You hit the nail in the head.....they are the MAJORITY. If they want to help *the people*, why don't they?

every medical doctor on earth knows that drinking is far more damaging to health than smoking, but no tory would ever consider a ban because the revenue from alcohol is far to great.

I'm using that emoji !

I’m quite happy for that to be the only place in the country you can smoke

@@bestbehave that’s not the point… if we lived in a truly free country we’d have smoking bars and non smoking bars and clubs and people could choose where they spend their time… but as usual the sheep do as they are told and these tossers do as they please…

@@MikeGraves-pd2tg I was just thinking of it as a slow method to say goodbye to bad rubbish

@@bestbehave there are better slower ways… but I’ll get another ban if I list them😉

not a fan of truss, or conservatives... or any of them actually. but the concept that 'adults are allowed to be adults and make their own choices' is spot on.

She+her party are the MAJORITY. What are you talking about???????They created all this conditions that you don't like.

If only she had the chance to do exactly that? awful individual she is

@@Palmit_ It is not fair on the rest of us. Stop smoking , its disgusting, selfish and stupid

@@gabrielconstantingarvvan2518 did I say I supported her or the Tories???????? No I didn’t I can’t stand Labour or the Tories….all I said she sounded ok to me what she was saying.

I think the point is where do you draw the line - every year we have less and less rights. In Canada you can loose your tenure for calling a woman a woman, get my point? Once we pass the line and become like China there is no turning back - humans have slow forgetful brains. The only people that beanfit from this is the government - again go ask China about ultimate control over their citizens. Clearly the "free world" is loosing the ideology war - the Clintons thought spreading "Decocracy" to China would have the reverse affect jokes on them.

Banning marijuana and cocaine has really worked hasn't it?

as she mentioned, people who become addicted become a danger to others because of how strong the addiction can get as well as the withdrawal symptoms. tobacco should still be banned regardless of the other drugs

Because marijuana usage in an unformed mind will cause complications and cocaine will outright kill a child. She's sort of right in what she points at in regard to how it's a slippery slope of managed access and nanny state, but we both know well enough that a chunk of adults out there can't even tie their own fucking shoes. Those same adults will leave kids to OD on drugs they weren't smart enough to hide. The government making them legal would make idiots like that think that they wouldn't be legal if they weren't safe. Legalising drugs is never about the smart, consciences, responsible advocate. It's about the slew of drooling idiots that fuck it up for everyone else. We only move as fast as our slowest member of society... And boy are they fucking slow.

@@Thot-Slayer-420 Yeah, let me tell you about the number of smokers who have attempted to mug me for ciggie money... err...0.

Yes.

Smokers also contribute 10 billion in tax to the uk. I think they cover their burden on the publics tax money

the conservative goverment introduced a sugar tax in 2018, except they decided to only cover drinks with it. Had they included cakes in the taxable foodstuffs then maybe obeasity rate would drop.

Yep, click bait. Thumbs down from me. Hopefully others will do the same!

Measured, it may be. Reasonable - no, not at all.

@@steveknight878 Nicotine is in potato skins, tomatoes, aubergines and other plants. It's nature's insecticide. In humans it works as an antidepressant. This is why you see so many with mental health problems smoking or (increasingly) vaping. If you're not going to ban the other sources of nicotine (if you ate a moussaka you'd get as much nicotine as you would if you sat in a closed room with a vaper for an hour), leave the nicotine addicts alone. The smokers will mostly die early (and they know it), saving the state a fortune in pension costs, and the vapers are trying to manage their condition on their own. Mind your own business and leave them alone.

she is in favour of killing trans youth sounds pretty mental

Your comment literally made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that. Have a great weekend!

Really can you explain what she was talking about when she said technocratic? By her logic anyway we should decriminalise all class a drugs? We don't want to "nanny people" after all.

@@econundrum1977she answered the question about class A drugs quite well in her speech!

@@danielvalmonte2873 But with no consistent logic.

No, she was a goner because she's read a couple.od publications from think tanks and she's not very smart. She just likes to blame.others for her own stupidity

I can't stand moaners, so fair and even right?

@@engjds ok so im moaning because smoking makes me sick yea? My son has asthma and needs his inhalers when he is subjected to passive smoking, but ill tell him to shut up right? Passive smoking proven to contribute to cancer? "Yea moaner stfu"

@@engjds Not really.

@@steveknight878 No one likes 2nd hand smoke, nothing 2nd hand is good, but this is about government control, they should keep out of peoples business and run the country properely.

Let it go lad. It's been almost a decade since the vote. Can't be healthy for you to be still angry.

@@David-gd6qt What vote? You are the one talking about a vote? OP never mentioned it. Whatever it is you're talking about, it obviously lives in your head rent free.

honestly the vote wasn't even the problem, there's benefits to both inside and outside the EU. it's the 3 wise prime ministers who cant handle it david cameron left because he didnt feel like bothering to handle it theresa may had the genius idea of the checkerboard deal then boris was like, "aight, no deal, we dippin" then threw partys during lockdowns so much time was wasted negotiating with the EU in a stalemate that nothing got put into place.

@@David-gd6qt Perfectly fine for us to recognise that it hasn't delivered the benefits that were suggested during the referendum campaign and that we should therefore take steps to regain what we lost though, presumably? As a more general point though, is it not patriotic to be angered by significant and completely unnecessary damage to our country? Sounds rather apathetic to suggest that people should just "let it go" when it comes to actions that caused significant harm to our nation and its prospects?

@@David-gd6qt I'm not angry. Just surprised. A country with a history of trading, living off it's memories of being an Empire. Empire no more.

Well, that's a low bar.

@@steveknight878 it is

Whereas the Government and opposition encouraged the entire population to take an experimental 'vaccine' and damn the consequences.

People should be informed of the consequence, they shouldnt be prevented from consuimg the products they wish to consume.

@@David.Maughan And the rest of us (including their families) pick up the bill and consequences of their poor decisions.

No. She seems to be of the opinion adults CAN READ, can apply REASON, and are not babies to be mollycoddled. You want a nanny state, move to Canada, or perhaps you'd be happier in China? We have systems in place to check there are no unsafe chemicals in our food. Our biggest problem right now is our medics have bought into the low fat story and the food industry is using sugar and carbs (which convert to sugars) to replace the fats so the food has some actual flavour. This has led to a diabetes epidemic because they're hiding what they're doing. We need to go back to meat, dairy and all those things we ate for thousands of years perfectly happily and for which our guts have adapted. We have not had time to adapt to a high carb, high sugar diet and it's killing us, but our doctors keep telling us to avoid fats and meats and all the good stuff in favour of crap.

@@steveknight878 correct. Or you can live in an authoritarian nightmare where the government decides everything leaving people with no free will because people can't be trusted to make the correct decision. Some people smoke. You want to ban smoking. Some people drink, are we going to ban alcohol? Some people are fat, are we going to ban burgers? Coca-Cola isn't particularly healthy, let's have the government ban that too. Some people speed. Limit every car to 70mph. Some people like extreme or dangerous sports, that could hurt someone. Best bam that took I suppose.

Why don't you set your kids an example then? Or is that the Government's job?

They didn't ban sugar though did they?

Of course not. They wanted the money.

Obesity costs the country 6 billion a year

@@johnwright2114 congratulations, your point being what?

They can get into trouble because, just as with cigarettes, it's illegal for them to buy vapes. So, the question is who's selling the stuff to them and why aren't THEY being arrested?

@@socratesrocks1513 I worked in retail. I know more than most the harsh penalties that can occur if we didn't protect against the sale of tobacco, alcohol and oddly enough the strictest of them all lottery tickets. If you sold cigarettes or alcohol to a minor it costs the shop a hefty fine. If you accidentally sold a lottery ticket, the shop gets fined, you get instant dismissal, and you personally as the person who sold the ticket is given a considerable fine to pay. The laws don't help when the culture of multi-coloured, multi-flavoured, vapes are changing people's perceptions at a young age to want to smoke. I don't want to sound like I'm about to harp on about the good old days when strangers can physically and verbally assault a child and call it discipline. But in the current situation we either embrace new laws to protect the health and wellbeing of the population or we embrace a future of lung disease and various cancers.

Her argument isn't weak or flawed. Freedom means people have the freedom to make poor choices, that's their right. You don't get to nanny people because you think you know best. Everything you mentioned should be 100% legal. It's YOUR argument that's weak. You can't justify any of these actions without admitting that you think you have the right to decide how others should live their lives. You're an authoritarian and nothing else.

@@mintcrisp94 Oh, I know that I don't know best. I hope that there are people who do know best, and can inform the rest of us. Be that as it may - do you think that manufacturers should be allowed to use chemical in foods that are not good for us (so long as they tells us that they use those chemicals, perhaps?) , and we should not be made by law to wear seat belts, drive on one particular side of the road, not pay our employees at least a minimum wage, that we should not have been told to wear masks during the pandemic, etc.? In other words, that government should not proscribe or prescribe anything? That seems to be the consequence of your position.

@@steveknight878 Mostly yes. Provided a company is 100% transparent with their actions and allows you to have control over your data and provides methods to opt out, then they can do what ever they like. Which side of the road you drive on effects others, so that's a no. When you put others at a measurable risk by your actions then it's fine to restrict it in certain scenarios, like driving on a public road. A private road would be their own business. You should not have been told to wear a mask during the pandemic unless you were in a public building like a GP or dentist. Private companies can decide for themselves if they want to enforce a mask mandate or not. Out in public space they have no right to mask you either. Minimum wage has been proven to reduce the number of jobs and once prices catch up you're right back at square one. In fact, most people can get payed more than minimum wage as it currently stands by being contract workers, so the minimum wage laws can actually reduce your income.

An entire generation of young people is being actively brainwashed into taking it, does that count?

Have you seen how trans act online, they treat it like crack, let alone the echo chambers on discord

No, she didn't. Do you believe everything spoon fed to you by the deep state? She's thick as mince, but she didn't add £30Bn to anything. I'm genuinely amazed people believe that BS.

I like her...

@@adamsan7494 of course u do. don't eat ur crayons

And admires Trump. Good grief.

Trump is the god emperor...

put alcohol in chemists, put tv in chemists put the internet in chemists, everyone@s got an addiction to something the point is were supposed to live in a democratic society were we have free choice

@@sportsbettingtips-qz5of good point too ,

Yes far right

​@@Stevehamm71Everyone that isn't left of center is far right...

@@Stevehamm71 as the country should

@@Stevehamm71 She's promoting free will and choice. Working with your claim, you're just admitting the left wing are authoritarians.

I am absolutely delighted that she didn't.

Prefer what we've got?

True There are 'safe' levels for alcohol, sugar and meat There are no safe level for cigarette, even 1 cigarette is 1 too much. It is very addictive with nicotine. Not to mention other highly harmful chemicals like cyanide and radioactive stuffs. Yes all 4 can be abused (e.g. binge drinking, binge eating sweety foods to cope) but typically not harmful if consumed in moderate amount for healthy people. There are no moderate amount for smoking, it is always harmful, and always harm others near by. That being said, I still honesty can't really decide on my stance on this, if I was the MP, I'd probably abstain. I mean, smoking is harmful, but the proposed provision is probably too radical and very hard to regulate. People in their 40 will have to carry a passport to buy a pack. Even if the thing gonna kill them in 5 or 10 years time, it's still there liberty and their choice to choose. We can have separate law to regulate smoking like work place smoking ban in Ireland.

​@@RadiantPoliticsthere are no safe levels for alcohol. The j curve is fake it's made from not accounting for reverse causation it has 0 health benefits.

​@@RadiantPoliticsalcohol is haramful and harmful in any quantity even in moderation

@@RadiantPolitics Same with alcohol btw. Even small doses of ethanol are pretty dangerous. Now, compared to smoking or alcohol, puberty blockers are perfectly safe. They are as safe as birth control pills, ibuprofen or paracetamol. And that CASS report she was talking about is absolute bull crap. Every scientific organization says that puberty blockers and HRT are safe. She's either incredibly dumb or someone is paying her to say these things.

No alcohol is much different, although alcoholics do not force others to drink they do steal from others to feed their habit , people become homeless and detached from their families , they go out beating people up and damaging property, there are no such societal issues associated with smoking

She says "I'm not speaking IN this debate today because I love smoking.." clean your ears out you fool. It's her accent and use of what is called in linguistics "weak forms".

There were two ways to interpret "because I love smoking" - one was yours and the other is that she actually doesn't love smoking. I took it as the latter.

The fact you have no self control doesn't mean we take it from others. Some people are fat because they can't stop eating junk food, but for the average person junk food is a fun treat to enjoy their life.

Well alcohol and caffeine are drugs, so what's your point? Do you think they should be banned for some and not for others? No one forced you to smoke and you didn't require Government legislation to stop. Still, since Germany and it's history as a 'papers please' society is your idea of sound Government, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. NB It was Germany under Merkel who invited over a million immigrants into Europe.

Where was the transphobia? This is about protecting children from harm.

@@pedazodetorpedo Okay, lets do this then. "Cross sex hormones" are a form of hormone replacement therapy and are given for a wide range of reasons; in the case of trans people they are given to change the expressed gender phenotype which changes primary and secondary sex characteristics. The rate at which transgender indeviduals under 18 receive this treatment is non zero, but functionally might as well be and given that the use of this cource of treatment massively reduces the odds of suicide its quite easy to argue that not providing this treatment puts children in far greater danger. Now, HRT can and does cause infertility in transfeminine people as it causes the testies to stop producing sperm cells, however there is also evidence that after a few months of not taking estadiol the fertility increases back to normal levels in (I beleive, I may be missremembering) 80% of cases. The far more common treatment for under 18's is the administration of puberty blockers. These are a class of medications that cause the ceasation of puberty as long as they are taken. The proportion of these that are perscribed to transgender individuals is still fairly low, with the majority going to cisgender children with premature puberty. As soon as they stop taking these medications, puberty resumes as normal, or alternatively they can be moved to "cross sex hormones" to begin to transition. TL;DR, "Cross sex hormones" are for when you're happy and want to transition, Puberty blockers basically allow you to wait without puberty changing anything (and have no long term effects).