Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Attica! on April 06, 2012, 05:34:43 PM
-
Just wondered what people think of this, and whether affects you? I think the government are sending the right message though. I mean if you're old enough and smoke, I'm sure you know what to get without looking at the cigarette display. Luckily, I quit smoking on Tuesday anyways :)
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/tobacco-promotion-crackdown-starts-1
-
Honestly this f**ks me right off and I'm not even a smoker. Hypocritical bollocks. Quite happy to coin it in from the tax, but nooo, can't advertise it and can't smoke in pubs. Look just either ban it or allow it. This namby pamby 'don't smoke because it's bad' bullshitee while bleeding addicts dry really pisses me off. Ditch the BS and legalise cannabis while you're at it. Really don't see a problem with this. The economy could do with it and in moderation it's no more harmful than booze.
vote Juan! :)
-
Also, while I'm ranting. When I was a kid we had chocolate cigarettes, loved those. When I was a teen Don Johnson even made it look cool. Tried it, it tasted like shite, so it wasn't for me. However I wouldn't take that choice away from anyone.
I'm just saying that advertising doesn't make you a smoker, you've got to like it... So the advertising ban is complete nonsense and is take funding away from sports I like that it used to sponsor. Damnit!
-
I agree about the hypocrisy....
If another product - lets say...... tomato ketchup - was found to have 1/10 of the harmful chemicals in that cigarettes have , the government would act swiftly to have it withdrawn from sale.
It'd be ripped from the shelves so fast it would be untrue.
It's all about the money for the politicians!
In a way it's not the tobacco that I dislike and hate - it's all the other 100+ additives , harmful and addictive chemicals that they lace them with.
I also enjoy there not being smoking at gigs - as I can actually breathe & sing without losing my voice.
My clothes don't instantly smell rank from the smoke and I haven't been accidentally burnt by a cigarette end since them either.
-
I agree about the hypocrisy....
If another product - lets say...... tomato ketchup - was found to have 1/10 of the harmful chemicals in that cigarettes have , the government would act swiftly to have it withdrawn from sale.
It'd be ripped from the shelves so fast it would be untrue.
It's all about the money for the politicians!
In a way it's not the tobacco that I dislike and hate - it's all the other 100+ additives , harmful and addictive chemicals that they lace them with.
I also enjoy there not being smoking at gigs - as I can actually breathe & sing without losing my voice.
My clothes don't instantly smell rank from the smoke and I haven't been accidentally burnt by a cigarette end since them either.
Don't they apparantly add the substance found in rat poison the cigarettes?
-
I've got a friend who represents the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and I can tell you that when this inevitably cascades to the small "corner store" expect to lose that store!
Yes.. that means when it is late and you need some milk - you won't be able to walk and get it.
When you consider 60% of the trade that keeps YOUR local newsagent in business comes from tobacco a 5% cut would push them under.
This already happened in Canada.
-
With all the brands, I'm wondering where they're gonna keep them all. I mean under the desk isn't going to have much room to house them all, and what about the places that don't have spaces underneath? And ifthey keep them in theback, that's just gonna be time wasted and really pee off the other customers.
And here's the big BIG problem. What about airports? They have millions upon million upon display. I know it's Duty Free, but the law will still apply for advertising, etc.
-
I've played the "guessing game" in Ireland and I pissed people off...
Err... do you sell cigs... err do you have A?... do you have B?... how much is B?... do you have C?.... how much is C?... do you have C lights... er..
-
With all the brands, I'm wondering where they're gonna keep them all. I mean under the desk isn't going to have much room to house them all, and what about the places that don't have spaces underneath? And ifthey keep them in theback, that's just gonna be time wasted and really pee off the other customers.
And here's the big BIG problem. What about airports? They have millions upon million upon display. I know it's Duty Free, but the law will still apply for advertising, etc.
They have been doing this locally for around 1-2 months now.
What they do is they have the normal cigarette stands and they just have the shutters down with it locked as it is on a night. And then they have to unlock it to check whether they actually have what you want.
I had a friend over last night and we went to sainsburys to get some whisky and he wanted some smokes and we had to wait for 15 minutes while the staff found out which member of staff had the key for the display and where they currently were.
-
This was interesting / scary
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1633429/Calculator-tax-pay-beer-wine-cigarettes-spirits.html (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1633429/Calculator-tax-pay-beer-wine-cigarettes-spirits.html)
If you pay typically £7 a pack and smoke about 20 a day
A) it will cost you £2555
B) the government get £2070 in tax and duty from you (thats £5.67 on every pack)
It means that the cigarettes (without tax) cost £1.32
from that price there can't be that much profit for the shop per pack , so it must be on quantity sold.
I think that some smokers must object to paying an additional £2000+ tax a year - thats a lot of BKPs you could buy
In two years you could buy a pair of EVERY humbucker in the range with the tax you pay.
Or maybe something like this:
(http://www.felineguitars.com/images/Guitars/lion/Lion%20special%20mahogany%20JL/lion-special-2.jpg)
(http://www.felineguitars.com/images/Guitars/Tabby/tabby%20bobcat%201/bobcat-1-3.jpg)
-
This was interesting / scary
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1633429/Calculator-tax-pay-beer-wine-cigarettes-spirits.html (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1633429/Calculator-tax-pay-beer-wine-cigarettes-spirits.html)
If you pay typically £7 a pack and smoke about 20 a day
A) it will cost you £2555
B) the government get £2070 in tax and duty from you (thats £5.67 on every pack)
It means that the cigarettes (without tax) cost £1.32
from that price there can't be that much profit for the shop per pack , so it must be on quantity sold.
I think that some smokers must object to paying an additional £2000+ tax a year - thats a lot of BKPs you could buy
In two years you could buy a pair of EVERY humbucker in the range with the tax you pay.
Or maybe something like this:
(http://www.felineguitars.com/images/Guitars/lion/Lion%20special%20mahogany%20JL/lion-special-2.jpg)
(http://www.felineguitars.com/images/Guitars/Tabby/tabby%20bobcat%201/bobcat-1-3.jpg)
Ahhh, tobacco of the other sort :P
-
yes - I prefer my tobacco to be sunburst
-
When you consider 60% of the trade that keeps YOUR local newsagent in business comes from tobacco a 5% cut would push them under.
Is that right? Sales of papers and magazines are (presumably) in decline, but cigarettes raise that much more than all those sweets, crisps and fizzy pop? :?
Not saying it's wrong, I'm just surprised.
-
When you consider 60% of the trade that keeps YOUR local newsagent in business comes from tobacco a 5% cut would push them under.
Is that right? Sales of papers and magazines are (presumably) in decline, but cigarettes raise that much more than all those sweets, crisps and fizzy pop? :?
Not saying it's wrong, I'm just surprised.
There must be something in it.
one of the newsagents near me sells barely anything
Booze
Cigs
Adult mags
Newspapers
Toilet paper
Bread
And im totally being serious. The first time i went in i was completely baffled then again it is wakefield.... everythings weird here
-
There must be something in it.
one of the newsagents near me sells barely anything
Booze
Cigs
Adult mags
Newspapers
Toilet paper
Bread
Just the essentials, I can see that...
And im totally being serious. The first time i went in i was completely baffled then again it is wakefield.... everythings weird here
I go into Wakefield centre once every 2 years, to get new glasses... Considering I live about 5 miles away, that's a little damning I think.
-
When you consider 60% of the trade that keeps YOUR local newsagent in business comes from tobacco a 5% cut would push them under.
Is that right? Sales of papers and magazines are (presumably) in decline, but cigarettes raise that much more than all those sweets, crisps and fizzy pop? :?
Not saying it's wrong, I'm just surprised.
That and all the cans of stella and special brew they sell - starting at 7am in the morning
-
I wish I smoked, so I could stop and save the money to buy that Feline Lion!
-
I wish I smoked, so I could stop and save the money to buy that Feline Lion!
I know what you mean, whenever Jonathan quotes those smoking statistics I think the same thing. :lol:
But even as a non-smoker and not much of a boozer, my money still seems to disappear somehow....
-
as i said in the other drinking thread, i have no problem with banning smoking in public buildings, but this is a bit different. as has already been said- it's the hypocrisy of it, and the mixed messages. if it's so dangerous you shouldn't be doing it (whether that's the gov's job or not to legislate that is another thing), it should just be banned outright, and if not then it should be allowed to be advertised like any other legal product.
I wish I smoked, so I could stop and save the money to buy that Feline Lion!
:lol:
best post ever
+1 :D
-
Yeah, Phil, to the guitar part graveyard under your bed :D
-
'Tis true, I'm afraid, Elliot. :|
-
As an ex smoker I think anything that can discourage young people from smoking is a good thing. As a kid I was drawn in by the designs on the packets, which were the same colours and designs that were in the huge road side posters. On the side of buses, F1 cars, Motorcycles, the ad man was a busy bloke for the tobacco company's years ago.
The government are under constant pressure from Europe, anti smoking groups and from within the NHS to restrict its usage and advertisement. Those little packets of fags behind the shutters in supermarkets still bear the fancy designs that look appealing to youngsters. So by hiding them, they don't see them and maybe just maybe less inclined to start smoking. Kids follow trends. If at a school the trend is smoking is for mugs then they will be less likely to start and vice versa.
As for the hypocrisy, so f*cking what! If they were cheaper more people would smoke and more people would be putting pressure on the NHS by dying an agonising preventable death.
Feline is bang on with his hook to buy a custom guitar from him with the money you save from tobacco. I did it and I loved it :D :D
-
i'm not suggesting for a second that smoking is a good idea. i don't smoke, and never have done.
i still say it's a mixed message.
-
The message is unambiguous, smoking is bad. However, the number of smokers makes an out and out overnight ban problematic. A ban will one day come, but for now you get a threefold strategy of trying to prevent people starting, encouraging people to stop, and making it easier for people who have stopped not to restart. This will squeeze at both ends and reduce the number of smokers across the board. If this is hugely successful, there'll be no need for a ban, but in all likelihood it'll mean that there are significantly fewer smokers when a ban eventually comes.
-
The message is unambiguous, smoking is bad. However, the number of smokers makes an out and out overnight ban problematic. A ban will one day come, but for now you get a threefold strategy of trying to prevent people starting, encouraging people to stop, and making it easier for people who have stopped not to restart. This will squeeze at both ends and reduce the number of smokers across the board. If this is hugely successful, there'll be no need for a ban, but in all likelihood it'll mean that there are significantly fewer smokers when a ban eventually comes.
I don't think they'll ban it. There's too many companies at risk, and the goverment will have to compensate them buckloadsa money, as well as thousands upon thousands of jobs going meaning the unemployment rate will soar. And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax. It would be political suicide for them to ban cigarettes once and for all.
Anyone else agree?
-
And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax
The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.
-
And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax
The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.
You actually have a really good point there! But still it's putting business' out of business, as well as eliminating thousands of jobs. I'm sure there's a law, or even a loophole in the law, that these cigarette companies will issue when the time comes. Although the goverment will just work round it. I say the next will be Cigars like California. That'll be the first step.
-
And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax
The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.
Could you possibly read this and learn...
Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/
-
^ yeah. i'd always read that the amount the gov makes in tax from cigarettes dwarfs the amount spent on treating people with tobacco-related diseases.
The message is unambiguous, smoking is bad. However, the number of smokers makes an out and out overnight ban problematic. A ban will one day come, but for now you get a threefold strategy of trying to prevent people starting, encouraging people to stop, and making it easier for people who have stopped not to restart. This will squeeze at both ends and reduce the number of smokers across the board. If this is hugely successful, there'll be no need for a ban, but in all likelihood it'll mean that there are significantly fewer smokers when a ban eventually comes.
i have strong suspicion that that's not what they're doing
-
And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax
The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.
Could you possibly read this and learn...
Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/
Read it before, massively narrow scope means that it's conclusions are questionable. Also the figures for smoking are massively skewed by people who's first ill health event is an immediately fatal heart attack (who in turn are then not paying tax, see what I mean about narrow scope). The meaningful figure is the total cost to the service of smoking related illnesses. As someone at the coalface, I can assure you that most non smokers aren't in hospital all that much until they are in the last years of their lives.
Also, the data he's used will almost certainly be out of date (even if it's the most recent data available), as the survival rates for several smoking related illnesses have massively improved in the last 5 years, accompanied by more sophisticated and expensive treatments and investigations, and subsequently prolonged life with ill health.
-
And not to mention lastly, the amout of money the goverment makes, as Jonathon earlier mentioned regarding tax
The amount made in tax is dwarfed by the increased healthcare costs. If the average smoker pays £2000 per year in tobacco tax, I'd estimate that the average patient over 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a common, life limiting smoking related illness) is admitted once a month for 3-5 nights at a cost of £800 per night before you've actually done anything. Many will also have at least one intensive care admission which is more like £2000 per night.
First line treatment for heart attack costs over £3000 and will also require admission to a CCU (similar costs to intensive care), the first line drugs for the treatment of stroke cost £800. Clopidogrel, the drug of choice for secondary prevention of heart disease and stroke cost £30 per month for life.
Revenue generation is one of the big lies the pro smoking lobby spins.
As for the rest of it, that's why they're reducing demand ahead of it. The next step will be plain packaging. We're over a decade off a ban anyway.
WOw this is incredibly innacurate.
I work for the NHS in the prescription pricing department. A 28 pack (calender pack) of clopidogril 75mg tablets costs around £3.70
I cant vouch for the rest of the statistics but that one in particular is incredibly far off
-
I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.
-
i'm not suggesting for a second that smoking is a good idea. i don't smoke, and never have done.
i still say it's a mixed message.
Well there is no black and white way of dealing with it so its going to be "a mixed message." They Gov' are not just going to say, right we're going to ban tobacco. It would have to be done gradually. Anyway it will all play into the black market, which is huge in this country now and line the pockets of those involved in organised crime.
-
Honestly this f**ks me right off and I'm not even a smoker. Hypocritical bollocks. Quite happy to coin it in from the tax, but nooo, can't advertise it and can't smoke in pubs. Look just either ban it or allow it. This namby pamby 'don't smoke because it's bad' bullshiteeee while bleeding addicts dry really pisses me off. Ditch the BS and legalise cannabis while you're at it. Really don't see a problem with this. The economy could do with it and in moderation it's no more harmful than booze.
vote Juan! :)
+1.
You're a stand-up guy who believes in the right to true freedom, and you're also not brainwashed by the machine, refreshing to know you're out there...have a great and prosperous life my good man.
May all the brainwashed namby pamby's of the world...croak.
-
I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.
i'm no fan of the tobacco industry and lobby, but it's hardly its fault that the pharmaceutical industry works the way it does...
Well there is no black and white way of dealing with it so its going to be "a mixed message." They Gov' are not just going to say, right we're going to ban tobacco. It would have to be done gradually. Anyway it will all play into the black market, which is huge in this country now and line the pockets of those involved in organised crime.
yep, of course. I'm certainly not saying to ban it. I just mean it's kinda weird that on the one hand it's so bad but on the other we can't ban it because of all the tax we get.
-
I haven't taken a lot of notice of this, being a non smoker and all but I wonder what this will achieve. I asked my son if it will dissuade him from smoking and he said it wouldn't. He said it is a pain not being able to tell if the shop has his brand and going through the question and answer process that Afghan Dave mentioned.
I wonder what affect it will have on the black market.I think I read somewhere that the black market for cigarettes in the UK the biggest in Europe ( see we are not bad at everything!). The good news, for me, is that my son has decided to learn the flute and thinks that smoking will be something he ditches. I hope that it isn't just a craze.
-
I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.
Ahh see this isnt really an issue anymore.
As now the NHS only pays for generic and reasonably priced proprietary products. Anything else people have to have insurance for or pay for themselves.
This is great as it makes my life easier as i no longer have to process mixtures of creams that have been imported from the US that costs £4000+ for 100g even though you can get the same two creams for less than a tenner here and mix them yourself.
The last couple of months have been heavenly without all the stupid priced stuff which really cuts down on the amount of phone calls and extra admin i have to do checking that everything is correct before processing the payments.
-
I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.
-
I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.
Only about six months ago they were talking about introducing a "fat tax" on foods high in saturated fat.
They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)
-
Years ago I had a boss who used to bang on about government, how they just came up with change for the sake of it, well-intentioned, but without enough thought or feeling of responsibility for their actions... and how one of the problems was that it didn't actually cost you anything to be in charge and make rules, and this combined with the need to be seen to be "making a difference" caused a load of hassle for the rest of us...
He advocated the idea that you had to put up a set amount of your own cash before you put forward a policy... not entirely sure that would work too well, though (or much differently than how it does now!!).
-
I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.
yeah same here. in case anyone thinks my "i don't drink or smoke" spiel is about pretensions to being healthy :lol:
They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)
they should put a tax on those stupid jumpers...
-
And again, the burden of the "fat tax" would fall disproportionately on those who could least afford to pay it.
I mean, thinking of George Osborne or David Cameron sitting down to dinner..... I'm not sure about things like grouse or pheasant, but I know for sure venison is pretty much fat-free. :P
-
I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.
Ahh see this isnt really an issue anymore.
As now the NHS only pays for generic and reasonably priced proprietary products. Anything else people have to have insurance for or pay for themselves.
I thought with the disbanding of NICE that this would no longer be the case? With no overarching body to regulate what could be used by the NHS, GPs could be pressured quite easily into using high-cost new medicines, especially when a local paper gets on the "Local GP refuses to give cancer patients potential cure!!" rubbish.
Is that not really a risk? I've not really investigated further than QT, Newsnight and papers at the time.
-
And again, the burden of the "fat tax" would fall disproportionately on those who could least afford to pay it.
I mean, thinking of George Osborne or David Cameron sitting down to dinner..... I'm not sure about things like grouse or pheasant, but I know for sure venison is pretty much fat-free. :P
yep
-
I forgot that it's exclusive license ran out a couple of years ago :P
That's what it cost before that, and it's what the next new drug'll cost.
Ahh see this isnt really an issue anymore.
As now the NHS only pays for generic and reasonably priced proprietary products. Anything else people have to have insurance for or pay for themselves.
I thought with the disbanding of NICE that this would no longer be the case? With no overarching body to regulate what could be used by the NHS, GPs could be pressured quite easily into using high-cost new medicines, especially when a local paper gets on the "Local GP refuses to give cancer patients potential cure!!" rubbish.
Is that not really a risk? I've not really investigated further than QT, Newsnight and papers at the time.
They do still pay out for the high price drugs but only if there isnt a cheaper equivalent.
The way it works basically is we only pay the dispensary the cost of the cheapest available drug at the time.
Say when boots dispense nurofen 200mg instead of the generic ibuprofen 200mg they only get paid for the ibuprofen unless it feel in a NCSO (no cheaper stock obtainable) cycle.
Also when doctors prescribe proprietary equivalents most of the time the chemist will dispense the cheapest possible option unless the doctor calls in advance or sends a dispensing token with the patient to say that specific item is neccesary.
-
I see. So if there's a new drug that NICE wouldn't have ok'd but a particular GP wants to prescribe it that's where the money would start pouring out?
-
I see. So if there's a new drug that NICE wouldn't have ok'd but a particular GP wants to prescribe it that's where the money would start pouring out?
Basically.
There are certain drugs that just get disallowed straight away though and then the chemist makes a total loss on them as they know the ones that are dissallowed and it's their fault if they prescribe it.
The good thing about the way it is being done currently is the chemists have a 90 day period in which they can dispute things after the accounts have been paid and it is generally done pretty fairly.
Oddly enough the biggest cost of dispensing so far this year is hosiery and gluten free food produce.
There has been ALOT of tamiflu being dispensed over january and february (everything is done a month behind) which im surprised the media hasnt gotten a hold of yet and tried causing panic and such as they usually do
-
I thought with the disbanding of NICE that this would no longer be the case?
What disbanding of NICE? This is the first I've heard of it and they published stuff last week.
-
Perhaps it never went ahead. Though I'd thought it had been confirmed at the point people were harumphing all over Question Time and Newsnight, probably, shortly after the Tories taking government. It was a significant Tory policy at that point with Andrew Lansley having been pushing hard against it in opposition. Certainly seems to still be functioning according to NHS website, right enough.
-
I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.
Only about six months ago they were talking about introducing a "fat tax" on foods high in saturated fat.
They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)
So for those of you who don't believe the slippery slope of creeping paternalism will reach you ...Ha, ha ... here we go!
"We must demonise junk food for the sake of our children"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/14/demonise-junk-food-sake-children?CMP=twt_gu
-
I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.
Only about six months ago they were talking about introducing a "fat tax" on foods high in saturated fat.
They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)
So for those of you who don't believe the slippery slope of creeping paternalism will reach you ...Ha, ha ... here we go!
"We must demonise junk food for the sake of our children"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/14/demonise-junk-food-sake-children?CMP=twt_gu
Quite
This sums the whole problem up, for me
"We must educate children properly about nutrition if we are to stand a chance of altering the statistics on obesity"
Altering the statistics.
The. Statistics.
i.e. the 'health of the nation' boils down to a blanket assessment of all, according to the standards, values and lifestyle choices of a few. The contradiction there should be kicking you in the face about now.
And so, to date the knee jerk reaction to the statistical assessments is to legislate said narrow set of values, one rule for everyone, one lifestyle for everyone, decision made at the top and filtered top down. And here was me naively thinking that a free democratic society is founded on civil liberty and self determination.
Oh, you can enjoy things the government and health zealots dont want you to, but you must be patronised, marginalised and borderline vilified for it.
Personal responsibility. All we each have to do is recognise its existence and its importance. You smoke? I guess by know you know it doesnt have vitamin C in it, and might be what kills you. You do. Ok, good, then go nuts. You drink? You know lots of thats not good for you? You do. Oh, ok then, its your body, your life, carry on. You eat junk food? You know that isnt conducive to optimal health, yeah? You do. You like it, and choose to eat it anyway. Well, then, I'll leave you to it.
Etc etc etc.
The fundamental crux of the problem is people find different ways to enjoy themselves, and provided its not torturing puppies or anything comparably sociopathic, neither our government or evangelically healthy have any business whatsoever trying to herd all of us all into a lifestyle chosen by a few of us.
That is not a free nation, thats a nation thats a glorified infant school, run by people that spend far too long long looking at it from the top down, through statistics, and far too little looking from the bottom up, through the people.
In point of fact they can all go $%&# themselves.
-
In point of fact they can all go $%&# themselves.
I couldn't have put it better myself....
"a study by Professor Boyd Swinburn, presented at the European Congress on Obesity in 2009, concluded that excess food intake explains weight gain..."
Really?
In other news... "A groundbreaking tax-payer funded report by the Institute of Studies concluded that bears do indeed sh1t in the woods"
-
+1
I don't have much time for companies who make these things trying to pretend they're better for you than they are- but that's different to this.
yes, tell people it's bad for them and tell them the truth, but that's it.
-
While I agree that junk food is a separate issue, if you look at the issue from another perspective, you're given positive messages about junk food all the time for the simple aim of making money out of you, and you aren't complaining about that.
-
I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.
Only about six months ago they were talking about introducing a "fat tax" on foods high in saturated fat.
They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)
So for those of you who don't believe the slippery slope of creeping paternalism will reach you ...Ha, ha ... here we go!
"We must demonise junk food for the sake of our children"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/14/demonise-junk-food-sake-children?CMP=twt_gu
Quite
This sums the whole problem up, for me
"We must educate children properly about nutrition if we are to stand a chance of altering the statistics on obesity"
Altering the statistics.
The. Statistics.
i.e. the 'health of the nation' boils down to a blanket assessment of all, according to the standards, values and lifestyle choices of a few. The contradiction there should be kicking you in the face about now.
And so, to date the knee jerk reaction to the statistical assessments is to legislate said narrow set of values, one rule for everyone, one lifestyle for everyone, decision made at the top and filtered top down. And here was me naively thinking that a free democratic society is founded on civil liberty and self determination.
Oh, you can enjoy things the government and health zealots dont want you to, but you must be patronised, marginalised and borderline vilified for it.
Personal responsibility. All we each have to do is recognise its existence and its importance. You smoke? I guess by know you know it doesnt have vitamin C in it, and might be what kills you. You do. Ok, good, then go nuts. You drink? You know lots of thats not good for you? You do. Oh, ok then, its your body, your life, carry on. You eat junk food? You know that isnt conducive to optimal health, yeah? You do. You like it, and choose to eat it anyway. Well, then, I'll leave you to it.
Etc etc etc.
The fundamental crux of the problem is people find different ways to enjoy themselves, and provided its not torturing puppies or anything comparably sociopathic, neither our government or evangelically healthy have any business whatsoever trying to herd all of us all into a lifestyle chosen by a few of us.
That is not a free nation, thats a nation thats a glorified infant school, run by people that spend far too long long looking at it from the top down, through statistics, and far too little looking from the bottom up, through the people.
In point of fact they can all go $%&# themselves.
MDV, wise sir,
If I ever read an internet post in which a person expressed civil and righteous meaning, to which is true freedom and becoming of what all humans should certainly obtain as understanding of being amongst each other...that was it.
BRAVO.
At the least, I have comfort in knowing others are out there...and maybe, just maybe, it will become what should be knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
-
So for those of you who don't believe the slippery slope of creeping paternalism will reach you ...Ha, ha ... here we go!
"We must demonise junk food for the sake of our children"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/14/demonise-junk-food-sake-children?CMP=twt_gu
I agree with most of what you and MDV are saying about paternalism and the nanny state. I went to that link thinking it would be referring to some nonsense spouted by some ill-informed junior health minister, so it wasn't quite what I was expecting. Anyway, I think the title of the article is ludicrously OTT, and I really don't like the talk of banning this and taxing that.... it feels uncomfortably dictatorial and bullying in tone.
On the other hand, I think the article itself makes some very valid points about the dangers of junk food, in particular sugar and processed carbohydrates and their effects on insulin levels and, consequently, obesity. The warnings shouldn't be ignored in our reaction to the proposed "solutions".
I confess I would've laughed it off 18 months ago, but there's much truth in it, as I've learned to my own cost. :(
Sorry, shouldn't really be personalising the debate. :|
-
I don't smoke but I like to eat foods with too much salt, sugar, "bad" fats and other things that the Government thinks I shouldn't be eating and will probably be bad for my health. I wonder how long it will be before they start banning or restricting these as well.
Only about six months ago they were talking about introducing a "fat tax" on foods high in saturated fat.
They already have a similar system in Denmark (where people were much less obese in the first place)
So for those of you who don't believe the slippery slope of creeping paternalism will reach you ...Ha, ha ... here we go!
"We must demonise junk food for the sake of our children"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/14/demonise-junk-food-sake-children?CMP=twt_gu
Quite
This sums the whole problem up, for me
"We must educate children properly about nutrition if we are to stand a chance of altering the statistics on obesity"
Altering the statistics.
The. Statistics.
i.e. the 'health of the nation' boils down to a blanket assessment of all, according to the standards, values and lifestyle choices of a few. The contradiction there should be kicking you in the face about now.
And so, to date the knee jerk reaction to the statistical assessments is to legislate said narrow set of values, one rule for everyone, one lifestyle for everyone, decision made at the top and filtered top down. And here was me naively thinking that a free democratic society is founded on civil liberty and self determination.
Oh, you can enjoy things the government and health zealots dont want you to, but you must be patronised, marginalised and borderline vilified for it.
Personal responsibility. All we each have to do is recognise its existence and its importance. You smoke? I guess by know you know it doesnt have vitamin C in it, and might be what kills you. You do. Ok, good, then go nuts. You drink? You know lots of thats not good for you? You do. Oh, ok then, its your body, your life, carry on. You eat junk food? You know that isnt conducive to optimal health, yeah? You do. You like it, and choose to eat it anyway. Well, then, I'll leave you to it.
Etc etc etc.
The fundamental crux of the problem is people find different ways to enjoy themselves, and provided its not torturing puppies or anything comparably sociopathic, neither our government or evangelically healthy have any business whatsoever trying to herd all of us all into a lifestyle chosen by a few of us.
That is not a free nation, thats a nation thats a glorified infant school, run by people that spend far too long long looking at it from the top down, through statistics, and far too little looking from the bottom up, through the people.
In point of fact they can all go $%&# themselves.
MDV gets my vote! Nailed on that man, nailed on.
-
I agree with most of what you and MDV are saying about paternalism and the nanny state. I went to that link thinking it would be referring to some nonsense spouted by some ill-informed junior health minister, so it wasn't quite what I was expecting. Anyway, I think the title of the article is ludicrously OTT, and I really don't like the talk of banning this and taxing that.... it feels uncomfortably dictatorial and bullying in tone.
On the other hand, I think the article itself makes some very valid points about the dangers of junk food, in particular sugar and processed carbohydrates and their effects on insulin levels and, consequently, obesity. The warnings shouldn't be ignored in our reaction to the proposed "solutions".
I confess I would've laughed it off 18 months ago, but there's much truth in it, as I've learned to my own cost. :(
Sorry, shouldn't really be personalising the debate. :|
oh of course it should be taken seriously
i just disagree with his proposed course of action (take more stringent action on advertising, say, or have something better than the toothless ASA), his justifications for it and his reasoning regarding the reasons why people might be attracted to said junk food (for example, people being poor and having shitety lives, which adding increased fat taxes is only going to exacerbate).
-
I can't voice any sympathy for smokers, its a bloody disgusting habit - boils my piss seeing tab ends all over the entrance to buildings where people congregate for a tab, whats wrong with the tab bin? I also sit next to a smoker at work and the smell of stale smoke turns my stomach, its vile.
As you can see, I sit on the fence on this matter :roll:
-
My son has decided to give up and this ban hasn't influenced his decision he assures me. He was more bothered about losing the fag break at work. His motive: he is learning to play the flute and breath has suddenly become a preoccupation.
-
I gave up smoking last Sunday. Sick of coughing all the time. Every time i get a minor cough it just makes it so much worse.
-
I gave up smoking last Sunday. Sick of coughing all the time. Every time i get a minor cough it just makes it so much worse.
good luck!
I found the first two weeks were the worst. After that it got a lot easier. I've been stopped since early september last year. I still get the odd craving here and there when someone walks past smoking marlboro but it passes as soon as the smell fades.