UK Politics

[inked]

Facinating how the fascism comes out when folks do not like something! It's okay to ban smoking in specific locations (but the common room?) As a smoker myself I try to be considerate to others, especially nonsmokers, as well as the environment. Courtesy demands such.

BUT what I really like is the idea that I can ban anything I don't like ( and the "weren't born that way" defense will Not work, because people are born genetically disposed to smoke -for which I have as much evidence as they are born to other activities and beliefs ).

The Nanny-statists will get your genitalia and their interactions before they get your food, though. BRAVE NEW WORLD, anyone? or try 1984 on for size.

Governments DO NOT exist to provide cradle to grave care for all spects of life, guys. You do realize that this intrusion into personal decisions is a harbinger of ever more intrusion! If the air you breathe is regulated to this degree, imagine what will happen when they realize whose appurtenances are going where in another person's body!!!! The nanny-statists will get you yet!

No wonder anarchy is popular! Ridiculous, of course, but anyone told repeatedly "I (we) know what is best for you, you poor brainless twits, so just do it" is bound to get a bit restive. Unfortunately, they ususally intend to replace the nanny-statists with themselves as THE authority.

[Durin1]

You speak for me, Inked. Well said!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

And cocaine and heroin? Drugs that potentially kill. Should they be legal?

Tobacco isn't and it kills 100,000 a year. Alcohol not only kills people but it is also implicated in much violent crime (about half of it, IIRC). So legal status isn't really to do with harm to the user or society. BTW, the idea that cannabis is a harmless drug is losing credence all the time as more evidence comes out.

I wouldn't regard it as nanny-state-ish to ban smoking in public: the purpose is not to stop people from smoking but to protect non-smokers (especially workers) from other people's smoke. As I said, I think it would also help people trying to give up smoking too.

Same with these colour coding schemes on food: as long as it's well designed and not crippled by the food lobby (which is far from guaranteed) then I think people would find it useful, particularly since they're bombarded with so much disinformation from other sources (get your reduced fat lard here, folks)

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by inked

Facinating how the fascism comes out when folks do not like something! It's okay to ban smoking in specific locations (but the common room?) As a smoker myself I try to be considerate to others, especially nonsmokers, as well as the environment. Courtesy demands such.

I'm glad to hear you're considerate - but lots of smokers are not. Our common room is designed for the use of all students. I haven't spent any time there while I've been at the college because it is so unpleasantly smoky. I think non-smokers should be able to use an area which is supposed to be for everybody, and I will go there more now that the ban has been imposed.

Also, if I were you, I wouldn't throw terms like 'Fascism' around too lightly.

BUT what I really like is the idea that I can ban anything I don't like ( and the "weren't born that way" defense will Not work, because people are born genetically disposed to smoke -for which I have as much evidence as they are born to other activities and beliefs ).

It's not just that I don't like smoking - it impinges on the health and comfort of others. Should I indulge someone else's recreational habit (genetic or not) in those circumstances?

Governments DO NOT exist to provide cradle to grave care for all spects of life, guys. You do realize that this intrusion into personal decisions is a harbinger of ever more intrusion!

Actually, I think they do. And there's no reason why your second statement should be true - the same case could be made for banning anything. Not every law passed by a government will lead to 1984, and it's harmful to pretend that it will.

[inked]

Excellent response sun-starr! Now, I wish to ban loud c-RAP noise alleged to be music which undoubtedly is hurting my hearing and my mental prowess by its incessant inane gibberal renderings of language purported to be (American) English! Next, outfits that offend MY impeccable sense of style by demonstrating the gluteal fold when the trousers are visible and anyone wearing thong underwear with the line showing above either the pudenda or the gluteii maximi! This latter dress and behaviour because it will undoubtedly reduce spectators to either emesis or voluntary blindness! And, while I have an astute appreciation for the female form in nearly nothing swimsuits, I think the Barbados rule of suits on the beach and clad when elsewhere a superb one!

It's only fascist if one wants to do it and the government says "No.", right!

Governments exist only for the securing the domestic defense, the provision of arms against aggressor, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity in so far as we and they are capable of such. Any more than that and they are a menace! A few European examples, Franco, Hitler, Stalin, and, though not in the same class at all, I've heard Margaret Thatcher's name. O yes and who was that Italian chap, Mussolini. Then there's Yugoslavia, (something)scue, IIRC!

Governments are composed of people. People are sinners. Sinners with power are corrupted. Absolute power corrupts sinners absolutely.

"I hole that government governs best which governs least." Montaigne, IIRC, but before the French botched it with wholesale slaughter, wiped out their nobility in the senses of structure and corporate character which has persisted since. There was that Napolean chap. Then WWI and WWII, Vietnam, and, dare I say it, the current situation! Vive la France-waisted! I'm starting to sound like JD!)

but you can pick which parts are serious !

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Vive la France-waisted! I'm starting to sound like JD!

hey - leave France alone. Chirac's my bud.

[inked]

Watch your derrier, as they say in that place!

They may want to give it away ... for a good price! Or, maybe just to pay you out for all the pre-election French bashing you did!

Do they really smell bad? And pits, do they shave their pits? or legs? -- are you really willing to find out?

[Dwarven Sen]

I think he should find out. The exploring spirit of the first americans needs to survive in JD, pioneering, and going where no man in his right mind has gone before, into the armpit of a french girl.

[inked]

The French have a name for that, don't they? And it's probably rather polite as they see it or say it or hear it! Something like, Bebe you peu! Hades, they may market it as a perfume to unsuspecting folk!

[Dwarven Sen]

eau do toilette? sorry that would be eau de peu? I forget my french

[Janny]

I say...

I agree Gaffer. It's just a case of ensuring that the systems are solely not to discriminate, but to serve the people.

My... how red.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

On the smoking topic does anyone know the amount of people who get cancer from passive smoking per year?

[Dwarven Sen]

No. sorry if i sound cynical, but the government comes out with the spiel but never the stats. As a scientist, personally i'd like a little more evidence, less hype.

[inked]

A very good question, TD. The data are under scrutiny here in the USA and the alleged effects of 2nd hand smoke are vastly over-rated and most certainly overhyped. That is not to deny the effects, merely to point out that they are not substantial as alleged.

By the by, do you know what happens to people who eat right per government standards, exercise right per government standards, only have safe sex per government standards, live in government approved housing, drive the government prescribed speed limits, and never indulge in government non-approved activities?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They die anyway ! They just do not notice when they do!

[Dwarven Sen]

Sad but probably true.

How is it that the populations of the western worlds have been smoking for centuries, but only now is it a source of death and political leaverage rather than just a past time?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

By the by, do you know what happens to people who eat right per government standards, exercise right per government standards, only have safe sex per government standards, live in government approved housing, drive the government prescribed speed limits, and never indulge in government non-approved activities?

They die anyway ! They just do not notice when they do!

And it's interesting that - and this is not a comparison to second hand smoke - America's "obesity" problem is directly related to the suggestions the government made on eating during the 90's. They told everyone to eat pasta for a healthy diet. Well that's what a lot of people did - but pasta has a ton of carbohydrates that the body stores for energy in the future - and it's stored as fat.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Dwarven Sen

Sad but probably true.

How is it that the populations of the western worlds have been smoking for centuries, but only now is it a source of death and political leaverage rather than just a past time?

Well, James I didn't like it back in 1604 But seriously (speaking from complete ignorance), maybe we haven't been aware of the dangers of smoking for very long. Advances in medical knowledge have over time revealed more accurate causes of death, I assume.

Originally Posted by inked

but you can pick which parts are serious !

Since I can't really tell if you're serious, I can't answer your points. Thank you for replying though.

[Dwarven Sen]

Excuse me but did JD just criticise the american government? Has the world gone mad? Mind you he has gone french now (still finding that hard to believe), and it was a democrat government at the time.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Dwarven Sen

Excuse me but did JD just criticise the american government? Has the world gone mad? Mind you he has gone french now (still finding that hard to believe), and it was a democrat government at the time.

I've never said the American government is perfect. Also anyway - I'm against the nanny state and this is just an example of the nanny state.

Also, there was NEVER a Democrat or Republican government in the US - that is NOT our government. Our government is the Constitution of the United States and our people and institutions - regardless of who may be the president at any one time. This isn't like Europe here - where our government changes based on who is president (or as in most European countries - who is PM).

[inked]

Yes, well, as an unreconstructed Southerner in the USA, I can tell you by cultural witness that the most dread words in America are "We are from the government and we are here to help you!" Their imposition of of Reconstruction and its aftermath were once reason for Woodrow Wilson's opposition to the draconian measures of vengeful Europe after WWI. Even Churchill noted the fact, IIRC. Not that that stopped the vengeance. And what'd you get? Hitler and the Third Reich! Fortunately the lessons were learned better 2nd time around! Why Germany's division into Russian and American and French and British sectors even slowed the process down until the fall of the Berlin Wall! How's it doing now?

NOTE: 400th post, let's all go off to the Teacup Cafe for a nooner recap of brekker, eh?