Britain: Sunak Pushes Ahead With Smoking Ban

[El Presidente]

 

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/britain-sunak-pushes-ahead-with-smoking-ban/

Some Tory MPs would let the ban pass so long as their preferred cigars were made exempt.

Michael Curzon

— December 7, 2023

 

The British government is not messing about with its plan to phase out smoking. And unlike measures to stop illegal migration, it looks as though this actually will be carried through, even if (or when) the Tories lose the next election, since it has the backing of Labour.

Ministers will make it an offence for anyone born after 1 January, 2009 to be sold tobacco in England. It is not yet clear how officials will police the purchasing of tobacco on behalf of someone born after this time by another born just slightly before it during the likely jolty, “two-tiered” phase-out period.

A consultation on these plans ended on Wednesday. This received around 25,000 responses—far more than the piddly 567 picked up by the government’s call for evidence on AI in education.

Officials have yet to analyse the results but are already keen to announce that “plans to introduce the most significant public health intervention in a generation and phase out smoking are progressing at pace.”

The Department of Health claims that “the majority of the public are behind the plans,” though reports have noted that the majority of Conservative Party members are opposed to them. The Sun also quotes a department source who states that the number of Tory MPs raising concerns behind closed doors is “much higher” than public criticism suggests.

Former party leader and prime minister Liz Truss is perhaps the most senior figure to have come out in opposition, saying she would vote against the “illiberal” ban. Other Tories have said they would also vote against any such measure unless cigars are exempt; that is to say that they would be willing to restrict the rights of others so long as their own pleasures were left untouched.

But Rishi Sunak is unfazed by such posturing and is focused on smoking being a leading cause of preventable illness and death. He said that banning tobacco products will succeed in “saving tens of thousands of lives and saving the NHS billions of pounds.”

The prime minister also appears not to have been moved by New Zealand’s decision to scrap its own smoking ban. Sunak said that his government’s position “remains unchanged” after critics—including in the tobacco industry—questioned whether he wanted England to be the first country in the world to ban smoking for future generations.

[Fugu]

“The Department of Health claims that “the majority of the public are behind the plans,” “

So, that’s their approach? - what doesn’t find the public majority’s approval is going to be verboten?! Dangerous reasoning.

[BrightonCorgi]

Vanquishing tobacco use is way more beneficial to the UK and should be a priority over curbing illegal migration.  Need to start on banning meat next and hopefully soon.

[MagicalBikeRide]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

“The Department of Health claims that “the majority of the public are behind the plans,” “

So, that’s their approach? - what doesn’t find the public majority’s approval is going to be verboten?! Dangerous reasoning.

They set the precedent with Brexit 😊

[99call]

6 hours ago, Fugu said:

So, that’s their approach? - what doesn’t find the public majority’s approval is going to be verboten?! Dangerous reasoning.

HA! tell that to Brexshit

5 hours ago, MagicalBikeRide said:

They set the precedent with Brexit 😊

Damn, just saw you got their first touché

5 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Need to start on banning meat next and hopefully soon

On the contrary, the right wing head bangers in the Tory party want meat meat everywhere. Just not any meat 'WE' make. High end reared beef, pork, lamb, venison & game etc will be reserved for their delectation and the masses will be fed bleached hormone injected dross from abroad.

[99call]

I remember when they brought in the smoking ban in the UK,  deep inside the small print of the bill, was an exemption for the bars inside parliament........you couldn't make it up

[BrightonCorgi]

51 minutes ago, 99call said:

On the contrary, the right wing head bangers in the Tory party want meat meat everywhere.  Just not any meat 'WE' make.     High end reared beef, pork, lamb,  venison & game etc will be reserved for their delectation,   and the masses will be fed bleached hormone injected dross

Cattle farming should be banned in the UK.  Too much C02.  No one needs meat.

[ha_banos]

13 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Cattle farming should be banned in the UK.  Too much C02.  No one needs meat.

Well no. We'll just make up the protein with cloned meat and bugs.

[99call]

4 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Cattle farming should be banned in the UK.  Too much C02.  No one needs meat.

We just need to keep them in the basement, like the Spanish have done in the past. Free heating, if not a bit smelly.  An all natural heat 'pump' if you will.

[BrightonCorgi]

3 hours ago, ha_banos said:

Well no. We'll just make up the protein with cloned meat and bugs.

That's more like it. No dogs ownership either. Good start with Bully XL's, just need to make that every dog.

[99call]

3 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

That's more like it. No dogs ownership either. Good start with Bully XL's, just need to make that every dog.

What's the bee in your bonnet mate? When we discussed the Cyber truck scenario, I explained my position was not a ban on yours or anyone's personal freedoms, rather the ability to serve another market, if that market did so exist. For example if the rest of the world decided to ride a bike, but you wanted to be in a huge SUV, that's just a huge benefit to you. The roads are completely clear, and other people are enacting changes that you don't agree with or have to take part in, but also have a side affect of stuff that does benefit you...no? Your chat has the nature of someone who feels like there personal freedoms are being challenged, but there is literally not a single ounce of that occurring...what gives?

[BrightonCorgi]

3 hours ago, 99call said:

What's the bee in your bonnet mate? When we discussed the Cyber truck scenario, I explained my position was not a ban on yours or anyone's personal freedoms, rather the ability to serve another market, if that market did so exist. For example if the rest of the world decided to ride a bike, but you wanted to be in a huge SUV, that's just a huge benefit to you. The roads are completely clear, and other people are enacting changes that you don't agree with or have to take part in, but also have a side affect of stuff that does benefit you...no? Your chat has the nature of someone who feels like there personal freedoms are being challenged, but there is literally not a single ounce of that occurring...what gives?

Climate change.  We all know how much livestock emits C02. Since healthcare costs are communal, banning meat lowers the healthcare burden. Dogs also emit C02 and are known to attack humans.

[TacoSauce]

12 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Climate change.  

This! We can't wait any longer to get to a zero-carbon world. It is humanity's number one priority. Banning meat and dogs should get us 95% of the way there, but that's not enough. Once the UK bans all smoking, I think that will get us 99% of the way there. We need to do more and we need to do it NOW!!!!!!!1!! 

[99call]

3 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Climate change.  We all know how much livestock emits C02.  Since healthcare costs are communal, banning meat lowers the healthcare burden.  Dogs also emit C02 and are known to attack humans.

I can sympathise with you, and Americans. I think the reality is, is that consumerism is on a completely different scale for you, and distances are much much greater, it must be hard to imagine changing a lifestyle that you enjoy greatly. Then again, I think it's important for you to recognise there are people that exist, who do care about climate change, but also care about your rights, and beliefs. I think the danger for libertarians, is often to be just as bad as weepy tree huggers. I.e. "why is the world being so mean to me". or "why are we being so mean to the world" etc. The reality is that the people like me, somewhere in the middle are happy to make some changes that make sense and others that are either too hard or don't make sense. 

My point would always remain, if there are a group of people, that are happy to do something, that benefits you, and involves no criticism of you, or impact on your personal freedoms, you would have to be a pretty ungenerous soul to still be angry about that. 

PS, XL Bullies are ridiculous,  the only reason they were ever allowed in the UK, is they don't exist in Tory constituencies. I.e. let the poor ruin themselves. Why create a problem in your own country that didn't exist previously? You are a lover of Corgi's right? What is response to an XL Bully owner that has their dog off the lead, which decides to bound over and rip your dogs head off, whilst you helplessly observe?

[BrightonCorgi]

3 hours ago, 99call said:

 What is response to an XL Bully owner that has their dog off the lead, which decides to bound over and rip your dogs head off, whilst you helplessly observe?

Prison for the owner of the pit bull.

[99call]

3 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Prison for the owner of the pit bull.

And if it decided to kill you as well. Just a longer sentence? And this is preferable just to get the breed out of our country, that has only existed in it for 20yrs. Was it so horrible in the UK, when you had a choice of 100's of breeds that didn't have an elevated previous history of killing kids? That 1 person's right to have a huge beast on a leach, that can overpower them in a second, is greater than the 1000's of peoples rights to not live in fear in their park or local playground?. 

In the 1970s in London you could buy lions and panthers from Harrods, with no laws on how you handle them in public, was that completely normal and fine?

[TacoSauce]

3 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Prison for the owner of the pit bull.

Do you know how much carbon it takes to imprison someone?!? Experts estimate that 84% of warming effects can be traced to global penal practices. New research from Stanford University suggests that moving prisoners underground can effectively trap 98% of carbon emissions and prevent them from reaching the atmosphere. Researchers are working on a sealed box for underground prisoner storage, but politicians are blocking the research grants to fund this important research! We need to take action NOW!!!!!!!!!1!

[99call]

3 hours ago, TacoSauce said:

Do you know how much carbon it takes to imprison someone?!? Experts estimate that 84% of warming effects can be traced to global penal practices. New research form Stanford University suggests that moving prisoners underground can effectively trap 98% of carbon emissions and prevent them from reaching the atmosphere. Researches are working on a sealed box for underground prisoner storage, but politicians are blocking the research grants to fund this important research! We need to take action NOW!!!!!!!!!1!

You should just churn them into Soylent Green.

[TacoSauce]

3 hours ago, 99call said:

You should just churn them into Soylent Green.

Finally! Someone talking sense about renewable solutions to the big problems that are facing humanity. Thank you!!!!!!!1!

[99call]

3 hours ago, TacoSauce said:

Finally! Someone taking sense about renewable solutions to the big problems that are facing humanity. Thank you!!!!!!!1!

Oh shit, but how do we power the big grinder?

[BrightonCorgi]

7 minutes ago, 99call said:

And if it decided to kill you as well.

My suggestion was for the UK to ban all dogs.

[Ford2112]

3 hours ago, TacoSauce said:

This! We can't wait any longer to get to a zero-carbon world. It is humanity's number one priority. Banning meat and dogs should get us 95% of the way there, but that's not enough. Once the UK bans all smoking, I think that will get us 99% of the way there. We need to do more and we need to do it NOW!!!!!!!1!! 

Ban humans, problem solved. 😵‍💫

[ha_banos]

4 hours ago, 99call said:

Oh shit, but how do we power the big grinder?

The slaves. Oh wait that's us...

[SCgarman]

3 hours ago, ha_banos said:

The slaves. Oh wait that's us...

Give me a good cigar and a pint of Guiness and I'll be the hamster powering the treadmill...🤗

[Fugu]

On 12/8/2023 at 3:55 PM, MagicalBikeRide said:

They set the precedent with Brexit 😊

 

On 12/8/2023 at 4:10 PM, 99call said:

HA! tell that to Brexshit

Nope, very different cases.

The majority may have a say where all voters are principally being affected (which was the case with Brexit for that matter). But the majority may not have a direct decisive vote where only a fraction of voters is personally affected. A principle known as protection of minority rights... There are issues that are simply not suited / forbidden for a plebiscite.