It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A way to stop the nation smoking?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by fiftyfifty

Agreed I see your point on that completely but if you can figure out why people
do things that don't benefit them then you will have solved an age old question of why kids do exactly what they are told not to do regardless of the consequences...

I hope you all in the U.K. find a better solution than out corrupt government has
personally if they outlawed smoking and I smoked I would either grown my own tobacco or buy it on the black market that would evolve

as far as licensed smoking this opens the government up to lawsuits as well wouldn't you think maybe not over there but over here you can bet in 10 years people would sue the government continually.

Also with licensed smoking you will be charged a great deal more for cigarettes here in the states where medical marijuana is legal it is fairly cheap
I only know this from the news and the net ( I don't even drink) when compared to other markets where there is no medical waiver.. it all falls under supply and demand if people want it they will pay for it..
and the more unavailable it is the more people will pay for it..


[edit on 1/3/2008 by geocom]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:47 AM
If someone wants to smoke, let 'em smoke. Smoker's aren't costing you, the taxpayer anything. Why do non-smokers feel the need to 'save' the smokers? Is it any of your business? I think not. How about we require a special card for hot showers? Those without it are limited to cold showers.

This is nothing more than additional compartmentalization of society. We should be coming together, not dividing further. It's almost as if smokers are their own race, even now.

Bottom line, if I want to smoke, leave me the hell alone, and let me smoke. Thanks for letting me know it's unhealthy, but I knew that way before I bought my first pack, and guess what, every other smoker did too. We don't need to be educated, we need to be left alone. If an when we become ready to quit, we will. Until then, leave us alone.

edit for spelling.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by Unit541]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by geocom

You have a good argument but I don't see how it differs from the smoking in public places ban tha has been successfully implemented in the UK. Most people are happy with it and it has made a huge difference to the air quality in pubs and clubs etc but most importantly, it has increased the number of people deciding to quit because the main part of their habit was to have a fag with their mates in the pub which now, can't be done.

I wouldn't expect it to be enforced in the same way illegal substances are so growing your own tobacco would be a bit extreme. I think a fine to the supplier (the same as selling to a minor) and prosecution for anyone caught supplying illegally would reduce the number of smokers considerably.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Unit541
If someone wants to smoke, let 'em smoke. Smoker's aren't costing you, the taxpayer anything. Why do non-smokers feel the need to 'save' the smokers? Is it any of your business? I think not. How about we require a special card for hot showers? Those without it are limited to cold showers.

This is nothing more than additional compartmentalization of society. We should be coming together, not dividing further. It's almost as if smokers are their own race, even now.

Bottom line, if I want to smoke, leave me the hell alone, and let me smoke. Thanks for letting me know it's unhealthy, but I knew that way before I bought my first pack, and guess what, every other smoker did too. We don't need to be educated, we need to be left alone. If an when we become ready to quit, we will. Until then, leave us alone.

edit for spelling.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by Unit541]

In which case, register, get a card and you can smoke as much as you like. Problem?

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
In which case, register, get a card and you can smoke as much as you like. Problem?

I shouldn't have to. Why should anyone need to get permission to smoke? Why should what I chose to put in my body be regulated? Now that I can't smoke in public places, how does my smoking affect you? I'll tell you, it doesn't. Period. What are you trying to do with this concept, besides make life more difficult for smokers?

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
reply to post by geocom

Yes the restriction would be to all tobacco products as I said. I believe smoking pipes were banned in the 90s? It is not illegal to smoke one but illegal to sell them (don't quote me on that), now.. how many pipe smokers are there around now? Do you see my point?

No, pipes are still sold (but only in specialist tobacconists - they're not readily obtainable in any old shop or supermarket). I smoke a pipe myself. Purely because I want to. Being doing so over 15 years (started in my mid 20s - I was probably one of the youngest pipe smokers in the country at the time!) Pipe smoking is much less harmful than cigarette smoking (and much cheaper - costs me all of £8 a week) - though there is an increased risk of throat cancer with it. Pipe tobacco, often being aromatic, is also more socially acceptable. I've often had non smokers compliment me on my pipe smoke

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by Unit541

It affects me when I have a relative who has never smoked in hospital waiting for a lung transplant for months but unable to have one because there are smokers who have had one before him, it affects me when people I know die from smoking, it affects me when i'm in the vicinity of a smoker because I have to breath all their crap and it affects me when my neighbour sets his house on fire because he fell asleep with a fag on and in turn burns my house down too. Not all of the above have happened to me but it could and has happened to many other people.

Would it be such a big deal to have to fill in a form, send it off and have the postman deliver a card through your letterbox? Why do you have such an issue with that? Wouldn't you like to think that after you're gone people aren't smoking and living longer and healthier lives?

I had to send off to get permission to drive, to enter other countries, to get a job.. what difference would a little piece of plastic that you have to present at the shop make to your life?

[edit on 3-1-2008 by fiftyfifty]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:21 AM
50/50 it just isnt going to work, this scheme of yours.

Most supermarkets in Scotland have imposed an age restriction for the purchase of cigarettes, from 16 to 18 y/o. However wellmeaning, it hasn't "stopped a new generation of smokers" .... it just means you've got kids now standing in shop doorways & asking adults to buy them ciggies ... which I do, irrespective of the legalities. My logic is if youre old enough to have sex, pay tax, or join the army then you're old enough to play a long game of chicken with the Grim Reaper when you light up.

And in most parts of Britain we've already got a black market in reduced price duty free ciggies from Europe ... 50/50, you completely underestimate the ability of young people & adults to get cigs on the cheap and to swerve every rule going. Your own wee scheme would fare no better. The black market would just get worse.

What the government should be doing is giving away free nicotine patches everywhere, in exactly the same way family planning gives away free durex or the pill. I fail to understand why a 7 day supply of nicotine patches (no more complicated than a plaster with a smidge of nicotine) should cost £15/$30 ... it's a total rip off.

I gave up on 1st January. The 1st I felt awful, yesterday I could've killed Mother Theresa with no compunction whatever and today I'm finally getting on an even keel. People who have never smoked haven't a clue how hard it is to stop ... smoking is so bloody enjoyable ... man I knew I should've avoided this topic .... mm ,,,, ciggies .... lol. I even dreamed about them last night. So good .... right I'm outta here.

But I'll tell you this. There's nothing worse than sanctimonious non-smokers. You haven't a clue.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:23 AM
Because the very concept of getting "permission" to be a smoker denotes the possibility that my "application" may be denied, for any reason you deem relevant. Smoking tobacco is my right. I'm sorry that you lost friends to smoking, but that was their choice. Your life sure would be great if you could live everyone else's life, but unfortunately, people are supposed to be able to make their own decisions.

By your logic, all I need to do is fill out a registration form, and get a card. Now, if everyone who asks for one gets one, what exactly does this grand scheme accomplish. Do you really believe that a smoker, with no other motivation to quit, would quit because they're too lazy to fill out an application? If so, that's the most naive perspective I've ever imagined. The very concept of a "smokers license" denotes that some people are allowed to smoke, while others, for various reasons, are not. Just like driving. What gives you or anyone else the right to deny anyone the right to smoke?

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:36 AM
Cigarettes are unfortunate scapegoats - they take the heat for toxic industrial pollution and particulate pollution from forest fires, among other things. It's doubtful if every smoker in the history of the world combined could put off as much toxic smoke as one good blaze in the Canadian wilderness.

The cancer epidemic doesn't seem to correlate with smoking, but oddly enough it does seem to correlate with the inclusion of plastic/petroleum products into every aspect of our daily lives. Hmmmm...

People sometimes complain about the tobacco lobby, as if it's some giant demonic influence on policy.
We shouldn't need to remind them that the size of the tobacco lobby is insignificant and really quite pathetic when compared to the size of the pharmaceutical, chemical, and petroleum lobbies (which are, for all intents and purposes, just one big three-part lobby, since they're intertwined incestuously to the nth degree, each relying on the other).

Anyway, it's been said earlier in this thread, but I wanted to reiterate it: the answer is not prohibition, the answer is education combined with a heaping helping of personal responsibility.

Here's the deal. If the corporate polluters will take responsibility for killing millions, I'll take responsibility for endangering myself with cigarettes. It's only fair that people ought to pay for what they do to themselves and to others. I make the conscious choice every day to inhale hot smoke filled with toxic chemicals, but here's the thing - millions of people are being hoodwinked, and they're not given the choice as to whether or not they want to suffer the fallout from poorly tested, poorly understood petroleum products, plastics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and the like. Why don't they deserve that choice?

It really gets my panties in a twist when everyday average citizens turn on one another, and demonize the smokers, while turning a blind eye to the mega-polluters that are killing us all wholesale and destroying our environment.

This is not directed at the original post, rather at the hordes of uninformed, self-righteous know-it-alls who make it their mission in life to make my choices for me: get your freakin' priorities straight, read a book or two, and then focus on taking care of your own business before you come messin' with mine. Cheers.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:11 AM
I believe government should stay out of others buisness,if I want to smoke I'll smoke,and if they were trying to stop pollution,they would make all vehicles in the US to conform to California emmisions control,if car fails send it to the crusher,I think they have worse problems then smokers,and I pay my own medical bills out of pocket

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by fiftyfifty

How about you go find something better to do with your time, than trying to tell other people what to do with their OWN bodies. IT's their right to smoke and nobody should push their morals and beliefs on them.

when are some of you people going to learn that just because you don't like something that someone else does..because it disagrees with your beliefs or moral system..that DOES NOT give you the right to go around banishing that act.

seriously people..grow up. adults have the right to make their own decisions. hell i don't like homosexual activity..but you don't see me going around saying lets turn everyone straight. they have a right to live how they want to live, and smokers have a right to smoke as much as they. I don't smoke ciggarrettes only blunts but still, i dont think anyone has the right to come up here and tell me i need to stop smoking just because they disagree with a decision i choose to make.

Seriously..just go about your life, and leave others alone to make their own decisions.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by Spawwwn

It was just a suggestion jeeze. People can do what they want, in no way am I saying you should be forced into something you dont want to do. From my original perspective I thought that maybe it would be helpful to people who wanted to quit and I was under the impression that most people would want to.

It also seems that there is a big difference in the way that the Americans look at it than the Brits.

From the American reponses I have had on here, they all seem very defensive and anti-government. In the UK, although I dont think ive had any British replies on here, most of the people that I know who smoke want to quit.

It amazes me how uptight and defensive people get over a 'suggestion'.. an 'idea' and talk down to me as if I have deficated on their doorstep!.. Hey I can't always be right.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:02 PM
Well, here is the thing. Perhaps you really have not looked into the food supply and really how bad it is for most people. Why do people who do not smoke still get cancer or heart disease? Simply put, the food supply is what is really bad, or esle half of this stuff of drinking and smoking would not really affect anyone very much, as long as there was exercise and common sense. There is already on TV - too much sodium in food(salt in a sense) that does more harm to a person than cigeratte smoke and there is too much fat that people assume they can eat, like pizzas, when they are young. The others who do adopt better food habits know that it costs a bunch and still they somtimes will develop those bad diseases. People are getting ill because it is the food in the first place, taking out the vitamins and minerals, and ammino acids in the first place and replacing it with the add-on vitamins just to make you think that it is good food in the first place. This is really what is happening, and it is real. You will all find out as you get older, that what they really are doing is not helping you out at all. It is all for convenience and whoever stated in the first place that life should be convenient. Whatever the Food and Drug Adminstration is coming up with -- is -- a medical profession that rather give you more pills and ills than make any sense for some. And humans go on, with comparing apples and oranges which are not the same thing.

Take a look at just one website about nutrition and all the websites up on the Internet about food and what others have found out. Half of the ills of this world can be based just on food supplies alone in my opinion.

The other half is phschological in some senses that people actually want to make theirselves sick while denying it.
It is time to place things in their proper prespective and quit the negativeness that others give out. It is not healthy, they only are negative, and they really do not give accurate facts about anything. It is like a bandwagon to be on, and sorry, I am not on a bandwagon to begin with.

Look it all up! They are and have been messing with you! For Real!

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:26 PM
reply to post by fiftyfifty

No matter which way you try to dress it up it is prohibition and prohibition does not work.
Never has done, never will do.
Just another erosion of individual free will.
In the UK smokers are some of, if not the, highest taxed individuals in the country.
It is estimated that the cost of a packet of cigarettes is comprised of 77.5% tax of one form or another.
So for a typical £5.50 packet of cigarettes approximately £4.26 of it is tax.
Cigarette smokers are propping up the NHS and are not a drain on it.

I have never supported smoking in public places; I just feel that designated smoking areas, clearly identified as such and with adequate ventillation should be allowed.
The outright banning is heavy handed.

As a generalisation, it is just another manifestation of the erosion of individual free will.
The rights of the individual are becoming increasingly marginalised for the welfare of the majority.
Sheep people, you are all becoming sheep and are consciously allowing it to happen.
Shame on you!
When it's your rights that are being affected and you shout "why won't anyone help me" it will be because there is no-one left to help you.

Anyway, enough of me ranting.

(Edit due to my fat fingers!)

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Freeborn]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Freeborn]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:52 AM

Originally posted by fiftyfifty

It also seems that there is a big difference in the way that the Americans look at it than the Brits.

I've noticed that to be the case on a lot of issues!

...although I dont think ive had any British replies on here ....

Oi! I'm British

A friend of mine actually came up with a similar idea himself a while back. I have no problem with it in principle; though there may be practical problems (black market etc).

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 04:29 AM
Women can get HPV which leads to cancer from a single instance of sex.
They breed children who can grow into tyrants and mass murderers.

Should they now register for a vaginal use card and get government permission to endanger themselves and others with their bodies?

When does the "you need a card and permission" end.

Tobacco is the suck, and government makes big money on it.
Over in Europe you have social health care, but I tell you what the alzheimers patient who goes on living for fourty years in a demented state is going to cost you a heck of a lot more than the smoker who kicks off at 45.

In the states, everyone pays into social security, but the majority of smokers die before ever seeing a dime of what they put in. Not that it would matter if they saw the money, it only pays for a pack a day.

There are a lot worse problems in the world than smoking.

Remember 15 minutes in a garage with exhaust running = death
20 cigarettes a day = death...someday....maybe a decade or two away.

Now imagine right now this planet is the garage, and there are what, 800 million exhausts running. The clock is ticking.

Smoke em if you got 'em.

I just thought of something else. Go away from any major city, far enough to look at it, tell me is that second hand smoke you see hovering in five mile cloud a half mile thick over the city? No its auto exhaust.

I lived on a busy street once, my window sills were black daily from auto exhaust alone.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Legalizer]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 05:08 AM
I don't see how the smokers are more costly....They pay more taxes, they're shortening their lifespans (less strain on the social security system later), and well, from my observations at work, those non-smokers seem to be running to the doctor far more than I am!! The non-smokers are getting sick, just as much as the smoker.
Studies here in the states have shown that our kid's lungs are not developing properly. This isn't being attributed to smoking, it's being attributed to the smog filled cities. And, I think this will be far more costly in the long run, than the smokers will be.

As far as the smoker getting a lung transplant before the non-smoker....
well, if you were in america, I would have to say, sorry, but I guess the smoker had more money?? But, I think it may give us a clue as to why some might want the smokers carrying cards indentifying them as they can be descriminated against in socialized healthcare. opps, you're a smoker, go to the back of the line, next.....oh, look at that, Mrs. Smith, you've dyed your hair blonde...
ya know, the hair dyes aren't good for ya either...but I bet Mrs. Smith will never have to carry a card letting everyone know that she dyes her hair, the cost of the hair dyes will never increase outrageously because of tax.
As far as the smokers burning down their house, and yours...
well, do your neighbors have kids!! They seem to burn down alot too!! Maybe their should be a tax attached to kids, restrictions placed on them...just to protect your house.

The same crap that has been put in the cigarettes that has made them far more dangerous than they used to be, has been put into everything else also! That new house you just bought is more than likely seeping with formadahyde. that fresh apple that your are eating has about the same amount as arsenic as your cigaretted does. That perfume you like to splash on you has chemicals in it that gives it it's aromic smell...well, those same chemicals are gripped about when they are coming from a cigarette, but if you can smell the perfume, you are getting the fire is needed!! they were designed to become airborne! The same thing goes for the air fresheners, pretty smelling laundry detergents, dryer sheets, ect. It's in your shampoos, it's in your food, it's in your clothing!!!

So, how do you know that it was the cigarette smoke that killed anyone? There's many ways someone to be exposed to those chemicals! Is taking away one source really gonna help?
The most costly people to the healthcare system are those that are running to the doctor for every ache and pain, allowing that doctor to put them into lifelong dependency for yet another toxic cocktail, in pill form!
I'm 50 years old, have been to the doctor twice this year, and all the drugs I've taken probably has been less than a bottle of tylonol. and the reason I went to the doctor has to do with a problem with my foot...which they were absolutely no help, what can I say.
yes, I put up with alot of pain, but I'm putting way more money into the health insurance industry than I am taking out. I ain't running to the drugstore once a month for those $100 or more perscriptions to be filled.
and yes, I smoke!!
the idea that the smokers are more costly is just another attempt to scapegoat part of the population so that the anger that will soon be generated as things fall apart, not to mention bodies fall apart, will deflected from the main source for it all....the manufacturers and big business!
Tobacco isn't that hard to grow, by the way. Force people to carry a card, and well, watch how fast people learn to growing their own..
which wouldn't be a bad thing really, since well, they would be less likely to throw in all the crap that the manufacturers are throwing into them!

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 05:28 AM

In the UK, although I dont think ive had any British replies on here, most of the people that I know who smoke want to quit.

England is part of Great Britain last I heard!!

Of course I want to quit smoking, it's just that we smokers get a little bit sick of moral do-gooders, (I certainly don't intend to imply that you are one of them
), constantly pointing out the errors of our ways and telling us what to do.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Freeborn]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
What are your thoughts on this?

I understand your intent, but a program like this would likely create more criminals than non-smokers.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in