UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
I never realised how much people want to be controlled by the government when I was younger.
This is fucked.
"But the government wants to ban something I don't like! That's good. They should stop others doing things I don't like!"
That's the purpose of the government.
If most of the people want something to be banned, it should be banned. The government works for the people.
Of course, the definition of "most" varies depending on the issue, it's not always 50% (looking at you, Brexit).
Smokers pollute the air in a huge area around them. For the "benefit" of one person they are annoying up to dozens around them.
Every non-smoker looking to date that I know agrees that they would never date a smoker, that's for a reason, non-smokers cannot tolerate the smoke. It's awful.
Now do vapes. I find that disgustingly sweet vapour harder to tolerate cigarette smoke. But I get pleasure of people blowing yhat crap in the air in the supermarket.
Vapes are already banned indoors in most places, basically everywhere smoking is banned. The issue with vapes is a lack of enforcement.
Frankly, I think vapes should be allowed in certain areas indoors, provided they are segregated from others. Vapes are drastically less unhealthy than smoking, to the point where being outside in the cold is probably a greater health risk.
You say that. But as we are talking risks to others it catches me in a way that about 50% of the time it triggers an asthma episode.
Don't k ow about you but I kind of like unrestricted breathing
Edit forgot to add in this stage of the vape life cycle cigarettes were advertised with health benefits. While I don't doubt it's better than smoking the jury is still out on long term effects
https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement
I'm all for more study into the long term effects, and don't think that vaping is completely harmless or that it necessarily has positive effects. However nothing is truly harmless, and many people are considered well within their rights to do things that have the potential to cause harm to themselves - or even others. Driving, for example, carries a significant risk, and even cycling could create a situation where you crash into another person and injur them.
I just think that allowing vaping rooms indoors would be a better solution for everyone. People who vape get to keep warm, while people who want to breathe unrestricted air could find themselves better off because the vapers are indoors and out their way.
Ahh I think you mean like the old idea of smoking break rooms, which sure everyone in there is by choice and accepts any risk.
I dont think your analogy of driving a car fits as driving has utility it reminds me of my yank friends arguing we should allow guns or ban knives because to do otherwise is hypocritical or something
Yes pretty much. This was discussed and rejected in the UK when the smoking bans came in, however other places in Europe implemented indoor smoking just fine. As vaping is a lesser harm than smoking, and in particular vapors don't linger like smoke does, it should be easier to implement. But UK politicians wants to maintain a hardline ban in spite of any rational reasoning.
It was just the first thing that came to mind, which is why I threw in cycling as well. Cycling is often done for recreation rather than utility, but does still carry risk to others nearby. Cars also pollute, though, which is a similar harm to smoking, yet people are against outright banning combustion vehicles. It generally boils down to "I do it, and I shouldn't be banned, but I don't do that other thing so that should be banned."
For the record I don't even smoke, in fact tobacco smoke makes me feel sick. But I don't think people should be outright prohibited, not when a reasonable compromise can be reached.
The way the UK government has handled the whole smoking thing is a joke either fuckinhg ban it or don't. The way they are doing it while helping in some ways makes it better in others it makes it worse as you have pointed out.
I just want to get my shopping without worrying about random asthma attacks
There is a difference between not being allowed to fuck a horse and not being allowed to stink up a place with some gross ass cancer sticks.
Yes, yes there is.
Yes, blame the government for wanting to protect people’s health.
Absolutely trust the smokers who are clearly capable of making the correct descision instead.
There an element of personal freedom which people find important.
It's not really a ban it's just a protection for other people's personal freedoms, I for one would love to get freedom to not smoke in an outside cafe, yet others are choosing for me now.
I mean... Just go to a cafe that doesn't allow smoking at all? Are there none around?
No, there aren't
When you smoke its not just your own health you ruin. It's the same selfish thinking antivaxers have.
That's not a terrible analogy, but doesn't resounding support a ban. It's virtually unimaginable (and I suspect more or less legally impossible) that vaccination would be obligatory.
Vaccination in the past has been obligatory, eg for polio.
So has lobotomy for certain mental health patients. What's your point?
Even though it has been in the past, and lead to the eradication of small pox.
And should be again to help eradicate measles, polio and many other very harmful, but easily preventable diseases.
But let’s not go there. I suspect there’s more of them than smokers, but quite a large overlap on a Venn diagram.
Yeah, what was legal/feasible 100 years ago might not be the best guide today. I mean no reasonable person would deny it would be better for public health.
That’s actually an interesting question. All the people I know who still smoke are left leaning and probably pro vaccine. I guess I don't know many of the main smoking population (older lower socioeconomic status) so maybe there there's more than coincidental overlap. It would be coherent I guess for the freedom over everything type people I suppose, depressingly.
There’s personal freedom, and then there’s just being bloody ridiculous.
Give it up. You’ll save money, smell nicer, be able to taste better and be healthier.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/nhs-stop-smoking-services-help-you-quit/
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/how-do-i-stop-smoking
I don't smoke mate.
It wasn’t necessarily directed at you. Maybe it might help someone.