i think you have misunderstood my comment. I SUPPORT the idea that RICH people should pay a HIGHER tax rate to CONTRIBUTE to the society they live in. I did not say people that smoke should get a lower priority in the NHS. Your arguments are analogous your stereotyping and discrimination shown in your comment has shown nothing other than the worst of what Britain can offer. A person like u shouldnt be representing the nation of Britain.
Ha. If adding tax is an attempt of the government to mould the habits of the populace, the idea of "imposing smoking bans" (which u raised and indicated support) would almost definitely change the habits of the populace, namely the smoking populace. It does not matter what I think, since youre the one suggesting and supporting the idea of "smoking bans".
Increasing cigarettes Tax is proven, in many developed and developing countries, an effective way to decrease smoking rate. He is just talking crap that appeals to people. He is just playing with people's emotions in order to gain support. Please do some research before saying something unintelligent.
Extending your logic, I will use an example of your own country. I am aware of the vehicle tax system in britain. I believe the tax rate on vehicles are related to their CO2 emissions. If ur car pollutes more, you pay more. Would u argue that your great government is being unfair? Would you argue that ur "government is discriminating against what people have contributed to society"? By asking ppl take responsibility for their actions, the government is being the OPPOSITE, it is BEING FAIR.
Please give me a elaborated idea on how smoking bann will not change people's habit. The complete ban of smoking limits the places which i person can smoke, this means that the habits of smoking is changed. Furthermore, a complete ban in smoking will have no effect on "helping" smokers, since they can stil smoke as much as they want at home/in their car etc. Where raising tax can even increase gvt. revenue which can be used to rehabilitate/cover medical cost of smoking.
In your original argument you sed the government shouldnt "interfer in people's affairs by trying to mould the habits of the populace unnecessarily through policies". Its really interesting that u think raising the cigarette tax will "mould the habits of the populace" more than "smoking bans", given that smoking bans already exist within hong kong, in which further increasing these bans will arguably leave smokers no place other than their homes to smoke.
Your argument is interesting. If you study basic economics, you would know that cigarettes are something called "demerit goods". The consumption of these goods causes negative externalities. Negative externalities IMPOSES AN IMPACT UPON A THIRD PARTY. To give you a rough idea, excessive smokers go to a governmental clinic and uses its service, burdening the public health care system in hong kong, which has already been burdened by chinese pregnancy, limited supply of doctors and aging population
I think it is you who needs to educate yourself. No one is disputing that increasing tax rate for tobacco reduces the smoking rate just as increasing tax for alcohol reduces alcohol consumption. The issue has to do with liberty and the government not interfering in people's affairs by trying to mould the habits of the populace unnecessarily through policies.
and also in other "true democracy country" (contrary to the "fake" democracy in HK), countries like USA, UK, other EU countries (maybe not France) have deployed similar measures against the increasing rate of smoking.
I support the smoking ban as a matter of fairness not because it changes people's habits. Non-smokers have a right to not be affected by second-hand smoke, which is proven to be harmful, in public places. That is a distinct difference in my position you have not grasped.
You have misread my comment. Saying I support x because of y and not because of effect z does not mean I don't acknowledge z. Raising taxes can obviously have benefits but the important question is how much the taxes should be raised. I oppose raising taxes in HK because it violates the principle of fairness on two levels. Firstly, the government cannot favour one group (anti-smoking) over the other (smokers), and secondly smokers are likely to be working class which unfairly penalises a class.
I am well-acquainted with the argument you are presenting. The NHS of the UK is also under increasing strain due to obesity, alcohol and tobacco related illnesses, but it does not follow that just because people have the right to not be negatively affected by the habits of others, as a principle of fairness, that taxes for ciggarettes should go up. Using your example of the health service one could argue fatty foods, sweets, and alcohol are "negative externalities".
As a mater of fact, The consumption of alcohol does indeed generate negative externalities. This is partly the reason why they receive extra/higher tax than non-alcoholic drinks in most countries. (Including hong kong previously).
I live in Scotland which was one of the first countries to impose the "smoking bans". I am in support of this and evidence shows that it has been effective in reducing the number of smokers to a small degree. That's a far more effective measure than raising taxes which is always the government's first solution that penalises a large segment of the population under the pre-tense of improving health. Moreover, Yuk-man gives an example of how doing that might not even stop people from smoking.
I said that raising taxes is an attempt of the government to mould the habits of the populace not that it necessarily will. Do you think it is a good thing that people are forced to only smoke at home?
your arguments have become desperate. speaking of fairness, I will give you an example: the people who pays the most income tax are the people who earn the most, however, it is the working class that uses government the most (i.e. health care, facilities, well-fare etc.). is that fair? you would argue that it is because the government takes the role of moderating the classes. similarly, smokers should pay for their own pollution and the burden they have cost the health care.
Well, he never said he don’t agree on increasing Tabacco tax, he’s saying he cannot agree on adding tabacco tax which is higher than critical point, which is higher than the price of ketamine. He’s saying this is not a solution, but creating serval problems more in the future.
2024今日再看。。。已沒人像他發聲了
黃毓民係我唯一佩服嘅學者.
后无来者了.怀念毓民替蟻民发声❤
加煙稅這問題值得商討。賣私煙未必不是執法違法的人。沒有重點地教育學生不要吸煙。如何可以不吸煙。即使不是住劏房。生活壓力很大。根本沒有改變社會環境。吸煙會影響其他不吸煙的人。但瘀酒的害處的確比較吸煙大。但酒稅比較煙稅便宜❤😂。一個殖民地政府的思維。香港人根本沒有歸屬感。
上届当区 市民冇选黄疏民
真是 损害 全香港人 利益
因为黄疏民 为劳苦大众
出身出力 奋不故身 为市民
定不知 当区人 迷失方向
吃迷云汤 流失了一位真正 为民请民 伟大黄疏民
我代表香港人 请当区人
再次 支持 伟大的黄疏民
垃圾會冇毓民在，堅本冇嘢聽，其他在位人垃圾會議員堅本不够資格，冇料到，擦鞋仔而己。
聽完真係拍爛手掌 , 尢其是每次講到........我又上頭了 . 真是笑死無命賠 !
禁煙！?禁酒！?酒的毒害更大！
why not both?本是同根生,相煎何太急
非常感谢前议员的专业讲解。数据分析体谅现实情况
好多人都唔明又睇唔通，就話盲目支持，政府加稅理由講得好清楚幫助市民戒煙，但你加市民只會去買私煙，對戒煙件事係無幫助，吸煙人數都唔會減少，但後果就係吸煙既會僧個政府，青年既會去吸毒，而私煙集團賺到笑，我咁睇投讚成既人當中有無人貪污好明顯啦。
戒烟把电子烟禁个屁啊 就想多个理由收多点税买茅台喝
講真,一包煙咁貴,政府又講乜講乜,咁人地買私煙,咪仲衰
只許州官放火（煙花），不許百姓點燈（點煙）
煙民要日日買、惡税民不聊生。
記得英國人係度果陣, 會因應社會的實際情況而調整政策的鬆緊, 而曾蔭權政府的每一步都是閉門造車, 不顧普羅市民感受.
請問你你有咩娛樂呢？你收入幾多呢？好似我呢啲地下階層去邊度娛樂？娛樂唔使錢啊？無事行街少破財啊大佬。外國佬講得對！要改變人民的生活習慣先最主要的問題
勸人戒烟是错的，应是保障别人不用吸二手烟。不能随街一路行一路抽。班馬线位，巴士小巴站旁不能抽。乱掉烟头，乱抽烟重罚。全港支持。我也抽烟，三四十年。
其實佢講野一向都好有point,只係新聞淨係剪佢掟野掃場果d畫面出黎姐
tvb用來呃亞婆亞伯同無腦的人
本人不是"人民力量"支持者,但毓民所說的令人支持
特區政府不嬲是親大財團,只會向底層既小市民開刀,但退稅俾大財團就好大手筆。
呢d仲唔係官商勾結,利益輸送?
有無啲乜野實質既證據係可以證明吸煙會對身體有影響啊？答案係：無！我見過大把70幾80幾歲既老人家日日食煙，仲要唔係一兩枝，食左幾十年。佢地行得走得，無病無痛，個腦不知幾醒！！如果我講大話，我折壽30年！！
kaming lam 每包65元已經有害！
戒煙無所事事,要做家務，信主或誦經！
好精彩❤😂。
拍爛手掌
窮既話食乜鬼煙,,又5係必需品........
利益申報: 戒左煙了,,錢都慳了
我覺得有加煙稅都有理的
不過 政府真係做得吾夠好囉.
兩睇啦 食煙對身體係吾好的
其實生活重有好多其他的娛樂的.
毓民今次真係打橫尼講，即使平時佢幾為草根發聲。嫌包煙貴便順便連煙也戒掉吧。
全港煙酒全禁
毓民真係個人才
根據二十年個人生活經驗，返工先系最傷健康嘅因素。
好好好講得真係好現實
政府不理民意、年年加煙稅,最大後杲只有民不聊生、
K仔好貴😂
黃生把聲有似林子善！不過二位都係我尊重既人！
@wty417
毓民話正苦冇配套幫人介煙,對私煙亦無對策
同埋應改善生活環境黎改變吸煙惡習我都十分贊同
正苦應該嚴打私煙,改善民生,但單就加煙稅而言並無錯只係要加強配套
至毒品唔洗講啦,煙貴就吸毒都講唔埋欄,同細路仔扭計要食糖唔比就跳樓無分別.呢D"恐嚇"除左父母有邊個會真係理佢.
人地老人家都仲話無聊,基層人仕就話生活所迫壓力大食煙
香港青少年免費教育,除左很少陪份,最低限父母供養衣食無憂
有時間打波游水就算打機都好、食咩煙
冇煙食唔得既青年己經可悲,冇煙就吸毒簡直無藥可救,有事咪叫白車浪費資源
現在55元 還會繼續加+
(2) 推青年入吸毒火坑: 問題係索/買/賣毒品犯法, 同埋好多學校都有推廣抗毒. 我覺得推青少年入火坑的似係戈d對的反, 錯的又反的成年人.
對青少年泥講, 家長同學校就係佢地的政府, 佢地日日睇你地唔尊重特首, 日日遊行反對.
好多青少年心智未成熟, 佢地唔太識分是非黑白, 佢地好多時都會有樣學樣. 佢日日睇你地反政府, 佢地又反佢地的”政府”. 唔尊重佢地的”特首” 你叫我讀書? 你叫我唔好吸毒? 我覺得我地係正確, 我理Q得你死.
佢地味咁諗囉.
有人買私煙,.好多國家都諗緊點壓私煙/毒品買賣. 唔剩只香港面對緊依個問題. 唔好講到得香港有依個問題.
(3) 0_0我覺得你都好語無倫次, 吸煙的確對空氣, 對身體, 對周邊環境唔好播.
(4) 嗯, =.= 我敢打包單, 就算特首親身去拍廣告, 都會比你地依班人鬧到PK
以下係本人個人觀點, 如果有咩得罪或不當話語或不正確言論, 多多包涵, 同時請記得, 你都係人, 你都會有觀點偏差ge時候, 將心比心.
(1)報販ok, 反駁唔到, 但你可以叫政府立多D保護低收入人士的立案, 但非反加煙稅
然後咩叫尊重吸煙權利? 佢又冇全面禁煙, 只不過將價錢提高, 以降低需求.
有讀過經濟的人都會知道加稅係目前眾多國家採取的最有效法案. 要人地尊重吸煙權利, 你地又有冇尊重過非吸煙人士的權利?
我出街最憎就係經過垃圾筒. 一定有人打緊邊爐, 臭到無倫. 第2最憎前面戈個係煙剷, 就算佢唔係食緊, 我都可以聞到戈陣煙臭.
日日吸埋依D二手煙, 一個唔小心肺癌真係唔知怪邊個. 我再加一個例子, 假如你隔離戈過有哮喘, 聞到你d煙發作又唔好彩冇藥係身死左,你算唔算間接謀殺?
屌得好呀！
公共醫療負擔不僅限於金錢不足,
人手不足等問題不是政府投放更多金錢即可立時解決的問題
減少病人對舒緩公共醫療的負擔的幫助是無容置疑的
我認為加煙稅並非無效,只是政府做的政策不夠完善
首先,煙稅應逐少增加,而非大幅增加
這只會令無法立刻戒煙的煙民轉而購買私煙
逐少提高煙草價格可給予一個經濟誘因給煙民去戒煙
亦可令低下階層逐漸適應無煙生活
政府更可加建公共休憩設施,提供其他娛樂給低下階層
反正現在公共休憩設施不足
同時,政府應大力打擊私煙,使加煙稅成效事半功倍
懲教署方面亦可因特殊需要,減低煙草價格加幅,
維持監獄規序的同時亦鼓勵戒煙。
煙產当然反對加煙价啦！
i think you have misunderstood my comment. I SUPPORT the idea that RICH people should pay a HIGHER tax rate to CONTRIBUTE to the society they live in. I did not say people that smoke should get a lower priority in the NHS. Your arguments are analogous
your stereotyping and discrimination shown in your comment has shown nothing other than the worst of what Britain can offer. A person like u shouldnt be representing the nation of Britain.
Ha. If adding tax is an attempt of the government to mould the habits of the populace, the idea of "imposing smoking bans" (which u raised and indicated support) would almost definitely change the habits of the populace, namely the smoking populace. It does not matter what I think, since youre the one suggesting and supporting the idea of "smoking bans".
Increasing cigarettes Tax is proven, in many developed and developing countries, an effective way to decrease smoking rate. He is just talking crap that appeals to people. He is just playing with people's emotions in order to gain support.
Please do some research before saying something unintelligent.
香港政府財政每年千億盈餘，增加煙稅有助舒緩公共醫療的負擔，絕對是個低智笑話。「吸煙危害他人健康」(an impact upon third party )，無可爭議，但政府容許煙民付出更多煙稅後，則可奉旨繼續危害third party健康，這種施政邏輯思維你怎會不認為荒謬絕倫？
Extending your logic, I will use an example of your own country. I am aware of the vehicle tax system in britain. I believe the tax rate on vehicles are related to their CO2 emissions. If ur car pollutes more, you pay more. Would u argue that your great government is being unfair? Would you argue that ur "government is discriminating against what people have contributed to society"? By asking ppl take responsibility for their actions, the government is being the OPPOSITE, it is BEING FAIR.
Please give me a elaborated idea on how smoking bann will not change people's habit. The complete ban of smoking limits the places which i person can smoke, this means that the habits of smoking is changed. Furthermore, a complete ban in smoking will have no effect on "helping" smokers, since they can stil smoke as much as they want at home/in their car etc. Where raising tax can even increase gvt. revenue which can be used to rehabilitate/cover medical cost of smoking.
我曾經打電話到電台風烟節目，攪來做甚麽？市民會多謝你嗎，你祇會被一些滿口人義嘅人借題發輝駡你。不過你唔做，到時有好多市民因食煙而死，那些滿口仁義議員又講另一套，你個政府冇良心，眼見這麽多市民因食烟而死，原全唔做嘢，你應加重税，未必另那些烟民唔買烟，最少另佢哋覺得烟貴，食少些，完全唔做嘢。我明白的，這些江湖老議員，房屋，醫療，經濟都唔識，唔係靠這樣，靠甚樣攞選票。這個世界永遠都係，窮人多，蠢人仲多。滿口仁義，這套嘢，幾時用都掂。
拉我一個人，拉唔到千千億億的中國
人
唔怪得依家啲人郁吓都mma
In your original argument you sed the government shouldnt "interfer in people's affairs by trying to mould the habits of the populace unnecessarily through policies". Its really interesting that u think raising the cigarette tax will "mould the habits of the populace" more than "smoking bans", given that smoking bans already exist within hong kong, in which further increasing these bans will arguably leave smokers no place other than their homes to smoke.
Your argument is interesting. If you study basic economics, you would know that cigarettes are something called "demerit goods". The consumption of these goods causes negative externalities. Negative externalities IMPOSES AN IMPACT UPON A THIRD PARTY. To give you a rough idea, excessive smokers go to a governmental clinic and uses its service, burdening the public health care system in hong kong, which has already been burdened by chinese pregnancy, limited supply of doctors and aging population
改變生活環境，就不會有人吸煙。吸煙是一個傳統！tradition。是中國和外國的一個文化。
打把有錢佬都食雪茄 根本唔關生活環境事 話係傳統仲好笑 咁吸毒係唔係傳統啊 仲學人講英文 咪笑死人啦
I think it is you who needs to educate yourself. No one is disputing that increasing tax rate for tobacco reduces the smoking rate just as increasing tax for alcohol reduces alcohol consumption. The issue has to do with liberty and the government not interfering in people's affairs by trying to mould the habits of the populace unnecessarily through policies.
支持林大慶批評反對禁烟者，是公共衛生為敵正確，增加医療負担!黄毓民無知也!❤
and also in other "true democracy country" (contrary to the "fake" democracy in HK), countries like USA, UK, other EU countries (maybe not France) have deployed similar measures against the increasing rate of smoking.
I support the smoking ban as a matter of fairness not because it changes people's habits. Non-smokers have a right to not be affected by second-hand smoke, which is proven to be harmful, in public places. That is a distinct difference in my position you have not grasped.
You have misread my comment. Saying I support x because of y and not because of effect z does not mean I don't acknowledge z.
Raising taxes can obviously have benefits but the important question is how much the taxes should be raised. I oppose raising taxes in HK because it violates the principle of fairness on two levels. Firstly, the government cannot favour one group (anti-smoking) over the other (smokers), and secondly smokers are likely to be working class which unfairly penalises a class.
I am well-acquainted with the argument you are presenting. The NHS of the UK is also under increasing strain due to obesity, alcohol and tobacco related illnesses, but it does not follow that just because people have the right to not be negatively affected by the habits of others, as a principle of fairness, that taxes for ciggarettes should go up. Using your example of the health service one could argue fatty foods, sweets, and alcohol are "negative externalities".
As a mater of fact, The consumption of alcohol does indeed generate negative externalities. This is partly the reason why they receive extra/higher tax than non-alcoholic drinks in most countries. (Including hong kong previously).
good
I live in Scotland which was one of the first countries to impose the "smoking bans". I am in support of this and evidence shows that it has been effective in reducing the number of smokers to a small degree. That's a far more effective measure than raising taxes which is always the government's first solution that penalises a large segment of the population under the pre-tense of improving health. Moreover, Yuk-man gives an example of how doing that might not even stop people from smoking.
I said that raising taxes is an attempt of the government to mould the habits of the populace not that it necessarily will. Do you think it is a good thing that people are forced to only smoke at home?
Should the topic be rising the tax rate on cigarettes? Looks like spent more time on Dr. Lam.
岩呀
good++++++++++
your arguments have become desperate. speaking of fairness, I will give you an example: the people who pays the most income tax are the people who earn the most, however, it is the working class that uses government the most (i.e. health care, facilities, well-fare etc.). is that fair? you would argue that it is because the government takes the role of moderating the classes. similarly, smokers should pay for their own pollution and the burden they have cost the health care.
Well, he never said he don’t agree on increasing Tabacco tax, he’s saying he cannot agree on adding tabacco tax which is higher than critical point, which is higher than the price of ketamine. He’s saying this is not a solution, but creating serval problems more in the future.
做立法局議員，要好有思想。。。想錯，講錯，做錯，快D出局啦，有D立心不良議員，市民睇穿你啦，你古人治的政府一定做得正確咩！
而家冇gala, 垃圾23
語無倫次譁眾取寵
@SamNichols501
何解呢？
smoking will impair other people's health, raise public medical spending!
我真係好憎D鏡頭影到D懶人係度訓覺,訓覺就唔好做番屋企訓啦,屌你
宜家有好多朋友都兼做私煙售賣速遞，都幾好揾㗎!不過要好醒目!賣假煙嘅已經發咗轉行囉!多謝特府!
食煙係冇問題，呼出嚟嘅二手煙，不可乎自己吞返， 真係影響人好臭
佢唔係"都可以" 係一直都係 只不過大多數人將焦點放左係佢既行為上面
你搵個事例，原來人有會由食煙轉食糖的話，咁我個腦咪裝屎囉。
我的工作一天起碼12小時，有時間更通宵，工作時間長，想戒煙就好難，精神和壓力太大，唔食支煙冷靜冷靜好容易就去跳樓，有啲野諗極都諗唔通，就會出外面食煙吹吹風，如果唔係望住幅牆on膠膠，我15歲就食煙，今年45，每日食兩包，食左30年身體無乜特別病痛，所謂有害健康足足害30年都唔死，都唔知算唔算有害
你無事唔代表其他人無事
大麻平撚過煙
打錯標題
k仔貴過煙-.-
唔係平咩?
講得真好 人民英雄
💥每包煙有$38蚊係稅款💥
今年9月, 請投人民力量一票~!!
今年9月, 請投人民力量一票~!!!
今日睇番 煙仔已過百
一包糖都好平～點解無青少年唔食煙轉食糖的可能性
黄毓民你永远是我的偶像
你講緊自己嗎?
支持黃議員
太對了
點白癡法呢? 願聞其詳。
你說我是黃毓民嗎？
你食糖上腦？
毓民,我燒包烟比你!
你識人太小～
追加追加撞死人撞死人禁酒咁走
怪唔之得我买曼宝路甘贵
This bunch of MP is like gansters!
hhahahaahah Raymond is so good
I Love the part at 8:55.
毓民仲可以講到幾多年野呢。。你聽下佢，唔夠氣了
快退休
Yeah, harbour city.
虊駕更大獲
中79
唔食煙都唔會去索k掛？兩樣野唔同概念個窩？