UK Smoking License?

[PepperElf]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm

Apparently there's talk in the UK of having people pay £10 to get a license to smoke.

'£10 licence to smoke' proposed

Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way.

No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England.

wow.



(figured it'd end up too political to be at cs)

[Greenday]

I honestly don't see it as something you can completely ban. Sure, it's horrible for you and horrible for everyone else because it's polluting the air, but still. It's too big a part of society to charge people licenses to do it.

[MadMike]

Just another money grab by the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Rapscallion]

I'm anti-smoking, yet I'm fully with Mike on this - cigarettes are a major source of income for the UK government. They've had to campaign to reduce the number of smokers, and that hurts income.

However, this is just an idea put forward by someone who isn't even a member of the government. It may be that he's suggesting it on their clandestine behalf to test the waters, but generally speaking it's just someone not in a position of real power mouthing off.

Rapscallion

[Lace Neil Singer]

What's next, a licence to drink? Have children? Breathe? I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, cuz it smacks of totalitarianism. Whoever suggested it should be stoned to death with cigarette packs.

[Greenday]

Have children?

I don't think that one would be too bad an idea.

[Flyndaran]

What's next, a licence to drink? Have children? Breathe? I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, cuz it smacks of totalitarianism. Whoever suggested it should be stoned to death with cigarette packs.

Do you consider every ostensibly anti-drug law totalitarianistic?

[Boozy]

It would basically be a luxury tax. I don't have problems with high fees and taxes on things that we a) don't need, and b) are bad for us. Ideally, the government should use revenue gained from cigarettes to cut taxes or fees on things that we do need and are good for us, like income and property.

[Evandril]

The US already has a good deal of taxes on cigs, which would serve the same purpose for less hassle, IMO.

[MadMike]

Do you consider every ostensibly anti-drug law totalitarianistic?

I can't speak for her, but I do. I don't think it's any of the government's damn business what I choose to put into my own body.

[Boozy]

I can't speak for her, but I do. I don't think it's any of the government's damn business what I choose to put into my own body.

I agree, which is why I don't think cigarettes should be made illegal.

But we do have to tax something (if we want road, schools, national defense etc) so why not tax something we'd prefer that people not do? It's a nice disincentive to smoking. Some people might quit. Others may not, but then they are providing the revenue to fuel tax cuts for things that are better for society, like school tuition.

But either way, it's the individual's choice. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy cigarettes. If you want to continue smoking, you can do so, but you are then forced to recognize the full economic weight of your decision. A lot of productivity is lost every year due to smoking, whether it be due to tobacco-caused illnesses or just incessant smoke breaks. And that's just in the US; in countries with fully socialized health care, there's a massive cost to tax payers due to smoking. Smoking is expensive to society, and smokers should have to pay the piper.

With that said, the license itself seems a bit silly. I agree with Evandril. Taxes serve the same purpose with less hassle.

[crazylegs]

I can't speak for her, but I do. I don't think it's any of the government's damn business what I choose to put into my own body.

I'd say it is, especially when the Government pays for my healthcare. It is in their interests to prevent the population from ingesting harmful chemicals that will result in a great expense, especially when that great expense can be better spent elsewhere.

[Boozy]

Giving the state control of our bodies is far too high a price to pay for socialized healthcare, and thankfully, that's not how it works.

If the government could dictate what I ate, when and if I got pregnant, and how I lived my life just because tax dollars paid for my medical treatment, I'd be the biggest opponent of socialized health care there is.

[MadMike]

I'd say it is, especially when the Government pays for my healthcare. It is in their interests to prevent the population from ingesting harmful chemicals that will result in a great expense, especially when that great expense can be better spent elsewhere.

But where does it end? Should we also allow the government to tell us we can't eat any sort of unhealthy foods, engage in any sort of sport or activity where injury or even death is a possibility, or have unprotected sex?

There's far too much government intrusion as there is. The last thing we need is more of it.

[protege]

Just another money grab by the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Damn, I just hope the idiots in Harrisburg don't see this thread....