Boris's ban on alcohol on London Transport (with poll)

[editor]

You see, one persons meat is another ones poison. You object to meat, some people object to alcohol.

Thing is, I'm not asking for people to be banned from eating meat, even if they're doing it on the same table as me. It's called 'tolerance.'

 

[ajdown]

In what way are these things linked?
I've not heard of passive drinking. Can you get cirrhosis from alcohol fumes?

To someone who doesn't smoke, smoking in public is antisocial. You can't sit outside in a pub garden anymore because all the smokers hang out there instead. You can't wait for a bus without choking on someone's smoke - yet people think they have a right to smoke in public without considering those around them.

That's what it all really boils down to ... consideration for those around you that might object - or lack of consideration.

When people cannot regulate themselves, the law has to step in and regulate it for them. That's how things go.

 

[Kizmet]

When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...

.. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.

 

[Poi E]

some people object to alcohol. .

Good for them. Have they ever been offered a can on the tube?

 

[ymu]

No.. but can you get punched in the face because someone smoked too many fags?

And again, how is stopping people drinking going to stop aggressive drunks?

Will aggressive drunken types moderate their pre-tube drinking as a result of this law?

If they decide to ignore the law, will asking them to stop make it more or less likely that someone gets punched?

Will it stop people getting tanked up on cheap drinks before they go the pub/club/gig, or will they just drink more before leaving home?

 

[editor]

You can't wait for a bus without choking on someone's smoke

I think you'll find you can.

 

[editor]

.. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.

You do realise there's zero logical in that statement, don't you? No one else's health is being endangered by someone quietly having a can of beer on a tube.

 

[Roadkill]

When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...

.. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.

Not really. The justification for the smoking ban was passive smoking: the same problem doesn't arise with alcohol. There's no inconsistency in agreeing with one and not t'other.

 

[ajdown]

Not really. The justification for the smoking ban was passive smoking: the same problem doesn't arise with alcohol. There's no inconsistency in agreeing with one and not t'other.

Both do, however, infringe on the imagined 'rights' of an individual to partake in that activity in public.

 

[Kizmet]

Not really. The justification for the smoking ban was passive smoking: the same problem doesn't arise with alcohol. There's no inconsistency in agreeing with one and not t'other.

There are other asssociated problems with alcohol. That's the inconsistency.

Don't get me wrong.. I think we should ban as little as possible and let folk work things out for themselves.

But I can't help feeling that the people who supported one ban because it suited them.. but object to another because it doesn't... are being inconsistent in a way that entirely suits them.

 

[Kizmet]

You do realise there's zero logical in that statement, don't you? No one else's health is being endangered by someone quietly having a can of beer on a tube.

No one elses health is endangered by someone having a single cigarette in an empty pub.

But that's still not allowed.

 

[ymu]

When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...

.. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.

You might need to justify that statement. I'm a smoker, I support the smoking ban because there is an unacceptable risk to health for non-smokers due to passive smoking. I'm more or less teetotal these days, but I think it's pointless to ban people drinking on public transport.

This discussion is pointless if it's just people saying "I don't do it/don't see why people need to/don't like it when others do". The point is, what will this law achieve, and how much will it cost to achieve it?

I think it can't be enforced and will likely make things worse, for reasons I have already explained in some detail. This is why I oppose it. It's a bad law and a waste of time and money. Nothing to do with personal inconvenience.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Both do, however, infringe on the imagined 'rights' of an individual to partake in that activity in public.

This is irrelevant. There are differences between different activities. The act of drinking does not physically affect other people; the act of smoking does. Characterising the whole issue as some sort of idealised freedom of action one is clownish.

 

[editor]

No one elses health is endangered by someone having a single cigarette in an empty pub.

Apart from the person serving them of course, not that this piss weak attempt at analogy is worth pursuing.

 

[Roadkill]

Both do, however, infringe on the imagined 'rights' of an individual to partake in that activity in public.

The right to drink and smoke anywhere there is no specific prohibition on doing so isn't imaginary. You may not like it, but it's a fact nonetheless. Personally, I don't like impinging on anyone's liberty to act as they see fit unless it directly harms someone else - which is why I don't agree with Boris's ban on drinking on LT, and why I'd have favoured a 'separate rooms' policy rather than a full ban on smoking in public places. But you don't seem to place much of a value on liberty.

There are other asssociated problems with alcohol. That's the inconsistency.

Don't get me wrong.. I think we should ban as little as possible and let folk work things out for themselves.

But I can't help feeling that the people who supported one ban because it suited them.. but object to another because it doesn't... are being inconsistent in a way that entirely suits them.

No, it isn't an inconsistency. Pasisve smoking - or, at least, regular exposure to high levels of smoke - is directly harmful. Alcohol simply isn't in the same way.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Smoking, furthermore, is just plain irritating, and I say this as a smoker. The tube would be unbearable if smoking was permitted. Plus it's a serious fire hazard in a confined space.

This is all just a low-quality rhetorical trick if you ask me, anyway.

 

[ajdown]

This is irrelevant. There are differences between different activities. The act of drinking does not physically affect other people; the act of smoking does. Characterising the whole issue as some sort of idealised freedom of action one is clownish.

When was the last time you heard of someone getting injured or killed after a night out smoking?

 

[Kizmet]

Apart from the person serving them of course,

Maybe if they sucked on the other end of the cigarette at the same time...

Otherwise let's assume they are on the other side of the pub from the smoker.

not that this piss weak attempt at analogy is worth pursuing.

It's not an analogy.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

When was the last time you heard of someone getting injured or killed after a night out smoking?

This is a completely irrelevant question to the subject of banning drinking on the tube.

 

[Kizmet]

No, it isn't an inconsistency. Pasisve smoking - or, at least, regular exposure to high levels of smoke - is directly harmful. Alcohol simply isn't in the same way.

I didn't say it was the same way.

It's much more harmful in entirely different ways.

 

[Yossarian]

Boris Johnson spent some crucial years of his youth in the Bullingdon Club, renowned for getting pissed and smashing things up, and has probably never used public transport on a regular basis in his life so I guess it's no surprise that he's got things so mixed up that he thinks banning drinking on public transport is going to make some kind of improvement.

I don't live in London anymore and I can't remember the last time I had a drink on public transport when I did - although I definitely did a few times when I was working weird shift hours - but I'll be back there for a week or two this summer and I'm now going to feel pretty much duty-bound to be 'aggressively swilling' on every journey.

 

[ymu]

No one elses health is endangered by someone having a single cigarette in an empty pub.

But that's still not allowed.

You think the smoking ban should be amended to allow people to have one fag if they should find themselves in a completely empty pub?

 

[Kizmet]

This is a completely irrelevant question to the subject of banning drinking on the tube.

Only if you want to think it is. But that's the inconsistency I was talking about.

 

[ajdown]

But you don't seem to place much of a value on liberty.

With liberty and freedom comes responsibility. Too many people forget that.

I value my liberty highly - there is nothing I wish to do that current laws prevent me from doing, except a few things that are purely for my own selfish benefit... therefore I don't do them.

 

[Kizmet]

You think the smoking ban should be amended to allow people to have one fag if they should find themselves in a completely empty pub?

Heh.

Obviously not.. just countering ed's point about a 'quiet can on the tube' with a similar situation.

The problem, of course isn't the single smoker.. or the quiet can drinker.. it's the massive amounts of smoke from lots of smokers... and the spillages, bloodshed, violence, abuse, rape, threats and general stink of the drunks.

 

[Crispy]

This comparison to smoking argument needs to be dropped, the logic is broken. Try other arguments, there are much better ones.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Only if you want to think it is. But that's the inconsistency I was talking about.

I fail to see the relevance of asking about "nights out" doing _anything_ when considering _doing something on the tube_. They're not the same, if that really needs pointing out.

When was the last time you heard of somebody having a parrot sandwich?

 

[ajdown]

This is a completely irrelevant question to the subject of banning drinking on the tube.

Why?

The more alcohol a person consumes, the more likely they are to get agressive, or be injured/killed. That's pretty much a given fact.

Therefore, removing some opportunities for consuming alcohol can only lower those statistics.

Just like someone smoking 60 a day is likely to die quicker than someone who occasionally smokes one or two a day.

 

[Crispy]

Heh.

Obviously not.. just countering ed's point about a 'quiet can on the tube' with a similar situation.

The problem, of course isn't the single smoker.. or the quiet can drinker.. it's the massive amounts of smoke from lots of smokers... and the spillages, bloodshed, violence, abuse, rape, threats and general stink of the drunks.

Is the single can drinker going to go into a bloody rage? No.
Is going into a bloody rage already illegal? Yes.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Why?

The more alcohol a person consumes, the more likely they are to get agressive, or be injured/killed. That's pretty much a given fact.

Therefore, removing some opportunities for consuming alcohol can only lower those statistics.

Just like someone smoking 60 a day is likely to die quicker than someone who occasionally smokes one or two a day.

What, this is some sort of public health issue? I'm sorry, but not even the greatest proponents of this are even trying to pretend that it is actually to reduce overall consumption (okay, apart from you).