Goverment bans the promotion/display of cigarettes.

[nfe]

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?

[Toe-Knee]

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

[Sifu Ben]

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.

[nfe]

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.

[Afghan Dave]

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

[MDV]

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.

[Afghan Dave]

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" 

[dave_mc]

+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.

[Sifu Ben]

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.

[WhiteRam]

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.

[Philly Q]

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.  :|  

[juansolo]

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.

[dave_mc]

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).

[HTH AMPS]

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:

[38thBeatle]

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.