one law you would introduce if u were President/Prime Minister

yes but is this really something that you think the police should get involved with? the police cost a lot of money and this is just going to make them more expensive - is it worth it just for some basically harmless smoke? I don't like smoke either but I'm not going to phone the police if somebody walks along with a cigarette wofting smoke around - I can fight my own battles surely and I can simply tell them to go somewhere else with it, because most people will respect people's will to not have smoke in their faces

and I have to emphasise that if we're going to ban things simply because they smell (e cigs) then does that mean smelly people should be banned?

Noone's suggesting outright banning people from smoking e-cigs. The ban would just be on smoking e-cigs in public places, which I think is more than reasonable.

Why should everyone else be subject to your poison when they're just trying to walk along the street, or sit on the train?

Really, nobody should smoke e-cigs near other people in the first place; but unfortunately, many smokers are douches with no sense of responsibility,

so state intervention is needed to stop them from being douches and poisoning everyone around them.

Sometimes, just asking or telling someone not to smoke near you doesn't work. Some people won't budge until you start getting violent. (perhaps we should just have a law that makes it illegal to refuse to move or put away your e-cigarette when someone asks?)

Even if e-cigs are mostly harmless(which still hasn't been completely proven), they still produce a smoke which obstructs the sight and breathing of people nearby. They can also cause asthma attacks. (which is why I think aerosols should be banned in public places too. Asthma sufferers are quite common)

Firearms would allow to overthrow the state and introduce an anarchy, which must cause some gangs and mafias to take power over, so this would free people from tyranny of the state, and and introduce a tyrranny of gangs.

You're right, I'll use my side-arm to overthrow the state. Oh wait, what's that... Is it a bird? Is it a plane?... Nope, it's an attack helicopter!
...

I really don't see how people think the type of guns an average person can buy will help against a tyrannical government. If history is anything to go by they'll probably be voted in and supported anyway.

- Anyone who thinks they deserve a 'safe space' at university from opinions they find offensive should be removed from their course and sent back to nursery.

Abolish benefits entirely except for disabled and elderly people. Along with that I would heavily reduce taxes and have a flat tax system.

Is this that bad in UK? On Earth's sake, University ought to be a place for fully free debate on anything!

I was only kidding, though government must be tyrrannical, whatever the political system, unless you introduce an anarchy- a system wich may last maybe for weeks, before gangs start taking over.

Really?

But what about people who lose their jobs in corporate takeovers... If they are +50 years old they can find it incredibly difficult to find new jobs because companies prefer hiring people that are a bit younger. Yet 50 isn't that old. These people could be parents with children still in school that depend on them... Without benefits they would be f***ed!

- When someone, celebrity or not, is accused of rape, their name/information isn't released until any proof of the original claim is given.

If their skills are in demand, they will be hired. If not, they will have to go for a lower paid job and work for a bit longer until they find a better job. if they can't find a job, then unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. I just don't feel that it is right for taxpayers to pay for them to sit at home, not doing anything.

If their skills are in demand, they will be hired. If not, they will have to go for a lower paid job and work for a bit longer until they find a better job. if they can't find a job, then unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. I just don't feel that it is right for taxpayers to pay for them to sit at home, not doing anything.

I'm curious about your logic as to why a government must be tyrannical?

I

I believe that if people can prove they are actively looking for a new job to the best of their ability, then they should be given some support.

Their skills may be in demand but there are likely younger people with the same skills who companies are more likely to hire. Lower paid jobs will see them as "over qualified" or just find people less qualified who they know they can pay even less.

So in this situation, where they genuinely can't find a job through no fault of their own, you think they should just be left to starve on the street?

As for lowering taxes, how are you still going to pay for all the various public services we use? Benefits is a tiny portion of the government budget.