Farage against plain cigarette packaging...

Original post by Infraspecies

I don't think he likes being reminded that it isn't the 1950's anymore.

So what's changed to make the intrusive restriction of liberties more palatable now compared to then?

Letting companies brand their products is not a worn out idea, but nanny-statism certainly should be.

Reply 102

Infraspecies

Original post by BitWindy

Intrusive restriction of liberties like; sodomy laws, vast stigmas against women in work, et cetera?

Yes, trying to legislate to make cigarettes -things that literally only cause harm to yourself and people around you and cost the state massive amounts of money in tax to treat the culminating health defects associated- less attractive to consumers is nanny-statism to the highest degree. It really spits in the face of 50's freedom of spirit and ****.

Reply 103

Davij038

Original post by Infraspecies

I don't really have an opinion on the matter, (which is unlike me!)

but a number of studies have shown that people smoking actually saves the state money as it kills people earlier!

Reply 104

The_Mighty_Bush

Original post by Davij038

I don't really have an opinion on the matter, (which is unlike me!)

but a number of studies have shown that people smoking actually saves the state money as it kills people earlier!

This is an important point. But it isn't necessary to show that smoking makes the state money and that is because the 77% percent taxation easily covers the costs to the NHS.

Reply 105

Original post by Infraspecies

All you're doing by drawing attention to sodomy laws is demonstrating that your original comment was ridiculous. Besides, mere "stigma" is nothing to do with the state.

And, yes, it is nanny-statism. I really don't know how you can interpret it otherwise. You dislike the fact that there is a demand for products you don't like, so you think these products should be prohibited/restricted with state force. That flies in the face of the very spirit of freedom.

Reply 106

The_Mighty_Bush

Original post by Infraspecies

Again you post something completely wrong and ill-informed. Your prejudices betray your ability to reason.

Smoking makes the state money, not the other way around. In any case why does that even matter? You are not the state, you receive very little benefit of this. The state spends far more than it actually receives in taxation. If you don't want to pay for people who get smoking-related diseases then you should be in favour of the abolition of socialised healthcare.

Smokers already have been subjected to plenty of policies designed to make it less attractive to consumers and the prevalence of smoking is historically low. So why is even more intrusive and anti-liberal action needed? It is nanny statism to a high degree. I wouldn't say the highest degree because nanny state policies against fat, sugar, alcohol, etc. will only likely increase in the future due to politicians liking having more power, state-funded public health lobbyists liking having jobs and self-righteous people liking controlling others through the power of state violence.

Reply 107

Original post by BitWindy

So what's changed to make the intrusive restriction of liberties more palatable now compared to then?

Any idea what UKIPs drug policy might be? I heard they favour the Singapore approach .

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 108

Original post by n00

Any idea what UKIPs drug policy might be? I heard they favour the Singapore approach .

We're talking about Farage, not just UKIP policy.

He largely supports legalisation, UKIP drugs policy is unclear at the moment, though I doubt it's anywhere near to the Singapore approach.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 109

Original post by BitWindy

We're talking about Farage, not just UKIP policy.

He largely supports legalisation, UKIP drugs policy is unclear at the moment, though I doubt it's anywhere near to the Singapore approach.

Nigel Farage

UKIP as a party takes the same view as Hitchens, that we haven't really enforced the law properly and that we have to get generally tougher.

What makes this intrusive restriction of liberties palatable to Farage? :s-smilie:

I mean that sounds an awful lot more of an intrusive restriction of liberties than not allowing the tobacco industry to sell their highly addictive drugs in fancy fag packets.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 110

Original post by n00

What makes the intrusive restriction of liberties palatable to Farage? :s-smilie:

Here are the parts either side of your quote from that interview, which you conveniently left out.

Nigel Farage

Hitchens and I disagree on this fundamentally [...] My own view is different [from that of UKIP]. I think the war on drugs was lost many years ago. The history of prohibition, as we saw in America, we know is disastrous. I feel the more we can do to take drugs out of the hands of the racketeers the better. [Need I point out the strong implication of legalisation here?]

From another interview with the Telegraph:

Nigel Farage

I personally think that the war on drugs was lost many, many years ago and that the lives of millions of people in Britain are being made miserable by the huge criminal element that surrounds the illicit drugs trade. I do think that Portugal does show us that there is perhaps a better, more enlightened way to deal with this. [That way being one of greater liberalisation] I just have a feeling that the criminalisation of all of these drugs is not helping British society.

Besides, all of this is missing the point of the post you were replying to. The idea that Farage took his stance on cigarette packaging for that reason is ridiculous. It would imply that something has changed to make that action acceptable now where it wasn't in the '50s.

Original post by n00

I mean that sounds an awful lot more of an intrusive restriction of liberties than not allowing the tobacco industry to sell their highly addictive drugs in fancy fag packets

Both the prohibition of drugs and the restriction of tobacco packaging are highly intrusive. Trying to trivialise the latter by highlighting the parts of the product you dislike ("highly addictive") and downplaying the inhibited process ("fancy fag packets") makes you sound like you have a chip on your shoulder about other people making money via methods that you simply don't like. That's pretty pathetic :rolleyes:

Reply 111

Original post by BitWindy

Here are the parts either side of your quote from that interview, which you conveniently left out.

From another interview with the Telegraph:

Besides, all of this is missing the point of the post you were replying to. The idea that Farage took his stance on cigarette packaging for that reason is ridiculous. It would imply that something has changed to make that action acceptable now where it wasn't in the '50s.

Yeah Farage says he's against the war on drugs and claims to be all about liberty but he's still the leader of a party with the most authoritarian drug policies in the country. He's here fighting for the right of pushers of one drug to be able to use fancy packaging while supporting policy that would not only imprison others simply for possession of far less harmful drugs, but hugely increase those sentences. He's not a libertarian and this isn't about liberty.

Original post by BitWindy

Oh come off it, one is far, far, far more of an intrusive restriction of liberties than the other, for some reason Farage cares far more for the relatively petty issue of fag packets.

Original post by BitWindy

makes you sound like you have a chip on your shoulder about other people making money via methods that you simply don't like. That's pretty pathetic :rolleyes:

Just trying to get things in perspective. :wink:

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the tobacco industry making money. I'm a smoker, i've benefited from tobacco sales and would very much like to be able to make money selling other drugs myself, but i'd also be more than happy to rely on the quality of my drugs to do the selling.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 112

Original post by n00

Isn't meds/tablet packaging already highly regulated? Seems reasonable.

Yep, thank **** we don't get constantly bombarded by those antidepressant and viagra ads they get in the states.

so basically, you'd rather comfort than freedom.

Reply 113

Original post by zippity.doodah

so basically, you'd rather comfort than freedom.

Nar freedom all the way. I want the freedom to do drugs if i want and the freedom not to have them pushed on me.

Reply 114

Original post by n00

Nar freedom all the way. I want the freedom to do drugs if i want and the freedom not to have them pushed on me.

so negating someone's freedom of speech via the government = freedom...? how is blocking someone's liberty a liberty in itself? do I have a right to not look at adverts full-stop in this case? therefore, should all adverts be banned because I don't like them? I'm using your same logic

Reply 115

Original post by zippity.doodah

Oh man, you're right, there's a bit of a conflict there isn't there. How do we decide which freedom is more important. :s-smilie:

Reply 116

Original post by n00

Oh man, you're right, there's a bit of a conflict there isn't there. How do we decide which freedom is more important. :s-smilie:

what are you talking about? either you have freedom or you don't. one is freedom, the other is authority/a "right" handed down to you by a government which violates freedom (because every citizen is equal with freedom in mind). you having a right (not a liberty) to have the government protect you from adverts at the expense of someone's liberty is not a freedom. a freedom is something that doesn't cost anybody anything (e.g. speech, private property, religion, assembly, etc) but clearly your need to be quilted by the government in't like this.

Reply 117

Original post by zippity.doodah

a freedom is something that doesn't cost anybody anything

Ah well that's sorted then, this isn't about freedom, pushing harmful and addictive drugs does cost somebody something.

Reply 118