There are some obvious similarities: Both are health issues. Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues to start/continue. + Show Spoiler +
You choose usually to start smoking, and for people who aren't children of bad parents, obesity typically something you 'choose' by your lifestyle going forwards. Kids who are raised into obesity have less choice. Some people also claim smoking isn't always a choice, but generally you can realise by the time you are a teen that either or both is bad for your health and can make a decision to continue along that path or do something to rectify it. You have a choice.
Both can be influenced by the same things: advertising, family etc. Both can be dissuaded in the same way: societal pressure stigmatising them, medical advice/warnings, increased taxation.
So my question is: In countries with obesity problems, how did your contry deal with smoking, if it was dealt with at all? In the UK we obviously have done many things to try and combat smoking, and there are EU laws banning tobacco advertising, so it's not just a UK thing, but I don't know about other countries.
What have countries done to combat obesity, and is it the same?
Should we learn from smoking to try and combat obesity, or are smoking's lessons not being as effective against obesity?
In the US (in most states) smoking is completely banned from indoor facilities. Also there are a lot of "above the influence" ads and even quitsmoking.org, which in my state advertises frequently as well. As such (at least in my state) smoking has obviously gone down in popularity; however, there are still many who do it, and it's seen as a personal choice if not a little bit frowned upon.
That's an interesting parralel, France dealt and still is dealing with smoking agressively. I think the anti-smoking law are going to far (especially not being able to smoke in clubs and bars. This should be up to the owner of the place imho).
For combating obesity, there are numerous TV Campaings on how healthy you should eat. Thing is they are nowhere near the anti-tobacco TV Campaing that always have been very graphic and often shoking. When it's about eating healthy it's just rainbows and cute shits telling you to eat 5 fruits and vegetable per day. It's not as powerful as the smoking campaings for sure.
I doubt anythings ever going to change in the UK. It's just too profitable to have unhealthy quick food everywhere.
I've never actually been on a diet until recently. Even though I'm still eating 2500-3000 calories a day I just can't eat anything I don't buy and cook my self. At least here in the Newcastle I can think of very few places you can go and expect to be able to eat anywhere near as healthy as when you buy your own food.
So yeah, two things need to change in my opinion. Availability of healthy food and the cost. There doesn't really need to be any laws or anything passed. People just need a choice of being able to eat healthy when they're out for a decent price in my opinion.
Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
I don't think it's quite the same. Obesity only affects the obese person and their immediate family (this is a generalization that ignores any healthcare-related cost to the taxpayer and similar). Smoking negatively affects any random stranger standing near the smoker, so is a much bigger problem IMO. There are still plenty of smokers here in the UK and they are basically making my health worse when I have to stand next to them at a street crossing or walk behind them while they smoke.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Have there been any studies indicating that nicotine is more addictive than sugar or fat by the way ?
How is smoking self-choice? Yes it's not hardcore narcotics but please. Also smoking effect others to a much higher degree than someone else being obese. Also obesity is much less "self-choice" than some people like to believe.
It's hard to "tax" obesity without either discriminating or also taxing healthy people that occasionally buy a treat. The obesity thing is a lot more complex than smoking when it comes to legislating. Smoking is very black and white - you either smoke or you don't, and we're talking about a single product in tobacco. Food is something everyone eats and there are thousands of food options. You just can't target food the same way you could target tobacco.
On March 06 2012 22:35 nam nam wrote: How is smoking self-choice? Yes it's not hardcore narcotics but please. Also smoking effect others to a much higher degree than someone else being obese. Also obesity is much less "self-choice" than some people like to believe.
Self choice to start, more often than not. I will amend the OP to reflect that. If anything, smoking is mor eself choice than obesity, for instance if you are an obese child because of your parents. You don't have much choice as a kid to determine your own diet.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Have there been any studies indicating that nicotine is more addictive than sugar or fat by the way ?
judging from people's success at losing weight, a food addiction is pretty equal to nicotine and crack.
Obviously there are plenty of health issues relating to being overweight, and I suppose that it doesn't matter if that's due to it being a genetic problem or you simply not taking care of your body over the years.
I'm unsure of how you can tax obese people and not fit people. I'm fit but don't mind the occasional fast food burger. Should we all wear bracelets with our body mass index and medical stats so that we get discounts?
Advertising and talking with your doctor can certainly help, but there's definitely an important distinction between self-image and acceptance of unhealthy behavior in society. Leading a healthier lifestyle is a choice, and you don't want to be so ostracized that you start taking inappropriate measures to lose weight. At the same time, it has to be made clear that weighing 300 pounds when you're 5'6'' is not a good thing.
I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Have there been any studies indicating that nicotine is more addictive than sugar or fat by the way ?
As I can't quote any science right now, suffice to say for the moment that the body requires sugar and fat to survive, it does not require nicotine.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
Out of curiosity, what benefits does your smoking create that non-smokers don't understand or account for?
Some insurance companies make the policy subscription more expensive if you are overweighted or smoke. That's a good way I think, you're still free to smoke/eat in a certain extent, but it costs you more.
As a non-smoker I would be pretty pissed to know that lung cancers, diabetes etc are what make my health insurance so expensive.
Whoever did those studies must not smoke, because nicotene is way more addictive than anything else I have encountered. I pack away plenty of sugary foods, but when was the last time you heard of a person walking 6 miles at 3am to buy a candy bar? Don't confuse hunger with sugar addiction. That fatty would eat anything to hand, regardless of sugar content, and go McDs in the morning.
If ever anecdotal evidence was a valid reason for completely shutting down an argument, it is this.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
Out of curiosity, what benefits does your smoking create that non-smokers don't understand or account for?
It tastes good. It feels good. It's can be a social thing, if you have friends who smoke.
Another thing, which makes me enjoy my smoking in parties, is that it's a good thing to break things up. Instead of constantly drinking, sweating like an ass in a room with too many people, having a prolonged conversation with someone uninteresting, you can always take a break and go out for a smoke. It's definitely nothing you must smoke to do, but it's one of the things smoking give me.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
Out of curiosity, what benefits does your smoking create that non-smokers don't understand or account for?
Well, for me personally, I find it helps overcome a lot of social anxiety problems. I have difficulty interacting with people I don't know, and it can create problems in a working environment. However, I find that having a smoke with someone immediately overcomes this barrier. It acts as both an icebreaker and common ground. And given my line of work, I work with new people in stressful situations all the time (I'm a bouncer). Also, I find that it's a good excuse to take breaks. If I don't take regular smoke breaks sometimes I can work 8 hours non stop without a break in a hot, noisy bar/club. Not very good for your sanity.
Also, it's worth noting the biological effects of smoking. It's well understood that smoking releases beta-endorphins, which simulate feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment, something not everyone is lucky enough to get elsewhere.
Also, I like the taste and the buzz and it helps me get through the week.
On March 06 2012 22:36 BlackJack wrote: It's hard to "tax" obesity without either discriminating or also taxing healthy people that occasionally buy a treat. The obesity thing is a lot more complex than smoking when it comes to legislating. Smoking is very black and white - you either smoke or you don't, and we're talking about a single product in tobacco. Food is something everyone eats and there are thousands of food options. You just can't target food the same way you could target tobacco.
You could probably raise their health insurance rates.
One could easily argue (as I am) that both smoking & obesity comes from societal manipulation and pressure, thus is the power of marketing from financial-gain driven society. Obesity and smoking (perhaps less with smoking nowadays) still exist in much due to economic market, as much of our market comes from taking advantage of such potential 'addictions'.
Take high fructose corn syrup, or genetically bioengineered wheat (might be getting too deep into). They may be necessary evils (esp. in third-world countries and to those in real poverty who can't afford staple food) but that's just examples of how under-educated & mislead the public is when it comes to nutrition & health.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
As an ex smoker (10 years), I firmly believe all your points are just nicotine talking out of your brain. Smoking is the most vile, harmful, unnecessary and disgusting habit ever, and the chemicals brand makers put in there to keep you addicted are enough to murder a cow and mess with your "rationality".
There are no positives to smoking cigarettes whatsoever. I used to believe how pleasant and handy it was when I was chain smoking, too. Now that I've quit, everything is exactly the same except I don't smell, turn people off, waste money and poison myself and there is nothing missing because cigarettes do nothing for you except make you addicted and socially awkward.
You want to be informed? Get up right now, go outside and do a hard, explosive sprint for 500 meters. If you're in your 20s or older your lungs and throat will instantly provide you with all the unbiased info you'll ever need.
Educational campaigns are the best way to go in my opinion. It's also the only real way to change a culture. I loathe the people who would raise taxes to make a point.
On March 06 2012 23:09 LuciferSC wrote: I would be careful with the words 'self-choice'.
One could easily argue (as I am) that both smoking & obesity comes from societal manipulation and pressure, thus is the power of marketing from financial-gain driven society. Obesity and smoking (perhaps less with smoking nowadays) still exist in much due to economic market, as much of our market comes from taking advantage of such potential 'addictions'.
Take high fructose corn syrup, or genetically bioengineered wheat (might be getting too deep into). They may be necessary evils (esp. in third-world countries and to those in real poverty who can't afford staple food) but that's just examples of how under-educated & mislead the public is when it comes to nutrition & health.
Thanks for your assertions. Care to provide any evidence to back them up? I wouldn't normally ask but society has manipulated me into thinking people should provide a factual basis for their conclusions.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
As an ex smoker (10 years), I firmly believe all your points are just nicotine talking out of your brain. Smoking is the most vile, harmful, unnecessary and disgusting habit ever, and the chemicals brand makers put in there to keep you addicted are enough to murder a cow and mess with your "rationality".
There are no positives to smoking cigarettes whatsoever. I used to believe how pleasant and handy it was when I was chain smoking, too. Now that I've quit, everything is exactly the same except I don't smell, turn people off, waste money and poison myself and there is nothing missing because cigarettes do nothing for you except make you addicted and socially awkward.
You want to be informed? Get up right now, go outside and do a hard, explosive sprint for 500 meters. If you're in your 20s or older your lungs and throat will instantly provide you with all the unbiased info you'll ever need.
OH I'M SO SORRY! I keep forgetting that everything I say is invalid because nicotine has turned me into a mindless zombie! Don't pretend to know me. I am far from a chain smoker, and when I'm not working, or don't have the money I often go a week or so without having a single cigarette and it doesn't really bother me. I don't smoke because of addiction and I never have.
Education and private programs are the only appropriate ways to deal with smoking and obesity problems. There should be no extra-tax on self-destructive products like cigarettes and especially not on things like fast food which can be consumed 100% safely and responsibly. Banning tobacco would be a terrible violation of individual rights.
EDIT: and it is quite apparent that people are getting more obese as time goes on, and it is becoming more and more "acceptable" to be grossly overweight. Last time I went on a flight I was looking at the size of a woman nearby. Then looking at the size of the emergency exit. Then looking back at the tremendous, flabby bulk of the woman. Then back at the size of the emergency exit.
I concluded that there was absolutely no way she would be able to physically fit through any of the plane's emergency exits - yet she was allowed on the plane! If she were to 'cork' an exit it would be entirely possible her fatness would be the death of many.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
As an ex smoker (10 years), I firmly believe all your points are just nicotine talking out of your brain. Smoking is the most vile, harmful, unnecessary and disgusting habit ever, and the chemicals brand makers put in there to keep you addicted are enough to murder a cow and mess with your "rationality".
There are no positives to smoking cigarettes whatsoever. I used to believe how pleasant and handy it was when I was chain smoking, too. Now that I've quit, everything is exactly the same except I don't smell, turn people off, waste money and poison myself and there is nothing missing because cigarettes do nothing for you except make you addicted and socially awkward.
You want to be informed? Get up right now, go outside and do a hard, explosive sprint for 500 meters. If you're in your 20s or older your lungs and throat will instantly provide you with all the unbiased info you'll ever need.
Smoking is generally demonized, but it's still socially accepted. Except around yuppie moms that are pregnant or have a newborn with them. Smoking is addictive though. Nobody is addicted to having a crap diet and being too lazy to work out. Most people don't even know what a good diet is because here we are surrounded by such terrible food.
Obesity bothers me more. It is disgusting how fat women have this attitude about being fat and proud. Dumb bitch, live in the body of a normal, non skinny woman like Christina Hendricks and tell me you'll go back to being a land-lubbering walrus. No, you wouldn't. Stop making men feel guilty for not liking your morbid obesity.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
Out of curiosity, what benefits does your smoking create that non-smokers don't understand or account for?
It tastes good. It feels good. It's can be a social thing, if you have friends who smoke.
Another thing, which makes me enjoy my smoking in parties, is that it's a good thing to break things up. Instead of constantly drinking, sweating like an ass in a room with too many people, having a prolonged conversation with someone uninteresting, you can always take a break and go out for a smoke. It's definitely nothing you must smoke to do, but it's one of the things smoking give me.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
Out of curiosity, what benefits does your smoking create that non-smokers don't understand or account for?
Well, for me personally, I find it helps overcome a lot of social anxiety problems. I have difficulty interacting with people I don't know, and it can create problems in a working environment. However, I find that having a smoke with someone immediately overcomes this barrier. It acts as both an icebreaker and common ground. And given my line of work, I work with new people in stressful situations all the time (I'm a bouncer). Also, I find that it's a good excuse to take breaks. If I don't take regular smoke breaks sometimes I can work 8 hours non stop without a break in a hot, noisy bar/club. Not very good for your sanity.
Also, it's worth noting the biological effects of smoking. It's well understood that smoking releases beta-endorphins, which simulate feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment, something not everyone is lucky enough to get elsewhere.
Also, I like the taste and the buzz and it helps me get through the week.
Thank you guys for answering And as long as you've made an informed decision and balanced the pros and cons (social, medical, etc.), I'm certainly not going to stand on a pedestal and shout at you at how you guys are terrible people. I'm no one to judge.
As an athlete (tennis), smoking would destroy me. My aunt eventually killed her husband with the years and years and years of secondhand smoke (gave him cancer). And I have my other preferences for social releases and spending money. So I have my reasons, and you have yours. Plus, cigarette smoke just makes me cough up a lung in general, so that's my only problem with being around smokers (as opposed to the idea of people making informed decisions). ::shrugs::
smoking by advertisement bans, warnings on the packs, banned in most public areas and tax increases. obesity battling wise a test was just finished in Amsterdam with government funded exercise and education, It worked. Hope to see more of those. I really don't feel like that they both originate from social pressure. Smoking used to be cool. Being obese has never been cool(besides sumo wrestlers maybe).
EDIT: A law proposal has just been filled to regulate salt concentrations in food, so guess thats what they are focusing on now instead of fat and sugar
On March 06 2012 23:12 Thenerf wrote: Educational campaigns are the best way to go in my opinion. It's also the only real way to change a culture. I loathe the people who would raise taxes to make a point.
You don't raise taxes to make a point, you raise taxes to battle the cost society has to make for your lifestyle choice. Smokers get sick more and die younger same goes for the obese.
Smoking is bad, but I can out sprint and/or lift pretty much every non smoker I know. When I was in the military I was the best runner and smoked whenever I got a chance. I find non smokers tend to get light headed when they really push themselves because their brains just can't deal with the lack of oxygen. Anecdotal, but most of the old guys agreed that smoking gives you an edge when at altitude for the same reason.
That said, I have tried to give up numerous times in the past, for long enough to know I don't miss it after a couple weeks. Always the heavy booze nights catch me out. Slip up and you are smoking like a train the next day, and then feel like a complete cunt for all the wasted willpower it took to quit.
On March 06 2012 22:35 nam nam wrote: How is smoking self-choice? Yes it's not hardcore narcotics but please. Also smoking effect others to a much higher degree than someone else being obese. Also obesity is much less "self-choice" than some people like to believe.
correct me if i'm wrong (i don't smoke cigs) but can't people start using nicotene patches instead of smoking? are they a lot more expensive or something?
On March 06 2012 23:26 couches wrote: In the States.
Smoking is generally demonized, but it's still socially accepted. Except around yuppie moms that are pregnant or have a newborn with them. Smoking is addictive though. Nobody is addicted to having a crap diet and being too lazy to work out. Most people don't even know what a good diet is because here we are surrounded by such terrible food.
Are you serious?
I'd be willing to bet that it's just as difficult, if not more-so, to stop being obese as it is to stop smoking. Smokers get withdrawal while the obese are starving.
On March 06 2012 22:23 Marou wrote: That's an interesting parralel, France dealt and still is dealing with smoking agressively. I think the anti-smoking law are going to far (especially not being able to smoke in clubs and bars. This should be up to the owner of the place imho).
We have that in Sweden, for anyone that is a non-smoker that was a law gifted to us from god. Without it you are basically smoking yourself whenever you wanna go out cause every single place you go has the smoke hanging in clouds. Now that people go out to smoke, i can choose i wanna submit myself to passive smoking or not.
On March 06 2012 22:35 nam nam wrote: How is smoking self-choice? Yes it's not hardcore narcotics but please. Also smoking effect others to a much higher degree than someone else being obese. Also obesity is much less "self-choice" than some people like to believe.
Self choice to start, more often than not. I will amend the OP to reflect that. If anything, smoking is mor eself choice than obesity, for instance if you are an obese child because of your parents. You don't have much choice as a kid to determine your own diet.
You could argue that if parents smoke near their child he can become addicted to the nicotine.
On March 06 2012 22:35 nam nam wrote: How is smoking self-choice? Yes it's not hardcore narcotics but please. Also smoking effect others to a much higher degree than someone else being obese. Also obesity is much less "self-choice" than some people like to believe.
correct me if i'm wrong (i don't smoke cigs) but can't people start using nicotene patches instead of smoking? are they a lot more expensive or something?
It's also a lot about the habit of pulling out the cig, lighting it and doing the gesture with your hands and mouth. Which is why a lot of people trying to stop chew gum.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
As an ex smoker (10 years), I firmly believe all your points are just nicotine talking out of your brain. Smoking is the most vile, harmful, unnecessary and disgusting habit ever, and the chemicals brand makers put in there to keep you addicted are enough to murder a cow and mess with your "rationality".
There are no positives to smoking cigarettes whatsoever. I used to believe how pleasant and handy it was when I was chain smoking, too. Now that I've quit, everything is exactly the same except I don't smell, turn people off, waste money and poison myself and there is nothing missing because cigarettes do nothing for you except make you addicted and socially awkward.
You want to be informed? Get up right now, go outside and do a hard, explosive sprint for 500 meters. If you're in your 20s or older your lungs and throat will instantly provide you with all the unbiased info you'll ever need.
500 meter sprint? So you want someone to sprint the length of 5 football fields? I'm pretty sure anybody not in good shape is going to have breathing problems after that.
I'd like to state that to me, you sir are the worst of all. Worse than those who foist their misinformed generalizations about smokers on others, to me, is the reformed former-smokers. Once you (the reformed smoker) have beaten your addiction, there's this compulsion that follows to talk down to other smokers like you know better. Since you have stopped smoking, you view smokers as people with a pitiful life, slaving as peons to 'big tobacco.' This is unless you can show up on your white steed to bring light and prosperity to us uninformed saps. There was a time when smoking filled a niche in your life, and was able to fulfill requirements you needed. It doesn't for you now, and you personally managed to outweigh what it did offer you by what it does to your health. To some, nay many, that is not the case. I'm quite aware that it is poor for my health. But you know what, there's a lot to be said for a cigarette after a 12 hour work shift. Or after a long hard fought sporting game. Or after some great sex. You may not agree, and I'm not proposing others take up smoking for its effects- but to each their own. If you disagree with the merits of smoking, be it personal, social or medical (lol, there are no medical ones) make claims based on something other than a reading of your own moral compass.
I'm also vehemently against the assumption that smoking makes you socially awkward. The habit of smoking will, almost invariably, lead to a person interacting with other smokers- whether it be to bum cigarettes, or join in with them. I would argue this is beneficial to your social growth, as you gain the ability and confidence to approach strangers (will help in the bar scene later on- though granted, the smelling like smoke may prove to be counter productive)
Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
It is not a self-choice because it is hard to quit? Just because nicotince or sugar is addictive, does not mean its impossible to avoid. The choice you make is yours, the fact that it is a hard choice does not change who is making it.
On March 06 2012 23:26 couches wrote: In the States.
Smoking is generally demonized, but it's still socially accepted. Except around yuppie moms that are pregnant or have a newborn with them. Smoking is addictive though. Nobody is addicted to having a crap diet and being too lazy to work out. Most people don't even know what a good diet is because here we are surrounded by such terrible food.
Are you serious?
I'd be willing to bet that it's just as difficult, if not more-so, to stop being obese as it is to stop smoking. Smokers get withdrawal while the obese are starving.
Obese people do have it hard to lose weight. I don't know the feeling since I've always been at good weight so I've never had to lose any. All the different methods, diets, programs and TV-shows have basically proven that alot of people are really struggling with losing weight.
Even considering that though, when I see fat people trying to lose weight and they whine because it's so hard it just ticks me off. I don't know why :/. I guess we all have something unreasonable.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you.
Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you.
Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it.
*edit that just make me think of last week when I went on vacation via plane. In front of the airport entrance there were about 10 people smoking and you had to get through this wall of smoke to get in. Seriously is it that hard to walk of to a more secluded area where people don't HAVE to pass through.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you.
Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it.
Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you.
Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it.
Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible.
That is something different, having a car is a necessity for alot of people. And even if you don't consider it a necessity it is an important transport vehicle. Smoking is just purely for pleasure ( or to feed your addiction) and since you can decide exactly when and where to smoke. To bother other people with it is egocentric, I think.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you.
Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it.
Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible.
The obvious difference is that buying an eco-friendly car costs more money. Not smoking costs no money. Likewise eating so much junk food costs more money, whereas simply eating decent meals is much more financially sustainable. I'm judging them based on the more feasible and less destructive of options.
Sydney is trying to ban it everywhere, slowly but surely. I smoke but I try to not be obnoxious about it. I will leap to the other side of the street if there's a baby either in or out of the womb nearby. But to the paragons of justice who cry from rooftops about the dangers of second hand smoke. If you put half as much effort into a real social problem you might actually get something done.
Why is it necessary to point out that smoking is negative? It's a well known fact. People still choose to partake in it. Alcohol is negative, same case scenario. And it's not like alcohol has never hurt anybody, or the people around them... right?
Decent meals actually cost more than fast food, there's a reason poor families have such an high % of obesity and overweight.
Sugar and corn by-products (corn syrup, corn starch) are extremely subsidized, high caloric, high glycemic index, and prevalent in a shitload of low quality products (prepared meals, granola bars, cookies, etc.)
On March 07 2012 00:09 AlphaWhale wrote: Sydney is trying to ban it everywhere, slowly but surely. I smoke but I try to not be obnoxious about it. I will leap to the other side of the street if there's a baby either in or out of the womb nearby. But to the paragons of justice who cry from rooftops about the dangers of second hand smoke. If you put half as much effort into a real social problem you might actually get something done.
Why is it necessary to point out that smoking is negative? It's a well known fact. People still choose to partake in it. Alcohol is negative, same case scenario. And it's not like alcohol has never hurt anybody, or the people around them... right?
Even though your points are valid, I don't think you are in the position to criticize anyone who is against second hand smoking, as in the end you are hurting the people around you, not they (even if it's a mediocre hurting). The thing on alcohol is, that it is indeed forbidden in a lot of places, or just not wanted. Smoking was integrated into society, but nowadays there are places where smoking has to be forbidden, just like alcohol. It's basically the process that alcohol went trough a longer time ago.
I hate having to sit near smokers and smell them, and I hate the ones that breath it everywhere not realising everybody else has to inhale it. Not everyone is that inconsiderate though, and I dont mind them smoking
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Have there been any studies indicating that nicotine is more addictive than sugar or fat by the way ?
As I can't quote any science right now, suffice to say for the moment that the body requires sugar and fat to survive, it does not require nicotine.
Actually, there is talk right now that nicotine is not addicting at all. Smoking is for some reason addictive, but not the nicotine. They are mainly thinking this because people do not get addicted and/or abuse nicotine patches/gum etc. Which means there is definitely something off with addiction to nicotine compared to crack (which are usually compared in severity).
At least thats I heard, and to be honest it sort of makes sense.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you.
Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it.
Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible.
The obvious difference is that buying an eco-friendly car costs more money. Not smoking costs no money. Likewise eating so much junk food costs more money, whereas simply eating decent meals is much more financially sustainable. I'm judging them based on the more feasible and less destructive of options.
No, buying a Clio is infinitely cheaper than a Range Rover.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you.
No one is forcing you to walk next to me when I'm smoking. In fact, if you do even though you have such a huge problem with passive smoking, I'm going to assume that you're downright stupid, so I would worry more about that than the fact that you're getting a bit of diluted smoke in your lungs.
EDIT: In fact, I'm not even done. Peoples sense of entitlement is insane. If I go to a restaurant and want to smoke, I have to sit outside. I do this gladly because I know it's not nice to get smoke in your face when eating, especially if you dislike smoke. Then you have the idiots who claim you're a dick for smoking even when sitting outside where theres ashtrays on every table! WTF? You can choose if you want to sit outside or inside, I'm forced to sit here, how can YOU be the one complaining? Get your ass inside, or whine to the owners to make a smoking section outside or whatever.
Smokers already show a ton of respect for non smokers. We sit outside. We go to the veranda. We refrain from smoking on airplanes etc. We go to a specific spot when waiting for the train. We stop smoking if we're in a situation where someone allergic etc can't avoid the smoke. Still, this is somehow not enough, you're an asshole for smoking in a spot where you're actually allowed to smoke, jsut because some obstinate straight edge can't take it that HE isn't supposed to be able to sit exactly anywhere he want without anyone else affecting him.
Anyone raising second hand smoke as an excuse to vilify smokers is incredibly obtuse. Studies of the effects of passive smoking are notoriously inconclusive, and unless you're living full time with someone who smokes indoors, you are unlikely to be exposed to anything remotely close to a health affecting amount of carcinogens. Open wood-fires such as braziers, campfires or open fireplaces expose you to far more carcinogens than living with a smoker.
Complaining about passive smoking from people smoking in public places is like complaining about exposure to radiation because the person next to you on the bus is wearing a watch with a luminescent face.
People will quite readily attribute any case of lung cancer in a non-smoker with second hand smoke but the reality of it is something like 10-15 out of every 1000 people will develop lung cancer regardless of whether they are a non-smoker, smoker or live with a smoker.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you.
No one is forcing you to walk next to me when I'm smoking. In fact, if you do even though you have such a huge problem with passive smoking, I'm going to assume that you're downright stupid, so I would worry more about that than the fact that you're getting a bit of diluted smoke in your lungs.
And if not just you but everyone else smoked I just had to accept that I get killed, just walking down the street, because YOU are being ignorant and selfish.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
On March 07 2012 00:27 naggerNZ wrote: Anyone raising second hand smoke as an excuse to vilify smokers is incredibly obtuse. Studies of the effects of passive smoking are notoriously inconclusive, and unless you're living full time with someone who smokes indoors, you are unlikely to be exposed to anything remotely close to a health affecting amount of carcinogens. Open wood-fires such as braziers, campfires or open fireplaces expose you to far more carcinogens than living with a smoker.
Complaining about passive smoking from people smoking in public places is like complaining about exposure to radiation because the person next to you on the bus is wearing a watch with a luminescent face.
People will quite readily attribute any case of lung cancer in a non-smoker with second hand smoke but the reality of it is something like 10-15 out of every 1000 people will develop lung cancer regardless of whether they are a non-smoker, smoker or live with a smoker.
Would you mind referencing these studies, as well as who funded them?
, was smoking for 5 years and now is 4 years since i quit. There can be no doubts about smoking. Cigarettes is a drug, very very addictive one. Cigarettes kill. Smoking hurts people around you.
Every "If"s and "but"'s should not be taken in concideration. Smoking should be denied by law.
It's very neat and easy when you start (except for the first couple of cigs, the're awful). But then after years of smoking, countless euros spent on those, you just sit down, take a cigarette and start to think: "why am i doing it?". You try to quit, and then you realize that you cant. So you continue, but then you notice that getting a long walk is hard and you take pauses to sit down and take a breath. And then your smoker friend starts coghing blood. And so on.
Noone except smoker himself can persuade him to stop, but government may and have to restrict influence of smoking to people that don't want to kill themselves that way.
On March 07 2012 00:27 naggerNZ wrote: Anyone raising second hand smoke as an excuse to vilify smokers is incredibly obtuse. Studies of the effects of passive smoking are notoriously inconclusive, and unless you're living full time with someone who smokes indoors, you are unlikely to be exposed to anything remotely close to a health affecting amount of carcinogens. Open wood-fires such as braziers, campfires or open fireplaces expose you to far more carcinogens than living with a smoker.
Complaining about passive smoking from people smoking in public places is like complaining about exposure to radiation because the person next to you on the bus is wearing a watch with a luminescent face.
People will quite readily attribute any case of lung cancer in a non-smoker with second hand smoke but the reality of it is something like 10-15 out of every 1000 people will develop lung cancer regardless of whether they are a non-smoker, smoker or live with a smoker.
Apart from any possible health issues, have you considered that having to breathe in someone else's smoke can just be annoying for someone. Personally, my mother gets a bad headache if she breathes in smoke even if it is for 30 seconds. Besides, I know alot of people that think it smells disgusting.
On March 07 2012 00:09 AlphaWhale wrote: Sydney is trying to ban it everywhere, slowly but surely. I smoke but I try to not be obnoxious about it. I will leap to the other side of the street if there's a baby either in or out of the womb nearby. But to the paragons of justice who cry from rooftops about the dangers of second hand smoke. If you put half as much effort into a real social problem you might actually get something done.
Why is it necessary to point out that smoking is negative? It's a well known fact. People still choose to partake in it. Alcohol is negative, same case scenario. And it's not like alcohol has never hurt anybody, or the people around them... right?
1. How is secondhand smoke not a real social problem? It even has medical and practical costs. I choke on cigarette smoke, and people who don't smoke can develop health problems simply by virtue of constantly being around those who choose to smoke.
2. It's necessary to educate people of the dangers of smoking so that they can make informed decisions on whether or not they want to start and continue smoking. That seems to be painfully straightforward...
3. Talking about alcohol is just changing the subject. That can be dangerous too, but it doesn't change the fact that smoking is harmful as well.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
and this is why society we live in is a joke, why cant everyone just let eveyone else live how they want instead of being douchebags sayin o u shuldnt do this and that?-_-
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
I think children getting raised by their parents with a bad diet ( and thus get obese very early ) don't really have a choice in the matter though.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
And people talking on their cellphone ( in certain public situations) are also thought of as selfish by many people, and are sometimes asked to leave and not bother anyone with their talking. Just because there are other ways of being selfish doesn't mean one particular way is suddenly okay.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
It's not personal offense. It's physically damaging to breathe in someone else's smoke. Period.
On March 07 2012 00:31 peppilepew wrote: and this is why society we live in is a joke, why cant everyone just let eveyone else live how they want instead of being douchebags sayin o u shuldnt do this and that?-_-
I think if cigarettes affected no one but the user, there would be far fewer people concerned.
Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
I've yet to see any evidence that passive smoking causes cancer, or that general exposure to tobacco smoke in public causes health problems. I don't need gripping analogies. If you have a reputable study with empirical evidence that it does, please link it to me.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
@Tobberoth, lighten up dude, he seems like one of the people who grinds your gears. try reading the anti smoking post and substitute smoker by obese and smoking by eating. Guaranteed laughs.
Btw on obese people not being bad for your health, simple operations take longer and with a higher risk on complications thus taking up more and longer places for people who do eat healthy and need some unrelated health care but being put on waiting list cus fatty's procedure took an hour instead of the normal 20 min and has to stay overnight out of fear for complications. I know far fetched, but worth a moment of thought with rising health care costs and crises etc.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
What side have they seen that smokers haven't? I wasn't born with a cigarette in my mouth.
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
Because smokers were born smokers? Anyone who has smoked has obviously seen both sides.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
What side have they seen that smokers haven't? I wasn't born with a cigarette in my mouth.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
So? That is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion.
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
By that logic wouldn't all ex-smokers be that way?
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
No one has ever gotten cancer from sitting next to a smoker on a park bench. You, like so many other people, have not read the research of passive smoking. YOU CANNOT GET CANCER FROM NON RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO SECOND HAND SMOKE! THIS IS A FACT!
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
By that logic wouldn't all ex-smokers be that way?
I think most ex-smokers do tend to be pretty anti-smoking. Not all are very pushy about it or anything like that, but I don't think many who have quit are still happy with people they love smoking.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
So? That is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion.
And you have facts to prove that statement? Show me.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
By that logic wouldn't all ex-smokers be that way?
I think most ex-smokers do tend to be pretty anti-smoking. Not all are very pushy about it or anything like that, but I don't think many who have quit are still happy with people they love smoking.
and there you get my point, the pushy part is the main issue. I play sports at least 3 times a week does that give me the right to annoy people who don't?
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
So? That is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion.
And you have facts to prove that statement? Show me.
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you.
So everyone should stop buying apple stuff since foxconn treats their workers like crap right? what about other sweat shop labels? why stop just at smoking, what about job loss since overseas workers? it effects everyone how the global market moves right? what if a "fat" person falls on you he shouldn't be fat right because he could fall and hurt people around him? but if he stops buying mass burgers then their not going to need more employees at fast food joints and someones going to lose a job due to company resizing so the "fat" guy should of thought of that?
Everything you do and say in life can harm/help people in life i thought you might have figured that out by now, world hunger problems also causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you because in your own words we could fix it ..... so why don't we?
In Australia: - Tobacco products are taxed very highly. - There is alot of anti-smoking advertising, the packs have quite graphic pictures. - Almost everywhere are smoke free zones.
Smoking feels good? I don't know I never tried, but it seems to me that it smells like the worst shit in the world. Guess you have to try really hard to get in love with the thousands of chemicals and toxic elements in cigarettes. At least it makes you less hungry, so that you have the illusion to loose weight, yay! Of course, when it's time to stop, fat comes back!
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you.
So everyone should stop buying apple stuff since foxconn treats their workers like crap right? what about other sweat shop labels? why stop just at smoking, what about job loss since overseas workers? it effects everyone how the global market moves right? what if a "fat" person falls on you he shouldn't be fat right because he could fall and hurt people around him? but if he stops buying mass burgers then their not going to need more employees at fast food joints and someones going to lose a job due to company resizing so the "fat" guy should of thought of that?
Everything you do and say in life can harm/help people in life i thought you might have figured that out by now, world hunger problems also causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you because in your own words we could fix it ..... so why don't we?
I agree with you completely. We should do our best to avoid or punish those who would cause harm and degrade the life of others. Some actions are more harmful than others, such as smoking.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
On March 07 2012 01:05 Azzur wrote: In Australia: - Tobacco products are taxed very highly. - There is alot of anti-smoking advertising, the packs have quite graphic pictures. - Almost everywhere are smoke free zones.
"Let's make it more expensive to do it, let's make it more shameful to do it, let's make it more difficult to do it." Makes me wonder why they don't just ban it outright and be done with it.
On March 07 2012 01:08 fofa2000 wrote: Smoking feels good? I don't know I never tried, but it seems to me that it smells like the worst shit in the world. Guess you have to try really hard to get in love with the thousands of chemicals and toxic elements in cigarettes. At least it makes you less hungry, so that you have the illusion to loose weight, yay! Of course, when it's time to stop, fat comes back!
Everyone's got different reasons for starting, and it is kind of funny how it goes from a horrible smell to a great one after you're hooked, heh.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who does smoke, a lot of us aren't really happy that we do it =/. Don't know what it's like being fat but it's probably more enjoyable than having fucked up lungs, a gross cough and an expensive habit.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I would like to point out that these links are not medical studies. They are non even close to conclusive proof of anything. My point, however, is that there is no evidence that NON RESIDENTIAL exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer.
You CANT get cancer from smokers in public. The studies show you have to LIVE with a smoker for you to have any increased risk of cancer, and that is almost completely negated if the smoker does not smoke indoors.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
So? That is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion.
I was just dispelling the illusion that people get fat because of their genetics. It's entirely up to your lifestyle. Your genetics can only have influence on it if you let them.
Besides, the people that actually need a perfect diet and a load of exercise to not get fat would obviously be people that get fat REALLY fast, thus extreme cases. Extreme cases are usually fewer in number than non extreme cases and I think it's safe to say that in this situation they are.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Why should he? It's legal, he has every right to be obnoxious in the street. You can't force someone to stop something they have every right to do just because you dislike it, you can just ask them kindly to stop and hope that they do.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
So? That is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion.
I was just dispelling the illusion that people get fat because of their genetics. It's entirely up to your lifestyle. Your genetics can only have influence on it if you let them.
Besides, the people that actually need a perfect diet and a load of exercise to not get fat would obviously be people that get fat REALLY fast, thus extreme cases. Extreme cases are usually fewer in number than non extreme cases and I think it's safe to say that in this situation they are.
Most obese people get that way over years and years of gradual weight gain. These are not extreme cases. They are very common. While I do not disagree that a healthy diet and rigorous and regular exercise can help them keep at a normal weight, this is something that a great many people do not have the means or the knowledge to do.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote: [quote] Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
That is not obnoxious to me, in fact I salute smokers to think about their fellow man and try to keep their smoke away from other people. My problem is when someone is smoking somewhere and I can't do anything to avoid it, and the smoker doesn't care at all.
For example people smoking in front of an entrance to a building.
On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote: [quote] Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Why should he? It's legal, he has every right to be obnoxious in the street. You can't force someone to stop something they have every right to do just because you dislike it, you can just ask them kindly to stop and hope that they do.
On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat.
And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance.
There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means.
Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that.
Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet.
So? That is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion.
I was just dispelling the illusion that people get fat because of their genetics. It's entirely up to your lifestyle. Your genetics can only have influence on it if you let them.
Besides, the people that actually need a perfect diet and a load of exercise to not get fat would obviously be people that get fat REALLY fast, thus extreme cases. Extreme cases are usually fewer in number than non extreme cases and I think it's safe to say that in this situation they are.
Most obese people get that way over years and years of gradual weight gain. These are not extreme cases. They are very common. While I do not disagree that a healthy diet and rigorous and regular exercise can help them keep at a normal weight, this is something that a great many people do not have the means or the knowledge to do.
That is very possible indeed, I know some people who don't have too much money and they just get microwave food every day. Problaby unaware too of how unhealthy it is.
How can you seriously argue that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that genetics have nothing to do with obesity? These two concepts are widely accepted among the scientific community, they're pretty much facts at this point. Arguing otherwise is just stubborn refusal to accept the truth, and it reminds me of all those conservative dinosaurs who cling to that ludicrous claim that there's no evidence connecting global warming and pollution.
I smoke and I enjoy it, but I have to say some of the justifications and 'benefits' in this thread are fucking unreal. You guys sure you're not kidding yourselves? I mean I started smoking to get out on fag breaks with a girl I liked (12 years ago) but I'm sure as shit not going to claim that 'breaking down social barriers' is a reason I smoke now.
I would claim, however, that I could have had just as much luck with the girl in question if I had manned the fuck up and just gone and talked to her without a crutch.
On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote: [quote] Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
And we non-smokers thank you for being courteous- which exactly proves how some smokers could be annoying. Cigarette smoke affects the people around you, even if you don't think it causes medical issues. It causes- at the very least- trouble breathing and congestion and other discomfort for those nearby, and that's exactly why restaurants either have no smoking at all or smoking and no smoking sections. It's so we non-smokers don't have to worry about smokers sitting next to us. And you don't have to be actively smoking inches away from us either. Believe it or not, your breath and clothes smell like shit and make the environment less enjoyable- something that the restaurant obviously doesn't want to see. So thank you for being courteous, but others aren't always as respectful as you, and there are rules in place to make sure that everyone remains comfortable.
So this thread should just be closed since its another religion debate now, man aren't you guys tired of this? honestly non smokers don't like smokers WE GET IT no matter how much you scream YOU DON'T LIKE IT we have ALREADY HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME AND UNDERSTOOD YOUR SIDE OF IT you don't have to agree with our side and we don't have to agree with yours ......
We know of the health risk's and how you don't like how it effects "your life" just like i don't like how racist's and alcohol, driving, gambling has an effect alot of "my life" as well as other things.
If you don't understand why we smoke or why we may like it that's fine, each to their own.
On March 07 2012 01:35 XxMulexX wrote: How can you seriously argue that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that genetics have nothing to do with obesity? These two concepts are widely accepted among the scientific community, they're pretty much facts at this point. Arguing otherwise is just stubborn refusal to accept the truth, and it reminds me of all those conservative dinosaurs who cling to that ludicrous claim that there's no evidence connecting global warming and pollution.
I never argued genetics have nothing to do with obesity. There is a definite correlation. However, to argue that a person is fat because of his/her genetics is outright ludicrous.
Also the matter of global warming and pollution is something else entirely and would derail this thread, so I'm just not going to comment on that.
On March 07 2012 01:43 Azalie wrote: So this thread should just be closed since its another religion debate now, man aren't you guys tired of this? honestly non smokers don't like smokers WE GET IT no matter how much you scream YOU DON'T LIKE IT we have ALREADY HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME AND UNDERSTOOD YOUR SIDE OF IT you don't have to agree with our side and we don't have to agree with yours ......
We know of the health risk's and how you don't like how it effects "your life" just like i don't like how racist's and alcohol, driving, gambling has an effect alot of "my life" as well as other things.
If you don't understand why we smoke or why we may like it that's fine, each to their own.
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
They chose to start smoking. It's not like anyone forced them. If you started something, the sole responsibility to quit said activity, whether it is smoking, drinking or being fat, is yours. Blaming your lack of character on society or peer pressure is just pathetic, as is not doing it because it is hard to do.
How can it be that there are so many "America's fucked up"-threads in this forum? I mean sure, the majority (I guess) of users are american but there are like 10 per week...
In Britain you can't smoke inside pubs, so to combat obesity I have a great idea. If your BMI classes you as overweight then you are not allowed into pubs!
Yeah atheist's vs or in this case smokers rights vs non smokers rights
Because smoking is a religion now?
Sorry bad analogy this whole threads turned into a smokers vs non smokers shitstorm yet again just like the whole religion thread's over who's right and who's wrong thing yet again :S
On March 07 2012 01:43 Azalie wrote: So this thread should just be closed since its another religion debate now, man aren't you guys tired of this? honestly non smokers don't like smokers WE GET IT no matter how much you scream YOU DON'T LIKE IT we have ALREADY HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME AND UNDERSTOOD YOUR SIDE OF IT you don't have to agree with our side and we don't have to agree with yours ......
We know of the health risk's and how you don't like how it effects "your life" just like i don't like how racist's and alcohol, driving, gambling has an effect alot of "my life" as well as other things.
If you don't understand why we smoke or why we may like it that's fine, each to their own.
Cool thanks for the backseat moderating.
So any debate between two groups is the same as a religious debate?
And atheists and religious people hate each other? And non-smokers and smokers hate each other? That's all news to me.
I think you should join the debate of whether the use of capital letters or of apostrophes is more important, and you can figure out which religions are pro-capitalization and which are pro-punctuation.
Back on track: "To each their own" is fine, as long as it doesn't affect other people. Smoking almost always affects other people (unless you only smoke by yourself, I suppose), and so your perspective may not be agreed upon by other people.
Obese people should start smoking. This would help them lose some weight (or kill them outright, which would also be a way of fighting obesity, no?).
On March 07 2012 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Back on track: "To each their own" is fine, as long as it doesn't affect other people. Smoking almost always affects other people (unless you only smoke by yourself, I suppose), and so your perspective may not be agreed upon by other people.
What are you talking about? Most smokers are well aware of presence of non-smokers in their vicinity and will do their best to not be a nuissance. There are designated smoking zones and places where you can smoke, smokers gather there and non-smokers know where they are. If you're a non-smoker, deliberately go into a smoking zone and start complaining then you're just a duchebag. It's not like we want to exhale smoke on every single passerby just to show how cool we are because we smoke. I've been smoking for over 10 years now and I'm well in favor of banning smoking from pubs and restaurants (less hangover and when you put 30+ smokers in one room it becomes unbearable even for them), when I'm in the open I try to stay clear of other people when I smoke etc.
But I still think that all this anti-tobacco stuff is borderline fascist. Why punish the smokers when you can just as well punish the tobacco companies? Oh wait, they generate a shitton of cash by selling people highly addictive and potentially lethal substance, we can't punish them...
but i really don't give a shit about the link between second hand smoke and cancer... i just dislike having to inhale smoke. it's comparable to inhaling any unpleasant smell like body odour, burps or farts.
forcing people to smoke outside is basically the same as forcing the tramps who smell like shit to stay outside.
public health is another matter imo... i think people should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they smoke or over eat.
On March 07 2012 01:43 Azalie wrote: So this thread should just be closed since its another religion debate now, man aren't you guys tired of this? honestly non smokers don't like smokers WE GET IT no matter how much you scream YOU DON'T LIKE IT we have ALREADY HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME AND UNDERSTOOD YOUR SIDE OF IT you don't have to agree with our side and we don't have to agree with yours ......
We know of the health risk's and how you don't like how it effects "your life" just like i don't like how racist's and alcohol, driving, gambling has an effect alot of "my life" as well as other things.
If you don't understand why we smoke or why we may like it that's fine, each to their own.
Cool thanks for the backseat moderating.
So any debate between two groups is the same as a religious debate?
And atheists and religious people hate each other? And non-smokers and smokers hate each other? That's all news to me.
I think you should join the debate of whether the use of capital letters or of apostrophes is more important, and you can figure out which religions are pro-capitalization or pro-punctuation.
Back on track: "To each their own" is fine, as long as it doesn't affect other people. Smoking almost always affects other people (unless you only smoke by yourself, I suppose), and so your perspective may not be agreed upon by other people.
Sigh i give up, your really determined to win the internet or something, if you know my point about them hating each other and nothing good coming of it what's the point in stirring the pot.
"and so your perspective may not be agreed upon by other people" welcome to a mirror everything you said their can be applied to a great many things in life.
Enjoy your ...... what do you gain from this? errr enjoy that thing it is you get from this thread (no i'm not actually joking)
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
And we non-smokers thank you for being courteous- which exactly proves how some smokers could be annoying. Cigarette smoke affects the people around you, even if you don't think it causes medical issues. It causes- at the very least- trouble breathing and congestion and other discomfort for those nearby, and that's exactly why restaurants either have no smoking at all or smoking and no smoking sections. It's so we non-smokers don't have to worry about smokers sitting next to us. And you don't have to be actively smoking inches away from us either. Believe it or not, your breath and clothes smell like shit and make the environment less enjoyable- something that the restaurant obviously doesn't want to see. So thank you for being courteous, but others aren't always as respectful as you, and there are rules in place to make sure that everyone remains comfortable.
That's actually not why smoking is outlawed in restaurants, at least not in Sweden. Smoking sections fix this issue without stopping smokers from doing what they enjoy. The reason why it's outlawed is because of the people working there. Unlike people eating there who are being exposed to minor amounts of diluted smoke for a short period, people working there are constantly in that space and THAT is proven to be bad for their health. The rules are there to protect them, not people who find smoke an annoyance.
On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote: [quote] Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
You must know the world's politest smokers.
Believe it or not, the vast majority of smokers smoke because they like it, not to piss other people off. If you actually tried politely ask people who smoke near you to stop it or do it somewhere else, you'd probably be surprised how many of the worlds smokers are "the world's politest smokers".
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
You must know the world's politest smokers.
Its like that here for most smokers in nz or atleast the same for my friends, my flatmates stay at my house and i could smoke inside if i chose but since they don't i find it rude since it's my choice and not theirs but i guess that comes down to the manners and morals of the person more then if they smoke or not since it can be applied to many things eg noise control at party's since other people have to listen to your music since its loud yeah?
Some people try to keep it from annoying others and some don't.
On March 07 2012 01:59 Manit0u wrote: Obese people should start smoking. This would help them lose some weight (or kill them outright, which would also be a way of fighting obesity, no?).
On March 07 2012 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Back on track: "To each their own" is fine, as long as it doesn't affect other people. Smoking almost always affects other people (unless you only smoke by yourself, I suppose), and so your perspective may not be agreed upon by other people.
What are you talking about? Most smokers are well aware of presence of non-smokers in their vicinity and will do their best to not be a nuissance. There are designated smoking zones and places where you can smoke, smokers gather there and non-smokers know where they are. If you're a non-smoker, deliberately go into a smoking zone and start complaining then you're just a duchebag. It's not like we want to exhale smoke on every single passerby just to show how cool we are because we smoke. I've been smoking for over 10 years now and I'm well in favor of banning smoking from pubs and restaurants (less hangover and when you put 30+ smokers in one room it becomes unbearable even for them), when I'm in the open I try to stay clear of other people when I smoke etc.
But I still think that all this anti-tobacco stuff is borderline fascist. Why punish the smokers when you can just as well punish the tobacco companies? Oh wait, they generate a shitton of cash by selling people highly addictive and potentially lethal substance, we can't punish them...
While I don't doubt that plenty of smokers are courteous people, I couldn't put a number or relative amount on whether it's most, few, or exactly half of them who go out of their way to not be a nuisance with their particular habit. And I get that, and I agree with you that non-smokers shouldn't go running into groups of smokers who are smoking where it's allowed, and then complaining... but do keep in mind that the smell stays on smokers' clothes even once the cigarette is put out, and so it does carry (and that can still be blamed on the smoker).
And I agree with you that we should punish the tobacco companies. But they're rich and powerful and surely have political connections. Sigh.
On March 07 2012 01:35 XxMulexX wrote: How can you seriously argue that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that genetics have nothing to do with obesity? These two concepts are widely accepted among the scientific community, they're pretty much facts at this point. Arguing otherwise is just stubborn refusal to accept the truth, and it reminds me of all those conservative dinosaurs who cling to that ludicrous claim that there's no evidence connecting global warming and pollution.
There is a difference between "harmless" and "does not cause cancer".
On March 07 2012 01:35 XxMulexX wrote: How can you seriously argue that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that genetics have nothing to do with obesity? These two concepts are widely accepted among the scientific community, they're pretty much facts at this point. Arguing otherwise is just stubborn refusal to accept the truth, and it reminds me of all those conservative dinosaurs who cling to that ludicrous claim that there's no evidence connecting global warming and pollution.
There is a difference between "harmless" and "does not cause cancer".
Make up your mind. If it's not "harmless" then it must be, to a certain degree, be harmful. Now I'm sure there are levels of "harm" that are negligible- is that what you're implying? Because if not, then people exposed to a smokers 2nd hand smoke should have the right to ask him to gtfo, no?
Also I'd really like to see some numbers on the percentage of obese people that actually have a genetic predisposition. Only fools deny the existance of such conditions, but I'm somewhat doubtful as to their relevance in the entire "people are too fat" debate.
And on the topic of fine dust and air pollution from cars vs. 2nd hand smoke- while select individuals might actually decide on a lifestyle without relying on any kind of combustion engine related transport (should be close to impossible to pull off unless you're Amish), the majority, the entirety of all industrialized nations accepts the necessity of cars etc. for obvious reasons. So that's not a really lifestyle choice you can make. (This becomes even more obvious when looking at the ridiculous numbers of traffic related deaths- they are just accepted as the price society pays for mobility/convenience et cetera.)
Sweden has dealt with smoking pretty well, baning all smoking in public areas, and also educating children early on about the hazards of smoking. The taxes on tobacco keeps rising as well, partly to prevent people from growing this habit. Obviously there will be rebels smoking only because it's bad, but smoking is on the decline every year.
Sweden doesn't really have any obesity problems, anorexia is more of a problem here among young girls.
On March 06 2012 22:28 Sayle wrote: I don't think it's quite the same. Obesity only affects the obese person and their immediate family (this is a generalization that ignores any healthcare-related cost to the taxpayer and similar). Smoking negatively affects any random stranger standing near the smoker, so is a much bigger problem IMO. There are still plenty of smokers here in the UK and they are basically making my health worse when I have to stand next to them at a street crossing or walk behind them while they smoke.
atleast least they aren't blowing it directly in your face bro, I did that once accidentally felt like a huge douchebag. its like a car's exhaust but from a person.
I think its a persons right to do whatever they want, regardless of how stupid - here in the UK we have quite a lot of government involvement in things like smoking, banned in certain places, age restricted etc. Obesity is just through programs on healthy eating (well, "healthy" eating. Government still recommends large amounts of animal foods and high fats in diet, so, thats a little two faced imo)
The only thing that I think is sad is when kids are obese before their 10 years old. It's just child abuse if your kid is that fat because you've had them on a high fat diet..
On March 06 2012 22:36 BlackJack wrote: It's hard to "tax" obesity without either discriminating or also taxing healthy people that occasionally buy a treat. The obesity thing is a lot more complex than smoking when it comes to legislating. Smoking is very black and white - you either smoke or you don't, and we're talking about a single product in tobacco. Food is something everyone eats and there are thousands of food options. You just can't target food the same way you could target tobacco.
You could probably raise their health insurance rates.
pretty sure that already happens in the states (don't quote me on this) but a friend of mine works for progressive, and although cars, they try to increase your rates for everything, even down to the color of your car, which btw, has NOTHING to do with how you drive, but just raw statistics... so i wouldn't be surprised if they already have increased rates.
Also... smoking is TOTALLY a choice... maybe a hard habit to break, but a choice to start none-the-less... and those who say otherwise, PLEASE tell me how you were forced into smoking, or were genetically coded to start smoking...
Eating is the same thing... people like it, they eat more, continuing cycle years later: obese. Now... just a little bit of willpower to go work out every day can eventually tune it down, but the same applies with smoking: have 1 less on average per week, then day, then 2 per day, etc, until you no longer need it.
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but a very large difference which can really affect the population of smokers and fat people is advertising. In the US, it is illegal to advertise cigarettes; of course, it is not illegal to advertise anti-smoking PSAs. But with food, clearly it is perfectly legal to advertise. And what are the foods that are generally advertised? Chips, soft drinks, hamburgers... you'll notice none are particularly healthy. You rarely see an advertisement for freaking tomatoes, do you?
Just a thought. Can contribute to having obesity regarded as less of an issue and more of a sensitive thing. (Many people will have no problem saying to a smoker, "Oh you have a serious unhealthy addiction" but won't dare going up to a fat person and saying, "You are fat and disgusting and need to stop eating you flobbly fuck.")
On March 06 2012 22:35 nam nam wrote: How is smoking self-choice? Yes it's not hardcore narcotics but please. Also smoking effect others to a much higher degree than someone else being obese. Also obesity is much less "self-choice" than some people like to believe.
On March 07 2012 03:18 CyDe wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but a very large difference which can really affect the population of smokers and fat people is advertising. In the US, it is illegal to advertise cigarettes; of course, it is not illegal to advertise anti-smoking PSAs. But with food, clearly it is perfectly legal to advertise. And what are the foods that are generally advertised? Chips, soft drinks, hamburgers... you'll notice none are particularly healthy. You rarely see an advertisement for freaking tomatoes, do you?
Just a thought. Can contribute to having obesity regarded as less of an issue and more of a sensitive thing. (Many people will have no problem saying to a smoker, "Oh you have a serious unhealthy addiction" but won't dare going up to a fat person and saying, "You are fat and disgusting and need to stop eating you flobbly fuck.")
To be fair, I see more weight-watching, exercising, dieting, and healthy food (low carb this, few calories that) commercials than I do for fast food. Even restaurant commercials mention either their low prices or their options for those who are watching their health.
But I agree with you that it's not illegal to advertise fast food.
On March 06 2012 23:26 couches wrote: In the States.
Smoking is generally demonized, but it's still socially accepted. Except around yuppie moms that are pregnant or have a newborn with them. Smoking is addictive though. Nobody is addicted to having a crap diet and being too lazy to work out. Most people don't even know what a good diet is because here we are surrounded by such terrible food.
Are you serious?
I'd be willing to bet that it's just as difficult, if not more-so, to stop being obese as it is to stop smoking. Smokers get withdrawal while the obese are starving.
actually the feeling of nicotine withdrawal is rather similar to hunger. The fact is both have nothing to do with nutrition, but with the addictive chemicals (fat/sugar/salt cocktails, nicotine) that cause the cravings. an obese person on a healthy diet is no more starving than a smoker going cold turkey
The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time.
Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people.
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
I've yet to see any evidence that passive smoking causes cancer, or that general exposure to tobacco smoke in public causes health problems. I don't need gripping analogies. If you have a reputable study with empirical evidence that it does, please link it to me.
Dear NaggerNZ
I figured perhaps your literacy skills were lacking so I have made bold the conclusions of the study you used.
If you live with a smoker you are likely to suffer lung cancer... READ B
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
You mad bro?
Quit buying the food that has reduced fat/salt content, you shouldn't have a problem with that.
On March 06 2012 22:35 nam nam wrote: How is smoking self-choice? Yes it's not hardcore narcotics but please. Also smoking effect others to a much higher degree than someone else being obese. Also obesity is much less "self-choice" than some people like to believe.
How is it not a self-choice? "Hardcore narcotics" is also a self-choice. How hard it is to quit or whatever doesn't matter at all, it's still up to you if you do it or not.
On March 06 2012 22:36 BlackJack wrote: It's hard to "tax" obesity without either discriminating or also taxing healthy people that occasionally buy a treat. The obesity thing is a lot more complex than smoking when it comes to legislating. Smoking is very black and white - you either smoke or you don't, and we're talking about a single product in tobacco. Food is something everyone eats and there are thousands of food options. You just can't target food the same way you could target tobacco.
You could probably raise their health insurance rates.
pretty sure that already happens in the states (don't quote me on this) but a friend of mine works for progressive, and although cars, they try to increase your rates for everything, even down to the color of your car, which btw, has NOTHING to do with how you drive, but just raw statistics... so i wouldn't be surprised if they already have increased rates.
Also... smoking is TOTALLY a choice... maybe a hard habit to break, but a choice to start none-the-less... and those who say otherwise, PLEASE tell me how you were forced into smoking, or were genetically coded to start smoking...
Eating is the same thing... people like it, they eat more, continuing cycle years later: obese. Now... just a little bit of willpower to go work out every day can eventually tune it down, but the same applies with smoking: have 1 less on average per week, then day, then 2 per day, etc, until you no longer need it.
That worked for you? Sounds like pure fantasy to me. Never heard of anyone succeeding with such a method. Cold turkey is pretty much the only way to go.
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
You mad bro?
Quit buying the food that has reduced fat/salt content, you shouldn't have a problem with that.
No. The use of swear words does not indicate rage or madness, it's part of common speech. It is more for emphasis.
The main problem is, that there is no way to "differentiate" properly with food ads. With smoking it's easy - prohibit ads for cigarettes/cigarres and that's it. For food, where to start and where to stop? I mean, yes you can start with McDonalds, but will you also disallow stuff like frozen fish sticks? Chips? How about sweets like chocolate.
There the problem arises that it's NOT per se unhealthy to consume chocolate/etc. once in a while. I do a lot of sport and eat chocolate every day and I'm perfectly healthy.
On March 06 2012 23:26 couches wrote: In the States.
Smoking is generally demonized, but it's still socially accepted. Except around yuppie moms that are pregnant or have a newborn with them. Smoking is addictive though. Nobody is addicted to having a crap diet and being too lazy to work out. Most people don't even know what a good diet is because here we are surrounded by such terrible food.
Are you serious?
I'd be willing to bet that it's just as difficult, if not more-so, to stop being obese as it is to stop smoking. Smokers get withdrawal while the obese are starving.
Yes I am serious. The OP question was about how the two conditions are dealt with.
Smoking is generally frowned upon. The product is taxed. You can't buy cigs under 18 legally. Many buildings do not allow smoking inside them or even within a set distance near them. It's more difficult to sell cars or homes that have been smoked heavily in. Cigarette companies can't even advertise certain ways because it might appeal to kids.
Obesity isn't dealt with in the same way, nor should it be. It's mostly dealt with by doctors during a physical telling you as nicely as possible that you're a fat fuck and are going to have health complications if you don't change your diet and take care of your body. It's the same thing as going to a dentist and having him say take care of your teeth before they fall out. There is no generally accepted anti-obesity tactics put into practice by the public. It's actually the opposite, we accommodate greatly for them.
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
You mad bro?
Quit buying the food that has reduced fat/salt content, you shouldn't have a problem with that.
No. The use of swear words does not indicate rage or madness, it's part of common speech. It is more for emphasis.
Er... you can't?
True, it can provide emphasis, but if someone says "fat fuckers can't control themselves" I am certainly going to interpret that as anger or rage.
I do see sodium being reduced in many products across the board, but certainly it cannot be that difficult to add a shake or two of salt to bring it back to what it once was. As for reduced fat, I see many food companies making that an option, but hardly mandatory.
On March 07 2012 05:41 sleepingdog wrote: The main problem is, that there is no way to "differentiate" properly with food ads. With smoking it's easy - prohibit ads for cigarettes/cigarres and that's it. For food, where to start and where to stop? I mean, yes you can start with McDonalds, but will you also disallow stuff like frozen fish sticks? Chips? How about sweets like chocolate.
There the problem arises that it's NOT per se unhealthy to consume chocolate/etc. once in a while. I do a lot of sport and eat chocolate every day and I'm perfectly healthy.
Stopping advertising of extremely unhealthy food targeted specifically and explicitly at children would be a good place to start I think. It's easy for adults to realize the benefits of moderation, but children don't have that capacity. So while I realize that if I ate only chocolate bars I would become morbidly obese, a child doesn't realize that would occur. They're missing the cause and effect relationship and the notion of consequences to allow them to make informed decisions based on the effects of their choices.
I think a lot of problems start with kids eating so poorly from an early age, and beginning to curb that could make a big impact of future generations. If someone is already obese by the time they realize the consequences, it will be hard for them to change since they've lived their whole life that way. However, if someone is not obese by the time they realize the consequences, I think it is much more unlikely that they'd start eating very unhealthily and become obese.
On March 07 2012 05:41 sleepingdog wrote: The main problem is, that there is no way to "differentiate" properly with food ads. With smoking it's easy - prohibit ads for cigarettes/cigarres and that's it. For food, where to start and where to stop? I mean, yes you can start with McDonalds, but will you also disallow stuff like frozen fish sticks? Chips? How about sweets like chocolate.
There the problem arises that it's NOT per se unhealthy to consume chocolate/etc. once in a while. I do a lot of sport and eat chocolate every day and I'm perfectly healthy.
Stopping advertising of extremely unhealthy food targeted specifically and explicitly at children would be a good place to start I think. It's easy for adults to realize the benefits of moderation, but children don't have that capacity. So while I realize that if I ate only chocolate bars I would become morbidly obese, a child doesn't realize that would occur. They're missing the cause and effect relationship and the notion of consequences to allow them to make informed decisions based on the effects of their choices.
I think a lot of problems start with kids eating so poorly from an early age, and beginning to curb that could make a big impact of future generations. If someone is already obese by the time they realize the consequences, it will be hard for them to change since they've lived their whole life that way. However, if someone is not obese by the time they realize the consequences, I think it is much more unlikely that they'd start eating very unhealthily and become obese.
dont think taht should be lumped on advertisers and producers i think all the fault there lies with Parents, the only reason for kids to be obese is if the parents overfeed them its not like the kids got a aprt time job at young ages all his money and food comes from his parents if his or her parents arent taking responsibility why should anyone else?
On March 07 2012 05:41 sleepingdog wrote: The main problem is, that there is no way to "differentiate" properly with food ads. With smoking it's easy - prohibit ads for cigarettes/cigarres and that's it. For food, where to start and where to stop? I mean, yes you can start with McDonalds, but will you also disallow stuff like frozen fish sticks? Chips? How about sweets like chocolate.
There the problem arises that it's NOT per se unhealthy to consume chocolate/etc. once in a while. I do a lot of sport and eat chocolate every day and I'm perfectly healthy.
Stopping advertising of extremely unhealthy food targeted specifically and explicitly at children would be a good place to start I think. It's easy for adults to realize the benefits of moderation, but children don't have that capacity. So while I realize that if I ate only chocolate bars I would become morbidly obese, a child doesn't realize that would occur. They're missing the cause and effect relationship and the notion of consequences to allow them to make informed decisions based on the effects of their choices.
I think a lot of problems start with kids eating so poorly from an early age, and beginning to curb that could make a big impact of future generations. If someone is already obese by the time they realize the consequences, it will be hard for them to change since they've lived their whole life that way. However, if someone is not obese by the time they realize the consequences, I think it is much more unlikely that they'd start eating very unhealthily and become obese.
dont think taht should be lumped on advertisers and producers i think all the fault there lies with Parents, the only reason for kids to be obese is if the parents overfeed them its not like the kids got a aprt time job at young ages all his money and food comes from his parents if his or her parents arent taking responsibility why should anyone else?
Ya I agree parents are probably more likely at fault. But if they aren't going to change, why should the kids be punished for their parent's failures? If kids aren't seeing ads for chocolate/butter/fat/whatever food all the time, they aren't going to ask their parents to buy it for them. I doubt many parents go out of their way to buy unhealthy stuff their kid doesn't want, I think they just give in and buy whatever it is their kids do want; if the kids no longer wanted this stuff, it would solve the issue. Trying to make parents be more disciplined and educated would be a lot harder to do, and manipulating children with advertising doesn't seem like something that is entirely ok. It's the same argument for cigarette producers and their advertisements, except it has been lumped on as their responsibility.
In my opinion (as a former smoker), being obese is exactly the same as being a smoker. Both are choices, and both are incredibly bad for you. Quitting smoking isn't easy, nor is exercising/not eating a shit ton of food.
I understand that there are a small percentage of people that have medical conditions that cause them to be obese, but a majority of society that is fat is fat because they are lazy.
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
Funny how it is sugar and excess carbs that are bad for you. Its really hard to be fat on a high fat diet, and salt is harmless for healthy people (unless you try commit suicide with salt or smth)
On March 07 2012 05:41 sleepingdog wrote: The main problem is, that there is no way to "differentiate" properly with food ads. With smoking it's easy - prohibit ads for cigarettes/cigarres and that's it. For food, where to start and where to stop? I mean, yes you can start with McDonalds, but will you also disallow stuff like frozen fish sticks? Chips? How about sweets like chocolate.
There the problem arises that it's NOT per se unhealthy to consume chocolate/etc. once in a while. I do a lot of sport and eat chocolate every day and I'm perfectly healthy.
Stopping advertising of extremely unhealthy food targeted specifically and explicitly at children would be a good place to start I think. It's easy for adults to realize the benefits of moderation, but children don't have that capacity. So while I realize that if I ate only chocolate bars I would become morbidly obese, a child doesn't realize that would occur. They're missing the cause and effect relationship and the notion of consequences to allow them to make informed decisions based on the effects of their choices.
I think a lot of problems start with kids eating so poorly from an early age, and beginning to curb that could make a big impact of future generations. If someone is already obese by the time they realize the consequences, it will be hard for them to change since they've lived their whole life that way. However, if someone is not obese by the time they realize the consequences, I think it is much more unlikely that they'd start eating very unhealthily and become obese.
dont think taht should be lumped on advertisers and producers i think all the fault there lies with Parents, the only reason for kids to be obese is if the parents overfeed them its not like the kids got a aprt time job at young ages all his money and food comes from his parents if his or her parents arent taking responsibility why should anyone else?
Ya I agree parents are probably more likely at fault. But if they aren't going to change, why should the kids be punished for their parent's failures? If kids aren't seeing ads for chocolate/butter/fat/whatever food all the time, they aren't going to ask their parents to buy it for them. I doubt many parents go out of their way to buy unhealthy stuff their kid doesn't want, I think they just give in and buy whatever it is their kids do want; if the kids no longer wanted this stuff, it would solve the issue. Trying to make parents be more disciplined and educated would be a lot harder to do, and manipulating children with advertising doesn't seem like something that is entirely ok. It's the same argument for cigarette producers and their advertisements, except it has been lumped on as their responsibility.
the thing about cigarettes is there only bad, nothing good comes from smoking
but eating sweets isnt a bad thing its only bad when it gets execcisive when there overeating and punishing people who arent putting bad things on the shelf jsut because parents are being completely unresponsible doesnt make sense
Cigarette companies put poisonous dangerous products ont he shelf, sweet companies dont
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
Funny how it is sugar and excess carbs that are bad for you. Its really hard to be fat on a high fat diet, and salt is harmless for healthy people (unless you try commit suicide with salt or smth)
Salt isn't harmless for healthy people, healthy people can still eat too much of it. Which is harmful. Also a great many people in this thread seem to think ( at least this is what I think they think) that being slim means you're healthy. If you're really fat you're unhealthy, but if you're slim you can be either healthy or unhealthy.
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
Funny how it is sugar and excess carbs that are bad for you. Its really hard to be fat on a high fat diet, and salt is harmless for healthy people (unless you try commit suicide with salt or smth)
Salt isn't harmless for healthy people, healthy people can still eat too much of it. Which is harmful. Also a great many people in this thread seem to think ( at least this is what I think they think) that being slim means you're healthy. If you're really fat you're unhealthy, but if you're slim you can be either healthy or unhealthy.
you can be fat and still have balanced diet and come out of it healthy, jsut becuase your overwieght doesnt mean your eating greasy fatty salty food for every meal
On March 06 2012 22:23 CrY. wrote: In the US (in most states) smoking is completely banned from indoor facilities. Also there are a lot of "above the influence" ads and even quitsmoking.org, which in my state advertises frequently as well. As such (at least in my state) smoking has obviously gone down in popularity; however, there are still many who do it, and it's seen as a personal choice if not a little bit frowned upon.
In Australia (in most states), obesity is completely banned from indoor facilities. Also there are a lot of ads and even obesitydiscussion.com, which in my state does not advertise at all. As such (at least in my state) obesity has obviously gone down in popularity; however, there are still many who do it, and it's seen as a personal choice if not a little bit frowned upon.
The sigarette packages in my country have a label that says "Smoking is lethal". This label doesn't cover the damage of smoking. You don't just have a heart attack early. It's the way you slowly die and suffer, with years and years of deterioration. If a smoker says that he doesn't mind if he gets lung cancer later, that's the addiction speaking.
Smoking is addictive. So is unhealthy food. The combination of sugar and fat actually modifies the way your brains react to food. It took many, many years to reduce smoking, and it will probably take many years to reduce unhealthy food. But action has to start now. Ban trans fat. Tax fast food, and put that tax into health education at school. Ban unhealthy food from the schools. Give every candybar and hamburger a label that says: "this can make you fat".
Did you see the ad from the Chupa Chups lolly's? "Chupa Chups contains glucose, a source of energy for your brain!" Ban these ads too! It should be illegal to brainwash kids to eat themselves to death.
How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
I pity the people who are socially awkward to the point where they need to smoke in order to communicate to people, not saying all smokers are like that but to the people who have mentioned so in this thread.
Obesity isn't a self-choice if your young because your parents are in charge of food and you eat, don't know any better. Once your old enough though, then I think it's your responsibility to stop fucking around and go lift some heavy shit in the gym instead of lamenting at home with a bag of doritoes to dip into ice-cream.
On March 06 2012 22:51 naggerNZ wrote: I think most anti-smoking advocates and campaigns are overzealous and misinformed. I smoke, and it's a personal choice I make. I know the health risks, I know the downsides. But I enjoy it, and I find many benefits it creates that non-smokers really don't seem to understand or account for. I am very infuriated when people imply that I don't make an active and informed decision to smoke tobacco, either due to underhanded advertising from tobacco companies, or that I'm a slave to addiction. It's incredibly condescending and hypocritical as I often find I am much more informed on the facts regarding smoking than those who will tell me I should quit.
Equating either smoking or obesity to each other is to completely miss the complexity of both issues. To try and force people to change against their will on either issue is wrong and immoral.
Out of curiosity, what benefits does your smoking create that non-smokers don't understand or account for?
Well, for me personally, I find it helps overcome a lot of social anxiety problems. I have difficulty interacting with people I don't know, and it can create problems in a working environment. However, I find that having a smoke with someone immediately overcomes this barrier. It acts as both an icebreaker and common ground. And given my line of work, I work with new people in stressful situations all the time (I'm a bouncer). Also, I find that it's a good excuse to take breaks. If I don't take regular smoke breaks sometimes I can work 8 hours non stop without a break in a hot, noisy bar/club. Not very good for your sanity.
Also, it's worth noting the biological effects of smoking. It's well understood that smoking releases beta-endorphins, which simulate feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment, something not everyone is lucky enough to get elsewhere.
Also, I like the taste and the buzz and it helps me get through the week.
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
what are you talkin please?
1. i dont even use a deodorant anymore after i realized that i dont smell, even after a heavy workout (my friend and me were doing cardio until sweat was dropping. later we were going to the cinema and we both forgot to shower -> none of us was smelling)
2. i take up exactly one seat at the cinema, bitch.
3. if i'll ever have children, i'll make them a fresh plate of fruit everyday and buy them no sweets at all, so they dont have to go through what i go through.
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
Funny how it is sugar and excess carbs that are bad for you. Its really hard to be fat on a high fat diet, and salt is harmless for healthy people (unless you try commit suicide with salt or smth)
Salt isn't harmless for healthy people, healthy people can still eat too much of it. Which is harmful. Also a great many people in this thread seem to think ( at least this is what I think they think) that being slim means you're healthy. If you're really fat you're unhealthy, but if you're slim you can be either healthy or unhealthy.
you can be fat and still have balanced diet and come out of it healthy, jsut becuase your overwieght doesnt mean your eating greasy fatty salty food for every meal
You could do it, but if you're overweight then it's problaby because you're living unhealthily.
Also I said people that are really fat are always unhealthy, which is true.
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
Funny how it is sugar and excess carbs that are bad for you. Its really hard to be fat on a high fat diet, and salt is harmless for healthy people (unless you try commit suicide with salt or smth)
Salt isn't harmless for healthy people, healthy people can still eat too much of it. Which is harmful. Also a great many people in this thread seem to think ( at least this is what I think they think) that being slim means you're healthy. If you're really fat you're unhealthy, but if you're slim you can be either healthy or unhealthy.
you can be fat and still have balanced diet and come out of it healthy, jsut becuase your overwieght doesnt mean your eating greasy fatty salty food for every meal
You could do it, but if you're overweight then it's problaby because you're living unhealthily.
Also I said people that are really fat are always unhealthy, which is true.
ya but not all obese people are 400 pounds and need help getting out of there house, those are the extreme rare cases
majority of obese arent 400 pounds and can still lead a healthy life, weight isnt something taht just melts off by eating healthy you have to do some serious work to actually drop the pounds so you can get to 200-300 pounds make a few small changes never lose a pound but live healthy the thing about being overweight is trying to lose weight is literally a fight against your body unless done very carefully
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
Funny how it is sugar and excess carbs that are bad for you. Its really hard to be fat on a high fat diet, and salt is harmless for healthy people (unless you try commit suicide with salt or smth)
Salt isn't harmless for healthy people, healthy people can still eat too much of it. Which is harmful. Also a great many people in this thread seem to think ( at least this is what I think they think) that being slim means you're healthy. If you're really fat you're unhealthy, but if you're slim you can be either healthy or unhealthy.
you can be fat and still have balanced diet and come out of it healthy, jsut becuase your overwieght doesnt mean your eating greasy fatty salty food for every meal
You could do it, but if you're overweight then it's problaby because you're living unhealthily.
Also I said people that are really fat are always unhealthy, which is true.
ya but not all obese people are 400 pounds and need help getting out of there house, those are the extreme rare cases
majority of obese arent 400 pounds and can still lead a healthy life, weight isnt something taht just melts off by eating healthy you have to do some serious work to actually drop the pounds so you can get to 200-300 pounds make a few small changes never lose a pound but live healthy the thing about being overweight is trying to lose weight is literally a fight against your body unless done very carefully
Yeah ofcourse if you look at it that way, I hadn't considered people that are fat because of a previous bad diet. But then adopt a healthy diet while not losing the fat because that takes a long time. Being overweight is never favorable though still. Kind of the definition of overweight I guess.
On March 07 2012 03:58 kobrakai wrote: The UK should start putting pictures of obscenely obese people on fast food, fatty foods, snacks just like we have pictures of horrendous teeth, fucking dirty lungs etc.
I'm also sick and tired of food I like getting reduced fat and salt content.
Fat and salt make things taste good, is it my fault that fat fuckers can't control themselves?
Funny how it is sugar and excess carbs that are bad for you. Its really hard to be fat on a high fat diet, and salt is harmless for healthy people (unless you try commit suicide with salt or smth)
Salt isn't harmless for healthy people, healthy people can still eat too much of it. Which is harmful. Also a great many people in this thread seem to think ( at least this is what I think they think) that being slim means you're healthy. If you're really fat you're unhealthy, but if you're slim you can be either healthy or unhealthy.
you can be fat and still have balanced diet and come out of it healthy, jsut becuase your overwieght doesnt mean your eating greasy fatty salty food for every meal
You could do it, but if you're overweight then it's problaby because you're living unhealthily.
Also I said people that are really fat are always unhealthy, which is true.
ya but not all obese people are 400 pounds and need help getting out of there house, those are the extreme rare cases
majority of obese arent 400 pounds and can still lead a healthy life, weight isnt something taht just melts off by eating healthy you have to do some serious work to actually drop the pounds so you can get to 200-300 pounds make a few small changes never lose a pound but live healthy the thing about being overweight is trying to lose weight is literally a fight against your body unless done very carefully
Yeah ofcourse if you look at it that way, I hadn't considered people that are fat because of a previous bad diet. But then adopt a healthy diet while not losing the fat because that takes a long time. Being overweight is never favorable though still. Kind of the definition of overweight I guess.
"Too much is bad!"
being overwieght may never be good but if your not morbidly obese and arent so obese it gives you trouble performing your everyday activities (i know many cooks who are pretty fat but can still do there job fine) then while it isnt good it isnt bad as long as your eating a balanced diet
its the dumb people like that guy i heard of who eats like 200 oranges a day or something
and while being obese is bad, you have to lose that weight carefully, the people who go crazy and try to lose 100 punds in a month are literally damaging there body if you go from eating 3 huge meals a day to eating a yogurt cup your body will rebel and assume your starving and do everything it can to make sure it stores as much fat as possible
the best way to lsoe weight is slowly reduce the amount of food you eat (like skip dessert here and there or take a bit less or one less serving) this ensures your body likes the weight your at and wont try to make you gain it back
I am considered overweight. I am 6,4 and 259 pounds. I dont drink beer , smoke or eat red meat. I can out lift and out run most people in this thread. Yup i am a fat slob...... I think we need a thread about underweight people.
On March 07 2012 12:08 Dbars wrote: I am considered overweight. I am 6,4 and 259 pounds. I dont drink beer , smoke or eat red meat. I can out lift and out run most people in this thread. Yup i am a fat slob...... I think we need a thread about underweight people.
There is a difference between being moderately heavy and obese (both in weight and body fat, which is why BMI is such a retarded measurement). There is also the people who chose to be fat so they can excel at their sports. It must be really hard to keep that weight without eating red meat -.-.
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
I don't smoke, and I'm not really very invested in tobacco's use at all, but does anyone have a non-biased research about the effects of second hand smoke? I mean, how can something you occasionally come into contact with have major long term effects? It's not as if smokers sit next to their kid's beds while they light up, and breath smoke over their little faces. My smoker friends always crack a window when they light up in a car and I don't get anything other than a little smell.
I mean, if you actually take a hit of tobacco, which I've unfortunately had to do a few times, you're going to want to cough immediately. As a non-smoker it's really easy to tell that I've inhaled tobacco smoke.
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
On March 07 2012 12:34 Offhand wrote: I don't smoke, and I'm not really very invested in tobacco's use at all, but does anyone have a non-biased research about the effects of second hand smoke? I mean, how can something you occasionally come into contact with have major long term effects? It's not as if smokers sit next to their kid's beds while they light up, and breath smoke over their little faces. My smoker friends always crack a window when they light up in a car and I don't get anything other than a little smell.
I mean, if you actually take a hit of tobacco, which I've unfortunately had to do a few times, you're going to want to cough immediately. As a non-smoker it's really easy to tell that I've inhaled tobacco smoke.
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
On March 07 2012 12:34 Offhand wrote: I don't smoke, and I'm not really very invested in tobacco's use at all, but does anyone have a non-biased research about the effects of second hand smoke? I mean, how can something you occasionally come into contact with have major long term effects? It's not as if smokers sit next to their kid's beds while they light up, and breath smoke over their little faces. My smoker friends always crack a window when they light up in a car and I don't get anything other than a little smell.
I mean, if you actually take a hit of tobacco, which I've unfortunately had to do a few times, you're going to want to cough immediately. As a non-smoker it's really easy to tell that I've inhaled tobacco smoke.
On March 07 2012 07:31 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can people say obesity doesn't affect other people.... do you have any idea how much money they cost us... Healthcare is subsidized by the gov in the US, and in other countries it is covered much more by the government.
Other ways obese people make the world worse:
-Smell bad, always sweating and nasty and gross... Not too different from a smoker who takes no heed of his smell, breath etc (although 99% smokers are very good about this)
-Take up seats and space, where in the past there wasn't an issue (sounds silly but its a real problem in packed/crowded area)
-Make it worse on their children by "forcing" them either by choices they impose on young children or genetics, to be obese, thus perpetuating a cycle of unhealthiness.
Smokers generally recognize the health risks vs their social or mental returns and choose to smoke, Obese people just seem like out of control people who don't understand that they make the world worse for everyone.
And for reference I am not generalizing 100% of fat people, that can't be done with any demographic. There are many factors from genetic to socio-economic. But changes must be made because this is completely out of hand, and frankly ridiculous.
are you being serious here? what does bad personal hygene have to do with eing Obese? what about people who are healthy, have bad personal hygiene and is the person noone wants to sit next to are these people the same as being Obese?
i dont get how you can say obese people make the world worse with a straight face, obese people dont unhealthy people do
Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
On March 07 2012 13:11 Balgrog wrote: Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
On March 07 2012 13:11 Balgrog wrote: Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
The smell of 2nd hand cigarette smoke and the clothing of smokers makes me physically ill.
On March 07 2012 13:11 Balgrog wrote: Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
Sorry but you smell like an ashtray, make your teeth unbearable to look at, and cause a bunch of other aesthetic problems for yourself as a smoker.
If you're going to say that obese people look disgusting, but smoking doesn't affect your appearance... pot, kettle, black, etc.
If you're saying that your appearance isn't affected *that* much because you *only* smoke occasionally, then that's akin to referring to people who are only *slightly* overweight, rather than being monstrously obese. There are appearance differences/ problems with both groups.
You view obesity as disgusting, and plenty of people view both obesity and smoking as disgusting.
Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
Your ignorance is a fucking shame for the entire human race.
Obese parents tend to raise children with eating habits that are unhealthy. Obese parents set a bad example and end up bringing their children into an unhealthy, obese lifestyle at a very young age, which tends to stay with them all their lives. This is not the case with smoking.
On March 08 2012 06:08 Mohdoo wrote: Obese parents tend to raise children with eating habits that are unhealthy. Obese parents set a bad example and end up bringing their children into an unhealthy, obese lifestyle at a very young age, which tends to stay with them all their lives. This is not the case with smoking.
I wouldn't say it isn't the case with smoking completely. Seeing my dad smoke all my life made it quite an easy transition for me to pick up myself. It just depends on how exposed a child is to the behavior, just like with eating/exercise habits, although I would agree in saying that it's a lot easier to hide smoking (going to the garage, going for a walk) than it is to ignore what's wrong with dinner.
On March 08 2012 06:08 Mohdoo wrote: Obese parents tend to raise children with eating habits that are unhealthy. Obese parents set a bad example and end up bringing their children into an unhealthy, obese lifestyle at a very young age, which tends to stay with them all their lives. This is not the case with smoking.
I wouldn't say it isn't the case with smoking completely. Seeing my dad smoke all my life made it quite an easy transition for me to pick up myself. It just depends on how exposed a child is to the behavior, just like with eating/exercise habits, although I would agree in saying that it's a lot easier to hide smoking (going to the garage, going for a walk) than it is to ignore what's wrong with dinner.
at the same time though in school youll get alot of pressure to start smoking but your not gonna get pressured in school to get fat though the opposite can be true
On March 08 2012 06:08 Mohdoo wrote: Obese parents tend to raise children with eating habits that are unhealthy. Obese parents set a bad example and end up bringing their children into an unhealthy, obese lifestyle at a very young age, which tends to stay with them all their lives. This is not the case with smoking.
I don't understand how you can make both claims:
1. Obese people raise children in an unhealthy environment 2. Smokers don't raise children in an unhealthy environment
and claim both as facts, rather than personal anecdotes. I could just as easily have found the opposite to be true.
In reality, I'm sure some obese parents and some smokers raise children in unhealthy environments, probably because both of their lifestyles are unhealthy. Children copy their parents as well. If mommy eats a lot and doesn't exercise, why should I? If mommy smokes and doesn't take care of herself, why should I? Hopefully, the kids eventually learn that both lifestyles are unhealthy (before it's too late and they become addicted to food or drugs), but it's quite hard to establish that obese parents are bad while smoking parents are good.
On March 07 2012 01:23 FreezerJumps wrote: The title of this thread led me to believe there was some sort of new extreme sporting event pitting smokers against fat people.
I would bet on fat people.
That's a pointless debate since most smokers tend to think that cigarette is the best thing that has ever happened to them and that they have more friends now that before and they're so cool. God they stink. Obviously I'm against smoking and luckily for me, it's more and more restricted in France.
On March 07 2012 01:23 FreezerJumps wrote: The title of this thread led me to believe there was some sort of new extreme sporting event pitting smokers against fat people.
I would bet on fat people.
That's a pointless debate since most smokers tend to think that cigarette is the best thing that has ever happened to them and that they have more friends now that before and they're so cool. God they stink.
Is that a French thing? I have never met someone who said that picking up smoking did great things for them. I have met some who didn't think it was a big deal either way, but most smokers I've talked to said that picking up the habit was one of their greatest regrets.
In the state of washington, you are prohibited from smoking in "public" places like bars or restaurants, and you are prohibited from smoking with 25 feet of the entrances. Maybe soon they will start outlawing obese people from public places as well...
But in all seriousness, I don't see the government having a hand in a decline in obesity, at least in America. I mean, you should see some of the food served at high school cafeterias: its terrible. If the US government was really serious about stopping obesity this would be an easy step towards fixing the problem.
If any change does come, its gonna be driven by cultural forces and most likely not from the government.
On March 09 2012 10:55 itkovian wrote: In the state of washington, you are prohibited from smoking in "public" places like bars or restaurants, and you are prohibited from smoking with 25 feet of the entrances. Maybe soon they will start outlawing obese people from public places as well...
But in all seriousness, I don't see the government having a hand in a decline in obesity, at least in America. I mean, you should see some of the food served at high school cafeterias: its terrible. If the US government was really serious about stopping obesity this would be an easy step towards fixing the problem.
If any change does come, its gonna be driven by cultural forces and most likely not from the government.
smoking is banned becuase it smells absolutely terrible and can make everyone in the palce sick, electric ciggarettes i believe are allowed in those places
On March 07 2012 12:35 XeliN wrote: Increase the taxation significantly on very unhealthy foods, ones extremely high in sugars, saturated fats, MSG, salts and other things.
Use all of the money generated to subsidise the cost of very healthy foods, vegetables, fruits, nuts, proper meats, eggs, milk etc.
Should be a fairly simple and effective way to acheive the goal
The problem is that, in the U.S., any attempt to tax/regulate businesses in any way is seen as "too much government" or "government is killing job creators" or some similar B.S. So unfortunately, the simplest way is not feasible, at least not in the US.
It's currently illegal in all other EU countries, but apparently they're bringing it up again in the giant black hole of bureaucracy that is the EU, as it's more healthy than smoking.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
On March 09 2012 11:28 MellowsDad wrote: Have you sat next to an obese person in a crowded heated room? I'll take the second hand smoke smell over the stench of BO.
i wouldnt if its a room hot enough to make someone sweat everyones sweating anyway so your used to it
Seriously.... I watch obese people sweat walking up a set of stairs, they then proceed to sit next to you.
The argument for smell doesn't really cut it for me. Both smells are disgusting, to say that second hand smoke makes you ill yet you can stand the stench of BO I would call BS.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
ya i tried not eating once
almost killed me
aparently eating is actually important to keep LIVING
On March 09 2012 11:28 MellowsDad wrote: Have you sat next to an obese person in a crowded heated room? I'll take the second hand smoke smell over the stench of BO.
i wouldnt if its a room hot enough to make someone sweat everyones sweating anyway so your used to it
Seriously.... I watch obese people sweat walking up a set of stairs, they then proceed to sit next to you.
The argument for smell doesn't really cut it for me. Both smells are disgusting, to say that second hand smoke makes you ill yet you can stand the stench of BO I would call BS.
well i dont think anyones gotten cancer from sweat yet so its still more healthy then cigs
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
lol, yeah. WHY EAT. EAT AND DIE! O wait...
This thread is just people either bashing smokers or bashing fat people.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
This thread is just people either bashing smokers or bashing fat people.
I thought smoker bashing and fat people bashing were national pastimes.
On March 09 2012 11:28 MellowsDad wrote: Seriously.... I watch obese people sweat walking up a set of stairs, they then proceed to sit next to you.
The argument for smell doesn't really cut it for me. Both smells are disgusting, to say that second hand smoke makes you ill yet you can stand the stench of BO I would call BS.
well i dont think anyones gotten cancer from sweat yet so its still more healthy then cigs
Hmm... because I said anything about cancer, or which is healthier. : rolls eyes :
Well you made it fairly obvious then that you can't comprehend what is written then.
Zorkmid commented that the smell of second hand smoke makes him physically ill. I have read other people comment on how nasty the smell of second hand smoke is. I am not arguing that sweating doesn't give cancer. I am saying that the smell of BO (sweat) is disgusting. As much or more than the smell of second hand smoke.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
lol, yeah. WHY EAT. EAT AND DIE! O wait...
This thread is just people either bashing smokers or bashing fat people.
Nothing wrong with dying is there? You could also use IV bags and you avoid the whole thing.
Aight fair enough, my analogy was terrible, and I didn't even think of it as obese related. Just saying "What's the point?" is a terrible argument against smoking though, as most things you do are pointless. Life is pointless, as some would argue. That was the point I was trying to make.
Most people arguing against smoking like candy or ice cream for instance. Completely pointless and unhealthy.
I don't smoke anymore, but the thing I liked the most was that you stepped out and looked into the sky and got to really slow down and think about things, which I almost never did otherwise at the time.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
lol, yeah. WHY EAT. EAT AND DIE! O wait...
This thread is just people either bashing smokers or bashing fat people.
Nothing wrong with dying is there? You could also use IV bags and you avoid the whole thing.
Aight fair enough, my analogy was terrible, and I didn't even think of it as obese related. Just saying "What's the point?" is a terrible argument against smoking though, as most things you do are pointless. Life is pointless, as some would argue. That was the point I was trying to make.
Most people arguing against smoking like candy or ice cream for instance. Completely pointless and unhealthy.
I don't smoke anymore, but the thing I liked the most was that you stepped out and looked into the sky and got to really slow down and think about things, which I almost never did otherwise at the time.
i personally never understand how people actually get into smoking, i can understand how people keep smoking since there addicted and aparently at some point it starts to taste good
but how do they get into it? from the get go it tastes terrible makes yo cough and gag and you know its terrible, it takes work to get INTO smoking so why do people ever start
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
lol, yeah. WHY EAT. EAT AND DIE! O wait...
This thread is just people either bashing smokers or bashing fat people.
Nothing wrong with dying is there? You could also use IV bags and you avoid the whole thing.
Aight fair enough, my analogy was terrible, and I didn't even think of it as obese related. Just saying "What's the point?" is a terrible argument against smoking though, as most things you do are pointless. Life is pointless, as some would argue. That was the point I was trying to make.
Most people arguing against smoking like candy or ice cream for instance. Completely pointless and unhealthy.
I don't smoke anymore, but the thing I liked the most was that you stepped out and looked into the sky and got to really slow down and think about things, which I almost never did otherwise at the time.
i personally never understand how people actually get into smoking, i can understand how people keep smoking since there addicted and aparently at some point it starts to taste good
but how do they get into it? from the get go it tastes terrible makes yo cough and gag and you know its terrible, it takes work to get INTO smoking so why do people ever start
Well coughing and gaging depends on how much you inhale. If you go full out blow job on the poor cig, yeah you'll cough. I started in high school when everything was new, big and lonely. I think the most common reason you start is for social reasons. You wanna make new friends, and instantly get into a group of people etc etc. It's pretty effective to be honest, and I made some friends I still have today even though we all quit smoking. Not too sure I would've made acquaintance with those people if I hadn't picked up smoking for a couple of years.
While you're addicted, it's just another awesome feeling to have. It becomes another one of the natural needs like to poop, eat, have sex etc, and as with the others it feels great to satisfy. I think that's a big part of the charm in it.
In the US, smoking is banned in all indoor environments except those specially marked for smoking. Smoking is also prohibited within twenty feet of all windows/doors/vents/openings into public buildings in the state of California. Any kind of advertising is prohibited for tobacco and related products except where they are immediately sold. All cigarette packs are marked by warnings from the Surgeon General of possible health effects. All cigarette packs sold are taxed something like three times to drive up the price of cigarettes. As of fairly recently, all films reviewed by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, the group that gives out age ratings to American films) that feature smoking are immediately given an "R" (no admittance unless accompanied by someone over the age of seventeen) rating (exceptions are films where the smoking holds historical significance, like for instance if smoking were part of the image of the subject of a biopic). And I'm sure there are more.
There are tons of rules and whatnot to both limit and discourage smoking. 99% of theme parks now have designated smoking areas, and the vast majority of bars prohibit smoking inside. There are, of course, exceptions like Las Vegas, but they are exactly that: exceptions.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party.
You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
lol, yeah. WHY EAT. EAT AND DIE! O wait...
This thread is just people either bashing smokers or bashing fat people.
Nothing wrong with dying is there? You could also use IV bags and you avoid the whole thing.
Aight fair enough, my analogy was terrible, and I didn't even think of it as obese related. Just saying "What's the point?" is a terrible argument against smoking though, as most things you do are pointless. Life is pointless, as some would argue. That was the point I was trying to make.
Most people arguing against smoking like candy or ice cream for instance. Completely pointless and unhealthy.
I don't smoke anymore, but the thing I liked the most was that you stepped out and looked into the sky and got to really slow down and think about things, which I almost never did otherwise at the time.
i personally never understand how people actually get into smoking, i can understand how people keep smoking since there addicted and aparently at some point it starts to taste good
but how do they get into it? from the get go it tastes terrible makes yo cough and gag and you know its terrible, it takes work to get INTO smoking so why do people ever start
I started in college. All the new friends I'd made were smokers, and eventually, I just picked it up. It's a dumb reason, I know.
To be honest, it only takes a few cigarettes before you're used to it and it no longer bothers you. Beyond that, they are relaxing to an extent. If you're under a lot of stress, being able to take a quick five minute smoke break can be great.
It's a horrible, deceptive, and deadly product, and the tobacco companies are honestly just pure evil. Quitting is ridiculous.
On March 09 2012 14:10 PH wrote: In the US, smoking is banned in all indoor environments except those specially marked for smoking. Smoking is also prohibited within twenty feet of all windows/doors/vents/openings into public buildings in the state of California. Any kind of advertising is prohibited for tobacco and related products except where they are immediately sold. All cigarette packs are marked by warnings from the Surgeon General of possible health effects. All cigarette packs sold are taxed something like three times to drive up the price of cigarettes. As of fairly recently, all films reviewed by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, the group that gives out age ratings to American films) that feature smoking are immediately given an "R" (no admittance unless accompanied by someone over the age of seventeen) rating (exceptions are films where the smoking holds historical significance, like for instance if smoking were part of the image of the subject of a biopic). And I'm sure there are more.
There are tons of rules and whatnot to both limit and discourage smoking. 99% of theme parks now have designated smoking areas, and the vast majority of bars prohibit smoking inside. There are, of course, exceptions like Las Vegas, but they are exactly that: exceptions.
Actually only 48% of the population in the US lives under a ban for bars as well, so I dunno about that.
On March 07 2012 01:23 FreezerJumps wrote: The title of this thread led me to believe there was some sort of new extreme sporting event pitting smokers against fat people.
I would bet on fat people.
That's a pointless debate since most smokers tend to think that cigarette is the best thing that has ever happened to them and that they have more friends now that before and they're so cool. God they stink.
Is that a French thing? I have never met someone who said that picking up smoking did great things for them. I have met some who didn't think it was a big deal either way, but most smokers I've talked to said that picking up the habit was one of their greatest regrets.
It's a trend thing when you're young. Nobody older than 30 told me that it was great and they all regret it.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
I started smoking cigs to get the smell of weed off of me before going back into my house, and hated them then. Now I smoke them regularly, "love" them (I enjoy the feeling a lot, but I know I hate it inside,) and spend way too much money on them :/
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
I started smoking cigs to get the smell of weed off of me before going back into my house, and hated them then. Now I smoke them regularly, "love" them (I enjoy the feeling a lot, but I know I hate it inside,) and spend way too much money on them :/
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
I started smoking cigs to get the smell of weed off of me before going back into my house, and hated them then. Now I smoke them regularly, "love" them (I enjoy the feeling a lot, but I know I hate it inside,) and spend way too much money on them :/
Then stop.
Gz. you revolutionized the whole field of psychiatry.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
I started smoking cigs to get the smell of weed off of me before going back into my house, and hated them then. Now I smoke them regularly, "love" them (I enjoy the feeling a lot, but I know I hate it inside,) and spend way too much money on them :/
Then stop.
I also still have the original reason I started as well ~_~
Smoking is an excellent source of dopamine. What the heck are all these re-uptake inhibitors good for if there's not enough dopamine? Throw more coal on the fire, I'm raving!
There are a lot of controls placed on smoking in public places all over the US now. But i don't feel there should be any government control over when or where you can smoke. If a resteraunt or bar want's to allow smoking then they should have the right to do so.. It's really all about the fed chipping away at your rights as a human to make your own choices. They raise taxes, limit where you can do it, raise the age limit, fine tobacco companies, place fines on smoking in public places etc. etc.. The same way they force motorcyclists to wear helmets wheter they want to or not. The same way you're forced to wear a seatbelt wheter or not you want to. the nanny state is getting a tad out of control.
On March 12 2012 23:47 simmion wrote: There are a lot of controls placed on smoking in public places all over the US now. But i don't feel there should be any government control over when or where you can smoke. If a resteraunt or bar want's to allow smoking then they should have the right to do so.. It's really all about the fed chipping away at your rights as a human to make your own choices. They raise taxes, limit where you can do it, raise the age limit, fine tobacco companies, place fines on smoking in public places etc. etc.. The same way they force motorcyclists to wear helmets wheter they want to or not. The same way you're forced to wear a seatbelt wheter or not you want to. the nanny state is getting a tad out of control.
On March 12 2012 23:47 simmion wrote: There are a lot of controls placed on smoking in public places all over the US now. But i don't feel there should be any government control over when or where you can smoke. If a resteraunt or bar want's to allow smoking then they should have the right to do so.. It's really all about the fed chipping away at your rights as a human to make your own choices. They raise taxes, limit where you can do it, raise the age limit, fine tobacco companies, place fines on smoking in public places etc. etc.. The same way they force motorcyclists to wear helmets wheter they want to or not. The same way you're forced to wear a seatbelt wheter or not you want to. the nanny state is getting a tad out of control.
even i can smell this troll
what's so trollish about a bar being able to make an own decision to allow smokers? he was obviously serious.
I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
It sounds harsh but I agree with you. Being lazy certainly was the reason why I became fat and the choice to change is the reason why I'm dropping weight now. The argument that the most important thing is "to feel well in your body" kind of breaks when people become obese. You might be able to suppess the thoughts abot your unhealthy body but it simply becomes impossible to feel well.
I hate it when I buy used stuff on ebay and it comes from some smoker without mentioned it. Then I need to waste my time and money to clean the stuff from the stinking smoking cum. I wish it would be a crime not to mention it in the product description. Smoking has not only health effects, it also lowers the value of every goods around you.
it seems to be that people who smoke and cant quit have no self control or discipline at all. I casually smoke like once per month, and snus/snuff also, but I´ve never felt the rush to continue.
On March 13 2012 01:20 cellblock wrote: it seems to be that people who smoke and cant quit have no self control or discipline at all. I casually smoke like once per month, and snus/snuff also, but I´ve never felt the rush to continue.
you need to smoke every day for a longer period of time, doing it once in a while doesnt get you addicted. I do the same thing, smoke every now and then but not every day.
and also: both obesity and smoking are choices that people make (unless you suffer from a medical condition that makes you fat like hypothyroidisim or cushing's syndrome)
On March 09 2012 22:32 Tabius wrote: well if u stop smoking u usually gain weight
I quit smoking 9 months ago and are much fitter than before cause i filled the time i used sitting around smoking with sports. I didn't gain weight, but it's true i enjoy more what i eat, that would be an incentive. There are really no reasons not to quit, needing a cigarette to do something anyone else can do without (losing weight, socializing, getting rid of stress) is just a secondary addiction deriving from the primary.
Also no reason to harm your health for purely physiological effects. It probably makes more sense to do hallucinogens than cigs.
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
The thing wil obesity is, it'll make every single day of your life x% shittier, whereas smoking has a pretty good chance of killing you. Some people only understand things if they are communicated in extremes. I'm not sure obesity has the same kind of extreme that tobacco does, even though I think obesity is 1000 times worse.
Smoking makes every day of your live shitier as well, though most people dont realy notice it. You have less energy, your taste and smell are less sensitive and what not.
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
On March 13 2012 03:17 Rassy wrote: Smoking makes every day of your live shitier as well, though most people dont realy notice it. You have less energy, your taste and smell are less sensitive and what not.
The same goes for obesity, especially severe obesity (because you'll sweat just moving around). The less of a healthy lifestyle you have the less energy you'll have aswell.
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
you dont have to be physically fit to be healthy, you jsut have to eat right as long as youve got a good balanced diet you can still be healthy
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
If there was a war on and nobody had any food, I wouldn't talk to you, because you would probably try to eat me.
I noticed that many people make the statement of "how do you tax obesity without discriminating against fat people" with regards to the strategy of increasing tobacco taxes to deter smoking. The solution: Stop subsidizing corn (only applicable to the United States as far as I know). The cost of nearly all soda, fast food, nearly everything in the frozen section, junk food section, etc. will have dramatically increased prices. The healthier options suddenly become cheaper and healthier lifestyles are created due to financial conditions.
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
If there was a war on and nobody had any food, I wouldn't talk to you, because you would probably try to eat me.
why? you are the one starving. make sense please, boy!
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
Because obesity is a big problem. Health costs sky-rocket as a result of someone being overweight, and society as a whole pays for it. Flight industry is trying to figure out what to do because there are too many fat people. Parents are raising children to be as fat as they are, which in my eyes is child abuse, as the child has no idea what's wrong until they are already fat by the time they realize it.
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
are you kidding? Have you not seen the research on how being overweight is linked to a plethora of health problems?
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
If there was a war on and nobody had any food, I wouldn't talk to you, because you would probably try to eat me.
why? you are the one starving. make sense please, boy!
I've seen a fat person try to not eat for a whole day before, and it was the most pathetic thing I've ever witnessed.
On March 13 2012 05:46 Naio wrote: I noticed that many people make the statement of "how do you tax obesity without discriminating against fat people" with regards to the strategy of increasing tobacco taxes to deter smoking. The solution: Stop subsidizing corn (only applicable to the United States as far as I know). The cost of nearly all soda, fast food, nearly everything in the frozen section, junk food section, etc. will have dramatically increased prices. The healthier options suddenly become cheaper and healthier lifestyles are created due to financial conditions.
im prfectly healthy im not overwieght i take care and pay close attention to what i eat, and i do enjoy snack foods
why should we punish the entire country just becuase some people dont like overweight people?
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
Because obesity is a big problem. Health costs sky-rocket as a result of someone being overweight, and society as a whole pays for it. Flight industry is trying to figure out what to do because there are too many fat people. Parents are raising children to be as fat as they are, which in my eyes is child abuse, as the child has no idea what's wrong until they are already fat by the time they realize it.
i doubt that everyone here has the health costs in mind when talking shit about fat people.
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
If there was a war on and nobody had any food, I wouldn't talk to you, because you would probably try to eat me.
why? you are the one starving. make sense please, boy!
I've seen a fat person try to not eat for a whole day before, and it was the most pathetic thing I've ever witnessed.
well, that's basically a severely addicted person on withdrawal. may look pathetic to a worm like you. also, he didn't eat you. see. my point :>
On March 13 2012 00:14 Ckalvin wrote: I think fat people don't get enough crap. The majority of overweight people choose to be that way because of an active choice to be lazy. Smokers get lambasted in the media and by government, so should overweight people who choose to do nothing about their health.
prove they do nothing about there health
theres nothing stopping someone from being overwieght and otherwise perfectly healthy, just becuase they dont exercise enough to lose weight doesnt make them unhealthy
There are actually lot of unhealthy impacts on your health purely from having too much body fat. Also, I think your point is a little thin, because what % of people with a really high body fat % do you think are physically fit?
we'll talk when there's a war and no one has food anymore, hhauhauahuahhua
also, why the fuck do you people care that other people aren't living up to your arbitrary health standards? stop caring? are the looks of fat people so disgusting to you? guess what, some of you also look like shit to me and i wish i wouldnt ever have to look at persons like that (:
Because obesity is a big problem. Health costs sky-rocket as a result of someone being overweight, and society as a whole pays for it. Flight industry is trying to figure out what to do because there are too many fat people. Parents are raising children to be as fat as they are, which in my eyes is child abuse, as the child has no idea what's wrong until they are already fat by the time they realize it.
i doubt that everyone here has the health costs in mind when talking shit about fat people.
Why does it matter that everyone has that in mind? I do, and that is one of the big reasons I am arguing against obesity. Other people's points are irrelevant. It brings society down and it destroys the early years of a lot of children because of the abusive upbringing of their parents.
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments.
The simple way to stop people from smoking, without being fascist, oppressive and discriminating towards them: 1. There can be only one brand of cigarettes available, called cigarettes (no choice here, no lights, menthols and other bullshit). 2. Make it cost $100/pack.
Suddenly, the only people smoking are the 1%. Tada!
(Remember, this comes from a smoker who enjoys his vice)
On March 13 2012 07:26 Manit0u wrote: The simple way to stop people from smoking, without being fascist, oppressive and discriminating towards them: 1. There can be only one brand of cigarettes available, called cigarettes (no choice here, no lights, menthols and other bullshit). 2. Make it cost $100/pack.
Suddenly, the only people smoking are the 1%. Tada!
(Remember, this comes from a smoker who enjoys his vice)
so essentially completely destory the ciggarette companies and put all them out of bussiness and literally force tons of people to completely quit ciggarettes cold turkey and see robberys of convenience stores go up 10000% as people rob them for the cigs
theres no reason why we should destroy any bussiness just becuase people are stupid enough to buy from them
On March 07 2012 00:46 henkel wrote: it always brings a huge smile to my face when ex-smokers get completely 100% anti smoking and whine about second hand smoking while walking outside in a medium or big city. It somehow feels so stupid, with fine dust and the hundreds of other pollutions in the air. Guess it has something to do with the attitude of "wow look at me i stopped smoking now i have to right to demonise my former peers". So to all of them congrats on kicking that habit and do what ever you need to do to feel good about yourself.
Maybe they get that way because, having seen both sides, they decided that smoking is pretty pointless and self destructive?
By that logic wouldn't all ex-smokers be that way?
Yes ofcourse but once you're into an addiction it's easy to forget the benefits of the past. A person that is into a drug/alcohol addiction might have a hard time admitting that their former lifestyle was a better one, same can go for smoking.
A person that has once been clean, then started smoking and then got out of it again has been in heaven, through hell and back again and most likely has a better formed opinion than the ones that are still stuck in hell.
On March 13 2012 07:26 Manit0u wrote: The simple way to stop people from smoking, without being fascist, oppressive and discriminating towards them: 1. There can be only one brand of cigarettes available, called cigarettes (no choice here, no lights, menthols and other bullshit). 2. Make it cost $100/pack.
Suddenly, the only people smoking are the 1%. Tada!
(Remember, this comes from a smoker who enjoys his vice)
On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy?
If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
And we non-smokers thank you for being courteous- which exactly proves how some smokers could be annoying. Cigarette smoke affects the people around you, even if you don't think it causes medical issues. It causes- at the very least- trouble breathing and congestion and other discomfort for those nearby, and that's exactly why restaurants either have no smoking at all or smoking and no smoking sections. It's so we non-smokers don't have to worry about smokers sitting next to us. And you don't have to be actively smoking inches away from us either. Believe it or not, your breath and clothes smell like shit and make the environment less enjoyable- something that the restaurant obviously doesn't want to see. So thank you for being courteous, but others aren't always as respectful as you, and there are rules in place to make sure that everyone remains comfortable.
That's actually not why smoking is outlawed in restaurants, at least not in Sweden. Smoking sections fix this issue without stopping smokers from doing what they enjoy. The reason why it's outlawed is because of the people working there. Unlike people eating there who are being exposed to minor amounts of diluted smoke for a short period, people working there are constantly in that space and THAT is proven to be bad for their health. The rules are there to protect them, not people who find smoke an annoyance.
Yeah, it's not like people smoking inside would scare customers away from the restaurant at all... Haha I find what you wrote laughable. With a mother who is married to a man who works at a restaurant I can assure you that the reasons you stated isn't the only one.
You must be pretty ignorant to think that smoking inside restaurants wouldn't hurt their amount of customers, you're the one smoking here, I'm pretty sure you don't get to tell people what they're annoyed by vice versa. As a NON-smoker I can safely say that I wouldn't go to a restaurant that allows smoking inside.
Me and everyone I know who don't smoke get really frustrated when there are people smoking at places they shouldn't be or when they're able to smoke elsewhere. As a teen there are ALOT of people who smoke nearby all the time, we have a line which you need to be outside of to smoke at my school, yet nobody goes outside that line but chooses to smoke outside the school entrance instead. The school doesn't do anything to stop it because it's pointless, every time you tell them to stop they just come back.
On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing?
The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same.
And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh?
So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit.
If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it.
What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof?
Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus.
And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
And we non-smokers thank you for being courteous- which exactly proves how some smokers could be annoying. Cigarette smoke affects the people around you, even if you don't think it causes medical issues. It causes- at the very least- trouble breathing and congestion and other discomfort for those nearby, and that's exactly why restaurants either have no smoking at all or smoking and no smoking sections. It's so we non-smokers don't have to worry about smokers sitting next to us. And you don't have to be actively smoking inches away from us either. Believe it or not, your breath and clothes smell like shit and make the environment less enjoyable- something that the restaurant obviously doesn't want to see. So thank you for being courteous, but others aren't always as respectful as you, and there are rules in place to make sure that everyone remains comfortable.
That's actually not why smoking is outlawed in restaurants, at least not in Sweden. Smoking sections fix this issue without stopping smokers from doing what they enjoy. The reason why it's outlawed is because of the people working there. Unlike people eating there who are being exposed to minor amounts of diluted smoke for a short period, people working there are constantly in that space and THAT is proven to be bad for their health. The rules are there to protect them, not people who find smoke an annoyance.
Yeah, it's not like people smoking inside would scare customers away from the restaurant at all... Haha I find what you wrote laughable. With a mother who is married to a man who works at a restaurant I can assure you that the reasons you stated isn't the only one.
You must be pretty ignorant to think that smoking inside restaurants wouldn't hurt their amount of customers, you're the one smoking here, I'm pretty sure you don't get to tell people what they're annoyed by vice versa. As a NON-smoker I can safely say that I wouldn't go to a restaurant that allows smoking inside.
Me and everyone I know who don't smoke get really frustrated when there are people smoking at places they shouldn't be or when they're able to smoke elsewhere. As a teen there are ALOT of people who smoke nearby all the time, we have a line which you need to be outside of to smoke at my school, yet nobody goes outside that line but chooses to smoke outside the school entrance instead. The school doesn't do anything to stop it because it's pointless, every time you tell them to stop they just come back.
i dont think he siad that was the sole reason but just one of the reasons it was, possibly one of the main reasons
On March 06 2012 23:01 naggerNZ wrote: Well, for me personally, I find it helps overcome a lot of social anxiety problems. I have difficulty interacting with people I don't know, and it can create problems in a working environment. However, I find that having a smoke with someone immediately overcomes this barrier. It acts as both an icebreaker and common ground. And given my line of work, I work with new people in stressful situations all the time (I'm a bouncer). Also, I find that it's a good excuse to take breaks. If I don't take regular smoke breaks sometimes I can work 8 hours non stop without a break in a hot, noisy bar/club. Not very good for your sanity.
Also, it's worth noting the biological effects of smoking. It's well understood that smoking releases beta-endorphins, which simulate feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment, something not everyone is lucky enough to get elsewhere.
Also, I like the taste and the buzz and it helps me get through the week.
The interesting part is there are non or less-harmful (not to mention much cheaper), ways to accomplish those same "benefits."
On March 07 2012 13:11 Balgrog wrote: Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
How fucking disgusting can you be as a person? You're a fucking disgrace to the human race. Personally I'm a guy who has zero to none body fat, I'm raised in a family which has owned a gym for over 14 years but never EVER would I be such a fucking asshole like you to look down on obese people, neverthless insult them like you.
I didn't care to look but I really hope that you're perma-banned.
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party. You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
How about.. you eat to survive and actually make it through the day? This must be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time lol.
Smoking is plenty disgusting. Even if you manage to closet smoke and not directly harm others...you'll still have to get treated by somebody in the endgame when dying from cancer or COPD. Same goes for obesity, but at least that's possible to reverse.
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments.
Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers.
By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
On March 07 2012 13:11 Balgrog wrote: Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
heres my personal opinion:
when something "looks bad" i can look away, if something smells bad i can do nothing to avoid it but leave the area. if i go into a bar full of obese people my clothes won´t smell like them after i´ve left, if i go into a bar full of smoking guys ...
not to say obesity is any "better" - but i think everybody should be free to decide what to do with his/her own body if it doesn´t affect others. so you can smoke at home, in "smoking rooms" or outdoors all you want but don´t expect everybody else to inhale your fumes just because you think it´s fine. same goes for obesity, you can eat all you want and be as fat as you want but don´t expect to get any special treatment - if you´re so fat it invades your neighbors room in public transport / cinema / plane / etc. you should have to pay for extra seats or be kicked out.
same goes for health insurance costs. it should be adjusted depending on "livestyle" in a very lose way. so have a very braod "normal" or "healthy" area. but don´t expect to pay the same if you´re smoking 30 cigarettes a day and get lung cancer or are so fat you take 2 seats in the subway and get diabetes / heart problems etc.
the looks of it ? i don´t give a fuck - the "uglier" everybody around me the better i look in comparison
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Because it tastes and feels good?
Anyway, I am avid smoker for around 10 years already and in my country I haven't had any problems or issues as person who smokes. But my country has kinda weak smoking regulations and laws and smokers are generally accepted.
About health issues, I am aware there are bunch of negative health impacts but I chose to gamble - for now (recently did full medical check) I am in amazing health condition (which doesn't mean it won't change in next 10 years of course).
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments.
Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers.
By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
i like the way you think. i dont want to pay for other people's irresponsible decisions.
On March 06 2012 22:23 Marou wrote: That's an interesting parralel, France dealt and still is dealing with smoking agressively. I think the anti-smoking law are going to far (especially not being able to smoke in clubs and bars. This should be up to the owner of the place imho).
For combating obesity, there are numerous TV Campaings on how healthy you should eat. Thing is they are nowhere near the anti-tobacco TV Campaing that always have been very graphic and often shoking. When it's about eating healthy it's just rainbows and cute shits telling you to eat 5 fruits and vegetable per day. It's not as powerful as the smoking campaings for sure.
In canada we have designated smoking areas outside clubs. Its nice because when your heatr is pounding while your dancing and drinking the last thing you want is to be constantly inhaling smoke.
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments.
Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers.
By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands.
edit: This "drain on society" rhetoric really worries me, especially with today's economy. If you are one of those people that has no problem yelling out on internet forums how his hard-earned tax money goes to buy some bum on welfare his alcohol: Please don't forget where you would be if it wasn't for public schools, free university education (if you are european), that no doubt a lot of childless people paid for. And one day you might need welfare, then you might not be so quick to judge other people's actions.
On March 06 2012 22:26 haffy wrote: I doubt anythings ever going to change in the UK. It's just too profitable to have unhealthy quick food everywhere.
I've never actually been on a diet until recently. Even though I'm still eating 2500-3000 calories a day I just can't eat anything I don't buy and cook my self. At least here in the Newcastle I can think of very few places you can go and expect to be able to eat anywhere near as healthy as when you buy your own food.
So yeah, two things need to change in my opinion. Availability of healthy food and the cost. There doesn't really need to be any laws or anything passed. People just need a choice of being able to eat healthy when they're out for a decent price in my opinion.
I'm a student in the UK on an extremely limited budget and I make sure I get healthy food every 2 weeks. Just don't shop at Tesco for your food; honestly. If you want to eat healthy make use of the 69p fresh food offers at Aldi that have the best fruit and veg available.
Manchester's a complete rank hole; similar to Newcastle and wherever you go in the UK you'll just be lumbered with Sainsbury's & Tesco - both rubbish and over-priced. Even the sarnies you get at lunch are absolute tat - a Bulgarian friend admitted to me that the further away you get from England the better the food gets - so true.
I think the only healthy place to eat out in the UK is possibly Nandos; dunno what people reckon to that.
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments.
Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers.
By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands.
in our train wreck of health care, insurance companies increase premiums for people who voluntarily screw up their health (drugs, obesity, alcoholism); i have never heard of them increasing premiums for people who choose specific professions (e.g., construction, although i can see them doing so for known dangerous professions like stuntmen, etc.).
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments.
Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers.
By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands.
in our train wreck of health care, insurance companies increase premiums for people who voluntarily screw up their health (drugs, obesity, alcoholism); i have never heard of them increasing premiums for people who choose specific professions (e.g., construction, although i can see them doing so for known dangerous professions like stuntmen, etc.).
The construction worker was just an exeguration obviously. The dilemma is the distinction where personal responsibility starts and ends and who will judge that. What if I get hooked on the prozac my doctor prescribes me? Do they raise your premium for legal drug addiction? I should hope so, YOU certainly shouldn't pay for those filthy addicts with no self-control!
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments.
Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers.
By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands.
in our train wreck of health care, insurance companies increase premiums for people who voluntarily screw up their health (drugs, obesity, alcoholism); i have never heard of them increasing premiums for people who choose specific professions (e.g., construction, although i can see them doing so for known dangerous professions like stuntmen, etc.).
The construction worker was just an exeguration obviously. The dilemma is the distinction where personal responsibility starts and ends and who will judge that. What if I get hooked on the prozac my doctor prescribes me? Do they raise your premium for legal drug addiction? I should hope so, YOU certainly shouldn't pay for those filthy addicts with no self-control!
the insurance companies have already done their job determining what is and shouldn't be covered (or should require a higher premium). its all risk-benefit. if certain activities increase their risk, they should be able to increase the premium. similarly, if you increase the risk to gov't health care (which causes higher risk to tax money) then you should have to take more responsibility for the cost.
as for your so-called "legal drug addiction," if its prescribed then a medical professional has determined its necessary. if you keep taking it after your doctor tells you to stop then thats on you.
Smoking is worse. Only because of second-hand smoke because smoking is completely selfish. I dont mind if you give yourself cancer but I do mind if you give ME cancer