Should you need a licence to smoke? (tobacco)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By Victoria Gill, BBC reporter

If you're a smoker, could you imagine having to apply and pay for a licence to buy tobacco?

The application process might even include a test to find out if you understood the risks of smoking, and your swipe card licence would limit your tobacco purchases - perhaps to 50 cigarettes per day or less.

It might sound extreme, even social engineering, but this is the proposal of public health expert in Australia, who suggests that it could provide a practical "disincentive" for smokers.

Prof Simon Chapman from the University of Sydney is interested in the next generation of truly effective anti-smoking measures.

Laying out his case for a smokers licence in the latest issue of the journal Plos Medicine, he said it could be of interest to "high-income nations that are actively pursuing tobacco control goals".

So could a government-issued licence be the best solution to reduce smoking? And how could such a scheme work?

READ MORE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20314849)

I strongly suggest checking out the full article.

My first reaction? Fuck this bullshit! It's fucking gob-smacking the level of interference that some people think is justified in the name of health, especially when it comes to smoking.

As an example of how shit this idea is, let's have a go at answering the questions that the article suggests could be asked of a hypothetical smoking licence applicant:

---

1. If 100 people were diagnosed with lung cancer, how many would we expect to be alive in five years time?

I thought I was making an application to be a smoker, not an oncologist? In any case, I suspect the answer to this question is dependent on many variables not mentioned in the question.

2. What fraction of smokers do you believe will die early because of their smoking?

Once again, it depends. I imagine someone who smokes 20 a day for most of their adult life would have a shorter expectancy than someone who smokes 2 a day and quits before they turn 30.

3. On average, how much longer do non-smokers live than people who have smoked for a long time?

Without knowing how factors such as wealth, quality of available healthcare, amount smoked as a daily average, and so on, how can the average person be expected to answer this question?

4. A long-term smoker who dies from a disease caused by his or her smoking can expect to lose how many years off normal life expectancy?

Wouldn't that depend on what the smoker died of? Is it heart disease or cancer we're talking about here? Also, "long-term" is a meaningless descriptor without further information; is this long-term smoker having 2 or 20 cigarettes a day on average?

5. How many known carcinogens (chemicals which are known to cause cancer) are there in cigarette smoke?

Probably thousands. Isn't this like asking what type of falling objects are liable to cause head injuries? Also, how does knowing the amount of known carcinogens in cigarette smoke help one evaluate risk? I imagine that the cancer-causing abilities of substances varies, for example I would say that exposure to a certain amount of benzene is more likely to induce cancer than exposure to a similar amount of carbon dioxide.

---

What really irritates me about this sort of thing is that I suspect that many governments have no real incentive to get people to stop smoking, because it is a source of revenue for them. So schemes and proposals like these are proposed in the name of "public health", but should they be actually implemented, they would become yet another means of extracting more money out of smokers. I'm certain that licence fees would come on top of, rather than instead of, tobacco taxation.

Finally, I have a personal message for Professor Simon Chapman (http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/simonchapman.php) from the University of Sydney: Fuck off, you meddling busybody!

[Quail]

I think using cost or inconvenience as a way of trying to get people to quit smoking (or drinking, for that matter) is going about the issue backwards. Really, they should be asking, who smokes and why do they do it? There are higher levels of smoking (and drinking) among people who are socially deprived and people with mental health problems, which I think says something. And yet, at the same time as increasing taxes to supposedly get people to quit smoking and drink less, the government is making people work for benefits, capping housing benefit and cutting funding to the mental health services so either they're really stupid or they don't actually want people to stop smoking and drinking to excess.

[hetz]

That's worse than 1984, at least they had Victory cigarettes in Airstrip One.
Fuck this bullshit.


Finally, I have a personal message for Professor Simon Chapman (http://www.anonym.to/?http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/simonchapman.php) from the University of Sydney: Fuck off, you meddling busybody!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Chapman_%28academic%29

That chap seems to have dedicated a good part of his life to bothering smokers.

[hetz]

Reading this shit made me so angry I had to light one up.

[Philosophos]

I wanna kick some ass... Seriously now? Smokers' licence? I will smoke as much as I want and nobody is going to control it. They can talk as much as they want I don't care.

Oh and instead of making this idiotic law why don't they just try to support smokers who want to quit with a therapist? 80% of smokers started it for psychological reasons (even if they don't know). But ofcourse doing something practical that will have a good effect in our lives is too dull, they want something to spice up our daily routine LIKE FUCKING OUR ENTIRE DAILY ROUTINE UNTIL WE KILL THEM...

They see it as a video game I suppose....

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

All the shit mentioned on the packets, known generally and contained in those stupid questions had no effect on whether I smoked or not. I only quit because of my kid and having very little money. I miss smoking a lot, the reality of illness and early death never penentrated my want /need of it in the decade or so I spent as a smoker.
So yeah, fucking ridiculous .

[brigadista]

what nonsense - so lung cancer has nothing to do with air pollution or bad working conditions or shit in our food - just shmoking ..pull the other one ...

[Jimmie Higgins]

What really irritates me about this sort of thing is that I suspect that many governments have no real incentive to get people to stop smoking, because it is a source of revenue for them. So schemes and proposals like these are proposed in the name of "public health", but should they be actually implemented, they would become yet another means of extracting more money out of smokers. I'm certain that licence fees would come on top of, rather than instead of, tobacco taxation.


In the US the anti-smoking moral crusade is largely part of an ideological argument in my view - at least it's acceptance and promotion by the governemnt and sections of the ruling class. Here there is also a more direct link to the healtcare insurance industry who deny people coverage for smoking - well at least charge them a hell of a lot - and companies sometimes restrict company health benifits based on it. For them it's a direct financial incentive, but it also loops back into this larger ideological framework: essentially "personal respocibility over social benifits and programs".

The nuber one arguement you heard from random right wingers (and some liberals as well) during the health care "debates" a few years back was:
"what, MY TAX MONEY should go to some guy so he can smoke 2 packs a day and get cancer!" The nerve! Those entitled cancer sufferers!

So it's a question of social (i.e. government refoms) vs. "iduvidual" responcibility (i.e. neolibral policies toward the population). And sickest of all, induvidudal health industry companies get to speculate on your health basically commodifying your well-being.

In another side-effect, anti-smoking crusades here in California are actually part of the gentrification process and the connected removal of homeless from urban areas to increase property values once the neighborhood's been bought-up. In Berkeley, where I work, the local business association has made it now a ticketable offence to smoke - ON THE STEET OUTSIDE - in some "special" neighborhoods. This might seem wierd since these same commercial streets are where the college population (who tend to smoke more because of their age group and typicall US college culture - "yay, no parents around for the first time in my life!") and some of the few bars within walking distance of the campus are located here... but of course the cops don't ever happen to see college kids stepping out of the bar for a smoke - it's a green-light for harassing and moving homeless people into other areas. The liberal Mayor of Berkeley even said it will have to be "selectivly enforced".

Of course yuppies - even if they are politically against some of the draconian policies enacted BY DEMOCRATS against homeless people in the Bay Area - eat this shit up because they believe in the moral superiority of everything that goes into their body - McDonalds? NO! Cigarettes? You're worse than Hilter! Gluten? Genocide! But when it comes down to it, it shows that again, it's all the logic "personal responcibility" even for Bay Area progressives.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wanna kick some ass... Seriously now? Smokers' licence? I will smoke as much as I want and nobody is going to control it. They can talk as much as they want I don't care.

Oh and instead of making this idiotic law why don't they just try to support smokers who want to quit with a therapist? 80% of smokers started it for psychological reasons (even if they don't know).

Source? Not saying I don't believe you, but it would be nice to be able to use it elsewhere.

[Philosophos]

Source? Not saying I don't believe you, but it would be nice to be able to use it elsewhere.

Well I have some sessions with a therapist and I told her that I smoke too much for my age. She told me that people start smoking for many different reasons: They want to become popular (smoking propaganda), they are trying subconciously to make their parents believe that they are grown ups (it's the same feeling as the driver's licence) and when they start smoking for this reason they WANT their parents to catch them doing it or learn it from a close friend or another family member or they start it because the person they like smokes and they think that they will become more appealing to them. The same goes for your friends: if they smoke you will want to smoke (it's like a pack of wolves whatever they do you have to do it too).

The other 20% (which I believe I'm in) is starting smoking for different kind of psychological but at the same time physical issues. I was really close of being depressed (the psychological kind of depression not the "Oh I had a B on my maths test, now I'm depressed") so I started smoking because smoking makes me feel great. When I searched for it I saw that nicotine (and every other drug) gives away a lot of dopamine (happiness hormone) and serotin (the hormone that keeps you calm). When you start smoking the brain is getting helped and it produces lots of these hormones. If you try to quit, your brain will start demanding the drug that you are addicted because our brain is kinda lazy (he was used in the help of the drug for the production of these hormones so now it kinda forgot how to do it itself).

In my case now, I had an already lazy brain (because my way of thinking made him lazy) and it was like I was smoking and then I quit. It's an awful feeling for these months that you try to quit just imagine how I felt for 4 years now. Anyway until I solve my problems or they give me medicines or anything I'm almost obligated to keep smoking otherwise you might won't be hearing from me again :lol:.

I can't really recall from where I got these info (subconcious is a ***** sometimes) but I'm a 100% sure that I saw 2 or 3 documantaries on the issue.

[Pravda]

I started smoking because i was bored. And fuck those hysteric healthy life evangelists.

[l'Enfermé]

If it were up to me, tobacco would be banned completely.

[Rugged Collectivist]

If it were up to me, tobacco would be banned completely.

I know I'll probably regret it, but I have to ask. Why?

[l'Enfermé]

I know I'll probably regret it, but I have to ask. Why?
Same reason I think people shouldn't eat rat poison.

[brigadista]

Same reason I think people shouldn't eat rat poison.

does that apply to anything recreational?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Same reason I think people shouldn't eat rat poison.

Yeah, people shouldn't eat rat poison, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If it were up to me, tobacco would be banned completely.


Same reason I think people shouldn't eat rat poison.

That's absurd. Do you think suicide should be illegal?

That a behaviour is harmful is not sufficient to justify proscribing it in law.

[pluckedflowers]

Where I live, they put all these dramatic pictures along with the warnings on cigarette packs. So one will warn you that smoking gives you lung cancer, accompanied by a picture of a blackened lung, while another will warn you that it causes impotence, along with a picture of an unhappy couple in bed. There's a joke about a guy going into a smoke shop to buy a pack of cigarettes. They give him one with the impotence warning and he says, "No, I want the one that causes lung cancer."

[Philosophos]

Where I live, they put all these dramatic pictures along with the warnings on cigarette packs. So one will warn you that smoking gives you lung cancer, accompanied by a picture of a blackened lung, while another will warn you that it causes impotence, along with a picture of an unhappy couple in bed. There's a joke about a guy going into a smoke shop to buy a pack of cigarettes. They give him one with the impotence warning and he says, "No, I want the one that causes lung cancer."


I was watching a british tv series that was occuring at a hospital. They were two people, one woman and one man, smoking outside. The guy asks what was written on the pack of the woman. She says: Be careful smoking hurts the health of the baby if you are pregnant.

The guy looks at his and says: Be careful smoking damages the production of sperm and can leave you sterile. They look at each other and they exchange the packs.

It's not very funny if you don't see it but when I did it was just hilarious :thumbup:

[l'Enfermé]

That's absurd. Do you think suicide should be illegal?

That a behaviour is harmful is not sufficient to justify proscribing it in law.
If you intentionally killed yourself, that is, committed suicide, how can you be held accountable by the law? If one could be held accountable for suicide, say, in heaven, being dead is bad enough as it is, punishing one for suicide as well is just overkill, methinks.


Yeah, people shouldn't eat rat poison, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.
Yeah, people shouldn't cross the street on a red light, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't drink and drive, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't do crystal meth, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't beat their children, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

And so on and so on.

[soso17]

I will write a longer, more proper response later (still at work)…

I don't think I'm alone in believing that we currently have FAR too many frivolous laws on the books. Legislating everyone into "behaving themselves" has been a complete failure, yet more laws keep ending up on the books.

If our eventual goal is communism, after the withering away of the state, I don't think further legislation of people's behaviour is not only futile, but counterintuitive.

So here's my offer…you can make smoking illegal the same day you outlaw morbid obesity.

There, I said it. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you intentionally killed yourself, that is, committed suicide, how can you be held accountable by the law? If one could be held accountable for suicide, say, in heaven, being dead is bad enough as it is, punishing one for suicide as well is just overkill, methinks.

Not all suicide attempts are successful. It's perfectly possible to punish those who try to kill themselves but fail.


Yeah, people shouldn't cross the street on a red light, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't drink and drive, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't do crystal meth, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't beat their children, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

And so on and so on.

The point is that legislation doesn't actually stop people from doing whatever, it only punishes them after the fact. Regardless of whether the resulting punishment is focused on deterrence or rehabilitation, legislation can only ever be part of the solution. On its own it can be worse than doing nothing, because ultimately the law is an ass.

[Questionable]

I don't yet have a stance on this issue but for all of you opposing this, how do you feel about other anti-smoking measures? Like graphic pictures on the packages?

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you intentionally killed yourself, that is, committed suicide, how can you be held accountable by the law? If one could be held accountable for suicide, say, in heaven, being dead is bad enough as it is, punishing one for suicide as well is just overkill, methinks.


Yeah, people shouldn't cross the street on a red light, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't drink and drive, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't do crystal meth, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't beat their children, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

And so on and so on.
The difference is me smoking ciggies doesn't hurt anyone but myself. Mind your own business, you social engineer numbskull.

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you intentionally killed yourself, that is, committed suicide, how can you be held accountable by the law? If one could be held accountable for suicide, say, in heaven, being dead is bad enough as it is, punishing one for suicide as well is just overkill, methinks.


It's official, you're my least favorite poster who isn't a Maoist or Rafiq.

[hetz]

I want my freedoms.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Yeah, people shouldn't cross the street on a red light, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't drink and drive, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't do crystal meth, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

Yeah, people shouldn't beat their children, but if they really want to I don't see why we should stop them.

And so on and so on.

With the exception of meth, all of those things can seriously affect other people.

And in regards to meth, I can totally understand a friend or relative urging someone to quit, but I don't think the government should. The only justification for this (and I don't think it's a very good one) is the fact that unhealthy habits put stress on the healthcare system. Other than that the government really has no stake in it.


The difference is me smoking ciggies doesn't hurt anyone but myself. Mind your own business, you social engineer numbskull.

^this


It's official, you're my least favorite poster who isn't a Maoist or Rafiq.

What are you talking about? Rafiq is the shit.

[hetz]

Sorry but comparing meth and tobacco is like comparing heroin to mulled wine.

[Yuppie Grinder]

What are you talking about? Rafiq is the shit.

I really don't care for him for a number of reasons.

Back on topic, if gubment tries to take my smokes away I don't know what I will do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't yet have a stance on this issue but for all of you opposing this, how do you feel about other anti-smoking measures? Like graphic pictures on the packages?

That can be deceptive as well, in my opinion:

http://cdn.imghack.se/images/7f29f4d311a5ac03c89f26d17fefe727.jpg (http://www.imghack.se/76981)

Look at those teeth, for fuck's sake. While I accept that smoking can have overall negative effect on one's oral hygiene, I've yet to actually meet a smoker whose teeth look as bad as that. Did this guy never brush his teeth or something?

[hetz]

Lol'd at the formulation "smoking contains". :laugh:

[Yuppie Grinder]

Lol'd at the forumulation "smoking contains". :laugh:

"Running contains exercise and sweat."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Same reason I think people shouldn't eat rat poison.This is also why we should ban births - being born just causes one to die eventually.

But seriously, bans and prohibitions are - at best - superficial measures to deal with problems. In practice, they are often more about social control in ways that have nothing to do with the actual vice or behavior being prohibited from above.

Drug policies in the US and the mass-incarceration that have followed make this pretty apparent. This policy began before "the crack epidemic" before gang members sold much drugs at all (in the 1960s and 70s, many gangs were only about turf and actually would sometimes form to push drug dealers and pimps out of a neighborhood) and when public opinion did not consider drugs to be a problem. Now it's part of the way systemic racism is chained to the country and drug-use is a scapegoat for the rise of poverty which is actually due to the ruling class drug of choice at the moment: neoliberal capitalist policies.

And before alcohol prohibition became federal in the 1920s, many regional governments in the US would ban alcohol only for Germans or Irish.

[Yuppie Grinder]

From a socialist perspective, social ills should be dealt with by addressing their socioeconomic roots. History has proven this to be the most effective way.

[hetz]

From a socialist perspective, social ills should be dealt with by addressing their socioeconomic roots.
True, but what are socioeconomic roots of smoking?

[Yuppie Grinder]

True, but what are socioeconomic roots of smoking?

that it is delicious, mainly
i'm talking about things generally, i don't care much about this particular issue

[l'Enfermé]

The difference is me smoking ciggies doesn't hurt anyone but myself. Mind your own business, you social engineer numbskull.
Except for it does. Your dumb choice to smoke is a burden on the society, as far as healthcare costs are concerned, not to mention the damage you do to other people when smoking in public.


I will write a longer, more proper response later (still at work)…

I don't think I'm alone in believing that we currently have FAR too many frivolous laws on the books. Legislating everyone into "behaving themselves" has been a complete failure, yet more laws keep ending up on the books.

If our eventual goal is communism, after the withering away of the state, I don't think further legislation of people's behaviour is not only futile, but counterintuitive.

So here's my offer…you can make smoking illegal the same day you outlaw morbid obesity.

There, I said it. :)
You will notice, comrade, after further examination of my post, that I didn't say anything about making smoking illegal, I was talking merely of banning tobacco.


Not all suicide attempts are successful. It's perfectly possible to punish those who try to kill themselves but fail.



The point is that legislation doesn't actually stop people from doing whatever, it only punishes them after the fact. Regardless of whether the resulting punishment is focused on deterrence or rehabilitation, legislation can only ever be part of the solution. On its own it can be worse than doing nothing, because ultimately the law is an ass.
Well now you're talking about suicide attempts, not suicide.

A ban on tobacco wouldn't actually stop people from smoking, sure. Except, if there is no tobacco since it's banned, people can't possible smoke it now can the. A genuine ban on tobacco, not like the half-assed "drug war" which is more like a war on poor black and hispanic people in America, or, as in the case of Colombia, a war against the competition.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Except for it does. Your dumb choice to smoke is a burden on the society, as far as healthcare costs are concerned, not to mention the damage you do to other people when smoking in public.

Maybe there are some choices you make which I think are dumb, and which present a cost to society because of their impact on health and well-being. Why stop at smoking?


You will notice, comrade, after further examination of my post, that I didn't say anything about making smoking illegal, I was talking merely of banning tobacco.

Legalistic nonsense. Banning tobacco amounts to a ban on smoking it. In order to smoke tobacco, one must possess it.


Well now you're talking about suicide attempts, not suicide.

Don't be asinine. Suicide, successful or not, is clearly harmful behaviour and certain suicide techniques may also present a danger to others.


A ban on tobacco wouldn't actually stop people from smoking, sure. Except, if there is no tobacco since it's banned, people can't possible smoke it now can the. A genuine ban on tobacco, not like the half-assed "drug war" which is more like a war on poor black and hispanic people in America, or, as in the case of Colombia, a war against the competition.

The problem with the drug war is not just that it is half-assed, but that it is also working against a human tendency to seek intoxication that goes back for at least as long as we have had civilisation. Destroying supply does not destroy demand.

[hetz]

A lot of things are a burden on society. Smokers however contribute greatly to the state budget through taxes on cigarettes, so where's the problem?
What's the next stop? Treating fat ( yes, eating too much is often a "choice" ) people as burdens to society?

[black magick hustla]

Same reason I think people shouldn't eat rat poison.

fried chicken should be banned

[Os Cangaceiros]

Like I've said before, the end result of utilitarianism is gonna lead to all of us being forced to eat Nutraloaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraloaf).

All you socialist fatties out there better get ready to hit the treadmill. :mad:

[Sea]

If it were up to me, tobacco would be banned completely.Whew, I thought I was alone in here. Maybe not in our current conditions though, considering black markets are a real *****.


It is kind of hilarious to see all these anarchists going on about their freedom to destroy themselves, though.

[hetz]

It is kind of hilarious to see all these anarchists going on about their freedom to destroy themselves, though.
Don't you have better things to worry about?

[Sea]

Don't you have better things to worry about?No, sadly.

[hetz]

I reccomend looking into global warming or the situation with Siberian tigers.

[Sea]

Are the tigers smoking again? Darn, I thought I'd settled that. :sleep:

[hetz]

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/champ4.jpg