I was reading in the times yeterday about a report by senior academics who think the government should intrude into peoples lives. They suggest banning smoking in peoples own homes. Now i'm anti smoking and welcomed the smoking ban but come on. I think the nanny state is bad enough as it is with them going even further to intrude. I think it would be another step towards realising George Orwells predictions in 1984. Other suggest was to put floride in water supplies,increase taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and scraping 24 hour drinking laws.
What does everyone think about this?
Link to article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2859623.ece
That link gave me a 404 error, so I'll comment without reading the article.
There's already far too much state interference into people's lives. Not only does it rob individuals of choice but, more importantly, it robs many of the motivation to make choices for themselves and to take personal responsibility for anything. The result is a creeping state-dependence.
As far as smoking is concerned, yes, I think the price of tobacco needs to be at a level where the tax revenues at least fund the cost of smoking-related disease to the NHS. If that has the effect of discouraging smoking, then all well and good. But banning smoking in the home is a step too far, if only because it's unenforcible. They'd have more success if they just classified tobacco as a prohibited substance.
I'm less certain about the 24-hour drinking issue. Certainly we have a problem in this country in some areas with alcohol consumption and its link to anti-social behaviour. But is the problem really much worse than it was when pubs shut at 11 pm? Either way, the drinks industry won't take responsibility for the impact of alcohol abuse until it hits their bottom line. So I suppose I'm saying that the licensing laws should stay as they are, but the local authorities and police should hit the problem spots harder than they are at the moment. If a few establishments lost their licences I suspect we might see things start to improve.
Of course, that does nothing for the underlying problem which is why do so many people have to render themselves almost unconscious in order to 'have a good time'. That's more about our broken society than it is about the licensing hours.
I really wish we would drop this excuse of "alcohol induced bad behaviour". Alcohol does not suspend the knowledge of what is right and wrong, certainly it erodes inhibitions to an extent, but even a drunk can decide. It is not allowed as an excuse in serious crime, so why is it cited so often by the media as a 'reason' for bad behaviour?
Too often drunks who misbehave are allowed to get away with their behaviour. Instead of giving them a warm safe cell for the night and sending them on their way with a cup of tea and a pat on the head the next morning, such drunks were charged with a fixed penalty everytime, then their behaviour would soon change, I guarantee it.
Putting up the price of alcohol will just fuel the, already growing, illegal supply of smuggled alcohol and unlicensed drinking 'clubs'.
As for the 'Nanny state', yes Government interference is becoming intolerable, we are being ruled by a health and safety lobby, who insist on removing any risks from life.
Whatever! Never call Britain a 'broken society' it 'aint, never.
Geez ask Donnie, many good publicans have lost their livelyhood because of this smoking ban. What's wrong with the old-fashioned system of a Public (smoking) and Saloon (non-smoking) public house?
With modern extractor systems I do not see a problem with so called 'passive smoking'.
My great-grandad smoked 'Players' all his life and only died prematurely at 84 because he fell getting paraffin for the heater.
My grandad died at 82 and smoked a pipe all his life (my dad used to nick his pipe tobacco to roll a fag) and dad smoked Naval fags (BAT) most of his life.
None of them went to any hospital on smoke related compaints. So I say this 'nanny' state is a load of bollox; sorry.
scrubsupwell, I'm sure we can all think of something that is usually harmful or dangerous where we know someone who has done it and survived. For instance, I went to school with a group of teenage boys who played 'chicken' (running out on roads..) for fun. Luckily, none of them were ever hurt, but that doesn't mean we should advise people to do it.
On the banning smoking in the home - I think its a silly idea, people should be able to do pretty much what they want in their own home. However, what if you've got a chain smoking couple with a couple of toddlers? I think maybe the laws surrounding child abuse should be changed.
Fluoride in water is something that is already done in a lot of places, and to be fair, it has yielded pretty good results.
The thing that's annoying me especially nowadays is the talk about folic acid in flour and bread. This is something which could very easily happen quite soon, but could be extremely counter productive in disguising other health problems.
I wish the state would be more intrusive when it comes to education. If they got it right there maybe we wouldn't have all the other problems to deal with.
Smoking has been around for centuries Emily (Sir Walter), it is against the law to run in front of a vehicle or a horse ;-) sorry but your statement is 'the thin edge of the wedge'.
Your body is designed to handle most things in moderation, (our ancestors lived in smoke filled rooms or caves) and moderation is key. Kirsty, my sister likes drinking alcohol (I don't) but she never goes on a binge. Why? She likes to be in control of herself especially in a crowd.
We have stumbled on another 'key', being responsible and in control of ourselves taught is in schools but external pressures erode that control (like trying to be 'manly' by confronting danger instead of being a 'gentleman' and opening a door for a lady. As a society we are losing 'respect' and our government is to blame.
I dont know about a nanny state , more like a NAZI state.
When governments behave like this they are asking for a
revolution.
Prehaps they think they can handle one,I think not.
The common people are the power according to the
british constitution.
A good point Phyz., and one I have been making for several years now... that eventually the public in general will say "enough is enough". I have never really thought what form a "revolution" would take, but as sure as God made little apples people won't put up forever with a state that allows: 1. The "victims of crime" to become the offenders while the perpetrators go virtually free. 2. People to be afraid to go out at night, or on the underground, or on public transport for fear of being attacked, raped or mugged.
3. The denial of reasonable Freedom of Speech. 4. The right to choose how to look after one's own body. 5. The denial of parents' rights to know that when we send our children to school they will learn how to communicate, read, write and add up! 6. The denial of our right to defend ourselves in our own homes. ETC ETC!
I don't like the term Nanny State when referring to this government! A true Nanny has the well-being of her Little People at heart and may hand out rules and regulations for the conducting of life, but when acting appropriately would be including those children in the planning and acting out. This government is concerned with itself and its Power! It creates rules and laws that are borne simply out of Power! There is no inclusion of the public in the planning... and the only bearing on the Nanny analogy is that the government seems to view everyone as non-adult, inexperienced and infantile. Come on Britain... wake up!
It's quite interesting you're all against the nanny state. I am of course in complete agreement.
Smoking and drinking should be allowed in your own home. It's a ridiculous idea to outlaw these activities and such a policy would be impossible to enforce.
However, does that include cannabis?
If not, why not? Let's imagine a scenario for a moment:
Two people, Tom and Phil, are in their house and the police storm in (very unlikely - I know - but stay with me).
Tom is drinking a whisky whilst Phil is smoking a cannabis cigarette. Why is it morally justifiable to arrest the cannabis cigarette smoker and not the whisky drinker?
Can anyone answer that with an argument that requires more critical thinking than ''cos it's against the law ay it' ?
i agree with you jess this government is concerned with itself and power. Personally i'm sick of this labour government and cant wait till the british public get to vote and let gordon Brown know it.
Mike is right there is already to much interference from the government, and its going to far. If they carry on we'll be calling each other commrade and Mr brown premier. We need a party for freedom and making things better. Cant exppress how happy i am to see DC topping the opinion polls.
Can't say I've much to add to this discussion but 'nannyism' is something that winds me up a lot and irritates. So I just thought I'd mention that I agree with most of the sentiments here.
It would be nice if instead of being told what we can and cannot do people were taught responsibility at an early age and inappropriate behavior was properly punished. e.g. if you binge drink and act like a lout screaming your head off at 2am in the morning you wind up in a temporary jail cell at the police station to sleep it off (no arguments). This worked as a method of enforcement in the 70s. But now, nobody seems to care. I suppose jails (even cells at police stations) are full. So is it any wonder it becomes a problem? There is nothing to stop those who want to misbehave and prove their machismo (be they male or female).
If the tax on cigarettes covers the cost of health care for those who wish to kill themselves via cancer as long as they are not killing others with their passive smoking I see no problem with them being allowed to continue (I am not a smoker and never have been).
Bring on small Government and stopping the continual interference in our lives.. Many of the things they want to do are unenforceable except as part of the Big Brother state that Labour is enveloping us with.
Jake:- "Tom is drinking a whisky whilst Phil is smoking a cannabis cigarette. Why is it morally justifiable to arrest the cannabis cigarette smoker and not the whisky drinker?"
The answer, I guess, is that there is no moral basis at all. It is all about law, not morality. In this example it can be argued that the law is arbitrary. Both substances are harmful at some level, but the law sanctions the use of one and not the other.
I suppose the different treatment under the law stems from history. Alcohol has been used in this country for centuries, but I don't believe cannabis has the same track record.
If alcohol did not previously exist but was discovered today, how would it be viewed by our lawmakers? I suspect that it would be classified as an illegal substance.
I'd best confess to having small quantities of alcohol at home - for personal use only, you understand :-)
I feel so much better now .... especially as I now realise that my home drinking is causing all the violence in Oxford's "vomit alley".
I don't live there but, its all clearly my fault.
It must be.
Dawn Primarillo(?) said so.
We must be taxed !
Where do I pay ?!?!?!?
.... meanwhile, back in planet 'normal' ....
When are we going to be rid of these people, and anyone in the Tory party with ambitions for entering government who is guilty of spouting the same nonsense ??
i agree with jonjii labour is trying to interfere with our lives to much. I will be happy to see an end to this controlling, failing, socialist regime.
There could be an argument that fluoride is more dangerous to health than tobacco (sorry: don't have research statistics to hand but it has been researched). I can only believe that it is the duty of government to protect the freedom of the people so that we live our lives as we choose. Anything else is straight fascism - and don't be convinced otherwise.
I would like to see DC fully embrace this simple fact and say it until the message starts to sink in. We are in grave danger in this country in my view, of being reduced to a neurotic, incapable, spineless MUSH by remote beaurocrats who have little respect for our way of life or our choices
or our national identity (and little quirks too).
Just watch the alcohol movement now (within the paradox of the 24-hr. drink licences, of course - don't expect logic!); and then watch more constrictions on tobacco. But there is a force out here, on the Internet, and it won't be silenced. All this neurotic mind-control makes such a terrible mockery of two world wars, never mind Remembrance Sunday. I will say again that not ONE of those veterans on parade had the freedom last Sunday to have a quiet drink and smoke (in peace time) in their local pub or club. How many was that who died for our freedoms? I'm waiting for DC to tell me why he thinks they died. And I shall continue to ask, and probably to wait. But I am a patient soul, and active in my way. All I can say is, what an absolute disgrace that not ONE politician to my knowledge has pointed out this pitiful fact. Instead, they have subscribed to it. And these are the people who think they know what is good for us. I hope you are angry.
Very true Beverly and you still can see those heroes on the streets with placards (council tax) or being hauled out of parliament by some strong arm geezers!
Instead of sitting on the tube staring at a map or wandering around in circles considering what to eat for dinner - we must start organising ourselves to combat this loss of freedom.
