UK theme parks from another point of view!

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
Meat Pie
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 313
Joined: June 2009
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Political Beliefs

Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:20 pm

Bunbury wrote:
Meat Pie, what issue do you have with the Green's drug policy, out of interest?


If I am not mistaken, the Green Party policies on drugs include the part decriminalisation of some class A drugs and the complete decriminalisation on small-scale recreational drugs such as ecstasy.

I do actually agree with policy that says that addicts should be treated as patients instead of criminals, but I think any move to legalize the possession of harmful substances would be the wrong one for society. I believe that we need to look after each other, and to just let drugs be used would be reckless. Not only have I frequently seen people on the News who have died of moderate drug use, I actually know quite few people in real life that have as well.

It's all well and good to say that Drug consumption should be left up to personal choice and everyone else should butt-out. By those standards you should then presumably say that Russian Roulette is equally a choice and any deaths that occur are the problems of the participants so society should just turn a blind eye.

That's not the society I want to live in and I really think the Green's have got it wrong on this issue.
Image
Image
AKA the vocal minority.
 
User avatar
ponder
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2009
Location: Nr Colchester, Essex
Contact:

Re: Political Beliefs

Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:30 pm

I see your point, but then surely the same laws should apply to alcohol and cigarettes, which kill a great deal more people a year than any illegal substance does.

I think that laws on recreational drugs should be relaxed, personally. It would increase the actual control of the substances and help to kill off black market trade. Holland and Belgium are perfect examples of how it can work.
Image

Loop - Roller coaster and Theme Park inspired T-shirts
http://looptees.com / https://www.facebook.com/looptps
 
User avatar
Meat Pie
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 313
Joined: June 2009
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Political Beliefs

Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:22 pm

ponder wrote:
I see your point, but then surely the same laws should apply to alcohol and cigarettes, which kill a great deal more people a year than any illegal substance does.

I think that laws on recreational drugs should be relaxed, personally. It would increase the actual control of the substances and help to kill off black market trade. Holland and Belgium are perfect examples of how it can work.


Well, yes. In an ideal world, alcohol and cigarettes would also be illegal but unfortunately I think that they are so embedded into society that it would be near impossible to achieve. Although I would support cigarette usage being limited to private property or public smoking areas (a bit like what is at Alton Towers but actually enforced).

I feel that the fact that alcohol and cigarettes cause more death then illegal substances does not work in favour for legalising drugs. It proves that widespread use of a harmful substance will significantly increase the death toll. I really think that if more drugs are to be made available, it will ultimately cause more death and pain than any amount of 'freedom of choice' can make up for.

However, undeniably the point about having more control through relaxing laws is a convincing one, but I simply cannot get over the fact that if you legalise a harmful drug then you are officially saying that society is ambivalent towards any of the negative and not uncommonly fatal repercussions of drug distribution.
Image
Image
AKA the vocal minority.
 
Anthony
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 624
Joined: March 2010

Re: Political Beliefs

Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:39 pm

Many more people take drugs and have a really good time with basically no negative consequences (except maybe a hangover or a painful jaw) than there are deaths from drug use.

Drug use is a part of human culture and has been for millenia. People have always attempted to alter their perception and consciousness in some way. It is enjoyable and with proper quality control, it is not any more dangerous than many other things.

There has never been a death directly linked to the use of Cannabis. The mental health issue was so blown out of proportion it is unreal. If you have a family history of schizophrenia, cannabis can bring it out. If you don't, it won't. It actually has been proven to work as an anti-psychotic. It helps all sorts of people in pain with terrible illnesses, it (hemp) can be used for all sorts of products from paper to fuel and it helps people to relax, chill out and get a new perspective on a world that nobody really understands.

It is not as harmful as you think and it is far more beneficial than those who have vested interests in its continued prohibition would have you believe.

Even the deaths from ecstacy weren't because of the drug itself. Education on safe drug use is all that is needed once you remove the elephant in the room element by making some drugs legal. Then you can go on to talk about the truly damaging drugs in a more open and honest way to young people.

Not everyone who takes drugs is an addict. They mostly just enjoy having a good time with no real danger to themselves or anyone else.

Check out this site to become more educated:
http://clear-uk.org/
Last edited by Anthony on Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Bunbury
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 74
Joined: February 2012

Re: Political Beliefs

Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:28 pm

Yeah, Anthony has it right. I find it strange that you've highlighted ecstasy as a 'danger' drug, off the bat. If anything, MDMA is generally considered one of the least dangerous substances in use, behind alcohol, and obviously, tobacco. Cocaine is not a drug I understand the appeal of, but is also relatively 'safe'. Ketamine needs looking into. Cannabis is a lost cause. The Greens could be more specific about tackling certain dangers, but their overall outlook reflects society and science fairly well, at least much more so than other parties.
 
User avatar
Johno
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: March 2007

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:20 am

Bunbury wrote:
Yeah, Anthony has it right. I find it strange that you've highlighted ecstasy as a 'danger' drug, off the bat. If anything, MDMA is generally considered one of the least dangerous substances in use, behind alcohol, and obviously, tobacco. Cocaine is not a drug I understand the appeal of, but is also relatively 'safe'. Ketamine needs looking into. Cannabis is a lost cause. The Greens could be more specific about tackling certain dangers, but their overall outlook reflects society and science fairly well, at least much more so than other parties.


I'm a medical student.

MDMA was considered exceptionally dangerous, mainly due to the setting it was taken in, which induced symptoms and consequences that it wouldn't otherwise.

Saying MDMA was less dangerous than smoking or drinking is. well. a tiny bit silly!

Drugs are classified for a reason. Their limited use in society is the reason why they're not causing problems, the green party thinks it has answers, but it's actual policy is written on the back of a fag packet.

It has no understanding of the consequences that the policy could have on drug use, and drug users. The problems hospitals have at the moment with drunks, will only be exacerbated if drugs were legalised in any way shape or form.
 
User avatar
Cariba
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 151
Joined: August 2011
Location: Down South

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:57 am

In regards to drugs, I'm not sure what the "answer" should be. Personally I don't think they should be legalised, because they are dangerous. But then so is alcohol and most of us will have a drink at some point in the next week, and to be frankly honest the legal status of drugs doesn't change whether people will use them or not.

On a more constitutional note, recently I've been thinking that we should move to a more federalised structure, in the style of Germany, as opposed to Belgium, for example. That way we could retain the monarchy and have a federal upper house as joint binding affairs, and have individual lower houses. It would balance devolution out properly by creating devolving power to England as a whole unit, instead of the earlier, rejected, plan for "regional" assemblies, and may quell calls for independence from certain Scottish parties or Plaid Cymru, by having full devolution. Then in the event of independence for one country it would be far easier to break the state up. It will never happen though, which is a shame.
Image
 
Ritadz
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1990
Joined: January 2010

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:20 pm

I think drugs such as Cannabis should be legalised, who has the right to say what people can do with themselves? If someone does do drugs in a stupid manner that risks their health, at the end of the day it's their fault.

This also brings me onto the topic of the smoking ban. While I don't smoke, I think that forcing people to stand outside to smoke is, in my opinion, fascism. While I know people could say "well what non smokers", does no one understand the concept of having what's called a "smoke free zone"? Seriously, this ban has killed the pub industry, and if someone in Preston wishes to smoke in their local, why does someone in Westminster have the right to say they can't?

It should be down to the owners of the pub to decide what to allow in their pubs.
 
User avatar
Magrathea
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: August 2010
Location: Weston-super-Mare

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:25 pm

Ritadz wrote:
This also brings me onto the topic of the smoking ban. While I don't smoke, I think that forcing people to stand outside to smoke is, in my opinion, fascism. While I know people could say "well what non smokers", does no one understand the concept of having what's called a "smoke free zone"? Seriously, this ban has killed the pub industry, and if someone in Preston wishes to smoke in their local, why does someone in Westminster have the right to say they can't?

It should be down to the owners of the pub to decide what to allow in their pubs.


But as a non-smoker, I appreciate being able to enjoy being indoors and not having to suffer from potentially very harming inhalations against my consent.

If I'm at the pub with friends who smoke we'll just sit outside and they'll smoke there, I have absolutely no problem with it as a habit and if anything does get into my body as a result I'm willing to accept that, but that is a consentual thing, not something which should be forced upon somebody upon entering any indoor venue. Yes, it's a pain when smoker friends have to go outside but I wouldn't say for a second that it's "killed off" the pub industry. You can't smoke in nightclubs but business in them is still absolutely booming.

I don't quite see your mentality with the Westminster/Preston thing either; I live quite a way from Westminster, but I don't think that means I should have the option to choose whether or not I consider say theft or murder illegal :P
Image
Image
 
Ritadz
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1990
Joined: January 2010

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:51 pm

Magrathea wrote:
Ritadz wrote:
This also brings me onto the topic of the smoking ban. While I don't smoke, I think that forcing people to stand outside to smoke is, in my opinion, fascism. While I know people could say "well what non smokers", does no one understand the concept of having what's called a "smoke free zone"? Seriously, this ban has killed the pub industry, and if someone in Preston wishes to smoke in their local, why does someone in Westminster have the right to say they can't?

It should be down to the owners of the pub to decide what to allow in their pubs.


But as a non-smoker, I appreciate being able to enjoy being indoors and not having to suffer from potentially very harming inhalations against my consent.

If I'm at the pub with friends who smoke we'll just sit outside and they'll smoke there, I have absolutely no problem with it as a habit and if anything does get into my body as a result I'm willing to accept that, but that is a consentual thing, not something which should be forced upon somebody upon entering any indoor venue. Yes, it's a pain when smoker friends have to go outside but I wouldn't say for a second that it's "killed off" the pub industry. You can't smoke in nightclubs but business in them is still absolutely booming.

I don't quite see your mentality with the Westminster/Preston thing either; I live quite a way from Westminster, but I don't think that means I should have the option to choose whether or not I consider say theft or murder illegal :P


What I meant by the Preston/Westminster thing was that I think that a pub owner should be able to do what he wants (within reason of course), and he shouldn't have to change his ways because of what someone the other side of the country says. Preston was just a random location, I think that pub owners anywhere in the UK should have the right to do as they wish.

And like you said about being a non smoker, that's why I think we should just have an area where you can smoke without being stood in the cold/rain/snow whatever. Also I don't think that the only reason pubs are in decline is due to the smoking ban, but it's been a contributing factor. Since the ban was introduced 2 pubs fairly local to me have been forced shut down. :(
 
User avatar
Johno
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: March 2007

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:52 pm

Ritadz wrote:
I think drugs such as Cannabis should be legalised, who has the right to say what people can do with themselves? If someone does do drugs in a stupid manner that risks their health, at the end of the day it's their fault.

This also brings me onto the topic of the smoking ban. While I don't smoke, I think that forcing people to stand outside to smoke is, in my opinion, fascism. While I know people could say "well what non smokers", does no one understand the concept of having what's called a "smoke free zone"? Seriously, this ban has killed the pub industry, and if someone in Preston wishes to smoke in their local, why does someone in Westminster have the right to say they can't?

It should be down to the owners of the pub to decide what to allow in their pubs.


Well basically you're just proposing anarchy..

As long as we have a national health service in England, I personally believe that the government has every right to control substances that could be dangerous to your health, and lead you to needing healthcare.

It's the reason I believe high rates of taxation are right on cigarettes and alcohol. I like a drink, so do most people, but it's important for these things to be regulated.

I'm not sure where I stand on the smoking ban. However, I personally prefer to go to a pub now that the ban has been put in place. Not sure what the rest of the population believe in regard to that? The vast majority don't smoke, so would presume they're in favour, unless of course the vast majority of pub-goers also smoke.
 
Ritadz
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1990
Joined: January 2010

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:01 pm

Johno wrote:
Ritadz wrote:
I think drugs such as Cannabis should be legalised, who has the right to say what people can do with themselves? If someone does do drugs in a stupid manner that risks their health, at the end of the day it's their fault.

This also brings me onto the topic of the smoking ban. While I don't smoke, I think that forcing people to stand outside to smoke is, in my opinion, fascism. While I know people could say "well what non smokers", does no one understand the concept of having what's called a "smoke free zone"? Seriously, this ban has killed the pub industry, and if someone in Preston wishes to smoke in their local, why does someone in Westminster have the right to say they can't?

It should be down to the owners of the pub to decide what to allow in their pubs.


Well basically you're just proposing anarchy..


So what if I am?
 
.Will

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:30 pm

Ritadz wrote:
So what if I am?


Because it's a bit stupid?
 
Ritadz
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1990
Joined: January 2010

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:41 pm

.Will wrote:
Ritadz wrote:
So what if I am?


Because it's a bit stupid?


Just like the government?
 
User avatar
Magrathea
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: August 2010
Location: Weston-super-Mare

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:42 pm

Ritadz wrote:
And like you said about being a non smoker, that's why I think we should just have an area where you can smoke without being stood in the cold/rain/snow whatever. Also I don't think that the only reason pubs are in decline is due to the smoking ban, but it's been a contributing factor. Since the ban was introduced 2 pubs fairly local to me have been forced shut down. :(


Since the ban was introduced Woolworths (and most of my local highstreet) has shut down...:P
Last edited by Magrathea on Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
 
Blaze

Re: Political Beliefs

Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:42 pm

While I do support the idea drugs should be legal but taxed and regulated, making them legal now almost certainly would backfire horribly.
 
Anthony
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 624
Joined: March 2010

Re: Political Beliefs

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:12 am

I agree with Ritadz.

A pub or restaurant is not a public place; it belongs to the OWNER.

The owner should be allowed to decide. It is their place, they should make the rules.

Many places would remain non-smoking and that is absolutely fine. I will still go to a Wetherspoons and I will smoke outside.

But some places would make the choice to allow their patrons to smoke.

If you are a non-smoker, don't go to these places. Or go there, but expect to be around smoke (it's really not that bad, fairy-lungs). You do not have the right to complain, you are a guest on someone else's property and you can abide by their rules or leave.

The total smoking ban is absolute rubbish and it goes against property-owners rights.

A sign outside saying "This is a smoking/non-smoking establishment" is the solution. You make your choice as to whether you want to go inside.

It's neither anarchy nor rocket science  :roll:
Last edited by Anthony on Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Bunbury
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 74
Joined: February 2012

Re: Political Beliefs

Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:58 am

Johno wrote:
Bunbury wrote:
Yeah, Anthony has it right. I find it strange that you've highlighted ecstasy as a 'danger' drug, off the bat. If anything, MDMA is generally considered one of the least dangerous substances in use, behind alcohol, and obviously, tobacco. Cocaine is not a drug I understand the appeal of, but is also relatively 'safe'. Ketamine needs looking into. Cannabis is a lost cause. The Greens could be more specific about tackling certain dangers, but their overall outlook reflects society and science fairly well, at least much more so than other parties.


I'm a medical student.

MDMA was considered exceptionally dangerous, mainly due to the setting it was taken in, which induced symptoms and consequences that it wouldn't otherwise.

Saying MDMA was less dangerous than smoking or drinking is. well. a tiny bit silly!


Is it? This recent government study - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list - would disagree, depite the furore and resignations it caused.

I'm not saying that their aren't risks with MDMA, there are of course, but people are not ingesting it as they do smoking or alcohol. It's use is much more casual. Similarly, I find the idea that something like MDMA would never be legalised or properly controlled due to the popularity of binge drinking irriating, although I suppose if it would stretch the NHS further, I'd understand. But I'm not sure it would.
 
User avatar
Sam
TT Member
TT Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: May 2008
Location: People's Socialist Republic of Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Political Beliefs

Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:38 am

Ritadz wrote:
Seriously, this ban has killed the pub industry, and if someone in Preston wishes to smoke in their local, why does someone in Westminster have the right to say they can't?


I don't really care about the rest of the arguement, but this point is really dumb. You could apply it to any law, ever.

If someone in Norwich wants to murder someone with an axe, why does someone in Westminster have the right to say they can't?

They have the right to say they can't because Westminster is the democratic body responsible for making legislation.  :roll:
 
AstroDan

Re: Political Beliefs

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:01 pm

Europa Evangelists tbh.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests