61–70 of 142 posts
They also permanently banned coke,meth and other drugs since the inception of law, guess how that turned out? "The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 8.7% of people aged 16 to 59 years (around 2.9 million people) reported using any drug in the last 12 months for the year ending (YE) March 2025; there was no statistically significant change compared with YE March 2024" I believe limiting people's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?
Society is by definition “forcing” people to carry the burden of other’s choices. You’re drawing an entirely arbitrary line at direct taxation. Why is it “fair”? Because society isn’t zero sum. We each give and take in different ways.
It's going to make for an interesting future age verification problem; For a few years it'll be easy, because it's still only going to be asking people under say 25 for proof; but then in a few decades it's going to be people trying to figure out if there customer is over 40 say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ironic part to me is you're making an argument similar to one the libertarian absolutists make - society can't shoulder healthcare costs because then it'll need to start taking responsibility over how healthily people live their lives. Without even taking a position on good or bad of it, if the "you also may need some ground rules" is going to stick, why not also bring in mandatory exercise and ban people from su…
> why not also bring in mandatory exercise and ban people from sugar and alcohol too I literally said "so care needs to be taken" and you hit me with a slippery slope argument?
Exercise is maybe a slippery slope because it requires enforcing a positive action, but if we're going to force people to be healthy anyway, why not? In a practical sense, not a theoretical one? If you've got theoretical concerns, why doesn't that apply to cigarettes?
Wow, lots of libertarian absolutists up this morning. Guys, that's all well and good as a philosophy, but you need to integrate your views into the world around you too. When you live in a society that has _decided_ to collectively shoulder health care costs, and assume responsibility for everyone's health, you also may need some ground rules. I know it sucks, because _you_ may have just been born there and you don't…
I guess they should ban all the chippies too. Everyone is unhealthy in their own way and that’s the cost of doing business. Socializing healthcare does not require banning unhealthy behavior. It turns out that money does in fact grow on trees and they can make more because it’s fucking fake and it always has been. How are we going to pay for this!?! You literally create money. Governments do it all the time for missi…
Just ban the sale of them in the country. They offer no positive for society or humanity whatsoever. Chippies at least have their origins in actual food sustenance.
If some new slow method of societally expensive suicide hit the market, it would get banned quick smart. Cigarettes have only stuck around so long because of legacy and well funded lobbyists and PR / marketing types that have been happy to lie at the cost of millions of lives.
Nice, let's defend that.
This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of this just doesn’t make sense.
Taxes as they currently exist are a bandaid on wealth inequality. Getting rid of rich people parasitism would be a better way to balance the budget than either right-libertarian principles or taxing commoners for their stress relief like tobacco. Though judging by the amount milords in the article I suspect that is far ways off.
They also permanently banned coke,meth and other drugs since the inception of law, guess how that turned out? "The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 8.7% of people aged 16 to 59 years (around 2.9 million people) reported using any drug in the last 12 months for the year ending (YE) March 2025; there was no statistically significant change compared with YE March 2024" I believe limiting people's…
> guess how that turned out? My guess is that significantly fewer people use drugs than would have used drugs if they were not banned. > "The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 8.7% of people aged 16 to 59 years (around 2.9 million people) reported using any drug in the last 12 months for the year ending (YE) March 2025; there was no statistically significant change compared with YE March 2024"…
This law will attempt to ban cigarettes. Estimate how many people will buy them and smoke them illegally. The number will not be zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Society is by definition “forcing” people to carry the burden of other’s choices. You’re drawing an entirely arbitrary line at direct taxation. Why is it “fair”? Because society isn’t zero sum. We each give and take in different ways.
Not sure how much a skydiving soda drinking drug user “””gives””” to society haha
But whatever could that be? Twenty-year 5% discount on vegetables?
[1] But this youngest generation also gets the privilege of never having easy access to cigarettes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how much a skydiving soda drinking drug user “””gives””” to society haha
Your perception of drug users is woefully out of date. The most “valuable” members of society by your metric (contributing tax dollars) are using a lot of drugs. The U.K. upper middle class are snorting so much coke.