UK gov advisor proposes 'licence to smoke'

"Social" smokers

Whatever happened to tax as a percentage of wealth, like we *sort of* have with income tax, inheritance tax, council tax. The kind of tax we have on alcohol, petrol, VAT (certain foods, electronics, computers, dvds etc.)?

As a "social smoker", one of these few people that used to smoke 20 a day EVERY DAY and now relishes a few cigarettes (outside) when I go to the pub with friends after work, I'd go straight back up to smoking the amount whereby £200 per year is negligable relative to the amount of money spent directly on cigarettes.

Apparently the "average" smoker smokes 14 cigarettes per day. That's 256 20 decks per year. Adding a further pound to each packet of cigarettes (and let's call it a pound because retailers are going to want a cut of the extra profits, even if it's only an extra 20p) is not going to stop people from smoking, but I can't see a £200 license making any difference either. I know pensioners who have £70 per week coming in, and HALF of it goes on cigarettes, but they don't stop, because they are addicts. £200 isn't going to make a difference to their habit, it's just going to cut their standards of living further, enabling them to die younger. Wait a sec - isn't that what the government wanted in the first place?

Another thought - what about our tourist industry? Though I don't smoke on a daily basis, I would have no interest in more than passing through a country where smoking was completely outlawed, or where it cost me £200 to smoke a few cigarettes on holiday over the course of a week. I'd have no problem taking cigarettes with me (I don't mean smuggling, I mean taking a 20 deck) and I'd have no problem with paying a tenner a pack given the cost of food, alcohol and accommodation would probably be a helluvalot more. However, I wouldn't go to a country if I had to pay the cost of my accommodation, food and drink IN ORDER TO SMOKE.

The government needs to recognise that there is bugger all they can do to STOP people from doing stupid things. Sure, they can manipulate people by forcing information onto people that they already know, but they can't actually stop people from smoking, because most people who smoke are addicts, some people enjoy smoking and other people are/do both.

And the maddness begins

"Oh and if this ever came to pass, let's not be biased. A £200 permit to drink should also be introduced"

Road accidents are a killer as well, so does that mean a £200 a year permit to drive ?

Whacky Baccy

Is Tobacco the new Ganja?

Next suggestion...

Julian Le Grand's next suggestion is to fit a zip to the nostrils of every newborn child so they don't smell cigarette smoke by default.

Humans (well, UK citizens only, naturally) will require a special "I'm allowed to breathe through my nose, aren't I fab?" licence.

On the plus side, at least "BO and veggie" breath won't be a problem for those who choose not to pay "through the nose" tax.

Stigma

This chap is obviously trying to stigmatize smokers, but doesn't have the good manners to be honest about his methods.

However, given the fact that many pro-smoking contributors here said they wanted to kill him (even in jest) merely for making a moronic but well-intentioned set of suggestions, I think they're probably too far gone to be susceptible to something as mild as social stigma. After all, killing themselves, spending inordinate sums of money on a rank-smelling addiction, and at least possibly harming others haven't so far convinced smokers that maybe their habit is a bit off, so Monsieur Le Grand is flogging a dead horse. Anyone willing to give so much money to Gordon Brown just to die a prolonged wheezing death would probably cough up the £200 anyway, just so they can continue to keep sparking up, and keeping the tobacco barons rich.

By the way, how are you all enjoying the cold weather?

I think Denis Leary said it best

I love to smoke. I smoke seven thousand packs a day, ok. And I am never fucking quitting! I don't care how many laws they make. What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket, with all the lights out? Is that the rule now, huh?! The cops are outside, "We know you have the cigarettes. Come out of the house with the cigarettes above your head." "You'll never get me copper! I'm never coming out, you hear? I got a cigarette machine right here in my bedroom. Yeah!"

Me -> Coat -> Smoking area

OMFG

...another tax on the working classes, and criminalisation of the underclass?

the only people who would be people who could afford too, and most of them probably dont smoke too much any more! You see a lot more smoking in Croydon than Richmond! Therefore only the Chavs will be smoking and they will get a kick out of not payiong for hteir smoking license, and if they do the chancellor will be robbing "peter to pay paul" as the chavs will just pay for it out of their tax credits!?? - also isnt it odd, that despite the alledge lack of ability to speak and spell in thous country that all those bedefits forms get filled in ok!?

.... maybe we shoudl have a fat tax too, thus enabling you to shop at morrisons or asda and eat all those 4 meals for a fiver full of Fat, Sugars and Flavourings?

......i bet this guy thought of the congestion charge?

.........The poor get priced of the raods, enabling thosue who can pay a freer and easier journey - actaull tahts sounds a brillient idea, he couldnt possibly think of it! - imagine the joy of the M25,M1,M4,M5,M6 is you had to pay £25 a journey to use them!

Government marketing

If you float a really obnoxious idea you can distract people from the other bad things you are doing. You can also drop the idea later and claim to be "listening to public opinion."

My opinion - this news is provided for propaganda purposes only.

People, I think you're missing the real trick here

There's often jokey speculation along the lines of "if they could tax breathing, they would".

Once this licence to "breath dirty air" is introduced and generally accepted by a placid population, then they'll introduce another one for the right to breath clean air, compulsory for the rest of us and with the same premium on top as other healthy options such are organic foods, so expect to pay more for being allowed to (try to) live longer. Enforcement would no doubt be privatised, with a 28 day appeal process (but right to breath suspended pending review, that should cut down on repeat "offenders").

Better not give them any ideas.

Oh blast,

Sorry.

£200 a year

that could be expensive for the smoker, assuming of course the license is granted by all the people who will have to breath in the foul poison, being the affected parties and all. It wouldn't be the government that collected this or that'd be a stealth tax with no concern for others health at all - and they wouldn't do THAT...would they :)

Maybe we could introduce a pay-per-fag system

What I want to know is where do I apply for my speeding permit?

@ Edward Pearson

Tesco are selling hip replacements now? Is that main stores only or can I get them at the petrol station?

SMOKERS THIS IS GREAT!

Think about it! For £200 a year smokers get an addict licence. THIS would obviously mean that we would be entitled to FREE ciggies under NHS because we are addicts, card carrying addicts too! WOW! Imagine, flash an addict's licence and get free ciggies.

I love this nanny state!

Meh!

Im not giving my 2 pence worth with out the appropriate icon to go with it!!

but I bet you can guess what I was gonna say!

actually brillient!

get smokers to annually register to a national smokers id system - preferably in complemnetary colour to thier Passpord, Biometric Id and Oyster cards

if you dont renew they can hunt you down like the TV License cheats and fine you again!

If you do fillout a annual registration then only allow registered users to buy cigerrettes...

then get smokers to fillout an application form for EACH PACKET!

then make them nominate the smoke free zones they will smoke them in and preferembaly witnin a specified time period and duration.

make it a offence to supply cigerettes to a non registered user!?

maybe you could then get pentaly points on your smokers ID which in turn would act as cost multipler on your future cigerrette purchases, or the following years renewal fee?

government workers should be banned from smoking they spend foar too much time outside those job centres and hospitals when they should be doing real work - ever noticed how civil servants who smoke still only do 9-5 and not 9-6?

also, only non smoking civil servnats or those not related to smokers shoudl administer the scheme to avoid and abuse of the system!?

Puff cards

I think the whole smoking issue is quite interesting. I I think of myself as quite liberal, but the smoking debate does make me question that. I think everyone should have a say and do what they want e.g. take drugs. The thing is that smoking, like other drugs, never really has anyone actually talking about what is really going on.

People who smoke and do drugs, and a lot of people who drink too, are doing it because they are addicted and/or want to escape. They aren't doing it to "loosen up" or "see things in a different perspective". Their brain has been altered to be dependant on it. There isn't one person who, after their first cigarette, said "This really is jolly good stuff". No, they coughed and thought it tasted much like licking a well used ashtray. But they persist, to be cool or defiant, and then land up in the rather stupid position of being addicted to slowly harming themself in a rather expensive manner.

It is also disgusting. One of the first things that is noticed by a smoker who has just quit is that it really God-damn stinks. It is just too offensive to be considered someone's "right" to do so. If I walked around with a boom-box on my shoulder playing loud music I eventually would have it inserted into my person by someone else who didn't share in my love for Justin Timerlake. Other than the fact it is illegal to do so because it is disruptive and annoying to other people. It is the same thing.

Also, as with many things, it divides people. Only smokers hang around with other smokers. My best mate got quite heavily into becoming a smoker, toker and general enthusiast of recreational drugs. If we ever hang out it will never be my place as he wouldn't be able to survive without a cigarette. So I would have to go to his place. And all his friends that will be there are tokers; every single one of them. So I am immediately distanced from them because they think I don't want to get involved in their group ritual. So they limit themselves to just other druggies. This is also done for most things, e.g. drinking.

So I'm liberal, am I? Well, yes, I still think so! I think you should be able to do pretty much anything as long it isn't hurting or annoying other e.g. I can listen JT in shower and sing my heart out but as soon as I do that while walking down the High Street, someone might get a little POed. So making people have a licence to smoke is just stupid as smoking is it's own vice: expensive and a health destroyer. And especially considering that you can pretty much only smoke in your own house, it seems absolutely ridiculous that you need approved identification to have puff while watching Coronation Street.

Well, at the very least that is a lot of jibberish. But that's me; I'm a rambling kinda guy.

Loud Music and Smoking

Just like smoking the young can be protected from music that is too loud by restricting headhphone volume electronically to below 80dB? perhaps. Any louder and you can't sell or import them. Hearing Damage is a growing problem after mp3 players were invented by Apple and the market is growing all the time.

Concerts and other venues like cinemas or clubs should also restrict the dB level and peak outputs to below 80dB to avoid long term damage.

I have nothing against people listening to music in their own home but in public places and even private clubs we should ban damaging music and the sale or use of equipment than can cause hearing damage to the next generation. I'm sure many smokers who enjoy peace and quiet , will help this campaign to suceed and protect people deafening others and polluting the environment.

While they may be happy deafening themselves , they should not be allowed to do the same to me or my children, or those around them.

@ One of the many Anonymous Cowards who posted here (Bill Hicks)

"So how much do you smoke a day?"

"About 2 packs"

"2 packs? You fucking pussy, I'm already on my 2nd lighter"

Alas the Late, Great Bill Hicks is no longer with us.

RE: http://www.cheap-cigarettes.co.za/

"Congratulation sir, you are super fantastic winner of Zimbabwe lottery for lifetime supplying of 419 brand cigarette-ings. In order to send your prize we need you sort code and bank account numbaaah..."

What I'm really waiting for is the license to buy licenses to do stuff... :-p

@Philip Marshall

Yeah, a small market town full of tense, pissed off people who would desperately like to nail smug bastards like you to a wall.

You're better off with the status quo.

RE : The cigarette smokers may disagree...

"...but if this is the start of a process of decriminalising all currently prohibited drugs, then I say OK."

With you there, that was pretty much my first thought as well. If one dangerous addictive drug can be licensed, then it's only fair that others should be to. I'd be perfectly willing to spring 200 quid a year if meant I could buy skunk from the corner shop at knock down prices (which is the way I buy ciggies now).

On the other hand, why the license. Why not just legalise and tax other drugs, which would provide a massive increase in tax revenue straight away ?

"If, as most people accept, prohibition and "just say no" doesn't work."

The sad answer is that, in fact, most people **don't** think that way. The hysterical middle classes (e.g the people who actually a)give a shit about drugs, etc and b) swing vote ) have been brainwashed by years of tabloid/ITV stories about retards like Leah Betts who killed themselves through their own stupidity, into repeating the mantra "Drugs are bad, m'kay" without applying any kind of critical thought process.

So much so that they can't even join up the dots thus :

Caffeine == drug; Booze == drug;

if(drug == bad) then Gin,Latte == also bad.

It's this same audience who have been now been convinced that Smoking == killing children & reducing biodiversity & funding terrorism (probably) who are the target market for stupid announcements like this.

Nothing will ever come of it, but Daily Wail/Express/etc reading Parents (note the capital P) will warm to the party because they are being seen to "Think About The Children"(tm) and because they see a policy that targets those "other people" who cost "them" a fortune in taxes to pay for "their" health service. And similar.

And of course smokers are fucked, because we *know* smoking is bad for you, it's written on the packet and everything, and we've been told that it's bad for other people as well, so it seems churlish to complain.

All in all a genius piece of political manipulation, which leaves with the interesting position that if it's actually implemented, our rulers are Stalinist, but if it's just fluff, they're more like, erm, hang on, it's Stalin again.

Funny how many times that name's come up.

£200 a year for a licence!?!

As a smoker why should I pay £200 for a licence when I pay £200 a month in just National Insurance! and what does that get me?

1. A State Pension which I won't use because I have a private pension and probably won't be around to collect it because i'm dead from smoking.

2. A Health Service which I don't use because I have private healthcare and don't want to get any nasty superbugs to shortly my life

3. Jobseekers allowance I won't use because I would rather be a dustman

Sounds like us smokers have a great deal!

Why can't the government try to save money instead of trying to get more! There's over a million people not contributing to society and reaping the benefits! How much is that costing me?

@ The other Steve and Ogdru

He knew a few things that Stalin did - what about all the good things that he did - why does Hitler get all the credit?

omg - ffs

This is on the same idiocy level as the fire service charging for helping fat people out of their houses... I'm not a smoker, and I'm not really THAT fat that help would be needed moving me, but surely the whole point of our existing taxes is equal access to state facilities (NHS/Fire/Police) and to have some form of control over our own lives... so if somebody wants to smoke themselves to death then fine, as long as I dont get forced to do it with you (thanks god for smoke-free pub-grub).

... I am planning my escape to canada within the next few years... I suggest others do the same!

It's sinister insanity like this...

that makes me really, really relieved that my wife has finally agreed to move to Texas. Lower taxes; permitted, nay applauded, when you shoot some little scrote who breaks into your house; and you can enjoy a smoke after a meal without having to leave the restaurant. Yee Haw!

I'll get my coat alright, believe me, I'll get my damn coat!

Sorry to tell you...

-> 'licence to re-wire my house without turning the mains off first?'

Sorry to tell you but since around 1995, you cannot legally do any electrical work on your home with out being licensed, mains on or off.

RE: Sorry to tell you...

You can do a lot of electrical DIY work, it's all about the Part P regulations and the inspection. It's not like Gas work. The 1995 change was about the rules and following them, so you could do it all by yourself if you wanted and had a copy of the IEE Wiring Regulations.

The change in 2005 was to make it so that small jobs could be done on DIY like moving a socket, relplacing or repairing the exisiting setup, but anything else had to done by someone with Part P certification, or by a "competent" DIY person followed by an inspection if required by a Part P at the end.

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Part_P

http://www.buildingservicesguide.com/Articles/Article_4_15.asp