Researchers Debate a License to Smoke Cigarettes

LiveScience ^ | November 13 2012 | Stephanie Pappas

[EveningStar]

They do it for coal-burning power plants. So how about something for what many consider to be a walking smokestack — the cigarette smoker?

Yes, a license to smoke. Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney in Australia, offers this radical proposal to help reduce the damaging health effects of tobacco, both for the user and the recipient of second-hand smoke.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Jonty30]

They have a license. It’s called being 18 years old, in most jurisdictions.

[EveningStar]

ping

[Gene Eric]

Can one deduct the license fee?

[EveningStar]

This prof’s idea goes farther than that.

[M-cubed]

Sure!..it must be in the commerce clause...but on a bigger scale...cant we just tax all the damned amendments to the Constitution?

[FlingWingFlyer]

The Third Reich rises from the ashes of “Election” 2012!

[Gator113]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYgLAPhbyKg

[Revel]

Next they will put a carbon tax on it.

[Seaplaner]

I merely scanned the article; however, one suspects that your alleged president is still a tobacco addict (no evidence, just a suspicion) it might be interesting to see if there are exemptions for political fungi.

.

[Army Air Corps]

This is in Australia, but I am sure our fascists will love it.

[Jonty30]

Oh I know. It’s all about control.

[Mears]

Charcoal grills?

Fireplaces?

.

[carlo3b]

If you think this is a good idea, I have a much, greater idea.. A license to screw, and and an advance degree to to procreate! Yeah!..

Now, which idea has a greater positive impact on our culture, and humanity in general..???

[Flick Lives]

Yes, a license to smoke.

Sure. Then we can have a french fry consumption license, a 16oz soft drink license, a fatty food license, candy bar license...

[Teflonic]

This will just cause lots of non-smokers to get a license to sell what they buy on the black market.

[spintreebob]

We exhale the most insidious of all pollutants: CO2.
We must all get licenses and be regulated for the amount of pollutant we are allowed to exhale. Those identity groups that invented other pollution producers such as dairy cows must have shorter licenses to exhale than the noble savage of Rousseau who invented no pollutants. :)

[Slings and Arrows]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

--C. S. Lewis

[ClearBlueSky]

For a long time I`ve been trying to understand how liberals can be AGAINST smoking evil tobacco anywhere while being FOR the legalization of pot. Wouldn`t smoking a joint be prohibited under the same anti-smoking laws? Would marijuana be ok but tobacco not? One smoke bad for your health even second hand but the other not? Someone help me make sense of this.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Are you sure this isn’t already in the healthcare bill? Has anyone actually read the entire thing?

[gonzo]

"...A license to screw, and and an advance degree to to procreate!..."

Well, I'm qualified to teach the course, if that helps .................................................................................... FRegards

[metmom]

Someone help me make sense of this.

You can't.

There is no logic when it comes to liberals.

The term *liberal logic* would be the epitome of an oxymoron.

[qam1]

Liberals hate corporations

Notice, Liberals aren’t for legalization of pot instead they are for decriminalization. There is a significant difference.

If pot were legal, companies like Philip Morris etc can make their own pot brands and make billions, however if pot was just decriminalized, Liberals believe companies wouldn’t get involved and it would stay just small time growers.

[qam1]

Liberals hate corporations

Notice, Liberals aren’t for legalization of pot instead they are for decriminalization. There is a significant difference.

If pot were legal, companies like Philip Morris etc can make their own pot brands and make billions, however if pot was just decriminalized, Liberals believe companies wouldn’t get involved and it would stay just small time growers.

[carlo3b]

Ha! I’m sure you have the references to back that up.. LOL

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Why is it, when you hear something this astonishingly stupid, you can always say with a high degree of confidence “Some college professor thought it up.”

It’s a more sure thing than knowing a politician will lie at the drop of a hat or a reporter will never get it right when talking about firearms.

[ClearBlueSky]

So all the potheads who dream of ‘decriminalization’ of weed will be rudely surprised by the fact that they join tobacco smokers in possessing a legal product they cannot enjoy at home or in public? They can carry it, but not light it up. Guess there’s always brownies, but wanna bet that smoking marijuana won’t be the pollutant( politically) that tobacco is?

[Eric Blair 2084]

If they really believe its so horrible, and kills the user and everyone around them, gubmints around the world should just ban the product already.

This nonsense passed the silly stage years ago.