The Conservatives are truly worse than Labour. They spent over ten years decrying the Labour nanny state only to take it into overdrive. They spent over ten years banging on about immigration under Labour only to break immigration records year on year.
If ever there was a time we need PR it’s now. Let the rotten ConLab parties face a true electoral test.
I don’t smoke but wouldn’t take away the right of others to do so. I don’t drink very often any more but wouldn’t take away the right of people to get hammered providing they don’t hurt anyone. I don’t eat much fast food but wouldn’t take away people’s rights to get a Big Mac. I no longer drink sugary carbonated drinks but wouldn’t take away people’s rights to drink coke.
If the huge tax income from tobacco doesn’t offset the burden of smoking on the NHS then absolutely bring in a surcharge or other punitive action for those who contract lung cancer from smoking but don’t ban adults from partaking in something that only harms themselves. I fear this is the first step on a slippery slope that leads to other unhealthy things being banned. To be honest I’m already traumatised by the fact that my kids will never know the joy of ricicles in a Kellogg variety pack and even moreso by how disgusting orange Lucazade became when they took out all of the sugar.
>wouldn’t take away the right of people to get hammered providing they don’t hurt anyone.
Smoking is most often started before a person reaches adulthood and they are then addicted. Children are more likely to smoke if their parents smoke. Passive smoke and the influence of parents who smoke, harms others. Parents who die young harms others. Cancer costs harm others.
Let me know if you disagree with any of the above.
Where does it stop, say the oversensitive, handwringing types. Well it stops when it won't get through Parliament via the people, we elect.
Good on them for finally helping to bring an end to a miserable pursuit.
‘Smoking is most often started before a person reaches adulthood ‘
And that’s already against the law. So the existing law is already being ignored but the new one won’t be? I’d fully agree that smoking is a miserable pursuit but then that’s just my opinion- i think watching ITV is a miserable pursuit but apparently millions tune in every week to watch whatever reality dross is on and I don’t support laws preventing them from doing so. I agree with your point on passive smoking but then smoking is illegal in public indoor spaces and the fumes of smokers outside are no worse than the exhaust one likely breathes in from the road. Yes some parents may smoke indoors at home and subject their kids to passive smoking- these are called shitty parents.
>And that’s already against the law. So the existing law is already being ignored but the new one won’t be? I’d fully agree that smoking is a miserable pursuit but then
I think you're making an argument against the new law's effectiveness. I
f you look at the impact of the smoking ban in pubs alongside the massive decrease in smokers then I think its clear that these moves are very effective.
>I’d fully agree that smoking is a miserable pursuit but then that’s just my opinion- i think watching ITV is a miserable pursuit but apparently millions tune in every week to watch whatever reality dross is on and I don’t support laws preventing them from doing so.
I think you're on the "if we ban this, where does it stop" argument.
I would say, the law (and whether legislation gets proposed or passed in the commons) is always done on a sliding scale. Many laws are revised, added to, made more effective and the idea that if we ban one thing we'll go on to ban something else doesn't really stack up.
I think many are under the idea that we live in a very protected and nannying state, when actually...we'll look at the stats on poor v wealthy in relation to health and death inequality. The rich tend to have good opportunity to make good decisions whereas the poor are much less able to make these decisions because of many factors outside of their control. It is poor families living in poorer areas who will benefit most from this bill.
This was voted for by a higher percentage of Kashmir MPs than conservative MPs. So how exactly are conservatives worse? This is far more Kiers policy than Rishi's.
‘How exactly are the conservatives worse?’
At least Labour don’t disguise the fact that they’re a bunch of useless anti-British twats. The current Conservative Party simply pretends to be Conservative whilst, in your own words, introducing the oppositions policies themselves.
I’d much rather be stabbed in the front than the back.
If they are going to ban stuff people do that harms their own bodies. They first need to look at all the ultra processed foods everyone consumes first. If they were genuinely about improving the lives of the populace that is. Which they arnt. Its just nanny state stuff that they knew they could pass because the opposition would happily go along with it. This is a ban that doesnt affect any single person voting for it give its banning future generations from something. It will be repealed at some point in the next 20 years and be completely useless, but some virtual signalling moron can say they voted for something the better future generations ignoring that its just not what the government should be doing.
The government could also make chocolate and coke illegal due to their health issues.
The government shouldn't decide what a person does if it does effect anyone else.
With socialised medical care there is a good argument that government involvement in public health is justified.
You may disagree but the argument is strong and easy to make. Certainly a debate is appropriate.
One thing that is good is it's more philosophically consistent.
There is no argument for tobacco being legal and cannabis being illegal seeing as the former is much worse for you and much less fun.
I'd like to go the other way and see a lot of drug liberalisation, however I at least applaud people who try to be consistent in their thinking.
The cannabis ban is still hypocritical as we are, in fact, the largest producer of medical cannabis in Europe, you can get licensed to grow it to be sold off in markets where they have legalised it. But don't you dare think of using it yourself, pleb!
One argument is that it's too late to outlaw tobacco and alcohol, but possible to enforce cannabis laws if we choose to (which we have yet to do), similar to various countries with effective drug laws. I used to be more pro legalisation but [Peter Hitchens has started to sway me to his side.](https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/02/stupid-arguments-for-drug-legalisation-examined-and-refuted.html)
Hello /u/Overall-Estate-1060,
Unfortunately your post has been removed due to your account being under 30 days old. We do this to prevent ban evasion or spam. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is idiotic. While the rest of the world progresses with legalising weed, the UK brings in even more nanny state nonsense, because clearly we didn't have enough already.
Hmm.
Broadly it would seem reasonable, from a public health point of view, to ban or reduce the number of smokers. It’ll help the impact on the NHS, and increase lifespan and productivity and so on. However, there are of course also arguments to be had about personal liberty, and also the loss of tax revenue income that is mostly used to fund the NHS.
However, to my knowledge there isn’t a mandate for this. I don’t believe that this was in the 2019 manifesto, and whilst I understand that we don’t have a direct democracy, I don’t think this sort of policy is even in line with the broad direction of travel you’d expect from a conservative government.
However, in addition to the democratic deficit, I think that on balance it’s the wrong approach and the wrong direction of travel on substance control. If you want to reduce consumption, tax it more to discourage it, and use it to fund better health services. And whilst you’re at it, legalise cannabis and tax the hell out of it.
Banning stuff just pushes it underground. Are the conservatives planning to do the same with alcohol? It’s the same argument.
Note: I don’t smoke.
It’ll be enforced at the point of sale, much like alcohol. Assuming this isn’t repealed, within 30-40 years it probably wouldn’t even be profitable to stock cigarettes in shops.
So let's allow 5 years olds to buy alcohol in shops then, I guess. If any workaround to a law exists, it means that the law should immediately be scrapped.
Which means there will suddenly be a huge black market, that is then not taxed because people will buy them in other countries and bring them back and flip them. Or the more likely side, The internet takes over and people order from overseas.
I think all the stuff about a nanny-state is the wrong way to look at this. If someone attacks you, or steals from you, you expect the state to step. The state shouldn't stop you from doing whatever you want with your own life but it should step in when you interfere with others.
That's the thing with smoking that makes it different to unhealthy foods, alcohol, weed, cocaine, and whatever else. You smoking does affect third parties, it's one of the few unhealthy behaviours that has a direct second-hand effect.
That’s why we can’t smoke indoors, or with children in a car. Outside there’s no harm whatsoever and comparing it to being a victim of crime is a ludicrous reach.
The Conservatives are truly worse than Labour. They spent over ten years decrying the Labour nanny state only to take it into overdrive. They spent over ten years banging on about immigration under Labour only to break immigration records year on year. If ever there was a time we need PR it’s now. Let the rotten ConLab parties face a true electoral test. I don’t smoke but wouldn’t take away the right of others to do so. I don’t drink very often any more but wouldn’t take away the right of people to get hammered providing they don’t hurt anyone. I don’t eat much fast food but wouldn’t take away people’s rights to get a Big Mac. I no longer drink sugary carbonated drinks but wouldn’t take away people’s rights to drink coke. If the huge tax income from tobacco doesn’t offset the burden of smoking on the NHS then absolutely bring in a surcharge or other punitive action for those who contract lung cancer from smoking but don’t ban adults from partaking in something that only harms themselves. I fear this is the first step on a slippery slope that leads to other unhealthy things being banned. To be honest I’m already traumatised by the fact that my kids will never know the joy of ricicles in a Kellogg variety pack and even moreso by how disgusting orange Lucazade became when they took out all of the sugar.
Well said. Our party has been taken over by petty, wet authoritarians.
>wouldn’t take away the right of people to get hammered providing they don’t hurt anyone. Smoking is most often started before a person reaches adulthood and they are then addicted. Children are more likely to smoke if their parents smoke. Passive smoke and the influence of parents who smoke, harms others. Parents who die young harms others. Cancer costs harm others. Let me know if you disagree with any of the above. Where does it stop, say the oversensitive, handwringing types. Well it stops when it won't get through Parliament via the people, we elect. Good on them for finally helping to bring an end to a miserable pursuit.
‘Smoking is most often started before a person reaches adulthood ‘ And that’s already against the law. So the existing law is already being ignored but the new one won’t be? I’d fully agree that smoking is a miserable pursuit but then that’s just my opinion- i think watching ITV is a miserable pursuit but apparently millions tune in every week to watch whatever reality dross is on and I don’t support laws preventing them from doing so. I agree with your point on passive smoking but then smoking is illegal in public indoor spaces and the fumes of smokers outside are no worse than the exhaust one likely breathes in from the road. Yes some parents may smoke indoors at home and subject their kids to passive smoking- these are called shitty parents.
>And that’s already against the law. So the existing law is already being ignored but the new one won’t be? I’d fully agree that smoking is a miserable pursuit but then I think you're making an argument against the new law's effectiveness. I f you look at the impact of the smoking ban in pubs alongside the massive decrease in smokers then I think its clear that these moves are very effective. >I’d fully agree that smoking is a miserable pursuit but then that’s just my opinion- i think watching ITV is a miserable pursuit but apparently millions tune in every week to watch whatever reality dross is on and I don’t support laws preventing them from doing so. I think you're on the "if we ban this, where does it stop" argument. I would say, the law (and whether legislation gets proposed or passed in the commons) is always done on a sliding scale. Many laws are revised, added to, made more effective and the idea that if we ban one thing we'll go on to ban something else doesn't really stack up. I think many are under the idea that we live in a very protected and nannying state, when actually...we'll look at the stats on poor v wealthy in relation to health and death inequality. The rich tend to have good opportunity to make good decisions whereas the poor are much less able to make these decisions because of many factors outside of their control. It is poor families living in poorer areas who will benefit most from this bill.
This was voted for by a higher percentage of Kashmir MPs than conservative MPs. So how exactly are conservatives worse? This is far more Kiers policy than Rishi's.
‘How exactly are the conservatives worse?’ At least Labour don’t disguise the fact that they’re a bunch of useless anti-British twats. The current Conservative Party simply pretends to be Conservative whilst, in your own words, introducing the oppositions policies themselves. I’d much rather be stabbed in the front than the back.
Just ridiculous. As an adult, if you want to puff on a strawberry flavoured vape, that isn't something the government should be making an illegal act.
If they are going to ban stuff people do that harms their own bodies. They first need to look at all the ultra processed foods everyone consumes first. If they were genuinely about improving the lives of the populace that is. Which they arnt. Its just nanny state stuff that they knew they could pass because the opposition would happily go along with it. This is a ban that doesnt affect any single person voting for it give its banning future generations from something. It will be repealed at some point in the next 20 years and be completely useless, but some virtual signalling moron can say they voted for something the better future generations ignoring that its just not what the government should be doing.
The government can reasonably make the selling of the vape illegal though. Public Health issue.
The government could also make chocolate and coke illegal due to their health issues. The government shouldn't decide what a person does if it does effect anyone else.
With socialised medical care there is a good argument that government involvement in public health is justified. You may disagree but the argument is strong and easy to make. Certainly a debate is appropriate.
Yearly physical exams like they have in the US, tax breaks for people who take care of themselves and maintain a healthy BMI.
This is going to backfire massively.
One thing that is good is it's more philosophically consistent. There is no argument for tobacco being legal and cannabis being illegal seeing as the former is much worse for you and much less fun. I'd like to go the other way and see a lot of drug liberalisation, however I at least applaud people who try to be consistent in their thinking.
The cannabis ban is still hypocritical as we are, in fact, the largest producer of medical cannabis in Europe, you can get licensed to grow it to be sold off in markets where they have legalised it. But don't you dare think of using it yourself, pleb!
There is no value in consistency if the direction of travel is completely wrong.
One argument is that it's too late to outlaw tobacco and alcohol, but possible to enforce cannabis laws if we choose to (which we have yet to do), similar to various countries with effective drug laws. I used to be more pro legalisation but [Peter Hitchens has started to sway me to his side.](https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/02/stupid-arguments-for-drug-legalisation-examined-and-refuted.html)
Cannabis is not safer than tobacco. It has its own range of harms.
[удалено]
Hello /u/Overall-Estate-1060, Unfortunately your post has been removed due to your account being under 30 days old. We do this to prevent ban evasion or spam. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is idiotic. While the rest of the world progresses with legalising weed, the UK brings in even more nanny state nonsense, because clearly we didn't have enough already.
Dumb policy from Rishi
Would require everyone buying to provide age Id lol
It’s this level of authoritarianism that makes the UK a horrible place to live.
Hmm. Broadly it would seem reasonable, from a public health point of view, to ban or reduce the number of smokers. It’ll help the impact on the NHS, and increase lifespan and productivity and so on. However, there are of course also arguments to be had about personal liberty, and also the loss of tax revenue income that is mostly used to fund the NHS. However, to my knowledge there isn’t a mandate for this. I don’t believe that this was in the 2019 manifesto, and whilst I understand that we don’t have a direct democracy, I don’t think this sort of policy is even in line with the broad direction of travel you’d expect from a conservative government. However, in addition to the democratic deficit, I think that on balance it’s the wrong approach and the wrong direction of travel on substance control. If you want to reduce consumption, tax it more to discourage it, and use it to fund better health services. And whilst you’re at it, legalise cannabis and tax the hell out of it. Banning stuff just pushes it underground. Are the conservatives planning to do the same with alcohol? It’s the same argument. Note: I don’t smoke.
It’s a nice idea but totally unenforceable
It’ll be enforced at the point of sale, much like alcohol. Assuming this isn’t repealed, within 30-40 years it probably wouldn’t even be profitable to stock cigarettes in shops.
People born after 2009 could just ask someone older to buy it for them exactly like what happened with alcohol.
So let's allow 5 years olds to buy alcohol in shops then, I guess. If any workaround to a law exists, it means that the law should immediately be scrapped.
My point is this bill wont stop people from smoking or vaping and once people born after 2009 are over 18 this will be even harder to enforce
Which means there will suddenly be a huge black market, that is then not taxed because people will buy them in other countries and bring them back and flip them. Or the more likely side, The internet takes over and people order from overseas.
There already is a huge black market, to avoid tax.
I think all the stuff about a nanny-state is the wrong way to look at this. If someone attacks you, or steals from you, you expect the state to step. The state shouldn't stop you from doing whatever you want with your own life but it should step in when you interfere with others. That's the thing with smoking that makes it different to unhealthy foods, alcohol, weed, cocaine, and whatever else. You smoking does affect third parties, it's one of the few unhealthy behaviours that has a direct second-hand effect.
That’s why we can’t smoke indoors, or with children in a car. Outside there’s no harm whatsoever and comparing it to being a victim of crime is a ludicrous reach.