LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Copying New ZealandJezyboy said:Raising the smoking age every year...
Just silly0 -
Why is it silly?Jezyboy said:Raising the smoking age every year...
Just silly
0 -
If Labour opposes any of this, they just need to say so and it doesn't happen. If they want hs2 to go to Manchester, it happens. If they oppose the new A levels, they dont happen. This is not a genuine government.0
-
For a PM who champions maths it just doesn't add up to state that replacing a £36bn spend on Northern transport with a £36bn transport spend across the whole UK means that the North will be better off for transport investment.
It's the exact opposite of levelling up.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Will tourists have to bring their smokes with them if they're under the age to buy them?0
-
No, we have single use strawberry flavoured vapes for that.kingstongraham said:Will tourists have to bring their smokes with them if they're under the age to buy them?
0 -
Unless the government sells the land that's already been bought really quickly, to make sure that it costs the country even more in the long term.kingstongraham said:If Labour opposes any of this, they just need to say so and it doesn't happen. If they want hs2 to go to Manchester, it happens. If they oppose the new A levels, they dont happen. This is not a genuine government.
Which would be on brand.0 -
Exactly. They could announce we are becoming the 52nd state in order to instantly cut inflation by 60% and lower taxes, and it would be about as likely to happen.kingstongraham said:If Labour opposes any of this, they just need to say so and it doesn't happen. If they want hs2 to go to Manchester, it happens. If they oppose the new A levels, they dont happen. This is not a genuine government.
0 -
They can ban vapes at the same time, surely? Nobody needs a smoking replacement if they've never smoked.First.Aspect said:
No, we have single use strawberry flavoured vapes for that.kingstongraham said:Will tourists have to bring their smokes with them if they're under the age to buy them?
0 -
Well you'd think so wouldn't you.kingstongraham said:
They can ban vapes at the same time, surely? Nobody needs a smoking replacement if they've never smoked.First.Aspect said:
No, we have single use strawberry flavoured vapes for that.kingstongraham said:Will tourists have to bring their smokes with them if they're under the age to buy them?
0 -
I guess it's the obvious compromise for the geriatric party. We'll only restrict it for the young people who don't vote for us anyway.
Obvious question is does banning it actually reduce the amount of smoking?0 -
Smoking levels are declining as a result of various measures taken over the last few decades, so I don't see why not.rick_chasey said:I guess it's the obvious compromise for the geriatric party. We'll only restrict it for the young people who don't vote for us anyway.
Obvious question is does banning it actually reduce the amount of smoking?
What's your counter argument, analogy to dope, that people will do it anyway? If so, yes they will, but the levels tobacco use could fall to are lower than the 12% of regular smokers at the moment.
Just looked up some ONS data that classifies a "regular drug user" as more than once a month, and states that 2.6% of adults are regular drug users. Imagine there's an underreporting bias there, but even so, that's a big difference to 12% regular smokers (even if "regular" means the same thing in each context, which I doubt).
0 -
Speak to a submariner who smokes. They spend up to 3 months in cold turkey and the first thing they do on land? Light up. You'd think it was the perfect time to give up.kingstongraham said:
They can ban vapes at the same time, surely? Nobody needs a smoking replacement if they've never smoked.First.Aspect said:
No, we have single use strawberry flavoured vapes for that.kingstongraham said:Will tourists have to bring their smokes with them if they're under the age to buy them?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
First.Aspect said:
Because I think grown adults should be allowed to smoke if they want to.First.Aspect said:0 -
I think we need to find who's been wasting this money on hs2 for the last few years instead of doing these better schemes and hold them to account for it.0
-
Jezyboy said:First.Aspect said:
Because I think grown adults should be allowed to smoke if they want to.First.Aspect said:1 -
I particularly like the animated map showing all the other things they are going to spend the £36bn on, some of which were going to happen anyway and absolutely none of which connect to the amputated stump of HS2. Also works in Devon now count as part of the Northern Network.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Why? Has been known for 75 years that it leads to premature death and a myriad health problems in addition that incur costs for the NHS. What is wrong with public health policy that reduces those harms?Jezyboy said:First.Aspect said:
Because I think grown adults should be allowed to smoke if they want to.First.Aspect said:
0 -
It's a question not an objection. Instinctively I wonder about the value of banning stuff in general.First.Aspect said:
Smoking levels are declining as a result of various measures taken over the last few decades, so I don't see why not.rick_chasey said:I guess it's the obvious compromise for the geriatric party. We'll only restrict it for the young people who don't vote for us anyway.
Obvious question is does banning it actually reduce the amount of smoking?
What's your counter argument, analogy to dope, that people will do it anyway? If so, yes they will, but the levels tobacco use could fall to are lower than the 12% of regular smokers at the moment.
Just looked up some ONS data that classifies a "regular drug user" as more than once a month, and states that 2.6% of adults are regular drug users. Imagine there's an underreporting bias there, but even so, that's a big difference to 12% regular smokers (even if "regular" means the same thing in each context, which I doubt).
For example, regular drug use may be fairly low but because it is illegal the drugs trade has enormous collateral damage, let alone the additional cost to users etc.
Not necessarily suggesting smoking would be the same, but for all we know it could become a big money spinner for organised crime.
Or it could die out.
My feeling is the education around the costs of smoking to your health has had a much bigger impact than all the restrictions around selling.
I could be very wrong.0 -
Or very right.rick_chasey said:
It's a question not an objection. Instinctively I wonder about the value of banning stuff in general.First.Aspect said:
Smoking levels are declining as a result of various measures taken over the last few decades, so I don't see why not.rick_chasey said:I guess it's the obvious compromise for the geriatric party. We'll only restrict it for the young people who don't vote for us anyway.
Obvious question is does banning it actually reduce the amount of smoking?
What's your counter argument, analogy to dope, that people will do it anyway? If so, yes they will, but the levels tobacco use could fall to are lower than the 12% of regular smokers at the moment.
Just looked up some ONS data that classifies a "regular drug user" as more than once a month, and states that 2.6% of adults are regular drug users. Imagine there's an underreporting bias there, but even so, that's a big difference to 12% regular smokers (even if "regular" means the same thing in each context, which I doubt).
For example, regular drug use may be fairly low but because it is illegal the drugs trade has enormous collateral damage, let alone the additional cost to users etc.
Not necessarily suggesting smoking would be the same, but for all we know it could become a big money spinner for organised crime.
Or it could die out.
My feeling is the education around the costs of smoking to your health has had a much bigger impact than all the restrictions around selling.
I could be very wrong.
Seems basically to have gone out of fashion already. I see very few young people doing it.
0 -
The harms of excessive alcohol consumption have been known since brewing beer was invented. We've tried prohibition and it was a less than roaring success.First.Aspect said:
Why? Has been known for 75 years that it leads to premature death and a myriad health problems in addition that incur costs for the NHS. What is wrong with public health policy that reduces those harms?Jezyboy said:First.Aspect said:
Because I think grown adults should be allowed to smoke if they want to.First.Aspect said:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's arbitrary already isn't it.rjsterry said:
The harms of excessive alcohol consumption have been known since brewing beer was invented. We've tried prohibition and it was a less than roaring success.First.Aspect said:
Why? Has been known for 75 years that it leads to premature death and a myriad health problems in addition that incur costs for the NHS. What is wrong with public health policy that reduces those harms?Jezyboy said:First.Aspect said:
Because I think grown adults should be allowed to smoke if they want to.First.Aspect said:
I don't think it should be banned, just taxed to bugg3ry. Don't see any harm in raising the legal age to 21 or 25 or something like that, either.
0 -
Vaping instead.First.Aspect said:
Or very right.rick_chasey said:
It's a question not an objection. Instinctively I wonder about the value of banning stuff in general.First.Aspect said:
Smoking levels are declining as a result of various measures taken over the last few decades, so I don't see why not.rick_chasey said:I guess it's the obvious compromise for the geriatric party. We'll only restrict it for the young people who don't vote for us anyway.
Obvious question is does banning it actually reduce the amount of smoking?
What's your counter argument, analogy to dope, that people will do it anyway? If so, yes they will, but the levels tobacco use could fall to are lower than the 12% of regular smokers at the moment.
Just looked up some ONS data that classifies a "regular drug user" as more than once a month, and states that 2.6% of adults are regular drug users. Imagine there's an underreporting bias there, but even so, that's a big difference to 12% regular smokers (even if "regular" means the same thing in each context, which I doubt).
For example, regular drug use may be fairly low but because it is illegal the drugs trade has enormous collateral damage, let alone the additional cost to users etc.
Not necessarily suggesting smoking would be the same, but for all we know it could become a big money spinner for organised crime.
Or it could die out.
My feeling is the education around the costs of smoking to your health has had a much bigger impact than all the restrictions around selling.
I could be very wrong.
Seems basically to have gone out of fashion already. I see very few young people doing it.
Still unclear if that’s better or worse.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I forget- is she the normal one?
0 -
0
-
Think it's generally accepted to be better, but the extent to which the dangers are underplayed by the same industry that underplayed the risks of smoking remains to be seen.pblakeney said:
Vaping instead.First.Aspect said:
Or very right.rick_chasey said:
It's a question not an objection. Instinctively I wonder about the value of banning stuff in general.First.Aspect said:
Smoking levels are declining as a result of various measures taken over the last few decades, so I don't see why not.rick_chasey said:I guess it's the obvious compromise for the geriatric party. We'll only restrict it for the young people who don't vote for us anyway.
Obvious question is does banning it actually reduce the amount of smoking?
What's your counter argument, analogy to dope, that people will do it anyway? If so, yes they will, but the levels tobacco use could fall to are lower than the 12% of regular smokers at the moment.
Just looked up some ONS data that classifies a "regular drug user" as more than once a month, and states that 2.6% of adults are regular drug users. Imagine there's an underreporting bias there, but even so, that's a big difference to 12% regular smokers (even if "regular" means the same thing in each context, which I doubt).
For example, regular drug use may be fairly low but because it is illegal the drugs trade has enormous collateral damage, let alone the additional cost to users etc.
Not necessarily suggesting smoking would be the same, but for all we know it could become a big money spinner for organised crime.
Or it could die out.
My feeling is the education around the costs of smoking to your health has had a much bigger impact than all the restrictions around selling.
I could be very wrong.
Seems basically to have gone out of fashion already. I see very few young people doing it.
Still unclear if that’s better or worse.
0 -
You can drive a car, start a family, take out a mortgage, etc, etc but you're not old enough to smoke?First.Aspect said:
It's arbitrary already isn't it.rjsterry said:
The harms of excessive alcohol consumption have been known since brewing beer was invented. We've tried prohibition and it was a less than roaring success.First.Aspect said:
Why? Has been known for 75 years that it leads to premature death and a myriad health problems in addition that incur costs for the NHS. What is wrong with public health policy that reduces those harms?Jezyboy said:First.Aspect said:
Because I think grown adults should be allowed to smoke if they want to.First.Aspect said:
I don't think it should be banned, just taxed to bugg3ry. Don't see any harm in raising the legal age to 21 or 25 or something like that, either.
I loathe smoking, but the last thing we need is more authoritarian intervention.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Can't become the next leader without trying to compete in the lunatic stakes with Braverman and Co.kingstongraham said:I forget- is she the normal one?
0 -
To be properly on brand they'll sell it to a Developer or Developers on their approved donor list at a fraction of market value before the election leaving it impossible to build the route without going through a fresh CPO where said Developers get more than they paid.kingstongraham said:
Unless the government sells the land that's already been bought really quickly, to make sure that it costs the country even more in the long term.kingstongraham said:If Labour opposes any of this, they just need to say so and it doesn't happen. If they want hs2 to go to Manchester, it happens. If they oppose the new A levels, they dont happen. This is not a genuine government.
Which would be on brand.0 -
Smoking affects other people though. Even if you ignore the passive smoke, there is a lot of litter, and people have managed to justify a ban on plastic straws, so banning smoking doesn't seem outrageous.rjsterry said:
You can drive a car, start a family, take out a mortgage, etc, etc but you're not old enough to smoke?First.Aspect said:
It's arbitrary already isn't it.rjsterry said:
The harms of excessive alcohol consumption have been known since brewing beer was invented. We've tried prohibition and it was a less than roaring success.First.Aspect said:
Why? Has been known for 75 years that it leads to premature death and a myriad health problems in addition that incur costs for the NHS. What is wrong with public health policy that reduces those harms?Jezyboy said:First.Aspect said:
Because I think grown adults should be allowed to smoke if they want to.First.Aspect said:
I don't think it should be banned, just taxed to bugg3ry. Don't see any harm in raising the legal age to 21 or 25 or something like that, either.
I loathe smoking, but the last thing we need is more authoritarian intervention.0
