Professor Proposes Smoker's License [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Professor Proposes Smoker's License


NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-02-2012, 17:04
Simon Chapman of Tobacco Control suggests "radical efforts to achieve the tobacco control endgame." Aspects of the license:



Up to $200 government license fee
Maximum number of cigarettes purchased
Government database of smokers and their Smart Cards
Tourists apply for license before traveling
Applicants pass a knowledge test for smoking
The Australian Chapman notes that the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has been ratified by 176 nations.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001342#pmed.1001342-Framework1

DaneA
12-02-2012, 17:07
It would be just like living in Chicago with a gun.

Dragoon44
12-02-2012, 17:13
Lets apply it to Liberals! you have to have a license to be one!

Up to $2000 government license fee.
Maximum number of liberal ideas expressed
Government database of Liberals their not so Smart Cards
Tourists apply for license before traveling
Applicants flunks a knowledge test to qualify as a liberal.

:supergrin:

cesaros
12-02-2012, 17:16
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.

G17Jake
12-02-2012, 17:16
It would be a tax on the poor.

G26S239
12-02-2012, 17:58
It would be a tax on the poor.I did not see any reference to rich people not being taxed for smoking. Furthermore I did not see a requirement that poor people must smoke. It would be interesting to see how much many municipalities, states and the federal* government would see in revenue shortfall if the anti tobacco zealots were successful in getting every tobacco addict to quit.

*Any federal government not just the US.

NH Trucker
12-02-2012, 18:04
I did not see any reference to rich people not being taxed for smoking. Furthermore I did not see a requirement that poor people must smoke. It would be interesting to see how much many municipalities, states and the federal* government would see in revenue shortfall if the anti tobacco zealots were successful in getting every tobacco addict to quit.

*Any federal government not just the US.



It's a matter of demographics. There was a study done a while back where it was found that more lower income people smoke than higher income. Therefore, a tax on the poor.


Here's an article in the NY Times about it.


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/

G17Jake
12-02-2012, 18:09
I did not see any reference to rich people not being taxed for smoking. Furthermore I did not see a requirement that poor people must smoke. It would be interesting to see how much many municipalities, states and the federal* government would see in revenue shortfall if the anti tobacco zealots were successful in getting every tobacco addict to quit.

*Any federal government not just the US.

I'm just saying smoking is more common among the poor. At least that is my observation.

The entire smoking license is ridiculous, but not surprising from a professor.

glockdoc21
12-02-2012, 18:15
It would actually be a tax on the rich...poor people smoke and then get cancer/heart disease/lung disease and then get on government assistance which the rich fund with tax dollars. Thanks smokers!

zoyter2
12-02-2012, 18:16
Great idea! I was just thinking the other day.."Ya know, the GD government just doesn't have it's meddling fingers in enough aspects of our lives."

I mean, just look at the intelligent, all-knowing, faultless, men and women that make up or ruling body. Who wouldn't want them to control everything?

Scott3670
12-02-2012, 18:24
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.

Winner!

sputnik767
12-02-2012, 18:29
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.

Don't take this as my endorsement of any particular policy, but it does not only affect you. If I am walking down the street and you are smoking in front of me, it is affecting me too. If I am sitting in a bar and you're smoking next to me, it is affecting me as well. And before you mention this, plenty of bars allow smoking even if it's illegal. And when you decide that it makes more sense for you to spend $300+ per month on cigs vs buying health insurance, it affects all of us.

birda40
12-02-2012, 18:32
It would actually be a tax on the rich...poor people smoke and then get cancer/heart disease/lung disease and then get on government assistance which the rich fund with tax dollars. Thanks smokers!

I thought any one that makes over 250,000. doesnt pay taxes. Under does, heck I would love to make half that. (middle Class? )

badge315
12-02-2012, 18:44
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.

Hey, your post count is too low to be making that kind of sense here.

G26S239
12-02-2012, 19:02
It's a matter of demographics. There was a study done a while back where it was found that more lower income people smoke than higher income. Therefore, a tax on the poor.


Here's an article in the NY Times about it.


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/
Taxes on tobacco are paid by people who use tobacco not just poor people who choose to use tobacco.

Wealthy people who use tobacco are not exempted from paying the taxes on tobacco.

Poor people are not forced into using tobacco, it is a choice they freely make same as wealthy people who use tobacco.

Furthermore poor people with EBT are having their food and (often) rent subsidized so I fail to see how their choice to pay a sin tax on a product that they choose to buy is an undue hardship.

Using tobacco is a stupid choice. So is using other harmful drugs.

Poor people are free to opt out of tobacco sin taxes.

Gallium
12-02-2012, 19:07
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.


I don't smoke, drink booze or do drugs.

Don't care if others do.

Do care that most smokers, drinkers and druggies never seem to have the means of fixing themselves when they **** their lives up. It almost ALWAYS falls on "everyone else" (including smokers, drinkers and druggies who don't ail from their habits).

Thing is, to say what you say is like me saying "yeah, people should be able to take an elevator to the top of the Empire State Building, and step out in thin air" .


Because that is exactly what usually happens. Idiots take the cheap thrills and leave "the rest of us" to clean up their mess.

stevelyn
12-02-2012, 19:14
Professor Proposes Smoker's License

This is the result of what happens when a degree or education is confused with intelligence.

G26S239
12-02-2012, 19:25
This is the result of what happens when a degree or education is confused with intelligence.
:rofl:

Batesmotel
12-02-2012, 19:35
Just stop government subsidies on tobacco. Let real market forces determine price. That will price most people out of the market.

Drjones
12-02-2012, 20:06
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.


The only thing I hate worse than cigarette smoking is the smoking nazis, but this "if it doesn't impact anyone else" attitude is completely retarded.

If a woman in another state gets raped, it doesn't affect me either but that doesn't mean it's OK. Abortion doesn't directly, immediately impact my life, but that doesn't mean it isn't murder and that doesn't make it OK.

coastal4974
12-02-2012, 20:22
Cool! Maybe they can have a big gulp license.

Grabbrass
12-02-2012, 20:24
Using tobacco is a stupid choice. So is using other harmful drugs.

Poor people are free to opt out of tobacco sin taxes.

For a poor person of low intelligence who just barely graduated high school and did well to get themselves a job at a tire shop or furniture store or something like that, with kids to feed and no appreciable chance of ever achieving anything greater than this in life, having a smoke is the closest that person can ever get to 'the pursuit of happiness." For such persons, it's a brief but satisfying luxury in the midst of a crap life. Leave them alone.

Your thought processes are judgmental and elitist.

happyguy
12-02-2012, 20:32
Great idea! I was just thinking the other day.."Ya know, the GD government just doesn't have it's meddling fingers in enough aspects of our lives."

I mean, just look at the intelligent, all-knowing, faultless, men and women that make up or ruling body. Who wouldn't want them to control everything?

So true!

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy :)

janice6
12-02-2012, 20:52
Maybe this Professor(?) should be tested and licensed every year, to verify he is teaching in a totally objective manner.

Makes as much sense.

czsmithGT
12-02-2012, 20:58
Maybe this Professor(?) should be tested and licensed every year, to verify he is teaching in a totally objective manner.

Makes as much sense.

Well he is talking about Australia so as far as I'm concerned they can do what they want. Just don't let the UN force that crap down out throats one day.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-02-2012, 21:15
For those who said smoking affects you:

A smoking stranger does not directly affect you unless you let him affect you. Work to repeal regulations/laws that require taxpayers to foot the cancer patient's bill; or at least don't advocate more government.

Government is not your father (conservative paternalists), nor is government capable of a possessing a conscience (liberal bleeding hearts).

You smoke. You get cancer. You die.

cesaros
12-02-2012, 21:21
The only thing I hate worse than cigarette smoking is the smoking nazis, but this "if it doesn't impact anyone else" attitude is completely retarded.

If a woman in another state gets raped, it doesn't affect me either but that doesn't mean it's OK. Abortion doesn't directly, immediately impact my life, but that doesn't mean it isn't murder and that doesn't make it OK.

comparing Smoking to rape?

who's the retard? :rofl:

janice6
12-02-2012, 21:23
Well he is talking about Australia so as far as I'm concerned they can do what they want. Just don't let the UN force that crap down out throats one day.


Yeah. they have been getting a little squirrelly the last few years.


I get creeped out when "somebody" starts doing things for my own good, not theirs, but mine.

sbstudley
12-02-2012, 21:30
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.

Drinking and drugs kills more then 40,000 people on the roads each year. That could be my mother, that could be my wife, that could be my son, that could be me.... I care.
Tell me again how it does not effect others? :wow:

Steve

podwich
12-02-2012, 22:23
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.

I assume you are against socialized/taxpayer funded/etc. healthcare, correct?

I agree with your premise, but I would make sure you follow through with the ending. If not...if someone's going to make me pay for their care, I get a say in what they're allowed to do to their body.

NH Trucker
12-02-2012, 23:00
Taxes on tobacco are paid by people who use tobacco not just poor people who choose to use tobacco.

Wealthy people who use tobacco are not exempted from paying the taxes on tobacco.

Poor people are not forced into using tobacco, it is a choice they freely make same as wealthy people who use tobacco.

Furthermore poor people with EBT are having their food and (often) rent subsidized so I fail to see how their choice to pay a sin tax on a product that they choose to buy is an undue hardship.

Using tobacco is a stupid choice. So is using other harmful drugs.

Poor people are free to opt out of tobacco sin taxes.



You asked the question, I answered the question. If you think "opting out of tobacco sin taxes" is easy, then you know nothing of addiction. Some people can just give it up. Others... Well, there's a reason why the addiction to cigarettes is compared to the addiction to heroin.

Gunhaver
12-02-2012, 23:02
For a poor person of low intelligence who just barely graduated high school and did well to get themselves a job at a tire shop or furniture store or something like that, with kids to feed and no appreciable chance of ever achieving anything greater than this in life, having a smoke is the closest that person can ever get to 'the pursuit of happiness." For such persons, it's a brief but satisfying luxury in the midst of a crap life. Leave them alone.

Your thought processes are judgmental and elitist.


Sorry, he forgot to tell you to start from the assumption that every single poor person is only poor because they deserve it. Then you'll get there.

G26S239
12-02-2012, 23:48
For a poor person of low intelligence who just barely graduated high school and did well to get themselves a job at a tire shop or furniture store or something like that, with kids to feed and no appreciable chance of ever achieving anything greater than this in life, having a smoke is the closest that person can ever get to 'the pursuit of happiness." For such persons, it's a brief but satisfying luxury in the midst of a crap life. Leave them alone.

Your thought processes are judgmental and elitist.Priceless. :rofl:

Leave them alone? I have never voted in favor of sin taxes.
You asked the question, I answered the question. If you think "opting out of tobacco sin taxes" is easy, then you know nothing of addiction. Some people can just give it up. Others... Well, there's a reason why the addiction to cigarettes is compared to the addiction to heroin.
I did not ask any question. I pointed out that I did not see any reference to rich people being exempt from the proposed measures and there was no requirement that poor people use tobacco products in the proposals.

The people targeted by Simon Chapman's proposals are tobacco users NOT poor people.

The fact that higher proportions and numbers of lower income people use tobacco does not change the fact that Chapman's proposals target tobacco users not poor people.

Furthermore I never stated that quitting is easy. I stated that opting out of tobacco sin taxes can be done. Yes people CAN quit destructive habits. If you believe otherwise make your case.

cowboywannabe
12-03-2012, 00:23
why do dopers support liberals who want to smoke dope without gubmint interference but not tobacco?

nursetim
12-03-2012, 02:41
Does anybody remember the email circulating years ago of the person ordering a pizza? The order taker had access to all sorts of info. We all laugh thinking "as if", how far are we away from this scenario now? Not so funny now.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-03-2012, 05:05
Does anybody remember the email circulating years ago of the person ordering a pizza? The order taker had access to all sorts of info. We all laugh thinking "as if", how far are we away from this scenario now? Not so funny now.


Was the email in reference to this?:


Ordering Pizza in the Future - YouTube

kenpoprofessor
12-03-2012, 05:54
Let's be perfectly honest here shall we. Most of the people that post here are socialists at heart. They do want to control what others do with their time and money if they feel it's a waste or threat somehow. What's worse, they attempt to justify their thoughts. They are happy when an authoriative figure tells someone else they can't do something, until it's them.

Ideas promoted by this professor take root, and once rooted, there is no end to the tyranny of those who think they know better than us, because they do so with a clear conscience. Pretty soon, it will effect them when they get told no more ATV's, no rock climbing, no swimming pools, jetskis or water sports, no alcohol, no something whatever, because it's just too hazardous for the general population (who of course, are just too stupid to understand their activities are too hazardous).

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 06:18
Sorry, he forgot to tell you to start from the assumption that every single poor person is only poor because they deserve it. Then you'll get there.

Not every single one, but most.

Its not so much that they deserve it, its that they made bad choices.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 06:20
why do dopers support liberals who want to smoke dope without gubmint interference but not tobacco?

Progressives on both sides want to control others behavior.

badge315
12-03-2012, 07:08
Drinking and drugs kills more then 40,000 people on the roads each year. That could be my mother, that could be my wife, that could be my son, that could be me.... I care.
Tell me again how it does not effect others? :wow:

Steve

So are you advocating making alcohol illegal? Yeah, that didn't work out so well the last time it was tried. :upeyes:

M2 Carbine
12-03-2012, 07:52
stupid.

What is everyone's obsession with controlling personal habits...

Want to smoke? Smoke.
Want to drink? Drink.
Want to do drugs? Do it.

As long as its only effecting you...who the hell cares.
In principal I agree with you, I hate government interference in our lives, but all this does effect others.

Smoking around other people causes them unnecessary discomfort and can effect their health.

Drinking causes social and family problems and makes the drunk act mostly like a silly ass. Then there's the thousands of people hurt and killed by drunk drivers.

Drugs ****up thousands of people's lives, not just the doper.
Thousands of people are killed by dopers driving.
Then there's the crime and murderous drug cartels supported by the dopers.
At least when you smoke and support the tobacco companies, the tobacco companies aren't murdering people to supply you cigarettes.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 08:08
At least when you smoke and support the tobacco companies, the tobacco companies aren't murdering people to supply you cigarettes.

They would if the government made them illegal.

kenpoprofessor
12-03-2012, 08:12
They would if the government made them illegal.

Or if they taxed them to the point of being cheaper to steal and rob at gunpoint. That's the problem, people don't understand that when you deny or infringe a person's liberty in any way, they'll continue on doing what they've been doing illegally or with force.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

nursetim
12-03-2012, 14:26
That's the one, thank NCLiberty.

Fracken scary. I don't think we are to far away from this.

Booker
12-03-2012, 15:50
I assume you are against socialized/taxpayer funded/etc. healthcare, correct?

I agree with your premise, but I would make sure you follow through with the ending. If not...if someone's going to make me pay for their care, I get a say in what they're allowed to do to their body.

Be careful what you wish for! If you get a say about somebody else's choices, Does your boss get to tell you what you can do, Or if I am your customer, do I get a say since my money helps to pay for your health insurance?

The USA is full of control freaks!

podwich
12-07-2012, 23:35
Be careful what you wish for! If you get a say about somebody else's choices, Does your boss get to tell you what you can do, Or if I am your customer, do I get a say since my money helps to pay for your health insurance?

The USA is full of control freaks!

I'm a libertarian. My point is that I'm for freedom of choices and responsibility for their effects. I have no desire to control others. However, if they wish to pick my pocket to finance their bad choices, the result of their avoidance of the effect part of the cause/effect equation is forced modification of the causation side.

Voluntarily buying something (and thus contributing to my compensation) is not the same as having the government pick my pocket against my will.

As for bosses having a say--they already do. There is the advent of health risk assessments now--and they include smoking. Higher premiums are being charged to smokers. Now if it were up to me, I'm for divorcing health coverage from employment (and simply paying the equivalent money in my salary and allow me to select coverage--and yes, I know the government has tilted the field toward employer-based coverage due to tax law. Remove all the interventions and let the market sort it out).

dan1488
12-08-2012, 19:03
Let's be perfectly honest here shall we. Most of the people that post here are socialists at heart. They do want to control what others do with their time and money if they feel it's a waste or threat somehow. What's worse, they attempt to justify their thoughts. They are happy when an authoriative figure tells someone else they can't do something, until it's them.

Ideas promoted by this professor take root, and once rooted, there is no end to the tyranny of those who think they know better than us, because they do so with a clear conscience. Pretty soon, it will effect them when they get told no more ATV's, no rock climbing, no swimming pools, jetskis or water sports, no alcohol, no something whatever, because it's just too hazardous for the general population (who of course, are just too stupid to understand their activities are too hazardous).

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Excellent post.

czsmithGT
12-08-2012, 19:12
They would if the government made them illegal.

Then they wouldn't be tobacco companies anymore, they would be Latin American and Russian drug cartels. Would probably have to cordon off North Carolina and make it a "No Fly Zone" except for the CIA planes smuggling tobacco to the inner cities.