Not content with taxing us Brits up to our eyeballs for tobacco products some bright spark has suggested that a £10 licence be obtained by smokers.
It appears that this will prevent the sale of tobacco to underage kids…really :dubious:
I don’t have a cite as this was reported on BBC Ceefax yesterday and it’s vanished now (the report)
Anyways: If whatsisname thinks that non-possession of a licence will stop shopkeepers selling to kids then he’s living in cloud cuckoo land, fucking idiot brained moron
Hopefully the licensing department bureau offices are outside the congestion zone - or near a rail stop, or it could cost up to £25 more to acquire one.
I have trouble believing that anyone really believe that sin taxes actually work to significantly reduce vices (smoking, drinking, gambling). I’ll admit there is often a fraction of the target population that will find the incremental increase to the cost of supporting their vice sufficiently obnoxious that they’ll quit, but the numbers, here in NY at least, are so small as to be almost negligible after the most recent jump in cigarette taxes. Here’s a cite focusing on NYC numbers, rather than NYS, which is boasting of a 15% reduction in the smoking rate - but that’s only a three percent change in the total population deciding to stop smoking. And that’s after a combined 39 cent per pack tax increase (increasing the cigarette tax by almost 40%), a further NYC specific cigarette tax increase, eliminating all workplace smoking, and a “hard-hitting” anti-smoking ad campaign. And the NYS tax increase was specifically revenue focused, not health focused.
There is one reason, and one reason only, that governments like raising such fees and taxes - it allows them to raise revenues without actually having to sell a tax increase to the general population. Since only someone in favor of selling tobacco to children could possibly be against this “nominal” licensing fee. :rolleyes:
“Unworkable” is putting it mildly! Can you imagine not only expecting doctors to abandon their principles to authorize smoking, but burdening the healthcare system with one extra MD visit per year per smoker in order to do so?
If there ever was such a law implemented in the United States, I doubt you’d find a single MD willing to attest that his patients were not at “massive risk” from smoking.
Imagine the lawsuits when they later developed anything from coronary artery disease to cancer. What is “massive risk”? How did you make the decision it was only moderate risk, Doctor?
I’m all for discouraging smoking through education and laws to prohibit smoking in public enclosed spaces, but stuff like this proposed licensing of smokers is over the line into nuttiness.
“Libertarian paternalism” sounds keen, though. Sort of like “Marxist capitalism”.
The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that if such a licence was imposed then what happens is we have a “prohibition” effect not dissimilar to that in the USA when booze was kicked into touch.
Booze and smokes are great sources of revenue for any government. You get the tax dollar/pound/euro today but the negative effects might take decades to show up, thus ensuring that the guys reaping the revenue today will be long out of office and some other schmuck poli will getto clean up the mess.
But we’re paying today for those that started to smoke 30 years ago, you say. Sure, but that revenue is long gone and raising taxes now will be a profit for the guvment.
Accompanied by suitable enforcement it might (e.g. hire some kids to attempt to buy smokes and nail the shopkeepers that sell to them); it’s been done around here (not with a separate license, just with checking ID of people that look underage) and it’s my understanding it is somewhat effective.
I think they want to come as close as they can to outlawing tobacco outright without actually doing so, so as not to repeat the American Prohibition “experiment”.
Wow. In the smoking-fascism arena, the UK is way behind the US. You’ve banned smoking in pubs, that’s a start. If you want to curb underage smoking, though, first you gotta get rid of cigarette vending machines. I haven’t seen one of those in over ten years. Then you gotta put heavy fines in place for sale of tobacco products to minor and set up sting operations so you can put the screws to shopkeepers that don’t comply. That’s the key - the little guys just scraping out a living. Catch them selling to a minor and fine them the equivalent of three months profits and they’ll think twice about selling smokes to minors again. Shit, fine 'em a couple times and put 'em right outta business - that’ll send a message to the rest.
I quit smoking five years ago, but I’m not shy about backsliding a little if I’m drinking a beer or three. I went to London on business back in April '06 and I smoked like a fucking chimney the whole week (and drank £450 worth of beer in 6 days). Being able to spark up indoors was really a novelty for me, since as a Bostonian we were even more aggressive against smoking. It’s been at least fifteen years since I could smoke in my favorite bar. Longer for some places.
Anyways, I’d be surprised if the UK actually set up a licensing fee. There are smarter and more lucrative enforcement methods.
We’re way ahead in the driving fascism though. There are moves afoot to ban people from smoking while driving. As well as drinking coffee/soda/water, eating a candy bar, sandwich, etc.
We’re banning texting while driving. I got all up in arms about it, then remembered I totallaled my brand new car a year ago because I was messing with my iPod, not texting.
Wasn’t that the Mail’s take on it, a few months ago, when actually it was merely the advice to not do such things was being added to the Highway Code?
Anyway, who needs this create this licence for buying cigarettes? When we’ve all got our infallible forgery-proof ID cards we can just use them instead. And if you don’t cough up for your completely voluntary card, no fags for you.