View Full Version : A licence to smoke?
Dymetrie
20-02-2008, 10:43
Michael in the office just mentioned that he read about this in the paper, so I had a quick look on BBC and found this:
WTF!!!?? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7247470.stm)
Now I don't want to get into the whole smoking/non-smoking debate again, but just pose the question.
"Is it just me or this a load of ********?"
And where does it stop?
What's next, a licence to drink? a licence to have sex? a licence to breath?
*wanders off shaking his head in despair*
Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco
So what about non smokers who buy tobacco? I buy cigarettes for a resident in the home - he has no way of being able to get to the shops. Yeah, ok, I could probably get work to pay for this "permit" but then that involves my name/photo/details/whatever being recorded as being a "smoker". And what if I'm off sick/on holiday? Also I would have thought, it should be the smoker (the resident) who pays.
He added that the people most affected by the proposals would be "the elderly and people on low incomes".
The current weekly "allowance" from a pension is £20.45 - this is what the government say a person can use for "luxuries" (this includes things like toiletries, hairdressing, chiropody as well as cigarettes etc), all the rest is generally claimed back by social services to pay for residential or nursing care costs. My resident smokes 100 mayfair a week which is around £22 - it doesn't take a mathematician to see there is already a problem.
Smoking is not a good thing - someone very close to me is currently dying of lung cancer, but I do think this idea hasn't actually been thought through properly.
The only thing I agree with is licences for having children.
Some of the stories recently in the news shout out for it.
BB x
The only thing I agree with is licences for having children.
Agreed lots
Dymetrie
20-02-2008, 11:59
Some further linkage supplied by my sister :)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/18/guardiancolumnists)
Good news for smokers: Le Grand reckons said licence should cost only 10. Bad news: he wants to make the application process as deliberately complex as possible. You'd have to fill out a lengthy form, attaching a photograph, proof of age and a fee, and send it all to a central Smoker's Permit processing centre and wait for your licence to come back, by which point, let's face it, you would have probably died. Oh, and the licence expires after a year, so you have to apply all over again each time it runs out.
Why leave it there? Why not make it expire every 24 hours, so you have to reapply each morning? Or include a Sudoku on the application form? Or force the tobacco companies to sell cigarettes inside complicated Japanese puzzle boxes? Or change the name of the brands each week, without publicising the change, while simultaneously making it illegal for a shop to sell you anything you haven't asked for by name, so you have to stand at the counter fishing for codewords for an hour?
Or here's a good one, Julian: make it a requirement for smokers to walk around with a broomhandle stuck through their sleeves, running behind the neck, so their arms are permanently splayed out, like a scarecrow's. To spark up under those conditions, they'd have to work together in pairs, flailing around in the outdoor smoking area like something out of It's a Knockout.
*giggles*
I read that article yesterday as I was sorting out PR for us.
Weird.
BB x
Stan_Lite
20-02-2008, 12:59
This is just utterly ridiculous, as if the smoking ban wasn't bad enough. The smoking ban had the potential to be a good idea but failed to deliver a rational and sensible solution to the issue of smoking in public places due to the nanny government introducing an unnecessarily draconian blanket ban.
If they give serious thought to this idea, they will find that there will be hell to pay. I grudgingly accepted the ban as I could see the reasoning behind it, even if I did disagree with the way in which it was done. With this however, I will not accept it as I can see no practical reason why this would work better than other ways to cut down the number of people smoking. I will fight this one and join any protest activities I can to show my disgust. This is another money making scheme for the government. Claims that the money will go to the NHS are laughable, all of the money raised will go towards policing the stupid scheme.
On the subject of policing, how will they go about it? Tak has already pointed out one flaw - Here's another; I buy all of my tobacco from Amsterdam airport, how will they police this? Will they try to get agreement from every country in the world to check the licences of every British holidaymaker or businessman/woman who travels through their country or will they have HMRC officers stopping everybody and checking for cigarettes and asking for the licence of anybody who is carrying any?
I sincerely hope the government aren't stupid enough to give this tinpot scheme any credence :angry::angry:
/Rant over.
Considering I buy most of my cigarette's from abroad, I can't see how they are going to make me pay for a licence. Since we have an apartment in Bulgaria I'll just make sure that anyone who is going over brings me back a few hundred each time and I'll make sure that I bring back as many as I can fit in my suitcase. Well done whose idea this is, you've just lost out on a ton of money from me.
What's next, a licence to drink?
(Tis Faysh)
Listening to the news on the radio yesterday this would be a very good idea.
They are starting a crackdown on the binge drinking culture we have in the UK. To "help" they are talking of stopping happy hours, drinks promotions and cheap deals on booze and increasing the tax on booze. Not only in pubs clubs and bars but in supermarkets too. Tesco have already stopped cheap deals apparently.
So because of the actions of a halfwitted drunken minority who don't know how to control themselves, sensible drinkers with more than half a brain cell like us get punished.
The only thing I agree with is licences for having children.
AMEN to that. It's odd that one of the most important and challenging jobs out there is one of the least regulated. Granted, its a bit hard to enforce....but the idea is cool.
Kamikaze_Pigeon
12-06-2008, 01:39
They've just introduced a similar kind of thing over here...just for vending machines though
http://www.taspo.jp/english/taspo/Introduction.html
tis pretty cool actually....you can charge the card up with money and use to buy your smokes
I may be as anti-smoking as they come, but I can see the benefit of that. Maybe something similar should be considered here instead of the restrictions on vending machines I think they're planning.
TBH, I wish there was a full ban.
That's just me being very selfish though.
With regards to the actual license.. despite set up fees and cost to run it, I think it's a fair idea. They need to iron out some problems which you have suggested but I am all for it. And yes yes yes, I know the counter argument is going to be "ooh well ban alcohol" etc etc but at least alcohol - within reason - isn't at all harmful. I would like to see a big scientific study to state otherwise when it comes to smoking. It's a pointless, crabby and stinky habit which infuriatingly funds us through taxes by uber amount, but is no good other than causing health problems thereafter... so anything to reduce that down is fab. Particularly if it makes it even harder for kiddies to start up.
Buut.
As you can tell I'm against smoking altogether so I don't think my opinions valid :p
Dymetrie
12-06-2008, 20:00
TBH, I wish there was a full ban.
Totalitarianism? Nanny state? Should I go on?
With regards to the actual license.. despite set up fees and cost to run it, I think it's a fair idea.
The licence to smoke? Why? What makes you think it's a good idea rather than just another stupid level of bureaucracy to make it harder for people of this country to do what they want rather than be told what they can do?
And yes yes yes, I know the counter argument is going to be "ooh well ban alcohol"
Why single out alcohol? Rather than fatty foods, air travel, cars, laziness? All of these are unhealthy for both the person involved and others as well.
but at least alcohol - within reason - isn't at all harmful.
I beg your pardon? Alcohol is something which is abused far more than any other drug in this country. There are more proven deaths from alcohol abuse than from smoking. Whether this is from alcohol related diseases (which are far more definite than smoking related diseases), actions from someone who has abused alcohol (have you ever known someone to smoke 10 fags and then go and randomly beat the smeg out of a stranger? What about someone that's drunk 10 pints of Stella Artois...?), or people who stupidly drink and then drive and murder (yes, I said murder as it is pre-meditated) innocent people through their own stupidity.
It's a pointless, crabby and stinky habit which infuriatingly funds us through taxes by uber amount, but is no good other than causing health problems thereafter...
It's not pointless. Nicotine, whilst being a stimulant, is also a relaxant and is enjoyable. I don't expect you, or any other non-smoker, to understand why. But just because you don't understand the enjoyment from smoking doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
so anything to reduce that down is fab. Particularly if it makes it even harder for kiddies to start up.
This I actually agree with. Just because I am a hardened smoker doesn't mean that I think everyone should smoke. I actually discourage smoking in people and support those who have managed to stop. But I enjoy it, and will continue to do what I enjoy.
Buut.
As you can tell I'm against smoking altogether so I don't think my opinions valid :p
Your opinions are as valid as mine (as a smoker), but unfortunately I am being objective which you seem to have failed at.
Smoking is not a fantastic thing to do, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it is acceptable to impose my opinion on others, which is what a full smoking ban would be. I am all for discouraging people from starting smoking but I believe it is the choice of the individual.
Interestingly, smoking, and passive smoking, is less harmful than the pollution caused by cars (most notably in a city... You remember your black snot Pheebs?) which is at least as carcinogenic, if not more, than passive smoking. And as far as I am aware (I could be wrong, I accept that I probably am) there has only been one documented death from *possible* passive smoking, which was the late Roy Castle.
LeperousDust
12-06-2008, 20:19
Dym get off your box we can hear you :p
I'd rather they didn't ban smoking entirely, just keep it out my way unless i want to be in its way :) Which is pretty much what we have now and i'm happy with that. There are a few times i may want to "smoke" and i'd rather not have that taken away from me!
Smoking cigarettes to me seems pretty pointless, but if you want to do so out my way, i'm more than happy to back you.
Likewise. If people want to smoke in their own homes, let them. If they want to smoke outdoors, so long as it's not directly in my (or any other non-smoker's) face, let them. The ban has mostly put an end to indoor smoking and I'm appreciative of that. I'll continue my vendetta against smoking (not smokers) but that's as far as it goes.
The biggest thing action really does need to be taken on is underage smoking, and dealing with vending machines seems like a sensible part of that. I'm not saying ban them - just keep those who shouldn't out.
Firstly Dym - calm down dear! I only posted a short opinion which I *knew* would be dug at but not teared apart red raw :)
Totalitarianism? Nanny state? Should I go on?
Yes, please do ;) Joking joking. I think it should be illegal - it's just my opinion of it - other drugs are illegal - this one in my brain seems to fit well.
The licence to smoke? Why? What makes you think it's a good idea rather than just another stupid level of bureaucracy to make it harder for people of this country to do what they want rather than be told what they can do?
My main reason why is to help make it harder for kids to start up and yes, make it harder for people to smoke. If it was a full ban, yes Okay it means you can't smoke, but you can't take cocaine either (extreme here) and that's how I feel about it. I honestly wish it was made illegal and reckon in the future it will be. I am aware it's selfish and mean to those out there who do smoke but that's how *I* feel - as I understand and am not digging at you about you smoking!
Why single out alcohol? Rather than fatty foods, air travel, cars, laziness? All of these are unhealthy for both the person involved and others as well.
In these arguments it's always the main biggy that's thrown back....
I beg your pardon? Alcohol is something which is abused far more than any other drug in this country. There are more proven deaths from alcohol abuse than from smoking. Whether this is from alcohol related diseases (which are far more definite than smoking related diseases), actions from someone who has abused alcohol (have you ever known someone to smoke 10 fags and then go and randomly beat the smeg out of a stranger? What about someone that's drunk 10 pints of Stella Artois...?), or people who stupidly drink and then drive and murder (yes, I said murder as it is pre-meditated) innocent people through their own stupidity.
I think you didn't read my reply clearly. I said "within reason". Mostly everything is bad for you if not taken in moderation and with care - but smoking isn't. It's just plain bad for you - no question about it :)
I think you're well aware that I know what damage excessive alcohol drinking can do so I'm not condoning it and saying it's 100% safe as it's not. I'm not that dumb dym :)
It's not pointless. Nicotine, whilst being a stimulant, is also a relaxant and is enjoyable. I don't expect you, or any other non-smoker, to understand why. But just because you don't understand the enjoyment from smoking doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
There are other stimulants and relaxing activities that can be used that doesn't damage yours or anyones around you health. Plenty.
This I actually agree with. Just because I am a hardened smoker doesn't mean that I think everyone should smoke. I actually discourage smoking in people and support those who have managed to stop. But I enjoy it, and will continue to do what I enjoy.
Same goes :) You know I don't argue with smokers when they do smoke - I've been around you when you're smoking and not said anything about it - I am sad you enjoy it and want to do it but if people can and do I won't beat them up about it.
Your opinions are as valid as mine (as a smoker), but unfortunately I am being objective which you seem to have failed at.
You sound a little bit moody here :) Lighten up Mister Dymtree! I'm not digging at you and didn't want to post a huuuge response because it inevitably ends up going round in circles... so I just posted a brief opinion. I'm sorry I should have expanded more :)
Smoking is not a fantastic thing to do, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it is acceptable to impose my opinion on others, which is what a full smoking ban would be. I am all for discouraging people from starting smoking but I believe it is the choice of the individual.
Interestingly, smoking, and passive smoking, is less harmful than the pollution caused by cars (most notably in a city... You remember your black snot Pheebs?) which is at least as carcinogenic, if not more, than passive smoking. And as far as I am aware (I could be wrong, I accept that I probably am) there has only been one documented death from *possible* passive smoking, which was the late Roy Castle.
I really do understand your arguments I do do do. Please don't think I don't.
My argument stands alone that no matter what you say - smoking is bad for your health and others around. Yes, I agree, there are a lot more other things out there which are detrimental to our health but that doesn't stop the above fact from being true :)
*hugs* Please don't get wound up Dymmy!
Dymetrie
13-06-2008, 18:10
The licence to smoke? Why? What makes you think it's a good idea rather than just another stupid level of bureaucracy to make it harder for people of this country to do what they want rather than be told what they can do?
My main reason why is to help make it harder for kids to start up and yes, make it harder for people to smoke. If it was a full ban, yes Okay it means you can't smoke, but you can't take cocaine either (extreme here) and that's how I feel about it. I honestly wish it was made illegal and reckon in the future it will be. I am aware it's selfish and mean to those out there who do smoke but that's how *I* feel - as I understand and am not digging at you about you smoking!
As this is what the thread is actually about then this is what I shall respond to.
Having a licence to smoke will make very little difference to children, or anyone, starting smoking. What it will do is create more of an annoyance for everyone and cost a hell of a lot.
I know the original report said that the licence would cost a certain amount and would have to be renewed on a yearly basis. But you don't really think that will cover all the costs of setting up and running the system.
And what happens if there's a backlog of applications for renewal? You apply for your licence earlier than the recommended period but there are delays. Your licence expires and you can't buy any more cigarettes.
Of course you'll then do what everyone that doesn't want to pay/isn't eligible for the licence does and go and buy your cigarettes off some bloke in the pub that's just stocked up abroad.
And that's the problem with it.
If people want to smoke then they will. Children manage to buy cigarettes now and this will continue whether a licence is introduced or not. All the licence will do is add a further tax to smokers (who pay in excess of £8bn a year in tax already) and force people to go to illegitimate sources.
The only way to tackle the problem of smoking is to bolster up the laws around it. Make fines/penalties far higher for people who sell illegitimate goods, who sell to people who are underage, who supply tobacco to people who are underage and tighten up on the policing of this. That way the issue is addressed and it does not adversely effect those who are legally allowed to smoke.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.