Firework Laws

[Rod Paradise]

I can't agree with the tendency to legislate for 'our own good' - be it drugs laws, alcohol licensing, crash helmets or seatbelts I find the making of free choice illegal to be an insiduous trend in how we are governed.

I have to admit that I agree with this view in spite of my earlier comments.

Surely that's the point of many laws - to protect people from themselves and to protect others.

Take the seatbelt law - it's saved lives, both of adults who wouldn't have 'belted up' before the law was introduced, and also children's lives whose parents wouldn't have previously had the sense to make them 'belt up' before the law was in place.

Some people do need protecting from themselves.

I also think it should be law that cyclists have to wear helmets.

I've a biker mate who hates wearing a helmet - reckoning it more likely to leave him a quadraplegic - but he's not allowed the choice.

If a person is of sufficent mental ability and age to live in their own house then they should not need legislative protecting. Only where the legislation protects others from the idiots of the world will I be in favour.

[The_duke]

If a person is of sufficent mental ability and age to live in their own house then they should not need legislative protecting.
Agree 100% (also if some b@stard comes into that house uninvited he loses all rights -- but thats another story)

Only where the legislation protects others from the idiots of the world will I be in favour.
Agree 100% and this is where, unfortunately, restrictive legislation cannot discriminate between the idiot and the good guy. Therefore come sort of definitive law must exist against certain practices

[thetank]

 I believe 100% that I am correct. ............................  Sad but true . 

 

[thetank]

Sark, one of my friends does safety talks in urban Primary schools.

Shall I tell him that what he does in completely useless, the only way kids will learn is through physical pain, disability and disfigurment. Shall I tell him that he only has two options, jack it in completely, or invest in a branding iron.

[AndrewT]

Sark, one of my friends does safety talks in urban Primary schools.

Shall I tell him that what he does in completely useless, the only way kids will learn is through physical pain, disability and disfigurment. Shall I tell him that he only has two options, jack it in completely, or invest in a branding iron.

I've always fancied doing a bit of voluntary work to help out in the community - maybe the role of child torturer might be a fun way to pass the time and know that I am doing good.

I think the 'good' uses of shop bought fireworks are far, far outweighed by the negative aspects, so I would be quite happy to see them banned. I wouldn't see it as the thin end of the wedge of infringement of my human rights.

[Sark79]

Tank, of course your friend isn't wasting his time.  I am sure education works, but does it work well enough?   It is impossible to find a perfect solution to stop idiots being irresponsible with fireworks.   Didn't I say I didn't want to see people getting injured?  maybe I forgot to mention that.   I don't want to see anyone injured, but as far as I can see this would be the only way to make those in charge bring in a law banning the sale of fireworks to the average man in the street.  Is it wrong to have this belief and actually say it?    All I want is for fireworks to only be sold to licenced individuals.    

I have my belief that I firmly believe to be correct.   Other people have their view that they hold to be correct.   We are all different,  I will still completely trust my judgement even if a double decker bus full of behavioral psychologists tell me I am wrong.  

[kinboshi]

I can't agree with the tendency to legislate for 'our own good' - be it drugs laws, alcohol licensing, crash helmets or seatbelts I find the making of free choice illegal to be an insiduous trend in how we are governed.

I have to admit that I agree with this view in spite of my earlier comments.

Surely that's the point of many laws - to protect people from themselves and to protect others.

Take the seatbelt law - it's saved lives, both of adults who wouldn't have 'belted up' before the law was introduced, and also children's lives whose parents wouldn't have previously had the sense to make them 'belt up' before the law was in place.

Some people do need protecting from themselves.

I also think it should be law that cyclists have to wear helmets.

I've a biker mate who hates wearing a helmet - reckoning it more likely to leave him a quadraplegic - but he's not allowed the choice.

He can reckon what he wants, but helmets save lives.  I was actually referring to push-bikes.  In Australia the law makes it mandatory to where a cycle helmet.  A friend of mine was cycling along a road and a parked car pulled out on him, he went over the car and his head struck the windscreen of an oncoming car.  He got up and walked away with cuts and bruises.  He said that he wouldn't have been wearing a helmet if the law hadn't demanded it - he never used to wear one in the UK.

If a person is of sufficent mental ability and age to live in their own house then they should not need legislative protecting. Only where the legislation protects others from the idiots of the world will I be in favour.

A motorcyclist who wants to ride his bike without a helmet - I'd say your mate is one who needs legislation to protect him from himself.

[Rod Paradise]

A motorcyclist who wants to ride his bike without a helmet - I'd say your mate is one who needs legislation to protect him from himself.

The death to accident ratio in States that do not require helmet usage is virtually identical to that of States that do.   In fact, in Oregon, the death to accident ratio nearly doubled for the first few years that the mandatory helmet law was in force.  Twelve years later, deathss in Oregon are now starting to normalize with other States that do not require helmets.

There is also the fact that life in the west is too sacred. If someone wants to risk their lives good on them - so long as they don't risk anyone elses. We're legislating common sense and intelligence out of the people & into the hands of legislators who usually don't have any experience of what they are legislating.

[FlyingPig]

I am an old misery guts when it comes to fireworks. I hate them, despise them and wish they where not sold.

Unfortunately they are, and other people should have the right to use them if they want. Rather than worrying about a dog, I worry about my 15 month old boy who wakes up crying when they go off..

I do think apart from the 5th of Novemeber they should only be used by licensed persons, and the penalties should be servere for breaking the law. Also, any shop selling them before the 4th of Novemeber should have the fireworks confiscated. That would stop other retailers selling them illegally.

[Snatiramas]

Let me see if I was involved with a political party would I do the following.

Fireworks can only be used under license in an organised display. Sold by the council. Raises revenue for the council. Stops the infliction on the whole community of these nauseating excuses for entertainment. Stops the illegal importation of unsafe fireworks.

Instant vote winner.

[Bongo]

And kills the firework industry?

[Rod Paradise]

And kills the firework industry?

Practically dead anyway with imports.

[kinboshi]

And kills the firework industry?

Practically dead anyway with imports.

Gone up in flames.

[Snatiramas]

And kills the firework industry?

It would bring it back to life as it would freeze out the chinese stuff

[AndrewT]

And kills the firework industry?

Practically dead anyway with imports.

The firework industry only looks like it's dead - if those who left it were to return to it, it may well suddenly spring into life.