UK Smoking License?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Do you consider every ostensibly anti-drug law totalitarianistic?

Anti smoking is, cuz for your information, the first major smoking ban was spearheaded by Adolf Hitler. And if that breaks Godwin's Law, then I don't care, cuz it happens to be true.

Also, cigarette taxes go towards propping up the NHS, meaning that ironically, I and other smokers are in fact paying for you nonsmoker's healthcare.

Obesity puts a bigger strain on the NHS and government resources than anything else (with the elderly coming a close second, but you can't tax being old, cuz it's unavoidable); so, should there be a licience to gorge? Should obese people be charged for every single five stone overweight they are?

[PepperElf]

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.

come to new york.. they're considering obesity taxes... basically adding on taxes to unhealthy foods like non-diet soda and juice drinks that have less than x % juice.

personally i think people should take personal responsibility for what ever they chose to put inside their bodies, but hey that's me

[Evandril]

Anti smoking is, cuz for your information, the first major smoking ban was spearheaded by Adolf Hitler. And if that breaks Godwin's Law, then I don't care, cuz it happens to be true.

First off, hitler was evil. But the part people forget is he was also very much a genius...Just because he came up with an idea, does not make it wrong in and of itself. I don't agree with a ban on smoking, though I don't smoke m'self..But using 'hitler said so, so it must be wrong!' is not a valid arguement, IMO.

[Slytovhand]

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.

But but but.... it already does!

Ok - maybe not the pregnant bit, but certainly the other 2 you mentioned.

You are not free to do what you choose to do in society. You are told and have enforced various things about your life that we take for granted. There is legislation in place as to certain foods and their production and processing (certain chemicals must be used, or labels applied, and even things you aren't allowed to eat..anyone here allowed to eat, say, a dog or cat??). There are certain pets you aren't allowed to keep. There are places you aren't allowed to go, things you're not allowed to say, movies and TV you're not allowed to see.. and things you're not allowed to drink.

Smoking just happens to be one of those things that has become prevalent, and thus popular, in society, and thus people think that it's ok.. and banning it is bad - regardless of how obvious it is that it is bad.

should there be a licience to gorge?

Maybe not, but perhaps a tax based on saturated fat content? Or at least a better incentive (financially) on eating healthier foods rather than junk?? Such as, why does a bottle of water cost more than, say, coke? (depending on where you are and all...).

A license actually makes sense to me - think how easy it is to identify legal smokers. Show license, get smokes. No license, no smokes... none of this asking for proof of age crap any more!

personally i think people should take personal responsibility for what ever they chose to put inside their bodies, but hey that's me

I agree... but since people tend not to take personal responsibility, let alone willingness to understand that their actions have effects on others, laws are introduced to limit the impact such things have on others. It's easier to outlaw heroin that to get people to use it responsibly, because when they don't use responsibly (ie, comfort and quiet of own home, in 'safe' dosages, and without becoming addicted or having negative effects later in life...), they can endanger others - perhaps killing themselves and other people (like a drunk driver... different thread there!). Anti-drink driving laws don't seem greatly effective (people still do it), what are the chances of anti-heroin driving having any effect???


Evandril, thanks for the Hitler post Yes, very true!!!

[Boozy]

You are not free to do what you choose to do in society. You are told and have enforced various things about your life that we take for granted. There is legislation in place as to certain foods and their production and processing (certain chemicals must be used, or labels applied, and even things you aren't allowed to eat..anyone here allowed to eat, say, a dog or cat??).

Slyt, these are all things that could be harmful to other people without them knowing about it. It's against the law to put benzene in a hamburger because people don't expect there to be benzene in their hamburgers. Whereas benzene is listed as an ingredient on tobacco packs.

We've entrusted the government and regulatory agencies to keep us informed (after all, how many of us analyze our food in a home lab before eating it?) but once that's done, we're free to do what we want.

Hamburger is a legal product. Benzene is a legal product. One could purchase both and make a benzene hamburger if they wanted.

The only caveat is that suicidal people are sometimes institutionalized against their will. But that should be a subject for another thread.

[Slytovhand]

I was just pointing out that there are limitations that are placed upon us by the government, some that prevent potentially problems and we don't argue them (as I asked, are you allowed to cook up a cat or a dog??) There are things that have been scientifically proven to actually be harmful to us that governments enact anyway - flouridisation of water being a good example. (how many of us even bother to read the ingredients list on our food?)

This smoking license is just another situation of the government doing what governments are supposed to do.

So, I will ask a question - why is this such a bad idea? Just because it hits someone's hip pocket?? (hmm - wouldn't that be a sexist comment? After all, how many women keep their money in a hip pocket??? Just thinking out loud...).

As for your example - could you make a Benzene Hamburger and sell it to people? And advertise it as a food - even pointing out that it is potentially lethal?

[Rapscallion]

Maybe not, but perhaps a tax based on saturated fat content? Or at least a better incentive (financially) on eating healthier foods rather than junk??

Actually, if you cook your own food and don't eat pre-processed relatively cheap foods, you do save quite a bit of money and can eat far healthier (pasta, rice, grains etc) - I'm doing that for a fair number of my meals at the moment. However, I like the idea of a saturated fat tax. Just ... don't give them any ideas?

Such as, why does a bottle of water cost more than, say, coke? (depending on where you are and all...).

Usually down to marketing. "Anyone can have a bottle of coke, but not everyone can afford our brand of distilled tap water! After all, it's been through so many kidneys it has to be clean "

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

I don't think there are any laws governing the eating of dogs and cats. I could be wrong. I suspect it has more to do with the selling or procuring of those animals to eat.

That, and many domestic dogs and cats are teeming with chemicals from flea treatments, vaccinations, and medications that are not fit for consumption. But hey, if you want to skin Fluffy and fry him up, go for it.

[Sylvia727]

Just because it hits someone's hip pocket?? (hmm - wouldn't that be a sexist comment? After all, how many women keep their money in a hip pocket??? Just thinking out loud...).

*raises hand* Yo. That sounds fine to me; if you're really worried, say wallet instead, since most people have one whether they keep it in a pocket or a purse.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There are many other potentially harmful habits, such as eating to excess or drinking; so if you're going to licience one, why not them all? Why not make it so that no-one can cook, drink alcohol, sit in the passenger seat of a car, fly, bungee jump or indeed, do anything remotely harmful to yourself and others without applying for a licence? Why, cuz that would be the very essence of a nanny state, and would infringe on human rights. If you wish to buy a cat and make BBQ out of it, go right ahead. Just as long as it's your cat, and you don't end up setting your neighbour's house on fire. Just as I should have the right to light up as long as I abide by the smoking ban. Just as you have every right to BBQ your humanely dispatched cat and anyone who whines can just move downwind, I have the right to smoke outside and if you sit down next to me, then put up or shut up. Just don't forget the seasoning. XD

[Rapscallion]

Truth to tell, though, the government as a whole makes money from those who live more dangerously and die younger. Old age pension is a major problem in the UK spending budgets, and everyone who lives longer costs quite a bit more than the government would like. People who suffer disease from poor living choices and die younger than average by a heavy chunk save the UK government money overall.

Rapscallion

[Evandril]

So, I will ask a question - why is this such a bad idea? Just because it hits someone's hip pocket?? (hmm - wouldn't that be a sexist comment? After all, how many women keep their money in a hip pocket??? Just thinking out loud...)

Adding another layer of control is something I tend to dislike, personally. A tax on cigs would be an effective discouragement, doubly so combined with advertizing on the 'costs' of smoking. Any 'ban' (like not selling to people without a licence) just ends up with people finding a way around it, and then you have to *enforce* the ban, which makes your police have to chase around smokers.

[crazylegs]

A tax on cigs would be an effective discouragement, doubly so combined with advertizing on the 'costs' of smoking.

We already have both of those, tobacco is rather highly taxed (not sure on exact figures though) and cigarette packets have to have (I think) 50% of the front of the pack displaying a warning, such as

Smoking kills
Smoking seriously harms you and others around you
Smokers die younger
Smoking clogs the arteries and causes heart attacks and strokes
Smoking causes fatal lung cancer
Smoking when pregnant harms your baby
Protect children: don't make them breathe your smoke
Your doctor or your pharmacist can help you stop smoking
Smoking is highly addictive, don't start
Stopping smoking reduces the risk of fatal heart and lung diseases
Smoking can cause a slow and painful death

So yer, we've got those bases covered!

[Lace Neil Singer]

Don't forget the pictures; we now have lovely pictures of Spa Man (body on slab), Tadpoles (warning about fertility), Hilarious Bent Ciggie (impotence), Hands (aging of the skin) Scary Tashe Man (throat cancer), Yucky Lungs (lung cancer) Fetus (smoking while pregnant harms your baby and Smoking Child (don't smoke around children). There might be more, but those are most of them, any how.

In any case, we want police to be, you know, catching dangerous criminals, rather than farting about with niggling things like this. We need more policemen on the beat rather than taking them off to enforce ridiculous laws. -.-

[Boozy]

Don't forget the pictures; we now have lovely pictures of Spa Man (body on slab), Tadpoles (warning about fertility), Hilarious Bent Ciggie (impotence), Hands (aging of the skin) Scary Tashe Man (throat cancer), Yucky Lungs (lung cancer) Fetus (smoking while pregnant harms your baby and Smoking Child (don't smoke around children). There might be more, but those are most of them, any how.

When Canada started doing the same thing on our packs, we used to treat them like trading cards... "Collect them all!" I was a relatively heavy smoker at the time.

It got old, eventually. After about a month, no one even looked at the pictures anymore. I could have a pack sitting out on the table beside me while eating lunch, with a picture of a bleeding brain on it, and not even notice.