Drivelling cocknobbery

Packets of ten cigarettes will be banned in the UK by 2016 after the European Parliament voted in favour of tough new anti-smoking rules governing the tobacco market.

The raft of new measures also include the introduction of mandatory picture and text health warnings covering about two-thirds of cigarette packs in an effort to reduce the number of smokers by 2.4 million.

There will also be a ban on flavoured cigarettes such as menthol varieties.

And just to show that these people really are drowning in their own syphilitic puss there’s this:

a maximum nicotine-concentration level for e-cigarettes.

Limitations on the most effective known method of people stopping smoking?

And, may I ask, what the hell has this got to do with stopping Germany from invading France again?

30 thoughts on “Drivelling cocknobbery”

  1. If you look at newsreels of the time, in both WW1 & WW2 almost everyone is smoking.

    Since correlation is exactly the same as causation, soldiers could not fight wars without cigarettes.

    So, by our dear leaders’ impeccable logic: ‘if you ban smoking, you also ban the possibility of wars’.

    /sarc

  2. Fact: it was German doctors who first established that smoking causes lung cancer, and the Nazi government was the first to discourage smoking. Therefore smoking is good for you. But it does cause syphilis in cats.

  3. Funny old world. Try and reduce the consumption of soft drinks by limiting their size. Try and reduce the consumption of cigarettes by doing the exact opposite. No 10 packs but hey, you can still buy a carton of 200.

    What next? No more halves of bitter. No more minibars. Kitkats to be sold in multipacks only.

  4. Good or bad, smoking is peoples own business not the business of political and bureaucratic scum–esp scum who exempt themselves from the operation of their own tyranny. And it was indeed state-over-the-individual Nazi shite who first attacked smoking. Socialism is, and always will be, far more dangerous and evil than ciggie smoke.

  5. @PaulB
    …But it does cause syphilis in cats…

    Excellent! That put a shine on this otherwise dull and rainy morning.

  6. @bilbaoboy

    You are too kind, but I think I am short a couple of fallacies:

    Please add:

    “And that is the view of all the scientists we have spoken to, and is only denied by Big Tobacco shills”

    P.S. I like syphilitic cats too!

  7. Take away my tabs and after a couple of hours I’ll invade France myself if I have to. Especially so if i think they’re hording some Camel Blue or Marlboro Lights!

  8. I DON’T UNDERSTAND.

    Is it big packs of things that are bad, or small packs? Because when it’s alcohol, exploiting economies of scale is bad (qv all newspapers) if it means that beer becomes cheaper than soft drinks. But apparently with fags, it’s good

    I don’t so much mind them being illiberal cocknobbers, because I already knew they were, so it doesn’t come as much of a surprise. But please, please, can they at least be consistent illiberal cocknobbers?

  9. > a maximum nicotine-concentration level for e-cigarettes

    Sorry, Tim, but that’s actually a fairly reasonable idea. Nicotine is extremely dangerous stuff — pour a high enough concentration of it on your skin and it’ll kill you. Since cigarettes are made of tobacco and nicotine only naturally occurs in tobacco at very small concentrations, such danger is simply not a consideration with natural cigarettes. In e-cigarettes, where the nicotine has been isolated from tobacco and is being delivered by itself, dangerous or even lethal concentrations are entirely doable. Lethal poisons seem like a reasonable target for regulation to me.

  10. ‘In e-cigarettes, where the nicotine has been isolated from tobacco and is being delivered by itself, dangerous or even lethal concentrations are entirely doable.’
    So how many people have died from inhaling an overdose of nicotine? Nonish?
    It is possible to die from drinking too much water and there have been deaths from such. Perhaps we should have an EU directive on the amount of water we can drink we each day.

  11. There’s no good reason why cigarette packet sizes, flavours, or packaging should be an EU competency. The only possible argument is that a single set of regulations makes compliance cheaper for manufacturers, and the savings are passed on to consumers. Given that the savings would be marginal, this argument shouldn’t outweigh the principle of subsidiarity.

    That said, it seems fairly self-evident that eliminating smaller packets will reduce overall consumption. By analogy, if every bar had a minimum spend of £20, then only those who intend to get drunk would go in. Would-be drinkers who only want (or can only afford) one or two drinks would be excluded. Total consumption would immediately be reduced.

    It’s not necessarily a desirable outcome, or even a desirable means, but it would certainly be effective.

  12. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    – Andrew

    That said, it seems fairly self-evident that eliminating smaller packets will reduce overall consumption.

    Bullshit. As a smoker of thirty years (no need to thank me for my massive ‘voluntary’ contributions to the Exchequer), I like to manage my addiction by buying cigarettes in 10s. I ration them to myself, keeping to my self-imposed limit of 10-a-day. Somedays my dealer only has packs of 20 and, being the feckless junkie that I am, on those days my consumption will rise depending upon my alcohol intake. Occasionally, I will go the whole hog and smoke all 20. If I am at all representative of ‘hardened’ smokers, and I have no reason to doubt that I am, then overall consumption will not fall.

    By the way, it is pointless to draw analogies with alcohol; different drug, different rules. However, if one must, a truer analogy would be for an alcoholic to visit his/her off-licence to purchase his/her daily half bottle of vodka, only to be told that he/she must now buy two day’s worth at a time. Of course, the hardened drinker would make a little mark on the bottle and stop right there when he/she reached their daily allowance. Nobody at all would drink into the next day’s ration, no sirree.

    From the Telegraph article, one of the new rules will include

    a ban on promotional elements, such saying “this product is free of additives” or is less harmful than other brands

    How is that helpful? What will be achieved by denying smokers the ability to differentiate between harmful and even-more-harmful brands?

    It appears the anti-smoking vendetta is not about health at all, it’s about spiteful, vindictive moralising.

  13. > So how many people have died from inhaling an overdose of nicotine?

    You’re suggesting regulation of a known lethal toxin must not happen until after someone’s been killed by it. That’s absurd. Can you explain why you don’t apply the same reasoning to medicine?

    > It is possible to die from drinking too much water

    Yes, but not because water’s a toxin; it isn’t. And it takes some real effort to drink enough to kill you, whilst accidentally delivering a lethal dose of pure nicotine is very easy.

    Secondly, I did not suggest that everything that is potentially lethal must be regulated. What I said was that, when the delivery of a lethal toxin is regulated, I see no reason to accuse the regulators of drowning in their own syphillitic pus. It’s just not an unreasonable sort of thing to regulate. Tim is assuming that the regulation is intended to limit the availability of e-cigarettes; I’m suggesting that it’s simply to ensure that a potentially extremely dangerous thing is kept safe. And they are potentially extremely dangerous.

    Mind you, I’ve not looked at what the actual regulatory concentration limit is, and would be entirely surprised to discover that the EC had fucked it up. But that’s just the usual incompetence.

  14. Witchsmeller Pursuivant,
    In both cases you refer to hardened smokers and hardened alcoholics. My point was about light or social smokers – they’re the ones whose behaviour will be modified by these new laws.

    Squander 2:

    From the horse’s mouth:
    http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2014/february/parliament-adopts-new-eu-tobacco-rules/79824.aspx
    “Cartridge size will be capped at 2ml. E-cigarettes will be limited to a maximum permitted nicotine concentration level of 20mg/ml, equivalent to roughly one pack of regular cigarettes.”

    The regulation seems unnecessary, since at present the vast majority of cartridges contain far less than that.

  15. “You’re suggesting regulation of a known lethal toxin must not happen until after someone’s been killed by it.”
    But where do you stop? Unless there’s another regulation appeared, I used to buy hydrofluoric acid. Neat stuff, dissolves glass. That’s seriously nasty. Get some penetrate your skin, the remedy’s to cut bits off. So what would I have to do? Apply in triplicate with officially validated reason for use, countersigned by a priest?
    FFS! We’re supposed to be adults. It’s hard to understand the “prescription drug” thing. You want to pump yourself full of insulin or slather yourself with cortisone, it’s your body.

    As for the ten cigs thing. Haven’t these people heard of markets? if there’s a demand for 10 fags someone will supply it. There’s already shops sell singles at big mark-ups. Just gives them more business.

  16. Pingback: Que seria de nós sem fotografias de pulmões dissecados? | BLASFÉMIAS

  17. By the by
    E-cig liquid is sold in 10ml & 30ml refill bottles. EU start buggering about with 2mg containers, it’ll be coming from the States in litres. They also sell 100% nicotine at $200 litre. Be a nice little earner, cut with the appropriate base. I’m tempted. It’s only an interweb away..

  18. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    Andrew – My point was about light or social smokers

    Is there such a thing as ‘social’ smoking anymore? Given that smoking where people socialise is completely forbidden, and smokers have the status of lepers. Light smokers will just continue to ponce fags off others, as always.

    Really, if someone’s going to not buy cigs cos you can only buy them in 20s instead of 10s, then they’re already not really smokers.

    You can defend it all you like, but you’ve yet to demonstrate the mechanism whereby consumption will fall at all.

  19. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    Bis – Haven’t these people heard of markets? if there’s a demand for 10 fags someone will supply it. There’s already shops sell singles at big mark-ups. Just gives them more business.

    You missed the memo declaring it verboten. Since 1st October 2007, it’s been illegal to sell loose cigarettes, they must be sold in their original packaging of 10, 20 or 25 with the required health warnings. The maximum fine for selling loose cigarettes is £1,000.

  20. @Witchsmeller Pursuivant
    Heavens! You’re right. I did. And the illegality of coke & the penalties for selling it mean it’s almost impossible to obtain. I mean. You’d have to know someone, sell you a wrap. How would that happen?

  21. @BiS – where I used to live in Hackney, the local kebab shop did a roaring trade in after hours cans of stella and ‘singles’.

    Re: your other point – it’s actually not that hard to get hold of coke in Singapore FFS!

  22. Andrew M,

    > The regulation seems unnecessary, since at present the vast majority of cartridges contain far less than that.

    In which case, Tim’s contention that the regulation will reduce the supply and use of e-cigarettes is nonsense.

    bloke in spain,

    > But where do you stop?

    Me? I don’t need to stop. I’m not doing anything. Again: I didn’t say I would pass this regulation; I just said that it’s not an insane or unreasonable regulation and that Tim is wrong about what it will achieve.

    > Unless there’s another regulation appeared, I used to buy hydrofluoric acid.

    Hydrofluoric acid is, quite rightly, covered by COSHH regulations. Sorry, what was your point?

  23. The point about HFl is it is indeed harmful. Very harmful. it’s also just a case of going & buying it ( At least it was the last time I did so. The liter bottle’s still half full) it’s my responsibility, as the purchaser, to treat it with appropriate caution.
    When it comes down to people not being regarded as responsible enough to buy themselves ten fags, someone’s lost the plot.

  24. “The regulation seems unnecessary, since at present the vast majority of cartridges (e-liquid) contain far less than that.” (2ml)

    This totally eludes me. The e-vaporiser I’m holding has a capacity marked at 1.6ml. I’ve an acquaintance who’s in the process of opening a chain of distributors over here. Over a hundred so far. I think there’s some in his range may have a slightly higher capacity. But the capacity of the vaporiser, if that’s what’s being referred to, is totally irrelevant. The e-liquid’s mostly sold in 10ml bottles. About 2/3 the size of an Optrex bottle. Topping up takes not much more time than lighting a cigarette.
    The only . “cartridges” i can think of are the replaceable “filter” ends of the rechargeable cigarette look alike models the pharmacies were selling, Which contain much less than 1ml, Or the sealed, use till they run out then discard, electronic cigarettes which are pretty well restricted to being a gateway introduction to vapeing. No-one ever buys two. Why would you at 5€+ as against 70 cents & a recharge of a battery?

  25. And it takes some real effort to drink enough to kill you, whilst accidentally delivering a lethal dose of pure nicotine is very easy.

    Then it would be a snap to cite at least a few instances of these “very easy” accidents, whut?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *