State intervention in the UK

[Babydoll]

Oh my ****ing god. This government does my bloody head in (UK). On the news they have now taken the banning of advertising tobacco and cigarettes to another level by removing them from view in shops. It is unbelievable how much this government is interferring in our lives.
For a start smoking is not a direct cause of death. It is correlational.. but not a direct cause. My great grandfather lived until he was 88, having smoked all his life and did not die of smoking related illnesses.
Also, as cynical as it may sound, this world is over populated as it is. Realistically, if people are indirectly willing to damage their health then let them do it! It's banned in public places in the UK as it is, so passive smoking is not really an issue any more.
Where does it end? My little cousin who is 8 has chocolate bars taken away from her if she has them in her lunch box due to this whole new 'healthy eating' campaign. It's not her fault that some kids put on weight after having chocolate.. or that some kids guts it down. She's therefore suffering just because some kids either can't handle fatty food or can't control themselves.
What the **** is with state intervention nowadays? This is definitely an elective dictatorship.
Argh, sorry needed a rant. x

[DoesntMatter]

Well I'm glad it isn't just the US that sponsors this type of bullshit. We have the same problem here Babydoll

[Babydoll]

Argh... it just grinds on my bloody nerves lol. I used to want to be a barrister. Taking Politics at A level has just made me lose all respect for the legal system in this country. I now want to be a journalist. Then I can scandulise their asses.

[clearskies]

So what do you think of that? I was stunned to read this link on yahoo.co.uk (([url]http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vdunet/20080523/ttc-big-brother-database-signals-opportu-6315470.html[/url]))
and UK.gov plans central database for all your communications as in (([url]http://uk.news.yahoo.com/register/20080520/ttc-uk-gov-plans-central-database-for-al-d1d76f9.html[/url])) Enjoy reading...

[clearskies]

LOL u r really funny babydoll... what about no drinking in London underground? i think that leads to a clean environment.. me myself i am glad with it honestly..

[Kiechi]

Oh my ****ing god. This government does my bloody head in (UK). On the news they have now taken the banning of advertising tobacco and cigarettes to another level by removing them from view in shops. It is unbelievable how much this government is interferring in our lives.
For a start smoking is not a direct cause of death. It is correlational.. but not a direct cause. My great grandfather lived until he was 88, having smoked all his life and did not die of smoking related illnesses.
Also, as cynical as it may sound, this world is over populated as it is. Realistically, if people are indirectly willing to damage their health then let them do it! It's banned in public places in the UK as it is, so passive smoking is not really an issue any more.
Where does it end? My little cousin who is 8 has chocolate bars taken away from her if she has them in her lunch box due to this whole new 'healthy eating' campaign. It's not her fault that some kids put on weight after having chocolate.. or that some kids guts it down. She's therefore suffering just because some kids either can't handle fatty food or can't control themselves.
What the **** is with state intervention nowadays? This is definitely an elective dictatorship.
Argh, sorry needed a rant. x

Lulz u tard

[Gribble]

Cigarettes are disgusting. Yeah, you might get lucky and live into old age smoking them. But probably not. And your quality of life will steadily go down the tubes.

Should people be allowed to smoke? Yes. In their homes. Not outside a place of business. Not in a restaurant. Not even in a bar. It's a disgusting, horrible habit that directly impacts those around you.

I'm glad tobacco's being taxed more and more. I'm glad laws are being made which limit where a person can smoke. And I'm glad tobacco advertisements are a thing of the past.

Smoke yourself to death if it makes you happy, just don't come anywhere near me.

[Mish]

For a start smoking is not a direct cause of death. It is correlational.. but not a direct cause.

Smoking is a direct cause of cancer (among other things) and cancer leads to death

Realistically, if people are indirectly willing to damage their health then let them do it!

Interesting. Should everyone who wants to damage their lives and the lives of others be openly allowed do so?

I have another interesting question for you Babydoll. Is it okay for someone with an std to hide the fact they have it and infect others? Because realistically noone should interfere in the lives of others, it's really the fault of others wanting to have sex in the first place and the world is already overpopulated as it is right?

Another interesting question. Why have the government at all regulating and interfering in our lives? Why not just allow for nature's law "Might is right" and who ever is the most powerful gets to rule everyone else under the iron fist. That sounds pretty realistic as well.

[Junket]

Interesting. Should everyone who wants to damage their lives be openly allowed do so?

Yes.
___________

[Mish]

Yes.
___________

I said their lives AND the lives of others

[Mish]

We could explore this line of thought even further on government's cruel interference in our lives, let me play the devil's advocate here:

- Why waste tax payer's money to look after the disabled and the old? If someone is willing to become disabled or old then certainly they should be able to look after themselves and if not, well that's too bad.

- Why have traffic laws on the road? Clearly someone who's stupid enough to speed in the first place deserves to die anyway.

- Why look after the sick? If someone is willing to get sick in the first place, well then they should find a way to get well on their own right? It's their own fault

[clearskies]

remeber Tim Truman Show, for jim carry? if u dnt, what about big brother to spy on u everywhere and keep ur talks sms emails ...etc on a data base for the government? check the link above and u will believe what i say...

[Illusional]

masturbation never kills anyone, yet why is this banned in public??

raverboy

[Babydoll]

I said their lives AND the lives of others

Did I mention the lives of others? If you had read it properly.. you will see that I think it is a good thing they have stopped smoking in public places. Therefore it is not damaging anyone else, except those who choose to do it.
STIs? Again it would be damaging someone ELSES health. If however, for sake of argument, everyone knew who had and who did not have an STI someone decided they wanted to get one.. let them do it. Why not eh?

You're just being pedantic. Of course we need some form of state intervention because otherwise we wouldn't have a government and the country would be unlawful... duh. But there is a certain extent to which it can be too much interferrence. What I'm saying is there are some things which the government shouldn't interfere with. Things in people's private lives that aren't going to harm anyone else, but themselves.
I'm not a smoker and I think smoking is disgusting. But I think if someone chooses to smoke, let them do it. We are all aware of the effects of smoking. It should be up to us to decide whether we do it or not. Are they going to stop us from sunbathing? That causes cancer too. My grandmother has had skin cancer twice from that. Having had it twice, she knew what sunbathing can do, yet she continued to do it. I know what sunbathing does through her.. but I still walk out my front door and onto the beach to lay every time the sun's out.

With regards to becoming old.. people can't do anything about that. It's not controllable. So that's irrelevant.
Those who smoke are conciously making a decision to do so knowing of the possible consequences.
Don't ask me about disabled people, because I believe in euthanasia. If they willingly want to die.. then I think they should be allowed to do so. Yes people should be allowed to damage their lives. People have a right to life. So surely they should be allowed to die if they wish. That's why I believe in euthanasia. If someone is in so much pain that they don't want to live anymore.. or have such a crap life that they don't want to live anymore.. let them do what they want. Some people have pleasure from having pain inflicted upon them. And they want to do that. They are willing. Let them do it.
And yes clearly those who speed.. should be punished. And they are. Because it is endangering other people's lives. Seeing as you're not allowed to smoke in public places.. that is only endangering smoker's lives. If you do smoke in a public place.. that is also an offence and is punished.

I'm a fitness fanatic. But I don't think everyone in this country should be made to do some sort of exercise every week because no exercise is unhealthy. In my opinion it's just interferring with people's lives too much. Again with the example of what kids are allowed and aren't allowed in their lunch boxes.
STIs is another irrelevant point you made, in my opinion. If, for arguments sake, however everyone was aware of who had STIs and who didn't have STIs.. then those who wanted to recieve an STI should be allowed to do so. Why not eh? It's only themselves they are damaging. That is IF everyone knew that they had one. Ofcourse people shouldn't pass on STIs.. because it damages some one elses health.

Main point: People should be allowed to damage their own health if they so wish, or do something which they are fully aware damages their health. People should not be allowed to inflict their damaging behaviour upon other people.

[Junket]

I said their lives AND the lives of others

And I was saying "Yes" to their lives only.

Anybody who chooses to drink in a bar that clearlyng allows smoking is forfeiting their lung health. The owner should have the say as to whether they want to allow smokers or not.