Ban Alcohol

[Old Greg]

I will (occasionaly) defend the indefensible just to force people to question their motives. I usualy admit to it later. Or I will already have stated my own position somewhat earlier (you may have missed it if you are new).

I said many months ago that as long as the leadership of the BNP were as overtly racist as they currently are I could never support them.
I then said I may vote for them in a particular thread just for the fun of it.
If the BNP realigned some of its policy I could vote for them.

If they stop being overtly racist, it won't be because they're not racist - it's because they're covertly racist - and have a hidden agenda.

[BrilloPad]

If they stop being overtly racist, it won't be because they're not racist - it's because they're covertly racist - and have a hidden agenda.

BNP and hidden agenda. That would require intelligence wouldn't it?

[The Lone Gunman]

If they stop being overtly racist, it won't be because they're not racist - it's because they're covertly racist - and have a hidden agenda.

This is the wrong thread realy, but for years Labour had clause 4 (by way of example, lets not get too deep), it was always there threatening a communist state, there were plenty of members who wanted to go that route.
They had intenal fights with their own militants untill New Labour was formed and old communist aspirations were dropped.
What makes you think that the BNP could not go the same way? If they wish to become a popular party then they will have to change their agenda.
Neither you nor I can say whether that change will be genuine.

[zathras]

No one has yet to be killed by passive smoking

I beg to differ. Roy Castle if you want an example. His Cancer was put down to years working in smoke filled clubs, he never smoked his entire life.

As for Alchohol.

1 cigerette is bad for you

1 drink of alchohol can actually be good for you.

Drink in moderation and it will do you good. Smoke in moderation and it will still do you harm.

[sasguru]

But smoking isn't banned per se, it's banned in "enclosed public spaces". Areas where person 'A' could, through no intent of their own, be subjected to breathe in person 'B's tobacco smoke. Now with drinking, If I walk past a table in a restaurant where 8 people are sipping their Chardonnay, I don't unwittingly (more's the pity) intake any of it.

A point which the smoking apologists are loathe to concede.
On a BTW, why would you want to imbibe a poncy drink like Chardonnay. That's like so 80s, man!

[wobbegong]

A point which the smoking apologists are loathe to concede.
On a BTW, why would you want to imbibe a poncy drink like Chardonnay. That's like so 80s, man!

Because, erm . . . I'm an 80's ponce?

[zathras]

My original point was that if you are going to ban smoking on the grounds of harm that it does to people that alcohol falls into much the same category (in my view worse). I believe that this banning culture is a hitleresque fad that is done for no other reason than to satisfy the personal problems/interests of those instigating and supporting the ban.

Cobblers!

Alchohol in and of itself is not dangerous and in moderation can be good for you. Even one cigarette is bad for you. Alchohol is not responsible because it is embibed by some idiot who shows he is incabable of deciding that he has had enough.

Speaking as a non-smoker even in a street when somethings thoughtless tw*t smoking blows his smoke in my direction it can set my asthma off so don't come around saying it causes no harm.

[DodgyAgent]

Cobblers!

Alchohol in and of itself is not dangerous and in moderation can be good for you. Even one cigarette is bad for you. Alchohol is not responsible because it is embibed by some idiot who shows he is incabable of deciding that he has had enough.

Speaking as a non-smoker even in a street when somethings thoughtless tw*t smoking blows his smoke in my direction it can set my asthma off so don't come around saying it causes no harm.

Nicotine is not dangerous until someone smokes it. Alcohol is not dangerous until someone has too much of it and becomes aggressive. The jury is still out as to whether or not passive smoking actually causes or contributes to lung cancer or illness (carbon monoxide from cars contributes to ill health, yet we do not ban cars do we?).

The point surely is that smoking has been banned apparently because of the danger to other people and because it is anti social. By the same argument alcohol should be banned because without it there would be far fewer people with liver problems and there would be fewer acts of violence; so if you ban smoking then you should also ban alcohol.

I know that a lot of you "ban supporters" are holier than thou guardian readers who think that banning smoking gives you some sort of moral integrity, but I am afraid this puts you in the same category as the likes of those super controllers such as Patricia hewitt, tessa Jowell, Dawn Primarlo .
(however you spell her name), the Health & Safety mafia et al.

The best the you can do to argue my point is either to sling insults or sidetrack the argument into a technical issue over whether passive smoking contributes to cancer (which I am afraid introduces new dynamics to the argument, apparently oral sex. causes cancer as do a number of other activities and diets...ban them!).

In much the same way that banning smoking will have a positive effect on my own life, banning oral sex will not make a jot of difference to most of you.
It is not unreasonable to presume that if you ban smoking then you should ban alcohol. If you ban alcohol then you should also ban oral sex. In order then to make it easier to cope without blowjobs then maybe we should cover our women up to reduce the desire to have oral sex.

Then what are we left with?

Why? an extremist totalitarian religious society .

[sasguru]

Nicotine is not dangerous until someone smokes it. Alcohol is not dangerous until someone has too much of it and becomes aggressive. The jury is still out as to whether or not passive smoking actually causes or contributes to lung cancer or illness (carbon monoxide from cars contributes to ill health, yet we do not ban cars do we?).

The point surely is that smoking has been banned apparently because of the danger to other people and because it is anti social. By the same argument alcohol should be banned because without it there would be far fewer people with liver problems and there would be fewer acts of violence; so if you ban smoking then you should also ban alcohol.

I know that a lot of you "ban supporters" are holier than thou guardian readers who think that banning smoking gives you some sort of moral integrity, but I am afraid this puts you in the same category as the likes of those super controllers such as Patricia hewitt, tessa Jowell, Dawn Primarlo .
(however you spell her name), the Health & Safety mafia et al.

The best the you can do to argue my point is either to sling insults or sidetrack the argument into a technical issue over whether passive smoking contributes to cancer (which I am afraid introduces new dynamics to the argument, apparently oral sex. causes cancer as do a number of other activities and diets...ban them!).

In much the same way that banning smoking will have a positive effect on my own life, banning oral sex will not make a jot of difference to most of you.
It is not unreasonable to presume that if you ban smoking then you should ban alcohol. If you ban alcohol then you should also ban oral sex. In order then to make it easier to cope without blowjobs then maybe we should cover our women up to reduce the desire to have oral sex.

Then what are we left with?

Why? an extremist totalitarian religious society .

It's a simple principle which has been applied in the more enlightened countries for centuries.

Your rights stop when they infringe mine.

Everyone should be able to do what they want UNTIL it affects other people adversely. People are free to smoke in the privacy of their homes.I deserve the right not to be forced to inhale other people's smoke in a public place.

If someone is drinking that doesn't affect me directly unless they get violent. But then there are laws to deal with that. People are free to drink themselves to death in peace if they so wish.

If two people agree to oral sex, well that's up to them.
If someone forces oral sex on someone, that is called rape, there are laws to deal with that.

Simple concept really, except for hard-of-thinking Telegraph readers who clearly equate banning smoking with a serious infringement of civil liberties. Why set up this straw man debate, there are plenty of real rights which are vanishing under our noses: habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, the right to a quick trial for starters. Why don't you moan about those?

[DodgyAgent]

It's a simple principle which has been applied in the more enlightened countries for centuries.

Your rights stop when they infringe mine.

Everyone should be able to do what they want UNTIL it affects other people adversely. People are free to smoke in the privacy of their homes.I deserve the right not to be forced to inhale other people's smoke in a public place.

If someone is drinking that doesn't affect me directly unless they get violent. But then there are laws to deal with that. People are free to drink themselves to death in peace if they so wish.

If two people agree to oral sex, well that's up to them.
If someone forces oral sex on someone, that is called rape, there are laws to deal with that.

Simple concept really, except for hard-of-thinking Telegraph readers who clearly equate banning smoking with a serious infringement of civil liberties. Why set up this straw man debate, there are plenty of real rights which are vanishing under our noses: habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, the right to a quick trial for starters. Why don't you moan about those?

Fair point, so why not allow people to have their own pub where people are welcome to smoke?