Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

There you go Squeeze.  The left playing the bad economy card.

Eh?

Though I'd probably lean against an outright ban and rather just have extremely strict licensing such that tobacco isn't available from every other shop in town but maybe half a dozen places per region.
Though given the expense, logistics and lack of political pazaz I get that wouldn't really be doable in practice.

Tobacco is pretty strictly licensed already.

And you say that but in the last 10 years alone we've got the plain packaging, not allowed to display etc.

It may have strengthened but it's nowhere near strong enough. It just shouldn't be available from every supermarket and paper shop. At the very least we should be looking at alcohol in Sweden levels of control - only without the market to support such a setup.
Vapes in particular piss me off. Clearly marketed at and used by kids.

Also come out that the advance for her book was £1,500. For context the advance for Sturgeon's memoir was reported to be about £300k and Johnson's £500k. 

Better context I think is that's got to be a good months work at least to write such a book?
£1500 won't even cover her expenses. She wrote the book for free.
Did you miss a 0 or two? :p

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I tend to be more on the pot should also be available in every supermarket and corner shops (but also plain packaging, no advertising, not on display, need ID/18+) side of things

Vapes I'm mixed on - I think the ones with nicotine play a really important role on helping people quit (speaking form exeperience - also many friends who've done the same). But they're regulated as tobacco products.

I find the nicotine free vapes that lots of kids use a bit weird - partly because I don't understand why But also littering etc.

Edit: Although it is mad as someone who remembers Tory attacks on New Labour's "nanny state" to see them banning sugar in soft drinks, regulating what types of deals shops can do, banning the high fat, salt or sugar advertising, banning smoking, trying to bring in mandatory calorie counts for restaurants etc. I broadly sympathised with their criticism of those types of laws too. But I suppose they're doing "something" and they're free so pretty appealing.

[Barrister]

I would fall into the overlap point of that Venn.

If you really want to grow tobacco in your garden to smoke then you have my respect.

So ban commercial tobacco product, but allow commercial marijuana products?

Or allow homegrown tobacco and weed, but not commercial products?

I lean mostly towards 2.
Though there are medicinal uses for cannabis that there aren't for tobacco which suggests there actually is a better case there.

HIstorically tobacco/nicotine was seen as having numerous medicinal uses.  We now realize that is completely wrong.

I suspect that our current notions about "medicinal marijuana" will be seen in the same way in the future.

[Josquius]

I would fall into the overlap point of that Venn.

If you really want to grow tobacco in your garden to smoke then you have my respect.

So ban commercial tobacco product, but allow commercial marijuana products?

Or allow homegrown tobacco and weed, but not commercial products?

I lean mostly towards 2.
Though there are medicinal uses for cannabis that there aren't for tobacco which suggests there actually is a better case there.

HIstorically tobacco/nicotine was seen as having numerous medicinal uses.  We now realize that is completely wrong.

I suspect that our current notions about "medicinal marijuana" will be seen in the same way in the future.

I'm no doctor so I really can't comment.

But I will note the current view on weed is coming DESPITE intense opposition from conservatives and with a much better understanding of biology than we had back when we had the same views on tobacco - which were pushed by big money interests.
Science should be left to do its thing but logically it certainly seems there's a better chance there's utility in weed and the analogue doesn't really hold.

[Admiral Yi]

Eh?

We were talking earlier about Biden getting blamed for inflation and I said the left does the same thing.

[Barrister]

I'm no doctor so I really can't comment.

But I will note the current view on weed is coming DESPITE intense opposition from conservatives and with a much better understanding of biology than we had back when we had the same views on tobacco - which were pushed by big money interests.
Science should be left to do its thing but logically it certainly seems there's a better chance there's utility in weed and the analogue doesn't really hold.

I swear man - so many of your views come right out of 30-40 years ago and have no bearing on modern reality.

Cannabis is being pushed by big money interests.  Cannabis is a multi-billion dollar legal industry.  It's not just a bunch of hippies growing cannabis in their back yard.

On the other hand tobacco in the 17th-19th century was just a plant you could grow.  There was no "big tobacco" like there was by the 20th century.

[HVC]

A lot of the lobbying for Marijuana os actually from big tobacco. Phillip Morris invested a lot in growing pot

[Gups]

Banning tobacco or tax it to the point of an effective ban simply hands money to criminals just as the war on drugs does and prohibition did.

[Josquius]

I swear man - so many of your views come right out of 30-40 years ago and have no bearing on modern reality.

Cannabis is being pushed by big money interests.  Cannabis is a multi-billion dollar legal industry.  It's not just a bunch of hippies growing cannabis in their back yard.

On the other hand tobacco in the 17th-19th century was just a plant you could grow.  There was no "big tobacco" like there was by the 20th century.

the idea of potential health benefits of weed predates the current American legalisation setup by some way.

Eh?

We were talking earlier about Biden getting blamed for inflation and I said the left does the same thing.

The tories have been in power 14 years.
A lot more of a case to be made the economy is their fault than after Bidens 4

[garbon]

Banning tobacco or tax it to the point of an effective ban simply hands money to criminals just as the war on drugs does and prohibition did.

But smoking has long been on the decline in the UK. With the percentage of people who smoke now vs drink, I don't see how it would be comparable to prohibition.

[Tamas]

Banning it is silly, it will make it cool again.

77 year olds on their scooters with their fags and vapes, flicking Vs at the 76 year olds

Haha, no. I mean cool to smoke it illegally. It'll be a forbidden fruit.

[Sheilbh]

So on one of her book tour interviews Truss said the Daily Star lettuce stunt as "pathetic point scoring [...] kind of thing that obsesses [...] the London elite":
https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1779980028547121157

The Daily Star have responded:


Very much enjoy "Deep State Correspondent"

[Josquius]

Weird she is trying to position herself as against the "London elite" when the entire approach of her time in power was let everyone else burn if it helps the (city of) London elite.

[Gups]

Banning tobacco or tax it to the point of an effective ban simply hands money to criminals just as the war on drugs does and prohibition did.

But smoking has long been on the decline in the UK. With the percentage of people who smoke now vs drink, I don't see how it would be comparable to prohibition.

Not sure what the decline has to do with it. There's still a £22bn market in tobacco and there's already a black market. It won't disappear and this will just create a slowly-widening gap in the market which will be filled by criminals out to make money. As noted, the black market already exists due to high taxation - HMRC estiimate it's about 20% of the size of the legal market. It will naturally grow once this measure is introduced.

As always we make the mistake of assuming that "bans" which are incapable of being effectively change people's behaviour. Where they can be enforced (e.g. smoking bans in public places) they are effective. When they can't - drug/tobacco/alcohol, they are not only ineffective but simply transfer tax money to gangs. 

[Gups]

Weird she is trying to position herself as against the "London elite" when the entire approach of her time in power was let everyone else burn if it helps the (city of) London elite.

I can't think of a single measure in the mini-budget aimed at the City of London. Could you enlighten me?

Edit: except the scrapping of the limit on bankers' bonuses.