![]() Like many at that time he wanted to get the best possible deal in the softest possible Brexit. Tonight in the Lords comes the latest and probably not the last battle.īefore the 2017 election Mr Grieve said he did not want to “fetter the government’s hands in negotiations, or indeed the government’s right to walk away from the negotiations”. Their amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill - for it is a joint effort - is a masterpiece of ingenuity and subterfuge, and it has nearly succeeded in wrecking Brexit altogether, which was undoubtedly its purpose all along. ![]() I was at Oxford with one, sit in the Lords with the other, and count them as friends. ![]() My Times column on the parliamentary battle over Brexit:ĭominic Grieve, MP, and Viscount Hailsham are clever barristers both, and agreeable company. Published on: Monday, 18 June, 2018 The plot to prevent Brexit is not being honest The Royal College of Physicians agrees: “The public can be reassured that ecigarettes are much safer than smoking.” Read Full Post Public Health England says that vaping is 95% safer than smoking and the vast majority of people who vape are smokers who are partly or wholly quitting cigarettes. Yet here, more than anywhere in the world, the government disagrees. The British vaping revolution dismays some people, who see it as a return to social acceptability for something that looks like smoking with unknown risks. It’s an entrepreneurial phenomenon and a billion-pound industry. There is a thriving sector here of vape manufacturers, retailers, exporters, even researchers there are 1,700 independent vape shops on Britain’s streets. It’s more officially encouraged than in the United States and more socially acceptable than in Australia, where it’s still banned. More people use ecigarettes in the UK than in any other European country. My recent Times essay on the history of vaping and why the UK became such a hub of electronic cigarettes:īritain is the world leader in vaping. Published on: Saturday, 14 July, 2018 How the UK held off regulation that could have killed a life-saving technology Electronic cigarettes and harm reduction.Were we missing something about heredity? He came close to giving up research and retiring to a sailing boat. The more genes seemed to matter, the more they refused to be identified. Ten years ago I recall talking to Robert Plomin about this crisis in the science of which he was and is the doyen. However, the evidence implicating any particular gene in any of these traits stubbornly refused to emerge, and when it did, it failed to replicate. The evidence for genes heavily influencing personality, intelligence and almost everything about human behaviour got stronger and stronger as more and more studies of twins and adoption came through. My Review in The Times of Robert Plomin's new book:įor a long time there was an uncomfortable paradox in the world of behaviour genetics. Published on: Sunday, 21 October, 2018 A crucial new book by a pioneer of behaviour genetics The genes that contribute to human intelligence and personality.That’s more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.” Therefore, he goes on - in one of the great non-sequiturs of history - he is going to ban ecigarettes, which have caused none of those deaths and could prevent them, but not ban real cigarettes, which caused nearly all of those deaths. ![]() Tobacco kills more than 480,000 people a year in this country. Take, for example, this recent pronouncement by the mayor of San Francisco: “Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States. Why? Because they would rather you did not drive at all. Yet the reaction of many public health professionals and politicians has been to choose a) in an exactly analogous situation relating to nicotine. Would you a) ban the new car, or b) encourage people to buy it? Not that difficult a question, surely. Suppose somebody invented a new car that was much, much safer, significantly cheaper, and emitted far fewer fumes, while performing just as well. Suppose that millions of Britons were driving a dangerous type of car that was killing 80,000 people a year. Published on: Wednesday, 08 May, 2019 Why do people oppose harm reduction technologies?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |