|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 18:55:24 GMT
Gliding is not statistically risky. Recently one member’s wife suffered a broken leg, and other member’s wife was seriously injured and in a wheelchair for 3 months. One was a mountain bike accident, the other a skiing accident. We did have a fatal accident in around 1979, nothing since then no-one died. ftfy Well your fix is valid but rather misses the point that not only did no-one die, no-one had a serious injury such as broken bones. Well actually, some people did die. One club member just last week. He was a long term smoker, although he had given up in the last few years. He died from oesophageal cancer. Not a nice way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 18:42:16 GMT
Re. Your first sentence, you are mistaken and I have already pointed out many issues where age is taken as the only driver. Clearly it is ageism but ageism is allowed in law. If you think it is the right of adults to make choices then you are living in the wrong country. There are loads of choices that adults are not allowed to make, for example taking street drugs, driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a car without wearing seatbelts, and many many more. You are accustomed to those laws so you don’t notice them. But banning people from smoking is no different in principle, it’s just that it hasn’t happened yet. I don't know if gliding is statistically risky. If so, perhaps it will be next on the list. Then, people like yourself (but not yourself, obviously), would speak in similar tones to yourself, in support of a ban. And then, you'd struggle to put up much of a fight because the previous time, you were all for it. Gliding is not statistically risky. Recently one member’s wife suffered a broken leg, and other member’s wife was seriously injured and in a wheelchair for 3 months. One was a mountain bike accident, the other a skiing accident. We did have a fatal accident in around 1979, nothing since then that has caused serious injury.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 18:39:06 GMT
That's very true Telemachus but all those illegal activities still go on. Legislation may have reduced the level, as the majority of us 'do as we are told' but the law hasn't stopped the acts. I cannot see it stopping those born post 2009 smoking if they choose, and actually fear it may have the opposite affect. Rog No im sure it won’t stop it. But it will reduce it significantly, that is a valid aim. Laws do change society’s values, look at drink driving. In the 70s it was normal and cool, I certainly did plenty of it even though Barbra Castle’s breathalyser was in action by then. But these days it is by and large socially unacceptable. It still happens of course, but much less than it used to.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 18:24:28 GMT
Well OK then, you can smoke if you like. Until the law makes it illegal, then you can't smoke. This seems quite simple and doesn't require a great analysis of one's "'uman rights" (which of course don't actually exist other than in the minds of some people). Although one can bang on and whine about how unfair it is, the fact is that smoking is for selfish idiots who don't have the foresight to realise what they are doing to themselves (and others), and once they do they are too adicted and weak-willed to do anything about it. So I am delighted that it will be illegal for young people to smoke, since those who want to smoke clearly don't have the common sense to make sound judgements.
All that may be so, but it remains that any such plan would fall foul of anti aegism legislation. I don't smoke myself but wouldn't support such a plan. I believe it's the right of adults to make their own choices in life. Be that alcohol, tobacco, climbing mountains in dangerous conditions, spending 8 hours a day stuffing their faces with chocolate etc. etc. Government has a role here. It can advise of the dangers. Most particularly, when people are young. Banning aduts form doing things though is government over reach. Tobacco now. What next? Remember, we live in 'progressive' times. Re. Your first sentence, you are mistaken and I have already pointed out many issues where age is taken as the only driver. Clearly it is ageism but ageism is allowed in law. If you think it is the right of adults to make choices then you are living in the wrong country. There are loads of choices that adults are not allowed to make, for example taking street drugs, driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a car without wearing seatbelts, and many many more. You are accustomed to those laws so you don’t notice them. But banning people from smoking is no different in principle, it’s just that it hasn’t happened yet.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 17:37:38 GMT
As I said earlier, if you want to invent rights and non-rights then you are going to superficially win the argument, but without convincing anyone else. I say that there are no rights nor freedoms, we are all doing exactly what we are instructed to do by the white mice, we just don't realise it yet.
Laws restrict our freedoms. Also known as rights. If it isn't illegal, you can do it. The default position is that you can do it. It's your right. Well OK then, you can smoke if you like. Until the law makes it illegal, then you can't smoke. This seems quite simple and doesn't require a great analysis of one's "'uman rights" (which of course don't actually exist other than in the minds of some people). Although one can bang on and whine about how unfair it is, the fact is that smoking is for selfish idiots who don't have the foresight to realise what they are doing to themselves (and others), and once they do they are too adicted and weak-willed to do anything about it. So I am delighted that it will be illegal for young people to smoke, since those who want to smoke clearly don't have the common sense to make sound judgements.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 16:53:34 GMT
Can you point out where this alleged right to smoke is laid down? Obviously if you are prepared to invent your own set of rights and entitlements, you can make it fit the agenda of your argument. But it’s not very convincing. The “right to work” is another one. Some adults have an (alleged) right to get a job, some don’t. How awful! Some workers have a right to go on strike, some don’t. How absolutely not very nice! You have the right to do whatever you like, as long as it isn't illegal. There isn't an automatic right to strike because a worker has traded their freedom to stay at home/ go fishing/ yell moronic repetitive chants whilst burning lots of wood in an oil drum etc. etc., for a salary. As I said earlier, if you want to invent rights and non-rights then you are going to superficially win the argument, but without convincing anyone else. I say that there are no rights nor freedoms, we are all doing exactly what we are instructed to do by the white mice, we just don't realise it yet.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 12:28:12 GMT
There is no right to smoke either, so I don’t really see your point. Permission to smoke is already age related, they are just changing the rules a bit. There is indeed a right to smoke. Once you're 18. No licence is required. Many activities are age limited (adults/ non-adults) but there are no rights which some adults may enjoy, but others may not. Rights, rather than entitlement. Can you point out where this alleged right to smoke is laid down? Obviously if you are prepared to invent your own set of rights and entitlements, you can make it fit the agenda of your argument. But it’s not very convincing. The “right to work” is another one. Some adults have an (alleged) right to get a job, some don’t. How awful! Some workers have a right to go on strike, some don’t. How absolutely not very nice!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 12:13:47 GMT
As Mr Stabby expalined, there is no inherent right to a licenced activity. Therefore terms can be attached to a licence which would be illegal for matters which were rights. There is no right to smoke either, so I don’t really see your point. Permission to smoke is already age related, they are just changing the rules a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 11:56:05 GMT
Mr Stabby covered your point regarding pilots. The same theory would apply to car licences. No. Agreed you need a car licence to drive a car, but for the vast majority this licence doesn’t need to be renewed. Until you hit 70 that is. There is no science behind it. Someone just decided to make people renew their licences when they hit 70. Pure age discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 11:34:59 GMT
This is completely untrue! (ref your first line) For example, I can legally fly a plane. You can't. I can only fly a plane if I have a medical. No medical, no fly. (and ref your second line) I cannot fly public transport single pilot once I reach the age of 60. Or 65 for 2 pilot. Very ageist. I need to remember to renew my driving licence when I reach 70. And a thousand other things that give different adults different "rights" depending on various things including age. Naturally their are exceptions related to safety. The law however states that you cannot discriminate on the basis of age. Therefore, 10 years from now, a 24 year old being able to buy nicotine products but a 23 year old not so, would discriminate on exactly this basis, and this basis alone. Are so there are exceptions then! And how is a pilot aged 64 and 364 days (who lives a healthy lifestyle), safer than another pilot aged 65 and 1 day (who smokes and drinks too much). It is pure discrimination based on age, there is no science behind it. Edit: wrong way round in my bracketed comments but I can’t be bothered to change it!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 11:09:11 GMT
Clearly it is not intolerable because you are going to have to tolerate it! Unless you are planning to emigrate?
Currently adults have different rights depending on when they were born. State pension being an obvious example, and there are many others.
The only rights that differ between different adults are benefits and sentencing anomolies for so called hate crimes. Equality law prohibits different behaviour being allowed/ required for adults of different ages. This is completely untrue! (ref your first line) For example, I can legally fly a plane. You can't. I can only fly a plane if I have a medical. No medical, no fly. (and ref your second line) I cannot fly public transport single pilot once I reach the age of 60. Or 65 for 2 pilot. Very ageist. I need to remember to renew my driving licence when I reach 70. And a thousand other things that give different adults different "rights" depending on various things including age.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 10:17:05 GMT
Getting together for drinks, aided and abetted by the prime minister, with a host of published evidence, is a different issue to inadvertently getting something wrong despite best efforts and seeking advice. It remains to be seen what the police find. Until then she is innocent. 5 police officers on the case, how much will this trawl for minor misdeeds, if they are found, cost? Might be more productive for you to learn to post pics properly rather than wittering on here. Inadvertently getting your tax wrong is still a criminal offence. And of course we have no idea whether it was inadvertent in the sense of not realising the tax return was wrong, or inadvertent in the sense that she was inadvertently caught out. She deserves what she gets because she lost me when she referred to many of her fellow MPs as "scum". It is one thing to disagree with policy, but it is not acceptable to refer to people with different policital opinions as "scum".
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 10:11:37 GMT
The government has already stepped in long ago to make taking heroin illegal, so I don't see this as being a particularly big deal. Alcohol, unhealthy foods and loud music all have a safe level of consumption. As does heroin in fact! There is no safe level of consumption for cigarettes.
Really, so you can take the same amount of heroin each day and you will get the same hit each time. I think not. Simple thinking going on... I am not sure why you are implying that I said something that I didn't, it is a weak way to argue a point (although happens often on forums!). I said that there is a safe level of consumption for heroin. This is a true statement of fact and as such not "simple thinking".
I did not say anything else about it. Although I would point out that heroin (real name diamorphine) can be obtained on the NHS for short periods. It is adictive, but not as adictive as nicotine.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 10:04:28 GMT
In due course there will be adults with different rights, depending on when they were born. This is intolerable. What's next I wonder. Vouchers for alcohol so people can't get more than 21 units a week? Maximum levels of sugar in products? Government has a role in restricting products/ activities which are harmful to the young. Adults though, should have the freedom to make their own choices, even if those choices are harmful. Perhaps raising the age from 18 to say 21 and various measures to make vapes less appealing to children/ more difficult for them to buy might have been better. Clearly it is not intolerable because you are going to have to tolerate it! Unless you are planning to emigrate?
Currently adults have different rights depending on when they were born. State pension being an obvious example, and there are many others.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 10:02:32 GMT
I don't disagree. But is it even an area that government should be stepping into ? If it is, what about alcohol, unhealthy foods, very loud music ? Rog The government has already stepped in long ago to make taking heroin illegal, so I don't see this as being a particularly big deal. Alcohol, unhealthy foods and loud music all have a safe level of consumption. As does heroin in fact! There is no safe level of consumption for cigarettes.
|
|