YT2095 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 they`re going TOO FAR now! there has been proposed, a License to Smoke now! you`ll have to pay 10 GBP and fill in a Deliberately over-complicated form once a year just to buy Cigs! not only that but: "The paper also proposes incentives for large companies to provide a daily "exercise hour" for employees and a ban on salt in processed food." taken from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/15/smoking.health http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/7247470.stm http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article809014.ece what next, a Beer drinking Licence, a gay sex permit, a Salt license? this is just Sooo wrong on so many different levels, I don`t know where to start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I'll reserve judgment until they actually pass this. As it stands, it doesn't seem likely anything more than a good intention having potential negative (almost Orwellian) consquences. I think this thing will not pass, but if it does, I'll have a fair amount of angst to express. If anyone disagrees with the law, maybe they can mandate a prefrontal lobotomy on them too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 its definitely edging on a 1984 scenario now. either they make tobacco illegal, or they don't. half measures never work and both sides end up angry about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 What exactly would qualify you to buy a smoking license? A degree in stupidity? Suicide methodoloy training? How about a smoking certification? "Why yes, I do hold a Master Smoking Technician certification from RJR-Nabisco!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 It seems that it is just one more step in trying to slowly phase out smoking. In many cities here, smoking in public places is illegal. With the new rules, fewer people will start smoking and more people will stop which will increase the overall heath of the people(not only the smokers get cancer from smoke). what next, a Beer drinking LicenceI'm not sure if that's a slippery slope or a strawman-maybe a little bit of both. Beer drinking by itself doesn't affect the health of other people; smoking does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 What exactly would qualify you to buy a smoking license? A degree in stupidity? so what are you saying, are you calling Me and Sayo "Stupid"? we`re Both smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I've never understood smokers. Talk about N-A-S-T-Y! Of course, maybe the fact that my mother (a smoker) helped my father die much earlier from lung cancer has something to do with it, but it just seems like such a pointless pursuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I'm not sure if that's a slippery slope or a strawman-maybe a little bit of both. Beer drinking by itself doesn't affect the health of other people; smoking does. By that reasoning, drinking alcohol deserves a license over smoking...surely alcohol related violence, traffic accidents et.c would be more applicable to a license, than smoking, which is already banned in public places. I certainly agree with the ban in public areas, but this license is just another means for the government to get some extra money, and with such a genius idea as to, 'making the form tricky to fill in', I can really see such an idea working...not. How are the government going to know if I'm a smoker or not...random nicotine checks on the whole population, how can you enforce such a license, it's a really lame idea. Unless they're going to ban it altogether, the current policies on smoking are fine, other people aren't affected by second-hand smoke, the tax on cigarettes is huge and a good source of revenue, and for people who enjoy a cigarette, their few minutes of pleasure from a stressful day are preserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 it`s all Middle/Upper class Snobbery! take a look at the Budget Taxation records, what get`s a battering each year? Cigs and Beer! the Working Class "Luxuries", it rarely to never goes on Whiskey or Wine or Cigars, only Beer and cigs! do NOT be fooled by ANYONE that tells you there is No Longer a "class system" in the UK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 so what are you saying, are you calling Me and Sayo "Stupid"? we`re Both smokers. Well, I'd prefer not to say that outright myself but I do notice in the thesaurus that "smart" is an antonym of "stupid" and I certainly would not claim that smoking is a smart thing to do, I think it's quite the opposite. Would you claim it a smart thing to do? BTW, I smoked for 25 years and I freely admit how stupid I was for doing so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 the ACT of smoking maybe stupid yes, but then that WASN`T what was said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 In an interesting article to which I cannot link (can't find it anymore) some economists claimed that the ban on smoking is costing a lot of money. The reasoning goes something like this: Smokers get lung cancer, which costs money (medical care). Then they die. Non-smokers get old, which costs a lot more money. They are receiving medical care and other care for elderly people for a very long time. Just thought that this is interesting because a lot of people are saying that the expensive cigarettes are a way to get more tax. A smoking ban might actually cost the state some money. (That all depends on the medical system you have of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 Cigs here are 2272% Tax! they cost 22pence a pack to make and sell, but COST over 500Pence (5 pounds), the excess is All tax! Beer is just as bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 In an interesting article to which I cannot link (can't find it anymore) some economists claimed that the ban on smoking is costing a lot of money. This one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Cigs here are 2272% Tax! they cost 22pence a pack to make and sell, but COST over 500Pence (5 pounds), the excess is All tax! I think the licensing is unnecessary. The individual cost coupled with the health risks for longer-lived modern humans should be enough for most people. I wish we'd increase the taxes here accordingly. Having to pay US$10 for one pack would be enough for even the stupidest American to quit. [/14 years smoke-free gloating] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 it`s all Middle/Upper class Snobbery! It reminds me of the end of a short tour in Nazca, where the guide was explaining the lifestyle of the mining communities of the surrounding area. He pointed out that the majority of miners make the work more bearable, by drinking Pisco (an alcoholic drink) and chewing on coca leaves, in moderation. This pompous old so and so, on the tour was disgusted by this, and immediately got on his moral high ground and stated that it was 'utterly wrong that workers are encouraged to indulge in intoxicating substances' without any thought into the lack of choice of work in that area, and of course, the hideous working conditions these men had to endure day after day. The guide made it abundantly clear (he was quite upset by this) that starving the working class of creature comforts, which make their job more bearable especially in such pitiful working conditions, is clearly more morally questionable, when that decision is based on some irrational standard that you (the pompous guy) has...which IIRC received a small ripple of applause. Now I realize this is a more extreme example, but it's precisely this type of attitude that doesn't even consider the working class little luxuries that make day to day living more enjoyable. Smoking has been quite rightly banned in public places, that's as far as it should be taken, unless a complete ban is put forward...but perish the thought of the government losing out on all that revenue, supplied by cigarettes and beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 ...but perish the thought of the government losing out on all that revenue, supplied by cigarettes and beer.[/color]Aye, there's the rub. Once a government gets the books set up to use that revenue they can be quite stupid themselves about it. I'm reminded of the way the US imposed emission controls on autos and required imports to be retro-fitted with catalytic converters and PCV valves as they came into the country. I don't know if they still do it this way but they used to require the cars to be retro-fitted and *then* tested. Many imports, especially those from Germany, actually tested better *before* the conversion but the government didn't want to lose the revenue from Porsches and Mercedes and BMWs by testing them first to see if they passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 so what are you saying, are you calling Me and Sayo "Stupid"? we`re Both smokers. I didn't phrase that very well, but I was talking about politically correct memes. I don't think it's very smart to smoke, but I completely agree with your OP -- licensing is a ridiculous, nanny-state action. I tried to defend smokers from the sketchy second-hand smoke claims in this thread about a 18 months ago and got ripped apart by people who seemed to take the position that almost any anti-smoking action was legitimate. I'd love to see their reaction to this thread -- I wonder if they would support this licensing thing. At any rate, this reply from Swansont in that thread would seem to be relevent to the licensing question: Do you accept that wearing seat belts and lower driving speeds save lives? Will licensing smokers statistically save lives? If so you'd better man up and go get two wallet-size photos made, cuz this is gonna happen whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 and what of our Tourist trade? you get a yank come over here and wants some smokes only to be told Nope, you don`t have a Permit! I can see That going down Very well can`t you!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I wish we'd increase the taxes here accordingly. Having to pay US$10 for one pack would be enough for even the stupidest American to quit. [/14 years smoke-free gloating] I don't think that would work too well here. At least in places that are nearby a Native American nation (like Seneca), would be able to go there to purchase tax-free cigs and gas. The government doesn't like that, but that's the treaty they made. I don't know if there are other such mini-nations in the US that don't have to pay taxes, but then few people seem to know about such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhDP Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 High taxes + ban on smoking where it can hurt other people = enough for me. I don't like the idea of a license. If smoking only affects the smoker, and if he's paying for the smoking-attributable health care costs, then it’s not my business. ...but come on, it's definitely not "fascism". Anyway, smokers are already killing themselves, no need for a final solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The thing is, this seems to violate the whole concept of licensing. The purpose of permits is to ensure OTHER people's safety, not the one carrying the permit. Okay it's maybe a LITTLE bit about the license-holder, but the point here doesn't seem to be about second-hand smoke, it seems to be about ensuring that the license-holder knows that smoking is not only bad for them, but that it has no redeeming worth whatsoever. It's pure demonization. So doesn't that automatically make it a "nanny-state" rule? Isn't the ENTIRE purpose of this suggestion SOLELY about beating up smokers? Let me guess -- you have to wear the license on your forehead at all times, right? There's a great big scarlet "S" stamped on your shirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 it seems to be about ensuring that the license-holder knows that smoking is not only bad for them, but that it has no redeeming worth whatsoever. It's pure demonization. So doesn't that automatically make it a "nanny-state" rule? Isn't the ENTIRE purpose of this suggestion SOLELY about beating up smokers? Are the laws against doing illegal drugs "nanny-state" rules? It seems to be about making sure we know that they are not only bad for us, but that they have no redeeming worth whatsoever. It's pure demonization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 Are the laws against doing illegal drugs "nanny-state" rules? It seems to be about making sure we know that they are not only bad for us, but that they have no redeeming worth whatsoever. It's pure demonization. that`s either the Worst strawman arg EVER or the finest example of non sequitur equivocation this forum`s Ever seen. Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 As much as I disagree with the approach of this proposal, to call it demonization completely misses the mark. It's about making it more difficult for smokers, not impossible. One or more of the articles YT referenced in the OP mention the concept of making them "opt-in." This is an important concept, as it drives away those who are only luke warm on the idea of smoking (most will choose to "opt-out" or avoid "opting-in"), it still allows those who wish to continue to smoke to do so by "opting-in," and it also brings in additional money to the state. Again, I completely disagree with the approach (strikes me as one of those "road to hell is paved with good intentions" things), but it's not about demonization, it's about making the choice to smoke (to opt-in) that much more salient and that much more conscious than just arriving at the petrol shop and asking for a pack. Addiction is an interesting phenomenon, and we tend to move it forward half-consciously. The neural mechanisms of addiction and choice are pretty significantly interlinked. Again, while I don't think that this is the proper approach, it's truly amazing how the choices we make in life are impacted when we must actually spend some additional time contemplating and thinking about them, or jumping through a few adminstrative hoops to successfully realize their outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now