Mandatory Smokers License?

[Bocefish]

WTF is wrong with these people?

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/ ... s-license/

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – A public health proposal suggests that tobacco smokers should be required to apply and pay for a “smoker’s license” in order to continue buying cigarettes.

In this week’s PLOS Medicine medical journal, two leading tobacco control advocates debate the merits of the smoker’s license. Simon Chapman, a professor at the University of Sydney, proposes that users would have to apply and pay for a mandatory license in the form of a smartcard that would be shown when buying cigarettes.

Dr. Chapman wrote that it could discourage young people from picking up the habit.

In a controversial move, the smartcard would allow the government to limit how many cigarettes a smoker could buy. Professor Chapman suggests 50 per day averaged over two weeks to accommodate heavy smokers. The anti-smoking activist told the Daily Mail that the sale of tobacco is currently subject to trivial controls compared to other dangerous products that threaten both public and personal safety.

A 2009 study from the Pew Research Center found that for the period of January through June 2008, the share of current smokers in the American adult population was 20.8 percent. According to statistics on the PLOS journal’s website, tobacco continues to kill millions of people around the world each year and usage is even increasing in some countries.

Arguing against the smoker’s license in the journal is Jeff Collin, a professor at the University of Edinburgh. Professor Collin wrote that it would shift focus away from the real vector of the epidemic—the tobacco industry—and focusing on individuals would censure victims, increase stigmatization of smokers, and marginalize the poor.

Professor Collin believes that limits to personal freedom will doom such legislation.

“The authoritarian connotations of the smoker’s license would inevitably meet with broad opposition,” Collin told the Daily Mail. “In the United Kingdom, for example, successive governments have failed to introduce identity cards.”

Citing future scientific benefit, Prof. Chapman wrote that the information collected from smartcard applications could be used to formulate better smoking prevention strategies.

“Opponents of the idea would be quick to suggest that Orwellian social engineers would soon be calling for licenses to drink alcohol and to eat junk food or engage in any ‘risky’ activity,” Dr. Chapman told the Daily Mail. “This argument rests on poor public understanding of the magnitude of the risks of smoking relative to other cumulative everyday risks to health.”

 

[Jupiter551]

Like they don't get enough revenue from taxing cigarettes anyway. Either make it illegal or stop ripping smokers off. Whatever, I'm glad I switched to electronic.

 

[16_bit]

It's no wonder they've failed to bring in cards in the UK, most smokers i know are already pissed about the no smoking indoors thing and the fact that like 76% of the cost of cigarettes is tax. You have to wonder who thinks these things up really, i mean:
1 - The cost to implement and enforce this would really be a waste, in terms that it could be spent on better and more important things.
2 - People will find a way around the limit, and some places wouldn't be strict to the rules. This would also include younger people they hope to discourage.

Wonder how long it takes for them to decide it would also be a good idea to start a drinkers license, you know they would think about it.

 

[SoTxBob]

Wonder how long it takes for them to decide it would also be a good idea to start a drinkers license, you know they would think about it.

...but keep in mind also, almost anyone can brew some great corn liquor, vodka or beer at home but not many folks have the availability to grow their own 'tabacki'....

 

[Mirra]

Meh... waste of time in my opinion. People will find a way around it. Hell, I'm pretty adamantly against smoking (personally) and don't want it done around me if I can help it, but I might even register for a smoker's license if that happened to profit off selling to those who are hitting their limits. Yeah... I'm that asshole.

 

[Shaun__]

Wonder how long it takes for them to decide it would also be a good idea to start a drinkers license, you know they would think about it.

...but keep in mind also, almost anyone can brew some great corn liquor, vodka or beer at home but not many folks have the availability to grow their own 'tabacki'....

It might be kind of funny to see cops on the news breaking into houses to stop illegal tobacco indoor grow operations. Might make people wish they had taken personal liberty more seriously, before it affected them personally.

First they came for the marijuana,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a hippie.

Then they came for the Pit Bulls,
and I didn't speak out because I owned a German Shepherd.

Then they came for the 32oz sodas,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't thirsty.

Then they came for smokers,
and there was no one left to speak for me.​

 

[Lintilla]

They're about to raise the tax on cigarettes in Chicago to $6.67 a pack, and black market cigarettes are already a thing here. I expect that to expand. That and good ol' "oh, you're visiting family in Indiana? Bring me back five cartons". So good luck with all that, I guess.

 

[curvyredhead]

They're about to raise the tax on cigarettes in Chicago to $6.67 a pack, and black market cigarettes are already a thing here. I expect that to expand. That and good ol' "oh, you're visiting family in Indiana? Bring me back five cartons". So good luck with all that, I guess.

Sadly 6.67 a pack is super cheap for some places.
It is $14 a pack in nyc ....yes...a pack.

 

[Candygirl3x]

Here in Quebec ( Canada ) it's 7.50$ a pack... But if you go on the indian reserve you'll
actually pay around 8$ for a Carton ... ( 8 packs of 25 ) and they still make money...

Kinda make you wonder how much taxe and benefits are in a " legal pack " lolll

But in the end, I don't smoke so I don't really care, what I do care about is the cost of
medical treatement for a smoker to our Free medicare.. so I'd welcome that Card in the end...

Wanna smoke up, well pay more since you'll eventually cost more to the system....

Candy xxx

 

[AllisonWilder]

Lame. Cigarettes here in Minnesota are already $6 a pack, they're over $7 just over the lake in Wisconsin.

I don't think that non-smokers understand that I'd (and a lot of other smokers that I know, too)sooner skimp on something else (milk, eggs, cable, nights out) than I would give up smoking because someone else thinks that I should.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

 

[Jupiter551]

Here in Quebec ( Canada ) it's 7.50$ a pack... But if you go on the indian reserve you'll
actually pay around 8$ for a Carton ... ( 8 packs of 25 ) and they still make money...

Kinda make you wonder how much taxe and benefits are in a " legal pack " lolll

But in the end, I don't smoke so I don't really care, what I do care about is the cost of
medical treatement for a smoker to our Free medicare.. so I'd welcome that Card in the end...

Wanna smoke up, well pay more since you'll eventually cost more to the system....

Candy xxx

I see your point but by that same logic a large tax should be applied to any activity or lifestyle that may increase a person's risk of needing medical attention, including but not limited to:
junk food, recreational drug use, alcohol, mountain climbing, hang gliding, skydiving, owning a small car, sports, flying on an airplane, being a passenger in a car, having unprotected sex, childbirth...and so forth.
Presently, smokers pay enormous amounts of tax, most of which is probably not being used to offset the cost of their possible future treatment needs, but rather going to programs and tax breaks for the general populace. So really, people should give smokers a break.

Government treats them as a piggy bank and the non-smoking public treat them as pariahs. If society was honest about it they'd admit this about smokers: we're happy to take their money, but that doesn't mean they'll be treated equally.

 

[JoleneBrody]

The idea that a single smoker is unaware of the risk is laughable! In this day and age it's pretty impossible to ignore.

As a grown ass adult I have the right to take that personal risk. The idea that it's even being suggested that we don't understand those risks just shows that the anti-smoking pushers consider smokers to be uneducated retards who live under rocks.

I can actually understand an alcohol license (though I don't support it) because alcohol is a mind altering substance that kills millions a year, including people who did not consume. (drunk driving)

Smoking is only one of the many things that kill millions of people a year (because you know, people DO die, crazy right?) but as long as the smoker is respectful of others space, it affects no one else but the person partaking.

 

[Just Me]

The idea that a single smoker is unaware of the risk is laughable! In this day and age it's pretty impossible to ignore.

As a grown ass adult I have the right to take that personal risk. The idea that it's even being suggested that we don't understand those risks just shows that the anti-smoking pushers consider smokers to be uneducated retards who live under rocks.

I can actually understand an alcohol license (though I don't support it) because alcohol is a mind altering substance that kills millions a year, including people who did not consume. (drunk driving)

Smoking is only one of the many things that kill millions of people a year (because you know, people DO die, crazy right?) but as long as the smoker is respectful of others space, it affects no one else but the person partaking.

This is actually not true. Even if they are respectful of others space, unless they are in a hermetically sealed bubble it will affect other people. That is the only argument I can agree with for many of these draconian laws and why the comparisons to other vices do not hold up. Smoking doesn't affect just the person smoking. How much it affects others is up for some debate. Alcohol might kill as many individuals but other than drinking and driving or violence associated with drinking, it will not kill someone else.

That being said, I am generally against any of these type of laws. I am a smoker but rarely partake in alcohol.

 

[JoleneBrody]

The idea that a single smoker is unaware of the risk is laughable! In this day and age it's pretty impossible to ignore.

As a grown ass adult I have the right to take that personal risk. The idea that it's even being suggested that we don't understand those risks just shows that the anti-smoking pushers consider smokers to be uneducated retards who live under rocks.

I can actually understand an alcohol license (though I don't support it) because alcohol is a mind altering substance that kills millions a year, including people who did not consume. (drunk driving)

Smoking is only one of the many things that kill millions of people a year (because you know, people DO die, crazy right?) but as long as the smoker is respectful of others space, it affects no one else but the person partaking.

This is actually not true. Even if they are respectful of others space, unless they are in a hermetically sealed bubble it will affect other people. That is the only argument I can agree with for many of these draconian laws and why the comparisons to other vices do not hold up. Smoking doesn't affect just the person smoking. How much it affects others is up for some debate. Alcohol might kill as many individuals but other than drinking and driving or violence associated with drinking, it will not kill someone else.

That being said, I am generally against any of these type of laws. I am a smoker but rarely partake in alcohol.

Can you explain? I would disagree with both of your points. If a smoker smokes in the privacy of their own garage, away from other people exactly how is that affecting Joe Smith down at the local pharmacy other than funding his daughters schooling?

In regards to alcohol, "aside from these very horrible and very common occurrences" seems pretty silly a statement... but aside from silly it's also VERY wrong. Alcohol is one of the few "drugs" that can kill a person from detox if they become heavily dependent, organ failure is usually what happens in these cases.
Anyway, I don't believe the millions of innocent people killed by drunk drivers deserve to be placed on the back burner as an insignificant example. It's pretty damn significant.

 

[JickyJuly]

The idea that a single smoker is unaware of the risk is laughable! In this day and age it's pretty impossible to ignore.

As a grown ass adult I have the right to take that personal risk. The idea that it's even being suggested that we don't understand those risks just shows that the anti-smoking pushers consider smokers to be uneducated retards who live under rocks.

I can actually understand an alcohol license (though I don't support it) because alcohol is a mind altering substance that kills millions a year, including people who did not consume. (drunk driving)

Smoking is only one of the many things that kill millions of people a year (because you know, people DO die, crazy right?) but as long as the smoker is respectful of others space, it affects no one else but the person partaking.

This is actually not true. Even if they are respectful of others space, unless they are in a hermetically sealed bubble it will affect other people. That is the only argument I can agree with for many of these draconian laws and why the comparisons to other vices do not hold up. Smoking doesn't affect just the person smoking. How much it affects others is up for some debate. Alcohol might kill as many individuals but other than drinking and driving or violence associated with drinking, it will not kill someone else.

That being said, I am generally against any of these type of laws. I am a smoker but rarely partake in alcohol.

If we're charging everyone who imposes in the air of others, people who choose not to bathe or brush their teeth should be at the top of the list. My own love of overusing perfume would get me a prime spot up there too. :lol: That's just silly reasoning. Smokers already pay tons to smoke, extra for health insurance, extra for life insurance, can't work in some places etc. If it's such a terrible thing that it requires all of that and licensing, perhaps we should see smokers (most of whom start out young) as the victims here instead of the villains.

 

[Jupiter551]

If we're charging everyone who imposes in the air of others, people who choose not to bathe or brush their teeth should be at the top of the list. My own love of overusing perfume would get me a prime spot up there too. :lol: That's just silly reasoning. Smokers already pay tons to smoke, extra for health insurance, extra for life insurance, can't work in some places etc. If it's such a terrible thing that it requires all of that and licensing, perhaps we should see smokers (most of whom start out young) as the victims here instead of the villains.

Exactly, and if the government agrees with activists that it's so morally reprehensible to smoke (which they appear to because laws become more ridiculous year by year) then they should have the stones to actually ban it AND lose all that juicy revenue. But they don't because a) it's really not that morally wrong to smoke away from other people and b) they like to make themselves look good for frowning down their noses at us while all the time holding their hand out for money.

 

[LadyLuna]

I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. My first is a smoker. He actually has to smoke. The last time he tried to quit, he had a seizure, and the doctor told him that since smoking helps him stay calm, he needs to keep smoking. So fuck laws like this.

It's a common myth that second and third hand smoke is just as harmful as the actual cigarettes. My dad was furious with me for associating with a smoker, because of this fucking myth. My thoughts on that is- the only way second hand smoke is harmful is if people sit there breathing it in for hours at a time.

People want to blame smoking on the rise of lung cancer. And since they can't explain all those people who get lung cancer without ever having smoked, they decide to blame second-hand smoke. Smoking caries with it an "increased risk" for lung cancer. I believe that is mostly the fault of the fucking cigarette companies. Want to make our air cleaner? Start regulating what cigarette companies put in the damn cigarettes. Break the oil company's hold on fuel and figure out other, not as polluting ways, to fuel our cars. Want to make people healthier? Stop subsidizing so much corn that junk food is cheaper than vegetables. Don't raise the prices on the junk, lower the prices on the healthy stuff.

But they'll never do that. Because they don't care about us. They care about power and money, and if they can take more of our money in a way that gives them more power of us, if they can take our money in a way that makes other people more eager to give them that power, then they will do it.

 

[Red7227]

I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. My first is a smoker. He actually has to smoke. The last time he tried to quit, he had a seizure, and the doctor told him that since smoking helps him stay calm, he needs to keep smoking. So fuck laws like this.

More power to you sweetie, I cannot stand the smell or the taste or the level of stupidity involved in thinking that smoking is a good idea. I would never date a smoker and have dumped girls that have started smoking.

 

[CallMeWilliam]

Here in Quebec ( Canada ) it's 7.50$ a pack... But if you go on the indian reserve you'll
actually pay around 8$ for a Carton ... ( 8 packs of 25 ) and they still make money...

Kinda make you wonder how much taxe and benefits are in a " legal pack " lolll

But in the end, I don't smoke so I don't really care, what I do care about is the cost of
medical treatement for a smoker to our Free medicare.. so I'd welcome that Card in the end...

Wanna smoke up, well pay more since you'll eventually cost more to the system....

Candy xxx

^^^ This and...

Here in my province a pack of 25 cigarettes is between $12.50 and $15.00 depending on the place you purchase it and the brand.

Sucks to be a smoker, but I don't so I don't really care if they tax the hell out of em.

 

[Jupiter551]

I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. My first is a smoker. He actually has to smoke. The last time he tried to quit, he had a seizure, and the doctor told him that since smoking helps him stay calm, he needs to keep smoking. So fuck laws like this.

More power to you sweetie, I cannot stand the smell or the taste or the level of stupidity involved in thinking that smoking is a good idea. I would never date a smoker and have dumped girls that have started smoking.

I'd never date a girl who'd dump me if I started smoking again, it should be a personal choice.

 

[Mirra]

I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. My first is a smoker. He actually has to smoke. The last time he tried to quit, he had a seizure, and the doctor told him that since smoking helps him stay calm, he needs to keep smoking. So fuck laws like this.

More power to you sweetie, I cannot stand the smell or the taste or the level of stupidity involved in thinking that smoking is a good idea. I would never date a smoker and have dumped girls that have started smoking.

I'd never date a girl who'd dump me if I started smoking again, it should be a personal choice.

And I would probably avoid a smoker or potential smoker personally... since that's my choice.

 

[Bocefish]

The whole ridiculous premise of forcing people to pay for a license in order to buy the 100% legal things they'r already buying is supposedly because

Dr. Chapman wrote that it could discourage young people from picking up the habit.

Here's an idea... enforce the laws that are already on the books making questionable minors show ID.

Then the antis say

the sale of tobacco is currently subject to trivial controls compared to other dangerous products that threaten both public and personal safety.

Tobacco is a dangerous product that threatens both public and personal safety?

Run for your lives... there's tobacco in town!

 

[LeenaLiberty]

Got to love "the state" for trying to take care of us......

ridiculous.

 

[Just Me]

The idea that a single smoker is unaware of the risk is laughable! In this day and age it's pretty impossible to ignore.

As a grown ass adult I have the right to take that personal risk. The idea that it's even being suggested that we don't understand those risks just shows that the anti-smoking pushers consider smokers to be uneducated retards who live under rocks.

I can actually understand an alcohol license (though I don't support it) because alcohol is a mind altering substance that kills millions a year, including people who did not consume. (drunk driving)

Smoking is only one of the many things that kill millions of people a year (because you know, people DO die, crazy right?) but as long as the smoker is respectful of others space, it affects no one else but the person partaking.

This is actually not true. Even if they are respectful of others space, unless they are in a hermetically sealed bubble it will affect other people. That is the only argument I can agree with for many of these draconian laws and why the comparisons to other vices do not hold up. Smoking doesn't affect just the person smoking. How much it affects others is up for some debate. Alcohol might kill as many individuals but other than drinking and driving or violence associated with drinking, it will not kill someone else.

That being said, I am generally against any of these type of laws. I am a smoker but rarely partake in alcohol.

Can you explain? I would disagree with both of your points. If a smoker smokes in the privacy of their own garage, away from other people exactly how is that affecting Joe Smith down at the local pharmacy other than funding his daughters schooling?

In regards to alcohol, "aside from these very horrible and very common occurrences" seems pretty silly a statement... but aside from silly it's also VERY wrong. Alcohol is one of the few "drugs" that can kill a person from detox if they become heavily dependent, organ failure is usually what happens in these cases.
Anyway, I don't believe the millions of innocent people killed by drunk drivers deserve to be placed on the back burner as an insignificant example. It's pretty damn significant.

I would agree with you if no one ever goes into that garage but the smoker. 2nd hand smoke and even reports of 3rd hand smoke now. A person drinking, no matter how close or far away will not affect another person. Unless of course they get behind the wheel and drive, but then someone that is sober and is distracted driving could kill someone else too. I was not diminishing that many innocent people are killed due to drunk driving, but it certainly has not been millions of people.http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics In fact it is not even close to how many deaths every year that are attributable to 2nd hand smoke. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

 

[Jupiter551]

Heh I love how people are talking about tobacco taxes as if they're taxing it because it's unhealthy, rather than taxing it because they want money.

 

[curvyredhead]

Heh I love how people are talking about tobacco taxes as if they're taxing it because it's unhealthy, rather than taxing it because they want money.

For Real Deal

 

[Lintilla]

They're about to raise the tax on cigarettes in Chicago to $6.67 a pack, and black market cigarettes are already a thing here. I expect that to expand. That and good ol' "oh, you're visiting family in Indiana? Bring me back five cartons". So good luck with all that, I guess.

Sadly 6.67 a pack is super cheap for some places.
It is $14 a pack in nyc ....yes...a pack.

$6.67 will be the taxes ALONE. Compared to $6.87 in New York (if the first number I found on Google is correct). First and second highest cigarette taxes in the country. My husband started smoking again over the last year. He'd better be re-quitting pretty quick-like.

 

[curvyredhead]

They're about to raise the tax on cigarettes in Chicago to $6.67 a pack, and black market cigarettes are already a thing here. I expect that to expand. That and good ol' "oh, you're visiting family in Indiana? Bring me back five cartons". So good luck with all that, I guess.

Sadly 6.67 a pack is super cheap for some places.
It is $14 a pack in nyc ....yes...a pack.

$6.67 will be the taxes ALONE. Compared to $6.87 in New York (if the first number I found on Google is correct). First and second highest cigarette taxes in the country. My husband started smoking again over the last year. He'd better be re-quitting pretty quick-like.

I beleive I miss read your post.
In any case....I find it hard to beleive the tax on cigerrettes in nyc is only 6.87. Perhaps NY State. Since I have seen ciggettes elsewhere go as low as $5. And in nyc I have seen them as high as $16.
Either way---it's impossibly expensive.
A friend of mine where talking just the other day about how she spends over $500 a months on smokes.