|
|
Posted by Toby Inkster on 01/13/81 11:29
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> And how much money from the existing taxes on tobacco and alcohol
> are the present guvmint putting into effective rehabilitation schemes
> for people who misuse those particular substances, riddle me that?
Not sure -- probably not very much. I'm sure that if there was a public
outcry about the lack of effective rehabilitation schemes for people with
tobacco and alcohol problems, then something would be done about it.
The fact that there is no outcry indicates to be that there are already
rehabilitation schemes which are operating much to the standards we might
expect, or at least not falling *too* far short of them.
> Nice idea as a theory, but doesn't seem to be working out. You'd
> think that at least people who were intelligent and educated enough to
> get into university would know better, but (outside of the buildings -
> where smoking is, thank goodness, banned) the number of young students
> who can be seen (and smelled) smoking around here ("here" being
> Glasgow Univ, for those who can't read headers) is not exactly
> impressive,
I woukd suggest that the current public smoking restrictions be extended
to drugs other than tobacco too. Extending the "your right to swing your
fist ends at my nose" principle, people's rights to smoke whatever they
want would end at my throat.
> quite apart from the quantity of smokers' droppings which
> are always to be seen in the streets and parks.
But which should be dealt with under existing littering laws rather than
by banning the drug that causes them. Personally I find chewing gum the
more annoying substance in this regard, but I wouldn't like to see chewing
gum itself banned because of it.
> What's this got to do with HTML?
Dorayme has an HTML page discussing these issues. Tenuous link, I know.
"[ot]" added to subject header.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|