United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, 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.
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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.