there will be a few exceptions, those who do not develop a strong addiction to nicotine but perhaps do still habituate it (it's irrelevant really since the multiple health problems that arise directly from it don't give a shit whether or not you consider yourself a "social smoker" or anything else, they fuck you and other people up, just the same).

Largely because smoking - along with alcohol consumption - is/are socially acceptable (if less so these days, an indication that that education is working!) it's not generally referred to in those terms but it is exactly that - a drug addiction. It does not carry the same stigma but I do think it would help a little if it was framed in this way. Call the thing what it is - if that's enough to shift a few people's perspective away from it as a "lifestyle choice" then all to the good.

Many of the treatment programs do of course recognise it as such and so use the same approaches as those used with other 'harder' (if less widely-damaging due to their less frequent occurrence) substances.

It all begins with education.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *AYENCouple
over a year ago

Lincolnshire


"They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking.

This is the reason the government will not ban smoking because smoking related illnesses cost about 2 billion pounds a year to treat, However the tax revenue the government gets from smokers is nearly 8 billion.

Ah, I didn't realise the figures were that wide apart

I haven't looked at the statistics in the last year but it definitely was that it could be slightly different but the diffrence is huge.

Home / Media and News / Press Releases / True cost of smoking revealed in advance of World No Tobacco Day

True cost of smoking revealed in advance of World No Tobacco Day

30 May 2018

print

30 May 2018

New data published for World No Tobacco Day 31st May, by Action on Smoking Health shows that smoking costs communities in England £12.6 billion a year [1].

The figures show the additional pressure that smoking is putting on the NHS and social care services including annual costs of £2.5 billion to the NHS, and over £760 million to local authorities from smoking-related social care needs [1]. Local authorities can use an easily accessible web tool to break the data down to local level so they can see the impact on their communities [1].

Smoking remains the largest cause of preventable death in England. However, a 2016 audit found that more than 1 in 4 hospital patients were not asked if they smoke and 50% of frontline staff are not given routine smoking cessation training [2].

S0 my figures aren't far off and also you have accounted for 3.1 is billion.

So how does it cost communities a further 9.5 billion?

There is a reason the government has never banned smoking because they could if they wanted to it's because they make too much money in taxes."

There's already a huge black market I'm sure, but to ban smoking would explode it, as did prohibition in 20's America.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovestruck69 OP   Man
over a year ago

Southampton

I'm surprised by the posts all gd and affirming, I'm also the government hasn't done the same to food to stop the obesity crisis. But the crazy thing is most who are overweight do have a thyroid gland problem, and not down to eating all the pies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I'm surprised by the posts all gd and affirming, I'm also the government hasn't done the same to food to stop the obesity crisis. But the crazy thing is most who are overweight do have a thyroid gland problem, and not down to eating all the pies."

Food is necessary for survival.

Smoking is not.

As someone with a thyroid condition, *facepalm*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rder66Man
over a year ago

Tatooine


"I don't understand.

Stop smoking it's manky "
es, quit, if you want to smoke then don't complain about the price. Hope you're not one of this people that just flick the end onto the path when you've finished.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago

East London

Just think how much money you would save if you gave up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uenevereWoman
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

Sorry OP but I have no sympathy at all.

I think that smoking is a horrible smelly habit, quite apart from it's proven health impacts.

Oh, and I have a thyroid problem coupledwith the joys of menopause...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Death and taxes; almost anything can be taxed so generating a new revenue stream is never going to be a problem.

In case you're worried about HM coffers.

I'm more interested in the social health aspect. High taxing is one way to tackle this obviously - price it beyond most people's reach. Or, at least, those unwilling to use the black market.

The longer-term and better approach is of course - as with most societal ills - better education so that people make better choices and fewer instances

of drug addiction occur. This is a fact borne out by innumerable data.

And that is what smokers are: drug addicts (really, let's not quibble here - yes there will be a few exceptions, those who do not develop a strong addiction to nicotine but perhaps do still habituate it (it's irrelevant really since the multiple health problems that arise directly from it don't give a shit whether or not you consider yourself a "social smoker" or anything else, they fuck you and other people up, just the same).

Largely because smoking - along with alcohol consumption - is/are socially acceptable (if less so these days, an indication that that education is working!) it's not generally referred to in those terms but it is exactly that - a drug addiction. It does not carry the same stigma but I do think it would help a little if it was framed in this way. Call the thing what it is - if that's enough to shift a few people's perspective away from it as a "lifestyle choice" then all to the good.

Many of the treatment programs do of course recognise it as such and so use the same approaches as those used with other 'harder' (if less widely-damaging due to their less frequent occurrence) substances.

It all begins with education.

"

Very good

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Death and taxes; almost anything can be taxed so generating a new revenue stream is never going to be a problem.

In case you're worried about HM coffers.

I'm more interested in the social health aspect. High taxing is one way to tackle this obviously - price it beyond most people's reach. Or, at least, those unwilling to use the black market.

The longer-term and better approach is of course - as with most societal ills - better education so that people make better choices and fewer instances

of drug addiction occur. This is a fact borne out by innumerable data.

And that is what smokers are: drug addicts (really, let's not quibble here - yes there will be a few exceptions, those who do not develop a strong addiction to nicotine but perhaps do still habituate it (it's irrelevant really since the multiple health problems that arise directly from it don't give a shit whether or not you consider yourself a "social smoker" or anything else, they fuck you and other people up, just the same).

Largely because smoking - along with alcohol consumption - is/are socially acceptable (if less so these days, an indication that that education is working!) it's not generally referred to in those terms but it is exactly that - a drug addiction. It does not carry the same stigma but I do think it would help a little if it was framed in this way. Call the thing what it is - if that's enough to shift a few people's perspective away from it as a "lifestyle choice" then all to the good.

Many of the treatment programs do of course recognise it as such and so use the same approaches as those used with other 'harder' (if less widely-damaging due to their less frequent occurrence) substances.

It all begins with education.

Very good"

Thanks you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I remember an episode of Yes Prime Minister where this is being argued and Sir Humphrey points out that with smokers generally dying earlier, they save the government money in pensions, etc....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I remember an episode of Yes Prime Minister where this is being argued and Sir Humphrey points out that with smokers generally dying earlier, they save the government money in pensions, etc.... "

No idea if that argument stands but "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" were such good series'! The scripts were so good!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *luebell888Woman
over a year ago

Glasgowish

I gave up smoking when i was 40 but started vaping when i was 50. Neither are cool but vaping is cheaper.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ecadent_DevonMan
over a year ago

Okehampton


"I remember an episode of Yes Prime Minister where this is being argued and Sir Humphrey points out that with smokers generally dying earlier, they save the government money in pensions, etc.... "
.

And dementia is the biggest cost to the NHS sooooo as smokers die younger, less pension reduced old people, less dementia win/win.

In fact one could say. “Smoke a fag, protect the nhs”

Waiting for my “look how much money we have saved” yacht from the government. Woohoo

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"I remember an episode of Yes Prime Minister where this is being argued and Sir Humphrey points out that with smokers generally dying earlier, they save the government money in pensions, etc....

No idea if that argument stands but "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" were such good series'! The scripts were so good!"

And amazing how they are still relevant 45 years on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They will save money from the reduced numbers of chronically ill people with smoking related health problems, if price affects people's decision to give up smoking. "

I've never understood this argument. If we stopped everyone smoking its not as though these people wouldn't die. I'm very sceptical of figures around the cost of smoking, while it is presumably easy to work out that certain diseases are more common than others in smokers and therefore attribute that percentage of their treatment cost to smoking but that is only half the picture.

A true comparison would look at the average lifetime cost to the the government of smokers verses non smokers. This should take into account the cost of health care (cancers/dementia/care homes etc), pension payouts and tax income. Even without the latter, I can see no reason why paying for say lung cancer treatment for a 65 year old works out more expensive than paying pension for 30 years followed by 2 years of assisted living and then 24 hour care of a dementia patientwho dies aged 95.

The only real argument against smoking is the unpleasantness and real danger for those who don't smoke but are forced to put up with others that do. Aside from that, we're all going to die one way or another, I really can't see the difference between choosing the 13% chance of dying decades earlier (or whatever it is) from smoking and choosing to ride a push bike on the road or a motorbike say, both of which carry significant risk of early death.

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ecadent_DevonMan
over a year ago

Okehampton

The government won’t ban smoking because that would make it an illegal substance. Governments cannot control the use of illegal substances. Taking away a drug that tends not to cause social problems (although obvious health care ones) would then push smokers into the illegal substance market.

Pushing people into the illegal substance market is not a good idea mmm’kay. They might choose something else....

Costs associated with smoking are dwarfed by costs associated with alcohol and alcohol related problems. Go in a hospital a&e ward on a Friday night (non Covid) and see how many people are there for incidents directly related to alcohol consumption. More people than are queuing up with black lung.

If any legal substance was to be banned for the cost it has to the nhs, the social problems it causes, and the misery it generates. Then alcohol should and would be the first target.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The government won’t ban smoking because that would make it an illegal substance. Governments cannot control the use of illegal substances. Taking away a drug that tends not to cause social problems (although obvious health care ones) would then push smokers into the illegal substance market.

Pushing people into the illegal substance market is not a good idea mmm’kay. They might choose something else....

Costs associated with smoking are dwarfed by costs associated with alcohol and alcohol related problems. Go in a hospital a&e ward on a Friday night (non Covid) and see how many people are there for incidents directly related to alcohol consumption. More people than are queuing up with black lung.

If any legal substance was to be banned for the cost it has to the nhs, the social problems it causes, and the misery it generates. Then alcohol should and would be the first target.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The trend is less people smoke now and it's becoming less and less all the time. Banning it wouldn't work sadly. It would make it even more dangerous as it would remove regulation. As long as I don't have to suffer second hand smoke, then people can smoke of they want to. I wouldn't date a smoker as the smell and taste of it on them makes me feel ill.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

I smoke roll ups, probably about 10 - 15 per day, more if I'm on the beer. The Government of the day decided in its infinate wisdom to ban all advertising and make all packaging generic. That may cut down on the amount of hospital admissions due to smoking, but it's no bloody good when I ask for 50g of JPS, and the spotty teenager behind the kiosk takes 10 minutes to find it!!!

Only joking, both ma parents succumbed to lung cancer

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

The problem now is that obesity is a bigger and more costly problem for us. We have largely relied on food producers and supermrkets to self-regulate. Would we be happy for the same or higher taxation levels on some foods, as on tobacco?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anyone got a light?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lint-EverhardMan
over a year ago

Perpignan and cap

Maybe they're going to tax stupid people. That'll give the UK economy and much needed boost.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe they're going to tax stupid people. That'll give the UK economy and much needed boost. "

How would you define them though?

You’d have to have some kind of stupid scale with different bands of stupidity.

A bit like council tax.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *08428Man
over a year ago

Shaftesbury

Just remember that if you smoke, all a non smoker can smell when your near is stale smoke, you smell like an Ash tray, it's not pleasant at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lint-EverhardMan
over a year ago

Perpignan and cap


"Maybe they're going to tax stupid people. That'll give the UK economy and much needed boost.

How would you define them though?

You’d have to have some kind of stupid scale with different bands of stupidity.

A bit like council tax.

"

Maybe start with a big, black, locked box with "put your unwanted money in here" written on it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe they're going to tax stupid people. That'll give the UK economy and much needed boost.

How would you define them though?

You’d have to have some kind of stupid scale with different bands of stupidity.

A bit like council tax.

Maybe start with a big, black, locked box with "put your unwanted money in here" written on it.

"

If I put my money in there I won’t have enough to buy my cigarettes and alcohol.

Seems a bit stupid to me.

You go for it though, it might work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"Anyone got a light?"

What's a litre?........

It's what a Jawdee lights his fag with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The amount of judgement on someone decision on if they smoke is surprising, I get not everyone likes it and says it’s a disgusting habit but I’m sure anyone who says something like this may have a habit that others find disgusting because at the end of the day opinions are subjective.

If someone was fat/obese from eating takeaways or unhealthy foods and someone judged them and said eating too much was a disgusting habit and all of the health implications etc... I’m sure this would be frowned upon.

My point is everyone has freedom to do what they want with their body no matter what the situation, bashing on someone’s decisions based on personal opinions just ain’t cool or groovy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't understand.

Stop smoking it's manky es, quit, if you want to smoke then don't complain about the price. Hope you're not one of this people that just flick the end onto the path when you've finished."

Are there any smokers who gather up their butts and take them home?

How many years does a butt take to decompose?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ruebameMan
over a year ago

from the womb and tryout to get back


"I don't understand.

Stop smoking it's manky es, quit, if you want to smoke then don't complain about the price. Hope you're not one of this people that just flick the end onto the path when you've finished.

Are there any smokers who gather up their butts and take them home?

How many years does a butt take to decompose? "

18month to 10 years thank feck for Google you would think they would find a different material to degrade quicker

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't understand.

Stop smoking it's manky es, quit, if you want to smoke then don't complain about the price. Hope you're not one of this people that just flick the end onto the path when you've finished.

Are there any smokers who gather up their butts and take them home?

How many years does a butt take to decompose?

18month to 10 years thank feck for Google you would think they would find a different material to degrade quicker "

Wow.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The government won’t ban smoking because that would make it an illegal substance. Governments cannot control the use of illegal substances. Taking away a drug that tends not to cause social problems (although obvious health care ones) would then push smokers into the illegal substance market.

Pushing people into the illegal substance market is not a good idea mmm’kay. They might choose something else....

Costs associated with smoking are dwarfed by costs associated with alcohol and alcohol related problems. Go in a hospital a&e ward on a Friday night (non Covid) and see how many people are there for incidents directly related to alcohol consumption. More people than are queuing up with black lung.

If any legal substance was to be banned for the cost it has to the nhs, the social problems it causes, and the misery it generates. Then alcohol should and would be the first target.

"

I agree with your statement regarding the much greater damage caused by alcohol consumption. The single most damaging drug in society is alcohol, largely because of the peripheral damage it causes in society. As you note, it's frequently not the drinker who suffers the brunt of it.

This is also something borne out by data, so whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant, the evidence doesn't care.

Prof. David Nutt carried out work and the evidence led him and his team to that conclusion.

(You might remember him as the 'Drugs Czar' in Blair's government.

They employed him because if his expertise and then, when he made recommendations based on the evidence he gathered but which didn't tally with what they wanted to say, they fired him. Yep, some real progressive thinking there, Blair...FFS.)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Thank god my smoking fetish is a visual thing rather than me being an actual smoker myself haha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham


"I'm a smoker and have been for yrs since I was 12/13. I can get 50g of golden Virginia for £10, but I've run out till i go get my next lot for a month, so I went to the shop to buy some and it was £12 for 30g and £19 for 50g I almost fell over lol and I got the cheapest one and a packet of fags that cost £9 I can get for a fiver a packet lol the government are over taxing the wrong thing, soon there will be no petrol cars, so where they gonna get there cash from."

I quit for 17 years but when I started working in Africa I started again. I smoke Marlboro touch , less smoke, less smell , they are around £3.80 for 20 over there or a £5 over here from the Syrian car wash. They sell your tobacco too it’s £5 for 40g for some reason the EU bags are 40 not 50g

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't understand.

Stop smoking it's manky "

its rank

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top