I have no words.

[sixmp]

Smoking Licence.... WHAT?
Some people need locking up. ~Do they really think these ideas through?
Smoking continue with health risks and now they think getting a licence is going to put people off?

 

[papipeguy]

Another brilliant idea from the academic community. We already have licenses to smoke. They are called driver's licenses and, in most states, you have to be 18 years-old to purchase tobacco products.

 

[captainprophesy]

He used the analogy of prescription drugs; prescriptions essentially being "temporary licences" to buy pharmaceuticals.
"In contrast to the highly regulated way we allow access to life-saving and health-enhancing pharmaceuticals, this is how we regulate access to a product that kills half its long-term users," Prof Chapman wrote in the introduction to his paper.
Yeah but why do they not talk about the 100,000 deaths per year from pharmaceuticals
Also I love how they like to throw big numbers around to scare people: One billion people this century are predicted to die from smoking-related diseases
Well if this WAS to go through in England... it wouldn't be much longer before it hits the US.

 

[shawn622]

What's next??????? I can only imagine:/

 

[vespertillio]

Hmmm...The only way I would join this bandwagon is if said license allowed me to puff wherever I damn well please. That and the getting my money back from paying for the license. I would ask for it near my end to throw a monster party.

 

[judcole]

The story is BBC, but the professor (who is a professor of Public Health) that suggested it is Aussie. The article also quoted a professor of global health policy at University of Edinburgh who thought it was a bad idea. Both of them had papers in the same issue of the same online medical journal; it's the debate of the issue.
Not worth fretting about, IMO. They're just kicking around ideas.

 

[pipesicle]

Jud,

Not trying to be contrary but I think its in the "kicking around" stage that we have to act. Its too late when the idea of some knucklehead becomes

law.

Strike before the iron gets hot...or we are the ones who will get burnt. :evil:

 

[doctorthoss]

This has actually been proposed before, and failed miserably. The main thing that concerns me is that, objectively, this can be viewed as a compromise between prohibition an allowing it to remain openly legal. That means that it's going to seem very, very reasonable to a great many policy makers.

 

[gwtwdbss]

Wow, articles like this certainly make me want to contribute highly to my cellar.

 

[judcole]

I think its in the "kicking around" stage that we have to act.Its too late when the idea of some knucklehead becomes law.

What are we supposed to do? No legislation has been proposed. Professor Chapman made his proposal;Professor Collin said he thought it was a bad idea. This is an academic journal. Contributions from non-academics are going to be tossed in the trash - or,in this case, since it's an online journal, in the bit bucket.
If somebody propose legislation, then, certainly, people who are going to be affected by the legislation should speak out before it is passed.

 

[tslex]

"Never take a bet against the power of the state increasing." F. Bastiat.
OK, Frederic didn't ACTUALLY say EXACTLY that, as far as we know. But it's what he meant.
I certainly would not bet against the likelihood of the Brits and/or the Aussies handing over ever more rights to their beloved nanny states.

 

[lankfordjl]

Heavy Tax tobacco and then charge a fee to be licensed to buy the taxed tobacco. Black market sales of tobacco would sky-rocket!

 

[nsfisher]

Ya, it's a bit foolish for sure. Can't see anything like it actually going through.

 

[dervis]

A general consensus is that this is insane, and nothing will come with it. I would have said the same things about laws about business owners not having the option to allow smoking in their own place of business. Or people getting in trouble depending on the number of yards you are from a door while smoking . It is all stupid and happening , that is why stuff like this worries me.

 

[baronsamedi]

How you handle it in the kicking around stage is if you hear someone kicking something like that around you punch them in the face.

 

[judcole]

Wonderful - and then they have more reason to think smokers are a bunch of jerks.

 

[sixmp]

The main problem imo is that all smokers are being put into the same drum. Not all smokers need saving from addiction. I am not addicted to nicotine. I don't inhale. I smoke only 3 bowls a day. I also do not smoke "enhanced" tobacco that they throw into cigarettes.
Yet they see us all as nicotine starved crazy people who smoke a huge amount of tobacco who have no understanding what we are doing to ourselves, at least that is how they come across to me.
Unless they see a difference they will just continue to treat us this way.

 

[judcole]

I don't see any "they" in that article. There are two different opinions on this idea.
We want to be aware of proposed legislation, but until a law is actually proposed, there is nothing we can do about it. We can't stop them from talking, so why worry?

 

[dervis]

If the current policy of we cant do anything till legislation is what we as smokers have been using for the past 5-10 years , I feel confident in suggesting we need a new plan. I admit I am not sure what that would be exactly. Now if we could get a liscense to punch people that suggest stupid laws in the face, I am all for that. Ill buy those permits as fast as they can print them.

 

[sixmp]

I don't see any "they" in that article.

That is because i was talking in how smokers are seen in general.

It is that overall view that makes many of the people that come up with these idiotic ideas in the first place.
If we can some how change how smokers are viewed then it might effect how some future ideas will work.
It is like people assume if someone drinks alcohol then because it is addictive then all people who drink must be alcoholics. We know that is a silly notion yet it is being applied to smokers.