OV9

dinny_g wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:37 pm

Gavster wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:29 pm

dinny_g wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 11:37 am

So what your saying is that to protect the environment, we should close the borders to immigrants ???

I don't quite follow your thinking although I'm sure it is funny

Sorry, too vague - edited for clarity...

Understood and while on that track we should also stop people procreating because children have a massive impact on the environment

Is this a good point to have a discussion about what people philosophically mean by freedom?

It usually means that someone simply wants marginally different legislation around a couple of given subjects, rather than conceptually being free to do anything they want, which would clearly result in anarchy.

V8Granite wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 2:06 pm I hate the smell of smoke but it’s where will it end ?

This won’t be the end of the “we know what’s good for you” rubbish they like to spout. So after the smoking ban what will be fixated on next ?

Freedom is very important, it shouldn’t only be important for the things we enjoy.

Dave!

They'll have to prize the banned rib-eye steak from your cold dead hand Dave!

Gavster wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 3:24 pm Is this a good point to have a discussion about what people philosophically mean by freedom?

It usually means that someone simply wants marginally different legislation around a couple of given subjects, rather than conceptually being free to do anything they want, which would clearly result in anarchy.

Most of the time when people talk about “losing freedoms” it’s about behaviour that was kind of shite in hindsight imo.

Like smoking or hate speech.

eta I’m obviously quite passionate about freedom to protest which put me at odds with folk here. I think we’ll need a definition of violent protest before we get back into that

I hate public intoxication more than I hate public smoking.

Let's ban being drunk in public...

As someone who leans towards libertarianism I’m against the banning of most things just because like Dave says, it leads to what next.
If they banned smoking tobacco but allowed cannabis instead then I’d be for it. But that would require common sense and the government actually doing something to benefit people.

duncs500 wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 3:36 pm

V8Granite wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 2:06 pm I hate the smell of smoke but it’s where will it end ?

This won’t be the end of the “we know what’s good for you” rubbish they like to spout. So after the smoking ban what will be fixated on next ?

Freedom is very important, it shouldn’t only be important for the things we enjoy.

Dave!

They'll have to prize the banned rib-eye steak from your cold dead hand Dave!

The vegans would have they’re vitamin supliments interrupted by the Fresian Freedom Fighters and would soon be too weak to fight

Dave!

Just for clarity, the objective harm of smoking a joint is functionally little 'better' than sparking up a Benson and Hedges - the difference is that the vast majority of people don't smoke twenty to forty camberwell carrots a day, so a 'life long weed smoker' who doesn't otherwise smoke is at less risk of lung cancer than a lifelong cig smoker just through pure volume - but don't kid yourself that it's massively less harmful; smoke for smoke, by volume, it's still notably increasing your absolute risk of getting something nasty later in life.

It's little to do with the specific ingredients or additives, and much more to do with the fact that your lungs shit themselves when asked to deal with the effluent of burning vegetable matter, no matter what that vegetable matter is.

Beany wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 10:08 pm Just for clarity, the objective harm of smoking a joint is functionally little 'better' than sparking up a Benson and Hedges - the difference is that the vast majority of people don't smoke twenty to forty camberwell carrots a day, so a 'life long weed smoker' who doesn't otherwise smoke is at less risk of lung cancer than a lifelong cig smoker just through pure volume - but don't kid yourself that it's massively less harmful; smoke for smoke, by volume, it's still notably increasing your absolute risk of getting something nasty later in life.

It's little to do with the specific ingredients or additives, and much more to do with the fact that your lungs shit themselves when asked to deal with the effluent of burning vegetable matter, no matter what that vegetable matter is.

That's all aligned with how I love messing with hippies minds. You know, the kind of people who avoid taking pills while burning candles, incense or open fires at home. The ones who don't realise that aspirin is basically plant medicine while incense, candles and open fires are categorically bad for your respiratory health. In fact, open fires and wood burning stoves are bad for other peoples health too.

Quite why anybody with freedom of thought in the 21st century would still smoke at all completely baffles me. Please ban it completely, fucking disgusting smelly pieces of shit that cause premature death, hardly a loss is it.

I'll take a public outdoor space ban though, it's a start. Hopefully then we can hammer that wedge all the way home.

When I get really wrecked (about twice a year) I do end up smoking the odd cigarette. Despite that, I fully support a ban on smoking in pub gardens because it means I'd be less likely to grab a ciggie when my friends pop out for one.

That's the thing about bans and taxes. People dislike them, but they're also one of the most effective behaviour change methods we have and that change becomes normalised over time, and ultimately saves lives. Nobody on here is still harping on about their seatbelts restricting their freedom, are they?

the odd ciggie is an odd one - I too will have the occasional roll-up but only when skiing with my mate. It's sort of become a tradition. First thing each day, take lifts to the highest point on the mountain, take off ski's and have a roll-up. Then another one with the final coffee of the day before heading back down and then again, after dinner in the evening. Never feel like smoking at any other time.

Happy to see the ban - a lot more so with Vapes - but there's always been something in the Government hypocrisy (Yes you can buy them because we make a lot of money out of it but you can't use them anywhere) that doesn't sit quite right with me. I guess that's why there's never been any real traction about controlling bad foods (other than efforts with advertisement etc) as it's too lucrative in terms of VAT

As another great example of how adddicted to being addicted I am, I can go for years without smoking but if I have one I’ll be back on twenty a day instantly

i’m another guilty of the odd cigarette when getting pissed, (with no interest the next day - i have quite a few half empty packs that i’ve found in my pocket the next day and chucked into the garage for some odd reason - my hungover brain usually reasons that i don’t want to put them in the bin but don’t want them in the house).

but also i also think they should just ban them altogether.

It's amazing how your perception alters over time, I've never been a smoker but I was not fussed about the ban in pubs/restaurants. I can't even really remember why, but can you imagine going back?

We had the mother-in-law over and she's a heavy smoker, and even though she was of course banished to the garden I hated even getting a whiff of it. Mind you, I don't think much of vaping either, as you still get forced to inhale great plumes of it if you're anywhere near one. At least it doesn't smell as bad though.

I guess I have to live and let live though, because I do enjoy alcohol, and although it doesn't offer the same direct imposition on others it also provides an ill health burden for the health service.

I wonder whether if that was banned, I'd accept it or go to the black market. I'd like to think the former, but I'd have to re-invent the way I socialise.

dinny_g wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:53 am I guess that's why there's never been any real traction about controlling bad foods (other than efforts with advertisement etc) as it's too lucrative in terms of VAT

It's far more complex, because any 'bad' food is actually okay if eaten in moderation, therefore it's not seen as rational to restrict or ban anything. The moment a government adds a new tax or restriction on any popular food, tabloids start shouting 'nanny state' and the general public go a little bit mental, which scares the crap out of politicians because they'll lose votes.

You suggest that VAT is too lucrative as if it's a bad thing, however, we tax non-essential foods as an effective ways to slow people from eating them. For example the soft drinks industry levy which imposed a tax on sugary drinks and has resulted in lower sugar consumption for kids and lower instances of dental problems too.

I hear you but at the same time, it's a little like the gambling industries "Gamble Responsibly and then the fun stops, stop" crap. They put the trust in the individual not to harm themselves but we all know that's bullshit.

Same with bad food. The government trusts you to have the occasional chocolate bar or Diet Coke but we all know there are hundreds of thousands of families in this country feeding their kids nothing but frozen nuggets and fizzy pop.

It's back to the sad reality that the Government, any Government is largely powerless to stop us harming ourselves. One gov is brave, changes things, looses votes, other side win election on a promise to change back etc,

dinny_g wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2024 9:58 am I hear you but at the same time, it's a little like the gambling industries "Gamble Responsibly and then the fun stops, stop" crap. They put the trust in the individual not to harm themselves but we all know that's bullshit.

Same with bad food. The government trusts you to have the occasional chocolate bar or Diet Coke but we all know there are hundreds of thousands of families in this country feeding their kids nothing but frozen nuggets and fizzy pop.

It's back to the sad reality that the Government, any Government is largely powerless to stop us harming ourselves. One gov is brave, changes things, looses votes, other side win election on a promise to change back etc,

It's ok though Dinny because that fizzy pop doesn't have any sugar in it, so you can drink gallons of it and it will definitely be absolutely fine for you, yes sirree.

The sugar tax is a load of arse and I'm sure there'll be some fairly terrible long term unintended consequences from it. Should have just forced the industry to wind down the amounts they use in products, like the cereals industry did with salt. Now we find ourselves in a situation where people have such a sweet tooth that artificial sweeteners are finding their way into things that they have no reason to, be it tablets, kids' toothpaste, bread etc.

Where is Starmer getting his statistics from? He's quoted as saying there are 80,000 deaths a year because of smoking. The ONS statistics I'm looking at has Dementia and Alzheimers at no 1 with Ischemic heart disease at no 2 with 65k and 38k deaths respectively.

ETA: OK so it seems that it is an NHS estimation which extrapolates what they estimate as the underlying cause of cancers and respiratory diseases. Apparently there are still 6.4m smokers in the UK which I was surprised at - again it would be interesting to know if that is 6.4m regular smokers or people who fall into that demographic by declaring they smoke occasionally and also their age range as I expect it is now distributed towards older people and therefore will inherently reduce over time.

I think with all of these things, on its own it doesn't raise large concerns from the majority that don't smoke but that not what supporting freedom of choice really means. It is also to be viewed in the context of increasingly illiberal positions on free speech including the legal actionability of statements that plainly shouldn't be, the wide swathes of nonsense 20mph zones that won't save any lives, regulation of hundreds of miles of smart motorway with average speed monitoring, the banning of meat on council menus, the mandated use of 7 different bins for recycling, etc. etc. etc.. The state as a whole always has a tendency for massive overreach and extremely questionable decisions made mostly on ideology and not on cost/benefit or cause/effect.

If Starmer is so worried about the burden on the NHS then work out what cost is not offset by the tax raised on the sale of cigarettes and increase the rate of tax accordingly.