Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Ediswan]

It's not just possession that has been criminalised. Production or supply for anything other than legitimate medical/dental uses is also illegal.

And catering. There is a specifically banned use. All other (genuine) uses are legal.

The change is to make possesion for the banned use illegal. Production and supply was covered by existing legislation.

More detail here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nitrous-oxide-ban

We have updated the law to make possession of nitrous oxide illegal from 8 November 2023 if it is, or is likely to be, wrongfully inhaled

 

[jon0844]

I can't speak for the whole country, but for at least six months or more I've not seen a single NOS capsule or bottle lying around on a train, street, shopping centre, car park, nor seen any remnants of balloons.

Has the craze already died down long before legislation?

One must also ask what people have turned to, and I would have to imagine it's vaping. Now people are vaping on trains, buses, inside shops and fast-food restaurants.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Possession is really not the problem with soft drugs. It's unregulated dealing.

I guess you haven't had the delight of walking or cycling along roads that are totally littered with nitrous oxide canisters then Yes I realise drug users leaving litter isn't the top priority for the country, but it's certainly something that affects other people's lives to some extent. A possibly more serious issue is, when the people who use nitrous oxide extensively have wrecked their own health, whose taxes are going to be used to pay for the NHS to fix them up? And how many other people needing medical treatment will find they can't get it in good time because the doctors and nurses are too busy dealing with the impact of self-inflicted nitrous oxide health issues?

 

[takno]

I guess you haven't had the delight of walking or cycling along roads that are totally littered with nitrous oxide canisters then Yes I realise drug users leaving litter isn't the top priority for the country, but it's certainly something that affects other people's lives to some extent. A possibly more serious issue is, when the people who use nitrous oxide extensively have wrecked their own health, whose taxes are going to be used to pay for the NHS to fix them up? And how many other people needing medical treatment will find they can't get it in good time because the doctors and nurses are too busy dealing with the impact of self-inflicted nitrous oxide health issues?

Are there any very significant long-term health issues from it? In any case a pretty large proportion of everything doctors and nurses are dealing with is self-inflicted in one way or another. Not only does it seem odd to single out nox users for criticism over it, but you've got to wonder what they'll end up doing with themselves instead - the NHS won't end up ahead if it includes taking dangerous street drugs, or speeding around on e-scooters knocking down the infirm.

 

[JamesT]

Are there any very significant long-term health issues from it? In any case a pretty large proportion of everything doctors and nurses are dealing with is self-inflicted in one way or another. Not only does it seem odd to single out nox users for criticism over it, but you've got to wonder what they'll end up doing with themselves instead - the NHS won't end up ahead if it includes taking dangerous street drugs, or speeding around on e-scooters knocking down the infirm.

The report on the BBC News about the ban talked about repeated use damaging nerves in the spine.

And catering. There is a specifically banned use. All other (genuine) uses are legal.

The change is to make possesion for the banned use illegal. Production and supply was covered by existing legislation.

More detail here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nitrous-oxide-ban

I may be misinterpreting, but I’m reading it as a change of emphasis from only using it to get high (and supply or production for that purpose) being illegal, to anything other than the legitimate uses being illegal. From the page you linked to:

If in possession of nitrous oxide, it will be for the defendant to show that they fall within the scope of the exception, and so to demonstrate that they possess the drug for legitimate purposes.

The penalties for supply have been increased, I don’t know if this was explicit or a knock on effect of making it a Class C drug.

 

[nw1]

I guess you haven't had the delight of walking or cycling along roads that are totally littered with nitrous oxide canisters then Yes I realise drug users leaving litter isn't the top priority for the country, but it's certainly something that affects other people's lives to some extent. A possibly more serious issue is, when the people who use nitrous oxide extensively have wrecked their own health, whose taxes are going to be used to pay for the NHS to fix them up? And how many other people needing medical treatment will find they can't get it in good time because the doctors and nurses are too busy dealing with the impact of self-inflicted nitrous oxide health issues?

Is this a good argument for, IMO, authoritarian approaches to prevent people doing things which might damage their own health, though?

The same argument could be used to ban alcohol or fatty food and the comment that I've highlighted is a very dangerous way of thinking, IMO. Take it to its logical conclusion and we end up with very little freedom to do anything, once everything which is a potential health risk has been banned.

Or, if someone gets an STD through being not-so-careful, should they be denied treatment because it's their "own fault"? Should someone who falls off their bike due to a moment of inattention be denied NHS treatment? A very, very dangerous way of thinking IMO which must not be allowed to get into the political mainstream. People are not perfect. And perhaps the Government should be looking into why young people are messing around with nitrous oxide. Are they suffering from depression or mental health problems, for example, brought on, perhaps, by lockdown, austerity and uncertainty?

To me it sounds like an argument which diverts blame for the broken NHS away from the Government and onto people that don't live an 100% healthy lifestyle.

 

[RT4038]

Is this a good argument for, IMO, authoritarian approaches to prevent people doing things which might damage their own health, though?

The same argument could be used to ban alcohol or fatty food and the comment that I've highlighted is a very dangerous way of thinking, IMO. Take it to its logical conclusion and we end up with very little freedom to do anything, once everything which is a potential health risk has been banned.

Or, if someone gets an STD through being not-so-careful, should they be denied treatment because it's their "own fault"? Should someone who falls off their bike due to a moment of inattention be denied NHS treatment? A very, very dangerous way of thinking IMO which must not be allowed to get into the political mainstream. People are not perfect. And perhaps the Government should be looking into why young people are messing around with nitrous oxide. Are they suffering from depression or mental health problems, for example, brought on, perhaps, by lockdown, austerity and uncertainty?

To me it sounds like an argument which diverts blame for the broken NHS away from the Government and onto people that don't live an 100% healthy lifestyle.

It is not a dangerous way of thinking. People need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame everything on 'the government' and the (so called) 'broken NHS'. People have been messing around with drugs, glue etc for a long time. Yes, there is a balance, but it is not up to everybody else to subsidise certain people's lifestyle choices, and (if we don't want privately funded medical care) it is quite right for government to influence those choices.

 

[nw1]

It is not a dangerous way of thinking. People need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame everything on 'the government' and the (so called) 'broken NHS'. People have been messing around with drugs, glue etc for a long time. Yes, there is a balance, but it is not up to everybody else to subsidise certain people's lifestyle choices, and (if we don't want privately funded medical care) it is quite right for government to influence those choices.

I'm sorry, when it comes to the general argument (rather than the specifics of the nitrous oxide issue), it is.

If you screwed up through making a bad decision, would you like it if the NHS refused you treatment?

As I said, follow it to its logical conclusion and we end up with people being refused treatment for accidents where the accident is as a result of a bad decision.

The NHS is broken, and it's broken, IMO, due to a Government that don't care about it because it's so obsessed with irrelevant side issues. Have you tried to use it recently? Tried to get a doctor's appointment? Wondered why something that was so simple a few years ago is now very, very difficult and you get the sense that they're trying to discourage you from even seeing a doctor?

 

[SteveM70]

It is not a dangerous way of thinking. People need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame everything on 'the government' and the (so called) 'broken NHS'. People have been messing around with drugs, glue etc for a long time. Yes, there is a balance, but it is not up to everybody else to subsidise certain people's lifestyle choices, and (if we don't want privately funded medical care) it is quite right for government to influence those choices.

If someone is involved in a crash whilst breaking the speed limit, should they be recharged the cost of the ambulance and medical care?

 

[nw1]

If someone is involved in a crash whilst breaking the speed limit, should they be recharged the cost of the ambulance and medical care?

Doubtless some on the right would believe that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is this a good argument for, IMO, authoritarian approaches to prevent people doing things which might damage their own health, though?

It's a balance-of-harm argument. Do you cause more harm by preventing people using it recreationally, or do you cause more harm by allowing people to use it more and more, with all the problems of health, anti-social behaviour, etc. that causes?

The same argument could be used to ban alcohol or fatty food and the comment that I've highlighted is a very dangerous way of thinking, IMO. Take it to its logical conclusion and we end up with very little freedom to do anything, once everything which is a potential health risk has been banned.

You're using the classic slippery slope fallacy:

The second type might be called the judgmental slippery slope with the idea being ...(snipped)... that, for whatever reason, if a person makes one particular judgment they will rationally have to make another and so on.

It doesn't work here because no-one is saying, "oh we banned recreational use of nitrous oxide, therefore we must ban fatty food". Rather, the Government has chosen to ban nitrous oxide on the basis that doing so causes more good than harm, but it should be very obvious that banning fatty foods would cause massively more harm than good - hence why no-one is proposing to do that.

 

[JamesT]

If someone is involved in a crash whilst breaking the speed limit, should they be recharged the cost of the ambulance and medical care?

They already are, or more likely their insurers are. https://www.majortraumagroup.co.uk/news/making-claim-help-nhs-injury-costs-recovery-scheme/

The NHS Injury Costs Recovery Scheme enables NHS trusts to recover their costs when they have provided treatment to individuals who have been injured because of a third party’s negligence.

Under the scheme, the cost of the NHS treatment provided can be recovered from the party responsible for causing the injury. This could include, for example, a car driver who caused a road traffic collision, an employer who failed to provide proper safety equipment resulting in an employee’s injury, or a local authority responsible for a poorly maintained pavement.

 

[RT4038]

I'm sorry, it is.

I'm sorry, it isn't.

There is screwing up, and there is making lifestyle choices. Society as a whole should not just be expected to pay up and pay up, individuals have a responsibility to themselves (and others) as well. Some are paragons of virtue - however, most people are somewhere in between. How are those going to be encouraged to take their responsibility seriously? It is quite appropriate for Government to intervene to reduce pressure on the NHS. If we only had private medicine (and anyone who couldn't afford is left to die) then this intervention would not strictly be required. But I don't think anyone would really suggest quite that. Someone has to take steps to protect some of us from ourselves.

If you screwed up through making a bad decision, would you like it if the NHS refused you treatment?

Whether I like it or not doesn't come into it - if continually make bad lifestyle choices then I would have to take (financial or well being) responsibility for that.

As I said, follow it to its logical conclusion and we end up with people being refused treatment for accidents where the accident is as a result of a bad decision.

No it doesn't mean that as a logical conclusion. There are degrees of everything, and you are just using the 'logical conclusion' argument to justify people not taking responsibility for themselves. Why should those who have taken responsibility foot an unlimited bill for those who haven't?

The NHS is broken, and it's broken, IMO, due to a Government that don't care about it because it's so obsessed with irrelevant side issues. Have you tried to use it recently? Tried to get a doctor's appointment? Wondered why something that was so simple a few years ago is now very, very difficult and you get the sense that they're trying to discourage you from even seeing a doctor?

The NHS in broken because too many people have not taken responsibility for themselves, and there is not an unlimited money tree to be harvested for more and more NHS services, plus an increased population. I have used the NHS quite a lot recently (and my wife, and my best friend) and have been quite happy with the service, getting appointments, getting investigations, and getting procedures done, within the inevitable limitations that a free at point of use service is always going to have.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Society as a whole should not just be expected to pay up and pay up, individuals have a responsibility to themselves (and others) as well. Some are paragons of virtue - however, most people are somewhere in between. How are those going to be encouraged to take their responsibility seriously? It is quite appropriate for Government to intervene to reduce pressure on the NHS. If we only had private medicine (and anyone who couldn't afford is left to die) then this intervention would not strictly be required. But I don't think anyone would really suggest quite that. Someone has to take steps to protect some of us from ourselves.

Abandoning drug addicts and other people who make choices you don't agree with is exactly how you end up with a private medical system.

You either have to treat anybody or nobody.

Whether I like it or not doesn't come into it - if continually make bad lifestyle choices then I have to take (financial or well being) responsibility for that.

Not financially for medical care you don't

No it doesn't mean that as a logical conclusion. There are degrees of everything, and you are just using the 'logical conclusion' argument to justify people not taking responsibility for themselves. Why should those who have taken responsibility foot an unlimited bill for those who haven't?

Because we (rightly) have universal healthcare and you cannot pick and choose who to treat.

The NHS in broken because too many people have not taken responsibility for themselves, and there is not an unlimited money tree to be harvested for more and more NHS services,

It's broken because it's poorly funded and poorly organised, not because of a few people who like a bit of heroin or whatever.

 

[RT4038]

Abandoning drug addicts and other people who make choices you don't agree with is exactly how you end up with a private medical system.

You either have to treat anybody or nobody.


Not financially for medical care you don't


Because we (rightly) have universal healthcare and you cannot pick and choose who to treat.

It doesn't have to be like that, it is only because we choose so (rightly or wrongly) and we also choose the level of funding (by choosing political parties with those fiscal policies) which buys a certain level of service. Whether the NHS is poorly organised or not I don't really have a view on, but more to the point I am unsure whether there is any political will to substantively change that organisation (possibly to pseudo health insurance systems as in continental Europe?). Whatever the organisation, there is still a budget to stick to.

 

[edwin_m]

Meanwhile, Braverman has published a highly controversial article without getting approval from the PM's office.

No 10 disowns Suella Braverman article attacking police over protests

The home secretary is facing questions about her future over her incendiary article about protests.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rishi Sunak did not clear Home Secretary Suella Braverman's article attacking the Metropolitan Police for its handling of pro-Palestinian protests.
The PM's spokesperson said Downing Street is "looking into what happened" with the article.
But they added Mr Sunak had full confidence in the home secretary.

Thinking back to the 90s, "full confidence" often meant a sacking was imminent.

 

[nlogax]

Meanwhile, Braverman has published a highly controversial article without getting approval from the PM's office.

No 10 disowns Suella Braverman article attacking police over protests

The home secretary is facing questions about her future over her incendiary article about protests.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thinking back to the 90s, "full confidence" often meant a sacking was imminent.

Braverman seems to be really keen to get the sack. Almost like she's got designs on leading what's left of this sorry bunch after the 2024 election loss.

 

[Mojo]

I can't speak for the whole country, but for at least six months or more I've not seen a single NOS capsule or bottle lying around on a train, street, shopping centre, car park, nor seen any remnants of balloons.

No, people are now using large containers (slightly larger than a tube of caulk or mastic that you may see builders using) rather than those tiny steel "chargers" they used to.

 

[jon0844]

No, people are now using large containers (slightly larger than a tube of caulk or mastic that you may see builders using) rather than those tiny steel "chargers" they used to.

Yes, but as I said I haven't seen those either.

I can only assume most people have just taken up vaping instead. Some people seen to vape every 15-30 seconds so probably don't have time to do anything else.

 

[nw1]

Braverman seems to be really keen to get the sack. Almost like she's got designs on leading what's left of this sorry bunch after the 2024 election loss.

You do wonder. Each successive thing she comes out with seems to be more inflammatory than the last, almost as if she is trying to get into trouble.

However if she does become Tory leader, they can forget a 2029 comeback.

I also note Theresa May seems to be increasingly speaking out against some of the silly things this government is coming out with. I wonder if there is also scope for May becoming leader again by rallying the moderates within the party?

 

[brad465]

You do wonder. Each successive thing she comes out with seems to be more inflammatory than the last, almost as if she is trying to get into trouble.

However if she does become Tory leader, they can forget a 2029 comeback.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who've been put forward to the Prevent strategy for behaviour less extreme than what Braverman has been displaying.

I also note Theresa May seems to be increasingly speaking out against some of the silly things this government is coming out with. I wonder if there is also scope for May becoming leader again by rallying the moderates within the party?

In hindsight when May promised "strong and stable leadership", she delivered it...relative to what we've had since.

 

[edwin_m]

In hindsight when May promised "strong and stable leadership", she delivered it...relative to what we've had since.

She shut the strong and stable door after the horse had bolted.

 

[SteveM70]

I can’t help but think Braverman’s tactic is to get herself sacked; become some sort of martyr to the far right cause; stand for leader when Sunak buggers off to america after the election; then either win and kill the traditional centre right Tory government party or lose and leave in a huff for GB News and/or whatever party/grift Farage has on the go at the time

 

[ainsworth74]

I can only assume most people have just taken up vaping instead. Some people seen to vape every 15-30 seconds so probably don't have time to do anything else.

And I've seen far more disposable vapes laying around the streets in the last few months than laughing gas canisters. Would be nice to see some action taken to tackle that along with attempting to do something about the massive use by teenagers and younger people generally.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And I've seen far more disposable vapes laying around the streets in the last few months than laughing gas canisters. Would be nice to see some action taken to tackle that along with attempting to do something about the massive use by teenagers and younger people generally.

I thought the Government were planning to ban disposable vapes? (Granted that's more like, thinking about taking action rather than actually taking action)

 

[alex397]

Braverman really is a disgusting person. It’s so concerning that someone with such hate and low intelligence is in such a powerful position in this country.

She is stoking up fear and hatred and playing politics just before the Remembrance service, which is certainly a low point for her. That’s not what our soldiers fought for in WW2.

 

[TheSmiths82]

Braverman really is a disgusting person. It’s so concerning that someone with such hate and low intelligence is in such a powerful position in this country.

She is stoking up fear and hatred and playing politics just before the Remembrance service, which is certainly a low point for her. That’s not what our soldiers fought for in WW2.

I think this is how low have become as a country, letting clowns run the government. As much as I would be overjoyed if she got the sack now, part of me wants her to stay as home secretary to the point there is no return for any of that lot.

 

[yorkie]

Meanwhile, Braverman has published a highly controversial article without getting approval from the PM's office.

No 10 disowns Suella Braverman article attacking police over protests

The home secretary is facing questions about her future over her incendiary article about protests.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thinking back to the 90s, "full confidence" often meant a sacking was imminent.

Braverman seems to be really keen to get the sack. Almost like she's got designs on leading what's left of this sorry bunch after the 2024 election loss.

I'd like to think so, but her hateful style of thinking seems to be in line with Sunak's thoughts, so I fully expect her to keep her position, no matter how unpopular she is with ordinary/normal people.

The Tories right now know they look likely to get thrashed, so they are desperately trying to get a ramshackle of petrolheads, far-right types who support the displacement of millions of people who are the 'wrong' type of people to care about, and other nutcases to vote for them. It really is absolutely pathetic.

 

[Busaholic]

Braverman really is a disgusting person. It’s so concerning that someone with such hate and low intelligence is in such a powerful position in this country.

She is stoking up fear and hatred and playing politics just before the Remembrance service, which is certainly a low point for her. That’s not what our soldiers fought for in WW2.

So many of the 'ban the marches' people are unable to differentiate between Armistice Day (11th November) and the Remembrance Sunday services which can be on any day between November 11th and 17th, according to the calendar. The 11th, if not on a Sunday, is not routinely marked these days in most towns and cities other, perhaps, than a perfunctory minute's silence ignored by many. Remembrance Sunday, on the other hand, sees services and marches throughout the four countries of the UK, including of course the Cenotaph. I don't believe any demonstrations were planned for Sunday and I think it would have been a bad move on any organisers' part to do so. As it is, the Saturday demo/rally has wisely imo been timed for well after 11 a.m. to allay any potential concern among fairminded people.

I have a particular personal interest in the date of 11th November because I got married on that date in 1969 to a girl whose father was born on that date in 1918 i.e. the actual Armistice Day!

 

[Ediswan]

So many of the 'ban the marches' people are unable to differentiate between Armistice Day (11th November) and the Remembrance Sunday services which can be on any day between November 11th and 17th, according to the calendar.

Remembrance Sunday is the second Sunday in November, 8th to 14th.