A Lard Tax?

Question

Surely now that I am forbidden from smoking my pipe anywhere other the cupboard under the stairs, a new drive should be organised against fatties. Everywhere I go, I see great balls of lard stuffing themselves full of chips and MacShite Burgers, even giving them to their children. If I give my daughter a glass of wine or a tab, I am breaking the law (UK). But if I fed her beefburger and chips every day, thats OK. I find this completely gross! Obviously I am going to do none of these things as far as my daughter is concerned, but I strongly resent having to go outside to smoke so that some lardball can wolf down a plate of chips in peace. If the government is serious abut health, it really needs to crack down on lard. Tubbies must be punished financially, in the same way that smokers and drinkers are!

Don't get me wrong here! These days I have a fair bit of gut myself , although I wouldn't describe myself as lardy. My daughter would but I wouldn't. People have a right to be fat, smoke, drink and generally abuse their own body. I am asking why there is this discrimination against smokers as opposed to food addicts. Fatties are certainly a far bigger drain on the NHS than smokers or alcoholics. Yet lard is not taxed, whereas bac and alcohol?????

Answer 1

LOVE your question: good thing those monstrous thunder thighed munchers can't get their hands on you! Haha, I'm a chub, too, but think your question is funny. Gotta have a sense of 'umor, right mate?

Answer 2

My Better Half suffers from hypothyroidism, which means that her metabolism is too slow to break down the materials that cause obesity. She's a vegetarian and was - just last week - told by her health centre that she doesn't eat enough vegetables! If this is an example of so-called "expert" medical advice, it's no wonder that chips and burgers made of bullocks' b*ll*cks are continuing to go down a storm in Chav Central is it?

Anyway, she doesn't eat burgers; she doesn't drink regular Coke or the like - always the diet variety when she has any at all. She can't stand the smell of chips frying so we don't eat them. I do, but only if she's not here. Her family are all stringbeans, so her condition is not genetic.

Should she be taxed for being overweight? I don't fink SO!

I'm off to tuck into my megabar of Galaxy now. Not a single extra pound will adhere to my spare and - though I says it what shouldn't, handsomely presented - frame. It's one of those with six squares across and about a dozen lengthways, and I can get through about half of it tonight.

Labour are known to be watching this forum. I do hope they will take note.

Then I'm going to have a smoke.

I second Cheek's warning above. Ladies, please do NOT leave your drink unattended if you nip out for a ciggie while you're at the pub/nightclub.

Answer 3

Well, I just don't think anyone should be punished. But then again, Britain is supposed to be a democracy, not a Totalitarian state.

I don't agree with the smoking ban, even though I am not a smoker. As far as I am concerned, pubs and clubs should be able to decide whether they are to be 'smoking' or 'non-smoking'. This should be made obvious by a sign outside. That way people can CHOOSE whether to go into a smoking pub or not.

With regards to what you say about lard balls - I think you're getting angry at the wrong people. You're annoyed with them because of the ban the Government has put on you. As far as I'm concerned, no-one should be dictated to and should be able to live their life how they want.

As a side note, don't you think it's funny that this drive for 'healthy lifestyles' coincided with the release of a government report that said people would need to work into their 70's in order to appease the pension crisis? Funny that!

Answer 4

I disagree with the smoking bans except hospitals, etc (common sense). I think it's kinda silly I can walk down the street drunk, get mad & get in a fight and unless they can prove I was drunk I have the same rights as the one I beat up. Yet if I smoke in an empty restaurant I can be fined w/o any rights.

Taking away more rights isn't the answer though admittedly it might make people think & realize what they are allowing the government to do.

Basically militant non-smokers are pushing the government to take more unfair taxes to encourage others to quit from the cost & conform to their views, while the reps laugh at their ignorance. In Ky. the non-smoking ban was signed in a smoke filled room. Over half signing were smoking. What hypocrites. More hypocritical than Carrie Nation tearing up pubs under cocaine. At least she didn't take cocaine aware of what it was doing.

Maybe if those taxes were held in trust and used for the healthcare and smoking cessation needs of those who pay them that they claim are mostly poor and ignorant I could believe they cared about our health. Instead it just gives them more money to waste on $1,000. toilet seats. So let's not give them more excuses to tax us than they already manage to get.

Answer 5

I do actually see your point but isn't it more to do with this anti-smoking law than attacking large people? I do agree that, by not being allowed to smoke, the government is braking the law and encouraging discrimination - plus what about the human rights of the smoker? Hopefully the great British public will do something about it - but probably not! Oh and alcohol is a far greater cause of disease than either of the other two combined.

Answer 6

I don't think you need a lard tax because that would affect anyone that eats fast food. No. Fat people don't need a tax on lard. Most of them are already miserable enough. Many of them are dying from heart disease and diabetes. Second-hand smoke affects everyone's health. A drunk driver could kill a person, but a fat person can consume as much as he wants. That's not going to affect your health. Many fast food restaurants have already reduced a lot of the fat in their foods. There's no need to tax fast food. What's next? Sugar is fattening too, but almost everything you eat has a certain amount of sugar in it. Also, there is no proof that fast food is what causes certain people to become overweight. Some doctors claim obesity is caused by a virus. Eliminating the lard in fast food from your diet isn't going to make a virus go away, but you can stop smoking and reduce your chances of getting cancer. Every smoker knows that. Yet, they continue to smoke and pay higher taxes because of how smoke affects their health and the health of everyone around them. That's why cigarettes are taxed heavily and fast food is not.

Answer 7

I think the issue is one of economics, as others have pointed out. That said, the difference probably lies in the economics in a different way: Everyone eats, 23% or less smoke depending on the Western country we are speaking of... I think England and the USA are round 23% smokers these days.
Only 23% to have a say in smoking, where everyone of voting age can scream if their favourite Chippy Or McDeathlies is threatened. Never mind the windbreaking and other obnoxious odours, especially from the McNastie's type place.
Alas, we are all bound by the laws as they are... no way out of it.

--That Cheeky Lad

Answer 8

I wonder if that would help me and everyone else lose weight if chips cost three times as much as carrots? I somehow suspect it might.
I don't smoke but I do actually feel bad for smokers, if it's so bad why isn't it illegal? Money, that's why. The loss of tobacco tax and the cost of controlling illegal tobacco would cripple most countries.
It's a sorry state of affairs when money is more important than health.

Answer 9

Yes and if you visit towns like Mansfield in Nottinghamshire, it makes you want to reach for your elephant gun.

I wish I had the link to a recent study that showed that obesity is in very very few cases is genetic but fact that most obese people have done it to themselves which is why the government in its drive to make the general population fit were proposing that doctors refuse to treat these people who insist on lard burgers and such likes of junk food.

The smoking ban is a bit stupid and I mean that from the very bottom of my heart and that you may find strange coming from one who quit smoking some 6 years ago. It also opens up some hidden dangers which I am not about to publicise as it would in itself plant ideas... but I will say this, when in a pub / club, etc, NEVER leave your drink unattended...

Answer 10

You may take comfort in this:
During the time period from October 1959 through February 1960, the American Cancer Society enrolled men in a smoker survey, described in the Report as the "Men in 25 States" study. Female volunteers were each asked to pick ten families among their acquaintances, each with at least one person over the age of 45, and study them to find out whether they would die during the survey period and, specifically, whether they would die from lung cancer.

There were 448,000 useable replies, representing 448,000 men between the ages of 35 and 89. We don't know how many replies were rejected as unusable because each volunteer was free to use her own criteria. We also don't know how many smokers were studied as opposed to non-smokers because the results, published in the 1964 Surgeon General's Report, don't furnish that information. We do know that during the approximately 22 months that the survey lasted, there were 11,612 deaths. As the Surgeon General acknowledged, this translates to a death rate for both smokers and non-smokers, considerably below the overall death rate for white males, meaning that the participants in the survey were considerably healthier than the average person. At least, that's what the Surgeon General thought that it meant. I have other ideas.

The observed mortality ratios for different types of smokers, as opposed to non-smokers, were as follows:

Cigarettes only 1.83
Cigarettes and other 1.54
Cigars only 0.97
Pipes only 0.86

Thus, once again, as with Doll's study, it appears that cigar and pipe smokers actually lived longer than non-smokers - something that modern anti smokers would vigorously dispute.

Answer 11

Get lost - moron - some of us are ill and do not eat like pigs, and I gave up smoking 7 years back - now I am on oxygen and in a wheelchair.I don't think that you or anyone else should be treated shabbily because they are smokers (even tho my son and daughter can't smoke in the house in case we blow up because of the oxygen), but neither do we need creeps like you slagging down the people you dare to call fatties who sometimes have very real problems you know nothing about. Do you notice that I refer to you as a moron although I suspect your are thin? But you see I wouldn't ever refer to a skinny person as a skinny ***** or dog, in case they had anorexia or some awful disease like cancer, So why don't you think before opening your mouth in future - you obnoxiouse and hurtful (I nearly said 'little squirt') non-personage.