PowerSwitch

?10 Permit to Smoke Proposed.

Professor Le Grand wrote:He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit - as much as the cost - that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit.

Yeah, right.

Professor Le Grand wrote:"You've got to get a form, a complex form - the government's good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph.

"It's a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker."

Hmmm, maybe I was wrong about needing more scientists in government in another post.

And the government wrote:A department of health spokeswoman did not rule out such a scheme as part of the next wave of tobacco regulation.

So what's next? A permit to buy alcohol? And exactly how, pray tell, would this actually be enforced?

Of course, with all these different photo-ID permits, licences etc. needed, how long before public opinion says: "You know, why can't all this be kept on one card? Would make life easier."

I am non smoker, I gave up 8 years ago.

But I have to say I think we should ease off the smokers a little!

I think the ban on smoking in public places and the 90% puchase tax is quite enough.

I think we should be concentrating far harder on the alcohol problem - this is devestating our society and frankly I am embarassed to be British at the moment given the scale of the problem (and the fact we seem to back the yobs rather than decent citizens who are terrorised by them!)

I read a rather interesting article by an economist who argues that actually, stopping people smoking would be a bad thing economically.

Just think , they pay way more in tax than they take from the NHS due to health problems, plus they die (on average) before they claim a pension or a place in a nursing home!

So shouldn't we role out a fag subsidy?

Smokers used to be concentrated in pubs. Now they've been forced out into the street, where I have to share the same space with them. Unintended consequences again.

That said, there's very little I want in the High St these days.

Totally_Baffled wrote:I am non smoker, I gave up 8 years ago.

But I have to say I think we should ease off the smokers a little!

I think the ban on smoking in public places and the 90% puchase tax is quite enough.

I think we should be concentrating far harder on the alcohol problem - this is devestating our society and frankly I am embarassed to be British at the moment given the scale of the problem (and the fact we seem to back the yobs rather than decent citizens who are terrorised by them!)

I read a rather interesting article by an economist who argues that actually, stopping people smoking would be a bad thing economically.

Just think , they pay way more in tax than they take from the NHS due to health problems, plus they die (on average) before they claim a pension or a place in a nursing home!

So shouldn't we role out a fag subsidy?

As a non-smoker, I agree TB that now, here in the UK, alcohol is the real issue. It is going to be an increasing problem, a bit like in the ex Soviet Union, as times get tough. It will be one of the factors that reduces the population post peak.

It's a bit off topic but my thoughts for what they are worth is that it isn't an easy problem to solve, but some combination of:

* increasing supermarket prices
* reducing number of outlets
* regulating pub pricing to limit "happy hours", multi-buys etc.
* introducing continental style table service into pubs
* some sort of on-going campaign to change social acceptance of drunkenness

* increasing supermarket prices
* reducing number of outlets
* regulating pub pricing to limit "happy hours", multi-buys etc.
* introducing continental style table service into pubs
* some sort of on-going campaign to change social acceptance of drunkenness

[/quote]

Agreed.

I think it would be refreshing to use other tools other than purchase taxes.

The vast majority of poeple consume alcohol responsibly , and most are probably are no problem even when they do have too much.

I can see their point when these people are penalised for the actions of others.

The trick is to reduce consumption without alienating the resposible majority, get them on your side and you have won half the battle!

In comparison tou the potential collapse of our economy\climate\civilisation I can't get too worked up about smoking.

Why don't the govt just leave them alone and let them have at least one guilty pleasure amongst this crazy mess of a planet. Maybe then they could concentrate on real issues like PO.

I think most people just buy their fags abroad nowdays anyway

Mind you I have the excuse, that you can't get organic smokes in the UK anyway.

I enjoy the odd smoke here and there, but to be honest you'd have to be a nut bar to chain smoke these days. Must cost ya 10% of your wage.

Adam1 wrote:It's a bit off topic but my thoughts for what they are worth is that it isn't an easy problem to solve, but some combination of:

* increasing supermarket prices
* reducing number of outlets
* regulating pub pricing to limit "happy hours", multi-buys etc.
* introducing continental style table service into pubs
* some sort of on-going campaign to change social acceptance of drunkenness

I strongly disagree. The LAST thing we need is even more government control freakery, and theft of further tax.

It's not the responsibility of the government to dabble in the lives of individuals - it's up to the individual concerned. IMO much of the reason we have these problems is that people feel no responsibility for their actions - they can smoke, drink, eat crap, never exercise, and the NHS will just fix them up, paid for by others' money.

Give the individuals the responsibility back. If you want to drink excessively, fine. But you pay for the treatment needed. Give people back reponsibility for their lives.

It will never happen - government wants people to be dependent upon them. Hence the proposals fall in line with that.

The government is really starting to take the **** these days, I mean a PERMIT!! jeez. It bloody scares me to think what shite they will cook up when we start having problems.

I could not agree more with Moadib, this constant interference with the personal choice of the individual is getting completely out of control, i find the very idea of law against victimless crimes immoral and completely counter productive.

The only way Peak Oil will ever be solved is through the power of individuals and the entrepreneurial spirit of man. My fear is these powers will be so suppressed and inhibited by government that making the needed changes will be a very painful experience

A permit to smoke ten pounds? Where do I sign?

And do they give you the ten pounds of smoke for free?

Give the individuals the responsibility back. If you want to drink excessively, fine. But you pay for the treatment needed. Give people back reponsibility for their lives.

I think you make some fair points , but the amount of government interference in peoples lives and/or the free market is a very grey area.

Lets take an extreme example of your idea, let consumers have access to whatever they want and do not try and influence their consumption at all.

That would mean removing all purchases taxes off alcohol, tobacco, petrol, etc

How would you decide who to charge and not to charge? How on earth would you prove what was medically down to "unhealthy" behaviour?

If they over consume alcohol and/or tobacco and eat nothing but shit BUT CANNOT pay then what do you do?

Refuse them treatment? Let them die? would you like to be the doctor that says to the (angry) relatives that you are not going to treat their son/daughter/mother/father because they are overweight, and/or have no evidence of excercise and/or smoke/drink?

As for other consumption taxes, what about petrol?

If we remove the tax, it would be 35p a litre - I guess we would probably all driving SUV's by now and have absolutely zero public transport?

We probably would drive even more, getting even less excercise!

How would you quantify and charge consumers for what economists call "externalities" like pollution, congestion, effect on peoples health etc?

A very tricky area indeed!?

Andy Hunt wrote:A permit to smoke ten pounds? Where do I sign?

And do they give you the ten pounds of smoke for free?

Is this what they mean by 'joint up politics' or have I misheard?

Totally_Baffled wrote:I think you make some fair points , but the amount of government interference in peoples lives and/or the free market is a very grey area. Lets take an extreme example of your idea, let consumers have access to whatever they want and do not try and influence their consumption at all.

That would mean removing all purchases taxes off alcohol, tobacco, petrol, etc

How would you decide who to charge and not to charge? How on earth would you prove what was medically down to "unhealthy" behaviour?

If they over consume alcohol and/or tobacco and eat nothing but shit BUT CANNOT pay then what do you do?

Refuse them treatment? Let them die? would you like to be the doctor that says to the (angry) relatives that you are not going to treat their son/daughter/mother/father because they are overweight, and/or have no evidence of excercise and/or smoke/drink?

Answer - Yes. Refuse them treatment - or rather, give them the choice. There would be very few who absolutely couldn't afford it. For sure there will always be grey areas, but I think we can see very clearly who takes care of themselves and who doesn't. It's not "PC" to say so, but in many cases it's clear. People would have a choice - to exercise self-control or not. They then have a second choice - to pay for treatment or not.

Frankly speaking the current system drives me mad. The NHS is coming apart at the financial seams trying to cope with what this country throws at it. And yet we STILL have people insisting upon "their right" to have cosmetic surgery on the NHS, or foot-stamping that they can't get the latest eye-wateringly expensive designer drug, all paid by someone else.

It's easy to spend someone else's money - all I ask is that if you do, you make a reasonable effort to avoid the need.

As for other consumption taxes, what about petrol? If we remove the tax, it would be 35p a litre - I guess we would probably all driving SUV's by now and have absolutely zero public transport? We probably would drive even more, getting even less excercise!

Why apply it to petrol? My point is regarding where you and I are paying for others - in the case of petrol, if you choose to pay a fortune for an SUV, it doesn't cost me any more. I've no problem with tax in that respect. It's when the government tax some people who have worked hard to avoid cost, and the money goes straight to those who haven't.

In the case of petrol, I don't think even the current system is ideal. Some closer approach to contraction and convergence would be better. At present the more money you have, the more freedom you can buy (what some would consider perfect capitalism - everything priced!), and that will become more and more so as petrol prices rise. So here I think tax may have a place to influence behaviour positively. In the case of health, the current tax structure gives reverse incentives.

A very tricky area indeed!?

I agree in a sense - it's perhaps contentious, but IMO that's only because we've gone so far toward creating a "dependent" society, suckling from an enormous bureaucracy who likes them that way. Changing anything from what is comfortable will cause complaints, but I see the future as much more positive as part of a society of independent people, rather than dependents. Especially when you consider the potential impossibility of funding the NHS in a peak oil environment.

I've just returned from a trip to Poland to visit family. Now the Poles like a smoke, and a drink.... indeed lots of both. However, whilst healthcare is free in Poland - it is not free for everything. If you get pissed up and need treatment for alcohol poisoning on a Saturday night, or get into a drunken fight - you have to pay pzn300 (about ?80) for treatment. Its a fab idea to me, that way not only do you feel like a muppet with a monster hangover the morning after - you feel like a poor muppet too, and your ability to repeat the performance the next night is reduced! I think the government needs to make its mind up about smoking, you can either penalise through purchase tax or charge for medical treatment - at the mo' the NHS would probably nosedive without smokers money.

Moadib wrote:

Adam1 wrote:It's a bit off topic but my thoughts for what they are worth is that it isn't an easy problem to solve, but some combination of:

* increasing supermarket prices
* reducing number of outlets
* regulating pub pricing to limit "happy hours", multi-buys etc.
* introducing continental style table service into pubs
* some sort of on-going campaign to change social acceptance of drunkenness

I strongly disagree. The LAST thing we need is even more government control freakery, and theft of further tax.

It's not the responsibility of the government to dabble in the lives of individuals - it's up to the individual concerned. IMO much of the reason we have these problems is that people feel no responsibility for their actions - they can smoke, drink, eat crap, never exercise, and the NHS will just fix them up, paid for by others' money.

Give the individuals the responsibility back. If you want to drink excessively, fine. But you pay for the treatment needed. Give people back reponsibility for their lives.

It will never happen - government wants people to be dependent upon them. Hence the proposals fall in line with that.

I agree that we don't need more government control freakery. However, when it comes to alcohol abuse, a laissez-faire attitude just doesn't cut it. The costs for the rest of use don't just stop at cirrhosis of the liver and the odd night in a police cell.

The cost of alcohol abuse includes:

* domestic violence and child abuse
* road deaths and injuries
* other accidents
* reduced productivity
* public disorder and violence
* human misery and lost opportunities

http://www.aa-uk.org.uk/alcoholics-anon ... abuse.html

The state isn't able to ignore all these problems - it adds costs in healthcare, social services, police and criminal justice. All those costs have to be paid by the tax payer and represent a huge waste of money, effort and energy.

I don't see that my suggestions constitute "control freakery".