Ban Alcohol

[DodgyAgent]

Most of the countries that ban alcohol are mad terrorist dysfunctional pariah states. This must by an agents vision of paradise.

As you have said so often Dodgy my friend, if you dont like it, why dont you **** off to Iraq or somewhere else

Where do you think I am posting from at the moment?

[DodgyAgent]

So people only kick someone to death whilst intoxicated????

And does the death certificate say 'kicked to death by smack'

Oh dear

The point that I am making is that alcohol is far more dangerous and anti social than smoking. as an example a lot of violence occurs courtesy of people drinking too much. Whereas I will accept that there is a chance that people can be harmed by passive smoking but there is no proof of this.

It is interesting that we associate drinking with being amusing or "cool" whereas cigarrette smokers are viewed as being people with nasty habits who we love to sneer at.

[Moscow Mule]

alcohol is far more dangerous and anti social than smoking.

Excess alcohol

[Let-Me-In]

Oh dear

The point that I am making is that alcohol is far more dangerous and anti social than smoking. as an example a lot of violence occurs courtesy of people drinking too much. Whereas I will accept that there is a chance that people can be harmed by passive smoking but there is no proof of this.

It is interesting that we associate drinking with being amusing or "cool" whereas cigarrette smokers are viewed as being people with nasty habits who we love to sneer at.

I think you will find that smoking and passive smoking has been widely accepted as the primary causes of lung cancer (and others) for many decades....well to everyone but yourself obviously.

[The Lone Gunman]

Oh dear

The point that I am making is that alcohol is far more dangerous and anti social than smoking. as an example a lot of violence occurs courtesy of people drinking too much. Whereas I will accept that there is a chance that people can be harmed by passive smoking but there is no proof of this.

It is interesting that we associate drinking with being amusing or "cool" whereas cigarrette smokers are viewed as being people with nasty habits who we love to sneer at.

You missed a bit.

The passive smokers in pubs went (past tense now) in there as a matter of choice, they knew the dangers but accepted them anyway.
The same can not be said of someone who is attacked by a drunk or run down by a drunk driver.

[Rantor]

Oh dear

The point that I am making is that alcohol is far more dangerous and anti social than smoking. as an example a lot of violence occurs courtesy of people drinking too much. Whereas I will accept that there is a chance that people can be harmed by passive smoking but there is no proof of this.

It is interesting that we associate drinking with being amusing or "cool" whereas cigarrette smokers are viewed as being people with nasty habits who we love to sneer at.

In terms of fatalaties and injuries it is also much more harmful than most class A & B drugs - should these be unbanned?

[Old Greg]

In terms of fatalaties and injuries it is also much more harmful than most class A & B drugs - should these be unbanned?

Yes (IMO) - for the reasons you say. And also, because in the case of one of the most dangerous - heroin - the personal and social dangers (other than addiction) stem principally from its illegality:

Uncertain strengths - which can lead to OD
High costs - which can lead to injection as smoking does not provide the hit required for the funds available.
High costs - which can lead to criminaloty to feed the habit.

Now, I'm not saying that along with legalisation should come complete deregulation, nor do I have a model of regulation in mind, but I think we should think about this as a society as a means of harm reduction.

[The Lone Gunman]

Yes (IMO) - for the reasons you say. And also, because in the case of one of the most dangerous - heroin - the personal and social dangers (other than addiction) stem principally from its illegality:

Uncertain strengths - which can lead to OD
High costs - which can lead to injection as smoking does not provide the hit required for the funds available.
High costs - which can lead to criminaloty to feed the habit.

Now, I'm not saying that along with legalisation should come complete deregulation, nor do I have a model of regulation in mind, but I think we should think about this as a society as a means of harm reduction.

Bloody hell, we agree!

[DodgyAgent]

I think you will find that smoking and passive smoking has been widely accepted as the primary causes of lung cancer (and others) for many decades....well to everyone but yourself obviously.

"widely accepted" does not constitute hard evidence (as in actual smoking causes cancer). Like lemmings we accept these views that are foisted upon us by the vested interest lobbies (pharma companies who make money from patches) and the "controlling mafia".

I do not smoke and have never done so. I am delighted that the ban is going to improve my life. I also do not hunt and nor do I live in the country and nor would I endorse the killing of urban foxes even though they are a damn nuisance. Nor do I mind sensible legislation (about 1 in a 1000 laws fall into this category). What I object to is people who are intent on banning things for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with any objective reasoning.

[Let-Me-In]

"widely accepted" does not constitute hard evidence (as in actual smoking causes cancer). Like lemmings we accept these views that are foisted upon us by the vested interest lobbies (pharma companies who make money from patches) and the "controlling mafia".

I do not smoke and have never done so. I am delighted that the ban is going to improve my life. I also do not hunt and nor do I live in the country and nor would I endorse the killing of urban foxes even though they are a damn nuisance. Nor do I mind sensible legislation (about 1 in a 1000 laws fall into this category). What I object to is people who are intent on banning things for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with any objective reasoning.

Ok, when I said widely accepted, I mean widely accepted because of extensive scientific reasearch...

Smoking causes lung cancer - fact. Passive smoking increases your chances of lung cancer by almost 100%.