91–100 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now to take the last logical step like Canada and suggest assisted suicide to the high cost patients.
Only those who have become high cost patients due to choosing to put themselves at risk for years.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a consensual transaction that I choose to engage in. Doesn’t apply to single payer or the NHS
If you are housed, you are almost certainly paying for home insurance, even if you rent.
Notice how in both of the above, there is no third party forcing me to pay for anybody’s bad choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raise taxes until it balances!
You assume that there is a balance point. There is an unlimited demand for healthcare. Additionally the more money you give to a failing system, the worse it gets. It’s a positive feedback loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not?
Personal anecdotes and bias. I’ve never met anyone successful who regularly consumes drugs as serious as cocaine. At worst it’s marijuana, with minor experimentation with harder substances in college or on special occasions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal anecdotes and bias. I’ve never met anyone successful who regularly consumes drugs as serious as cocaine. At worst it’s marijuana, with minor experimentation with harder substances in college or on special occasions.
I can’t believe someone with so little life experience would speak so confidently. You don’t know any successful drug users?
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…
there is also a strong question as to whether smokers are actually a net cost to government or not. They draw decades less old age pension, have decades less medical visits, etc. I am extremely unconvinced that a large cancer related medical cost now has a higher net present value than a stream of government pension payouts, health costs, etc for decades ended with a large medical cost for some other reason. This is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont think you can hide with smoking cigarettes almost anywhere, the stink is far too strong, characteristic abd outright repulsive. Also, you normally dont go to jail by using drugs... what a clueless comment
cut up a line of coke at a public place, preferably next to a police officer and see how that works out for you :)
I get the apparent logic of phasing cigarettes into unlawfulness over decades. But considering this is so one-sided in terms of curtailing liberty for one generation,[1] it would have been interesting if they also got a privilege that us oldies are cut off from. Just as a perk to offset things. But whatever could that be? Twenty-year 5% discount on vegetables? [1] But this youngest generation also gets the privilege…
Being an island, it's probably slightly easier to control smuggling, but if there's money to be made, people will be smuggling in cartons. Anyway, getting an older person to buy cigs isn't difficult, and they're still legal for the majority of the population. I doubt smoking will become immediately attractive, but if the ban sticks around, probably in a decade or so tobacco will be a niche hipster rebellion, then become poser-cool, then totally normalized again.