PDA

View Full Version : Nanny State or not ?



stewart38
26th-October-2004, 02:25 PM
On the one hand Liverpool City Council have now ban smoking in all public places and on the other we have the government wanting to relax the gambling laws

If you assume passive smoking kills then there is a strong argument for banning smoking in all public spaces including some ceroc venues . ie evidence suggests people die from inhaling passive smoke and they may not wish to choose that option for an early death

What about gambling and a relaxation in the laws ‘may’ increase problem gamblers from 300,000 to 600,000. However who knows?

What if you guaranteed a relaxation in gambling would lead to a doubling of ‘problem gamblers’ should then such a relaxation go ahead?

When should the state ‘step in’.?

Alcohol has a higher addiction rate then cannabis but the government doesn’t band it as its part of our culture.
Pollutants from cars may kill 1000s but its part of our lives we don’t ban cars?

I would ban smoking in public spaces (and I’ve changed my mind on this very recently)
Allow more gambling with safe guards (I’m still a bit on the fence)
Legalise all drugs with safe guards (Banning them doesn’t work)
Keep cars and remove 75% of speed cameras (and take the risk !)

We have had threads about smoking ,addiction/drugs, speeding not sure on fox hunting etc
Many of these are highly emotive with people seeing them as black or white I don’t know where the state should draw the line ? :sick:

Finally I find it funny that the Daily Mail has campaigned long and hard against the proposed new gambling legislation and then has an article written by Michael Winner that ‘mumsy’ lost millions in casinos in Monte Carlo . The article ends that he went there with girlfriend etc . I lost the message ie it wasn’t good for her but ok for him, so why not for the masses ?

Gordon J Pownall
26th-October-2004, 03:35 PM
On the one hand Liverpool City Council have now ban smoking in all public places and on the other we have the government wanting to relax the gambling laws

If you assume passive smoking kills then there is a strong argument for banning smoking in all public spaces including some ceroc venues . ie evidence suggests people die from inhaling passive smoke and they may not wish to choose that option for an early death

What about gambling and a relaxation in the laws ‘may’ increase problem gamblers from 300,000 to 600,000. However who knows?

What if you guaranteed a relaxation in gambling would lead to a doubling of ‘problem gamblers’ should then such a relaxation go ahead?

When should the state ‘step in’.?

Alcohol has a higher addiction rate then cannabis but the government doesn’t band it as its part of our culture.
Pollutants from cars may kill 1000s but its part of our lives we don’t ban cars?

I would ban smoking in public spaces (and I’ve changed my mind on this very recently)
Allow more gambling with safe guards (I’m still a bit on the fence)
Legalise all drugs with safe guards (Banning them doesn’t work)
Keep cars and remove 75% of speed cameras (and take the risk !)

We have had threads about smoking ,addiction/drugs, speeding not sure on fox hunting etc
Many of these are highly emotive with people seeing them as black or white I don’t know where the state should draw the line ? :sick:

Finally I find it funny that the Daily Mail has campaigned long and hard against the proposed new gambling legislation and then has an article written by Michael Winner that ‘mumsy’ lost millions in casinos in Monte Carlo . The article ends that he went there with girlfriend etc . I lost the message ie it wasn’t good for her but ok for him, so why not for the masses ?


or just get rid of the current government.........

drathzel
26th-October-2004, 04:07 PM
or just get rid of the current government.........
:yeah: :yeah:

bring back the tories!!!!! :flower:

Graham
26th-October-2004, 04:23 PM
Ah, the innocence of youth..........

drathzel
26th-October-2004, 04:48 PM
Ah, the innocence of youth..........

innocence? where? * looks around puzzled!* :what:

Magic Hans
26th-October-2004, 05:27 PM
:yeah: :yeah:

bring back the tories!!!!! :flower:

Nooooo!!!! The Raving Loonies!!! ... oh, sorry ... they are the Tories!!! lol
:yum:

ElaineB
26th-October-2004, 07:56 PM
Speaking from personal experience, I really don't think gambling should be made that easy. My Grandfather lost the plot - all the family money and left his two and four year old daughters as well as his wife - 81 years ago!

As for alchohol - I have personal experience of that as well. My brother and an ex-partner of mine were alcoholics. My brother kicked the habit and I am very proud of the fact that he has not touched alcohol for seven years now. My concern though is that a friend's daughter (aged 11) thinks that alchopops are wonderful and anything with Vodka in has to be great. I know of another girl, who is aged 18 with a major, major drink problem.

The opinion is that those with an addictive personality will succomb to something or other (for me, horses and then dancing!). My feeling is that there should be some guidance - where from I am not sure. It should of course start from home, but in a family where some addiction or other has taken over, it may be too little, too late.

Most of us I am sure have sense to know when to stop putting money into the fruit machine or not to have the drink that will send you over the top. But for those who don't, then perhaps the Government (whichever colour!) are correct in attempting to 'nanny' us.

As for smoking - ban it!!! Apologies to those who like the weed!

As for drugs, again I know someone whose neice was addicted to heroin. She stole from her family, then started to steal cars, turned to prostitution and ended up having countless abortions. She was jailed for a time and put into a rehab program - she is now dead. There cannot be a more harsh lesson than that!



Elaine

drathzel
27th-October-2004, 08:53 AM
Nooooo!!!! The Raving Loonies!!! ... oh, sorry ... they are the Tories!!! lol
:yum:

:confused: i didn't think screaming lord such was in the tories..... he had too much hair!!!!