This think of the children phase the government has got going in is just making everything more shit… Don’t ruin everything just because some people can’t control themselves.
10% of the NHS’s budget goes towards treating diabetes. That’s a huge amount of money. It’s not just a problem for sufferers - its everyone elses problem too.
In my view*, government has two main jobs: promoting our happiness, and curbing our excesses. This is firmly within those remits, albeit trading short term for long term happiness.
You probably wouldn’t say firearms/crack cocaine/embezzling shouldn’t be illegal just because some people can’t control themselves, I hope? This is much like that - it just seems harmless because you’re used to it being there.
People can still buy crisps and pizza. They just won’t get a discount on over-indulging anymore
It’s cute you think this will tackle obesity and diabetes. People will eat the same amount it’ll just cost everybody more money. Smoking/drinking related illness probably costs the NHS more why not just put more restrictions on that too while they’re at it.
They do put restrictions on smoking and drinking - they outlawed deals on those years ago. Tobacco is about 50x the price it costs to manufacture because of taxes, and guess what? There’s millions fewer smokers now than there were in the 1900’s!
People who don’t drink, or who drink much more rarely, are a much higher number than they used to be too.
Personally though, I do think tobacco should be completely illegal. Maybe nicotine products too, though they do help people with ADD self-regulate
Healthy people cost the NHS a lot more when they live to 90+, I can say for sure when my 97 year old nan died she used up a LOT of resources that last 20 or 30 years.
I just don’t find the NHS costs argument convincing.
Habits can change. And if not with this generation, then with the next. I support this change.
Funny you mentioned smoking and alcohol. Because this is a perfect example of restrictions being imposed on both alcohol and tobacco and both had huge success in reducing how many people drink and smoke.
Funny you say that because there’s been a huge increase in kids SMOKING vapes. These “restrictions” haven’t actually done anything to curb that behaviour. Why hasn’t imposing restrictions improved the situation here? Vapes have been available from around 2013 and I imagine are included in most legislation relating to tobacco products. Maybe education and proper parenting are the answer not just blanket banning BOGOF offers. This would be a greater public service than stopping reasonably healthy people from saving a few quid bulk buying treats for themselves.
These are the tobacco regulations. Have a read and think if any of them apply to vapes (spoiler alert, most of them don’t, like packaging , no health or addiction warnings, being visible in stores, low prices, etc.).
We also know for a fact that the tobacco sales dropped dramatically over the last decade as more restrictive regulations were introduced.
There’s literally a whole section on electronic cigarettes (part 6 since I’m assuming you didn’t read it). So it looks like there is regulation and it hasn’t worked as the kids are hooked on vapes. Many of these regulations also apply to vapes for example the health warnings on every package.
Regulations for vapes is also becoming more aligned with cigarettes over time. So from 2013 when they were introduced the increased regulation from the alignment with regulation on tobacco products hasn’t worked.
Further steps may curb this but from the data that is published on the number of those under 18 vaping I highly doubt it.
Unless you want to do something dystopian like requiring a parenthood licence before people are allowed to have children and then force them to keep it renewed by attending regular parenthood classes, you can’t force people to receive education on how to be better parents. The state doesn’t have many levers to pull that don’t involve taking people’s children away. Making harmful products less appealing by preventing retailers promoting them is a much better balance of good effect against oppression. The kind of deal being restricted here is something supermarkets do because it manipulates people into buying things they otherwise wouldn’t. It’s not like every time you see a BOGOF sale in a shop it’s because they’re overstocked and are trying to clear things before they go past their sell-by date. If that’s not happening, then the only rational reason for supermarkets to have these deals is to manipulate their customers, and it’s not oppressive for a government to prevent multi-billion pound companies from manipulating its citizens.
I agree it’s used to manipulate but that’s the nature of a free market. I Shouldn’t have my choices taken away by the government and be burdened by the other recent changes just because some people have no self control or can’t effectively police what their kid does online.
Parenthood license also sounds like a great idea and I would be super on board with it. Bad parenting is often a vicious cycle that can destroy families over multiple generations. A license would be a preventative measure to stop children’s lives being ruined by unfit parents. Much like the porn ban stopping people from becoming porn obsessed psychos or stopping me from becoming obese because of my donut addiction.
These rules for the “greater good” are quite frankly a bit shit…
Unless you’re a Ferengi or Ayn Rand, a free market shouldn’t allow agents within the market to manipulate each other, as that inhibits trades being done solely based on what gives the best value for the least currency, making the market less free. The regulation here isn’t taking away a choice you want to have as supermarkets that run BOGOF offers just set the unit price to the cost of two units, so your choice is between paying for two things and getting two things or paying for two things and only getting one. Effectively, your choice to just buy one thing at a fair price is taken away by supermarkets, and it’s dressed up to make it look like you’re getting a bargain when you pay a fair price for two things and get two things.
A parenthood licence is a really common trope in dystopian fiction because it’s fundamentally the most authoritarian thing a state could do short of mind control. If you don’t trust a government to decide whether or not there should be BOGOF offers on crisps, you absolutely shouldn’t trust them to decide who gets to have children. For most of the twentieth century, the British government was actively trying to suppress minority political opinions like it being acceptable for people to be homosexual or anti-pollution. If they’d been deciding what the requirements were to get a parenthood licence, they’d absolutely have made people agree to teach their children that it wasn’t okay to be gay etc…
That’s kinda the whole point of laws, exactly because people can’t control themselves, drugs and all kinds of things are illegal, and it costs a shit ton of tax payers money (everyone pays) to heal or rehabilitate those people when they do destroy their bodies and minds or worse.
This think of the children phase the government has got going in is just making everything more shit… Don’t ruin everything just because some people can’t control themselves.
10% of the NHS’s budget goes towards treating diabetes. That’s a huge amount of money. It’s not just a problem for sufferers - its everyone elses problem too.
In my view*, government has two main jobs: promoting our happiness, and curbing our excesses. This is firmly within those remits, albeit trading short term for long term happiness.
You probably wouldn’t say firearms/crack cocaine/embezzling shouldn’t be illegal just because some people can’t control themselves, I hope? This is much like that - it just seems harmless because you’re used to it being there.
People can still buy crisps and pizza. They just won’t get a discount on over-indulging anymore
*actually, Bertrand Russell’s view.
It’s cute you think this will tackle obesity and diabetes. People will eat the same amount it’ll just cost everybody more money. Smoking/drinking related illness probably costs the NHS more why not just put more restrictions on that too while they’re at it.
They do put restrictions on smoking and drinking - they outlawed deals on those years ago. Tobacco is about 50x the price it costs to manufacture because of taxes, and guess what? There’s millions fewer smokers now than there were in the 1900’s! People who don’t drink, or who drink much more rarely, are a much higher number than they used to be too.
Personally though, I do think tobacco should be completely illegal. Maybe nicotine products too, though they do help people with ADD self-regulate
EDIT You are right that the costs of alcohol to the NHS is still pretty huge though - about £5bn a year and 10,000 deaths, not to speak of all the other costs. Some good stats here: https://britishlivertrust.org.uk/27-4-billion-cost-of-alcohol-harm-in-england-every-year/
Healthy people cost the NHS a lot more when they live to 90+, I can say for sure when my 97 year old nan died she used up a LOT of resources that last 20 or 30 years.
I just don’t find the NHS costs argument convincing.
Good point, there.
Habits can change. And if not with this generation, then with the next. I support this change.
Funny you mentioned smoking and alcohol. Because this is a perfect example of restrictions being imposed on both alcohol and tobacco and both had huge success in reducing how many people drink and smoke.
You kinda blew your own argument.
Funny you say that because there’s been a huge increase in kids SMOKING vapes. These “restrictions” haven’t actually done anything to curb that behaviour. Why hasn’t imposing restrictions improved the situation here? Vapes have been available from around 2013 and I imagine are included in most legislation relating to tobacco products. Maybe education and proper parenting are the answer not just blanket banning BOGOF offers. This would be a greater public service than stopping reasonably healthy people from saving a few quid bulk buying treats for themselves.
Kids are smoking vapes because they don’t have the same restrictions as tobacco. Thanks for proving my point again.
Please elaborate
Here you go:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/507/contents
These are the tobacco regulations. Have a read and think if any of them apply to vapes (spoiler alert, most of them don’t, like packaging , no health or addiction warnings, being visible in stores, low prices, etc.).
We also know for a fact that the tobacco sales dropped dramatically over the last decade as more restrictive regulations were introduced.
https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/cigarette-sales-declining-by-20-million-a-month-after-advent-of-standardised-packaging/
Coincidence? I think not.
There’s literally a whole section on electronic cigarettes (part 6 since I’m assuming you didn’t read it). So it looks like there is regulation and it hasn’t worked as the kids are hooked on vapes. Many of these regulations also apply to vapes for example the health warnings on every package.
Regulations for vapes is also becoming more aligned with cigarettes over time. So from 2013 when they were introduced the increased regulation from the alignment with regulation on tobacco products hasn’t worked.
Further steps may curb this but from the data that is published on the number of those under 18 vaping I highly doubt it.
But thanks for elaborating :)
Unless you want to do something dystopian like requiring a parenthood licence before people are allowed to have children and then force them to keep it renewed by attending regular parenthood classes, you can’t force people to receive education on how to be better parents. The state doesn’t have many levers to pull that don’t involve taking people’s children away. Making harmful products less appealing by preventing retailers promoting them is a much better balance of good effect against oppression. The kind of deal being restricted here is something supermarkets do because it manipulates people into buying things they otherwise wouldn’t. It’s not like every time you see a BOGOF sale in a shop it’s because they’re overstocked and are trying to clear things before they go past their sell-by date. If that’s not happening, then the only rational reason for supermarkets to have these deals is to manipulate their customers, and it’s not oppressive for a government to prevent multi-billion pound companies from manipulating its citizens.
I agree it’s used to manipulate but that’s the nature of a free market. I Shouldn’t have my choices taken away by the government and be burdened by the other recent changes just because some people have no self control or can’t effectively police what their kid does online.
Parenthood license also sounds like a great idea and I would be super on board with it. Bad parenting is often a vicious cycle that can destroy families over multiple generations. A license would be a preventative measure to stop children’s lives being ruined by unfit parents. Much like the porn ban stopping people from becoming porn obsessed psychos or stopping me from becoming obese because of my donut addiction.
These rules for the “greater good” are quite frankly a bit shit…
Unless you’re a Ferengi or Ayn Rand, a free market shouldn’t allow agents within the market to manipulate each other, as that inhibits trades being done solely based on what gives the best value for the least currency, making the market less free. The regulation here isn’t taking away a choice you want to have as supermarkets that run BOGOF offers just set the unit price to the cost of two units, so your choice is between paying for two things and getting two things or paying for two things and only getting one. Effectively, your choice to just buy one thing at a fair price is taken away by supermarkets, and it’s dressed up to make it look like you’re getting a bargain when you pay a fair price for two things and get two things.
A parenthood licence is a really common trope in dystopian fiction because it’s fundamentally the most authoritarian thing a state could do short of mind control. If you don’t trust a government to decide whether or not there should be BOGOF offers on crisps, you absolutely shouldn’t trust them to decide who gets to have children. For most of the twentieth century, the British government was actively trying to suppress minority political opinions like it being acceptable for people to be homosexual or anti-pollution. If they’d been deciding what the requirements were to get a parenthood licence, they’d absolutely have made people agree to teach their children that it wasn’t okay to be gay etc…
That’s kinda the whole point of laws, exactly because people can’t control themselves, drugs and all kinds of things are illegal, and it costs a shit ton of tax payers money (everyone pays) to heal or rehabilitate those people when they do destroy their bodies and minds or worse.
This is literally to everyone’s benefit.
Drugs should be legal.
If we want to encourage people to be healthy we should be making leisure centres free and make sure people have enough time to use them.
As usual this is just a sticking plaster policy on the real causes of why people eat shit or take drugs.
I think they are sabotaging themselves to hand it all back to the tories…
Ain’t no sane government gonna put a ban on porn
The way everything is going it’ll be reform not tories and then we’re fucked