The next PM...

[Aruntraveller]

We have been trying to contact Susan but with no luck so far. See here:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19141.msg849920#new

[Udayana]

I think Sunak would have been better.

Indeed, but the Tories did not!

[Gordon]

More madness from the UK government.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/11/therese-coffey-to-drop-smoking-action-plan-insiders-say

[SteveH]

More madness from the UK government.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/11/therese-coffey-to-drop-smoking-action-plan-insiders-say

For once, I'm on their side. Restrictions on smoking have gone too far already. Advertising should be banned, and full information given about the dangers of smoking (but with pipes and cigars, which are much less dangerous, differentiated from cigs, the real killers), and smoking banned in enclosed public spaces, but maybe allow pubs to provide a room behind a normally-closed door for smokers - and that's it. Yes, more people would die - but as long as they are fully informed, that's their choice. Saving as many people's lives as possible is inconsistent with personal freedom, otherwise we'd ban dangerous sports and junk food, and reduce car speed limits across the board, as well (I think I'm correct in saying that cars are far and away the biggest cause of avoidable death and disability.)

[Gordon]

That sounds like an argument for legalising cocaine - provided of course they explain the risks first and then it is just a matter of personal choice - can't see that happening, so why is tobacco a special case?

[SteveH]

Because it's already legal, which is a major difference. Also, degree of harm.

[Nearly Sane]

Because it's already legal, which is a major difference. Also, degree of harm.

It's a weird thing but the 'it's already legal' argument is an important indicator on the failings of consistency in govt. We think we should be governed by principles but a lot of it is about practicality. That said, there was a time when if you had told me smoking would be banned IN pubs, I would have thought you mad.

Degree of harm here is an interesting concept though. I know individuals' behaviour on coke is a problem but there isn't such a thing as passive snorting.

[Aruntraveller]

Because it's already legal, which is a major difference. Also, degree of harm.

Except, very often when studies are published the degree of harm from nicotine is worse than that from cocaine (there are varying results on this and I think it is extremely difficult to do an exact comparison) and it often comes out top as the most dangerous drug, although alcohol does too on some reports.

As far as I can see if you want to be consistent you either go down the route of personal responsibility on all drugs or government intervention on all drugs.

To be clear, I don't want to be consistent. A society without alcohol in it would be a dull and tasteless place, and quite often seems to be accompanied by nasty authoritarian leaders. A society with tobacco in it has some taste but not altogether a pleasant one.

[Aruntraveller]

From elsewhere:

IN LIZ WE’RE TRUSSED
An election for the unelectable,
humanity scarcely detectable.
Promising delivery at Tory convention,
a DHL package of lies and invention.
Utopian scenarios well depicted
in diatribes for the bullshit addicted.
Dreams of Albion ground into dust –
In Liz we’re trussed.
No longer a need for defending the land,
our blessed leader has it all in hand;
No Ethics or Science on government agenda,
case is closed, return to sender.
In a cabinet rotten with moral decay,
the spineless cronies are holding sway,
No room any more to debate and discuss –
In Liz we’re trussed.
“We got Brexit done!” I can hear in exultation,
but Brexit did us in with those fiendish machinations,
and that budgetary thing was a crazy arse notion,
the farcical riding on waves of revulsion,
‘cos you rob from the poor and the rich can’t get enough,
with the PM’s tax-idermy and the country’s truly stuffed.
So applaud this circus if you feel you must –
In Liz we’re trussed.
TIM BECKERLEY

[Gordon]

Because it's already legal, which is a major difference. Also, degree of harm.

Other people don't ingest secondary cocaine, unlike those who ingest secondary tobacco smoke

The 'already legal' argument is a poor one since its legality dates to well before the risks became known - we now know that smoking is a cause of cancer and other lung diseases.

Any and all uses of tobacco are a health risk, and not just to the user, and that steps have been taken via legislation does confirm that there is a known risk - that this Tory fuckwit is reported to want to roll back a strategy to reduce tobacco use is deplorable and irresponsible

[jeremyp]

For once, I'm on their side. Restrictions on smoking have gone too far already. Advertising should be banned, and full information given about the dangers of smoking (but with pipes and cigars, which are much less dangerous, differentiated from cigs, the real killers), and smoking banned in enclosed public spaces, but maybe allow pubs to provide a room behind a normally-closed door for smokers - and that's it. Yes, more people would die - but as long as they are fully informed, that's their choice. Saving as many people's lives as possible is inconsistent with personal freedom, otherwise we'd ban dangerous sports and junk food, and reduce car speed limits across the board, as well (I think I'm correct in saying that cars are far and away the biggest cause of avoidable death and disability.)

Smoking will be gone in a generation anyway. All the young people seem to do vaping instead.

[ad_orientem]

Smoking will be gone in a generation anyway. All the young people seem to do vaping instead.

They don't half look stupid though. Especially when they use those slightly larger contraptions it looks like they're giving head. Snus is the future.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Nearly Sane]

'Only 3 chancellors till Christmas'

[Nearly Sane]

.

[jeremyp]

'Only 3 chancellors till Christmas'

Kamikwazi Kwartang had the second shortest time in office as chancellor in modern times, according to the BBC.

I know what you are thinking: well it was Iain Macleod who held office for only 30 days in 1970. He died from a heart attack.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Nearly Sane]

John Crace


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/14/kwasi-kwarteng-liz-truss-offer-consciously-uncouple-train-wreck

[SqueakyVoice]

Kamikwazi ...

...now feels queasy.

[SqueakyVoice]

Trussterfuck of all Trussterfucks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/14/kwasi-kwarteng-liz-truss-offer-consciously-uncouple-train-wreck

Unfortunately, Sainsbury's are sold out of popcorn.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Nearly Sane]

Parody but only just

https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1581028189979041792

[SqueakyVoice]

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/oct/15/miriam-margolyes-swears-live-on-air-about-chancellor-jeremy-hunt

MM couldn't  even remember  to call Hunt a C word*, so auntie beeb chucked her out.

Seems fair enough to me.
Obviously, now, he is a Chancellor, not a, ahem, Hunt.

[jeremyp]

...now feels queasy.

I doubt it. I think he's well out of it. This is going to get worse before it gets better.