ChezGiven

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

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 always though Nick O'Teen was unfailry treated and superman sounds a bit like Arnie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ROZOCtE-c&NR=1

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.

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em. Thought that one through didnt you? Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts. to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em. it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it? of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny. but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that. You have to be consistent though. You cant punish one group of people for embarking on a risky activity and not others. So you cant pick and choose things like drinking, that really isnt fair, or consistent or even principled. Its aribtrary So are you saying that if people make a choice that includes more risk, then they should be de-prioritised in the NHS wating list system versus someone who hasnt? How do you account for someone who engages in less of the activity but has a higher genetic pre-disposition to diseases? Now you're fucked Can't believe you bothered to answer his post tbh, it was moronic even by Fish standards. Just pushing everyone along in the right direction

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em. Thought that one through didnt you? Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts. to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em. it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it? of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny. but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that. You have to be consistent though. You cant punish one group of people for embarking on a risky activity and not others. So you cant pick and choose things like drinking, that really isnt fair, or consistent or even principled. Its aribtrary So are you saying that if people make a choice that includes more risk, then they should be de-prioritised in the NHS wating list system versus someone who hasnt? How do you account for someone who engages in less of the activity but has a higher genetic pre-disposition to diseases? Now you're fucked

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em. Thought that one through didnt you? Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts. Fair enough. Makes his point quite retarded in my eyes because the principle of resource allocation he signs up to in healthcare is ridiclously unworkable. If any harm comes to you from engaging in an activity known to raise risks of poorer health (by accident or through a chronic disease process) means you are not entitled to treatment or should be de-prioritised. To see the full extent of the lack of principled thought that goes into that, do we now consider the risk of a terrorist attack to be higher at airports? If so and this is common knowledge then if you knowingly went to an airport and got blown up its your fault and shouldnt expect to be treated ahead of people who genuinely didnt engage in a risky activity?

First important point is that the largest study ever undertaken on smoking was a passive smoking study in LA which used data from over 100,000 people. The original Doll study which proved the link between smoking and cancer only had 30,000. That is to do with statistical power and the incidence of the event under investigation. Whatever, the passive smoking study showed no increased risk of smoking related illness through exposure to passive smoking. Banning smoking from public houses for the convenience of workers who dont like the smell or for 'cosmetic' reasons is akin to banning fish from fish and chip shops because the staff smell of fish.

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em. Thought that one through didnt you?

As good as the Baines tip tbh.

It was the same type of bomb that Dhiren Barot plotted to use in Bluewater and at the MOS.

Nowt wrong with starting as a sales rep. Most high volume sales companies promote good reps up to the very top. The head of our US organisation started as a rep. He now runs a $25bn business.

I interviewed a girl from Austria that replied to a question about what she saw as weaknesses in her character with "I'm too much of a perfectionist". I started to smile as i thought she was taking the piss then i realised that she probably hadnt seen Spud fuck up his interview in Trainspotting and she was being serious. Next!

Is this another thread where people criticise other people's tastes.? The height of quality internet forum posting.

Or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrW-cgfDNVs&NR=1

There is no terrorist threat. Its all made up. All of it. Even the judges who convicted all those terrorist plotters the other month are in on it, presumably its a masons thing. Yawn.

Above average guitar-pop.

If she replies, make sure you post it here Wacky.

As a general rule or in all instances? Always. Generally speaking.

As a general rule or in all instances?