If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
License to smoke
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
Comments
Seems just like another way to tax and rip off smokers though. Bullshit.
The professor quite rightly points out that if every smoker had to fill in a 20-page application for a smoking permit an awful lot of people would say 'sod that' and stop smoking. Those that could be bothered to make an application would probably have their applications 'lost' by incompetent Government bureaucracy- let HMRC run it and nobody would ever get a permit.
I's a genius idea, really cynical, but obviously completely impractical.
I think that's rather naive to be honest.
Hell, most people can't be arsed with forms for benefits that give them money. I doubt that chasing the weed will make any difference.
Makes it sound like an oppressed group.
Looking for to the million smokers march next year.
some people see it that way.
it if were many other social or anti-social groups there would be uproar if they were treat with the contempt smokers are.
Those not addicted to nicotine obviously.
It might help stop people starting, but then people don't usually start by going the shop and buying a pack, they start because somebody else gives them a fag. And will there be a limit on how many fags people can buy at one time? Because you'll just get people buying more for other people.
It just seems a clever yet at the same time very stupid idea.
Not to mention the fact that i buy the odd packet of rolling baccy for spliffs. Guess I'd have to fill out the bloody form too.
I look forward to £10 licences and 20-page declarations for people who drink alcohol. Or for people who don't exercise regularly and don't follow a healthy diet.
I am very close to taking up smoking on general principle. Smoking is no longer allowed in public places, and at least you could see the logic there to a degree. But when we start licensing what people can do with their own bodies when they're not bothering anyone else... fuck that.
I don't think smoking bans / licences are designed to victimise smokers specifically, it's to try to negate / reduce the negative effects smoking has on other people and the smokers themselves in many cases.
It's freedom of choice, but it's an unhealthy addiction too - smoking has nowhere near the stigma attached as alcoholism and so people don't take it as seriously, when it can still be very difficult to give up and still do a lot of damage health-wise and socially. In this regard smoking still gets off quite lightly. Look at other drugs, they're all banned, even if they do less damage to health and society.
Whilst I see the plight of smokers - they don't want to give up because they enjoy it / can't give up - I think being able to buy cigarettes and smoke yourself to death without the government intervening is freedom of choice for you. Yes, they slap ridiculous tax on it to pay for the NHS bill when smokers end up in hospital, c'est la vie.
While tobacco might be highly damaging to smokers (and can be damaging in some situations to some people around them) it does not cause even 1% of the problems alcohol does; or heroin; or crack; or cocaine.
Some people need to understand that we will never, ever, ever EVER stop people from taking substances by force or legislation.
I wasn't advocating that man
So, in conclusion, even if smokers are victimised (which I don't think they are, I think the legislation is broadly used to combat the negative effects rather than the people) then it seems that other drug users have it much, much worse. Nicotine is the one that you can get away with, even if it's expensive.
Coming up next week - a panel of "experts" publish a 900-page "report" saying that smokers should be put into concentration camps.
Seriously, what's the next stupid idea to come out? Don't smokers have enough restrictions on their activities as it is? Isn't it time that society addressed its extremely confused messages and beliefs about drugs?
As for the license, I don't see how it will work. It's too beurocratic. I mean people can't smoke in pubs, that's good enough hey? Besides, if people really want to quit, they can.
*and I am one... Well, I start a cessation course on Friday, wish me luck!
Smokers cause harm to people around them.
so me sat in my flat having a drink and a few smokes in the evening is damaging people around me? i dont think so.
also whenever i smoke when out and about or even at work its with other smokers.
that arguement cant be used anymore.
Well I know people who are affected by second hand smoke. And the people disputing it tend to be the ones throwing their toys out of the pram over having to go outside for a fag.
Honestly... Do they smoke around their children?
And with the chemicals that go in to cigs... How can they not be harmful?
Of course it is. Why do you think it was banned?
I noticed that during the debate around the smoking ban. The first argument was "second hand smoke causes no damage" and the second argument was, "it's gonna make people smoke around their children at home." Well if the first point is true, then the second argument is pretty inconsequential.
And if you're in your flat, smoking around other people and they are breathing your smoke, yes, they are breathing in toxins.
Although you are being ironic, the last time a civilised society started down this road was in Nazi germany. The level of intrusion into the lives of and disarming of the general citizenry is identical to the initial stages of the rise of Hitler. Not as comparable with the other nations - russia was a backwards hellhole ruled by tyrants already and merely changed tyrant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
People who don't smoke and share their home with a smoker could be harmed if they allow smoking in their presence. But that's up to them to sort out, not the State. The government has taken every measure necessary to protect non-smokers (arguably they could ban smoking in front of children at home, though quite how this would be enforced is another matter). But non smokers are now completely safe, and any further regulation of smoking is as counterproductive as it is an attack on the personal freedom of the smoker.
And I'll make it clear again that I don't smoke.
Have you read the Beauty Myth?
The vid is really long tho...
And I don't see how the smoking ban is an intrusion. It is asking people to step outside for the duration that they are smoking.
That isn't an intrusion, it is good manners. It's consideration for others who don't want to breath smoke and guess what... It takes five minutes!
If you're worried about the government infringing on civil liberties, you want to look at aspects of SOCPA or the new anti-terrorism legislation.
You weren't allowed to smoke in libraries before, was this an infringement of anybody's rights? What about smoking in the post office?
Nobody is saying that people can't smoke. They are not rounding up smokers and sending them to death camps, they are not tapping the phones of people because they smoke, denying them education, dropping bombs on them. They're just saying that you can't smoke inside a pub any more because it is unpleasant and other people have to breath the shit in too which ISN'T FAIR.
And I ask again, since when does the right of somebody to smoke inside because they're too lazy to walk to the door over-ride another person's right to not have to breath in poison? it's fucking selfish.
As for the licences... It would be a good thing to help some people quit smoking. If you can afford to smoke, you can afford £10 for it. It's also a fair bit beurocratic... I wonder how much the government would lose or make from it.
I don't buy into the "second-hand smoke causing harm is a dubious theory" argument either. I just believe whoever these sanctimonious, meddling busy-bodies are that keep inventing new ways of restricting civil liberties, need to fuck right off.
Also: Whoever invoked Godwin's Law earlier, loses.
Recreational drug users - banned outright, possible prison sentence in certain circumstances for possesion.
Driving enthusiasts - speed limits meaning you can't recreationally drive at all, hefty fines and/or bans for exceeding them, of which the UK employs the largest network of traffic cameras in the world to catch them out.
Offroaders - green laning banned
I mean, come on, it's not just smokers it's the whole country. Yes we do have a nanny state, but it's also true that we will have less smoking related cancers this year than countries like Spain where smoking laws are incredibly relaxed. You can't have it both ways, because people are too selfish or ignorant to be considerate of others in many cases. Just look at the denial of the effects of passive smoking in this thread.
Just the same as people used to argue that they could drink and drive completely safely - which still occurs on the continent. It was only due to a massive nationwide crackdown in the UK which has curbed the behaviour here.
There are loads of countries with much more liberal laws than us but have it worse off. The highest rate of drug dependency in Europe? Amsterdam. Now, there are lots of swings and roundabouts to it - if we look at alcohol then we have strict legislation but some of the worst issues. And if everywhere in Europe had legalised drugs, then there would probably be a stable level of drug dependency - just that all those who are addicted may be inclined to travel where they can get it easiest.
I think it was Aladdin who said it, he's right that no amount of 'force' will stop people in the long term - if they want cigarrettes then they can get them. But using legislative measures along with ad campaigns can help to change social norms, so they're not completely futile. i.e. drink drive campaign
Last time I checked, it wasn't possible for me to stand in a pub and breath in the fumes of someone's drink, but it was possible for me to breath in the chemicals of their cigarette.
What 'vilification'? Or are you saying that it's alright for others to breath in your dirty habit?
Ecaxtly.
Oh get down from your cross; somebody needs the wood. :rolleyes:
What kind of identifiable group?
I don't understand why being told to stand outside, so that businesses can run clean smoke free bars is fascistic. What's the big deal? And why the oh so gigantic victim complex that so many smokers have?
I smoke and quite frankly I don't give a fuck, neither do my friends. It's not hard to comply with the rules, it isn't hurting anyone. Smoking indoors however is hurting people. I don't know about others, but personally I would rather not risk hurting the people I love by smoking around them, or strangers who have no choice but to breath my crap.
I mean seriously, what's the big deal?
There are way bigger problems in this country. For example, the UNICEF report which says how we're failing our children. Sure, different things matter to different people, but pulling the victim card for not being allowed to smoke in a bar is pretty trivial, when for example, less than six percent of rapes reported end up in conviction, when roughly a quartre of our children live in poverty, when we still have institutionalised racism, disablism, sexism and homophobia.
If somebody proves that there is no harm with second hand smoke, then you have a point.
Common sense would say that because cigarettes are proven to be bad for people's health first hand, that the very same smoke you breath out of your lungs and that burns from the cigarette would also be harmful.
Would you smoke around children, not knowing if the smoke is going to cause them damage or not? Surely, as there is no proof that it is not harmful, then any sane person would not let them breath your smoke. It's taking a chance otherwise.