So who's ready to get their smoking permit then?

[Roxsie]

A ban on the sale of cigarettes to anyone who does not pay for a government smoking permit has been proposed by Health England, a ministerial advisory board.

The idea is the brainchild of the board's chairman, Julian Le Grand, who is a professor at the London School of Economics and was Tony Blair's senior health adviser. In a paper being studied by Lord Darzi, the health minister appointed to oversee NHS reform, he says many smokers would be helped to break the habit if they had to make a decision whether to "opt in".

The permit might cost as little as £10, but acquiring it could be made difficult if the forms were sufficiently complex, Le Grand said last night.

His paper says: "Suppose every individual who wanted to buy tobacco had to purchase a permit. And suppose further they had to do this every year. To get a permit would involve filling out a form and supplying a photograph, as well as paying the fee. Permits would only be issued to those over 18 and evidence of age would have to be provided. The money raised would go to the NHS."

Le Grand said the proposal was an example of "libertarian paternalism". The government would leave people free to make their own decisions but it would "nudge them" in the right direction.

He said there was a parallel in pensions law. If workers were automatically enrolled in a pension scheme, few would choose to opt out. But if they had to make a conscious decision to opt in, most people would stay out.

"Breaking the new year's resolution not to smoke would be costly in terms of both money and time ... [This] would probably have a greater impact on poor smokers than on rich ones, hence contributing to a reduction in health inequalities."

The paper, written by Le Grand and Divya Srivastava, an LSE researcher, acknowledges: "Administratively it would require addressing the problem of the existing black markets and smuggling in tobacco; but this should probably be done anyway."

They add: "Politically, this might be viewed by some as giving people a 'licence' to smoke; and by full-blooded libertarians as a subtle and hence even more dangerous form of paternalism - paternalism squared.

"On the other hand, the popularity even among smokers of the smoking ban in public places suggests that firm actions in this area can lead to political as well as health pay-offs."

The paper also proposes incentives for large companies to provide a daily "exercise hour" for employees and a ban on salt in processed food.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said last night: "We will be consulting later this year on the next steps for tobacco control. Ministers are looking for input from a full range of stakeholders."

So what do you think?

Is this a good move by the government to encourage smokers to quit and stop draining the NHS?

Or is it yet another attempt by the government to control us?

Or is it just a way to make sure that underage smokers have an extremely hard time getting tobacco?

[Qu1f]

Well im a person who does not believe in smoking. I may not be old enough to smoke but Ive seen the effects smoking has on some people. And the goverment is probably going to try and control us when it comes to our health, they want healthy people to work in Britain not unhealthy people.


Also usually childrens paretns or siblings get kids who smoke their cigaretes usually not the kids themselves. So im unsure if its going to make it harder for underaged smokers to get tobacco.

[Jay]

It doesnt effect me, so I aint gonna "debate", but its clear it will not stop many people smoking..true it'll be a bit of a bugger filling in forms and the like, but people will more than likely moan a little and get on with it. Hell even if they don't, people will still find ways around it...friends behind the counter, mass buying from abroad..people will most likely always find a "shortcut". Oh yeah and I doubt a smoker will batter an eyelid over a tenner.

[Smartie]

Also usually childrens paretns or siblings get kids who smoke their cigaretes usually not the kids themselves. So im unsure if its going to make it harder for underaged smokers to get tobacco.
Not withstanding so many cigarettes in the UK are now smuggled and sold under the counter and are freely availabel without regulation.



It'll never get passed. Most likely because it'll be almost impossible to enforce, it'll be a huge drain on resources as the people no doubt selected to enforce it will be the police (who are already under-manned and over-whelmed with paperwork).

Think... if the government said you need a permit to drink alcohol. or to buy an 18 rated DVD. It'd be absolutely unimaginable. These areas are already regulated by guidelines and age restrictions. The issues are not (and never have been), about legally obtaining such items - the government should be looking at the illegal trade if it wants to make some real kind of headway into cutting smoking. Raising the age to 18 did little more than boost the sales of the illegal tobacco sellers.

This genuinely is nothing more than a half-assed attempt by the government to look like they're doing something, whilst at the same time thinking "ooh, and extra tenner per smoker". A tenner which will barely cover the administration of such a scheme, the shortfall of which joe public will have to pick up again.

Finally, it's likely any challenge against it under the Human Rights Act would be successful. So the government really are on a hiding to nothing.

[maxxy_p]

Junk food is the cause of ill health and many deaths per year. Let's make anyone who wants to pollute their body with fast food register for it annually and pay a fee each time. Loud music can damage your ears. People should fill in a form before they're allowed go to gigs. Taking vitamin supplements can prove fatal in the wrong doses. Everyone should ask permission from the government before they visit pharmacies.

People don't need this shit in their lives.

[Pie hunter D]

This is bullshit...
If that gets passed i'm going to become a pirate. Fuck the government. What the hell happened to basic freedoms?! I'm getting seriously pissed off being told what I can and can't do around here. I would have liked to have thought the hefty taxes that get snatched off my pay cheque would go towards the NHS.
I mean what the fuck?! So Smokers have to subsidise junkies and alcoholics or what?! Wheres the booze and drug permits?!!!
Even if I didn't smoke i'd be seriously pissed off with this, it's not a nanny state it's just all out prejudice! It's as good as picking out an ethnic group and saying they have to pay more because XXX.

Fucking.

Livid.

[Ozzylator]

Political view: Leave people free to make their own decisions.

Personal pragmatic view: This is not good as it makes it harder to buy cigarettes. I do not smoke, but recognise that a respectable part of the government's income is sourced from duty on tobacco. If fewer people buy cigarettes, the government gets less money from it, and so are forced to raise taxes elsewhere.

[faragher]

This is bullshit...
If that gets passed i'm going to become a pirate. Fuck the government. What the hell happened to basic freedoms?! I'm getting seriously pissed off being told what I can and can't do around here. I would have liked to have thought the hefty taxes that get snatched off my pay cheque would go towards the NHS.
I mean what the fuck?! So Smokers have to subsidise junkies and alcoholics or what?! Wheres the booze and drug permits?!!!
Even if I didn't smoke i'd be seriously pissed off with this, it's not a nanny state it's just all out prejudice! It's as good as picking out an ethnic group and saying they have to pay more because XXX.

Fucking.

Livid.For crying out loud. Did you read the OP's post? Did you see the bit where it said that this was an idea being discussed by Health England. It did not say that this was something that a) was being discussed as a serious option; b) had been recommended to ministers. THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT DECIDING THAT YOU NEED A SMOKING PERMIT. This is an advisory body throwing some ideas around, and you have just massively over-reacted.

As it happens, I think it is a poor idea, just because it doesn't address the real problem and it is unenforceable (as Smartie pointed out). As for 'booze and drug permits' - booze is harder than tobacco to obtain illegally - as booze is pretty cheap in supermarkets etc, there is no real black market. Because of this, it is harder (though still not that tricky) for kids to get booze than cigs. Drug permits - we do have these - if you are not a registered addict, you go to prison for possession of certain controlled substances.

Also, whilst we're on the subject, your taxes are not 'snatched' - they go to pay for free schools, healthcare, the armed forces, the police and fire services, the best judicial system in the world and all those other little incidentals. We pay a lot of tax compared to say, America, but that's because we get more freebies than they do. If you don't like it, leave.

[Lawrence]

As neither a smoker nor British, I don't really care, although smoking is pretty bad, dontcha think?

[Smartie]

That's not the issue for debate.

And rather than stating the bloody obvious, why not actively have a crack at the debate, what with this being debates and all.

[Pie hunter D]

For crying out loud. Did you read the OP's post? Did you see the bit where it said that this was an idea being discussed by Health England. It did not say that this was something that a) was being discussed as a serious option; b) had been recommended to ministers. THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT DECIDING THAT YOU NEED A SMOKING PERMIT. This is an advisory body throwing some ideas around, and you have just massively over-reacted.

Oh for crying out loud. Did you read the very start of the post that said "If this gets passed"?!

If you're not aware of the amounts of "ideas being tossed around" that have been /are being incorperated into our lives you need to wake up and smell the java. I remember when the smoking ban was being "tossed around".

I don't think i'm over reacting at all, I feel like my rights have been pissed on enough without the further poking. Perhaps when it effects you in some way you might step up and say "hmm wait a minute".

Also on the issue of tax, i'm aware of where it's supposed to be going. I'm not seeing any results. What i'm seeing is more inventive ways for the government to leach even more.

[faragher]

I did see your "if this gets passed" - I think I was then distracted by the ranting about taxes, junkies and the nanny state - shame you mentioned immigrants in a neutral light - you nearly had a Daily Mail Full House!

Of course, all ideas that eventually do make law start as discussions. But most discussions never make it into law. One of the functions of advisory groups is to consider EVERYTHING, whether or not it is reasonable or practical. Before it can make law, it has to get through the civil service, both houses, and public opinion will be taken into account (though I'm not sure that public opinion should be taken into account - if it was, we would have no taxes and free icecream. Sometimes the government needs to do unpopular things). I just think that the "OMG NANNY STATE" reaction is a bit unreasonable. But that's only me.

I'm of the opinion that everything that we can do to stop people starting smoking and help them stop smoking can only be a good thing*. It should be more difficult for smokers to get cigarettes, but as I said before, this is not necessarily a good approach.

*and I'm a lifelong smoker

[El Kabong]

I like that people are trying to stop kids from smoking. That's well and good. I don't think it would succeed by any means, but it's still good to have in mind, as I truly don't believe underage kids should smoke (I know this would sound hypocritical coming from me, but looking back I wish cigarettes had been a whole lot less accessible). As stated above, however, illegal trade in cigarettes and/or shops not wanting to lose revenue (at the risk of losing tobacco liscences) will pretty much guarantee tobacco to find its way into the hands if minors.

My biggest qualm with this idea, however, is this:
Some people don't smoke much. I know a lot of very occasional smokers (i.e. they will buy a pack every now and then, and maybe smoke two or three times a day). I think having a "smoking liscence" would encourage these people who don't smoke much, but would smoke nonetheless, to start lighting up a whole lot more. I know if I had to buy a liscence to smoke, I would, as when I'm stressed out, drunk, or around other smokers, I thoroughly enjoy cigarettes. But I also know, should it come to being labeled a smoker by having a card in my wallet telling me so, I'd probably start smoking more, since there would be no reason to pretend I don't smoke all that much. And my admittedly faulty reasoning (though let's face it, every smoker has bad reasoning and we all know it, otherwise we wouldn't smoke) would justify smoking more, and buying more, since I shelled out cash on a liscence and don't want it to go to waste.

I know many of you may disagree, but this is what I'm pretty sure would happen in my case were a law like this enacted.

[Pie hunter D]

I'm of the opinion that everything that we can do to stop people starting smoking and help them stop smoking can only be a good thing*. It should be more difficult for smokers to get cigarettes, but as I said before, this is not necessarily a good approach.

*and I'm a lifelong smoker

Stopping people from sparking up in the first place would be a great idea, how do you propose they do that though? Short of activly taking away the right ,of course. Stopping is more of the same. It's a choice, theres help in place already for people that want to quit, it's up to them to do it.

In this case it's still on par with underage drinking, you get ID'd more for trying to buy booze than smokes. Why not just crack down on the sale that way? I tend to agree with El Kabong with the whole card scenario. Not to mention the fact i'm too stubborn. I'd throw 2 fingers up and say "Well I paid for it, might as well make the most of it".

Fact is, you really can't regulate this kind of thing effectivly.

[Splush]

I don't like this idea much, for adults at least. I'm not a smoker but the prohibition on smoking and the ostracism of smokers really irks me, and this idea seems like a particularly insulting move, not to mention the creepy government control aspect. I can definitely see the arguments for it, especially lightening the load of the NHS, but I still think adults should generally be free to ruin their own health unfettered by bureaucracy.

However, I don't think children should necessarily have that freedom, and I'm generally in favour of legislation that makes it harder for under 16s to get their hands on cigarettes. This plan would certainly have that effect, as you have to prove your age to apply for the permit, but it's an unnecessarily complicated and creepy solution when the government could just be cracking down harder on shops that sell cigarettes to minors, hopefully reducing the numbers of kids that stop smoking while raking in lots of money from fines that could pay for treatment of smokers.

Personal pragmatic view: This is not good as it makes it harder to buy cigarettes. I do not smoke, but recognise that a respectable part of the government's income is sourced from duty on tobacco. If fewer people buy cigarettes, the government gets less money from it, and so are forced to raise taxes elsewhere.
I generally dig the "let people make their own mistakes and mercilessly tax them" approach, but in this case it could be argued that the income from tobacco tax just goes to pay for treatment of people with smoking-related illnesses, and if you halved the number of smokers you'd be halving the income but also halving the costs.

I don't know if it exactly works out that way, of course, it depends how efficient/fair the governments allocation of funds is.

[GorillaBearBear]

I kind of like the idea because maybe I could use it as ID and I wouldn't have to carry my passport around everywhere.

[Splush]

There's already ID cards that you can apply for. They seem to be fairly rare and I forget what they're called, but I know about them because when I worked at Threshers we were supposed to hand out leaflets about them to people who we refused to serve because they didn't have any ID. In theory they're great because you have too apply for them through the government and prove your age, and it's something that you aren't scared to carry around unlike a passport, perhaps in practice they're not so useful just because people don't know about them enough.

Nobody ever took one of those leaflets from my shop, of course, because they were always underage.

[Mittwoch]

I'm sorry that this isn't much of a contribution, but after reading the first post all I can say is;

for god's sake, why don't they just ban it outright already?

[Pilk Man]

for god's sake, why don't they just ban it outright already?
Agreed completely but, alas, the money the government makes from tobacco tax makes it too economically profitable for them to consider banning it. Still, there's the already-mentioned consideration that money lost on tobacco smoke would be money saved on the NHS. No easy solution, really.

I'm hesitant to go either way on this for a few reasons. First of all, I'm pro-permit because the money made from it would help the NHS etc. a lot and, let's face it, Smoking's a pretty crappy habit to have (for yourself and others). Any measure to reduce the availability, sale or consumption of tobacco is, in my opinion, a good one. On the other hand, I'm anti because I generally dislike the government policing people's spare-time habits, even if they are fatal. Your body your choice etc.

Still, suicide is illegal in this country, so I guess deliberately giving yourself Cancer should carry some kind of...deterrent?

[Pie hunter D]

Agreed completely but, alas, the money the government makes from tobacco tax makes it too economically profitable for them to consider banning it. Still, there's the already-mentioned consideration that money lost on tobacco smoke would be money saved on the NHS. No easy solution, really.

I'm hesitant to go either way on this for a few reasons. First of all, I'm pro-permit because the money made from it would help the NHS etc. a lot and, let's face it, Smoking's a pretty crappy habit to have (for yourself and others). Any measure to reduce the availability, sale or consumption of tobacco is, in my opinion, a good one. On the other hand, I'm anti because I generally dislike the government policing people's spare-time habits, even if they are fatal. Your body your choice etc.

Still, suicide is illegal in this country, so I guess deliberately giving yourself Cancer should carry some kind of...deterrent?


I'm not saying smoking isn't bad, or bad for you , it is. This is more an issue about the freedom of choice in my opinion.

[JebblehMooo]

Personally, being a non smoker it's harder to see it through smokers eyes how it would affect them obviously, but I would see it as being a pain in the arse, but I think if this were to happen, letting the money on the permits, if they actually do do it, to the NHS is a good thing, and it may help some people quit alltogether, if they choose to do so, although obviously if this is passed people who dont want to give up will just pay it.

I do think, although it's a good idea, it is a bit OTT, and I dont see much change happening from it tbf.

[Smartie]

If we look at a different example to illustrate a point.

There are something like 2 million vehicles on the road without valid tax or insurance.
These include people who have chosen not to tax or insure them, foreign vehicles avoiding detection and those here longer than a year purposely not registering for UK use, drivers who are banned or have no licence so can't get insurance or tax etc.

If we, as a country, cannot deal with huge chunks of metal which are not exactly inconspicuous, how on earth would we expect every smoker to buy a licence?

Do the police flag down every car where an occupant is smoking and ask to see their permit? Can they stop people on the street? Can shops demand to see a licence before purchase?

It's just not practical, and will only further the illegal trading.

What is more enforcable is reducing the tax on cigarettes, and bringing the prices inline with more European countries AND price fix across the country (stopping smaller shops increasing the prices as they choose), which will stifle the illegal trade, and actually increase government revenue. I think 20 marlboro were something like 4.40 Euros last year, which is about £3.30. Once they have more control over it, they can take more steps to regulate it.

These recommending bodies which do studies never focus on the practicalities, they just try to make it look like they have solutions to justify the money that's been spent on their project.

If we look at a different example to illustrate a point.

There are something like 2 million vehicles on the road without valid tax or insurance.
These include people who have chosen not to tax or insure them, foreign vehicles avoiding detection and those here longer than a year purposely not registering for UK use, drivers who are banned or have no licence so can't get insurance or tax etc.

If we, as a country, cannot deal with huge chunks of metal which are not exactly inconspicuous, how on earth would we expect every smoker to buy a licence?

Do the police flag down every car where an occupant is smoking and ask to see their permit? Can they stop people on the street? Can shops demand to see a licence before purchase?

It's just not practical, and will only further the illegal trading.

What is more enforcable is reducing the tax on cigarettes, and bringing the prices inline with more European countries AND price fix across the country (stopping smaller shops increasing the prices as they choose), which will stifle the illegal trade, and actually increase government revenue. I think 20 marlboro were something like 4.40 Euros in Finalnd last year, which is about £3.30.
Once they have more control over it, they can take more steps to regulate it.

These recommending bodies which do studies never focus on the practicalities, they just try to make it look like they have solutions to justify the money that's been spent on their project.

[Splush]

I suspected that the amount of smokers was reducing anyway, without any government intervention like this, and from my brief googly research this (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=313) and this (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=866) seem to confirm it. This makes me wonder why any of this stuff is necessary. There's been a pretty ubiquitous anti-smoking propaganda movement on the go for years now and as it seems to actually be working I wonder what the point in trying something else is. It's so much more pleasing to change peoples behaviours with the power of ideas rather than the power of legislation and bureaucracy.

I'm all for just waiting until smoking dies out without intervention, and only considering stuff like this if the number of smokers actually stops decreasing.

What is more enforcable is reducing the tax on cigarettes, and bringing the prices inline with more European countries AND price fix across the country (stopping smaller shops increasing the prices as they choose), which will stifle the illegal trade, and actually increase government revenue. I think 20 marlboro were something like 4.40 Euros last year, which is about £3.30. Once they have more control over it, they can take more steps to regulate it.
This is an interesting angle but you can imagine the outrage from anti-smoking people if they actually made tobacco cheaper? "Now my child can afford to smoke 20 a day instead of 10!!"

What does the illegal trade consist of? I know a lot of smokers and a lot of them smoke cigarettes imported from Europe, but as far as I know none of them get cigarettes on some kind of a black market, I've never heard of such a thing.

[Sloth]

dumb idea...

btw I'm dead now. I read this, "libertarian paternalism" and my head exploded...

[gembird]

I don't smoke and I never have, but from my point of view it's silly to introduce a permit. Whatever they introduce, kids will get fags somehow, and if they're that desperate to fill their lungs with crap then let them. I don't mean to be harsh there- I don't like smoking but if people want to do it then it's up to them. If someone can afford to buy cigarettes every day, they can spare a tenner for a permit, but why should they? We don't need a permit to have a drink or eat a burger, so why smoking? It's just another way to earn money.

[MamboCat]

Hmm... no references to Charlie Brookers column this week?! :D

I personally dont smoke but the idea of a license to smoke seems over the top to me.. also, surely alcohol does more in the way of chronic damage? Will we require licenses to drink at some point?! Even if its in the name of good health, I think forcing people out of their habits is not the way to go about it.

[Dyakson]

Wot Smartie said. A smoker's license is a ridiculous idea.

I think it would be nice to get rid of the 'No Smoking' signs from every single f'ing door and window in every single f'ing building in Britain, and instead put the 'No Smoking' sign on every packet of cigarettes. It would make Britain a prettier place. Every fag packet could have the the No Smoking sign, with text that reads 'No Smoking unless you see the green 'smoking permitted here' sign'.

[Purple Wabbit]

Still, suicide is illegal in this country, so I guess deliberately giving yourself Cancer should carry some kind of...deterrent?

The UK decriminalised suicide and attempted suicide in 1961. What country are you in?

Personally, I think this is a stupid idea. As mentioned, it would be nearly impossible to enforce. And what's the point of having a license for something if anyone can get one? Driving licenses prove that you are able to drive responsibly and safely (yes yes, I know, but for the sake of argument?) - what does a smoking license prove? That you are responsible enough to have the right to poison your body? Shouldn't everyone have that right anyway? If I choose to drink bleach, or overdose on pills, I may be rather silly, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to.

Plus, if they are serious about this, ten pounds a year is a ridiculous cost. Someone who smokes even semi-regularly is not going to be at all bothered by this charge.

The only way this could possibly be effective is by appealing to the laziness of smokers who will not bother to get/renew a permit, but still, I can't help thinking that if you're really determined to smoke, filling in a couple of forms and sending off a tenner is not going to worry you overmuch.

In short, this seems to be just another attempt by the government to convince voters that they are tough on smoking. And a very feeble one at that.

[Smartie]

What does the illegal trade consist of? I know a lot of smokers and a lot of them smoke cigarettes imported from Europe, but as far as I know none of them get cigarettes on some kind of a black market, I've never heard of such a thing.

Really? The black market is massive.
You can get cigarettes under the counter in many shops and pubs if you know the vendors. I can think of several places in Manchester I can buy illegally imported (ie no tax paid) tobacco from.

[katt]

I think it is a bit cruel that the governments allow cigarettes to be sold in the first place when their negative impact on health is known. It is amazing to me people can ignore their conscience to sell them and that people have the lack of forethought to smoke them.

I believe they keep cigs legal because 1. tobacco industry provides jobs 2. cigs provide tax money 3. freedom for people to do silly things

However, i don't believe people should need smoking permits. If there is a problem with cigarettes it would best be solved by banning cigarettes in the first place. so maybe the permit thing is only appealing to people who want more tax money.

[Meadow]

Banning cigarettes = prohibition.

We know how that turned out.

[Splush]

Really? The black market is massive.
You can get cigarettes under the counter in many shops and pubs if you know the vendors. I can think of several places in Manchester I can buy illegally imported (ie no tax paid) tobacco from.
Oh fair enough, I've never smoked so I don't know, and none of my friends have mentioned it, although most people tend to go to Europe enough to buy their own supply over there.

[carrotcake]

I think that that is a pretty stupid idea, if a permit will cost possibly around £10, people with an addiction will easily cough that up and carry on. To me this seems like another government scheme to make people believe that they are trying to stamp out smoking for ever, I would be surprised if that dropped the numbers significantly.
Personally, (I don't smoke myself, or have an addiction to anything) I think that a good move would be to make smoking something for incredibly rich people, having 'permits' cost much, much more. I know that smoking would still blatantly continue, but that would effect the numbers much more significantly if they fined people for smoking without a permit.

[Felix Barry]

You can't force someone to quit smoking. Smoking starts with a simple decision

To smoke or not to smoke?

The NHS caters for more than just tobacco related deaths, it also deals with way more heart related death. So if you need a permit to smoke, you need to get a permit to eat in my opinion :)

[carrotcake]

well I dont think that can be judged by any of us who have not had an addiction, I will accept your point if you have, although I have formulated my opinion and you yours... Im waffling now *end transmission*

[Felix Barry]

I'm just saying, if smokers need a permit to smoke, then people should need a permit to eat. Both ideas are equally rediculous...

[carrotcake]

Totally different thing though, of course having a smoking permit isn't equally 'rediculous'!

Second hand smoke kills thousands of people and smoking kills thousands more! Eating a slice of bread cannot harm anyone else! Nobody needs cigarrettes to live!

[Felix Barry]

Smokers choose to be smokers. It's a habit that starts off by choice. Likewise, those around smokers don't have to be around them, they equally have a choice to not be near smokers when they're smoking. I've yet to see a smoker walk up to a non-smoker and insist on exhaling smoke at them after every drag.

Heart related illnesses are a worse killer than smoking and affects more people. Drinking can cause equally horrific forms of cancer as smoking (drinking alcohol I mean). No matter what you do, if there's a bed in the hospital, there'll be someone to fill it suffering from something...

[carrotcake]

Smokers have alternatives to smoking - Nicorette, its not healthy for them but it has no effect on other people.
I also never said that smokers go out of their ways to puff it in non-smokers' faces, you are taking words out of my mouth, smokers probably dont want people smelling their smoke! Also, yes I know that there are other illnesses and diseases not caused by smoking -so? This does not make lung cancer any less severe!
So like I said, Nicorette could be the way forward, its more expensive ar first, yes, but the plastic ones can be refilled with capsules an infinite amount of times!

[Felix Barry]

Sorry Carrot, It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, I was merely saying. Just one question though, is the person suggesting this smoking permit a smoker or ex-smoker? I've noticed that a lot of people who are proposing ways and means of forcing smokers not to smoke are non-smokers.

The problems associated with second hand smoke are fair enough, but like I said before, noone is forced to breath second hand smoke. If you decide to hang around in a place where people are smoking, then you have consented to being a second-hand smoker. It's a social habit rather than an anti-social one e.g. getting polluted (drunk) and doing stupid things like a lot of people are doing (and I'm not innocent either).

I just think it's unfair that smokers are being targetted when there are diseases that are caused by other everyday products. When in the city and walking past traffic we're breathing in various fumes that can't exactly be good for us. We're going into fast food places where you're served coronary arrest in a box.

I find it very funny that it's alright to point fingers at the smokers when there are millions, even billions of morbidly obese people walking about the place polluting their bodies with all kinds of everything that falls out of places like Mickey D's (Mcdonalds). There are tonnes of people drinking way too much also, which leads to many various diseases including peptic cancer and various liver diseases. I just don't see how morbidly obese people and alcoholics aren't given as much stick as smokers are getting recently...

The smoking ban was brought in (In Ireland anyway, I think it's in the UK now) to minimize the second hand smoke in bars and workplaces. This is fair enough, we all comply to it and because we're outside, it means less people will be exposed to second hand smoke. However, if a non-smoker decides to join a smoker outside then it's their decision. You have a choice whether or not you want to be exposed to second hand smoke, you could stay inside in the non-smokey pub and breath clean air. So seen as noone forces any non-smoker to breath second hand smoke, why should we be forced to quit? or even buy a permit for the sake of doing something that's based on choice to start with?

It's bad enough that (in Ireland) we have to pay a whole load of tax on smokes. They should cost €3.50 per pack, but with various taxes it's approx. €7.50. Why should we pay more on top of what we're paying already to the government for the sake of a few smokes?

Apologies for the very disjointed post. Sorry carrot for unintentionally putting words in your mouth.

[carrotcake]

Don't worry about it, I am far too competetive.

Do you think that smokers are being targeted for no reason? I know that the people you know comply to the rules, but in England, the 'no smoking in public places act' has not worked at all, I see people openly smoke all the time. Another thing, we are straying from the subject, the argument is for smoking permits.

[Felix Barry]

Ok, if what you say is true then yeah, bring on the permit. But if they did that in Ireland there'd be a public massacre of all the politicians who were for it.

[GorillaBearBear]

Don't worry about it, I am far too competetive.

Do you think that smokers are being targeted for no reason? I know that the people you know comply to the rules, but in England, the 'no smoking in public places act' has not worked at all, I see people openly smoke all the time. Another thing, we are straying from the subject, the argument is for smoking permits.

Do you see them smoking in public buildings like shops, pubs and clubs because honestly I haven't seen that at all.

Well, not quite true. I think I have once seen someone light up at a gig venue.

[Felix Barry]

Like I said already, if what carrotcake says is true and the smoking ban isn't working in the UK, then bring in the permit. Otherwise leave us smokers alone :mad:

[GorillaBearBear]

That's what I mean, it's not true what he's saying, in my experience.

[Felix Barry]

I'm just fed up of the various governments picking on us innocent smokers when there are soo many fat people and junkies and alcoholics about the place to give out to :(

[carrotcake]

That's what I mean, it's not true what he's saying, in my experience.

Nottingham, I went and did a couple of classes and shows and people were quite open about it.
But saying that, I guess you are right, I only saw that maybe three times, but I don't think that people should get away with smoking on the streets either - I see a lot of that, which sort of defies the object of a ban on smoking in 'public places'

[Felix Barry]

Carrotcake, I think the smoking ban in all countries means that you can't smoke in a workplace e.g. when you're working, or when in someone else's work place. It doesn't mean that we have to duck away into the nearest poorly lit corner outside to light a smoke :rolleyes:

[carrotcake]

I didn't actually say that, but point taken.

[Felix Barry]

I know you didn't say that, I'm just saying in general. Compare smoking outside to smoking indoors, outdoors is a lot safer others than in a confined space :P

[Smartie]

What does the illegal trade consist of? I know a lot of smokers and a lot of them smoke cigarettes imported from Europe, but as far as I know none of them get cigarettes on some kind of a black market, I've never heard of such a thing.


I realise this is a bump, but here are is info I found today:


Customs officers seized more than 50 million illicit cigarettes and nearly 4,250 kilos of hand rolling tobacco in the West Midlands area in 2007.
Of these hauls, 70% were found to be counterfeit.

Made in bonded labour factories in China and Eastern Europe, a packet of 20 counterfeit cigarettes can cost as little as 9p to manufacture.
But in addition to containing higher levels of chemicals, they have been found to contain sawdust, tobacco beetles and rat droppings.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7194518.stm)

This highlights that this trade could be reduced if there was less of a market for it - ie if the tax wasn't so high. Just like everything else, if it can be made counterfeit more cheaply it will be. Also, just like everything else, if the government can make more money from it they will - a smoking permit. As usual, not looking at at a useful way of dealing with a problem, just taxing it.

[patch]

I heard a radio debate on this recently, and statistically speaking, smokers do not abuse the health system by way of heart ops and costs incurred due to smoking, due to the fact that the tax on cigarettes is very, so they are directly contributing, and that smokers die younger, so in that sense they do not get to enjoy the benefit of state pensions and such.
I think its a load of bs to be honest!!
furthermore, i suppose there would be some sort of administrative fee for said license!! Money making scheme amongst a few other choice terms!!