Sunak wants to phase out legal smoking

[UnderOpenSky]

At what point do we tell them in fuck off?

 

[BristolEcho]

Fulck vaping and fuck smoking. That is all.

Why though?

I get it's not your substance of choice, but why hold it to that much disdain. I don't smoke either by the way.

This new policy is a joke too, but completely unsurprising.

 

[Cerv]

Nope - A UK unit is the total volume of the drink multiplied by the ABV (Alcohol percentage By Volume) then divided by 1000

you said no, but then the rest of that sentence agrees with what I said.
the concentration of alcohol per volume X volume = the amount of alcohol.

Also the typical unit amounts often used to "advise" people on safe consumption are based on very general estimates and don't take into account that different brands/versions of a drink can have a fairly wide ABV range, esp at the cheaper/poorer quality/higher strength end of the market that MUP targets hardest.

I've seldom if ever seen a clear explanation of the difference in units/ABV between say, cider and (much stronger) white cider.

So yes, more codswallop.

that's why every drink packaging comes with its own specific unit measure printed on.
states what that particular drink is. as opposed to the 'typical' average for that kind of drink.

 

[Elpenor]

I think it’s absolutely right that the UK govt should take preventative measures restricting sales against industries that cause harm and deaths, I believe smoking is in the region of 75k deaths per year so I fully expect them to legislate on the arms industry next.

 

[pogofish]

you said no, but then the rest of that sentence agrees with what I said.
the concentration of alcohol per volume X volume = the amount of alcohol.



that's why every drink packaging comes with its own specific unit measure printed on.
states what that particular drink is. as opposed to the 'typical' average for that kind of drink.

It is still quite meaningless without proper understanding and application.

Yes, and when you get to know that, you start to notice the often considerable discrepancies between "advice" and reality. We have at least one past thread here that demonstrates this confusion perfectly!

 

[Sasaferrato]

Its no exaggeration that the excess cost of MUP does nothing to help alleviate alcohol-related issues or suffering. Its a purely prohibitonist/commercial innovation!

None of the main issues MUP was supposed to address have been proven effectively - some have even got worse despite it. If the extra money it raises had been put towards relieving the problem, I could have possibly got behind it


Alcohol units are a load of codswallop! Dreamed-up by some policy committee with no significant scientific/medical basis.

We've been through this before - The old link I've posted has gone dead but the quote remains:

I feel that there must have been some measure of scientific basis and research, why would the suggested maximum for men drop from 21 to 14 otherwise?

 

[pogofish]

I think it’s absolutely right that the UK govt should take preventative measures restricting sales against industries that cause harm and deaths, I believe smoking is in the region of 75k deaths per year so I fully expect them to legislate on the arms industry next.

When it comes to legislation on non-toxic materials in bullets, torpedos etc, the UK arms industry were years ahead - IIRC as far back as the late 1990s.

There was at one point an "award" for the most environmentally-friendly torpedo made. Yes, it may be headed straight for the side of a supertanker but nothing in our torpedos is going to damage the environment!

 

[Sasaferrato]

There is a very simple way to work out the 'units' in a volume of alcohol.

A unit is 25ml at 40%.

So, if you have 440ml of beer at 5%, that is 220ml at 10%, 110ml at 20%, 55ml at 40%. So your can of beer contains 2.2 units of alcohol.

 

[pogofish]

I feel that there must have been some measure of scientific basis and research, why would the suggested maximum for men drop from 21 to 14 otherwise?

They raised the need for a means of quantification at one meeting and left the meeting with it fully worked out!

Since then, little IIRC and again, mostly to fit it to someone else's agenda. I remember it was first dropped for women around the time "Laddette" culture became a thing in the 1990s. I think men's may have been adjusted alongside to suit.

 

[brogdale]

There is a very simple way to work out the 'units' in a volume of alcohol.

A unit is 25ml at 40%.

So, if you have 440ml of beer at 5%, that is 220ml at 10%, 110ml at 20%, 55ml at 40%. So your can of beer contains 2.2 units of alcohol.

That’s very informative and useful Sass, but after a certain point in the day I’d find that very far from simple!

 

[editor]

Why though?

I get it's not your substance of choice, but why hold it to that much disdain. I don't smoke either by the way.

This new policy is a joke too, but completely unsurprising.

Here's why:

Smoking is a leading cause of preventable illness and death. There were 506,100 hospital admissions due to smoking in 2019/20, and in 2019 there were 74,800 deaths attributed to smoking among adults aged 35 and over.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7648/

It's a vile, corrupt industry that's happy to profit out of people's misery.

And although vaping may help some people give up smoking the hideous industry behind it is busy marketing it as the next cool thing, hooking in young kids and providing mountains and mountains of electronic waste

 

[BristolEcho]

Here's why:



It's a vile, corrupt industry that's happy to profit out of people's misery.

And although vaping may help some people give up smoking the hideous industry behind it is busy marketing it as the next cool thing, hooking in young kids and providing mountains and mountains of electronic waste

Sure the industry is corrupt, but it's better to highlight that specifically rather than the substance itself.

 

[editor]

Sure the industry is corrupt, but it's better to highlight that specifically rather than the substance itself.

Tobacco is stuffed full of dangerous additives.

Tobacco smoke is made up of thousands of chemicals, including at least 70 known to cause cancer. These cancer-causing chemicals are referred to as carcinogens. Some of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke include:

• Nicotine (the addictive drug that produces the effects in the brain that people are looking for)
• Hydrogen cyanide
• Formaldehyde
• Lead
• Arsenic
• Ammonia
• Radioactive elements, such as polonium-210 (see below)
• Benzene
• Carbon monoxide
• Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Many of these substances cause cancer. Some can cause heart disease, lung disease, or other serious health problems, too. Most of the substances come from the burning tobacco leaves themselves, not from additives included in cigarettes (or other tobacco products).

Radioactive materials in tobacco smoke​

Radioactive materials are in the tobacco leaves used to make cigarettes and cigars. These materials come from the fertilizer and soil used to grow the tobacco leaves, so the amount in tobacco depends on the soil the plants were grown in and the type of fertilizers used. These radioactive materials are given off in the smoke when tobacco is burned, which people who smoke take into their lungs as they inhale. This may be another key factor in people who smoke getting lung cancer.

Harmful Chemicals in Tobacco Products

Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals, including over 70 known to cause cancer (carcinogens). Learn more here.

www.cancer.org

 

[lazythursday]

They raised the need for a means of quantification at one meeting and left the meeting with it fully worked out!

Since then, little IIRC and again, mostly to fit it to someone else's agenda. I remember it was first dropped for women around the time "Laddette" culture became a thing in the 1990s. I think men's may have been adjusted alongside to suit.

Quite clearly trying to define a 'safe' level of alcohol consumption is always going to be a bit of a finger in the air (even though there is a great deal of scientific evidence about alcohol harms) not least because it will differ widely from person to person according to all sorts of factors. But it seems pretty clear that it's a toxic substance and any amount is potentially harmful - so there needs to be some sort of guidance that helps people at least have something to aim for or judge their drinking against.

People who get really wound up by alcohol units are pretty much always problem drinkers trying to justify their consumption to themselves, in my experience.

 

[moochedit]

There is a very simple way to work out the 'units' in a volume of alcohol.

A unit is 25ml at 40%.

So, if you have 440ml of beer at 5%, that is 220ml at 10%, 110ml at 20%, 55ml at 40%. So your can of beer contains 2.2 units of alcohol.

Isn't a unit supposed to be the amount the body gets rid of in an hour? (No idea if that is true or how reliable the science is)

 

[pogofish]

Isn't a unit supposed to be the amount the body gets rid of in an hour? (No idea if that is true or how reliable the science is)

Nope - I've quoted the C&V above.

But yes, I have seen/heard that one trotted-out and it is as inaccurate as any of the other bollocks talked about alcohol units. There are quite a few factors that influence alcohol metabolism between individuals that cannot be reduced to "one unit = one hour"

 

[pogofish]

Quite clearly trying to define a 'safe' level of alcohol consumption is always going to be a bit of a finger in the air (even though there is a great deal of scientific evidence about alcohol harms) not least because it will differ widely from person to person according to all sorts of factors. But it seems pretty clear that it's a toxic substance and any amount is potentially harmful - so there needs to be some sort of guidance that helps people at least have something to aim for or judge their drinking against.

People who get really wound up by alcohol units are pretty much always problem drinkers trying to justify their consumption to themselves, in my experience.

Alcohol units have everything to do with policy and little or nothing to do with harm. At least that's the road RWJF and SHAAP are driving us down. They stopped investing or taking an active interest in practical care or treatment solutions a good while ago in order to concentrate on the bigger battle to drive policy and ultimately legislation. RWJF are particularly proud of the amount of smoking-related legislation they have influenced and been able to have pushed-through world wide.

Or people who don't like to see influential medical pressure groups trying to get them written into law despite the lack of any meaningful science. Its not like we have not made that mistake before, eg certain drugs, "five-a-day" and so-on.

 

[Serge Forward]

There is a very simple way to work out the 'units' in a volume of alcohol.

A unit is 25ml at 40%.

So, if you have 440ml of beer at 5%, that is 220ml at 10%, 110ml at 20%, 55ml at 40%. So your can of beer contains 2.2 units of alcohol.

So, a single whisky is a unit... hmm... I might need to re-assess my recreational drink choices.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I noticed on the news they said how much it costs the NHS to treat smoking related diseases but didn't say how much tax on tobacco raised. Last I saw tax raised more than treatment cost.

Also if people die earlier they claim less state pension.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Is there a thread on that, because I find it a very odd story.

It's that mad hellbeast Katherine Birbalsingh again.

 

[SpookyFrank]

When it comes to legislation on non-toxic materials in bullets, torpedos etc, the UK arms industry were years ahead - IIRC as far back as the late 1990s.

There was at one point an "award" for the most environmentally-friendly torpedo made. Yes, it may be headed straight for the side of a supertanker but nothing in our torpedos is going to damage the environment!

Non-toxic bullets. Eco-friendly torpedoes. And next, nuclear bombs that respect everyone's pronouns.

 

[belboid]

I noticed on the news they said how much it costs the NHS to treat smoking related diseases but didn't say how much tax on tobacco raised. Last I saw tax raised more than treatment cost.

£10 billion - Tobacco statistics commentary January 2024

Cost to the NHS is only one part of the overall 'costs' of tobacco, totals I have seen vary from £12.6B a year to £20.6B

 

[PTK]

Tobacco is stuffed full of dangerous additives.

Harmful Chemicals in Tobacco Products

Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals, including over 70 known to cause cancer (carcinogens). Learn more here.

www.cancer.org

Mind you, bananas are also radioactive.

I agree with that you say about tobacco. I imagine that cannabis smoking is not very good for the body either.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Isn't a unit supposed to be the amount the body gets rid of in an hour? (No idea if that is true or how reliable the science is)

yes, the body breaks down a unit an hour... but... this is in regular drinkers. A little more for the less experienced.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Mind you, bananas are also radioactive.

I agree with that you say about tobacco. I imagine that cannabis smoking is not very good for the body either.

In these new worlds of legalised and not so legalised cannabis, smoking it is getting far less popular.

 

[InArduisFouette]

Also there is the whole matter of "alcohol units" being a complete and utterly fictitious swizz to begin with.

they are neither ficticious or a swizz,

1 unit =10 ml of 'pure' ( i.e. rectified spirits of 95 to 97.2 % alcohol by volume ) ethyl alcohol

 

[InArduisFouette]

Its no exaggeration that the excess cost of MUP does nothing to help alleviate alcohol-related issues or suffering. Its a purely prohibitonist/commercial innovation!

None of the main issues MUP was supposed to address have been proven effectively - some have even got worse despite it. If the extra money it raises had been put towards relieving the problem, I could have possibly got behind it


Alcohol units are a load of codswallop! Dreamed-up by some policy committee with no significant scientific/medical basis.

We've been through this before - The old link I've posted has gone dead but the quote remains:

You appear to confusing the clear and documented Scientific basis of the 'unit ' of alcohol with the consumption guidelines and the level of consumption at which government / industry/ health bodies deem the adverse effects are sufficiently low as not to be a health issue for the vast majority of adults

 

[lazythursday]

Alcohol units have everything to do with policy and little or nothing to do with harm. At least that's the road RWJF and SHAAP are driving us down. They stopped investing or taking an active interest in practical care or treatment solutions a good while ago in order to concentrate on the bigger battle to drive policy and ultimately legislation. RWJF are particularly proud of the amount of smoking-related legislation they have influenced and been able to have pushed-through world wide.

Or people who don't like to see influential medical pressure groups trying to get them written into law despite the lack of any meaningful science. Its not like we have not made that mistake before, eg certain drugs, "five-a-day" and so-on.

I don't think anyone here wants to see units enforced in some way and I've never heard of a medical organisation suggesting this (though completely willing to believe SHHAP did though it seems a long time ago without trace,)

The idea that giving people guidelines on usage is a slippery slope to prohibition seems bonkers and conspiratorial to me. There's plenty of meaningful evidence on alcohol harm. And tbh I'm glad we've got medical groups who have changed the dial on smoking as otherwise we'd still have fags in the office and on the bus (and I smoke still, on and off, regrettably).

 

[BristolEcho]

Tobacco is stuffed full of dangerous additives.

Harmful Chemicals in Tobacco Products

Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals, including over 70 known to cause cancer (carcinogens). Learn more here.

www.cancer.org

I help people with Tobacco and other substance use so I am aware of the risks. Regardless I don't think it's helpful to make comments like yours that can stigmatise people that choose to use them.

I'd feel the same if someone wrote "Fuck Ketamine" it's just stupid, but carry on.

I don't think anyone here wants to see units enforced in some way and I've never heard of a medical organisation suggesting this (though completely willing to believe SHHAP did though it seems a long time ago without trace,)

The idea that giving people guidelines on usage is a slippery slope to prohibition seems bonkers and conspiratorial to me. There's plenty of meaningful evidence on alcohol harm. And tbh I'm glad we've got medical groups who have changed the dial on smoking as otherwise we'd still have fags in the office and on the bus (and I smoke still, on and off, regrettably).

I agree with this by the way. I feel that what has helped with smoking has been the removing of advertising, giving people alternatives, and making people aware of the risks. It went to far the other way with tobacco (as with alcohol) which has slowly been turned around, but there is a balance without outright banning it.

 

[editor]

I help people with Tobacco and other substance use so I am aware of the risks. Regardless I don't think it's helpful to make comments like yours that can stigmatise people that choose to use them.

I stigmatise the industry, not its victims.