Random News Article Thread

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

More people die from obesity every year than have ever died after taking an E

Specious (is that the right word?) argument there Macky. It takes years to become obese and there are far more people who over eat than take drugs.
You can die from drugs the first time you try them.
 
Why penalise people who want to eat the occasional junk item? Just because fatties cant control themselves, the rest of us should miss out? :102:

In a nutshell you have just articulated why I am against all forms of prohibition. :icon_wink
 
Last edited:
Specious (is that the right word?) argument there Macky.

It wasn't me that was making the argument, I was responding to a specious argument.

It takes years to become obese and there are far more people who over eat than take drugs.

Nonsense. Drug use is far more widespread than gluttony.

You can die from drugs the first time you try them.

That would depend on which particular drug an individual is trying for the first time, it's statistically very, very unlikely though.

Do you think that the ratios are comparable?

No, not at all.

In a nutshell you have just articulated why I am against all forms of prohibition. :icon_wink

Absolutely.
It is not the responsibility of the state to legislate against what I can or cannot take into my own body. All forms of prohibition have been proven to be an absolute, miserable failure.

For me, the argument starts and ends with "**** off and mind your own business".
 

That's a very erudite, eloquent and persuasive argument that you've presented there Major.

How many people do you know that are morbidly obese, that overeat to the point that they're putting their health at risk? Compare that to the number of people that you know who might smoke a joint once in a while, if they're feeling daring and reckless. Compare it to the number of people that you know who drink alcohol.
 
That's a very erudite, eloquent and persuasive argument that you've presented there Major.

How many people do you know that are morbidly obese, that overeat to the point that they're putting their health at risk? Compare that to the number of people that you know who might smoke a joint once in a while, if they're feeling daring and reckless. Compare it to the number of people that you know who drink alcohol.

We're not comparing a swift pint with smoking crack are we?
 
For me, the argument starts and ends with "**** off and mind your own business".

We are however still paying for eachother's healthcare and if I have to pay for what other people do - whether it's overeating, drinking, smoking or whatever - that would annoy me and that's why I think we should have regulations in place.
 
We are however still paying for eachother's healthcare and if I have to pay for what other people do - whether it's overeating, drinking, smoking or whatever - that would annoy me and that's why I think we should have regulations in place.

I don't happen to live in a country that has 'free' healthcare, but if the ridiculous prohibition was abolished and regulations were put in place to legislate for and to tax all of the drugs that are currently being sold by criminals, the revenue from this would easily pay for a health service
 
I don't happen to live in a country that has 'free' healthcare, but if the ridiculous prohibition was abolished and regulations were put in place to legislate for and to tax all of the drugs that are currently being sold by criminals, the revenue from this would easily pay for a health service
And do you think the overall public health would benefit from this?
 
And do you think the overall public health would benefit from this?

I'm not sure how you'd quantify a benefit, but it certainly wouldn't be adversely affected. Drug use is already widespread, despite the prohibition, and evidence shows that if prohibition is removed, drug use and the associated crime reduces
 
Nobody mentioned 'morbid' obesity and you don't have to be that overweight for it to be bad for your health.

People were talking about somebody dropping dead from eating one too many Big Macs, I'd say that would qualify as morbidly obese
 
I'm not sure how you'd quantify a benefit, but it certainly wouldn't be adversely affected. Drug use is already widespread, despite the prohibition, and evidence shows that if prohibition is removed, drug use and the associated crime reduces

Evidence proved that relaxing the licensing laws would reduce drunkenness and that by banning the cane schools would be less violent.

How did that work out?
 
The morbidly obese should contract a PR officer to try rebranding the term as joyfully plump. I reckon the joyfully plump would garner a much higher level of positive support from the public at large.
 
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool2150
2Arsenal2244
3Nottm F2141
4Newcastle2238
5Chelsea2137
6Bournemouth2237
7Aston Villa2236
8Manchester C  2135
9Fulham2233
10Brighton2131
11Brentford2228
12Palace2227
13Manchester U2126
14West Ham2226
15Tottenham 2124
16Everton2017
17Wolves2116
18Ipswich2116
19Leicester2214
20Southampton216

Latest posts

Back
Top