Difficult to argue with Nichola Sturgeons assessment of them all from her WhatApps...
https://twitter.com/PoliticoForYou/status/1750486431871480106?s=20
mad as a box of frogs
Maybe. But that plan would probably save a few more Conservatives their seats than the current "plan".
binners
Full Member
Difficult to argue with Nichola Sturgeons assessment of them all from her WhatApps…
Harsh but fair.
Nicola saying what everyone things.
*appluads*
And Lee regret voting against Rwanda bill and would like his old job back
I didnt think he did?
He said he would but when he went into the no lobby the nasty lefties laughed at him so he walked back out to vote for aye.
Insert comments about snowflakes here.
Nothing to see here. Just Rishi’s bizarre and desperate appointment as Foreign Secretary, ‘Sir’ Dave, under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
What was it he said about “integrity, professionalism and accountability”?
David Cameron’s activities at Greensill a ‘matter of interest’ in wider fraud inquiry
You do all realise Sturgeon never said that right? It's a satire account.
What do you do when parties fail the country? You ask people to die in a war!
https://twitter.com/Tazman_London/status/1751144247666020857?t=2FBIktDoWLv1RvOOahG8vg&s=19
Not bad from someone who hid in a fridge.
How long is a 20pt poll deficit sustainable for a leader ?
Until May, would appear to be the general consensus.
After that the only questions are how big the Labour majority is and which of the bald women gets the comb of the leadership of the smouldering wreckage of the tory party
So in all this psychodrama how much are drugs implicated? Its clear Johnson was at the nose candy - those telling mood shifts from contrite to bombastic and even more arrogant. Kwartang clearly was off his face at the royal funeral, After Truss had an away day at one of the grace and favour houses coke was all over the place. Coke has been found all over the HOC, Pob clearly like a bit of the stuff, Osbourne was clearly off his face in the HOC.<br /><br />cocaine usage leads to arrogance and areshole behaviour then withdrawal on comedown
cocaine usage was heavily implicated in the boom and bust years in the square mile
I'd love mandatory drug testing of parlimentarians
So in all this psychodrama how much are drugs implicated?
My lads Tory insider mate said a year or so back that there are pics of drug use at the lockdown parties. Everything else he's ever told us has proven to be correct. I'm somewhat surprised that they if the pics exist, the press has not used them.
Yet.
he’s ever told us has proven to be correct. I’m somewhat surprised that they if the pics exist, the press has not used them.
that kind of kompromat is far too valuable, but then you know that the journalists will be similarly compromised
and yes, friend of a friend said that the partying whilst Johnson was mayor was wild and drugs a plenty
They were falling over themselves to claim drug use in one of the leadership elections when they thought it made them look edgy.
Gove probably got sold an asprin, but went out raving because of the placebo affect and has no experience of normal peoples lives and how they need to escape the drudgery.
but then you know that the journalists will be similarly compromised
this is the only reason I can think of why this has not been made more of
I’d love mandatory drug testing of parlimentarians
Honestly if half the rules that apply to normal people in normal workplaces applied to MPs, there'd be no-one left!
Hmmmm. Not exactly seeing the downside of this. I personally think that people in positions of power should be held to either the same or better standards than the general populace. How else do they expect us proles to respect them?
Hmmmm. Not exactly seeing the downside of this. I personally think that people in positions of power should be held to either the same or better standards than the general populace. How else do they expect us proles to respect them?
The problem is they are dragging us down to their level
A politician outright saying which age group he's appealing to (the SAGA generation) a few months before an election is just desperate stuff, and terrible politics to boot.
Even politicians who are clearly just out for the blue-rinse vote tend to make vague promises to help 'hard-working families' and create opportunities for the youth. Some in those groups even believe it, and vote for them.
Plus, I'm over 50, and he can **** right off.
This
Plus, I’m over 50, and he can **** right off.
MoreCashThanDash
Full MemberThe problem is they are dragging us down to their level
Practically nobody can afford to be dragged down to that level- we have to pay for our own champagne, and post-brexit Britain is the 8th most expensive place in the world to buy coke.
What do you do when parties fail the country? You ask people to die in a war!
Sorry, we can't have a general election now, we're declaring war on Russia and you all need to sign up immediately.
Then you'll all be dead and there'll be no point in a general election so we'll continue to rule over the smouldering ruins of the country.
It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if that was the actual Tory Last Ditch Effort to retain control at any cost. Can just imagine the brainstorming session behind that policy.
It genuinely wouldn’t surprise me if that was the actual Tory Last Ditch Effort to retain control at any cost. Can just imagine the brainstorming session behind that policy.
Even if it's not openly said I would put money on a fair few Tories in government being more than happy for us to be embroiled in a war as long as it keeps their hands on the controls (and money) of power.
One of their consultants will no doubt have told them that, even if there is no prospect of a war (or desire to actually have one), talking up the threat introduces a subconscious bias in favour of the status quo among some of the more malleable voters.
"While the state has a duty to protect children from harm, in a free society, adults must be able to make their own choices about their own lives.
Banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born in 2009 or later will create an absurd situation where adults enjoy different rights based on their birthdate.
A Conservative government should not be seeking to extend the nanny state. This will only give succour to those who wish to ban further choices of which they don’t approve."
Damn Liz Truss for making me agree with her. Always thought this was a bizarre policy for Sunak to nail his colours to. It's the sort of thing I'd expect from Miliband or Streeting, but not a tory PM.
It seems Rishi is now so paralysed by the warring factions within his own party, he can't actually do anything. Not even a dead cat.
His proposal this morning to ban disposable vapes has immediately got the libertarian nutjobs up in arms with accusations of the 'Nanny State'. No prizes for guessing who the ringleader of the malcontents is...
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1751878969278796209?s=20
The marzipan dildo has spoken. Let the next pointless and spirit-crushingly tedious bout of Tory infighting commence 🙄
@dazh - horribly, I find myself thinking Truss actually has a point too. How did it come to this?
an absurd situation where adults enjoy different rights based on their birthdate
This wouldn't be new to UK law. For example married couple's allowance and state pension eligibility.
All public health policy can be portrayed as extending the "nanny state" if you want. Especially if you're working for a "think tank" paid for by an industry that will lose out when any effort is made to reduce the harm that it can inflect as a side effect of its profit making. Truss will be there to deride anything that negatively impacts on the profits made from tobacco, oil and gas. It is literally her job. The "ex-PM" tag being used against the public good, and to try and turn things around for the very industries polluting our population, our world, our media and our politics.
How did it come to this?
Looking forward to Truss and her fellow travellers spearheading the campaign to legalise drugs. I've said in the past I'd vote for any party offering to do that so dangerous territory!
It’s not a new thing.
Maybe not but still a bloody stupid policy. All it will do is create a black market where young people by cigs from those older than them. Prohibition doesn't work, end of.
Maybe not but still a bloody stupid policy. All it will do is create a black market where young people by cigs from those older than them. Prohibition doesn’t work, end of.
Maybe, maybe not.
Cigarettes are a bit of a weird one in that it's a really really shit drug and also really really addictive. With most addictions they are tied up in co-existing mental health issues. With cigarettes you can be in 100% tip top mental health and still be 100% addicted.
I'd like to see this policy given a try before saying it's doomed to failure. If everything you say comes to pass just put things back as they were before.
It's about making it harder (not impossible) for the industry to create new addicts, while maintaining supply to those already addicted. Yes, new young smokers could still get their hands on cigarettes, it's about making them less available to them. If you're not yet addicted, would you really bother to use the black market to start smoking? Fewer people will. That's the idea. Not entirely stupid. Harm reduction not removal.
To prove the point Daz is making.. what about the disposable vapes thing this morning - announced by weapons-grade dimwit Victoria Atkins, who looked like she'd only got out of bed five minutes earlier.
Sunak is banging on about the ban on disposable vapes being to stop kids vaping. But its already illegal to sell vapes to children. The problem isn't the law. The problem is that the law isn't enforced. The smoking law will be the same.
Truss's position on this is hardly surprising, given the links between the tobacco industry and her chums at the IEA. She is the perfect exemplar for the term 'useful idiot'.
It’s about making it harder (not impossible) for the industry to create new addicts, while maintaining supply to those already addicted.
Why not ban the sale of beer to the younger generation too then? In fact lets just go the whole hog and ban having fun. It's a stupid policy that has been proven time and again not to work, for the simple reason that people want to do it.
Yes, Truss and co are very selective indeed about their libertarianism, depending on who's paying them
Victoria Atkins, who looked like she’d only got up five minutes earlier.
She looked and sounded like she was still drunk, and I don't think she'd seen a bed, sleeping rough perhaps.
Sunak is banging on about the ban on disposable vapes being to stop kids vaping. But its already illegal to sell vapes to children. The problem isn’t the law. The problem is that the law isn’t enforced. The smoking law will be the same.
It may be illegal but 75% of kids in the US are still able to buy them from shops compared to 17% for cigarettes:
https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/where-are-kids-getting-juul
Vaping has come to be seen as harmless so it's not surprising shops are more likely to sell them to kids.
Like I said, there are enough differentiating factors between this and regular prohibition to make me think it's at least worth trying.
If it doesn't work, where's the harm?
One of the little known perks of being Secretary of State for Health is that after a night out, you can walk into any London hospital, push a elderly stroke patient off a trolley in A&E and catch some shut-eye.
If it doesn’t work, where’s the harm?
Because we already know it doesn't work. Doing the same thing again and expecting a different result is idiotic.
ban having fun
Never heard you sound more like my right wing mates and family Dazh. A jump from a tobacco addiction reduction plan to... "ban having fun"... its the "nanny state" bollocks many people jump to with all public health measures.
we already know it doesn’t work
We do? Heard this in the build up to the introduction of all tobacco advertising, purchasing and use restrictions, and they are nearly always followed by a reduction in the number of new smokers (and prevalence of smoking overall) and a collective shrug as they become common place and normal.
Why not ban the sale of beer to the younger generation too then? In fact lets just go the whole hog and ban having fun. It’s a stupid policy that has been proven time and again not to work, for the simple reason that people want to do it.
You can rant and rave and refuse to engage with what the rest of us are saying all you want but it's not going to address the points the rest of us are making.
Cigarettes are not beer (or any other drug) for many reasons already listed.
Trying to apply one-size-fits-all thinking to all the available drugs is infantile. We might as well go back to Just Say No if that's what we're assuming.
Never heard you sound more like my right wing mates and family Dazh
Why so surprised? I've always been 100% anti-nanny state bollocks 😀 Treat people as adults and they well start behaving as such.
Not surprised, just commenting. The fight between public health and the tobacco industry has always been unequal. But it's been turning against the industry, very very slowly. They're always fighting back though, and Truss is part of those efforts. And there are always good normal people prepared to back the industry up using the ideas of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
Prohibition doesn’t work, end of.
Lead in petrol, CFC in spray cans, Alcohol in Islamic states...If prohibition didn't work, then 'libertarians' wouldn't spend all their time whining about Govts banning things...
Lead in petrol, CFC in spray cans
Last time I looked it was hard to get high on CFCs or leaded petrol. Someone's probably tried it but clearly it didn't catch on.
The fight between public health and the tobacco industry
And the balance is probably about right where it is. Whether we like it or not, people will always want to smoke. By all means make it expensive as a disincentive and tax it to mitigate the cost to the NHS etc but trying to stop it altogether is pointless. It's the govt's job to create policy to steer behaviours in a particular direction at a macro-economic level, not to tell people what to consume or prevent them from doing so altogether.
And there are always good normal people prepared to back the industry up using the ideas of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
What's wrong with a bit of individual freedom and responsibility? I'm no rightwinger (as you know) but I've never understood the need which the left seems to have of telling everyone how they should live their lives. It's none of their damn business what I eat, drink, smoke, snort or whatever else.
Sunak is "the left" now?
Whether we like it or not, people will always want to smoke.
Will they?
I've never had any desire to smoke. Booze, weed, mdma, mushrooms? Sure, quite happily taken those and would again. Never tried heroin or cocaine but wouldn't say no.
Tobacco seems to rely on getting kids hooked as young as possible before they have the chance to realise there are far far better drugs out there.
Like I said, most addictions are tied up with mental health issues to a greater or lesser extent. With tobacco you can be absolutely fine mentally and yet 100% addicted.
The higher you can raise the average age people start smoking (currently around 14-15) the less likely people are to become addicted. If most 14 and 15 year olds are getting their cigarettes from their 16 year old mates then gradually raising the age should also raise the age people are able to start and become fully addicted.
Saying prohibition never works is lazy and stupid when you are dealing with drugs. The harm caused and the mechanisms of addiction are as varied as the effects.
I see more than enough potential for it to be given a try.
Sunak is “the left” now?
According to Liz Truss and many tories he is, which is the source of all his problems. He's obviously not on the left, but his stupid smoking policy is very aligned with the patriarchal instincts of many on the left who like to think they know best and everyone should do what they tell them.
With tobacco you can be absolutely fine mentally and yet 100% addicted.
With most other drugs you can be absolutely fine mentally and 100% not addicted. 🤷♂️ The link between mental health and drug use is much more complicated than you appear to think.
What’s wrong with a bit of individual freedom and responsibility?
With adults, sure.
The entire tobacco industry is based on getting children addicted who will then carry that addiction into adulthood (ie, get them addicted before they are able to exercise the judgment that allows them individual freedom and responsibility). The effects of their drug is such that you can be completely addicted and also a fine upstanding taxpaying member of society (until your health completely gives out).
With adults, sure.
His policy is to ban adults from smoking.
The effects of their drug is such that you can be completely addicted and also a fine upstanding taxpaying member of society
Why do you keep banging on about this? You can be a fine upstanding member of society and addicted to a lot of other drugs. Cocaine, heroin, alcohol to name a few. Yeah a few people go off the rails but the vast majority of drug users hold down jobs, bring up children, pay taxes etc..
With most other drugs you can be absolutely fine mentally and 100% not addicted. 🤷♂️ The link between mental health and drug use is much more complicated than you appear to think.
No idea what you are trying to say here. With most drugs the addiction mechanism is complex and different depending on the addiction/addictions.
With tobacco it's fairly simple. Nicotine is incredibly addictive and it doesn't impair your judgment so it doesn't ruin your life immediately.
Again, why are you trying to treat all drugs the same way?
Nicotine is incredibly addictive and it doesn’t impair your judgment so it doesn’t ruin your life immediately.
You know it is possible to smoke cigarettes and not be addicted?
Again, why are you trying to treat all drugs the same way?
When it comes to the single issue of prohibition they can be treated the same way. As long as people want to use them, prohibition will never work. That's true of tobacco as it is alcholol, cocaine, weed, pills etc..
Why do you keep banging on about this? You can be a fine upstanding member of society and addicted to a lot of other drugs. Cocaine, heroin, alcohol to name a few. Yeah a few people go off the rails but the vast majority of drug users hold down jobs, bring up children, pay taxes etc..
Bit different and I think you know it.
You can smoke 3 or 4 packs a day every day and still be at work. Try putting away 3 or 4 bottles of vodka a day and see how long you keep your job for.
You can smoke 3 or 4 packs a day every day and still be at work.
Clearly you've never smoked. There is no way you could smoke this much in a day and do anything else. The most hardened smokers I know would struggle to get through 20 a day let alone 60-80. My mum was the biggest smoker I've ever met and never got beyond 40 a day at the worst depths of her smoking career.
Try putting away 3 or 4 bottles of vodka a day and see how long you keep your job for.
Where have you got the Pack of cigarettes = A bottle of vodka equation from? Or did you just make it up? 😀
You know it is possible to smoke cigarettes and not be addicted?
Sure, I know a few people like that.
I know way way more who are addicted. And most of them started smoking long before they turned 16.
When it comes to the single issue of prohibition they can be treated the same way. As long as people want to use them, prohibition will never work.
You keep going on about prohibition but you must know that's not actually what we're talking about here?
People who are currently addicted will still be able to smoke (unless they are under 14). Even once the age has been raised to 21 the vast majority will still be able to smoke.
And while everyone is talking about smoking and vapes, later today the report is to be published of industrial-scale corruption at Rishi's flagship Teesworks 'Freeport', with land apparently worth hundreds of millions being given away to mates of Tory Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen
Move along now. Nothing to see here...
Where is the line between individual responsibility for life choices against the collective responsibility to pay / reapply resources for the health care associated with those individual choices?
Even once the age has been raised to 21 the vast majority will still be able to smoke.
You don't seem to know what the policy is. AIUI it's to raise the smoking age every year so that anyone who was born after 2009 will never be allowed to smoke. It's not going to stop at 21.
against the collective responsibility to pay / reapply resources for the health care associated with those individual choices?
Smoker and drinkers are probably the biggest group of voluntary extra tax payers. If they legalised other drugs we could bring a load more voluntary additional tax payers on baord and perhaps even ring fence the money for the NHS and drug treatment services. 🙂
There is no way you could smoke this much in a day and do anything else. The most hardened smokers I know would struggle to get through 20 a day let alone 60-80.
You've led a sheltered life.
20 a day was the minimum for my Dad. Could be double that if he was feeling stressed. He was in no way an exception.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2762359/
Not sure who could afford 2 packs a day these days though.
Where have you got the Pack of cigarettes = A bottle of vodka equation from? Or did you just make it up? 😀
Cost for one thing. Increased likelihood of cancer would be another.
Anyway, if someone was putting away a bottle of vodka a day we could probably classify them as an alcoholic. If they were smoking a pack a day I think we could safely say that they were addicted.
But yeah, creating an equivalent is pretty much impossible. And do you know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPETELY DIFFERENT DRUGS.
They can't be treated the same, no matter how much you would like them to be.
You don’t seem to know what the policy is. AIUI it’s to raise the smoking age every year so that anyone who was born after 2009 will never be allowed to smoke. It’s not going to stop at 21.
Yes, I know it's not going to stop at 21.
However, by then we will have a much better idea of the effect it's having. If it's having no effect, stop doing it and put the age back to 18.
If it is having an effect, keep going.
Why not at least try?
Smoker and drinkers are probably the biggest group of voluntary extra tax payers. If they legalised other drugs we could bring a load more voluntary additional tax payers on baord and perhaps even ring fence the money for the NHS and drug treatment services.
Yes, around £10 billion a year in taxes from smoking and I seem to remember that the country profits overall from smokers and drinkers.
The ring fencing is the tricky bit s that is not how things work but may be simpler if they did, i.e. all taxes from Vehicle Excise Duty should go directly into "roads" budget rather than expecting local councils to pay and so on.
Back in the day, I was smoking 30 to 40 cigs a day.
Even that would be difficult today due to not being able to smake at work and down the pub. My mum only ever managed anything like that when she was at home full time. I doubt any workplace would tolerate you going out for a cig 3 or 4 times per hour.
Nicotine is VERY addictive.
Not denying that, but banning cigarettes (especially just for one cohort of society) isn't going to solve that problem.
Not denying that, but banning cigarettes (especially just for one cohort of society) isn’t going to solve that problem.
You seem so sure of that with absolutely no data to back it up. It's like an article of faith.
I have no idea whether it will work or not because I have no data from a similar experiment.
However, we know that the later you start smoking the less likely you are to become addicted and I can see a clear theoretical case that this could significantly increase the age that people start smoking.
And given the graduated implementation any unforeseen effects are going to be fairly limited.
There is so much to gain and so little risk I'm really really struggling to see why anyone would be opposed beyond some sort of religious type belief in 'liberty and individual freedom'.
You seem so sure of that with absolutely no data to back it up.
Presume that's a joke, or are you unaware that lots of people take illegal drugs?
Also you might want to look at the experience of the US when they attempted to ban the sale of alcohol.
It's not alcohol. It's not a total ban.
Restrictions on tabacco has reduced the use of tobacco, and the number of new addicts each year. That's why the industry, and its paid shrills like Truss, are against any further restrictions on tobacco.
The evidence is that restrictions can work for this drug on the social scale. Other drugs are not the same.
Presume that’s a joke, or are you unaware that lots of people take illegal drugs?
Also you might want to look at the experience of the US when they attempted to ban the sale of alcohol.
A bit different from tobacco though.
Smoking tobacco doesn't get you high. All it does is ease the withdrawal symptoms that you are feeling.
Also, it's not an outright ban, taking it away from people who already use it, unlike prohibition. Also, again alcohol is a lot more pleasurable than nicotine.
I'm not saying a ban would work but tobacco is a bit different from alcohol or illegal drugs. It's very high health risk for very little "reward".
Presume that’s a joke, or are you unaware that lots of people take illegal drugs?
Presume that's a troll now that we've just spent the best part of a page explaining to you why tobacco is not the same as every other drug (and that every other drug is not the same as every other drug).
Also you might want to look at the experience of the US when they attempted to ban the sale of alcohol.
Presume this is also trolling as it's been explained to you several times that it's not a ban.
It’s not a total ban.
It's a total ban for anyone born after 2009. When they reach 18 (assuming they don't start sooner) in a few years time, a new black market in tobacco will be created and that will grow each year as more people are pulled into it. It's bad enough having a black market for all the other drugs out there and we want to create a new one with all the side effects and damage that will cause? More enlightened and sensible countries are getting rid of their illegal black markets in drugs (amazingly the US being one of them!) yet we're going the other way. It's bonkers.
It’s a total ban for anyone born after 2009. When they reach 18 (assuming they don’t start sooner) in a few years time, a new black market in tobacco will be created and that will grow each year as more people are pulled into it.
You forgot to say, 'I think', and instead stated your opinion as fact.
It could be you are correct, of course. And if there are signs a black market has been created purely to cater to 19 year olds who want to smoke then we can evaluate if the problems with this black market are offset by the reduced number of 19 year old smokers.
But no one can say anything for sure until we get some data. Not even you.
More enlightened and sensible countries are getting rid of their illegal black markets in drugs (amazingly the US being one of them!) yet we’re going the other way. It’s bonkers.
The US has legalised some marijuana use in some states, it's not a legalisation of all drugs, and they still spend more money on enforcement than any other country.
And if there are signs a black market has been created purely to cater to 19 year olds who want to smoke then we can evaluate if the problems with this black market are offset by the reduced number of 19 year old smokers.
You seriously think this will ever be rolled back if it's not working? Just like the other black markets have been rolled back to prevent the harm they create? 🙄
Anyway, this is all academic, because as long as Sunak survives the next couple of months he's going to get his wish as unsurprisingly the Labour party have declared full support for it. And he wonders why his fellow tories hate him? We can bookmark this issue for the future but anyone who can see the current state of affairs with drug policy knows how this is going to end up.