Park Life

The raping of Bolton begins in earnest.

It's been pretty mundane so far...Fatty Viduka, snot nose naughty Barton...Dependable Rozenhal. We've perhaps for so long been craving a proper defence and some real triers, let us not lose sight of the fact that we also need to play some interesting football. Come on Sam give us at least one magician.

Apparently ciggie smoke is practically lethal to our friends from Beta Reticuli.

YOu can change your life Gemma anytime you want. Don't ever forget that.

He wears a little silver pistol on a chain the gay busboy that he is.

The latest health spa craze is a radioactive bath in the Czech republic. *Parky goes in for a dip holding a pint of cream and a lit B&H.

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.

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.

These jokers are nothing to do with Al Kidder basically though are they?

Aye. Taxing the poor like. ....and we come full circle to smokers.

of course is it if you take it at face value, but the ideal is a noble one How does it work then? the aim is to make it harder and more expensive to continute an unhealthy lifestyle, and easier and cheaper to eat healthy and exercise. how you get there is a problem for people who don't dick about on internet message forums all day and Renton a "Fat Tax" is a stupid notion because it's impossible to rgulate a true "tax" but that label was invented by someone who wanted to have a snappy title and didn't think people would take it literally. It's just a name for a resolution to this country's growing obesity problem. I've got an idea: free limitless energy that creates no harmful emissions. I'll leave the details to someone else. Poor old Tesla.

From above link: German parliament approves partial ban on smoking in federal buildings, transport May 26, 2007 BERLIN (AP) _ German lawmakers on Friday approved a smoking ban on public transport and in federal buildings, including the parliament, although the plan allows for special rooms to be set aside for smokers. The legislation, which is to take effect Sept. 1, also features a ban on cigarette sales to under-18s _ raising the age limit from the current 16. The lower house of parliament approved the plan with the votes of Chancellor Angela Merkel's «grand coalition» and the opposition Left Party. Two other opposition parties abstained. It still needs approval from the upper house of parliament, where the government also has a majority. Over recent months, Germany _ traditionally one of Europe's most nicotine-friendly countries _ has been moving tentatively toward curbs on smoking, although its rules appear set to fall well short of more draconian measures being implemented elsewhere in Europe.

They have banned it, but it's a partial one. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/13/news/smoke.php http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?...le&sid=3522

I know smokers pay a phenomenal amount for their art, but to be honest, it's bad for you, you know it's bad for you, we know it's bad for you, we can tax the shit out of you because you don't want to quit. If you're damn fool enough to keep paying for something that's bad for you and (in comparison to more suspect products) gives you fuck all "buzz" then you have absolutely no right to complain about the taxation. I think the drinking age should be raised and I think companies who target the youth should be punished, I think publicans and tradesmen with a license to sell alcohol should be forced to encourage responible drinking and rewarded for their efforts in that aim. I think that the best place to start the movement away from the "cigarettes and alcohol" culture is in the schools. if you trawl the site you'll find that I would fully and whole heartedly support a fat-tax. Who wants to end up living in fucking Gattacca?!11

Cigarettes are practically free, there are ash trays everywhere, and I didn't spot one no smoking sign! Btw, maybe I missed out on somthing else earlier in the thread, but surely the main advantage of a ban will be to help people quit. The only thing I've noticed is that I can't smoke (in the dining car anymore) on my weekly train rides to Dusseldorf or Frankfurt. There is still a smoking carriage which reeks of evil old smoke.

I thought it already had happened in Italy. Everyone went outside to smoke when I was there last summer. It's not overtly strick in Italy apparently....Not sure. I'll call up some Italians and ask. Lorenzo just came back from Sardinia and Genova and he didn't say anything (smoker). So, you're making it up then? Lorenzo is Italian and his family live in Italy if he had hastles smoking I'd know about it.

I thought it already had happened in Italy. Everyone went outside to smoke when I was there last summer. It's not overtly strick in Italy apparently....Not sure. I'll call up some Italians and ask. Lorenzo just came back from Sardinia and Genova and he didn't say anything (smoker).

not enough imo Really? Smokers more than make up for the extra expense they get from the NHS, plus they die quicker, so aren't a burden in old age. Everyone's a winner. The figures from Ash are earlier in this thread. Fop I think it was. Sumamt like £10bn collected and £2-3bn used for smoking related treatment. iirc

Spain is interesting I think the smoking ban came into affect a year ago. My mate who lives there says pretty much no one has paid much attention to it apart from Govt type places. Won't happen in Italy either and the Germans have seen sense. ONLY PRISON ISLAND GOES FORWARD. It'll be like living in LA soon.

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. The passive smoking thing has always been tenous even a monkey can see that. It is a tiny tiny risk, albeit one that I understand why non-smokers don't want to be exposed to.....As they book the next half hour sunbed and plan the next drinking binge and fire up the V8 and wrap everything in clingfilm and drink estorogen flooded tap water...... I'm prepared to listen to CG, but I don't think I'll trust your viewpoint on the aetiology of smoking related illnesses, considering your past form in rational discussions involving science, thank you very much. Chez is doing the technical stuff and I'm pitching in with the common sense.

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. The passive smoking thing has always been tenous even a monkey can see that. It is a tiny tiny risk, albeit one that I understand why non-smokers don't want to be exposed to.....As they book the next half hour sunbed and plan the next drinking binge and fire up the V8 and wrap everything in clingfilm and drink estorogen flooded tap water......

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 They say a lot of cancer is genetic don't they? It's a genetic disease, by definition. One in 13 males are going to get some form of cancer or cancer scare regardless of smoking habits. No idea where the link is now so don't ask. One in three people get cancer, one in four die from it. Most of it has nothing to do with tobaco, passive or not. Also, more people die from cardiovascular diseases related to smoking than cancer. They say bowel cancer and cardiovascular illness is as much to do with diet and excercise....iirc.

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 They say a lot of cancer is genetic don't they? It's a genetic disease, by definition. One in 13 males are going to get some form of cancer or cancer scare regardless of smoking habits. No idea where the link is now so don't ask.

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 They say a lot of cancer is genetic don't they?

Drinking helped me overcome my fear of women and smoking rid me of all my allergies inc my asthma. All good really.