Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way. No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England. Its chairman, Professor Julian Le Grand, told BBC Radio 5 Live the scheme would make a big difference to the number of people giving up smoking. But smokers’ rights group Forest described the idea as “outrageous”, given how much tax smokers already pay.
Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair, said cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS. 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. “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.” Forest spokesman Simon Clark said that when the cost of administration, extra bureaucracy and enforcement are taken into account, “the mind boggles”. He added that the people most affected by the proposals would be “the elderly and people on low incomes”.
Mr Clark added: “The senior government advisor putting this idea forward is not only adding to the red tape and bureaucracy we already have in this country. “He is openly bragging that he wants to make the form as complex as possible to fill in.”
Oh yeah, this is going to work. What smoker is going to spend more money for the right to smoke? Brilliant idea.
#30 Nadrew,
Thanks, I just felt the rant.
#31 Mister Catshit,
Yes.
#29-#32–you want a discussion? or just a forum on which to mindlessly rant?
All you said of substance was that if you have a government program it will cost money. So yes?==what is your point?
It might be as you say that: “Does anyone here really think that even 10% of the money raised would ever actually make it to the heralded end,” but that is silly to the extreme as most program revenues go to the general revenue to offset the general expenses. Nothing new there either.
The substantive issue you totaly avoided is that GIVEN the gov is going to tinker in our lives, is this net/net a good idea or not?
I think it is. Deliterious personal behavior should NOT be made illegal, but it should pay for itself, or more than pay for itself, or make a stab at paying for itself. Nothing wrong with that whether it is taxes, fees, licenses, or whatever.
Any discussion on the merits or do you want to stay in Ann Ryand land?
It seems the UK has found another way to make law abiding citizens into criminals.