Should the government ban tobacco and alcohol?

[snakey1]

Alcohol is as old as the hills. It is better education we need not restrictions.

As a youngster I drank, got drunk, got tired of the side effects of being drunk then began drinking moderately until 2007.

Due to medications I must take daily I can never drink again.

 

In moderation alcohol is okay in my opinion.

 

 

Smoking is a difficult subject. I started through peer pressure and continued to smoke until I was 27. I stopped for 5 years and briefly started again after a bereavement. I stopped in 2005 and in 2007 virtually killed off my right lung with a Pulmonary Embolism.

I am fortunate that I can start and stop at will but nowadays knackering up my one good lung doesn't seem that sensible to me.

 

I would like to see a UK wide smoking ban to be honest and free help for those who are addicted presently. After all the government is quick taking its share through taxation which means it has a certain liability to smokers in general.

 

Whats your opinion of cannabis then as this is also old as the hills ? (first recorded medical use apparently dates to 2727BC in china, see here

[Now there's a right un.]

Whats your opinion of cannabis then as this is also old as the hills ? (first recorded medical use apparently dates to 2727BC in china, see here

 

 

 

I missed the topic post.....wait yep, no mention of Cannabis at all.

 

My reply was indeed on topic.

 

 

The consequences of Cannabis use depends on the individual, usage and I believe the type they smoke....

 

I know of people who smoke it as they claim it helps their current medical condition. I don't smoke it so perhaps I am not the best person to ask about it.

[snakey1]

I was just curious of your opinion (as the previous thread had been closed due to off topic arguments I couldn't ask the question there), I wasn't implying your post was off topic.

[Now there's a right un.]

I was just curious of your opinion (as the previous thread had been closed due to off topic arguments I couldn't ask the question there), I wasn't implying your post was off topic.

 

 

 

My opinion is that Cannabis is in the majority of cases the same as alcohol use, except you don't get a hangover, you're less likely to be violent, you are unlikely to choke on your own vomit, you are less likely to suffer brewers droop and you can use it in the safety of your own home.

 

However, some people use it too much or smoke too strong a variant; but the same can be said for alcohol usage too.

 

 

It is down to education in the long run.

[azrael]

i would say no to all and any ban

 

in this country we spend to much time thinking of new things to ban or ways to stop peoples doing what they want to do

 

more time should be devouted to thinking of ways to open up more freedoms and remove restrictions to free choice

[Sportsman]

as I started the thread I suppose I should offer an opinion.

 

First tobacco.

How can there be an argument for the continued use of tobacco? it has no redeeming qualities. There are no health benefits, real or imagined. There is absolutely no reason why it should be legally available.

To use the argument that its ban would result in loss of taxation revenue is just not good enough. Should we really risk so many people's lives for money. That makes us no better than drug dealers.

For those who don't believe it's bad for you read this http://www.who.int/tobacco/health_priority/en/

 

so, do I believe the government should ban it? Of course not. If you want to kill yourself I don't care how you do it. I do however believe in banning its use in public places and anywhere that I want to be, including my house and my car

a while ago I was sitting in my car in the car park of a motorway service station. parked next to me was a Ford Escort with two babies in car seats in the rear. The parents got into the car and proceeded to light up. with the windows tightly closed can you imagine what the atmosphere inside the car must have been like? Can you imagine the damage that is likely to those poor little babies respiratory systems?

Now that I would ban. I would also charged "parents" with child abuse.

 

Now alcohol, the drug of choice of the upright, law-abiding working man. it's freely available, cheap as chips and everybody loves it, I mean how dangerous could it be?

Err http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne...nment-acts.html

 

Cirrhosis of the liver used to be an old man's disease now it's a young woman's disease due mainly to cheap supermarket booze and happy hours in city centre pubs.

Add to this the toll from fighting, traffic accidents and alcoholism. Our city centres are no-go areas at weekends and our police and ambulance services are diverted away from their proper jobs to deal with the aftermath of cheap booze. Nothing wrong there then?

 

Should it be banned? Well not in my name. Again you're a grown-up, just a shame so few drinkers act like one.

 

Just to add that as a nurse in accident and emergency I can never remember being attacked by anyone under the influence of cannabis. It was an all too regular occurrence with drunks.

[Phone]

Sportsman,

 

NO!

 

But if I do save the world do I get the girl?

 

Phone

[Phone]

Sportsman,

 

"Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be." (I saw this somewhere).

 

The more I think about it the more I disagree with you (for whatever reasons). Buy why? I am actually quite liberal.

 

I am quit in favoUr of spending "trillions" if necessary on education and support. Government mandates of morality ALWAYS end in corruption. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ever see a drunk that was only arrested just once. Not many!

 

What is the difference between your position and the Aryan theory rubbish? How about considering drowning a truckload of babies a day in starving nations until they get on their feet? For the good of the world so to speak. Where would be a good place to stop?

 

Phone

[DavyR]

What is the difference between your position and the Aryan theory rubbish?

 

Eh? I don't know about the U.S., but enough money has already been poured down the drain of "Health Education" in the UK. The only effect it has is to keep health educators in a job and to nurture a sub-section of the middle classes called "the worried well".

 

I don't see how acknowledging the pointlessness of trying to protect people from their own stupidity is comparable to committing them to Nazi-style death camps?

[Sportsman]

Eh? I don't know about the U.S., but enough money has already been poured down the drain of "Health Education" in the UK. The only effect it has is to keep health educators in a job and to nurture a sub-section of the middle classes called "the worried well".

 

I don't see how acknowledging the pointlessness of trying to protect people from their own stupidity is comparable to committing them to Nazi-style death camps?

 

Oh, is that what he meant