Gotta feel kinda sorry for the Government

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

Recently I've been feeling really sorry for the poor old Government. The big issue a couple of weeks ago was this ban on smoking in pubs and clubs. All very well and good, but a large number of people were falling over themselves to condemn the Government for not thinking about improving the NHS.

When the Government WAS trying to fix the NHS, who was getting pissy? Yup, health groups who said the Government needed to target the problem of smoking instead of the treatment.

This isn't just true of England, of course, I imagine it's true of any country. It must be so frustrating to be condemned by some section of society no matter what you try and improve.

I'll say right now, I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not new Labour anyway. They've gone a bit too central for my liking, so this isn't so much a sympathy for Labour as it is Governments in general.

Yeah, so those are my thoughts.

[memento]

Every government has to respond to different groups pressuring them to fix things their way. It's helpful becuase it gives them choices on what to do. They then get to weigh things up in consultations, white papers, green papers, draft bills and finally legislation or policy. So it's helpful rather than something to feel bad for.

I just want them to ban smoking cause whenever I go to a club my clothes end up stinking.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

And once they ban smoking, instead of smelling of smoke they'll smell of armpit sweat. Much better.

[wheelchairman]

I think it's gay. I like to smoke while drinking.

And how does that affect sheesha bars for example?

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Everyone rants about the rights of non-smokers: what about the rights of smokers? If we want to smoke and damage ourselves that's our business.

[the_offsprings_monkey]

I hope all smokers die a slow and painful death, most of them will.

[The Talking Pie]

I think the government should deny NHS treatment to people who played an active role in damaging themselves. Hey presto, the smokers get to keep their smokes, the non-smokers get to laugh at their misfortune, and the NHS has far better statistics, based upon those whom it takes on and subsequently cures.

Man, I should rule the world :cool:

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

Unfortunately, smokers pay for the NHS to keep going. With the amount of tax on cigarettes now, a lot of vital services are being paid for by the sale of cigarettes. Why do you think the Government doesn't just ban smoking? Yup, because it'll lost a fahkin' HUGE amount of revenue.

I read somewhere a statistic that was something like for every £1.20 smokers cost the NHS because of their smoking, they pay £8.30 due to the tax on cigarettes.

So no, the argument that the NHS shouldn't treat smokers doesn't fly for me, because we play a major, major role in keeping it alive. Don't kid yourself - without cigarettes the only way to keep things like the NHS up would be huge, huge tax increases.

[Italia311]

The Government banned smoking in all bars and clubs in Ontario except for the Casino's and strip clubs of course. I hate to say it but I like. I used to smoke and never minded the smell, but when I quit, it was so irritating. I guess im two face but I like the non-smoking environment.

[wheelchairman]

Besides, living is just a slow progression towards dying, smokers just speed up the process to enjoy themselves a little more in the moment. I'm not a person of extreme self-control either, so it's understandable.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

The problem of course with Labour's proposed smoking ban is that it's half-assed, which shows they really don't much care about health risks, even if others do. For instance, they haven't banned it in any Working Men's Clubs. Who tends to vote for Labour? Working men.

If someone can give me a genuinly good reason for banning smoking in clubs, other than some half-assed argument about the smell (I hate the smell of sweat, I certainly wouldn't want that in a club) or second-hand smoke (the "health risks" of which haven't even been conclusively proven) then please do. 'Cos I haven't heard a decent one yet.

[wheelchairman]

Of course they didn't. It would piss off the working men.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

Exactly my point. It's a vote-winner. By doing a kind of half-assed ban they get votes from the health groups, and by making exceptions for working men they keep their central voting group. And it's just ghey, because they're trying to wrap it up in "noble" and "health risks" tape. And it sickens me.

[wheelchairman]

Welcome to parliamentary politics. That should be painfully obvious. No matter who is in power.

[The Talking Pie]

Bah, they could easily just ban smoking. There are many ways around the tax problem. One is to stop wasting money on other useless shit. Another is to just print more money and don't tell anyone about it. I'm no expert on this issue, but if it's secret, then inflation can't really take place. I mean, you need money to pay for more hospitals and to pay the wages of doctors and nurses; the staff and workers who build them are paid in money. Money you print. Money you print but that neither they nor the majority of your government knows about. Surely you wouldn't face the same problems as you would when printing money to trade with other countries?

Anyway, on the smokers issue... I'm not trying to punish smokers. I just don't think that someone who's damaged themselves should get the same priority as those whom accidentally befall injury. Very simple really. If you're purposely adding to a problem, then you shouldn't expect to have someone rushing to your rescue. If smokers want to stop paying for a service [NHS] that they thus can't as easily receive, then they're more than welcome to. They actively choose to buy cigarettes, and thus pay the taxes. See my logic here? I'm aiming to drive people off cigarettes, so that they end up healthier, the NHS can deal easier, less people complain about standards and dyiness, and everyone generally ends up happier. All of their own accord.

And I know this is crazy-talk. Feel free to pick it apart.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

The argument of "if people don't smoke, the NHS needs less cash" works in theory, until you start to go into statistics. As I pointed out earlier, smokers pay round about £8 for every £1 they take from the NHS. As such, if nobody smokes, that still equates to a loss of £7 per smoker for the NHS. As you can see, it doesn't work.

And if you think smokers shouldn't be treated because of self-inflicted injury, why stop there? What about alcoholics? People who are addicted to drugs? Hell, even people who try to commit suicide. That's all self-inflicted injury.

Society does not have the right to determine who should be treated and who should not, regardless of their past. Everyone contributes to the service, everyone should be entitled to it - no matter what their injury or disease is.

[The Talking Pie]

Everyone who damages themselves. And I'm also suggesting giving people the option to not pay for services which their actions don't enable them to receive (at least in full) anyway. And my 'printing money' idea still covers the loss of revenue from all this.

I'm saying all this, of course, so that such threats need never be used. You scare someone with your policies, and they happily fall in line. So no one ends up as an injured party.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

Eh? So you're saying you're giving people the option not to pay for the NHS if they think they're fairly healthy? 'Cos that'll never work.

And I'm sure there must be a problem with the printing money thing. I'm no economist but common sense says that if that'd work someone would've done it by now.

And I maintain that in the capitalist society in which we live, people have to pay taxes. That's the way it works. People can't be selective, because of course scores of people will choose not to pay for certain things in order to save a quick buck. You do that, and the NHS will collapse. Simple as that. So if everyone is required to pay taxes, which they are, everyone is entitled to the services those taxes provide.

And not allowing people healthcare if they harm themselves is particularly harsh. You don't know the circumstances for every individual case, you can't say that someone who harms themselves is somehow less worthy than someone who fell off a ladder, say.

[the_offsprings_monkey]

I still wish smokers would die, an this is coming from somebody who used to smoke an who's loved ones smoke, I still want smokers to die.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

I still wish smokers would die, an this is coming from somebody who used to smoke an who's loved ones smoke, I still want smokers to die.

Everyone's going to die. Smokers are just going to do it faster and probably more painfully. We all know this, we're under no delusion.

[The Talking Pie]

Dave - We're talking about this on MSN, so I guess the only point I have left to answer is yours of the inflation issue. And to that I say: how do we know that people aren't printing money to pay for government services? After all, a requirement of it was that nobody except for those at the top knew.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

Good point, I suppose. But I really have no idea how inflation works anyway.

[T-6005]

Depends on the kind of inflation it is.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

See, I didn't know there was even more than one kind.

[T-6005]

I'm dredging up memories from Macroeconomics here, but I believe the two types are cost-push and demand-pull. If there's a higher demand than supply for things produced, then prices will rise so that fewer people buy, and it'll reach a supply/demand equilibrium.

The other one, as far as I remember, is cost-push, or supply-shock inflation. It's where the cost of a resource that has no alternative means of access rises. This causes all of the products dependant on that resource to rise in price.

Technically speaking, if you dropped a shitload of money into an economy, that would also make prices rise, as there would be so much money floating around that currency would become semi-worthless. But I'm not sure about which type that is. Someone correct me if I'm wrong in any of this - it was a while back, so I'm sure I've got some of it mixed up.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

The only education I've had of any kind of inflation was hyper-inflation in Germany in the 1920s. And that came about 'cos they printed shitloads of money. So all I know is loads more money = inflation.

[T-6005]

Hyperinflation (again, if I remember correctly) is if the rate of inflation is going up over 10 or 15% per year. A usual rate of inflation is around 3% per year.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

In Berlin, in November 1923, a loaf of bread cost 23 billion (23,000,000,000) marks.

Not of any relevance, I just find that statistic too staggering to comprehend.

[T-6005]

In Berlin, in November 1923, a loaf of bread cost 23 billion (23,000,000,000) marks.

Not of any relevance, I just find that statistic too staggering to comprehend.
Eating the money would probably have given you more nutrition.

[The Talking Pie]

I've seen Ferris Bueller enough times to know a thing or two about economics...

[T-6005]

In that case, please correct me if I've got anything wrong.

[memento]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Everyone rants about the rights of non-smokers: what about the rights of smokers? If we want to smoke and damage ourselves that's our business.

no doubt someone has pointed out the dangers of passive smoking. Also the same reasoning can be used for the class A drug user, the steriod abuser, fox hunter, the whore banger etc.

And Dave I'm pretty sure there have been conclusive studies on the dangers of second hand smoke. It's pretty damn obvious there are dangers. I mean you're like surrounded effectively by pollution all the time. If you work in a bar it's even worse. I can google you something if you really want it. But I've read of plenty of 'studies' in the metro.

Besdies, the fact that there isn't any wide consensus on the dangers of passive smoking ISN'T a reason not to act. There's a general principle in environmental policy/law that's called the "precautionary principle". that is just becuase there is no consensus on scientific evidence of an activity that will cause damage to the environment it shoudln't be let thru, on the basis of that hole in knowledge.

So when it's my health at risk I'd rather the government take a precautionary action where the burdon of proof is on the smokers rather than us non smokers. Because it's my health you guys are messing with. If you can PROVE that passive smoking is not harmful with certainty I'm fine with it. But you can't.

And stinky armpits don't make my coat smell a week later :-p

[Kitten]

I like the idea of a non-smoking section and a smoking section. If the non-smokers come into the smoking section, they do so at their own risk.

[Sin Studly]

I like the idea of smoking and telling the vagina non-smokers to fuck off and die when they complain, after blowing smoke into their faces of course.

[Paint_It_Black]

Whether an establishment allows smoking or not should be entirely up to that establishment and not the government. I've said this so many times, but if enough people truly want non-smoking pubs or whatever, then they would start to appear naturally. It's a question of freedom. On an issue like this there's no reason why individual businesses can't be allowed to decide for themselves.

Almost everything else I was going to say has already been said by TUNB.

Talking Pie, your modifications to the NHS sound suspiciously like health insurance, and not an NHS at all. Affordable health care for everyone is one of the things that's still great about Great Britain, regardless of its flaws. People must not be excluded for any reason.

[memento]

The thing with private establishments is that they exhbit a public character, PIB. The private argument would work in ones on house. But it doesn't work in the public. Seat belt laws were introduced despite widespread condemnation too.

[Paint_It_Black]

On PUBLIC roads. Privately owned businesses that happen to be open to the public should not fall under the same rules. I'm not interested what the law actually says about it, I'm just saying how it should be.

[memento]

I just disagree for the health reasons mentioned.

[Paint_It_Black]

People who want to smoke knowing full well it is harmful should be allowed to do so. Non-smokers who don't want to be around it can leave. If there's enough of them to actually matter, they can find somewhere that has a non-smoking policy by choice. If they can't find somewhere like that, then they should assume that they don't matter, or someone would have exploited the customer base that they form and opened an establishment catering to them.

[memento]

But there is enough of us to matter, that's why Parliament is legislating for us and the workers who work in the bars.

[Paint_It_Black]

If you truly mattered then capitalism would have solved the problem. When enough people want something, someone is guaranteed to show up and sell it to you. The government doesn't need to get involved in this. Honestly, I think this is completely obvious. There has to just be a few anti-smoking fanatics pushing for this. If you asked the average non-smoker if they wanted it banned they'd probably say something like "well, I don't smoke, so yeah alright why not". They'll agree with it if forced to take a stance, but are mostly indifferent. I'll say it once more. If a lot of people cared strongly, someone would have opened places catering to their desires.

[The Talking Pie]

Talking Pie, your modifications to the NHS sound suspiciously like health insurance, and not an NHS at all. Affordable health care for everyone is one of the things that's still great about Great Britain, regardless of its flaws. People must not be excluded for any reason.
No, no... my emphasis was on people not having to pay for a service they choose not to be eligable for. No one would pay anything other than the current standard tax. Jesus, health insurance is a bloody horrible idea. And the whole point of my plan was so that people choose having comprehensive health coverage over smoking, thus making everyone healthier and happier. You know, with the lack of dyiness and all.

[Paint_It_Black]

But by being able to opt out of paying, and thus not receiving the service, doesn't that then mean the people choosing not to opt out are in a sense paying for health insurance? Maybe I'm just still not quite following you. I strongly agree that health insurance is horrible.

[The Talking Pie]

Well in that case, in a sense we're all paying for health insurance through taxes. Just not the kind that dictates the level of cover you get by the amount you pay. Which isn't something my idea suggested. But my original point was lost; it wasn't to deny certain individuals access to healthcare, just to put them on the backburner if their medical issue is self-inflicted. I mean, if your house had collapsed on you and you were in dire need of all kinds of operations, wouldn't you be slightly pissed off if you couldn't get a bed (and thus, medical attention) on account of someone who's suffered similar injuries because he decided it'd be fun in his drunkenness to jump off a bridge because his friends egged him on?

[memento]

If you truly mattered then capitalism would have solved the problem..

No. Because we are not in a perfectly competitive market with perfect competition, perfect information, no travel times etc. That argument only works in economists minds not in the real world. Because there are too many things that distort the miagration from smoking to non smoking places. e.g. the very fact you are permitted to smoke in a club means more people take it up (social smokers etc.) and I could go on but I can't be botherd to think.

Edit: also the government has long since passed laws to stop us from harming ourselves when teh general consensus was indifference e.g. seat belt laws. Indifference ISN'T a reason not to act when there are health consequences.

[Paint_It_Black]

I mean, if your house had collapsed on you and you were in dire need of all kinds of operations, wouldn't you be slightly pissed off if you couldn't get a bed (and thus, medical attention) on account of someone who's suffered similar injuries because he decided it'd be fun in his drunkenness to jump off a bridge because his friends egged him on?

Personally, I don't think I would. But I do see your point. And something similar already happens. If someone goes to hospital with an injury caused by stupidity, and it's not immediately life threatening, they'll quite often get bumped to the back of the line.

[Madman_1013]

FUCK THE GOVERNMENT!!!!! They should change the governmnet to an autocratical government

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

Thank you for your reasoned and witty reply.

[yay]

They banned smoking in clubs/pubs? I feel torn in both directions of the argument. I wanna be able to smoke in pubs and clubs. But then again it might stop the temptation of me lighting up, when there is no-one else doing it.

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

So you'll just go outside and smoke, with every other smoker in there.

[yay]

So you'll just go outside and smoke, with every other smoker in there.I guess that would work. But it stops me picking up.

[That Punk Kid You Love]

Recently I've been feeling really sorry for the poor old Government. The big issue a couple of weeks ago was this ban on smoking in pubs and clubs. All very well and good, but a large number of people were falling over themselves to condemn the Government for not thinking about improving the NHS.

When the Government WAS trying to fix the NHS, who was getting pissy? Yup, health groups who said the Government needed to target the problem of smoking instead of the treatment.

This isn't just true of England, of course, I imagine it's true of any country. It must be so frustrating to be condemned by some section of society no matter what you try and improve.

I'll say right now, I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not new Labour anyway. They've gone a bit too central for my liking, so this isn't so much a sympathy for Labour as it is Governments in general.

Yeah, so those are my thoughts.



So,the Government would rather have people getting drunk more than smoking. If you can't have a cigarette with your beer than you drink more. The more you drink the drunker you get (no shit sherrlock). Basicly cutting out smoking would mean more alcoholics/drunk people which could also cause more drunk driving accidents and so forth. The Goverment don't think very much.

[T-6005]

So,the Government would rather have people getting drunk more than smoking. If you can't have a cigarette with your beer than you drink more. The more you drink the drunker you get (no shit sherrlock). Basicly cutting out smoking would mean more alcoholics/drunk people which could also cause more drunk driving accidents and so forth. The Goverment don't think very much.
Neither do you, obviously. That's one of the shittiest conclusions I've ever seen in the Politics section. And NOAMR has hung out here. Seriously - what the hell is wrong with you? Develop some semblance of intellect before generalizing like you just did. It just turns out ridiculous.

[Madman_1013]

after being cheated out of my money numerous times i say fuck the government

[Bryan875]

u are the most fucking ignorant person ive ever seen. ...well i think that people shouldn't have to pay for medical related things in their taxes if they also have to pay a second charge just for their services. so your really paying for more than u get......correct me if im wong

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about or who you're talking to.

[The Talking Pie]

Agreed. But if you're annoyed about the prospect of paying for more than what you get, why not step out in front of a car and get your fair share of medical service?

[TheUnholyNightbringer]

I personally am rather happy I'm not having to take my "share" out of the NHS.