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

sure they could cut alot of the crap that's put into cigarettes though

Well, I think it's true that smokers add a great deal of tax revenue to the Exchequer's coffers. If they banned it, there would be a considerable time-lag between the cutting off of the tax revenue and the resulting change in demands on NHS resources, because smoking-related diseases can appear years after someone gives up.

And, as we all know, politicians don't really 'do' long-term thinking, do they?

nope, with politicians it's all about a quick fix isnt it. The tax revenue argument doesnt stand up morally anyway - ie:allow people to engage in an activity that's proven to be harmful and tax the asses off them too..... I think if were a smoker the thought that I was being right royally screwed would make me wanna give up!

since when did politicians care if an argument stood up morally?

'Well, I think it's true that smokers add a great deal of tax revenue to the Exchequer's coffers. If they banned it, there would be a considerable time-lag between the cutting off of the tax revenue and the resulting change in demands on NHS resources, because smoking-related diseases can appear years after someone gives up.'

policywonk-thats what happened to my nan,who died of lung cancer last year,more than 30 years after she quit smoking

hercules1-your earlier post about banning chewing gum,i have managed to cut down from 20 fags a day to 10 by chewing(normal)gum,please dont take that from me as well!

as for smoking in your own home only,my dh thinks thats going to be the next thing the goverment bring in,but what about people with children?isnt it almost as bad as smoking in a car?

The real myth is that smokers are a burden on the NHS.

Smokers get sick and die young. All cost is for a relatively short period of time. The real burden to NHS is those who live to an old age. They have their operations, hip replacements, eye surgeries, parkinson's, etc and assorted pills even before the real diseases kick in. Then NHS pays for the non-smoker octogenarian's cancer just like the smoker who died of it thirty years younger.

roll on private health care, i'm so sick of the 'i pay my taxes, yet shouldn't help out the sick if they caused the illness because they smoked/were obese/were addicted to drugs/gambing/homeless' mindset.

DivaStrop - I'm not suggesting anyone should be forced to smoke in their own home!! There is a choice here!!

Not all smokers die young Cote. Some of them keep going for years - albeit not very healthily. Yeah, the very old can be a real burden too. But then I guess you dont choose to grow old

oh fgs alfiesbabe, something has to kill you and some day something will

yeap that's very true southeast. Not sure what point you're trying to make by that statement tho

alfie - If you look at the numbers, you will see that it is a small minority of smokers who live to an old age and that the cost of the smoker per person is smaller than the cost of the non-smoker old person.

I didn't say the old non-smoker is to be blamed. Just that he costs more to the NHS than the smoker.

Dunno the stats Cote - because I guess you'd have to factor in all the costs of a smoker's illness before they eventually fall off the perch.
But what surprises me is that this thread seems to be arguing all about costs which I find a little odd..... shouldnt it be about encouraging our society to become smoke-free because actually it's a pretty crappy thing to do. I've yet to meet anyone who wants their children to smoke. (Even if the parent does )

If you dunno the stats, why don't you look'em up?

Encouraging is one thing, criminalizing, pressuring, patronizing, segregating, and stigmatizing is another.

I would if I wanted to. But as I said, I don't think this is an argument just about money. We could de-criminalise all sorts of other toxic substances and slap a huge tax on them, but that wouldnt necessarily be a good thing to do.

i take it we do still live in a free country? people have the right to choose if they smoke or not. Everybody knows its bad for you, everbody knows its a waste of money, if people have this information and still choose to do its up to them. Should we also ban drink? Kills loads costs nhs a fortune, what aboutfast food? not exactly healthy? We need to let people make up their own minds. And cotedazur is right, smokers pay more into the nhs than non smokers and they take out less.

You 'dunno the stats' and also don't want to look them up. Yet you say smokers live long, too

I'm going to bed

A ban on cigarettes is likely to be just as successful as the ban on drugs.

nancy - smoking is different because it is insanely addictive. People don't appreciate, when they start, how difficult it is going to be to stop. Yes, junk food and sugar and endorphin highs from exercise are all addictive too, but they aren't as addictive as nicotine, and the people who indulge in those things don't die in such large proportions.

Also, it's one thing to say 'smokers know how dangerous it is and they're making a free choice'; it's another thing to be told that you're dying and there's bugger all you can do about it (because a shamefully small proportion of cancer research funds are dedicated to lung cancer, but that's a whole other rant). My mother is a fiercely intelligent woman, and five years ago she would have wiped the floor with anyone who told her that she didn't have the right to make a choice to smoke. But when she was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, her words to me were 'This is a hell of a price to pay for a filthy habit'. People always think that they will avoid the really serious consequences - it's human nature.

IMO far more damage is done to our society as a whole by under age drinking, adults binge drinking, and life long alcoholics. The government should ban drinking alcohol in all public places including restaurants, pubs and clubs.......Now doesnt that sound utterly ridiculous? Ridiculous enough to happen I think.

oh FGS Cote - you're the one who started on about stats. Yes, I will look them up if I choose to, but actually as I said I don't think the argument is about money anyway. You think it is, so the stats are relevant to your argument. I don't.
And yes some smokers, as I said, do live long. I didnt say they all do - it's fairly common knowledge that on average they dont live as long as non smokers.
Nite!

but then people say, 'oh, but they can drink alcohol and not affect my health the way passive smoking does.'

well, that's assuming they don't get behind the wheel and hit you with their car whilst driving drunk or become physically aggressive with you after becoming violent on alcohol.

let's make everyone pay for a license for everything that could be permanently damaging - alcohol, fast food, junk food, smokes, etc.

Dixi - I agree that underage drinking and binge drinking are really harmful. But quoting other harmful things doesnt change the argument about smoking!
Also, I do think there is a subtle difference in that alcohol in appropriate quantities is not harmful per se, whereas tobacco in any quantity is.