Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    If that's the case then smokers don't deserve free treatment on the NHS, you want to willfully destroy your body, fine, don't expect everyone else to pay for your own self inflicted damages though!
    Well that's a difficult proposition. How far can you go with that? Should fat people not be given treatment on fat health issues? If you're reasoning is because it is self-inflicted then that could cover many things. It's a slippery slope.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    reduce rates of flats and houses in London for studnets
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pelaitsc45)
    Well that's a difficult proposition. How far can you go with that? Should fat people not be given treatment on fat health issues? If you're reasoning is because it is self-inflicted then that could cover many things. It's a slippery slope.
    If fat people are fat because of their bone-idled laziness then yes, no treatment for free.
    And actually I agree with the last sentence, if you end up suffering from a health problem due to your own idiocy, then yes, pay for your own treatment.
    Long story short..............Its difficult economic times and quite frankly the taxpayer doesn't want to fund the 'healing of idiots' as I like to put it. They spent a lot money ruining themselves (especially the case in terms of smoking and alcohol), then they can come up with the money for their own treatment.
    The saved money can be used to improve the NHS in many ways.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    yoga pant tax.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    If fat people are fat because of their bone-idled laziness then yes, no treatment for free.
    And actually I agree with the last sentence, if you end up suffering from a health problem due to your own idiocy, then yes, pay for your own treatment.
    Long story short..............Its difficult economic times and quite frankly the taxpayer doesn't want to fund the 'healing of idiots' as I like to put it. They spent a lot money ruining themselves (especially the case in terms of smoking and alcohol), then they can come up with the money for their own treatment.
    The saved money can be used to improve the NHS in many ways.
    Well the NHS is there to provide healthcare to everybody living in the UK and perhaps it would seem heartless to help someone suffering with heart disease and possibly give them more time to live.

    I think money should fund the education and helping of people who are fat and/or smoke in efforts to reduce the amount of obese people or smokers. We shouldn't stop treatment all together, but perhaps money should be charged if the health problem is entirely self inflicted as, you're right, it's a waste of the tax payer's money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Raise the voting age to 25, ban the unemployed and public sector workers from voting, deportation of Muslims, complete ban on immigration, replacement of the NHS with a private insurance-based system, dismantlement of the welfare state...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    To make it illegal to lie in any situation
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    Because they can kill.
    who cares? weed causes *some* damage, does it not? so are you saying it should carry *some* criminality? but no- it shouldn't be legal and neither should any drug
    alcohol kills and cigarettes kill - are we going to ban *those*?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    I heard its better if we do that. It's just the social costs that will be considerably higher if we legalise something like cocaine.
    no they wouldn't - cocaine would be cheaper via legalisation and therefore crime (e.g. theft to fund addictions) would go right down.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    no they wouldn't - cocaine would be cheaper via legalisation and therefore crime (e.g. theft to fund addictions) would go right down.
    Yh but there would be greater social costs with increased consumption
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Introduce vape zones cuz its getting annoying at this point
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CheeseIsVeg)
    *throws vegetable soup grenade*
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Wow that escalated quickly :rofl:
    Nooooo, not vegetables. They're my kryptonite.

    Also I feel the need to point out my post has more reps than yours
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    Yh but there would be greater social costs with increased consumption
    what are these "social costs" specifically?
    also, there are social costs of alcohol and cigarettes - why aren't you saying those should also be banned?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I would ban the watching of porn and introduce on the spot fines.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what are these "social costs" specifically?
    also, there are social costs of alcohol and cigarettes - why aren't you saying those should also be banned?
    I'll let you figure out the social costs of snorting cocaine.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Free drugs and government funded whore houses for all
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    I'll let you figure out the social costs of snorting cocaine.
    no I'm asking for the *specifics*.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    I'll let you figure out the social costs of snorting cocaine.
    also, there are social costs of alcohol and cigarettes - why aren't you saying those should also be banned?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    also, there are social costs of alcohol and cigarettes - why aren't you saying those should also be banned?
    The costs of doing LSD and cocaine are worse. Plus an alcohol or cigarette ban won't work, look at prohibition.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    The costs of doing LSD and cocaine are worse. Plus an alcohol or cigarette ban won't work, look at prohibition.
    :' ) you think there are social costs to LSD?! you have no clue about any of this, do you?

    also, prohibition in general doesn't work, sherlock - that's why there are people out there addicted to coke, having to pay more money for it (because of the increased costs of selling it in the black market) and therefore have to commit theft crimes to fund that addiction, and they can't get much help without getting into trouble because it's illegal to possess. criminalising a substance makes it more dangerous, pure and simple. drug cartels also cause the deaths of people in america at least, because the only people who can enforce drug contracts are armed gangs/mobsters. just like with alcohol in prohibition.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.