NJS is going to love this!

[NJS]

I am disappointed in some of the slightly... overheated comments in this thread.

Consider that the Danes have an excellent public health system in which everyone is paid a decent European wage, state health insurance for all (that pays for a significant proportion of those that opt for private healthcare), and finally pays a decent pension to those incapacitated by chronic illness. It costs ~10% of GDP, a not insignificant sum in the case of Denmark.

They also run a relatively tight financial ship, as many members here who live in more... debt-ridden countries may or may not recognise.

In light of these, I think that the proposition makes some sense, even if the implementation is somewhat not quite ideal.

What causes 'disappointment' - at least in the sense of 'expectation', since the thread's very title promises steam-blowing? Moreover, I just don't see the point in governments picking on smokers and the obese: they often crash out sooner than the health-freaks who (ironically) end up in helpless vegetative states, 'enjoying' long-term nursing care, often with State contributions, if not full support. In the UK now that runs at an average of around £2500 a month each.

But, so far as Denmark is concerned: I think that if I lived there and were expected to pay the world's highest income taxes (between 42-63%), I might feel a little peeved (to say the least) when, on top of all that, I would be further taxed for wishing to enjoy a fry-up breakfast to insulate me against the cold and find the strength to keep earning at the rate needed to survive and support the top-heavy public service economy with all its 'jobs-worths' scratching away on their clip-boards.
NJS

[davidhuh]

I am disappointed in some of the slightly... overheated comments in this thread.

Consider that the Danes have an excellent public health system in which everyone is paid a decent European wage, state health insurance for all (that pays for a significant proportion of those that opt for private healthcare), and finally pays a decent pension to those incapacitated by chronic illness. It costs ~10% of GDP, a not insignificant sum in the case of Denmark.

They also run a relatively tight financial ship, as many members here who live in more... debt-ridden countries may or may not recognise.

In light of these, I think that the proposition makes some sense, even if the implementation is somewhat not quite ideal.

Dear Zeitgeist,

nobody here has criticised the Danish health system. The comments are far from overheated either.

Denmark is now taxing saturated fat with 16 kronor per kg, regardless of where this fat is (butter, milk, meat, pizza, convenience food, cheese etc.). What looks simple will be a bureaucratic monster, and not only that: it is based on poor scientific evidence. And we should not forget: the human body needs fat, both saturated and unsaturated, to survive.

There are many reasons why people are more and more obese. Saturated fat may contribute in some people, but the reasons are multiple. Michael has already quoted France where saturated fat is very present in daily diet traditionally, without having an impact on public health.

What many of us are concerned about is a State that interferes increasingly with what we consider to be personal liberty and freedom, and this on the basis of poor science. Denmark could as well tax sugar, processed food, salt, convenience food, Coca Cola or people who do not exercise.

What I am also concerned about is that such taxes and laws, once introduced, are difficult to get rid of. A good example is the exaggerated fight against smoking and especially passive smoking. If I have the facts right, this has started in France under President Chirac. The basis where some scientific studies demonstrating a negative impact of passive smoking on public health. A well known cancer researcher who was in the commission advising the French government on this matter told me a year ago that this evidence cannot be maintained anymore. I don't remember the reason, they might have simply got statistics wrong. And here you see the problem: public opinion has been formed perhaps for ever by well intended public health information that passive smoking is dangerous to your health, and all other European countries followed the French example. It is next to impossible to have an open minded discussion on this topic anymore, or to build evidence to overturn the current rigid anti smoking laws. This is public health fascism.

"The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself" - Churchill
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" - Disraeli

Best regards,
David

[storeynicholas]

David - the 'passive smoking' debate was based on very strange scientific evidence indeed - strange and strained - to support the case of the anti-smoking lobby. The UK government seemed to 'roll' with it as a matter of perceived expediency and some mad-cap political correctness.

Without using lab conditions, it is obvious that there is going to be a wide margin of difference in likely effects from 'passive' smoking (if there are any real effects at all, except in extreme cases), in different types of 'exposure' to it. The problem is that the freedom of smokers has been constrained largely because the anti-smokers simply: (1) do not like the smell of smoke, and (2) even if they could avoid encountering it, there is some reason to believe that there are some who find pleasure simply in preventing the enjoyments of others.
NJS

[zeitgeist]

Davidhuh,

Thank you for your well-considered reply. As I mentioned in my original post I feel that the problem is the extremely poor implementation of the policy - imagine if the tax were only applied to McDonald's!

Passive smoking really does seem to be the bete noir of some members here. A lot of their arguments revolve around the 'facts' that passive smoking is a myth and a non-issue dreamed up by the anti-smoking lobby, and that the freedom of smokers is paramount to the wishes of non-smokers.

For the former - as a medical professional, it is my unfortunate duty to inform you all that ill-effects of passive smoking are backed up by research evidence. It is disingenous to continue to claim that passive smoking is not a real phenomenon even in the face of mounting statistics easily found on the internet, the testimony of non-medically trained public servants notwithstanding.

In other words - at present there is a clear parallel with denying the ill-effects of passive smoke and being a vaccine denier or germ-theory denier - the evidence does not support the denial.

And as to the latter point - your freedoms stop where mine begin. There are many facets of daily life which rely on this simple principle. We legislate against antisocial behaviour already - public drunkenness, public nudity, begging, and so on - where the 'ill-effect' is purely social. It boggles the mind to consider that one would gladly accept this (and I suspect in the case of many members here heartily support it) and yet be against anti-smoking legislation. Given that smokers are a distinct minority in the developed countries which most members here inhabit, it makes even less sense to protect their 'rights', and it would be facetious to compare protecting their 'rights' to protecting the rights of minority ethnic/religious groups.

In this forum it can be said truthfully that we cling to old traditions - I respectfully suggest we need sometimes to take a step back and re-evaluate with an unjaundiced eye not tainted by reactionary (small C) conservatism which traditions are worth keeping.

[NJS]

Zeitgeist - There is also lot of recreactional porn, easily found on the internet; along with a whole load of other nastiness. You are the kind of obnoxious troll which has, often, put me (and better men than me for-bye), off coming to this site.

Why not just: take a bath; dress as well as ye can - and take a stroll down the Old Kent Road; where yer crudeness might be better appreciated? Moreover, your bloody, precious 'freedoms' can easily be secured by staying at home, on yer own; while mine can be as easily secured by smoking, with my friends, in places that we pay to maintain.

Spiteful and Miserable, Jack-boooted, Smacking-Buttock-Masters-General have no place in my life.

'Satan, get ye me behind' - I say -

- an' I'll run like hell....lest ye get get there first!

NJS

[zeitgeist]

Zeitgeist - There is also lot of recreactional porn, easily found on the internet; along with a whole load of other nastiness. You are the kind of obnoxious troll which has, often, put me (and better men than me for-bye), off coming to this site.

Why not just: take a bath; dress as well as ye can - and take a stroll down the Old Kent Road; where yer crudeness might be better appreciated? Moreover, your bloody, precious 'freedoms' can easily be secured by staying at home, on yer own; while mine can be as easily secured by smoking, with my friends, in places that we pay to maintain.

Spiteful and Miserable, Jack-boooted, Smacking-Buttock-Masters-General have no place in my life.

'Satan, get ye me behind' - I say -

- an' I'll run like hell....lest ye get get there first!

NJS

Unfortunately, respectful dialogue appears to have little place in your life as well.

[NJS]

Zeitgeist - There is also lot of recreactional porn, easily found on the internet; along with a whole load of other nastiness. You are the kind of obnoxious troll which has, often, put me (and better men than me for-bye), off coming to this site.

Why not just: take a bath; dress as well as ye can - and take a stroll down the Old Kent Road; where yer crudeness might be better appreciated? Moreover, your bloody, precious 'freedoms' can easily be secured by staying at home, on yer own; while mine can be as easily secured by smoking, with my friends, in places that we pay to maintain.

Spiteful and Miserable, Jack-boooted, Smacking-Buttock-Masters-General have no place in my life.

'Satan, get ye me behind' - I say -

- an' I'll run like hell....lest ye get get there first!

NJS

Unfortunately, respectful dialogue appears to have little place in your life as well.

Why should I have 'respectful dialogue' with patronizing, self-centred Tin-Hitlers? There is too much tolerance in this world of various kinds of moral aberration. If the spirit of the age is truly represented by you, Heaven help us all! The whole notion of this kind of over-regulation by Big Brother's Diktat is so far beyond 'respectful dialogue' that it makes me sick to realize that there people out there who will argue that it is tenable in any society that dares to call itself a 'civilization'. I begin to understand now what Gandhi meant in the following exchange:

He was asked: "What do you think of western civilization?"

And he replied: "I think it would be a good idea."

On your 'statistics' point: fund medical researchers (especially in these hard times), and tell them what you want to 'prove'. Expect a 'result'. I am quite sure that the methodology of research cannot have changed so very much in 20 odd years to have been able truly to prove things that were not capable of proof back then.

No one is saying that smoking is 'harmless' for anyone but what I am saying is how dare you say to me that my freedoms end where yours begin? It is such fat-headery that is responsible for so much that is amiss. It is a queer sort of 'civilization' that abolishes proscriptions against blasphemy and buggery - but outlaws smoking tobacco. It sounds to me as though the softboys have got too much control over the rest of us.
NJS

[Man at C&A]

Good grief what a depressing, self-centred, Thatcherite rant. I can't see anything in Zeitgeist's postings to justify such bilous nonsense!

[NJS]

Good grief what a depressing, self-centred, Thatcherite rant. I can't see anything in Zeitgeist's postings to justify such bilous nonsense!

I am not a Thatcherite and I do not understand what is depressing or selfish in complaining about oppression. But it's a favourite trick of the oppressive to try to shame the rest of us into silence: because, of course, you are always right! My main objection is the assertion that my freedoms end where Zeitgeist's begin. There is far too much of that sort of thing and far far too much tolerance of it.
NJS

[cathach]

As someone who spent years working with asthma in smoke-filled pubs and clubs, I'd have to say that unfortunately the 35% of people who smoked were always imposing their own taste on everyone else, due to the very nature of the product. I would think as someone who appreciates bespoke clothing surely you'd welcome the ban? No longer do you have to air suits for several days before putting them away nor do you run the ever present risk of having a very dear suit be singed by a careless ciggarette.

Its facetious also to suggest that such workers can simply go somewhere else to find work, especially when the situations are the same everywhere. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, do you want smoking again in buses, the underground, cinemas and hospitals again? Are these fundamental affronts to your liberty?

As well as that persons who disagree with you politely on an online forum are not Tin-Hitlers, a Tin-Hitler is an individual who'll cosh you in daylight or lock you up for trying to protest outside the Houses of Parliament both of which I humbly submit are far greater threats to your liberty.

[NJS]

As someone who spent years working with asthma in smoke-filled pubs and clubs, I'd have to say that unfortunately the 35% of people who smoked were always imposing their own taste on everyone else, due to the very nature of the product. I would think as someone who appreciates bespoke clothing surely you'd welcome the ban? No longer do you have to air suits for several days before putting them away nor do you run the ever present risk of having a very dear suit be singed by a careless ciggarette.

Its facetious also to suggest that such workers can simply go somewhere else to find work, especially when the situations are the same everywhere. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, do you want smoking again in buses, the
underground, cinemas and hospitals again? Are these fundamental affronts to your liberty?

As well as that persons who disagree with you politely on an online forum are not Tin-Hitlers, a Tin-Hitler is an individual who'll cosh you in daylight or lock you up for trying to protest outside the Houses of Parliament both of which I humbly submit are far greater threats to your liberty.

Well, it does seem strange for an asthmatic to work for years in smoke-filled rooms! I simply do not know how many people smoked in pubs and clubs - but enough of them to result in the closure of thousands of these places, after the smoking ban, together with the loss of thousands of jobs. I infer from your remark about choosing workplaces that you preferred to have a job and to suffer the smoke; maybe your job doesn't exist anymore. Smoking on 'buses was confined to the back of the upper deck and trains had smoking compartments (where one could often find a seat). I see no reason why there should not be smoking blocks in cinemas and theatres and smoking rooms in hospitals, pubs and clubs. I could not conceive of ever going to a smokeless Ronnie Scott's - it would be like watching a remake of Casablanca, starring a sober, smokeless Tom Cruise, instead of Humph. That's one film that I wouldn't watch.

I mentioned the smoking ban as an aside but Zeitgeist jumped on it to reignite the old debate, insisting that there is no real argument.

I couldn't care less whether my clothes smell of tobacco smoke and the odd burn is in the nature of things. I don't try to live in some cocoon.

The smoking ban is not just an affront to my liberty. In fact I more resent than that the assertion by Tin-Hitlers that they know what is best for us as they concoct spurious arguments to support their position and generate the attitude that it is unreasonable and even impolite to disagree with them; all the while they insist, with unbelievable smugness, that they are right.

From the popularity of the 'This is a Pipe-smoking Zone' thread, it is fairly clear that some of us do still smoke and my daughter tells me that smoking amongst her age group (early 20s) is fashionable and she says that she believes that it is fashionable as a reaction to all the Tin-Hitlerism at work in British society.

I judge politeness substantively not just as a matter of form; so if someone tells me with a smile that he knows better than I do for my own sake, I regard that as a grave discourtesy and I will always say so. Moreover, the Tin-Hitlers in government, organizing the suppression of protest and debate; imposing over-regulation on the law-abiding; sending troops around the world, trying to police it as though Britain were still an Imperial power, but unable to make immediate, decisive reaction to cope with rioting mobs at home, are just where the rot is in all this.

It is truly maddening to perceive the general, sheep-like acquiescence to Tin-Hitlerism.
NJS

[davidhuh]

Gentlemen,

there is quite a discussion here today...

So Iceland has decided a year ago to follow Denmark on its way paved with good intentions - post financial crisis depression and in romance of its colonial past? Hungary decided September 1 to tax very salty and very sweet convenience food, while some U.S. States (CA & NY) plus Philadelphia ban trans fats from being used in restaurants since 2008. CA also bans products containing trans fats from being sold in stores.

I have little objection against the US legislation here - nobody misses anything with a ban on trans fats. But we are on a slippery slope when States start taxing food items the human body needs to survive, claiming a public health goal. Nobody will eat less cake or patato chips due to such taxes, so the intended health effect is 0, bureaucrats the only winners.

What the data on passive smoking is concerned: it has never been compelling, which is the reason why the Swiss were so late with introducing legislation. Finally, they gave in - not because the data became any better, but merely because the cantons had started introducing differing local legislation in this tiny country. I am not claiming things are perfect here, but we like to get the figures right

I have never been a heavy smoker, and will never be one. It cannot be denied that smoking is considered both a social and personal habit similar to drinking wine or beer. People who don't want to smoke or don't want to be exposed to smoke should be protected. But those who prefer to smell tobacco rather than cheap deodorant, perfumes or whatever odours are spread by human creature should have the choice to do so in designated public places. Life is about taking risks, enjoying good food, friends and whatever else there may be. The pleasures are many, and thankfully, we don't share them all. I don't need a paternalistic State telling me what I am allowed to do and when.

We have an interesting movement in the city of Basel. When the new Swiss smoking law came into effect in April 2010, 180 small restaurants and clubs formed the "Fümoar Association" (Swiss spelling for the French Fumoir). In 2010, they sold 125'000 annual membership cards at 10 CHF (Basel population is 190'000). The card scheme is popular with visitors too, because it is cheap, and the association swims in money. Access to the 180 restaurants is limited to the membership.

I would wish the Danish authorities had not forgotten about the most wonderful movie coming out of their country. Babette's Feast, the 1987 production based on Karen Blixen's story of two pious sisters getting spoiled by the lavish cooking of the French refugee Babette. The most wonderful celebration of life's beauty and enjoyment on screen ever...

I wish the Basel people and the NJS of this world to survive for a while, otherwise this planet is going to be a sad paradise for pious protestants

cheers, David

[NJS]

Well, David, it did get rather heated in the end. But then I suppose that it was bound to do so. The thing that really gets my goat is the self-righteousness and assurance of those who would regulate our lives down to the last little detail; as well as the fact that there is a growing insistence that smoking tobacco is immoral; in fact, it is even worse than that because, in certain situations (in which smoking has been a social activity for centuries), it is actually illegal. We have come a long way since the days when our family doctor would be smoking as he wrote out prescriptions but, maybe, we have come too far. I am moving towards pipe, snuff and cigars only now and, actually, many non-smokers (as opposed to the Puritans) seem to appreciate the whiff of good pipe tobacco and cigars. Indeed, I have several friends who would not really describe themselves as smokers at all, who will have an occasional cigar.
NJS