A comment was made on Ians picture, I am sure it wasnt meant to be deliberately provocotive, but it made me bite anyway!
Yes smoking is bad, but so what, if your old enough to smoke, then your old enough to make the decision to or not. Personally, I gave up in January, but if you want to smoke, you should be able to without people making a comment.
I just hate being told by others what I can and cant do, another example is being told I have to wear a seatbelt! yes I do wear one, but it should be my choice!
Poxy nanny state
Maybe extreme sports should be banned as well, because you might hurt yourself and drain the NHS of rescources!!
OK, its off my chest now.....
Ben....(a little bad tempered due to lack of sleep! )
A comment was made on Ians picture, I am sure it wasnt meant to be deliberately provocotive, but it made me bite anyway!
Yes smoking is bad, but so what, if your old enough to smoke, then your old enough to make the decision to or not. Personally, I gave up in January, but if you want to smoke, you should be able to without people making a comment.
I just hate being told by others what I can and cant do, another example is being told I have to wear a seatbelt! yes I do wear one, but it should be my choice!
Poxy nanny state
Maybe extreme sports should be banned as well, because you might hurt yourself and drain the NHS of rescources!!
OK, its off my chest now.....
Ben....(a little bad tempered due to lack of sleep! )
I could not agree more Ben. How come you can smoke 20 fags and still drive home safely, not be sick, or end up in casualty cor's you wanted to fight the word. Can't say the same about drinkers. In fact the government have extended the drinking hours so you can really be a burden to all and sundry. Good to have a rant aint it.
I think the issue over smoking is justified because of second hand smoke. It's the actions of drink that affect other people not the drink itself. I'm sure Princess Diana chose not to wear a seatbelt!
I think the issue over smoking is justified because of second hand smoke. It's the actions of drink that affect other people not the drink itself. I'm sure Princess Diana chose not to wear a seatbelt!
So, would you legalise class A drugs then?
As for the seatbelt, I totally agree, but that doesnt mean its wrong not to wear one, it should be entirely up to the individual. Of course it is sad about Diana, but if she chose not to wear it, then she is old enough to make that decision. As am I.
Ha ha ha, new topical debate altogether, passive smoking, drink related crime, Diana.
Yea, the smoking ban is good, and bad, being forced to stop doing something you feel you should be allowed to, is without doubt, an invasion on ones personal rights. However, it is now in place to not only make the more pleasant for those around you (smokers that is), but is also aimed at putting people off smoking, for very good reasons: your (smokers) health.
Again we come to "I want to, I should be allowed to." The suffering, time and money involved in saving a person who’s been thrown through their windscreen at 50mph, because not wearing a belt was their (some might say - selfish) 'right', is probably equal to that of the many people who choose the drink until 4am, or smoke 40 a day.
Of course, its a gamble, my gran is 70 or so and still smoke 20 B&H a day, and has done all her life, people I know regularly smoke marijuana, and hold down a perfectly respectable job, and other people I know drive with no seat belt and whilst using their mobile.
The smoking ban and the late license are an agreeably confusing contradiction, stop smoking as its bad, but feel free to drink until you liver is pickled, yes, drinking does not directly effect those around you, but I'm sure there will be a consistent increase in drink related crime - be it drink driving or violence - it not so directly effects everyone.... but to broaden the debate further ... welcome to the Labour government.... if you voted them in, you cant really grumble about the way they run the country, cos its a bit late now! (Not implying that anyone has voted for them, just to be PC)
And finally the death of Diana, well, that’s for the conspiracy theorists among us.
As for the seatbelt, I totally agree, but that doesnt mean its wrong not to wear one, it should be entirely up to the individual. Of course it is sad about Diana, but if she chose not to wear it, then she is old enough to make that decision. As am I.
No I would decriminalise drugs.
But baby coupekid would want his daddy to wear a seatbelt as daddy will want baby to be in a car seat.
This I feel is an argument to which there is no end. But I must point out that drinking dose affect those around you. Try telling someone that has lost a love one from the actions of a drunken driver that they are not directly affected. Ask the Police, fire or ambulance guys who they would rather deal with on a Friday night. I bet smokers get their vote. You are paying for the good work these guys do so you are also affected tax wise.
As for the seatbelt, I totally agree, but that doesnt mean its wrong not to wear one, it should be entirely up to the individual. Of course it is sad about Diana, but if she chose not to wear it, then she is old enough to make that decision. As am I.
Hmmmm... seatbelts; how many people consciously think that by belting up in the back they minimise the risk of injuring themselves and the person sitting directly in front of them? By making seatbelts compulsory by law it helps reinforce common sense, of which there is far too little in day to day life!
Anyway, why wouldn't you choose to use your seatbelt?
Anyway, why wouldn't you choose to use your seatbelt?
Ian
I just object to it being 'the law'. It should be choice.....if I know the risks...
Its more a principle thing.
I just dislike the way the country is going to be honest, like the business of putting red tape around apple trees because of the danger of falling fruit, kids having to wear safety glasses playing conkers.
I am reminded of a theory by Jeremy Clarkson, that if you were to do away completely with ABS, seat belts, air bags etc.......and enforce a rule whereby everyone had to drive with a six inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel, you would see some seriously safe driving by everyone. Tailgating would be eliminated over night!
Cheers,
Ben
Non smoker, non drinker, campaigner for freedom for all
How about this then - to help the finances of the NHS, should a charge be made for those that have caused themselves 'self-inflicted injury' by smoking, heavy drinking, or road accident injury due to drinking. To this list I would suggest adding those causing themselves injury due to late night binge - drinking and fighting and brawling in the streets..
Ha ha ha, new topical debate altogether, passive smoking, drink related crime, Diana.
Yea, the smoking ban is good, and bad, being forced to stop doing something you feel you should be allowed to, is without doubt, an invasion on ones personal rights. However, it is now in place to not only make the more pleasant for those around you (smokers that is), but is also aimed at putting people off smoking, for very good reasons: your (smokers) health.
Again we come to "I want to, I should be allowed to." The suffering, time and money involved in saving a person who’s been thrown through their windscreen at 50mph, because not wearing a belt was their (some might say - selfish) 'right', is probably equal to that of the many people who choose the drink until 4am, or smoke 40 a day.
Of course, its a gamble, my gran is 70 or so and still smoke 20 B&H a day, and has done all her life, people I know regularly smoke marijuana, and hold down a perfectly respectable job, and other people I know drive with no seat belt and whilst using their mobile.
The smoking ban and the late license are an agreeably confusing contradiction, stop smoking as its bad, but feel free to drink until you liver is pickled, yes, drinking does not directly effect those around you, but I'm sure there will be a consistent increase in drink related crime - be it drink driving or violence - it not so directly effects everyone.... but to broaden the debate further ... welcome to the Labour government.... if you voted them in, you cant really grumble about the way they run the country, cos its a bit late now! (Not implying that anyone has voted for them, just to be PC)
And finally the death of Diana, well, that’s for the conspiracy theorists among us.
With the smoking issue, I would simply point out:
1. Most smokers wish the didn't have to.
2. Smoking has been proven to be a threat to non-smokers.
3. It's at the very least unpleasant to non smokers and even to some some others in public places like restaurants and bars.
4. By reducing smoking, you gradually lessen the chance of hooking youngsters.
5. Most smokers end up becoming ill because of their habit.
I wouldn't want to deny an adult the right to choose to smoke, but that choice would need to be a carefully considered one and be completely respectful of the preferences of others and the consensus is now that this preference is for smoking not to be acceptable in enclosed public spaces.
Drink and drugs:
Alcohol is a mild drug - and it can be addictive. Unlike smoking, it is not addictive to the vast majority of people. I class myself as a social drinker. many weeks pass when I don't touch alcohol, but if I'm relaxing on a hot day a beer or two is lovely and if eating out (alas, a rarity! ) like a glass or two of wine. Unless I'm driving, which is usually the case...
It's now being suggested that moderate consumption of some alcoholic drinks can be beneficial to one's health; red wine is packed with beneficial anti-oxidants, or so we are told
As for drink-induced anti-social behaviour and the licensing laws, there doesn't seem to be any secret that the government would love our drinking habits to evolve into the 'café society' tradition of the continent; being able to drink moderately, with food and not tto urn into a foul-mouthed, anti-social moron every Friday and Saturday night. A lot of thought has gone into the altering of the pub opening hours (reducing the tendency to binge in anticipation of last orders) and I understood that initial reports have been pretty positive, but there is a long way to go yet.
And the smoking ban and opening hours are complimentary - drinking establishments are now forced to serve more food, which helps reduce binge drinking and we're all, surely, happier as a result?
Ha ha ha, new topical debate altogether, passive smoking, drink related crime, Diana.
Yea, the smoking ban is good, and bad, being forced to stop doing something you feel you should be allowed to, is without doubt, an invasion on ones personal rights. However, it is now in place to not only make the more pleasant for those around you (smokers that is), but is also aimed at putting people off smoking, for very good reasons: your (smokers) health.
Again we come to "I want to, I should be allowed to." The suffering, time and money involved in saving a person who’s been thrown through their windscreen at 50mph, because not wearing a belt was their (some might say - selfish) 'right', is probably equal to that of the many people who choose the drink until 4am, or smoke 40 a day.
Of course, its a gamble, my gran is 70 or so and still smoke 20 B&H a day, and has done all her life, people I know regularly smoke marijuana, and hold down a perfectly respectable job, and other people I know drive with no seat belt and whilst using their mobile.
The smoking ban and the late license are an agreeably confusing contradiction, stop smoking as its bad, but feel free to drink until you liver is pickled, yes, drinking does not directly effect those around you, but I'm sure there will be a consistent increase in drink related crime - be it drink driving or violence - it not so directly effects everyone.... but to broaden the debate further ... welcome to the Labour government.... if you voted them in, you cant really grumble about the way they run the country, cos its a bit late now! (Not implying that anyone has voted for them, just to be PC)
And finally the death of Diana, well, that’s for the conspiracy theorists among us.
It’s the old debate again.
Leaving aside the issue and the rights of the individual smoker, drinker or drugs user.
It’s down purely to the effects on other people, in whatever way it effects them, heath, comfort, or putting others in danger by our actions.
Second hand smoke being one, the drunk causing a disturbance or being abusive or violent to others, the drug dependant that burgles and commits other crimes to pay for their habit. Drinking or drug taking and driving put others in danger and impact on other peoples lives, therefore controls should be in place.
Yes there are inconsistencies from our government, don’t drink but we will let the pubs stay open as long as they like. Another contradiction is if a new pub is built it must have its own car park, but we shouldn’t drink & drive, so what do we need a car park for a taxi rank is more appropriate.
As a matter of fact I think smoking and driving should be band, why you ask, well think if someone is driving trying to get a cigarette out of the packet and then lighting it, their attention to driving is just as diverted as someone making a phone call if not more, not to mention that for some time only one hand on the wheel and possibly briefly none at all.
I just object to it being 'the law'. It should be choice.....if I know the risks...
Its more a principle thing.
I just dislike the way the country is going to be honest, like the business of putting red tape around apple trees because of the danger of falling fruit, kids having to wear safety glasses playing conkers.
I am reminded of a theory by Jeremy Clarkson, that if you were to do away completely with ABS, seat belts, air bags etc.......and enforce a rule whereby everyone had to drive with a six inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel, you would see some seriously safe driving by everyone. Tailgating would be eliminated over night!
Cheers,
Ben
Non smoker, non drinker, campaigner for freedom for all
Ah - now what you really mean is political correctness
I'm totally against PC. But I don't see the seat belt law as being PC - it's common sense. Tail-gating is just plain stupidity, as is people who go ballistic when they are made to realise that they are doing something stupid.
I like Jeremy Clarkson - he's very funny; he's really a philosphical comedian, but I don't take most of what he says seriously. I'm sure that's how he expects to be appreciated too.
How about driving while holding a phone to your head on a call? Of course that's a stupid thing to do, so stupid people keep on doing it despite that fact that it's really stupid and the law has underlined this. And when these stupid people are noticed being stupid, they get even more stupid...
It's got nothing to do with political correctness.
Your examples of apple trees and conker playing - now those are examples of PC
How about this then - to help the finances of the NHS, should a charge be made for those that have caused themselves 'self-inflicted injury' by smoking, heavy drinking, or road accident injury due to drinking. To this list I would suggest adding those causing themselves injury due to late night binge - drinking and fighting and brawling in the streets..
The moralistic side of me says - yes of course; but the sensible side of me says that both drink and tobacco are very heavily taxed already... and most of that tax revenue - at least here in the UK - arguably, doesn't go to the health service or the public agencies that you refer too, alas.
It’s the old debate again.
Leaving aside the issue and the rights of the individual smoker, drinker or drugs user.
It’s down purely to the effects on other people, in whatever way it effects them, heath, comfort, or putting others in danger by our actions.
Second hand smoke being one, the drunk causing a disturbance or being abusive or violent to others, the drug dependant that burgles and commits other crimes to pay for their habit. Drinking or drug taking and driving put others in danger and impact on other peoples lives, therefore controls should be in place.
Yes there are inconsistencies from our government, don’t drink but we will let the pubs stay open as long as they like. Another contradiction is if a new pub is built it must have its own car park, but we shouldn’t drink & drive, so what do we need a car park for a taxi rank is more appropriate.
As a matter of fact I think smoking and driving should be band, why you ask, well think if someone is driving trying to get a cigarette out of the packet and then lighting it, their attention to driving is just as diverted as someone making a phone call if not more, not to mention that for some time only one hand on the wheel and possibly briefly none at all.
Patrick
I agree with mosy of what you say, Patrick, though I'm in favour of the revised bar opening hours, for reasons I've already gone into elsewhere in this thread.
But you are so right; it's all very well jealously guarding the right to choose, but that right should only be sustained if it doesn't affect others and, realistically, many people will - through laziness, ignorance or stupidity - choose to exercise their 'right' at the cost of the health and well-being of others.
)
Ask the Police, fire or ambulance guys who they would rather deal with on a Friday night. I bet smokers get their vote. You are paying for the good work these guys do so you are also affected tax wise. 
) like a glass or two of wine. Unless I'm driving, which is usually the case...
Linear Mode
