License to Smoke
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would also argue that the 'war on drugs' is inherently immoral.
And lost!
-
A government advisor has suggested that the problem of Brits continuing to smoke themselves to death might be tackled by requiring nicotine addicts to obtain a £200 annual licence, the Telegraph reports[^] While I don't like people smoking around me, this is madness.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Glasgow: SQL Server Managed Objects AND Reporting Services ... My website
I wonder how many different licenses they could come up with in relation to food (and hence obesity)...a fat license (how many different types of distinguishable fat are there?), a carb license, a sugar license, a salt license...yeesh.
-
A government advisor has suggested that the problem of Brits continuing to smoke themselves to death might be tackled by requiring nicotine addicts to obtain a £200 annual licence, the Telegraph reports[^] While I don't like people smoking around me, this is madness.
Upcoming FREE developer events: * Glasgow: SQL Server Managed Objects AND Reporting Services ... My website
Ignore it - it's just soundbytes from a loony-leftie designed to deflect our attention from really important matters. In any case the solution to smoking (as it is to most things) is edukation, edukation, edukation. You cannot legislate such draconian measures and expect them to work where, clearly, they will not. And yet we do put up with, for instance, speed cameras that are petently tax raising devices, a civil service for whom we invest ever growing pots of money for gold-plated pensions and a leader who is both a moral coward and a skulking bully. We are a complete bunch of wankers and deserve everything we get because we do nothing to change it.
-
Indeed it is madness and a symptom of a deeper problem. Our current political masters have lost, if they ever had it, the understanding of what a free society is and what government is for. Even the expensive but relatively benign concept of the nanny state is being reshaped into the bailiff state and the prison warder state. I used the smoking issue as an example in a paper on the principles of policy making a couple of years ago. My analysis went as follows. Smoking is a harmful activity with very little benefit to the smoker. It is therefore inconceivable that in the long term, 100 year view, their will be anyone left smoking. This gives us a target state, a goal of ending smoking. The obstacles to achieving this are: Some people want to smoke and the 'ban it' approach is contrary to a free society. There are large economic interests involved which although secondary to health concerns cannot simply be ignored. One proposed solution to this is that everyone who currently smokes legally be allowed to continue to smoke and everyone who is currently too young to smoke be prevented from ever doing so. This can be achieved by raising the age at which tobacco can be purchased by one year every year. In addition hypothecation of tobacco sales taxes directly to programmes to help those who want to stop smoking should be considered. This approach can achieve what the current approach of piecemeal bans and ever increasing regulation cannot, the actual end of smoking and it can do it without forcing anyone to quit and in a way that allows the tobacco industry to plan for a managed decline that can only be mitigated by making their own products less harmful.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Whilst a fine theory, it is just that, when has prohibition ever worked? Look at alcohol in the 1920s and MJ today, some say MJ is the USA's No.1 agricultural crop. I think the tobacco ban was wrong, all those not affected may be affected by the next one. I don't think this can be blamed on the political left, after all the labour government can hardly be considered left wing any more.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The impression that the 'war on drugs' is not winnable is false and has been engineered out of political expedience.
Trash, unless you ramp up the penalties to singapore levels. I would also argue that the 'war on drugs' is inherently immoral.
Not so. Ramping up penalties to Singapore levels is only useful when you've already got 90%+ control of the problem. The first step is to make the business uneconomic by shutting down the large scale importers. This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference. The current practice of the 'war on drugs' of targetting only the low level users and addicts is arguably immoral but it doesn't have to be that way. Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes is also needed to create a tipping point where more siezures leads to less users, leads to easier user monitoring better intelligence and back to more seizures. The new SOC Agency could have been a part of the solution but unfortunately and unsurprisingly it was corrupt in its conception and is therefore utterly useless. It's a fact of life that bent politicians can't afford to empower straight coppers.:sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ignore it - it's just soundbytes from a loony-leftie designed to deflect our attention from really important matters. In any case the solution to smoking (as it is to most things) is edukation, edukation, edukation. You cannot legislate such draconian measures and expect them to work where, clearly, they will not. And yet we do put up with, for instance, speed cameras that are petently tax raising devices, a civil service for whom we invest ever growing pots of money for gold-plated pensions and a leader who is both a moral coward and a skulking bully. We are a complete bunch of wankers and deserve everything we get because we do nothing to change it.
digital man wrote:
We are a complete bunch of wankers and deserve everything we get because we do nothing to change it.
Us humans are creatures of habit. Generally, we just don't like change. And if you are a merchant for change, you become a target (of sorts) of "hatred" as many budding politicians find out very early in their political life, grand ideas soon become dropped.
-
Not so. Ramping up penalties to Singapore levels is only useful when you've already got 90%+ control of the problem. The first step is to make the business uneconomic by shutting down the large scale importers. This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference. The current practice of the 'war on drugs' of targetting only the low level users and addicts is arguably immoral but it doesn't have to be that way. Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes is also needed to create a tipping point where more siezures leads to less users, leads to easier user monitoring better intelligence and back to more seizures. The new SOC Agency could have been a part of the solution but unfortunately and unsurprisingly it was corrupt in its conception and is therefore utterly useless. It's a fact of life that bent politicians can't afford to empower straight coppers.:sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Your head really is quite deep in the sand.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference.
So there was no "problem" before the UK was part of the EU then, hah, it's all the fault fault of the EU, it's as plain as the nose on your ass.
-
Whilst a fine theory, it is just that, when has prohibition ever worked? Look at alcohol in the 1920s and MJ today, some say MJ is the USA's No.1 agricultural crop. I think the tobacco ban was wrong, all those not affected may be affected by the next one. I don't think this can be blamed on the political left, after all the labour government can hardly be considered left wing any more.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
when has prohibition ever worked
It's not about prohibition, it's about managing social change. How many people chew tobacco anymore? < very few. How many people bait bears or attend dog fights, a handful. They're illegal but they didn't get to be almost non existant just by banning. That was the last step. The only things slowing smoking from from going the same way are the money and the addiction. Turn the one against the other and it is doomed.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
the labour government can hardly be considered left wing any more.
Absolutely, no more than the Conservatives are right wing anymore. Neither any longer have any principles, right or wrong, that's the point. Without principles you actually believe in you can't form coherent policy that can be understood by those implementing it. You can only fiddle while Rome burns or try to micromanage everything on the permanent cusp of a crisis. Neither is acceptable any longer.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
You have not experienced the experience
Oh Jebus. You really think hallucinogens provide anything other than illusory insight? Messing with subjective experience by modifying your chemistry can be fun (though not necessarily for others if they are a crazy arsehole like yourself) but they do not make your thoughts any more profound. It's naval gazing, not exploration.
-
digital man wrote:
We are a complete bunch of wankers and deserve everything we get because we do nothing to change it.
Us humans are creatures of habit. Generally, we just don't like change. And if you are a merchant for change, you become a target (of sorts) of "hatred" as many budding politicians find out very early in their political life, grand ideas soon become dropped.
Indeed. There is an old saying: a country always gets the government it deserves. How bad are we to get this bunch of incompetent, negligent, lying, cheating, corrupt politicos?
-
Not so. Ramping up penalties to Singapore levels is only useful when you've already got 90%+ control of the problem. The first step is to make the business uneconomic by shutting down the large scale importers. This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference. The current practice of the 'war on drugs' of targetting only the low level users and addicts is arguably immoral but it doesn't have to be that way. Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes is also needed to create a tipping point where more siezures leads to less users, leads to easier user monitoring better intelligence and back to more seizures. The new SOC Agency could have been a part of the solution but unfortunately and unsurprisingly it was corrupt in its conception and is therefore utterly useless. It's a fact of life that bent politicians can't afford to empower straight coppers.:sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes is also needed to create a tipping point where more siezures leads to less users, leads to easier user monitoring better intelligence and back to more seizures.
Thats assuming most users are addicts :P One of the major problems the government is currently running into is lumping lots of different substances together and treating them the same. They'd come up against a lot less resistance if they prioritised by damage ... of course that would mean them having to admit they're wrong in some cases ... it's also mean them having to come to terms with alcohol usage.
-
Your head really is quite deep in the sand.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference.
So there was no "problem" before the UK was part of the EU then, hah, it's all the fault fault of the EU, it's as plain as the nose on your ass.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
So there was no "problem" before the UK was part of the EU then
Did I say that? No.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
it's all the fault fault of the EU
Did I say that? No. What I do say is that being in the straight jacket of the EU prevents us from doing what is necessary now. In this and many other areas. It is an out moded, obselete, wrong, undemocratic, inflexible, unmangable, bureaucratic nightmare that should have been written off as a historical mistake before we ever even got involved. It is those who think you can solve problems simply by ignoring them or reclassifying them as normal who have their heads in the sand.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes is also needed to create a tipping point where more siezures leads to less users, leads to easier user monitoring better intelligence and back to more seizures.
Thats assuming most users are addicts :P One of the major problems the government is currently running into is lumping lots of different substances together and treating them the same. They'd come up against a lot less resistance if they prioritised by damage ... of course that would mean them having to admit they're wrong in some cases ... it's also mean them having to come to terms with alcohol usage.
originSH wrote:
Thats assuming most users are addicts
Most smokers are, most people who take sleeping pills have chemical depency, let alone users of class A substances. On the rest I whole heartedly agree. Honesty about effects, addiction rates, treatment places, sentencing and everything in general is absolutely essential. For example you can't have a war on drugs when there have to be unpoliced sections of the coast to allow out the illegal arms shipments you're making to 'friendly' terrorists across the Irish sea. Fortunately this is no longer deemed necessary.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Not so. Ramping up penalties to Singapore levels is only useful when you've already got 90%+ control of the problem. The first step is to make the business uneconomic by shutting down the large scale importers. This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference. The current practice of the 'war on drugs' of targetting only the low level users and addicts is arguably immoral but it doesn't have to be that way. Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes is also needed to create a tipping point where more siezures leads to less users, leads to easier user monitoring better intelligence and back to more seizures. The new SOC Agency could have been a part of the solution but unfortunately and unsurprisingly it was corrupt in its conception and is therefore utterly useless. It's a fact of life that bent politicians can't afford to empower straight coppers.:sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference
Many drugs are manufactured and grown in the UK.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes
Most drug users do not want to be treated as they do not have a 'problem'. You want to 'treat' the 2 million ecstasy users in the UK?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The new SOC Agency could have been a part of the solution
With their powers to seize property with lesser standards of proof than required for a criminal conviction? Thanks for another reason to dislike UKIP.
-
originSH wrote:
Thats assuming most users are addicts
Most smokers are, most people who take sleeping pills have chemical depency, let alone users of class A substances. On the rest I whole heartedly agree. Honesty about effects, addiction rates, treatment places, sentencing and everything in general is absolutely essential. For example you can't have a war on drugs when there have to be unpoliced sections of the coast to allow out the illegal arms shipments you're making to 'friendly' terrorists across the Irish sea. Fortunately this is no longer deemed necessary.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Most smokers are, most people who take sleeping pills have chemical depency, let alone users of class A substances.
Yup, smokers have a very mild chemical addiction and a very strong emotional addiction. Sleeping pills have a both a strong chemical addiction and emotional addiction. As for class A's thats where the classification problems come in. MDMA is class A and yet as far as I'm aware it isn't chemically addictive and is only mildly emotionally addictive ... studies (google for references ... I canna be arsed sorry) have shown that MDMA is magnitudes less harmful than alcohol for instance. So why is it class A? The way to win the war is to remove the enemy altogether ... and the enemy is the illegal trade of drugs, not the drugs themselves ... we're all gownups here ... we're trusted with alcohol and ciggeretes and fatty foods ... and so should be trust with the others too. That way high taxes can be introduced (most of the time with no effect on the price hehe) and all that money can go to education and treatment for those who are vunerable and need it. That way addiction rates are reduced, safty is increased and crime loses a major source of income.
-
originSH wrote:
Thats assuming most users are addicts
Most smokers are, most people who take sleeping pills have chemical depency, let alone users of class A substances. On the rest I whole heartedly agree. Honesty about effects, addiction rates, treatment places, sentencing and everything in general is absolutely essential. For example you can't have a war on drugs when there have to be unpoliced sections of the coast to allow out the illegal arms shipments you're making to 'friendly' terrorists across the Irish sea. Fortunately this is no longer deemed necessary.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I would prefer honesty about the nature of addiction..
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This is where real border controls, restoration of territorial waters, not being in the EU, all make a huge difference
Many drugs are manufactured and grown in the UK.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Redirection of siezed funds into treatment programmes
Most drug users do not want to be treated as they do not have a 'problem'. You want to 'treat' the 2 million ecstasy users in the UK?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The new SOC Agency could have been a part of the solution
With their powers to seize property with lesser standards of proof than required for a criminal conviction? Thanks for another reason to dislike UKIP.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Many drugs are manufactured and grown in the UK.
The vast majority of the most dangerous ones are not. The potential volume of concealed production in the UK is also pretty small. Attempt to ramp it up would increase the risk of expose for the criminals.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Most drug users do not want to be treated as they do not have a 'problem'. You want to 'treat' the 2 million ecstasy users in the UK?
No. Treatment is for addicts who want to quit and for those who are a danger to themselves or others.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
With their powers to seize property with lesser standards of proof than required for a criminal conviction?
As I said 'could have been', if it had not been corrupt before it even got started.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Thanks for another reason to dislike UKIP.
What was the other one?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Many drugs are manufactured and grown in the UK.
The vast majority of the most dangerous ones are not. The potential volume of concealed production in the UK is also pretty small. Attempt to ramp it up would increase the risk of expose for the criminals.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Most drug users do not want to be treated as they do not have a 'problem'. You want to 'treat' the 2 million ecstasy users in the UK?
No. Treatment is for addicts who want to quit and for those who are a danger to themselves or others.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
With their powers to seize property with lesser standards of proof than required for a criminal conviction?
As I said 'could have been', if it had not been corrupt before it even got started.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Thanks for another reason to dislike UKIP.
What was the other one?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Ryan Roberts wrote: Thanks for another reason to dislike UKIP. What was the other one?
The fact they are racist bigots who use the EU issue to push thier evil beliefs? -- modified at 10:01 Wednesday 24th October, 2007 EDIT: Just to clarify I was going to vote for them as I wanted out of the EU too ... untill I looked into them and saw they're very similar to the EBF but with a cleaner image.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Ryan Roberts wrote: Thanks for another reason to dislike UKIP. What was the other one?
The fact they are racist bigots who use the EU issue to push thier evil beliefs? -- modified at 10:01 Wednesday 24th October, 2007 EDIT: Just to clarify I was going to vote for them as I wanted out of the EU too ... untill I looked into them and saw they're very similar to the EBF but with a cleaner image.
originSH wrote:
The fact they are racist bigots who use the EU issue to push thier evil beliefs?
Slanderous trash. Baseless; without evidence, precedent, substance or justification. That anyone is still swallowing this shit is truely deperately sad.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Wow - that's really retarded. Posts like this make me see where some of the more right wing people who think the government is trying to attack their freedom, is coming from. Cigarettes should be taxed, and that tax used to fund public health costs incurred by smoking. But, a license is just madness.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillionOneHundredAndFortySevenMillionFourHundredAndEightyThreeThousandSixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it )
Christian Graus wrote:
Cigarettes should be taxed, and that tax used to fund public health costs incurred by smoking. But, a license is just madness.
Agreed! The only problem I see with this system is smuggling. Since the taxes skyrocketed for cigarettes, the black market flourishes.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr