Jump to content


London Elections 2008

  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#211 Ziwa



  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 06:02 PM

Dazza, through various ways I have 5 parents, of whom 4 have died from smoking related causes, several at youngish ages. That is a lot of loss.

Smoking is a terrible thing to do to yourself and those around you. Full stop.

Antisocial behaviour is also a terrible thing to do, and it becomes more likely if 1) your social conditioning doesn't provide you the internal moral limits, or makes them weak, and 2) you do something that blurs your perception of limits even further, like using drugs (ethanol being the most common one).
The problem with alcohol is largely the behaviour that results - it is a downstream effect of loss of control. The problems with smoking are more direct.

now, lets say something good about our pal alcohol since it is a VN social night!

#212 iclipper


    Former WN'er....

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts

Posted 08 May 2008 - 06:23 PM

And if there were 3 buses and one had a person drinking on the back seat, one had someone smoking and another had a kid playing music on his mobile, where would you sit?

Downstairs near the driver <_<

Edited by iclipper, 08 May 2008 - 06:25 PM.

#213 centralhilleagle



  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 09 May 2008 - 02:38 PM

I'm so glad the Tories are stopping the nanny state. Not. This law is a gimmick, nothing more and it restricts our personal freedoms. It may seem trivial, but it could be the tip of an iceberg. The problem isn't people drinking on the bus, why shouldn't they? It's a free country. It's the 8 they have down the pub that does it. The problem is with drunkenness and there is already legislation to deal with this. The police should crack down on pubs who serve clearly drunk people and crack down on people who are drunk in the street (you know the level I mean). You don't even have to be behaving anti-socialy to be arrested for this under existing legislation.

Drunkenness needs to become frowned upon, rather than actively encouraged in this country. It's a change that has to come from the inside. No amount of price increases, age limit increases, limitations on selling hours or places we can drink have ever, or will ever work. If this has any impact on the amount of public drunkenness in London, I'll eat my hat.

I myself have no desire to drink on a short journey (a train journey or flight might be different), but I feel we should have the right to if we choose. Alcohol is legal and I want to be able to buy a beer at any hour and be allowed to drink it anywhere with no ridiculous duty slapped on it. The police need to crack down on drunkenness, not our consumption of a legal product. You might as well say "some people get drunk and cause trouble, ban all alcohol" and we all know how well that one worked.

Just my 2 cents worth...

#214 Dazza


    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 09 May 2008 - 03:30 PM

You could apply that logic to all activities. Smoking/ taking drugs/carrying weapons I suppose these rules are in place to make it a more pleasant place for everyone else.

Unfortunately there are inconsiderate people out there who couldnt give a damm for anyone else but themself !


PS if its a free country how comes I have to work so hard to make ends meet ?
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig

#215 centralhilleagle



  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 09 May 2008 - 04:33 PM

So the state should interfere with our daily lives, so we can all be better, more productive citizens? A bit like communism then.

There are several differences with your examples:

smoking - affects the health of those around you. No one ever got drunk and got liver poisoning passively.

taking drugs - as above. If someone smokes a joint it affects those around them, unlike alcohol.

carrying weapons - no one has any reason to do this, you do not get any personal enjoyment from carrying a knife or gun.

The more we curb people's lives with rules, the less people will take responsibility for their own actions. Nanny state looks after, us so we don't have to think too much about what we're doing.

Part of living in a free society means we have to accept that some people will do things we don't personally agree with. E.g. While you are free to express your view, you also have to accept other's right to do so, no matter how repulsive it is. when someone's actions cause damage/loss/offence etc. THEN the state should act.

As for living in a free country, well you pay taxes wherever you live (except maybe Dubai!). You are free to move anywhere you like, take on any job or career you like and vote out any government you like. Sounds pretty free to me, billions are not so free.