Post by: loulou on February 16, 2008, 07:15:06 pm
No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England.
What next? I see a permit to buy alcohol next which has to be swiped everytime you buy a drink then just as you are getting merry the bartender informs you that you can have no more as you have exceeded your limit for one day.
Post by: MayRae on February 16, 2008, 10:10:48 pm
I have to say I would not be sorry to see the end of drunk driving as a past time of those who irresponsibly drink too much, then get behind the wheel.
If it helps keep one or two drunk drivers off the roads I would be all for it, and if you don't drink and drive then you have nothing to worry about.
It wouldn't stop people getting drunk as they could still do that at home and at private parties, but it might help cut down the incidents of innocent people being killed by hit and run/drunk drivers. That would be a good thing.
The permit for the smoking would I think, be introduced simply to increase the revenues paid by those people there are left who still smoke. Perhaps the government is now realising just how much of it's revenue is actually raised in tax on tobacco and is regretting it's monumental push to have everybody quit?
Post by: smurfboy on February 17, 2008, 02:01:17 pm
Post by: goldencup on February 17, 2008, 02:19:12 pm
The very idea! This is the 21st century you know!
Post by: loulou on February 17, 2008, 02:59:07 pm
Post by: on February 17, 2008, 03:06:26 pm
One point to consider however.
What about the rights of children who have to share a house with smoking parents/guardians?
Post by: Logger on February 17, 2008, 04:07:01 pm
As somebody who really struggled to quit smoking, I would say ban cigarettes altogether. Of course, It will never happen because the government would lose too much in taxes. Ironic really...
Post by: loulou on February 17, 2008, 04:09:24 pm
Quote from: paulham
Your civil liberties do need to be respected and it does seem very draconian.One point to consider however.What about the rights of children who have to share a house with smoking parents/guardians?
Is a child living with a smoking parent worse than living with a parent who is permanently drunk and abusive?
Post by: loulou on February 17, 2008, 04:10:08 pm
Quote from: Logger
As somebody who really struggled to quit smoking, I would say ban cigarettes altogether. Of course, It will never happen because the government would lose too much in taxes. Ironic really...
How long were you a smoker?
Post by: on February 17, 2008, 04:11:35 pm
Post by: on February 17, 2008, 04:12:24 pm
Quote from: loulou
Quote from: LoggerAs somebody who really struggled to quit smoking, I would say ban cigarettes altogether. Of course, It will never happen because the government would lose too much in taxes. Ironic really...
How long were you a smoker?
Until she stopped.
Post by: loulou on February 17, 2008, 04:15:24 pm
Reformed smokers are the worst. They don't agree with the price of them or banning them until they have given up and that is because they know they could easily return to smoking.
Post by: MayRae on February 17, 2008, 08:06:58 pm
If they aren't old enough they won't have a permit and so could not buy tobacco products.
I'm not sure how it's such a bad thing, but of course I'm not trying to hide anything.
Post by: on February 17, 2008, 09:37:50 pm
A permit to drink coffee?
A permit to eat fattening foods?
A permit to eat high sugar/salt foods?
You get my drift I'm sure (well, I'm not but I'll assume you all are).
Personally, I think smoking should be made illegal and nicotine made a class A drug.
Post by: Logger on February 17, 2008, 09:56:16 pm
Quote from: loulou
Quote from: LoggerAs somebody who really struggled to quit smoking, I would say ban cigarettes altogether. Of course, It will never happen because the government would lose too much in taxes. Ironic really...
How long were you a smoker?
14 years. A long time.
I honestly think that there is really no argument against banning cigarettes...they have no benefits whatsoever.
Most people start smoking when they are below or around the legal age and at that point in their lives, they give very little thought to the future consequences. I know many smokers in their 30's and 40's and not one enjoys their habit and all would like to quit.
For what it's worth I think the 'permit' idea is utterly ridiculous.
Post by: Logger on February 17, 2008, 09:58:16 pm
Quote from: loulou
Seriously, perhaps some people would but I had a really nasty health scare which frightened me enough to NEVER touch one again.
I've been 'clean' for 3 years now
Post by: loulou on February 17, 2008, 10:27:02 pm
My mother smoked for over 30 years and gave up after seeing a tv programme about lung cancer.
Post by: MayRae on February 18, 2008, 02:59:40 am
Congratulations Logger.
From one ex-smoker to another. I smoked for quite a while too, about 12 years when I come to count it up. I would never go back to smoking, because I remember how much better I felt once I'd been stopped for a few months.
I also have lots of friends who smoke and wish they could quit. Most of them wish they'd never started in the first place. And all of them say that cigarettes are too expensive. Then light another.
Post by: oldspice on February 18, 2008, 06:35:24 am
The troubel with ideas like this is that they create an underground demand and supply of illegal substances.
Post by: smurfboy on February 18, 2008, 02:49:58 pm
Quote from: paulham
Your civil liberties do need to be respected and it does seem very draconian.One point to consider however.What about the rights of children who have to share a house with smoking parents/guardians?
I agree parents shouldn't smoke around their kids, but this permit wouldn't prevent that.
Post by: loulou on February 18, 2008, 06:25:24 pm
Post by: on February 19, 2008, 08:08:53 am
Post by: smurfboy on February 19, 2008, 02:03:37 pm
Quote from: loulou
What will happen for non smokers who usually go to the shop and purchase cigarettes for people who are housebound?
If they're so ill that they're housebound, they shouldn't be smoking.
Post by: Jamsi on February 19, 2008, 04:07:05 pm
Quote from: smurfboy
If they're so ill that they're housebound, they shouldn't be smoking.
Maybe that is the only pleasure they have in their life!
Post by: on February 19, 2008, 08:10:41 pm
Quote from: Jamsi
Maybe that is the only pleasure they have in their life!They would be better off dead if that is the extent of the pleasures in their life.
Post by: loulou on February 19, 2008, 10:32:17 pm
Post by: oldspice on February 20, 2008, 06:40:19 am
Home delivery?
Post by: on February 20, 2008, 08:05:48 am
Post by: loulou on February 20, 2008, 09:20:57 am
I think that once the permit is introduced it will be swiped each time a purchase is made and will all be logged so the goverment will then be wondering how the unemployed afford cigarettes. I hope it helps catch all these fiddling dole scroungers who seem to have more cash to spend than people who work.
Post by: smurfboy on February 20, 2008, 01:41:05 pm
Quote from: paulham
Quote from: JamsiMaybe that is the only pleasure they have in their life!They would be better off dead if that is the extent of the pleasures in their life.
Indeed.
Post by: Jamsi on February 20, 2008, 05:43:48 pm
Most people know the health risks associated with smoking and it is their personal choice to partake in the habit so if it leads them to an early grave it is their own fault!
Nanny state gone mad again
Post by: on February 20, 2008, 08:26:26 pm
It leads to 2 words.
Passive smoking.
The carer has a personal choice not to partake in inhaling second hand smoke.
I guess we should leave them to die whilst enjoying their smokes.
Post by: oldspice on February 21, 2008, 06:52:25 am
HOWEVER, for the selfish few who think they can pollute the air around them in public, they need legislation, which we now have.
I think I'm right in saying that, under the new law, a carer employed by the local authority can ask that clients they are visiting refrain from smoking for the duration of their visit. Sadly, this does not extend to carers from within the person's own family.
And there lies a sad, but true story. My cousin, who was exactly the same age as me (both born same day, same year) married a much older man who, shortly after their wedding, suffered a series of medical problems that forced him to give up work and become housebound. For over 30 years my cousin cared for her husband. At the same time she raised four children. For most of that time she breathed in the smoke of her husband's cigarettes. She was not a smoker herself. Last summer, she died from lung cancer, aged 49. It was a long, lingering death as the cancer went to her brain and destroyed body and her personality. Her husband, now 77, always thought he would die first. He lives on.
Post by: smurfboy on February 21, 2008, 01:49:06 pm
Quote from: Jamsi
What has happened to freedom of choice? If someone is blind, deaf and has no legs and can't get out to the shops, If they can't read the paper or watch tv or listen to radio because of their disability but they enjoy a smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy one when they have very little else in their lives.Most people know the health risks associated with smoking and it is their personal choice to partake in the habit so if it leads them to an early grave it is their own fault!Nanny state gone mad again
You seem to have missed the point. No one has proposed that housebound people should be prevented from buying cigarettes! The proposal - and it is only that, a proposal - is that people should be made to buy a ONE-OFF permit which states they are allowed to purchase cigarettes. It would not limit the amount of cigarettes a person could buy (10 packs per permit etc.) and there would be nothing to stop a care worker or family member buying one and then giving the cigarettes to someone else.
I don't agree with the idea, but it's worth finding out what the idea actually is before deciding.
Post by: loulou on February 22, 2008, 07:02:27 pm
Post by: on March 08, 2008, 10:39:18 am
Post by: on March 08, 2008, 10:40:37 am
Ah, but it is their human rights that are being infringed. Poor smokers. Attacked from all angles.
How dumb do you have to be to smoke?
Post by: loulou on March 08, 2008, 04:29:12 pm
Post by: on March 08, 2008, 04:45:22 pm
Yes, drunks aren't exactly model parents either.
Post by: smurfboy on March 08, 2008, 05:19:28 pm
Post by: on March 08, 2008, 09:02:20 pm
Quote from: smurfboy
At least drunks only harm their own livers.
I was going to say something similar, Smurfy. I then paused and realised someone would come back with the fact that it can change a person's personality for the worse.
Alcohol can harm other innocents by turning the drunk into a beater.
Post by: loulou on March 10, 2008, 09:36:25 am
Post by: smurfboy on March 10, 2008, 01:51:49 pm
Post by: on March 10, 2008, 05:24:37 pm
Quote from: loulou
Do you agree with paying to drive on certain motorways?
Oh yes. It is called fuel duty, road fund license and V.A.T.
Post by: loulou on March 17, 2008, 10:07:51 pm
Post by: MayRae on March 24, 2008, 01:44:50 am
That seems a bit heavy handed. Are people really that easily influenced by movies and TV?
Post by: on March 24, 2008, 11:34:22 am
Glamourising smoking isn't a clever thing to do.
Post by: loulou on March 24, 2008, 03:06:36 pm
Post by: on March 24, 2008, 04:01:57 pm
Post by: loulou on March 24, 2008, 04:38:58 pm