I must admit that my reaction to the headline was "No Shit".
We know that the push polling, especially on the GOP side, is muddying the waters and giving far more evenly matched results than the probable reality, so the polls showing a tight race or a Trump lead are not necessarily reliable. We know that the ghost of Roe v Wade is haunting the Republican campaign. We know that as a result Harris has attracted large numbers of female votes to the Blue column. We know that she has fired up the base to a dramatic degree and the convention, far from being a 1968 disaster, was a total triumph. We know that Harris is raising historically large amounts of money very quickly. We know that Harris has made a good VP pick and that Trump... hasn´t. We know that Trump has never won the popular vote. Trump is still trying to win the 2020 fight, but the style is just looking tired and dated, as is he.
Yet the fear of 2016, like the fear of 2019 in the recent UK general election, is leading people to fear that Trump can still snatch a victory. I think even with all the corruption and malpractice that the convicted felon can orchestrate it will not be enough to overcome a very large vote for Harris. I think she could be headed for a landslide,
It’s just becoming more and more obvious, isn’t it? The notion that it’s going to be ‘on a knife-edge’ is increasingly ridiculous.
Though you shouldn't forget what happened to Clinton, who had a double digit led in the polls in October 2016.
I think any result between a Harris landslide and a narrow Trump win is just about possible - though I have quite a lot of money on Harris winning.
I think it's possible that Trump wins the Sunbelt and the Rustbelt. It's also possible that Harris does. And it is further possible that they split them.
I tend to agree with you that Harris probably has more room to outperform expectations, but - voter registration numbers apart - the mpolls do not currently support such an outcome.
If the polls did support that result it wouldn’t really be “outperformance” though…
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
Encouraged a bout of violent 'sightseeing' at the seat of government when he lost?
I have no doubt he wanted people to get out on the streets. I don't think anyone, least of all those who participated, expected it to get so far out of hand.
I agree the armed insurrection stuff is weak sauce.
The fake electors, on the other hand, was deliberate policy to overturn a democratic election.
Carrying a noose, assaulting guards, smashing up the Capitol building threatening a Republican VP with lynching.
Nothing to see here, just a normal day in MAGA land.
But Trump did none of those things.
Now, the things he did created the atmosphere for that to happen. And his words were incendiary. But he did not lead an armed insurrection.
He did for sure, though, organize slates of Fake Electors with the express intention of overthrowing an election. He should be in jail for that.
It's actually really hard for Trump to get over 380 EC votes so far as I can see - maybe 2% rather than 5% . Harris to get over 380 would mean her winning all the swing states and Florida and Texas (for example), so unlikely but not as hard, maybe 10% is roughly right, maybe a bit more.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
Smokers die early, and tend to save the NHS money because of that. (All cancer treatment accounts for around 5.6% of the NHS budget, I think.)
Obesity is the really expensive one.
Bit more complicated than that - a large proportion of costs come in the final 12 months of life, whenever those are, so life expectancy is less important than you might think for most people.
It's healthy life expectancy that's important, so if smokers die 5 years earlier but start getting lots of conditions 15 years before non-smokers do, the net effect is worse. This is also why people with obesity cost so much, suffering with with minor but expensive conditions for decades.
There's no corresponding tax gain for the obese, though. And the conditions associated with it - diabetes especially - start costing large amounts both in healthcare and lost productivity, long before end of life costs.
The calculations twenty years ago for smokers showed a net benefit to the exchequer; more recent studies show a significant net cost (but only after taking into account things like lost productivity). It's a complicated question, and the results depend much on the assumptions underlying the studies. Some recent ones include QALYs in the equation - which of course shows a much higher cost.
As far as obesity is concerned, the calculations showed a net cost, even two decades ago.
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump 45% to 41% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that showed the vice president sparking new enthusiasm among voters and shaking up the race ahead of the Nov. 5 election
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
Just as well that Trump called for a peaceful demonstration then, as opposed to storming the Capitol.
That's a little like claiming the attempted torching of the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham was largely peaceful.
No, it’s like saying it was Nigel Farage’s fault.
You mean the man who publicly claimed the police were "hiding something" and demanded the police confirm the Southport murderer was an illegal Syrian Asylum Seeker, based exclusively on information he had gleaned from Andrew Tate's Twitter X account.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump 45% to 41% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that showed the vice president sparking new enthusiasm among voters and shaking up the race ahead of the Nov. 5 election
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
Encouraged a bout of violent 'sightseeing' at the seat of government when he lost?
I have no doubt he wanted people to get out on the streets. I don't think anyone, least of all those who participated, expected it to get so far out of hand.
I agree the armed insurrection stuff is weak sauce.
The fake electors, on the other hand, was deliberate policy to overturn a democratic election.
Carrying a noose, assaulting guards, smashing up the Capitol building threatening a Republican VP with lynching.
Nothing to see here, just a normal day in MAGA land.
But Trump did none of those things.
Now, the things he did created the atmosphere for that to happen. And his words were incendiary. But he did not lead an armed insurrection.
He did for sure, though, organize slates of Fake Electors with the express intention of overthrowing an election. He should be in jail for that.
We were debating whether it was a violent insurrection. Who was involved is a separate question.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
"Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily" does not mean millions do not use cash.
Ah, sod them, they will just have to adapt
I would keep cash, I wouldn’t ban it.
But it is pointless and eventually will probably die out as fewer and fewer people use it.
One of the problems with electronic payments is that quite often you don't bother to check the amount you're paying, out of laziness. You just touch your card on the reader, etc, and assume it's right. With cash you always know that you've paid the right amount, based on what you've given and what change you've got back.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
It would be interesting to see if the number of poor and elderly people using the London bus network has stayed the same, decreased, or increased after cash was banned. I expect you'd know the answer to that, given your confident comments about it.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
London is not the rest of the UK.
Correct, it’s an integral part of the UK, just like Merseyside is not the rest of the UK but is an integral part of it, just like Yorkshire and the Lake District are not the rest of the UK but are integral parts of it. Not really sure what point you are trying to make really.
You keep going on about the London bus network. You keep just referencing London.
I am given to believe that many other buses are now cashless… even outside That London!!!
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
Just as well that Trump called for a peaceful demonstration then, as opposed to storming the Capitol.
That's a little like claiming the attempted torching of the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham was largely peaceful.
No, it’s like saying it was Nigel Farage’s fault.
You mean the man who publicly claimed the police were "hiding something" and demanded the police confirm the Southport murderer was an illegal Syrian Asylum Seeker, based exclusively on information he had gleaned from Andrew Tate's Twitter X account.
A stupid thing to do, but doent make it his fault, or anyone's fault including Andrew Tate.
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
I'm sure the many weirdo cash-fetishists on here will buy them off you for £1 in proper electronic money (if they can work out how to use a banking app, which admittedly is very doubtful!)
I’ll offer 90p in the £ for as many as you have to sell
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
Smokers die early, and tend to save the NHS money because of that. (All cancer treatment accounts for around 5.6% of the NHS budget, I think.)
Obesity is the really expensive one.
Bit more complicated than that - a large proportion of costs come in the final 12 months of life, whenever those are, so life expectancy is less important than you might think for most people.
It's healthy life expectancy that's important, so if smokers die 5 years earlier but start getting lots of conditions 15 years before non-smokers do, the net effect is worse. This is also why people with obesity cost so much, suffering with with minor but expensive conditions for decades.
There's no corresponding tax gain for the obese, though. And the conditions associated with it - diabetes especially - start costing large amounts both in healthcare and lost productivity, long before end of life costs.
The calculations twenty years ago for smokers showed a net benefit to the exchequer; more recent studies show a significant net cost (but only after taking into account things like lost productivity). It's a complicated question, and the results depend much on the assumptions underlying the studies. Some recent ones include QALYs in the equation - which of course shows a much higher cost.
As far as obesity is concerned, the calculations showed a net cost, even two decades ago.
I think the tax thing is a huge red herring and represents too much time looking at spreadsheets rather than thinking about what makes life good for people and the economy in the long term.
Smoking has never been a net gain to the Treasury, simply because the alternative (no smoking and taxing something else instead) can be fiscally neutral and the cash obtained can be spent on something else.
I did think of that one, although it was technically the medical car rather than the safety car, the MC driver did nothing wrong, it was the idiot coming around the corner flat out and missing the large red flag that caused the accident.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
New Emerson College Polling/The Hill swing state surveys find a tight race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. Harris has a slight edge over Trump in Michigan (50% to 47%), Georgia (49% to 48%), and Nevada (49% to 48%). The candidates are tied in Pennsylvania (48% to 48%). In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Trump has a one-point edge over Harris (49% to 48%), and Trump leads by three in Arizona (50% to 47%).
Some weird things going on there.
In Arizona for example they have Trump ahead of Harris by 2% among women voters (though I think that might be a typo, as it has Harris/Trump listed the other way round for Georgia, directly underneath). Women voters AZ: Trump 50%, Harris 48% GA: Harris 54%, Trump 44%
Even assuming a typo, Emerson have a Harris lead of 2% among women voters, and the Fox poll an 8% lead. The two pollsters must have far different sampling/adjustments to come up with such different results in a demographic which represents half of the entire sample.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
Smokers die early, and tend to save the NHS money because of that. (All cancer treatment accounts for around 5.6% of the NHS budget, I think.)
Obesity is the really expensive one.
Bit more complicated than that - a large proportion of costs come in the final 12 months of life, whenever those are, so life expectancy is less important than you might think for most people.
It's healthy life expectancy that's important, so if smokers die 5 years earlier but start getting lots of conditions 15 years before non-smokers do, the net effect is worse. This is also why people with obesity cost so much, suffering with with minor but expensive conditions for decades.
There's no corresponding tax gain for the obese, though. And the conditions associated with it - diabetes especially - start costing large amounts both in healthcare and lost productivity, long before end of life costs.
The calculations twenty years ago for smokers showed a net benefit to the exchequer; more recent studies show a significant net cost (but only after taking into account things like lost productivity). It's a complicated question, and the results depend much on the assumptions underlying the studies. Some recent ones include QALYs in the equation - which of course shows a much higher cost.
As far as obesity is concerned, the calculations showed a net cost, even two decades ago.
I think the tax thing is a huge red herring and represents too much time looking at spreadsheets rather than thinking about what makes life good for people and the economy in the long term.
Smoking has never been a net gain to the Treasury, simply because the alternative (no smoking and taxing something else instead) can be fiscally neutral and the cash obtained can be spent on something else.
Red herring or not, governments do conduct such economic analyses. These days, though, they all tend to come up with a net cost to society, across the globe.
I did think of that one, although it was technically the medical car rather than the safety car, the MC driver did nothing wrong, it was the idiot coming around the corner flat out and missing the large red flag that caused the accident.
My friend's dad got taken round the Nurburgring by Bert Mylander. He said it was one of the scariest experiences of his life.
How much of this surge would have happened anyway if Biden had stayed on? It could be Dems who were not very enthusiastic but were always gonna register. Looking at the largest surges those are the base of the base for the dems- they would have likely registered and voted anyway. Its those that are on the edge of the dem base you need to look at such as white moderate men. Are they surging?
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
That assumes that smokers don't use the NHS more than any other person in the years preceding their death, which isn't the case. You might be right about dementia sufferers though.
I did think of that one, although it was technically the medical car rather than the safety car, the MC driver did nothing wrong, it was the idiot coming around the corner flat out and missing the large red flag that caused the accident.
I *think* Prof. Watkins broke his arm in that incident; he was holding onto the door handle when the door got hit. If so, it was the incident that led to his decision to retire from medical car duties a couple of years later.
It also was not Heidfeld's fault; the red flag came out too late, and there were no waved double-yellow flags. The Ferrari got through because he had a better view of the MC car moving across the track; Heidfeld arrived later, when the MC was behind the wreck.
Re the build cost issue, it is fundamentally driven by labour and material cost. Scrapping building regulations would not significantly change the labour/material cost. There are issues with building regs but they mostly seem to be connected to rushed policy changes post Grenfell and panics about safety.
I showed some estate agents around my flat today. The flat is old with deep rooms which are very cool in summer. It is quite the contrast with modern single aspect flats with fans on and windows wide open. Apparently it is the amount of insulation is causing overheating. I would be interested if that is true, I suspect there is truth in it. The EPC is E and to get up to C you would need to put on some insulation inside the walls, that would destroy the entire character of the flat and probably then cause it to overheat in summer. The windows are over a hundred years old, they would be ripped out in favour of UPVC, around 50 windows in the flat gone. For what purpose? The energy bills are £80 a month. The damage would never be justified. It seems like total philistine regulation.
There isn't a lot of difference in the principle of Building Regulation across European countries. One interesting thing about the UK (maybe 'England') is that the methods are not compulsory as such. They are a combination of required outcomes and approved methods. If you convince your Control Officer that your alternative method meets the required outcome safely, you can do it with their approval; that's how innovation can happen. A good example is underfloor insulation of traditional houses by entirely filling the void with polystyrene beads, which has been done since the 1990s; the BCO needs to be convinced that your method will prevent moisture getting in and rotting the floor joists.
The main issues are a reluctance amongst developers to build to decent quality, and lack of capacity in Councils to monitor/enforce since the developers cannot be trusted.
The increasing quality required by building regs has been a key part of our reducing energy consumption per household by 25% since 2000, which is quite an achievement. That's *after* taking into account trends such as us running our houses at a higher temperature, and is bills cheaper than they would otherwise be. My image quota for the day: (2022 is anomalous due to the energy crisis, but is perhaps a measure of what we *can* achieve under current conditions when we need to do so.)
@darkage flat is interesting. I'm not sure what regulations if any require an EPC C - are you planning to rent it out? These regs are coming in in Scotland and will be here in England too at some stage. There are exemptions, and also funding available. I support this, as there is too much prior history of poor quality rentals.
If a building is overheating extensively in summer in the conditions, then it has not been designed or modified well enough, or perhaps conditions have changed and the owners have not adapted. A classic is to insulate, and to forget to ventilate.
Yes, you need an EPC of D or higher, C or higher from next year.
You're right about it keeping cool. South facing with big Victorian windows, so my flat is almost unbearable in the summer. I'm not sure how sustainable that is going to be going forward - I know that my friends in London really struggle with it already.
If there was a new regulation that overnight temperatures in a rented flat cannot exceed 25c or something, I would be in real trouble.
If new builds are required to have so much insulation that we start having to install air conditioning for the summer, is that not totally counter-productive to the target of reducing power consumption?
One of the advantages of air source heat pumps is that you can set them to work as air conditioners. It needs an engineer.
Currently the gov are not offering grants if you can do both.
Add solar panels and you have a free to run cooling system. But it requires a bit of faffing about to set it up.
There was also the info a couple of weeks back that someone had posted a thread on TwiX titled 'Can my husband find out it how I voted', (showing that they couldn't) which had 8 million views in less than a week. Those husbands aren't going to be Harris voters, are they?
They could be women with very conservative husbands who want to vote for Dem because of abortion but don't want their husbands finding out.
I did think of that one, although it was technically the medical car rather than the safety car, the MC driver did nothing wrong, it was the idiot coming around the corner flat out and missing the large red flag that caused the accident.
My friend's dad got taken round the Nurburgring by Bert Mylander. He said it was one of the scariest experiences of his life.
I know a few people who have done the “‘Ring Taxi”, and all of them barely crawled out of the car at the end of the lap.
I once did a much shorter hot lap at Thruxton in the passenger seat of a touring car, and it was seriously impressive just how much speed the pro driver can take into a corner in a proper race car.
Fun fact. The ‘Ring Taxi used to do about five laps on a set of tyres, and they changed the brakes at lunchtime and in the evening. You wouldn’t want to buy a used one!
NEW: Catherine Smith KC - youngest daughter of former Labour leader John Smith - has been made a life peer in order to become the new Advocate General for Scotland.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Ok but I sense a false linkage there. There's no reason we can't build like the clappers and at the same time ban stuff, tell people off, and call everyone we disagree with evil/a racist/unworthy of holding an opinion. In fact that's pretty much what I was voting for on July 4th.
New Emerson College Polling/The Hill swing state surveys find a tight race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. Harris has a slight edge over Trump in Michigan (50% to 47%), Georgia (49% to 48%), and Nevada (49% to 48%). The candidates are tied in Pennsylvania (48% to 48%). In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Trump has a one-point edge over Harris (49% to 48%), and Trump leads by three in Arizona (50% to 47%).
Some weird things going on there.
In Arizona for example they have Trump ahead of Harris by 2% among women voters (though I think that might be a typo, as it has Harris/Trump listed the other way round for Georgia, directly underneath). Women voters AZ: Trump 50%, Harris 48% GA: Harris 54%, Trump 44%
Even assuming a typo, Emerson have a Harris lead of 2% among women voters, and the Fox poll an 8% lead. The two pollsters must have far different sampling/adjustments to come up with such different results in a demographic which represents half of the entire sample.
That's why I'm sceptical about US polling.
They consistently put the leader in the demographic first, so I don't believe it's a typo.
The main* issue is that the sample sizes are really small. Just 800 for the Georgia poll, which is then ~400 for women and even less once you strip out don't knows, etc. The confidence intervals are so large that the difference between the two polls isn't close to being statistically significant.
* Besides the obvious one of the non-response bias and the impossibility of obtaining a truly random sample.
There was also the info a couple of weeks back that someone had posted a thread on TwiX titled 'Can my husband find out it how I voted', (showing that they couldn't) which had 8 million views in less than a week. Those husbands aren't going to be Harris voters, are they?
They could be women with very conservative husbands who want to vote for Dem because of abortion but don't want their husbands finding out.
That's something I kind of hope is true and also not true.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
@viewcode - sympathies, if it was you lamenting your dental misfortunes. I've just been to the dentist, and will be one tooth lighter this time tomorrow - almost unbelievably, I managed to break a tooth on a toffee last Friday and it can't be saved. (In the tooth's defence, it was already more filling than tooth.) Feeling a certain degree of trepidation but also some excitement that the constant feeling I've had for the last week of having a big mess of rotten tooth at the back of my mouth will be over.
There was also the info a couple of weeks back that someone had posted a thread on TwiX titled 'Can my husband find out it how I voted', (showing that they couldn't) which had 8 million views in less than a week. Those husbands aren't going to be Harris voters, are they?
They could be women with very conservative husbands who want to vote for Dem because of abortion but don't want their husbands finding out.
Does that imply the potential for shy Harris polled voters over there in Gilead?
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
We ban cannabis, cocaine, LSD, MDMA etc. Nicotine is more addictive than those. If you're going to ban any drugs, there's a strong argument that you ban smoking.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Those people must have been dropped on their heads as infants.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
A compromise with pub gardens would be to have most of the garden smoke free and say 30% or 25% of it available for smokers. If it's windy you could select the area so the smoke won't blow from the smoking to the non-smoking area.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
That's a reasonable logical leap, I think. I guess I just don't understand why it's difficult. Which is not to say that it isn't - just that I don't have anything to compare it to.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
We ban cannabis, cocaine, LSD, MDMA etc. Nicotine is more addictive than those. If you're going to ban any drugs, there's a strong argument that you ban smoking.
You're right.
The problem is prohibition doesn't work and causes more problems than it solves.
Smoking is bad and I'd like to see it eliminated, but I'd rather cannabis, cocaine, LSD, MDMA etc were legalised and sold alongside nicotine behind a counter at ASDA etc, than see nicotine criminalised.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Those people must have been dropped on their heads as infants.
I wouldn't have thought that would account for it.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Those people must have been dropped on their heads as infants.
I wouldn't have thought that would account for it.
It would account for them believing something so incredibly stupid, yes.
New Emerson College Polling/The Hill swing state surveys find a tight race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. Harris has a slight edge over Trump in Michigan (50% to 47%), Georgia (49% to 48%), and Nevada (49% to 48%). The candidates are tied in Pennsylvania (48% to 48%). In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Trump has a one-point edge over Harris (49% to 48%), and Trump leads by three in Arizona (50% to 47%).
If Emerson is correct Harris would likely win the EC but by the narrowest of margins, on the above states she leads 263 to 256 for Trump. However if Pennsylvania, which is tied, went for Trump he would win 275-263. Either way it would be the closest Presidential election result in the EC since 2000 and Bush v Gore https://www.270towin.com/
A compromise with pub gardens would be to have most of the garden smoke free and say 30% or 25% of it available for smokers. If it's windy you could select the area so the smoke won't blow from the smoking to the non-smoking area.
I admire your instinct for compromise, I really do.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Those people must have been dropped on their heads as infants.
I wouldn't have thought that would account for it.
It would account for them believing something so incredibly stupid, yes.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
I can't point to a study but I'd be amazed if the answer wasn't yes.
There's a fallacy to be overcome, though, in that many smokers will say things like 'it relaxes me' when the relaxation is actually just the removal of the craving caused by the nicotine addiction. You quell the pangs with a cig, ah bisto!, then the clock restarts and the pangs build again until you light the next one an hour or so later. And on we go. Relax, bit tense, more tense, very tense, relax, bit tense, more tense, very tense, relax ...
You're using cigs to gain relief from what the cigs themselves are creating.
Re the build cost issue, it is fundamentally driven by labour and material cost. Scrapping building regulations would not significantly change the labour/material cost. There are issues with building regs but they mostly seem to be connected to rushed policy changes post Grenfell and panics about safety.
I showed some estate agents around my flat today. The flat is old with deep rooms which are very cool in summer. It is quite the contrast with modern single aspect flats with fans on and windows wide open. Apparently it is the amount of insulation is causing overheating. I would be interested if that is true, I suspect there is truth in it. The EPC is E and to get up to C you would need to put on some insulation inside the walls, that would destroy the entire character of the flat and probably then cause it to overheat in summer. The windows are over a hundred years old, they would be ripped out in favour of UPVC, around 50 windows in the flat gone. For what purpose? The energy bills are £80 a month. The damage would never be justified. It seems like total philistine regulation.
There isn't a lot of difference in the principle of Building Regulation across European countries. One interesting thing about the UK (maybe 'England') is that the methods are not compulsory as such. They are a combination of required outcomes and approved methods. If you convince your Control Officer that your alternative method meets the required outcome safely, you can do it with their approval; that's how innovation can happen. A good example is underfloor insulation of traditional houses by entirely filling the void with polystyrene beads, which has been done since the 1990s; the BCO needs to be convinced that your method will prevent moisture getting in and rotting the floor joists.
The main issues are a reluctance amongst developers to build to decent quality, and lack of capacity in Councils to monitor/enforce since the developers cannot be trusted.
The increasing quality required by building regs has been a key part of our reducing energy consumption per household by 25% since 2000, which is quite an achievement. That's *after* taking into account trends such as us running our houses at a higher temperature, and is bills cheaper than they would otherwise be. My image quota for the day: (2022 is anomalous due to the energy crisis, but is perhaps a measure of what we *can* achieve under current conditions when we need to do so.)
@darkage flat is interesting. I'm not sure what regulations if any require an EPC C - are you planning to rent it out? These regs are coming in in Scotland and will be here in England too at some stage. There are exemptions, and also funding available. I support this, as there is too much prior history of poor quality rentals.
If a building is overheating extensively in summer in the conditions, then it has not been designed or modified well enough, or perhaps conditions have changed and the owners have not adapted. A classic is to insulate, and to forget to ventilate.
Yes, you need an EPC of D or higher, C or higher from next year.
You're right about it keeping cool. South facing with big Victorian windows, so my flat is almost unbearable in the summer. I'm not sure how sustainable that is going to be going forward - I know that my friends in London really struggle with it already.
If there was a new regulation that overnight temperatures in a rented flat cannot exceed 25c or something, I would be in real trouble.
If new builds are required to have so much insulation that we start having to install air conditioning for the summer, is that not totally counter-productive to the target of reducing power consumption?
One of the advantages of air source heat pumps is that you can set them to work as air conditioners. It needs an engineer.
Currently the gov are not offering grants if you can do both.
Add solar panels and you have a free to run cooling system. But it requires a bit of faffing about to set it up.
I think you don’t pay vat on the equipment or install.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Those people must have been dropped on their heads as infants.
I wouldn't have thought that would account for it.
It would account for them believing something so incredibly stupid, yes.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
One reason I have opposed all-mail elections is that ballots need not be secret. It's been a while since I regularly searched for stories of vote fraud -- but when I did, I found that it usually was done with mail ballots.
And they also allow intimidation, especially within a family. So women (and some men) are right to ask whether their spouse (or parents) can know how they voted.
(Given the different voting systems used in the different states -- and the large differences between men and women in this election, it might be possible to get a rough estimate of intimidation by comparing results between states that have all-mail elections and states that mostly vote in person.)
For the record: My home state, Washington, has been using all-mail ballots for years now. I don't know of any serious examples of either vote fraud or intimidation, though, of course, both are hard to investigate.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Those people must have been dropped on their heads as infants.
I wouldn't have thought that would account for it.
It would account for them believing something so incredibly stupid, yes.
Nicotine has recently been shown to enhance measures of information processing speed including the decision time (DT) component of simple and choice reaction time and the string length measure of evoked potential waveform complexity. Both (DT and string length) have been previously demonstrated to correlate with performance on standard intelligence tests (IQ). We therefore hypothesised that nicotine is acting to improve intellectual performance on the elementary information processing correlates of IQ. In the current experiment we tested this hypothesis using the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) test. APM scores were significantly higher in the smoking session compared to the non-smoking session, suggesting that nicotine acts to enhance physiological processes underlying performance on intellectual tasks.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
There's no pleasant buzz other than of the sort you get from removing a shoe that's been on too tight for an hour.
Great news for you anyway that smoking turned you off straightaway and so you didn't get hooked. With me, I'm afraid that wasn't the case. I thought it looked cool - still do tbh - and my first few cigs as a teenager didn't make me cough enough to counteract that.
Question is, as a lifelong addict does my opinion on this carry a special weight? Is my support for banning smoking the equivalent of the pacifism of the returning soldier? I think perhaps it is.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Those people must have been dropped on their heads as infants.
I wouldn't have thought that would account for it.
It would account for them believing something so incredibly stupid, yes.
Nicotine has recently been shown to enhance measures of information processing speed including the decision time (DT) component of simple and choice reaction time and the string length measure of evoked potential waveform complexity. Both (DT and string length) have been previously demonstrated to correlate with performance on standard intelligence tests (IQ). We therefore hypothesised that nicotine is acting to improve intellectual performance on the elementary information processing correlates of IQ. In the current experiment we tested this hypothesis using the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) test. APM scores were significantly higher in the smoking session compared to the non-smoking session, suggesting that nicotine acts to enhance physiological processes underlying performance on intellectual tasks.
I doubt it, for various reasons. But it's not a good look.
I hope Hendy goes. As numerous scandals show, the last thing we want in a minister is a habit for prioritising cover up over honesty and remediation.
It's a shame, because his appointment was one of those that promised the new government would quickly get on and get things done.
Yeah. It'll be interesting to hear Hendry's side of the story, but if what Dennis has said is correct, Hendry should go.
Gareth Dennis is an interesting and knowledgeable chap - I often watch his videos - but he is a *very* political animal. One of the thing that spoils his videos are where he goes somewhat over-the-top (from my perspective) on politics that is, at best, tangential to the topic being discussed.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
There's no pleasant buzz other than of the sort you get from removing a shoe that's been on too tight for an hour.
Great news for you anyway that smoking turned you off straightaway and so you didn't get hooked. With me, I'm afraid that wasn't the case. I thought it looked cool - still do tbh - and my first few cigs as a teenager didn't make me cough enough to counteract that.
Question is, as a lifelong addict does my opinion on this carry a special weight? Is my support for banning smoking the equivalent of the pacifism of the returning soldier? I think perhaps it is.
Anyone who thinks cigarettes give a 'pleasant buzz' beyond the head rush you get when you first try them simply hasn't lived. Nicotine is an utterly pointless drug, and one of the most dangerous. Sir Keir should ban it while legalising ecstasy (...available only over the bar in licensed pubs!)
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
Pro tip.
Do you know what you should do if your partner starts smoking?
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Some people say that smoking causes a measurable increase in IQ.
Well I've puffed about a quarter of a million so I ought to be Einstein by now.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
How guilty should I feel about this? ...
Extremely. I hope you've lead an exemplary life since in order to make amends.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
How guilty should I feel about this? ...
Real men smoke cigars.
I may smoke may one or two a year.
Cigarettes are for pussies.
I've seen that show in Bangkok....
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did a variation of that Bangkok show.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
How guilty should I feel about this? ...
Real men smoke cigars.
I may smoke may one or two a year.
Cigarettes are for pussies.
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider anew— Old friends, and who is Maggie that I should abandon you?
A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke; And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke.
Light me another Cuba—I hold to my first-sworn vows. If Maggie will have no rival, I’ll have no Maggie for Spouse!
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
There's no pleasant buzz other than of the sort you get from removing a shoe that's been on too tight for an hour.
Great news for you anyway that smoking turned you off straightaway and so you didn't get hooked. With me, I'm afraid that wasn't the case. I thought it looked cool - still do tbh - and my first few cigs as a teenager didn't make me cough enough to counteract that.
Question is, as a lifelong addict does my opinion on this carry a special weight? Is my support for banning smoking the equivalent of the pacifism of the returning soldier? I think perhaps it is.
All of my friends at school smoked. And then in sixth form I got a whole new set of friends. Who also took up smoking. Maybe it was my natural contrariness that kept me off smoking, despite it looking cool. (Similarly, I resisted when one by one they all got an ear pierced.)
I had to make to with the passive coolness caught from hanging round with smokers.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
There's no pleasant buzz other than of the sort you get from removing a shoe that's been on too tight for an hour.
Great news for you anyway that smoking turned you off straightaway and so you didn't get hooked. With me, I'm afraid that wasn't the case. I thought it looked cool - still do tbh - and my first few cigs as a teenager didn't make me cough enough to counteract that.
Question is, as a lifelong addict does my opinion on this carry a special weight? Is my support for banning smoking the equivalent of the pacifism of the returning soldier? I think perhaps it is.
Anyone who thinks cigarettes give a 'pleasant buzz' beyond the head rush you get when you first try them simply hasn't lived. Nicotine is an utterly pointless drug, and one of the most dangerous. Sir Keir should ban it while legalising ecstasy (...available only over the bar in licensed pubs!)
Yes that rush you get when your system first discovers nicotine doesn't last long. I started at 15 and by the time I went to uni it had reduced to a compulsive periodic crushing of the pangs, no different from a seasoned addict, separated only in time from the old guy in the snug with the rollies and the yellowing beard.
There was also the info a couple of weeks back that someone had posted a thread on TwiX titled 'Can my husband find out it how I voted', (showing that they couldn't) which had 8 million views in less than a week. Those husbands aren't going to be Harris voters, are they?
They could be women with very conservative husbands who want to vote for Dem because of abortion but don't want their husbands finding out.
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
How guilty should I feel about this? ...
Real men smoke cigars.
I may smoke may one or two a year.
Cigarettes are for pussies.
I've seen that show in Bangkok....
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did a variation of that Bangkok show.
Nearly put me off cigars.
I thought he used the cigar so she wouldn’t bang cock?
Comments
Should it be illegal to smoke a joint in a pub garden, while planning an invasion of the Houses of Parliament, using an encrypted social media app?
If we say it means
Harris 380+ EC votes
Harris 310-379 EC votes
Harris 270-309 EC votes
Trump 270- 309 EC votes
Trump 310-379 EC votes
Trump 380+ EC votes
269-269 tie (favours Trump)
It's actually really hard for Trump to get over 380 EC votes so far as I can see - maybe 2% rather than 5% . Harris to get over 380 would mean her winning all the swing states and Florida and Texas (for example), so unlikely but not as hard, maybe 10% is roughly right, maybe a bit more.
And the conditions associated with it - diabetes especially - start costing large amounts both in healthcare and lost productivity, long before end of life costs.
The calculations twenty years ago for smokers showed a net benefit to the exchequer; more recent studies show a significant net cost (but only after taking into account things like lost productivity).
It's a complicated question, and the results depend much on the assumptions underlying the studies. Some recent ones include QALYs in the equation - which of course shows a much higher cost.
As far as obesity is concerned, the calculations showed a net cost, even two decades ago.
Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump 45% to 41% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that showed the vice president sparking new enthusiasm among voters and shaking up the race ahead of the Nov. 5 election
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1829138210217156882
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWq8zH5GjA0
Some of them post on here.
Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
The pro-cash propaganda gets weirder daily.
https://news.sky.com/story/money-blog-latest-consumer-13040934
Smoking has never been a net gain to the Treasury, simply because the alternative (no smoking and taxing something else instead) can be fiscally neutral and the cash obtained can be spent on something else.
@AaronBastani 10:31 PM · Jun 12, 2023
In Arizona for example they have Trump ahead of Harris by 2% among women voters (though I think that might be a typo, as it has Harris/Trump listed the other way round for Georgia, directly underneath).
Women voters
AZ: Trump 50%, Harris 48%
GA: Harris 54%, Trump 44%
The Fox News poll has her winning that demographic 52-44.
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/08/Fox_August-23-26-2024_Arizona_Cross-Tabs_August-28-Release.pdf
Even assuming a typo, Emerson have a Harris lead of 2% among women voters, and the Fox poll an 8% lead.
The two pollsters must have far different sampling/adjustments to come up with such different results in a demographic which represents half of the entire sample.
That's why I'm sceptical about US polling.
Today I’m mildly pro on the beer garden smoking ban because I’m sometimes tempted to smoke in beer gardens.
Dr John Campbell.
https://www.youtube.com/@Campbellteaching/videos
@CricketWyvern aka David Paton.
https://x.com/cricketwyvern
These days, though, they all tend to come up with a net cost to society, across the globe.
Interpreting results, impacts and implications from WHO FCTC tobacco control investment cases in 21 low-income and middle-income countries
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11103323/
It also was not Heidfeld's fault; the red flag came out too late, and there were no waved double-yellow flags. The Ferrari got through because he had a better view of the MC car moving across the track; Heidfeld arrived later, when the MC was behind the wreck.
Currently the gov are not offering grants if you can do both.
Add solar panels and you have a free to run cooling system. But it requires a bit of faffing about to set it up.
Every US presidential candidate, certainly since Carter, has done their first TV interview along with their VP candidate.
Watters, who interviewed Trump and Vance together, attacks Harris for doing an interview with Walz
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1828950610387054687
As per Carter's former speechwriter.
Correct. It is NORMAL practice for the first big interview, after a VP pick, to be nominee AND running mate.
Saw this first-hand starting with J Carter / W Mondale long ago.
https://x.com/JamesFallows/status/1828860856995905947
I once did a much shorter hot lap at Thruxton in the passenger seat of a touring car, and it was seriously impressive just how much speed the pro driver can take into a corner in a proper race car.
Fun fact. The ‘Ring Taxi used to do about five laps on a set of tyres, and they changed the brakes at lunchtime and in the evening. You wouldn’t want to buy a used one!
NEW: Catherine Smith KC - youngest daughter of former Labour leader John Smith - has been made a life peer in order to become the new Advocate General for Scotland.
The main* issue is that the sample sizes are really small. Just 800 for the Georgia poll, which is then ~400 for women and even less once you strip out don't knows, etc. The confidence intervals are so large that the difference between the two polls isn't close to being statistically significant.
* Besides the obvious one of the non-response bias and the impossibility of obtaining a truly random sample.
I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions.
[Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
Media should have long ago stopped taking them seriously.
https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/quitting-smoking-vaping/quitting-tobacco-facts-and-stats#:~:text=Most smokers — nearly 70% —,make quit attempts each year.
The problem is prohibition doesn't work and causes more problems than it solves.
Smoking is bad and I'd like to see it eliminated, but I'd rather cannabis, cocaine, LSD, MDMA etc were legalised and sold alongside nicotine behind a counter at ASDA etc, than see nicotine criminalised.
https://www.270towin.com/
"Growing evidence suggests that the cognitive enhancement effects of nicotine may also contribute to the difficulty of quitting smoking"
There's a fallacy to be overcome, though, in that many smokers will say things like 'it relaxes me' when the relaxation is actually just the removal of the craving caused by the nicotine addiction. You quell the pangs with a cig, ah bisto!, then the clock restarts and the pangs build again until you light the next one an hour or so later. And on we go. Relax, bit tense, more tense, very tense, relax, bit tense, more tense, very tense, relax ...
You're using cigs to gain relief from what the cigs themselves are creating.
"In May this year, @LordPeterHendy pressured my now-former employer @SYSTRA_UKIRL to sack me by threatening them.
Why did he do this? Because I'd highlighted safety and accessibility issues at Euston station. He is unfit for office and should resign."
https://x.com/GarethDennis/status/1829036280996315637
I doubt it, for various reasons. But it's not a good look.
That is not quite the same thing.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
Can you show any evidence of this "measurable increase" considering its "measurable" or were you talking total shit?
It's a shame, because his appointment was one of those that promised the new government would quickly get on and get things done.
And they also allow intimidation, especially within a family. So women (and some men) are right to ask whether their spouse (or parents) can know how they voted.
(Given the different voting systems used in the different states -- and the large differences between men and women in this election, it might be possible to get a rough estimate of intimidation by comparing results between states that have all-mail elections and states that mostly vote in person.)
For the record: My home state, Washington, has been using all-mail ballots for years now. I don't know of any serious examples of either vote fraud or intimidation, though, of course, both are hard to investigate.
Nicotine has recently been shown to enhance measures of information processing speed including the decision time (DT) component of simple and choice reaction time and the string length measure of evoked potential waveform complexity. Both (DT and string length) have been previously demonstrated to correlate with performance on standard intelligence tests (IQ). We therefore hypothesised that nicotine is acting to improve intellectual performance on the elementary information processing correlates of IQ. In the current experiment we tested this hypothesis using the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) test. APM scores were significantly higher in the smoking session compared to the non-smoking session, suggesting that nicotine acts to enhance physiological processes underlying performance on intellectual tasks.
Great news for you anyway that smoking turned you off straightaway and so you didn't get hooked. With me, I'm afraid that wasn't the case. I thought it looked cool - still do tbh - and my first few cigs as a teenager didn't make me cough enough to counteract that.
Question is, as a lifelong addict does my opinion on this carry a special weight? Is my support for banning smoking the equivalent of the pacifism of the returning soldier? I think perhaps it is.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051012231439.htm
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/are-non-smokers-smarter-than-smokers-idUSTRE61M3UQ/
Gareth Dennis is an interesting and knowledgeable chap - I often watch his videos - but he is a *very* political animal. One of the thing that spoils his videos are where he goes somewhat over-the-top (from my perspective) on politics that is, at best, tangential to the topic being discussed.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
Do you know what you should do if your partner starts smoking?
Slow down and/or use lubrication.
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
How guilty should I feel about this? ...
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
I may smoke may one or two a year.
Cigarettes are for pussies.
Nearly put me off cigars.
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider anew—
Old friends, and who is Maggie that I should abandon you?
A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke.
Light me another Cuba—I hold to my first-sworn vows.
If Maggie will have no rival, I’ll have no Maggie for Spouse!
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/august-2024-swing-state-polls-toss-up-presidential-election-in-swing-states/
And then in sixth form I got a whole new set of friends. Who also took up smoking. Maybe it was my natural contrariness that kept me off smoking, despite it looking cool. (Similarly, I resisted when one by one they all got an ear pierced.)
I had to make to with the passive coolness caught from hanging round with smokers.
Harris ahead by 5% is important.
"Rachel Reeves has begun slashing billions from education and health spending, ahead of further harsh cuts expected in a "painful" budget."
Reeves is making cuts that will “really scrape the bone”. She said: "public spending is not sustainable".
Plus of course the national polls overestimated Biden's lead in 2020 as they likely are overestimating Harris's lead now.
The final RCP national poll average in 2020 had Biden 7.2% ahead but his final national lead was only 4.5%
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2020/trump-vs-biden