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

[Roadkill]

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

Some do, many don't. What are you implying?

 

[ymu]

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

Smoking was banned on the tube as a direct result of the King's Cross fire, which killed 31 people.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Actually, I don't think many people would object to somebody having a fag when they were completely on their own in a pub, but that's another non-issue, since, well, it rather takes away the point of having a pub doesn't it?

I don't agree with the pub smoking ban personally but I can certainly see that there is an argument for it - nothing like that in this instance.

 

[editor]

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

It's like you're wilfully being stupid here. Deaths in the home from fires caused by cigarettes are commonplace, not that it's got anything to do with the issue of drinking on the underground.

In 2003 there were 593 fire-related deaths in the UK, with 395 deaths from accidental house fires, 35% of which were caused by the careless disposal of smoking materials.
http://www.southwales-fire.gov.uk/SWFSCMS/OurPerformance/statistics.htm

 

[Kizmet]

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

I simply don't agree. It may take a little lateral thinking.. but the comparison on the basic level of actual experiences caused by the taking of either narcotic... is totally justified.

Alcohol hurts loads of people. So does smoking.

They are not taken the same way - so clearly they cannot be dealt with exactly the same way.. nevertheless the comparison is valid.

 

[Kizmet]

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

What's to say that it's the first can?

Is going into a bloody rage already illegal? Yes.

Wouldn't it be better to prevent the bloody rage in the first place.. rather than just mop it up afterwards then have a nice can of beer on the way home?

 

[Crispy]

If it's not the first can, then the person is already drunk and can be arrested for drunk and disorderly.

Look, it's very simple. Drinking does not inevitably lead to offensive drunkeness. Offensive drunkeness is already illegal, so why the new law?

 

[Yossarian]

I simply don't agree. It may take a little lateral thinking.. but the comparison on the basic level of actual experiences caused by the taking of either narcotic... is totally justified.

Alcohol hurts loads of people. So does smoking.

They are not taken the same way - so clearly they cannot be dealt with exactly the same way.. nevertheless the comparison is valid.

Do the dashes and '...'s mark where the vital words that would make your argument sensible have been removed?

 

[Crispy]

Excessive drinking kills and hurts lots of people. Therefore, we should take opportunities to ban drinking.
Dangerous driving kills and hurts lots of people. Therefore we should take opportunities to ban driving.

 

[Kizmet]

If it's not the first can, then the person is already drunk and can be arrested for drunk and disorderly.

Look, it's very simple. Drinking does not inevitably lead to offensive drunkeness. Offensive drunkeness is already illegal, so why the new law?

I'm not backing the new law.. I just said that it was an obvious logical next step after the banning of smoking.

And that I don't have any sympathy with the inconsistent point of view that supported one ban but objects to another simply because it affects their personal habits.

 

[Kizmet]

Do the dashes and '...'s mark where the vital words that would make your argument sensible have been removed?

 

[ymu]

Smoking was banned on the tube as a direct result of the King's Cross fire, which killed 31 people.

Correction, according to wiki it was banned after the Oxford Circus fire, but the ban wasn't enforced until the King's Cross fore 2 years later.

The escalator on which the fire started was built during World War II, and had never been replaced since. The stairs and sides of the escalator were made of wood, meaning that they burned quickly and easily. Although smoking was banned on the subsurface sections of the London Underground in February 1985 (a consequence of the Oxford Circus fire), the fire was most probably caused by a commuter discarding a burning match, which fell down the side of the escalator onto the running track (Fennell 1988, p. 111). The running track had not been cleaned in some time and was covered in grease and fibrous detritus.

Other possible causes such as arson and an IRA bomb were quickly rejected as possible causes of the fire, mainly because of the strong evidence pointing to discarded smokers' materials (Fennell 1988, App. K).

 

[Crispy]

sorry kizmet, it wasn't really supposed to be an attack on you.
I do think that the comaprisons that can be drawn between this ban and the pub smoking one are flimsy though.

 

[Kizmet]

sorry kizmet, it wasn't really supposed to be an attack on you.

No worries, dude.

I do think that the comaprisons that can be drawn between this ban and the pub smoking one are flimsy though.

If you try and compare like for like.

But the fact is comparisons are valid because they are both bans.

 

[DJ Squelch]

Do people find it worrying that Labour are at their lowest point for years, the BNP are doing better than ever in London but the longest political thread on U75 this week is about moaning that you cant have a can of Stella on the tube? I'm not sure what that says about the state of things but I'm sure it says something.

 

[Roadkill]

Do people find it worrying that Labour are at their lowest point for years, the BNP are doing better than ever in London but the longest political thread on U75 this week is about moaning that you cant have a can of Stella on the tube? I'm not sure what that says about the state of things but I'm sure it says something.

Doesn't it say more for the state of British politics that this is one of the first things the new Mayor of London proposes...?

 

[ymu]

I'm not backing the new law.. I just said that it was an obvious logical next step after the banning of smoking.

And that I don't have any sympathy with the inconsistent point of view that supported one ban but objects to another simply because it affects their personal habits.

Smoking bans have been introduced in many many countries over the last 5 years or so because of the strong (new) evidence of health risks due to passive smoking. The UK ban is more draconian than most (any I've heard of, actually), but it's based on proper evidence of harm and advice from the WHO.

There's nothing logical about alcohol being next. The harm to others from alcohol is a result of people being drunk and out of control, regardless of whether anyone else was in their presence whilst they were getting drunk.

Again, what harms will this law prevent?

 

[Roadkill]

But the fact is comparisons are valid because they are both bans.

But for different reasons - one on the basis of direct harm to health, the other because it can contribute to misbehaviour - so the comparison is flawed.

FWIW I don't agree with either. Boris's booze ban is bollocks, and the smoking ban was a piece of nanny-statism whose benefits could have been secured by something far less draconian.

 

[ajdown]

Doesn't it say more for the state of British politics that this is one of the first things the new Mayor of London proposes...?

Actually the concept of 'start at the root of the problem' seems very sensible to me.

How many people here are going to be personally affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?

 

[rocketman]

Boris runs London = Oh god oh god you stupid stupid bastards, you fell for his cartoon capers, you thought he was Bugs Bunny when he's Muttley at best. We're fucked, and if this is his first move expect more ersatz shit in a regimented society of negative values, after all - what has he really said there? London, it seems, under his analysis, is full of drunks. How could anyone vote for such arrogance and feel good about it? Now look forward to the Olympics, sponsored by BAE or some other dodgy arms dealer. Olympics for Unity (sponsored by death). Am I alone in seeing the moral lack in our elected useful idiot?
Oh yeh, and keep politics out of sport, unless McDonalds sponsors the wifi. Jesus wept.

 

[Kizmet]

Smoking bans have been introduced in many many countries over the last 5 years or so because of the strong (new) evidence of health risks due to passive smoking. The UK ban is more draconian than most (any I've heard of, actually), but it's based on proper evidence of harm and advice from the WHO.

There's nothing logical about alcohol being next. The harm to others from alcohol is a result of people being drunk and out of control, regardless of whether anyone else was in their presence whilst they were getting drunk.

Again, what harms will this law prevent?

I get the feeling that this addition of 440 extra police offecers to police the tube is about much more than just banning drinking.....

 

[Roadkill]

Actually the concept of 'start at the root of the problem' seems very sensible to me.

What problem is someone having a quiet can on the tube the root of, then?

How many people here are going to be personally affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?

Not me. I can't remember the last time I had a drink on public transport, with the exception of a whisky to help me drop off to sleep on a long flight. It's just not something I enjoy doing. Don't want it banned, though. A ban won't benefit anyone, and will inconvenience people who currently have a drink on the tube or bus without harming anyone.

 

[Kizmet]

But for different reasons - one on the basis of direct harm to health, the other because it can contribute to misbehaviour - so the comparison is flawed.

Both have circumstancial harm associated with then.

FWIW I don't agree with either. Boris's booze ban is bollocks, and the smoking ban was a piece of nanny-statism whose benefits could have been secured by something far less draconian.

^ Word.

 

[Crispy]

How many people here are going to be personally affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?

the approval for a law shouldn't be based on 'how little it will inconvenience' but on 'how much it will benefit' and I see no benefit to this law, as there are already adequate laws proscribing offensive drunkeness.

 

[Crispy]

A blanket ban on all food and drink in order to reduce litter would make more logical sense, btw.

 

[Yossarian]

Do people find it worrying that Labour are at their lowest point for years, the BNP are doing better than ever in London but the longest political thread on U75 this week is about moaning that you cant have a can of Stella on the tube? I'm not sure what that says about the state of things but I'm sure it says something.

It's not as if the whole thread has been purely political debate - drinking habits through the ages have been discussed, along with the history of public transport, the impact on personal health & on society of drinking in general, the different attitudes towards drinking between Britain and Canada, some fashion tips, the causes Johnson's mayorship, probably some random gossip as well - it's an epic!

 

[Kizmet]

A blanket ban on all food and drink in order to reduce litter would make more logical sense, btw.

No smoking.. no drinking.. soon no laughing and no talking.

And only 100 breaths between stops!

 

[Roadkill]

Both have circumstancial harm associated with then.

One direct, one very much indirect. There's the difference.

 

[Kizmet]

One direct, one very much indirect. There's the difference.

Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.

Alcohol related violence is.

 

[Roadkill]

Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.

Alcohol related violence is.

With respect, this is starting to get frustrating.

Passive smoking is directly harmful.

Alcohol consumption has no direct effect on anyone other than the drinker, but it might have indirect consequences in terms of violence, which is rare, or general rowdiness, which is less so.

Can we leave it now?