Fatty Tax

[urgeok]

Originally posted by filmmaker2
Urge, your avatar has been upsetting many people on this board, and some people have asked me to talk to you about it. You should really mellow your act down a little, it is not right to frighten children as you have so irresponsibly done with your creepy ghoulish avatar. In case you are unclear, the image below is the one of which I speak:

i think its favorite food is squirrels ...

[ItsAlive75]

Originally posted by urgeok
i think its favorite food is squirrels ...

or the souls of squirrels.

[Gren the cake]

how about a pregnant person?

or a fat person who is pregnant?

or a person who got pregnant and 3 years later still hasnt gotten rid of their 'pregnancy weight'??

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Seriously, we shouldn't be taxing fat people... but we should be eating them.

I hate fat people, but I am all about the right to do what you want with your body. I will continue to give them disgusted looks, and let them know how annoyed I am when they bump into me though.

I just thought taxing fat people was a funny idea. :p


Even though the government screwing over smokers is just as unfair, but non-smokers are so happy with themselves. "Fucking smokers, I don't want to breathe that shit" Fuck you, why not protest against the pollution you breathe every second that is doing much worse to your lungs than a whiff of my cigarette.

[Gren the cake]

educate yourself.

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/...?printing=true

Aug. 23, 2004 -- Three cigarettes can cause more air pollution than a diesel car's exhaust, according to an Italian study.

The study compared levels of air pollution particles produced by cigarettes with those coming from a late-model "eco-diesel" engine. The research team was led by Giovanni Invernizzi of the Tobacco Control Unit of Italy's National Cancer Institute.

Environmental tobacco smoke is a contributor of air pollution particles. These fine particles are a risk factor for chronic lung disease which can be debilitating and sometimes fatal. They can lead to conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, and are also a risk for lung cancer, write the researchers.

The test was conducted in the small, northern Italian mountain town of Chiavenna, which has unusually low outdoor levels of air pollution.

The experiment was conducted in a closed, private garage with six small vents, which were kept open during the experiment in accordance with Italian law.

The car they tested was a 2002 turbo diesel Ford Mondeo that met European gas exhaust standards. Low-sulfur fuel was also used.

The cigarettes were "MS" filter cigarettes produced by Italian State Monopoly. Each contained 1 milligram of nicotine and 11.2 milligrams of tar.

The researchers started the Mondeo and then let its engine idle for 30 minutes. After airing out the garage for four hours, the scientists lit three cigarettes -- one after another -- and let them smolder for a total of 30 minutes.

They measured air pollution levels every two minutes during the tests. They also measured pollution particle matter for an additional 90 minutes after the engine was turned off and the cigarettes had burned out. The car's exhaust and cigarettes were placed in the same position.

Researchers focused on fine particulate matter air pollution -- microscopic particles in the air that measure less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, which is about the size of cigarette smoke particles.

The cigarettes produced 10 times as much particulate matter as the auto, comparing the first hour after starting the engine with the first hour after lighting the cigarettes.

"Since we utilized a room with a volume similar to that encountered in many offices and homes, the present data give cause for concern," write the researchers. "Environmental tobacco smoke is a major source of particulate matter pollution."

Newer vehicles have improved emission rates. "It has been estimated that older gasoline vehicles and light-duty diesel emission rates are on average 100 times higher than those of newer vehicles," write the researchers. Low-sulfur fuel also helps reduce particulate matter.

While smoking is restricted for health reasons in many countries, it's not always associated with air pollution.

"Even health personnel are often unaware of such risks," write the researchers, who suggest using their findings in antismoking campaigns. The research is published in the journal Tobacco Control.
---------------------
make whatever point you choose, but dont back it with nonsensical BS

same study - different article
http://www14.medica.de/cgi-bin/md_me..._s_t&oid=13448

Environmental tobacco smoke produces fine particulate matter, which is the most dangerous element of air pollution for health. Levels indoors can far exceed those outdoors, because new engine models and lead free fuels have cut the levels of particulate matter emissions from car exhausts, say the authors.

The controlled experiment was carried out in a private garage in a small mountain town in northern Italy. The town enjoys very low levels of particulate matter air pollution

A turbo diesel 2 litre engine was started and left idling for 30 minutes in the garage, with the doors closed, after which the doors were left open for four hours. The car was fuelled with low sulphur fuel.

Three filter cigarettes were then lit up sequentially, and left smouldering for a further 30 minutes. The nicotine and tar content of each cigarette was 1 mg and 11.2 mg, respectively.

A portable analyser took readings every two minutes during the experiments.

Combined particulate levels in the first hour after the engine had been started measured 88 ug/m3. Those recorded in the first hour after the cigarettes had been lit measured 830 ug/m3: 10 times greater.

The diesel engine exhaust doubled the particulate matter levels found outdoors at its peak; the environmental tobacco smoke particulate matter reached levels 15 times those measured outdoors.

MEDICA.de; Source: British Medical Journal

[Iniquity]

Originally posted by Gren the cake
educate yourself.

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/...?printing=true

Aug. 23, 2004 -- Three cigarettes can cause more air pollution than a diesel car's exhaust, according to an Italian study.

The study compared levels of air pollution particles produced by cigarettes with those coming from a late-model "eco-diesel" engine. The research team was led by Giovanni Invernizzi of the Tobacco Control Unit of Italy's National Cancer Institute.

Environmental tobacco smoke is a contributor of air pollution particles. These fine particles are a risk factor for chronic lung disease which can be debilitating and sometimes fatal. They can lead to conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, and are also a risk for lung cancer, write the researchers.

The test was conducted in the small, northern Italian mountain town of Chiavenna, which has unusually low outdoor levels of air pollution.

The experiment was conducted in a closed, private garage with six small vents, which were kept open during the experiment in accordance with Italian law.

The car they tested was a 2002 turbo diesel Ford Mondeo that met European gas exhaust standards. Low-sulfur fuel was also used.

The cigarettes were "MS" filter cigarettes produced by Italian State Monopoly. Each contained 1 milligram of nicotine and 11.2 milligrams of tar.

The researchers started the Mondeo and then let its engine idle for 30 minutes. After airing out the garage for four hours, the scientists lit three cigarettes -- one after another -- and let them smolder for a total of 30 minutes.

They measured air pollution levels every two minutes during the tests. They also measured pollution particle matter for an additional 90 minutes after the engine was turned off and the cigarettes had burned out. The car's exhaust and cigarettes were placed in the same position.

Researchers focused on fine particulate matter air pollution -- microscopic particles in the air that measure less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, which is about the size of cigarette smoke particles.

The cigarettes produced 10 times as much particulate matter as the auto, comparing the first hour after starting the engine with the first hour after lighting the cigarettes.

"Since we utilized a room with a volume similar to that encountered in many offices and homes, the present data give cause for concern," write the researchers. "Environmental tobacco smoke is a major source of particulate matter pollution."

Newer vehicles have improved emission rates. "It has been estimated that older gasoline vehicles and light-duty diesel emission rates are on average 100 times higher than those of newer vehicles," write the researchers. Low-sulfur fuel also helps reduce particulate matter.

While smoking is restricted for health reasons in many countries, it's not always associated with air pollution.

"Even health personnel are often unaware of such risks," write the researchers, who suggest using their findings in antismoking campaigns. The research is published in the journal Tobacco Control.
---------------------
make whatever point you choose, but dont back it with nonsensical BS

same study - different article
http://www14.medica.de/cgi-bin/md_me..._s_t&oid=13448

Environmental tobacco smoke produces fine particulate matter, which is the most dangerous element of air pollution for health. Levels indoors can far exceed those outdoors, because new engine models and lead free fuels have cut the levels of particulate matter emissions from car exhausts, say the authors.

The controlled experiment was carried out in a private garage in a small mountain town in northern Italy. The town enjoys very low levels of particulate matter air pollution

A turbo diesel 2 litre engine was started and left idling for 30 minutes in the garage, with the doors closed, after which the doors were left open for four hours. The car was fuelled with low sulphur fuel.

Three filter cigarettes were then lit up sequentially, and left smouldering for a further 30 minutes. The nicotine and tar content of each cigarette was 1 mg and 11.2 mg, respectively.

A portable analyser took readings every two minutes during the experiments.

Combined particulate levels in the first hour after the engine had been started measured 88 ug/m3. Those recorded in the first hour after the cigarettes had been lit measured 830 ug/m3: 10 times greater.

The diesel engine exhaust doubled the particulate matter levels found outdoors at its peak; the environmental tobacco smoke particulate matter reached levels 15 times those measured outdoors.

MEDICA.de; Source: British Medical Journal

nonsensical bullshit? Nope, unlike many I just flat out, honestly and truly DONT CARE what the statistics have to say about it. I CHOOSE not to smoke around children, I CHOOSE not to smoke around people that I know do not care for it, or are allergic to it. What I cant stomach is that I can be told where I can and cannot go and can and cannot do because SOMEONE ELSE says its wrong. No Im not talking shit about laws and common decency. What gives you non-smokers the right to tell me what I can and cannot do, but I cant tell you to go fuck your self and fire up another one without EVER touching you, standing 500 feet away from you, in an open field, in NY for example, without literally running the risk of being arrested for it? FUCK THAT and FUCK YOU!

[XFeaRX]

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
OK, I've had enough. I say we start taxing fat people, if you can't pay the tax we feed them to starving children in third world countries. No longer will I be late for something because I'm behind a fat person in the hall or get so much ass in my face at the theater.

We'd have fat tax brackets so that most morbidly obese people in america would probably be eaten. Think about it? What's more important? Feeding starving children or another morbidly obese person, stuffing their face completely oblivious to their rapidly approaching death?

Why not tax fat people for that many extra pounds? Unless they have some medical condition (not that many people actually do...) they are just greedy and unhealthy right? Shouldn't we try to help these people by taking their money? They'd only waste it at Mcdonalds anyway.

Also with the fatty tax, more people would get lyposuctions in order to save money. :p

We're putting the crunch on smokers, I say we do the same thing to fat people. They bump into you in bars and they get really disgustingly sweaty. I'd take smokers over them anyday, kick em out. I would like to see atleast a few "no fattys" bar just to get the message across.

So is this a great idea or what? With so many fat people (especially in america) it would be a great source of revenue.

People that need to be taxed are whiny little bitches like you.

[ItsAlive75]

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
Fuck you, why not protest against the pollution you breathe every second that is doing much worse to your lungs than a whiff of my cigarette.

Because its harder to put a face to it.

[Gren the cake]

Originally posted by Iniquity
nonsensical bullshit? Nope, unlike many I just flat out, honestly and truly DONT CARE what the statistics have to say about it. I CHOOSE not to smoke around children, I CHOOSE not to smoke around people that I know do not care for it, or are allergic to it. What I cant stomach is that I can be told where I can and cannot go and can and cannot do because SOMEONE ELSE says its wrong. No Im not talking shit about laws and common decency. What gives you non-smokers the right to tell me what I can and cannot do, but I cant tell you to go fuck your self and fire up another one without EVER touching you, standing 500 feet away from you, in an open field, in NY for example, without literally running the risk of being arrested for it? FUCK THAT and FUCK YOU!

some people dont have the common decency as you do, and NEED to be told what to do (example: some people thikn its OK to kil one another over property, for example).

research verifies/supports it.

another example: schools FORCE immunization on children.. is that a bad thing? some people just DONT know any BETTER...

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by ItsAlive75
Because its harder to put a face to it.

Exactly.