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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    It's not evident I'm a Labour Worshiper, just because I have a avatar of Ed Miliband. I can guarantee that Labour proposals which were mentioned in their manifesto were much more fair and better planned than the ConDems.
    You can't guarantee anything because they have not being put into practice, quite simply.

    I come from an extremely poor/deprived background, one of the worst in the UK. My personal family circumstances are a little better, but financially speaking we are not far from the bottom of the pile. This isn't important to the argument - but I always feel the need to point it out because lefty labour supproters automatically assume you are rich because you advocate cuts.

    I genuinely think it would have been dreadful for us to carry on spending and just increasing taxes as Labour was proposing. Also £6billion worth of cuts is minor.

    Just concede the fact it was your party leadership which got us into this mess and now somebody else has to clear it up (or atleast attempt to).

    We need reduced taxes and make the country more competitive on the international scene.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pothead1)
    You can't guarantee anything because they have not being put into practice, quite simply.

    I come from an extremely poor/deprived background, one of the worst in the UK. My personal family circumstances are a little better, but financially speaking we are not far from the bottom of the pile. This isn't important to the argument - but I always feel the need to point it out because lefty labour supproters automatically assume you are rich because you advocate cuts.

    I genuinely think it would have been dreadful for us to carry on spending and just increasing taxes as Labour was proposing. Also £6billion worth of cuts is minor.

    Just concede the fact it was your party leadership which got us into this mess and now somebody else has to clear it up (or atleast attempt to).

    We need reduced taxes and make the country more competitive on the international scene.
    I have my doubts that Labour would have gone in the same way as LibDems on manifesto pledges. I'm sorry to hear about your circumstaces but I am not against cuts (as these have to be done), I am against how they are done. The public has bailed out banks and in return they have billion pound bonuses, this is clearly unjust. Also the war in Afganistan/Iraq was done so without fully assessing the risk vs reward method. I feel that although I am left-wing, a party which tries to establish fairness, equality and value of liberties can only be from the left.

    I disagree about reduction to taxes, I think there should be harder conventions in place to stop tax evaders. I believe in a re-distributive taxation system which makes people give back to society on what they have profited on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Why should non-smokers have to suffer from the nasty stench and the second-hand smoke that smokers produce, usually without concern for other people - so long as they can get a fix from their addiction?

    I propose that smoking is banned from the streets.

    However, to not make it so unfair on smokers - most places would have several smoking shelters - with one no more than 10 minutes walk from another. These would be covered areas where smoking would be permitted. A smoker could stop there, have a smoke and carry on walking - without affecting non-smokers.
    Why should non-drinkers have to suffer the stench of beer and drunk people stumbling in the streets usually without concern for others, so long as they can get a fix from their addiction?
    I propose that alcohol is banned from the world!!!!!!!
    mwahahaha
    *sarcasm*
    Smoking in the open air is barely going to harm your lungs, the drinking you more than likely do when you go out or that chocolate/cake/chippy you eat is doing more harm to you, why don't we ban fatty food and alcohol from the streets see how you feel about that!
    Smokers can't smoke in public places and have to see disgusting pictures on their cig packets already, why persecute them more?
    Plus your idea would fail on every level, people do what they want, not what you think they should do.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    The infantile reduction to "lets ban the car" counter-argument.

    While vehicles are heavily polluting, they are an economic necessity. Fortunately there are plenty of cleaner alternatives developed or in development so it shant always be this way.

    Smoking however. A fools game.

    I am not sure if it is the argument or the proposer you find "infantile", however I am not really that concerned either way.

    Very few people would endorse smoking as a lifestyle choice, certainly not myself.

    However in the scale of societies problems, passive smoking out of doors must surely come fairly far down the list.

    All life has meaning via choices, some are good decisions , some bad. For the state to keep introducing legislation at the fringes of the freedom of the individual should not be the wish of any right thinking individual.

    All control has to be reasonable, if not we then all live our lives as a mere function of the state. They key is therefore where the line is drawn, is the state's control disproportionate to the benefit. I strongly suspect that a blanket ban on outdoor smoking crosses that line.

    I can list a great number of issues which I disagree with:

    Why do cyclists get to drive on roads without having taken a test?
    Why are cyclists lights so dim that you can barely see them?
    Why are individuals allowed to drive cars on snow without specific training?
    Should students who destroy private property whilst exercising their right of protest over fees be excluded from their college/ university if convicted?

    Should we legislate on any of these, probably not, to do so would impinge on individual freedom.

    Yet outdoor smoking is worse than the above?

    I suspect there is more danger to a person's health working in an air conditioned office than walking past someone smoking outdoors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    I have my doubts that Labour would have gone in the same way as LibDems on manifesto pledges. I'm sorry to hear about your circumstaces but I am not against cuts (as these have to be done), I am against how they are done. The public has bailed out banks and in return they have billion pound bonuses, this is clearly unjust. Also the war in Afganistan/Iraq was done so without fully assessing the risk vs reward method. I feel that although I am left-wing, a party which tries to establish fairness, equality and value of liberties can only be from the left.

    I disagree about reduction to taxes, I think there should be harder conventions in place to stop tax evaders. I believe in a re-distributive taxation system which makes people give back to society on what they have profited on.
    Left-wing policies on the economy restrict social mobility rather than promote it, therefore putting people from my background into a habit of relying on state handouts, rather than giving them an incentive to actually work. I don't think the welfare reforms from the CoOnservatives are actually going to work (not immediately anyway), the reasons are too far and wide to discuss here though. But Labour's approach was far from helpful either. It seems both governments' attitude is to stop people getting their hands on the money, rather than trying to actually fix the problem.

    The same applies with taxation, if I've worked hard and managed to make loads of money I want to be able to keep it. There should ofcourse be incentives to spend that money (and there is nowadays too - we have got the lowest interest rates possible, hence no real incentive to save or sit on your money). Consequently, when that money is spent the economy and society as a whole will benefit, those funds will be redistributed via the economy taking their own course. As opposed to, on the other hand.. the government taking draconian amounts of money from hardworking people and deciding on how to spend it. I do understand though that confidence is quite low at the moment, so a lot of rich people are hesitant from investing. But any investment from anybody in this moment in time needs to be in the private sector and not the public sector.

    This is why I can never bring myself to agree with ideas of Labour. They advocate the exact opposite of a free, prosperous society. Large government is dreadful for society and contrary to principles of freedom.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Build smoking shelters + increase policing duties to ensuring noone smokes outside shelters, or Huge NHS costs in treating people with illnesses related to passive smoking, loss of output from people who die early from passive smoking, and overall unhealthier workforce.

    I don't think cost is the issue here.
    Smokers pay taxes enough to cover NHS costs for themselves, or at least pay a large contribution to it. If the government really wanted to stop smokers - couldnt they ban nigotene in cigerettes?

    I dont think a tiny amount of smoke inhaled occasionally walking down the street is going to be enough passive smoke to do damage - especially when you consider all the fumes inhaled from cars and other pollutions in these citys.

    Building these shelters every ten minutes walk throughout the city...that's a lot of shelters...also baring in mind it's going to be quite hard to find the space to put them, especially in cities like London.

    The other problem is how many smokers are just going to trying and sneak a cigerette in the street? You cant have police round every corner.
    • Offline

      15
      Good luck with that!
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Why are people whining about a "stench" to me burning tobacco is just a smell, not particularly pleasant but by no means unpleasant and besides if you pass someone in the street who is smoking you can smell it for all of 2 seconds.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      farting on the streets should also be illegal; they should have bus shelters for people releasing body gas so that i don't have to suffer the stench.
      • Offline

        15
        Good luck with that!
        • Offline

          2
          (Original post by Seanisonfire)
          Rather authoritarian from a libertarian, ma'am.
          Do you think Thatcher was/is a libertarian, or are you joking?
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by CandyFlipper)
          Do you think Thatcher was/is a libertarian, or are you joking?
          Not particularly, but I know she liked to pretend. 'This is what we believe' etc etc
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
          However, to not make it so unfair on smokers - most places would have several smoking shelters - with one no more than 10 minutes walk from another. These would be covered areas where smoking would be permitted. A smoker could stop there, have a smoke and carry on walking - without affecting non-smokers.
          That's all well and good, Maggie but how much do you think we would have to raise taxation to be able to afford such a strategy, my dear Tory?

          In any case, it is not particularly harmful as long as it is out in the open and we are only passing smokers on the street, etc., etc. This is why they have banned it in bus shelters though (as you would otherwise have to be endure sustained periods of time around smokers). I think leave it the way it is.
          Offline

          12
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by AshleyT)
          Smokers pay taxes enough to cover NHS costs for themselves, or at least pay a large contribution to it. If the government really wanted to stop smokers - couldnt they ban nigotene in cigerettes?

          I dont think a tiny amount of smoke inhaled occasionally walking down the street is going to be enough passive smoke to do damage - especially when you consider all the fumes inhaled from cars and other pollutions in these citys.

          Building these shelters every ten minutes walk throughout the city...that's a lot of shelters...also baring in mind it's going to be quite hard to find the space to put them, especially in cities like London.

          The other problem is how many smokers are just going to trying and sneak a cigerette in the street? You cant have police round every corner.
          The huge problem with smokers is that now they can't smoke indoors, they all stand outside the entrance to buildings, which makes no sense at all, because then everyone has to walk through a cloud of smoke when they're entering/leaving pubs, office buildings, uni buildings etc.

          I'm all up for a ban on nicotine in cigarettes. It wouldn't stop people smoking, but it may reduce the number of smokers/how often they smoke.

          I guess a public finance initiative would work fine in the case of the shelters, just make them excludable and charge smokers 20p a time to get in. The full social cost of smoking is £3.74 billion higher than revenues from smoking, so it would be making it even, really. Maybe workplaces and uni's could be encouraged to set up smoking shelters and have their employees smoke there. At my college, there's a smoking shelters right at the back of the buildings, and plenty of people use it - it stops people from smoking at the school entrance or near the houses opposite the school.

          I don't doubt that there are flaws in the system, but I must admit I absolutely hate walking behind anyone that smokes in the street, or walking through a crowd of them on my way out of somewhere. I really wish something like this could be done to stop people breathing smoke at me whilst i'm trying to live my life - its very unpleasant.
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          Might as well ban cars from roads because they smoke from the back.
          • Offline

            2
            (Original post by Seanisonfire)
            Not particularly, but I know she liked to pretend. 'This is what we believe' etc etc
            Ah yeah, when Hayek explains in the very same book the reasons that he is not a conservative, quite ironic really. Overall though libertarians are wrong to revere Thatcher anymore than Noam Chomsky. Both are good on some libertarian issues, but bad on others.
            Offline

            19
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
            Because you are the cause of the problem? You are the one actively producing a harmful stench; therefore, the onus should be on you to alter your path.
            Oh, I see; so you're going to alter my freedom to walk on the right side of the street, despite my needing to be on the right side of the street because that's where my friend lives, and instead force me to be on the left side of the street just because you "don't like the smell of smoke"?

            Jog on.
            Offline

            19
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Boobies.)

            I'm all up for a ban on nicotine in cigarettes. It wouldn't stop people smoking, but it may reduce the number of smokers/how often they smoke.
            Nicotine being the addictive ingredient in cigarettes, you may as well ban cigarettes entirely.

            (Original post by Boobies.)

            I really wish something like this could be done to stop people breathing smoke at me whilst i'm trying to live my life - its very unpleasant.
            "You have to have respect for those who smoke, and those who don't."

            People shouldn't be breathing smoke at you. If they do then it's likely to be accidental.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            They've done it with alcohol in alot of places, why not smoking. Good Call.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
            These shelters would be covered, and the side facing the street would have a screen - much like some bus shelters.

            And who says they have to be directly where non-smokers are?
            because, much like smokers, non smokers are everywhere. also
            if you want these things to be no more than 10 minutes away from a smoker, then they are obviously going to be on the street.
            basically what im saying is your idea wont work, because its stupid
           
           
           
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • Poll
          What newspaper do you read/prefer?
          Useful resources

          Groups associated with this forum:

          View associated groups
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • 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

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