UK to License Cigarettes Smokers

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Charge smokers for right to buy cigarettes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/23/nsmoking123.xml)

Smokers should be forced to apply for an annual £200 licence in order to purchase cigarettes, a Government advisor has suggested.

Is this a joke?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But wait there is more!

Free fruit to employees provided by employers.

One hour of exercise during the work day.

[volatile]

You're not very good at reading, are you?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You're not very good at reading, are you?

On the contrary.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You're not very good at reading, are you?

I am amused when posters have a hard time reconciling the facts with their beliefs and attempt to malign the presenter as a result.

[gtc]

Congratulations on your choice of reading material but you are wrong.

He advises the government.

This wasn't advice to the government (at least not advice they solicited).

[NobbyNobbs]

On the contrary.

Then you must have missed the part where this is simply one person's opinion, not a legislative ideal.

You also seemed to miss the contrary view...

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, GP representative on the British Medical Association’s public health committee said the idea was a non-starter and completely unworkable.

He said: "I find it extremely worrying that a former Government advisor is making suggestions like this. It doesn’t bode well for the sort of the advice the Government is getting."

Dr Nagpaul said ministers would be better off taking advice from doctors, nurses and patients instead of 'arm-chair policy theorists’.

"This is a half baked idea that lacks logic and credence."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then you must have missed the part where this is simply one person's opinion, not a legislative ideal.

You also seemed to miss the contrary view...

Similar contrary views presented when they proposed a ban of smoking on aeroplanes in America.

Now in America they are banning smoking all about.

[Francesca R]

Yes this is absolutely going to happen in the UK because we are a police state and citizens long ago abdicated their individual freedoms. In fact you're not even allowed to speak to the press or make recommendations on public policy based on your own views if those views differ from the presciptions of the state.

Oh, except that's what's happening in this story of course.

[brodski]

Congratulations on your choice of reading material but you are wrong.

He advises the government.

no he dosn't. He was an advisor to Blair, who is no longer PM. A total non story.

[gtc]

no he dosn't. He was an advisor to Blair, who is no longer PM. A total non story.

Well, the paper said he still advises ministers through his chairing of Health England (which doesn't seem to have a website).

But either way, it is a non-story as his idea had nothing to do with the Government.

[666]

Well, the paper said he still advises ministers through his chairing of Health England (which doesn't seem to have a website).

But either way, it is a non-story as his idea had nothing to do with the Government.

(My Bold)

http://www.healthengland.org/

[LawnOven]

Smokers should be able to purchase carbon emission credits from non-polluting people, just like cooperations and then be allowed to smoke wherever the hell they please.

[Francesca R]

Smokers should be able to purchase carbon emission credits from non-polluting people, just like cooperations and then be allowed to smoke wherever the hell they please.This would be an economically neat way of getting smoking back into public places actually. Those who work in them could command extra compensation for the health risk paid out of the emissions scheme. As things stand I tend to think that smokers cough up approximately enough in payment for the externalities of their pursuit but it does not get distributed efficiently to those who bear the cost.

I think it's too complex to be tried though and does not have much voter appeal. Banning smoking is likely to continue to be the way to go.

[mrbaracuda]

I had the feeling this thread would be crap when I saw who created it.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Similar contrary views presented when they proposed a ban of smoking on aeroplanes in America.

Now in America they are banning smoking all about.

Only in public places. Mind reading your articles next time?

[gtc]

(My Bold)

http://www.healthengland.org/


Thanks, I could have sworn it wasn't on the first page of google last night.

[Beerina]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

It's never a loss of freedom, to you, if you are the one behind the gun.

[volatile]

It's never a loss of freedom, to you, if you are the one behind the gun.

You did read the linked article, right? You do realise that this is not government policy in any way, shape or form, right? You do also realise that even if it were true, your quote is quite inappropriate, given that a) passive smoking is demonstrably harmful and b) the UK has a National Health Service. This smoking license is theorised not to protect the individual from himself, but to protect society from the recklessness of the individual. I don;t think it's necessarily the best way to go about it, but it is most certainly neither tyrannical nor to save smokers from themselves.

This would most certainly not be a "tyranny exercised for the good of its victims", unless you want to describe socialised healthcare as "tyrannical", or want to deny that passive smoking is dangerous.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You did read the linked article, right? You do realise that this is not government policy in any way, shape or form, right? You do also realise that even if it were true, your quote is quite inappropriate, given that a) passive smoking is demonstrably harmful and b) the UK has a National Health Service. This smoking license is theorised not to protect the individual from himself, but to protect society from the recklessness of the individual. I don;t think it's necessarily the best way to go about it, but it is most certainly neither tyrannical nor to save smokers from themselves.

This would most certainly not be a "tyranny exercised for the good of its victims", unless you want to describe socialised healthcare as "tyrannical", or want to deny that passive smoking is dangerous.

Second hand smoke is not dangerous. I know that that statement is thrown about, but the studies deny this.

[baron]

Second hand smoke is not dangerous. I know that that statement is thrown about, but the studies deny this.

Crap.

[Prometheus]

Second hand smoke is not dangerous. I know that that statement is thrown about, but the studies deny this.

Wrong. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

Regardless, the proposal in question is extremely unlikely to ever be implemented. Not only would it be tantamount to political suicide for any elected officials who tried, but it's quite easy to demonstrate that it's neither financially nor practically feasible, and that it would most likely not have the positive effects which Professor Le Grand imagines.

[brodski]

Well, the paper said he still advises ministers through his chairing of Health England.

Health England is not an advisory body, his chairmanship of it does not make him a government adviser. The paper used that language to try and concoct a story from nothing.

[SezMe]

Second hand smoke is not dangerous. I know that that statement is thrown about, but the studies deny this.
I just know, crack searchologist that you are, that you'll be able to provide some links for us to educate ourselves with. My only additional request is that you read your links before you post them.

I await with second-hand breath.

[volatile]

Second hand smoke is not dangerous. I know that that statement is thrown about, but the studies deny this.

:jaw-dropp

[volatile]

I just know, crack searchologist that you are, that you'll be able to provide some links for us to educate ourselves with. My only additional request is that you read your links before you post them.

I await with second-hand breath.

I'm not sure, but I'll guess in advance that he has as much evidence for this claim as he does for the one that the NFL is scripted.

[gtc]

Health England is not an advisory body, his chairmanship of it does not make him a government adviser. The paper used that language to try and concoct a story from nothing.

OK.

[fagin]

But wait there is more!

Free fruit to employees provided by employers.

One hour of exercise during the work day.

Our office supplies free fruit to employees - large bowls dotted around replenished daily.
We have also installed showers so people can cycle to work or go for a run.

I don't think they are stupid ideas.

Smoking license a bit dozy though

[Francesca R]

Our office supplies free fruit to employees - large bowls dotted around replenished daily.
We have also installed showers so people can cycle to work or go for a run.

I don't think they are stupid ideas.Your firm does these things to increase its shareholders' wealth. :)

ETA: Correction--this is assuming you are employed at a profit-driven company.

[Rolfe]

Our office supplies free fruit to employees - large bowls dotted around replenished daily.
We have also installed showers so people can cycle to work or go for a run.


Nice. I brought with me today: one banana, one clementine, one pear and one apple. (Apple still to be eaten.) All paid for by me. But then, I like to support my village shop.

Rolfe.

[fagin]

Your firm does these things to increase its shareholders' wealth. :)

ETA: Correction--this is assuming you are employed at a profit-driven company.

Profit driven yes, mercenary no.