TillyJ and Mikk:

Patches fail where will power succeeds. The argument over patches follows similar lines to the usefulness of the methadone programme, where one substance replaces another. Obviously Government is not convinced of their usefulness.

TillyJ, where the war on nicotine leads the way, there surely can be an argument for preferential anti-alcohol campaigns. To collar the much worn phrase “Collateral Damage” would highlight enough the obvious need to more urgently control the social mess initiated by the mass abuse of alcohol in our communities.

I think this is a terrible idea. I cannot understand why people think that more government control over our private lives is a good thing. If the "evil" in question is one that only affects the person engaging in it then it should be no business of the government to interfere. Of course the author claims that smokers cost the country more than non-smokers in health care. This is simply not true as all of us will die of something and the extra life expectancy (during the least productive years of life) make non-smokers more expensive.
If we try to ban things simply because they are bad for the health of the individual concerned then where do we stop. Should we ban high fat foods? What about motorcycles? Should we have compulsory health checks and penalties for those considered not to be taking sufficient care of their health? i.e. the overweight or those who don't do the prescribed amount of exercise every week. This seems to me a horrible scenario.
What about the value of personal freedom? Does no-one out there consider the freedom to make ones own decisions more valuable than the questionable benefit to society of banning an activity that harms no-one but the individual who chooses to engage in it?

Do we not live in a Democratic Society? Do we not have freedom of choice? Everyone has a right to Freedom and Choice in a democratic society. Approximately 50 years ago I chose to smoke and still smoke.
I am now 61, smoke up to 50 cigarettes a day and am very fit. I do not agree to the government or anyone imposing on or attempting to remove my god given freedoms or choices when I am harming no one. There are many other chemicals that do more harm which every living man, woman and child uses every day, fluiride in the water, which impacts on the masses, wheras my cigarette smoke only impacts on a few if any. For the privaledge of smoking I pay extra taxes which benefit all. Case rested

Gypsy <" I am now 61, smoke up to 50 cigarettes a day and am very fit. I do not agree to the government or anyone imposing on or attempting to remove my god given freedoms or choices when I am harming no one."

You are surely kidding yourself Gypsy! If you are smoking 50 cigarettes a day at age 61, you are most definitely NOT fit!
If you are basing this observation on how you look, then you need to have some chest xrays and tests on your arteries and see how fit you really are on the inside.

Unless you are living alone and never go out in areas where other people are near you while smoking, then you are harming other people with your exhaled smoke.

I believe the Government should go even further than banning smoking in public places, and start hitting tobacco companies for the medical expenses of all smoking related diseases amongst their customers.

It is a filthy habit that has caused much heartache in my family.

ok susie...smoking has caused much heartache..in YOUR family
booze has brought a lot of problems to mine

for many others its drugs..or drink driving..or violence..or ignorance

but we cant hear from them
so lets sort out your problems

you claim the right to judge me
well explain the facts...and we shall see smoking isnt the true cause

just like in the adverts
its ATTRIBUTABLE...is a conveniant blame
not nessearilly the cause...

smoking has its CAUSES..just as much as drinking
smoking has killed no one..!

the act of smoking...is an act...[dead people cant act]
people dont die in the act of smoking

it can be said people get lung sickness..or heart diseaase..from* smoking..but just like they cant call getting cancer from mobile phones...dying from phonecalling..you cant blame an act for the result..without proof

so lets hear your proof
have those who presumably died..ever inhaled wood-smoke

or diesal particulate..
or smoked in the presence of perfume..[carcinogene]

realise dear susie...casting blame..on smokers
is contradicted by the other facts...were they drinkers..or did they take asprin..
or was one a heavey user of chemicals/chlorene
..was their workplace asbestus free..ventilated or airconditioned

its not as simple..as you would like to believe

we could stop smoking today..yet non smokers die everyday
[and blaming smokers wont cut.it]

how come deaths have steadilly increased
even as smokers has steadily decreased

you can cast blame
but lets hear your proof..!

3 out of 4 people simply..*CANT GET CANCER
at least tax ONLY..those who can...im sick of paying YOUR TAX

tax..*something YOU USE..[not only those you love to ab-use]

As others have pointed out such a proposal would seem to pretty much instantly create a black market.
Regardless of existing laws around the sale and supply of cigarette's to under age people they seem to get access to them.
I suspect that there would also be somewhat of a rush on licenses by those with a mind to the future, ex-smokers not wanting to never be able to get them again, non-smokers who can see the market opportunities etc.
At the same time others who would probably cope the least with having their supply of cigarette's cut off might not do so well with getting a license (mentally ill etc)
I've got a general adversion to governments trying to have too strong a role in regulating peoples lives. Every new type of license or permit seem's to provide an excuse for a bunch more regulation, fee's and bureaucracy.

R0bert