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

MrStuffins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasmunch

Ironically grabs popcorn to following fight debate

kjl

MrStuffins wrote: »

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

I am using drugs as an example to argue your freedom of choice views.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yes you are


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?

The big deal is that not everyone is a strong willed as me, every time I buy something in a local shop almost everyone in the queue has added some sort of sweet or crisps to their purchase, I know this isn't empirical evidence but it does show something. Sweets are placed in shops to be an impulse purchase. If they were placed in an area where there were not so readily available, the consumption rate would go down.

Please point out anywhere in this thread where I have suggested banning anything.

MrStuffins

kjl wrote: »

I am using drugs as an example to argue your freedom of choice views.

Well it's a bad comparison. Drugs do not equal sweets.

The big deal is that not everyone is a strong willed as me, every time I buy something in a local shop almost everyone in the queue has added some sort of sweet or crisps to their purchase,

That's because they want them. You DO realise that not everyone is cutting crisps and sweets out of their diet right?

Sweets are placed in shops to be an impulse purchase. If they were placed in an area where there were not so readily available, the consumption rate would go down.

Yup. People are at the counter and think "Oohh... i'd love a packet of Tayto." They eat the Tayto, life goes on!

pquote] Please point out anywhere in this thread where I have suggested banning anything.[/QUOTE]

In your original post you suggested we should ban newsagents and supermarkets from selling them

kjl wrote: »

I think it's time we took action and start to remove these kind of products from supermarkets and newsagents.

LighterGuy

kjl wrote: »

The big deal is that not everyone is a strong willed as me, every time I buy something in a local shop almost everyone in the queue has added some sort of sweet or crisps to their purchase, I know this isn't empirical evidence but it does show something. Sweets are placed in shops to be an impulse purchase. If they were placed in an area where there were not so readily available, the consumption rate would go down.

Please point out anywhere in this thread where I have suggested banning anything.

Well,
Get over yourself. There's talking about your opinion (Personally, no matter how stupid it is :P ) then bigging yourself up saying "how other people arent strong willed as you"

kjl

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well it's a bad comparison. Drugs do not equal sweets.

How is it a bad example, please explain and don't just say it is.
Chocolate releases pleasure chemicals in your brain, so does ecstasy.

Life may go on until that said person has a heart attack and dies at the expense of the tax payer. I think you should watch some of the Jamie Oliver food revolution, because you remind me of the radio presenter in season 1. Always talking about choice and this and that, but not realising that there are consequences to this over consumption that is plaguing the world. Type 2 diabetics is on the rise and people are dying from it. It cost a lot of money to foot the bill too and this money comes out of yours and my taxes.

You obviously don't have kids either because encouraging and endorsing this kind of behaviour is shameful.

kjl

LighterGuy wrote: »

Well,
Get over yourself. There's talking about your opinion (Personally, no matter how stupid it is :P ) then bigging yourself up saying "how other people arent strong willed as you"

So people just like being overweight then do they. He is using me as an example of someone with self control, I am merely pointing out that not everyone has self control.

RichieC

I fell on a mars bar in supervalu the other day and a whole thing fell in my belly.. the op is correct.

policarp

The OP kinda has a valid arguement.
A lot of crisps, goodies and the like are stacked
on shelves that are just about childrens eye level.
I've seen several parents relenting and buying something
from these shelves, just to placate a young child. . .

MrStuffins

kjl wrote: »

How is it a bad example, please explain and don't just say it is.
Chocolate releases pleasure chemicals in your brain, so does ecstasy.

Right, chocolate = ecstacy huh?

You obviously don't have kids either because encouraging and endorsing this kind of behaviour is shameful.

Right.

Well i've been feeding you for long enough. There is no way you actually believe this stuff so you have to be trolling. Maybe I should've picked up on it earlier but didn't.

Anyway, good luck to you! And in the case that you really aren't trolling...... good luck to the rest of us!

Arianna_26

kjl wrote: »

So I was in Tesco today and was walking down the aisles when I noticed that they only seem to sell junk food. There are 5 food aisles in the tesco in Rathmines and three of them are donated to junk food.

Add to this the fact that every news agent and petrol station has a massive row of sweets and crisps at the counter.

Then anywhere you try to get food is mostly populated by fast food burgers, chips, pizza but try to find any kind of convenient place to buy healthy food and you're out of luck.

Is it any wonder there are so many fat people around?

I think it's time we took action and start to remove these kind of products from supermarkets and newsagents. There should be dedicated shops for these products which require a licence to operate, and if newsagents and petrol station wish to sell these products they can only be limited to a small amount of shell space.

These products cause more harm then any illegal drug, and at the rate we are going everyone in the country will have type 2 diabetes.

I know myself that I gave up eating these things a few years ago and even now it is so tempting just seeing them sitting there every time I am in a shop. It's like having a former cocaine addict having to look at mountains of cocaine every time they want to buy milk.

I agree with what you are saying in a sense, yes we should definitely monitor the space we give to junk food - sweets and crisps etc. I was in Tescos recently and I did notice that the amount of space given to junk food was disproportionate to the amount given to healthy food.

However, at the same time, I don't think we should install licences for it, I think that is going overboard just a tad. We have a fairly big 'nanny' state as it is between not showing cigarettes openly to advising customers not to take tablets with codeine in them. I think if we were instructed on what we could and couldn't eat it would be a step too far.

I think this calls for a sense of your own level of fitness and some self control. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to buy it. If it does then you are a very weak willed person.

MrStuffins

policarp wrote: »

The OP kinda has a valid arguement.
A lot of crisps, goodies and the like are stacked
on shelves that are just about childrens eye level.
I've seen several parents relenting and buying something
from these shelves, just to placate a young child. . .

How can you say the OP has a valid argument when your following sentences contain absolutely nothing of what the OP was talking about.

The OP never once mentioned children. You're talking about something else!

kjl

MrStuffins wrote: »

Right, chocolate = ecstacy huh?

Right.

Well i've been feeding you for long enough. There is no way you actually believe this stuff so you have to be trolling. Maybe I should've picked up on it earlier but didn't.

Anyway, good luck to you! And in the case that you really aren't trolling...... good luck to the rest of us!

No I am not trolling, genuinely believe I am right here and when your doctor tells you that you have high cholesterol and are in serious risk of a heart attack I hope you remember the negativity you gave in this thread.

MrStuffins

kjl wrote: »

No I am not trolling, genuinely believe I am right here and when your doctor tells you that you have high cholesterol and are in serious risk of a heart attack I hope you remember the negativity you gave in this thread.

Man sure i'll have died of a Cadbury's Buttons Overdose by then!

Arianna_26

kjl wrote: »

No I am not trolling, genuinely believe I am right here and when your doctor tells you that you have high cholesterol and are in serious risk of a heart attack I hope you remember the negativity you gave in this thread.

I know this post wasn't directed towards me (and I hope I amn't interfering here) but if your doctor told you that you had high cholesterol and you continued to eat things that were bad for you that just makes you an idiot.

kjl

Arianna_26 wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying in a sense, yes we should definitely monitor the space we give to junk food - sweets and crisps etc. I was in Tescos recently and I did notice that the amount of space given to junk food was disproportionate to the amount given to healthy food.

However, at the same time, I don't think we should install licences for it, I think that is going overboard just a tad. We have a fairly big 'nanny' state as it is between not showing cigarettes openly to advising customers not to take tablets with codeine in them. I think if we were instructed on what we could and couldn't eat it would be a step too far.

I think this calls for a sense of your own level of fitness and some self control. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to buy it. If it does then you are a very weak willed person.

Well true, I haven't worked out the finer details of my proposition, but perhaps having a licencing system would allows for the regulation of shelf space. In order to maintain you licence you should be subject to inspection of how it's arranged.

Please once again, I must reaffirm that I am in no way suggesting that these products be banned, just a little more responsibility from the shop owner would be great.

LighterGuy

kjl wrote: »

No I am not trolling, genuinely believe I am right here and when your doctor tells you that you have high cholesterol and are in serious risk of a heart attack I hope you remember the negativity you gave in this thread.

Thats not on.
Wishing bad health on MrStuffins .. and dont get back saying you are not wishing bad health because you used the word "when" instead of "if" .. thats not on. to reinforce your opinion to be correct by saying that. That makes you a dickhead :mad: (and if stuffins is reading this i do mean this)

Kjl,
Seriously, you are in your own world here.
EVERYONE HAS A FREE RIGHT TO EAT JUNK FOOD! just because you may be against. so the f**k what. thats you. one person. live your life the way you want to and let others live theres.

Arianna_26

kjl wrote: »

Well true, I haven't worked out the finer details of my proposition, but perhaps having a licencing system would allows for the regulation of shelf space. In order to maintain you licence you should be subject to inspection of how it's arranged.

Please once again, I must reaffirm that I am in no way suggesting that these products be banned, just a little more responsibility from the shop owner would be great.

Well I don't think that what you are suggesting is a bad idea but I do think that in the end it should come down to personal choice. We can't have loads of things being prohibited or licensed in order to prevent easy access. I think to do so would be a bit of an insult to the average consumer. 'You're too fond of the pies, therefore we are being more restrictive with them' etc.

MrStuffins

Arianna_26 wrote: »

Well I don't think that what you are suggesting is a bad idea but I do think that in the end it should come down to personal choice. We can't have loads of things being prohibited or licensed in order to prevent easy access. I think to do so would be a bit of an insult to the average consumer. 'You're too fond of the pies, therefore we are being more restrictive with them' etc.

What he's effectively doing is trying to have something restricted because he thinks people aren't capable of choosing and capable of responsibility to consume these products in a responsible manner.

Everybody knows you take these things in moderation. That's how you consume them properly. If we started restricting everything on the market that could be bad for you if not used properly we'd basically have nothing!

What if people started eating soap? Peolle can use Bic Razors to cut small animals. The CO2 gases in deodorant bottles can suffocate you if not used in a well ventilated room, a mobile phone can lead to you sending a text to the wrong person and getting you into trouble, a hammer could be used to assault someone ........ I could go on all day here.

kjl

LighterGuy wrote: »

Thats not on.
Wishing bad health on MrStuffins .. and dont get back saying you are not wishing bad health because you used the word "when" instead of "if" .. thats not on. to reinforce your opinion to be correct by saying that. That makes you a dickhead :mad: (and if stuffins is reading this i do mean this)

eh what? The whole time he has been arguing about freedom to eat junk food which would suggest that he is fond of it. Just because I point out an inevitable does not mean I wish it. Overreact much?

MrStuffins

kjl wrote: »

eh what? The whole time he has been arguing about freedom to eat junk food which would suggest that he is fond of it.

Nope, it would suggest I am fond of having the right to eat junk food should I so choose!

I don't like Eastenders, but I can tell you that if someone tried to tell me I have no right to watch it I would tell them I disagree with them too!

policarp

MrStuffins wrote: »

How can you say the OP has a valid argument when your following sentences contain absolutely nothing of what the OP was talking about.

The OP never once mentioned children. You're talking about something else!

He was talking about moving them out of temptations way or restricting their sale to licence holders. . .I think. . .

kjl

MrStuffins wrote: »

Everybody knows you take these things in moderation. That's how you consume them properly. If we started restricting everything on the market that could be bad for you if not used properly we'd basically have nothing!

OK, so if these things are to be taken in moderation, why are the majority of retail space being taken up by them? Going on the old food triangle (which I know is not the key to a healthy life) we are allowed to have a small bit of sweets everyday, but with the shelf space it takes up you would imagine it is a staple in the diet.

LighterGuy

kjl wrote: »

eh what? The whole time he has been arguing about freedom to eat junk food which would suggest that he is fond of it. Just because I point out an inevitable does not mean I wish it. Overreact much?

Only on the internet could you actually speak what that warped mind of yours thinks. In the real world you'd be laughed at actually, i too am bailing from this thread.

kjl

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nope, it would suggest I am fond of having the right to eat junk food should I so choose!

I don't like Eastenders, but I can tell you that if someone tried to tell me I have no right to watch it I would tell them I disagree with them too!

tell you what pics or GTFO

Arianna_26

MrStuffins wrote: »

What he's effectively doing is trying to have something restricted because he thinks people aren't capable of choosing and capable of responsibility to consume these products in a responsible manner.

Everybody knows you take these things in moderation. That's how you consume them properly. If we started restricting everything on the market that could be bad for you if not used properly we'd basically have nothing!

What if people started eating soap? Peolle can use Bic Razors to cut small animals. The CO2 gases in deodorant bottles can suffocate you if not used in a well ventilated room, a mobile phone can lead to you sending a text to the wrong person and getting you into trouble, a hammer could be used to assault someone ........ I could go on all day here.

This is basically my point too and we can see the start of this trend in the policing of cigarettes and tablets containing codeine. I agree with what you are saying completely.

But when I walk into shops these days it does seem as if the food that you are trying to avoid is the stuff that is on special offer whereas the stuff that you should be eating is normal, premium, price.

MrStuffins

LighterGuy wrote: »

Only on the internet could you actually speak what that warped mind of yours thinks. In the real world you'd be laughed at actually, i too am bailing from this thread.

Yeah i'm with you!

Gone!

df1985

I can just about make it around tesco in maynooth without buying junk....its that bloody 24 hr mcdonalds drive thru that gets me every time!

"ah ye didnt but any junk, go on, have a mcflurry...."

kjl

ok, I'm off to, I feel like this at the moment

Arianna_26

df1985 wrote: »

I can just about make it around tesco in maynooth without buying junk....its that bloody 24 hr mcdonalds drive thru that gets me every time!

"ah ye didnt but any junk, go on, have a mcflurry...."

Exactly, it is nearly always in your face but at the same time I don't agree with the idea of policing it. Hard to know what to do - I guess personal willpower in spades is called for.

janekw

Not ever going to happen!Too big a market and too big a demand from the consumers!