State intervention in the UK

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

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

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...

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babydoll [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babydoll [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babydoll [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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

---

Yes.
___________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

Yes.
___________

---

I said their lives AND the lives of others

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

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...

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

raverboy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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.

Where I live, we have a public smoking ban, and I don't personally feel that it is ridiculous, as it does endanger the lives of others... as many of the deaths are still due to smoking. I do, however, believe that people should be able to smoke in their own homes, and that removing that right is violating one's body. And once you have violated one's body, what other barriers are there left to cross? None, absolutely none.

I also think that (illegial) drugs should be legalized. It is again, the government forcing people to put things, or not to put things into their bodies.

Thirdly, abortion. While one may not believe in baby killing, it is merely a violation of one's privacy by dicatating what she should or should not do with her body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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.

---

Then again, I do agree with this as well. But I do believe that smoking ought to be banned in public, government-owned places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkDwarf [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

Where I live, we have a public smoking ban, and I don't personally feel that it is ridiculous, as it does endanger the lives of others... as many of the deaths are still due to smoking. I do, however, believe that people should be able to smoke in their own homes, and that removing that right is violating one's body. And once you have violated one's body, what other barriers are there left to cross? None, absolutely none.

I also think that (illegial) drugs should be legalized. It is again, the government forcing people to put things, or not to put things into their bodies.

Thirdly, abortion. While one may not believe in baby killing, it is merely a violation of one's privacy by dicatating what she should or should not do with her body.

---

I couldn't agree with you more.
However, I think abortion should be allowed if the couple were using protection and sort of.. accidently the woman became pregnant. I don't think abortion is right for those who are having completely unprotected sex and know of the consequences.
I agree with the legalisation of drugs. There would be far less crime, and people could be made aware of the results of using drugs, just like they are with smoking, and make a concious decision whether they do drugs or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babydoll [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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?

---

I understand where you are coming from. I just see that smoking always does affect the lives of others (Even if they are no longer smoking in public places). They are smoking in their homes infecting their families, their partners and children they are smoking with other close people near by, friends, family ones who love them enough to accept them for it and not fuss up to them, getting slowly killed by that disgusting stench in the process.

I understand that the Government should not interfere in our pirvate lives and there are limits to what they should be able to do. I don't think this should extend to smoking (and anything else that damages other people - see speeding). As far as public safety goes I would rather see them regulate at will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

I understand that the Government should not interfere in our pirvate lives and there are limits to what they should be able to do. I don't think this should extend to smoking (and anything else that damages other people - see speeding). As far as public safety goes I would rather see them regulate at will.

---

See prohibition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

See prohibition.

---

I never said they should prohibit

Meh, my parents aren't killing me. My dad isn't allowed to smoke in the house, and my mum doesn't think I know she smokes :D twat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babydoll [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

Seeing as you're not allowed to smoke in public places.. that is only endangering smoker's lives.

---

How is not smoking in public places endangering smoker's lives? Smokers will not die if they don't smoke in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babydoll [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

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.

---

And how exactly does this change anything? Those who already intend to smoke know perfectly well that they can still purchase them at their everyday shop, right? And those who try to quit smoking, do it on rare occassions or have never done it wont feel any urge to try it out by seeing the package.

State control? I'd like to see a better example of that. This is hardly worth mentioning.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I believe a previous poster already clarified about this and cancer. And I'd far sooner believe the correlation between cancer statistics and habitual smoking over your one-person example.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Population distribution. I do hope you know where most of the people in the world live at before you use it as an example for first world country peeps to go wacko and kill themselves.

-----------


One thing I'm curious about though. Just randomly, since christian beliefs are against masturbation since it kills seeds (aka potential life), doesn't it essentially mean that sex also should be against that belief since only one of the sperm make it to the egg while the others die?