ChezGiven

Fucks straight off back to NO...

Did you give him it?

How does that work?

Its all swingers and roundabouts. In general chat anyway

I just hope Wacky is ok.

The only voodoo man i know is called Mr Big so be careful Meenz.

You look a lot younger than i pictured you tbf.

You've got some deep seated isses that most definitely shuold be professionally adressed. I've got issues?!? People in glass houses.... shouldn't get changed with the curtains open? Not if they are fat and ugly, no.

Bad ass.

You've got some deep seated isses that most definitely shuold be professionally adressed. I've got issues?!? People in glass houses....

Thats some double-ended dildo he's carrying

Not sure which one looked shitter, the concert for Diana or that abortion of a concert on saturday.

Gemmil's always given me the impression they're a bunch of cowboys. The firms are reputable. He's the cowboy.

Anyone sparked up by accident in a bar yet? I lit one yesterday without thinking but was luckily next to an open door so was able to nip out before anyone noticed.

Shout at it.

Aye. Taxing the poor like. Plus you're fucked on the evidence front. Legal nightmare. The relationship between dietary fats and CVD, especially coronary heart disease, has been extensively investigated, with strong and consistent associations emerging from a wide body of evidence accrued from animal experiments, as well as observational studies, clinical trials and metabolic studies conducted in diverse human populations...Saturated fatty acids raise total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol...The most effective replacement for saturated fatty acids in terms of coronary heart disease outcome are polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. This finding is supported by the results of several large randomized clinical trials, in which replacement of saturated and trans fatty acids by polyunsaturated vegetable oils lowered coronary heart disease risk. – World Health Organization, Population nutrient intake goals for preventing diet-related chronic diseases,5.4.4

Aye. Taxing the poor like. Quite right, i was just thinking about whether it was practical. You could try to levy the tax on the producers though, which would be bad politically with the global corporations who supply food but could work if they were encouraged to come up with cheaper healthier alternatives. I wasn't saying it would be a bad thing necessarily but people/families on lower incomes would be hit. Mind, while I am all for helping people make the right choices I hate the attitude in this country where it's always someone else's fault. US blame culture only 10-20 years behind. If you're overweight, do something about it. Don't fucking sue Burger King. ...to think only a few years ago they were eating lard on toast. Bread and dripping anyway. My German nanny used to make me drink pints of cream. So posh.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...2115832,00.html Said all along its a battle of ideas and theology. These jokers are influenced by extreme islamist theology, variants of which are expounded by al quaeda.

Aye. Taxing the poor like. Quite right, i was just thinking about whether it was practical. You could try to levy the tax on the producers though, which would be bad politically with the global corporations who supply food but could work if they were encouraged to come up with cheaper healthier alternatives.

Foods with high levels of fats, salt, sugar etc could be taxed. Processed food could be taxed. Food made with a certain quantity of harmful e-numbers could be taxed. No?

The Spanish have a smoking ban. They just ignore it.

the Italians were one of the first countries and they are very strict about it. I was in a hotle just outside Rome in early 2005 and they had just introduced it and it was on the street only. I still smoke in hotel Lobby's in France. The Spanish have completely ignored it on the whole and it is unworkable there.

Source? Who funded the study? My old professor once conducted a meta-analysis on passive smoking and came to the same conclusion. The fact he was funded by BAT had no bearing whatsoever..... From any rational viewpoint, it is glaringly obvious that the particulate matter present in passive smoke will increase the risk of a huge range of respiratory diseases. The only question that can be debated is by how much, and you know as well as I do this question can't be resolved ethically by any controlled trials. Your point about "cosmetic" reason is invalid too I'm afraid. The majority of people don't smoke, and believe me, it's pretty disgusting if you don't. You end up stinking of it which can make you feel nausous. Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003 The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases. We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough. Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid. I'll have a look at that ref when I get the chance, cheers. You're analogy is still bogus though, I go into a Fish and Chip shop to buy said goods, and the smell of them is part of the process. I don't go into a pub to smoke and don't want it inflicted on me. I had a great burger in Copperfields yesterday, for the first time ever the experience wasn't tainted with second hand smoke. It was more about the employees of pubs as this is the main reason behind the ban. Employees of fish and chip shops hate smelling of fish. What have people done in pubs for the last 5 centuries? When you started going to oubs were you not aware of this half a millenium long tradition? Doesnt matter, am happy for the ban to be in place but without a shred of evidence to suggest that passive smoking causes diseases, what else is the ban but cosmetic and an incentive to give up? I can't argue the toss on the evidence really having not read it (yet), but I still reckon your analogy's crocked. Ok its not brillant but its nots that bad either.

*backtrack* You do sound a bit judgemental Fish, I reckon you do subscribe to some of what you said. I do think that smokers, morbidly obese people and heavy drinkers should in some way "pay" the extra cost to the NHS that they create. in regards to the drinkers and fatties ( ), this could be in levies or mandatory attendance to courses to help buck their trend. obviously there's a million and one reasons why this won't work and there's a million and one reasons why this opinion is abhorent to many. That's ok because I freely admit it's a little extreme and equally am unsurprised that it will probably never come to pass. I don't bemoan and rail against the system because I know the view of the majority vastly contradicts my own and so I am not that bothered. I don't take it seriously because I know that my view is not based on facts and figures, just a gut (scuse the pun)reaction and it is dismissed by others as such (justifiably so). I'm not expecting people to rally behind my flag because it's a ridiculous opinion, ridiculous in the truest sense of the word. the rest was just for melodrama The thing is though Fish we already do as the tax revenue from smoking is higher than the estimated cost of smoking realted diseases. Things that are 'bads' rahter than 'goods' have always been taxed. If we had a 'fat tax' i understand that you might be a little more out of pocket too