Sweets and junk everywhere, but try to find a healthy place, now that's a challenge.

LighterGuy · 17-11-2011 03:45AM

kjl wrote: »

Of course not, there are no alcoholics in Ireland :rolleyes:

I do feel that if people had to actively go looking for sweets it would lower the consumption rate.

Ok,
do you have any documentation/proof/anything that because of the 10pm change that there are currently less alcoholics in 2011 than say 10 years ago, 2001, when the old closing times applied?

PrettyBoy · 17-11-2011 03:46AM

What do you mean healthy food?? Tesco stocks more or less everything a normal health food store would and then some. If you want healthy food it's readily available, literally everywhere.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 03:47AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

No,
If I was going to be genuinely rude i would of said something worse than ridiculous. It was just a "Not being bad, but i think you're wrong" post as opposed to "i think you are a fu*king fool" tone implied....Like for example if I said "Mrstuffings, i dont mean to be rude but i think you are an offense little knob-end" - that would be me being rude. If I ever say that of course

No, you don't get it.

He was being sarcastic.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 03:48AM

kjl wrote: »

Right, well then why can't I smoke cannabis or take ecstasy instead of drinking?

Because both those things are illegal.

You have a choice of legal things.

Napper Hawkins · 17-11-2011 03:48AM

kjl wrote: »

Of course not, there are no alcoholics in Ireland :rolleyes:

I do feel that if people had to actively go looking for sweets it would lower the consumption rate.

Or make them want them even more.

kjl · 17-11-2011 03:50AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

Ok,
do you have any documentation/proof/anything that because of the 10pm change that there are currently less alcoholics in 2011 than say 10 years ago, 2001, when the old closing times applied?

I don't, but don't forget when they changed that rule you mainly had to go to off licences to buy alcohol, now you can get it anywhere.

This county is full of alcoholics, most people here would drink a lot more then the recommended weekly intake of alcohol. The problem with alcoholism is that you don't realise it's a problem until it's a serious problem.

Hasmunch · 17-11-2011 03:51AM

I was taking the piss as in it is ridiculous that off licences have to close at 10pm and that was what MrStuffins was pointing out.
You could have said lighterguy, i respect your opinion but....

Laisurg · 17-11-2011 03:51AM

kjl wrote: »

Right, well then why can't I smoke cannabis or take ecstasy instead of drinking?

You can, just not legally. Anyone who eats enough sweets and or fast food to cause them health issues would probably buy them anyway even if there was some regulation put into place.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 03:52AM

kjl wrote: »

I don't, but don't forget when they changed that rule you mainly had to go to off licences to buy alcohol, now you can get it anywhere.

I'm sorry bit that? What do you mean by this exactly?

IIRC, the law was changed in 2008. Where is this "anywhere" you speak of? Which places can you buy alcohol in now that you couldn't in 2008?

Tar.Aldarion · 17-11-2011 03:53AM

wait so the people that put it there (by popular demand) should now be 'doing something about it' to remove it? Wtf are you talking about.

Hasmunch · 17-11-2011 03:54AM

kjl wrote: »

Right, well then why can't I smoke cannabis or take ecstasy instead of drinking?

You can, these aren't regulated though so you can get them at any time of the day or night unlike alcohol.

Kanoe · 17-11-2011 03:55AM

not too much of a challenge op, just bypass the junk in the supermarket and go directly to fresh fruit and veg, meats, eggs and cereals. As for fast food, not all of it is crap, subways aren't too bad and even when surrounded by fast food joints today I managed to walk into a centra and pick up a salad bowl for lunch. For half the price you would pay for a burger and chip or chicken box too. You still get to choose what you want to eat.

Chuck Stone · 17-11-2011 03:56AM

I think we should ban people from calling for bans and restrict people who seek ever greater restrictions.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 03:57AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

wait so the people that put it there (by popular demand) should now be 'doing something about it' to remove it? Wtf are you talking about.

Basically the OP used to have a cocaine-like sweet addiction. An addiction which got so bad that she (I presume for some reason it's a she) had to give them up.

But now she sees sweets everywhere she goes. They're in the shop, they're in the garage, they're in Tesco and even the Tesco garage.

So, instead of the OP being an adult and just ignoring the temptation, she feels the rest of the country should not be allowed buy sweets. That if someone wants to sell sweets they must open a specialist sweet store and hole a specialist sweet selling licence.

Sounds reasonable!

kjl · 17-11-2011 04:00AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Because both those things are illegal.

You have a choice of legal things.

By that rational if sweets were made illegal you wouldn't have a choice. Neither of the products I mentioned kill people, 1 in 11 deaths in the UK are obesity related and in the USA in 2010 400,000 people dies from obesity related deaths.

If the laws are meant to protect you, then why hasn't this crap been made illegal years ago.

Anyway, derailing here, I am not even suggesting we make them illegal just regulated.

Hasmunch · 17-11-2011 04:01AM

Anybody else got a craving for some sweets after reading this thread..

*goes off to Tesco as Hasmunch heard its good for sweets

LighterGuy · 17-11-2011 04:04AM

kjl wrote: »

By that rational if sweets were made illegal you wouldn't have a choice. Neither of the products I mentioned kill people, 1 in 11 deaths in the UK are obesity related and in the USA in 2010 400,000 people dies from obesity related deaths.

If the laws are meant to protect you, then why hasn't this crap been made illegal years ago.

Anyway, derailing here, I am not even suggesting we make them illegal just regulated.

Free choice tho. Its a person choice to eat junk food or not. No one has the right to say to another that they cant eat a bar of chocolate or a pack of crisps.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 04:08AM

kjl wrote: »

By that rational if sweets were made illegal you wouldn't have a choice.

By that rationale if air was made illegal you wouldn't be able to breathe without going to prison.

Neither of the products I mentioned kill people

I'm pretty sure ectasy kills people. You mght wanna look that one up/

1 in 11 deaths in the UK are obesity related and in the USA in 2010 400,000 people dies from obesity related deaths.

Super! So 10 in 11 deaths had nothing to do with obesity then yeah?

CUPCAKES FOR ALL!!!!!!

If the laws are meant to protect you, then why hasn't this crap been made illegal years ago.

Because banning things that were unhealthy for you would be retarded. VERY retarded. Instead, people are given the choice. Simple!

Anyway, derailing here, I am not even suggesting we make them illegal just regulated.

I'm suggesting your idea is crazier than crazy! I'm suggesting that we shouldn't ban sweets just because you feel like a cocaine addict when you look at them and want them. I'm suggesting that people are able to control themselves and balance their diet healthily.

kjl · 17-11-2011 04:10AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Basically the OP used to have a cocaine-like sweet addiction. An addiction which got so bad that she (I presume for some reason it's a she) had to give them up.

But now she sees sweets everywhere she goes. They're in the shop, they're in the garage, they're in Tesco and even the Tesco garage.

So, instead of the OP being an adult and just ignoring the temptation, she feels the rest of the country should not be allowed buy sweets. That if someone wants to sell sweets they must open a specialist sweet store and hole a specialist sweet selling licence.

Sounds reasonable!

Well actually I am a man, and no I didn't have a serious addiction, but about 3 years ago I started to eat healthy. I cut out all saturated fats, refined carbohydrates and sugar from my diet. I also exercise 3/4 times a week.

I look around at the state of the people of this country and wonder if maybe we regulated sugar the rising obesity epidemic might be curved a little if people who are trying to cut out these foods aren't so tempted. I think it's perfectly reasonable to create legislation which limits the number of junk food items stocked in newsagents because all they are now is glorified sweet shops.

You're just a negative dickh^&d who spends his entire day trying to put down other peoples ideas. Maybe you should have a look in the mirror and ask yourself would you be one of the people to benefit from this?

kjl · 17-11-2011 04:15AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

Free choice tho. Its a person choice to eat junk food or not. No one has the right to say to another that they cant eat a bar of chocolate or a pack of crisps.

If free choice is the issue then surely people should be able to chose what substance they can get intoxicated with. I am not banning free choice, if you wish to purchase these items you can. I am just saying that if they were not so readily available then maybe the consumption rate would go down.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 04:18AM

kjl wrote: »

Well actually I am a man, and no I didn't have a serious addiction, but about 3 years ago I started to eat healthy. I cut out all saturated fats, refined carbohydrates and sugar from my diet. I also exercise 3/4 times a week.

That's good, i'm happy for you. Always nice to hear a story of someone who can do something like this.

I look around at the state of the people of this country and wonder if maybe we regulated sugar the rising obesity epidemic might be curved a little if people who are trying to cut out these foods aren't so tempted.

Well not everybody is trying to cut these things out. People who are not trying to cut these things out should have a choice as to whether they can purchase sweets or not

I think it's perfectly reasonable to create legislation which limits the number of junk food items stocked in newsagents because all they are now is glorified sweet shops.

I completely disagree.

You're just a negative dickh^&d who spends his entire day trying to put down other peoples ideas. Maybe you should have a look in the mirror and ask yourself would you be one of the people to benefit from this?

Now now that's not very nice. All I did was disagree with you.

I happen to think your idea is crazy and i'm not the only onw so i don't know why you're singling me out. Also, calling me names is not very nice. Maybe with all of the spare time you have now that you're not eating sugar you should learn some manners.

kjl · 17-11-2011 04:18AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm pretty sure ectasy kills people. You mght wanna look that one up/

Regulation and proper information would reduce ecstasy deaths to almost 0 and even still the death rate is only 52 people a year vs 800,000

MrStuffins wrote: »

Because banning things that were unhealthy for you would be retarded. VERY retarded. Instead, people are given the choice. Simple!

So why was methadone or any illegal drug made illegal then?

kjl · 17-11-2011 04:20AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

I happen to think your idea is crazy and i'm not the only onw so i don't know why you're singling me out. Also, calling me names is not very nice. Maybe with all of the spare time you have now that you're not eating sugar you should learn some manners.

Well maybe you haven't directly insulted me, but you have been very obnoxious. Look at your first post in this thread.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 04:20AM

kjl wrote: »

If free choice is the issue then surely people should be able to chose what substance they can get intoxicated with.

Despite what youw would try to make us believe, sweets do not equal drugs!

I am not banning free choice

Yes you are

I am just saying that if they were not so readily available then maybe the consumption rate would go down.

Of course. If you ban or regulate anything consumption goes down.

But hey, people have the choice to cut these things out. You did it yourself so i don't see what the big deal is?

LighterGuy · 17-11-2011 04:21AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Now now that's not very nice. All I did was disagree with you.

I happen to think your idea is crazy and i'm not the only onw so i don't know why you're singling me out. Also, calling me names is not very nice. Maybe with all of the spare time you have now that you're not eating sugar you should learn some manners.

Dude,
you have been very rude in your posts. Alot of them had big sarcastic tones too. And hey I agree with your views 100%. But no need to be rude about voicing your opinion.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 04:22AM

kjl wrote: »

Well maybe you haven't directly insulted me, but you have been very obnoxious. Look at your first post in this thread.

It was an appropriate response because your post was, in my opinion, ridiculous.

You, on the other hand, resorted to name calling and personal abuse. Again, maybe you should learn some manners.

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 04:24AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

Dude,
you have been very rude in your posts. Alot of them had big sarcastic tones too. And hey I agree with your views 100%. But no need to be rude about voicing your opinion.

LighterGuy wrote: »

Like for example if I said "Mrstuffings, i dont mean to be rude but i think you are an offense little knob-end" - that would be me being rude. If I ever say that of course

:rolleyes:

LighterGuy · 17-11-2011 04:25AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

:rolleyes:

But that was in my example.
Clearly you took it the wrong way, trying to twist it to suit your own opinion and ending it with a ":rolleyes:"

Dont be so rude MrsTuffins

MrStuffins · 17-11-2011 04:28AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

But that was in my example.
Clearly you took it the wrong way, trying to twist it to suit your own opinion and ending it with a ":rolleyes:"

Dont be so rude MrsTuffins

It was nothing more than a thinly veiled insult. You resorted to it before, you resorted to it last night and you've done it again tonight. You're fooling nobody Lighter Guy.

Now if we could get back on topic.

LighterGuy · 17-11-2011 04:29AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

It was nothing more than a thinly veiled insult. You resorted to it before, you resorted to it last night and you've done it again tonight. You're fooling nobody Lighter Guy.

Now if we could get back on topic.

Sure,
I call the big one bitey

Sweets and junk everywhere, but try to find a healthy place, now that's a challenge.

Comments