A Licence to smoke?

[ivykaty44]

Would you start smoking if you had to go and get a licence to buy ciggy's? Although for people that already smoke I think it is a bit of a no no - for teenagers I think it may well decrease the youngesters from taking up the habit.

lifestyle.aol.co.uk/health/healthy-living/stop-smoking/call-for-annual-10-smoking-licence/article/20 080216092109990001

I thought the age had gone up to 18 for buying ciggy's?

DH buys from Eastern European work colleagues, Sue, and it's half the cost and the seller still profits.

Taxes, bans, now licenses?

Why not just make it illegal and be done with it rather than beating round the bush?

ratbunny license is the verb, licence the noun. Except in American English, where license is also the noun.

To the OP - I'm as rabid an anti-smoking ex-smoker as the next one, but I think it's an odd idea. Tbh I would much prefer the relatively draconian approach of banning it outside private homes.

'policywonk, you are just trying to neutralise opposition to your pov by suggesting that anyone who smokes is biased and that their opinion can be dismissed as "irrational". Cheap shot.'

I think this is unnecessarily aggressive, MsHighwater. Desi had posted (quite fairly) that my posts on this thread are influenced by my mother dying from lung cancer. I was simply pointing out that addiction, which is an emotional issue, will also affect people's posts, Desi's included.

I'm not trying to 'neutralise opposition', I'm having a debate.

Agree berolina. If people want to exercise the choice in their home, fine. Anywhere else belongs to other people too!!

Exactly, berolina!

Instead of continuing to dance round the fire, why not just show some balls, step up to the mic and ban it outside private homes.

It might be because of the tax revenue it generates, but don't quote me on that because I am not certain.

But it seems the best approach if you really want to cut rates.

thanks berolina! it was really bugging me!

If they did ban it, could you imagine all those smokers going cold turkey at the same time. it would be horrible!

basically, they dont want to ban it, as they get so much tax from it. I suppose making smokers apply to smoke legally, then the govt etc abdicate any responsibility.

maybe they would also use it as a means to not treat smokers for smokers diseases

I guess the argument against banning smoking outside private homes is that then all the smokers will smoke (a lot) at home, resulting in a big impact on ickle kiddies.

The guy who proposed this, Julian Le Grand, describes it as 'liberal paternalism': 'The government would leave people free to make their own decisions but it would "nudge them" in the right direction.'

Living in a city, you're constantly getting people's smoke blown at you in the streets, and it's not always easy to dodge. And I hate hate hate seeing fag butts on the ground in my beloved botanic garden (and having to screech to ds1 'DON'T TOUCH THAT').

Of course, the fag-butts-on-the-ground issue is really a litter and not a smoking one, but it does bother me how a lot of smokers 'expand' into all available public space ikywim. Making clear, you choose to smoke, you don't inflict it on anyone else, I think would be a step forward for society. Having a licence is more, IMO, for things that are good or inoffensive in themselves but need responsible handling - dogs, cars.

expat - I'm sure it's about tax revenue.

Probably the govt doesnt want to ban it.... but would still be nice for people to do it in their own homes, not in the fresh air.

policywonk, I'm sorry about your mum but I stand by what I said.

Having a debate is putting forward your point of view. Accusing those with an opposing view of bias (e.g. "they would say that, wouldn't they") is a way of trying to undermine them. I was seeking to point out that your implication (that those who oppose this suggestion are smokers and, thus, biased) is not well-founded. I oppose it on libertarian grounds. I no longer smoke so it would, arguably, be better for me if smoking were entirely banned so that I could never be exposed to the temptation to start again. But I would regard that as an unreasonably infringement of the rights of others. Which is how I view this licence idea.

I said that I guessed that a lot (NB not all) of the posters opposing the idea were tobacco addicts. That's hardly the same as asserting that you're all smokers and thus not entitled to an opinion.

To say that people's addictions will affect their attitudes towards policies that affect their addiction is hardly controversial.

And, again, I didn't bring it up to undermine anyone. I brought it up because it was the mirror image of what I was being accused of.

just smoke in their own homes? barmy idea.

just make it illegal
dirty dirty smokers

Ban smoking all together.

Dirty.

Disgusting.

Yuck.

the nhs would collapse without all the tax from smokers wouldn't it

But wouldnt it also counteract that by saving money because alot of problems are caused by smoking?

Er... exactly what is 'barmy' about people smoking in their own homes???

er... because it goes against all human rights to move about. it's addictive but legal. i don't particularly like bus fumes but we all have to live with it.

It doesnt go against any human rights to move about!! The ban on smoking in public buildings hasn't infringed any human rights. Nobody has a gun held to their head when they light up!
And I don't like bus fumes either - but at least a bus has a use.

As an ex-smoker myself, I find this idea of a 'smoking license' useless and patronizing.

Either ban smoking completely and treat it like a Class A drug, or give smokers some peace.

I think a lot of people feel like that CoteDAzur. It's an addictive, toxic drug which effects other people in the vicinity - just ban it rather than fannying about with licenses and crap.

they cant aford to ban it - smokers pay too much tax. if every smoker gave up tomorrow by tuesday there would discoveries of how good for you smoking is!

total myth i reckon that 'they' can't afford to ban it.