@UTF8
@Begin
@Languages:	en
@Participants:	STB Subject, SHC Subject, SHW Subject, SFK Subject, SLW Subject, SX1 Subject, SCJ ShowHost
@ID:	en|guillot|STB|||4NE||Subject|3FH Final Year French Honours Student post-year abroad|
@ID:	en|guillot|SHC|||4NE||Subject|3FH Final Year French Honours Student post-year abroad|
@ID:	en|guillot|SHW|||4NE||Subject|3FH Final Year French Honours Student post-year abroad|
@ID:	en|guillot|SFK|||4NE||Subject|3FH Final Year French Honours Student post-year abroad|
@ID:	en|guillot|SLW|||4NE||Subject|3FH Final Year French Honours Student post-year abroad|
@ID:	en|guillot|SX1|||4NE||Subject|3FH Final Year French Honours Student post-year abroad|
@ID:	en|guillot|SCJ|||||ShowHost||
@Coder:	Marie-Noëlle Guillot converter MMT
*SCJ:	erm (.) hello and welcome we're going to talk about the er: 'recent
	campaigns in (.) in the media and in the press on er 'against (.) or
	to help (.) wel(well) on the subject of tobac(tobacco)
	[^ com: burst of laughter from several] tobac (tobacco) tobacco and
	erm: (.) the:: medical problems and other sides of the: the argument
	erm here today we have er we have SFK who's er 'very 'very er: 'for
	the: 'f(for) for tobacc(tobacco) tobacco against these campaigns
	because she thinks that they erm change the liberty (.) of erm and
	then we have SHW wh(who) who is (.) you're also 'for (.) the: f(for)
	'for the idea of er of smoking and and and non (.) distinguishing
	from smokers and not (.) [^ com: sound of a yawn] erm putting
	smokers out of society because of this habit .
*SHW:	lets just say I'm anti(anti_) (.) prejudice .
*SCJ:	anti_prejudice ok and then on the other side we have SLW who's er:
	who's 'for these campaigns you think they're they're (.) <a good a
	good idea> [>].
*SLW:	<yeah I think we should> [<] educate people yeah .
*SCJ:	ok and SHW who's er SHC sorry [^ com: sympathetic giggles] I'm
	getting confused with these Hs excuse me erm who's (.) mu(much)
	you're you're much (.) m(more) more involved stronger in(involved)
	erm involved in this argument more (.) more to the point of (.)
	wanting to stop (.) smoking in in at least in public <places
	totally> [>].
*SHC:	<a(axx) yeah> [<] in public places yeah .
*SCJ:	ok and and and STB who's (.) who's sort of in the middle and not
	yet decided is(is) is(is) is that [^ com: suspended] .
*STB:	I don't I think it's impossible to have a: (.) a strict point of
	view on this subject I'm (.) er: in agreement with SHW with regard
	to personal liberties [>1] (.) 'but I think that personal liberties
	(.) er: reach a line and when you cross that line such as people
	smoking in expensive restaurants or 'in restaurants in general to be
	<honest> [>2] that is (.) impinging on 'other people's personal
	liberty so:.
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<2].
*SCJ:	[^ gui: INTN] and and what about the campaign(campaign) er th(the)
	these campaigns that are: that are giving the 'facts <on smoking>
	[>] [^ gui: INTNclose] .
*STB:	<well I think that we have> [<] to to get into that er: I'm not
	entirely clear er whether we're talking about campaigns against
	'smoking or educational campaigns which are [>1] suggesting to
	people that <smoking is not a good idea> [>].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SFK:	<which is the 'same> [<] in my opinion they're all (.) .
@Comment:	multiple overlaps
*SLW:	<xxx xxx why(why) why are there structured> [<].
*SCJ:	er(er) er(er) well shall <we just listen (why) are they xxx xxx>
	[>].
*SFK:	<[^ com: startLouder] completely biased [^ com: endLouder]> [<]
	yeah because 'I had a look at some of these campaigns and I'm not I
	can't say that they're really erm (.) 'unbiased that they
	alw(always) they always they portray us the smokers as er 'evil
	people who just (.) erm are: d(dependent) dependen:t like some drug
	addicts which we are 'not [>1] <we are just> [>2] totally
	respectable [^ com: SFK laughs] people <xxx:> [>].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SHC:	<oh come on> [<2].
*SHC:	<no most of these> [<] campaigns they show pictures of a(a) clear
	healthy lungs and pictures of smokers' lungs over (.) various (.)
	sort of amounts of time and then tell you what your lungs w(will)
	will look like when <you stop smoking xxx that doesn't make xxx xxx>
	[>].
*SFK:	[^ gui: INTR] <yeah that's what I am saying it's: total hysteria>
	[<] that's not [^ com: suspended] [^ gui: INTRclose] .
*SLW:	you're not 'evil <people> [>1] <just because you've got bad lungs>
	[>].
*SCJ:	<[^gui:startFalse] do y(you) [^gui:endFalse]> [<1].
*SHC:	<that doesn't say evil people> [<] if anything i(it's) i(it's) it's
	saying you know (.) it's a 'shame that this ha(has) this has
	happened to you now look at what happens when people smoke it's not
	saying this people are evil bla bla bla <you know you it's> [>].
*SCJ:	[^ gui: INTN] <but (.) but> [<] your argument is more (.) e(er)
	that these campaigns make you make you <look outside of society> [>]
	[^ gui: INTNclose] .
*SFK:	<not just(just) I'm not just> [<] talking about erm television
	campaigns but also about the whole erm [^ com: draws breath] w(wxx)
	yo(you) you can feel in society this anti_s:m(smokers) m(movement)
	smokers' movement <that> [>1] that I w(was) I wasn't really talking
	about television erm (.).
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	what about education <in schools> [>].
*SFK:	[^ gui: TCD] <campaigns> [<] .
*SCJ:	[^ gui: TCD] we could bring that in <because that's also part of
	the campaign> [>].
*SFK:	<yeah: erm: yeah> [<] that n(nx) tellin(telling) mmmm(m) w(wx)
	I'm(I'm) (.) (.) (.) I don't know really erm I'm (.) I am(I am) (.)
	I am always 'for education but I also think that erm: as(asx) in
	school as well that there's there's a sign(signx) c(certain) certain
	kind of(of) (.) erm point of view there's certain m(mxx) that erm
	[^ com: lips noise] the teachers the: so_called liberals always take
	erm:<the left wing> [>1] (.) erm [^ com: chuckle] [^ com: suspended]
	.
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	and you you <you think they should teach the the good side of
	smoking as well> [>].
*SFK:	[^ gui: TCD] < school er they they're always teaching ye(yeah) [<]
	yeah good smo(smoking) yeah as w(wx) tell children why (.) (.) some
	people smoke and <not to try xxx xxx> [>].
*STB:	[^ gui: INTP] <so could you explain [^ gui: SIM] to us what the
	good side is of smoking> [<] [^ gui: INTPclose] .
*SHC:	<[^ gui: SIM] yes explain what the good side is> [<].
*SFK:	erm pleasure and <erm> .
*STB:	<[^ gui: startFalse] and [^ gui: endFalse]> [<] .
*SHC:	[^ gui: INTR] there are many ways you can <get pleasure though
	without polluting your body> [>] [^ gui: INTRclose] .
*SLW:	<can you not find pleasure in other ways> [<].
*SCJ:	<[^ gui: startFalse] [^ gui: SIM] but wh(whx) [^ gui: endFalse]>
	[<] .
*SHC:	[^ gui: TCD] < [^ gui: SIM] with the xxx> [<] .
*SHW:	<[^ gui: SIM] I don't think> [<] oh hang on I don't think (.) e(ex)
	anyone has the right to be: attacking SFK <for> [>1] whether she's
	smoking or not if she decides that she wants to smoke for her own
	pleasure then it's actually (.) it doesn't matter whether you agree
	with why she's doing it or not.
*SFK:	<yeah> [<1].
*SCJ:	<[^ gui: startFalse] [^ gui: SIM] yeah but then the argument is
	[^ gui: endFalse]> [<] .
*STB:	[^ gui: INTP] <[^ gui: SIM] but no_one xxx> [<] [^ gui: INTPclose]
	.
@Comment:	multiple overlaps
*SHC:	[^ gui: INTP] <[^ gui: SIM] but why would say to (.) 'young> [<]
	[>1] vulnerable school children impressionable school children[>2]
	this is a pleasurable activity [^ gui: INTPclose].
*SLW:	<young> [<1].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: startFalse] I think [^ gui: endFalse]> [<2].
*SHW:	I think in in in respect to smoking you cannot (.) divide it from
	from an educo(educational) cational(educational) point of view (.)
	when I was at school (.) in biology (.) we had a textbook that in
	consecutive chapters showed us the effect of eating unhealthily (.)
	clogging ou(our) our arteries with (.) 'fat (.) erm: drinking (.)
	and the effects that that can have on your heart heart disease and
	smoking (.) and those three were treated (.) (.) impartially (.) and
	<equally> [>1] as (.) things which can (.) be: (.) negative for
	one's health now I am 'all 'for (.) an 'impartial 'educational
	practice which 'shows what the possible (.) ill_effect can be what I
	am 'against is the singling out of smoking (.) as something (.)
	which people 'do run away with (.) smoking 'can have (.) some
	serious (.) health effects but let's not forget that (.) (.) the
	majority of other things can as well <in this in this c(case) in
	this case> [>].
*SFK:	<yeah> [<1].
*SCJ:	[^ gui: INT] <[^ gui: SIM] xxx> [<] [^ gui: INTclose] .
*STB:	[^ gui: INTR] <[^ gui: SIM] of course they can (.) of course they
	can> [<] [^ gui: INTRclose] .
*SLW:	[^ gui: INTP] <[^ gui: SIM] (yes but?) smoking> [<] has effect on
	other people [^ gui: INTPclose] .
*SCJ:	and what we were <talking about with> [>1] SFK was the fact that
	e(er) she thinks we should put the 'positive side in the textbooks
	<as well do you not> [>2] what do you think of that.
*SLW:	<xxx people> [<1].
*SFK:	<[^ gui: startFalse] no I wasn't(wasn't) no bf [^ gui: endFalse]>
	[<2].
*SFK:	actually I was just (.) like as SHW was saying I was 'against the
	singling out (.) of (.) <smoking> [>].
*STB:	<but I wholeheartedly> [<] agree with you saying (.) that erm: (.)
	biology textbooks offer this impartial <view> [>1] of how certain
	aspects <of our> [>2] <lifestyles> [>3] can be damaging however I
	think it's important to know that smoking is (.) the 'least (.) er
	'important and fundamental part of our lives people smoke for a bit
	of pleasure people 'eat because <it is> [>4] necessary people drink
	because human beings have drunk for (.) tens of thousands of years
	it's part of our (.) 'culture in 'Britain it's part of the culture
	in France it's people's 'livelihood smoking has nothing <f(fx)
	smoking is something you do whilst you're> [>].
*SHC:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SHC:	<yeah> [<2].
*SCJ:	<[^ gui: startFalse] but it [^ gui: endFalse]> [<3].
*SFK:	<yeah> [<4].
*SHW:	[^ gui: INTR] <I think I think you'll find that smoking is a part>
	[<] of people's <livelihood as well> [>] [^ gui: INTRclose] .
*SCJ:	<so you're moving s(side)> [<] more over to <their side> at the
	moment aren't you .
*STB:	<well e> [<] (.) (.) (.) at at the moment <I'm> [>1] I'm trying to
	express the fact that 'I (.) 'think that smoking (.) is erm: a very
	'negative part of many people's lives can be positive but I think
	that the fact <that tens> [>2] of thousand people in this 'country
	die every year from – lung <problems> [>3] and from heart disease
	etc 'caused by smoking I don't <dispute that the same happens with>
	[>4] alcoholism I don't dispute that the same happens from (.)
	<'eating unhealthily> [>5] [>6] <the problem is> [>7] that smoking
	is quite easy to address (.) <and if> [>8] we have these campaigns
	showing some lungs that are destroyed a lot of people like (.) 'my
	children [>9] for instance erm will see those and think (.) I don't
	want to smoke whereas with food it's very difficult <because> [>].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	<[^ gui: startFalse] do you [^ com: to SFK] [^ gui: endFalse]>
	[<2].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<3].
*SFK:	<[^ gui: startFalse] but these are smokers who don't
	[^ gui: endFalse]> [<4].
*SHC:	<xxx [^ com: softly]> [<5].
*SLW:	<yeah [^ com: overlaps with end of 'unhealthily']> [<6].
*SFK:	<[^ gui: startFalse] I'm not [^ gui: endFalse]> [<7].
*SCJ:	<what hm> [<8].
*SHC:	<hm> [<9].
*SHW:	[^ gui: INTP] <oh but hang on> [<] ok do your children do you allow
	your children to go to McDonalds [^ gui: INTPclose] .
*STB:	no I don't .
*SHW:	no <why is that> [>].
*SFK:	<do you want antid (.)> [<] McDonalds (.) campaigns .
*STB:	er because (.) (.) personally again believe that er: we're in
	control of our own personal liberties and 'mine is (.) eating
	healthily eating <well> [>1] because I want them <to grow up to be
	strong> [>].
*SHW:	<right> [<1].
*SHW:	<but I think you'll find> [<] that 'McDonalds (.) are allowed to
	advertise [>1] (.) their products they're allowed to advertise and
	they cater (.) their adverts (.) and their product to young (.)
	'vulnerable children.
*SFK:	<yeah> [<1].
*STB:	and I wholeheartedly agree that we 'should (.) <get rid of those
	adverts> [>].
*SHW:	<but by and large> [<] [>1] society but by and large (.) society
	does 'not stigmatise 'McDonalds the <same way as it
	sigma(stigmatise) sig(stigmatise) [^ com: louder] stigmatizes > [>].
*SHC:	<yeah actually [^ com: overlaps with 'by and large']> [<1].
*STB:	[^ gui: INTR] <oh I think they do I think they do (today)> [<]
	[^ gui: INTRclose] .
@Comment:	multiple overlaps
*SHC:	<I think they re starting to more and more they're starting to>
	[<].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: startFalse] I think you'll find I think [^ gui: endFalse]>
	[<] .
*STB:	<well> [<] er: <we live in Norwich> [>1] don't we last week there
	was erm a group of De<velopment> [>2] Studies students that did a
	big protest n(nx) in fact 'internationally there are campaigns
	<against McDonalds its> [>].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: startFalse] if you if you [^ gui: endFalse]> [<1].
*SFK:	<yeah> [<2].
*SFK:	[^ gui: INTP] <yeah some 'students but not(not)> [<]
	[^ gui: INTPclose] .
*SCJ:	[^ gui: INTP] <yes but but> [<] but how would yo(you) how would you
	react to the f(fx) to: to the e(er) the 'recent er: adverts from
	from Mcdonalds that er: that actually mention the healthy side of
	their food the fact they've got protein and salad and (.) erm and
	every single part of the diet for your young children how would you
	relate (.) 'those adverts to the (.) to not being allowed to the
	tobacco industry not being allowed to <er> [>1] to to do <adverts is
	more xxx> [>] [^ gui: INTPclose].
*SFK:	<yeah> [<1].
*STB:	<I'm not aware of this advertising> [<] campaign but I believe you
	that it exists [>1] and I would say that we have to do something
	about it <perhaps> [>2] concurrently but as I said in my opinion
	smoking is a much 'easier pro(problem) problem to address because
	the effects are more obvious perhaps eating McDonalds is damaging to
	your health smoking kills you there's no(nox) <you' can't> [>3] [>4]
	dispute that <smoking kills you> [>].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	<hm> [<2].
*SCJ:	<yeah> [<3].
*SX1:	<yeah> [<4].
*SCJ:	<and and saying this> [<] there ar(are)[>].
*SHC:	<[^ gui: startFalse] and it is> [<] <xxx McDonalds xxx xxx sorry
	[^ gui: endFalse]> [>].
*STB:	[^ gui: INTP] <'drinking probably kills you> [<] as well (.) and I
	I agree that drinking .
*SFK:	[^ gui: INTR] driving a car kills you [^ gui: INTRclose] .
*STB:	driving a car kills you but there's a 'direct 'result from driving
	a car you drive a car to 'go somewhere you drive a car to 'work <to
	be educated you smoke> [>1] a fag why (.) <for no particular reason>
	[>].
*SCJ:	<[^ gui: startFalse] and(and) and(and) and as we're (.)
	[^ gui: endFalse]> [<1].
*SCJ:	<and as we're saying> [<] (.) as we're saying all this as well
	there are erm we we should actually note that there are c(campaigns)
	campaigns (.) erm f(for) to to help er: to: 'promote healthy eating
	and also to to to <promote> [>1] [>2] erm thinking about
	drink_driving and not drink_driving so so at the same time even
	though there are some adverts towards drink and towards erm::
	tha(that) that advertise er: e(er) McDonalds for example (.)
	th(there) there are also campaigns 'against them so do you not think
	that this this is in the same respect as the campaigns (.)
	s(smoking) against smoking or to help (.) <smokers give up> [>].
*SHC:	<exactly> [<1].
*STB:	<absolutely> [<2].
*SHC:	<xxx> [<] two sides of the argument .
@Comment:	multiple overlaps, with beginning of SFK to follow
*SFK:	<I'm just I just think that (.)> [<] they're far m(more) m: a lot
	more campaigns against erm: smokers than (.) and I say 'against
	smokers because it's in the end always the: I'm I'm I'm for (.)
	medical erm erm education and everything but I'm 'against erm:
	singling out and stigmatising smokers [>1] 'in public <places> [>].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: startFalse] I thought [^ gui: endFalse]> [<1].
*SHW:	<there is> [<] another thing which we (.) there is a(an) an
	imbalance in as much as (.) erm: yes there are campaigns that
	promote healthy eating (.) (.) and yes there are: (.) adverts for
	McDonalds [>2] (.) yes there are cam(campaigns) there are erm:
	campaigns which (.) erm: warn us of the dangers of drink_driving
	<and (.)> [>1] on the other hand we ha(have) do have adverts for
	alcohol [>3] (.) (.) we do 'not 'have adverts for cigarettes [>4]
	(.) <they> [>5] 'have been made illegal the sponsorship by cigarette
	companies of sports events has been banned [>6] (.) there is
	'nothing to redress the balance that there is 'no er: 'publicity for
	smoking 'and there are campaigns against it.
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<2].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<3].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<4].
*SFK:	<yeah> [<5].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<6].
*SCJ:	but on this side th(the) y(you) d(do) (.) what do you think of the
	adverts 'for McDonalds and for (.) for erm:: drink (.) should they
	also be er: stopped as as: smoking erm adverts <are> [>].
*SFK:	<then> [<] you m(must) yo(you) should (.) er:: erm erm (.) (.) (.)
	what's the word oh xxx [^ com: suspended] .
@Comment:	Tails off laughing, some sympathetic giggles from others
*STB:	clearly advertising is a very 'dangerous medium <and> [>].
*SFK:	[^ gui: INTR] <yeah> [<] they(they) then you shou(should) yeah then
	you should erm:: [>1] prohibit ever(every) 'all advertisement what's
	the xxx [^ gui: INTRclose].
*SLW:	<xxx> [<1].
@Comment:	several overlaps and laughter
*STB:	<well I don't know about 'all advertising but> [<]
	[^ com: suspended] .
*SLW:	yeah .
*SHC:	it's got to be looked at 'relative to how th(the) you know the
	severity of each thing [>1] (.) it's all relative smoking out of
	those three categories is the one that is going to kill you.
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	hm hm .
*SHW:	[^ gui: startFalse] erm: [^ gui: endFalse].
*STB:	<[^ gui: startFalse] not not [^ gui: endFalse]> [<] .
*SHC:	<whereas> [<] eating a McDonalds you know: <i(it's) it's it's> [>1]
	you'd have to eat a lot more McDonalds to have <the same amount of
	effect> [>].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: startFalse] heart disease [^ gui: endFalse]> [<1].
*SHW:	<obesity> [<] and heart disease (.) is (.) on the increase (.) <in
	Britain faster than 'anything 'else I think hang on no wait wait
	wait (.) ok fine [^ com: higher pitched] no but> [>].
*STB:	<but this(this) but this is an 'individual problem heart disease
	we're talking about personal liberties when you talk about smoking
	you're talking about other people's lives as well> [<].
*SHW:	it's not just that look if you're talking about smoking in an
	enclosed space then it affects other people if you're talking about
	restricting other people's civi(civil) civil liberties by making
	them uncomfortable by blowing smoke in their face I a(agree) I agree
	with you that is 'not ok (.) 'but (.) (.) I (.) what i(if) if I am a
	a smoker who smokes in my own home (.) or in (.) the open air (.)
	I'm not affecting anyone else's civil lib(liberties) <civil
	liberties> [>].
@Comment:	several overlaps
*STB:	<[^ gui: startFalse] [^ gui: SIM] on that level [^ gui: endFalse]>
	[<] .
*SHC:	<[^ gui: SIM] I don't have a problem with that> [<] <I have a
	problem> [>] with the civil liberties issue .
*SHW:	<but what I'm saying is (.) it> [<] yeah but (.) in in terms of
	this argument (.) you've got to talk about smoking 'not (.) in
	respect of affecting other people but in the effect of
	respec(respect) er the respect of affecting 'the smoker (.) I'm not
	talking about (.) <th(thx) there is an argument> [>].
*STB:	[^ gui: INTP] <but does the smoker need> [<] to be t(told) told of
	other brands or buy some cigarettes <because you do anyway> [>]
	[^ gui: INTPclose] .
*SHW:	[^ com: high (.) pitched and excitedly] <why on earth not do y(you)
	what's your favourite band> [<] [>1] brand of beer do you 'want to
	<hear if there are other ones> [>].
*STB:	<[^ gui: startFalse] no but why why wh(why) [^ gui: endFalse]>
	[<1].
*STB:	<I don't know> [<] ef(efx) as <I say I am> [>].
*SCJ:	[^ gui: INT] <xxx xxx> [<] <xxx> [>] [^ gui: INTclose] .
*SHW:	<are> [<] you going to drive a Volvo <for the rest of your life you
	might buy another car> [>].
*STB:	<I am not in support of the advertising of> [<] of alcohol I have
	not said that I'm in support of that I'm 'against the advertising of
	McDonalds however those two issues don't affect other people smoking
	'does [>1] and you were talking about an individual <smoking in his
	house that's fine so an individual can smoke but they smoke the
	cigarettes they want to smoke> [>].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: startFalse] I (.) [^ gui: endFalse]> [<1].
*SHW:	<you're bringing us back to the same argument time and time again
	which I 'don't think is 'relevant> [<].
*SLW:	but surely <the argument is actually about the campaign> [>].
*STB:	[^ com: with irritation] <of course it's relevant> [<] .
*SHW:	it's <not> [>].
*SLW:	[^ gui: TCD] < not (.)> [<] advertising the campaign is to actually
	educate the young people that are vulnerable and it's up to them to
	make a choice whether you want to 'listen to their campaign or not
	is your choice as a smoker .
*SHW:	I'm 'not against I have already said that I think the education of
	(.) 'any dangers which we are subject to (.) whether they are from
	smoking driving (.) whatever I think that's a good thing everyone
	needs (.) to be warned of (.) of (.) (.) things which could happen
	to them all I'm trying to say is firstly bringing the argument back
	time and time again to how it affects other people yes that is a
	<problem xxx> [>].
*STB:	[^ gui: INTP] <but the> [<] <'point is that this is not a
	progressive argument> [>] [^ gui: INTPclose] .
*SHW:	[^ gui: TCD] < no no no no no you can't> [>] just carry on talking
	over me .
*STB:	[^ com: repeating protestingly] but this is not a progressive
	argument .
*SHW:	not 'your argument <isn't progressive> [>].
*STB:	<you're bringing> [<] the argument straight back to the beginning
	and all I'm saying is that yes alcohol 'evil smoking 'evil bad food
	'evil so let's <'do something> [>1] about it.
*SHW:	<'evil> [<1].
*SCJ:	ok .
@Comment:	several overlaps
*STB:	<why do we have to say> [<] [>1] oh well if there are
	smoking(ant-smoking) anti_smoking campaigns let's have anti (.) (.)
	'everything campaigns let's ban publicity of 'everything why don't
	we say well (.) we've got (.) 'no smoking smoking is bad so alcohol
	is bad let's move on alright 'smoking alcohol we're going to
	advertise we're going to have campaigns saying this is not a good
	thing rather than saying oh well let's have 'smoking adverts as well
	because we've got f(fx) erm adverts for beer is that not er a very
	'negative <way of going about things> [>].
*SHW:	<that's not evil> [<1].
*SFK:	<but don't you think> [<] don't you think that er people should
	have the right erm: t(to) to hear about these things tha(that)
	a(about) about these products why do you why do you if these
	products are on the market why shouldn't people n(nx) know about
	them <then you should take them from the market if> [>].
*STB:	[^ gui: INTR] <because I don't think people should 'start smoking>
	[<] [^ gui: INTRclose] .
@Comment:	next two utterances from SFK and STB overlap
*SFK:	<[^ gui: SIM] yeah then you should take it from the market> [<].
*STB:	<[^ gui: SIM] because if you smoke you 'know where cigarettes> [<].
*SFK:	[^ gui: INTP] [^ com: more forcefully and louder] <then take it>
	[>] from the 'market [^ gui: INTPclose] .
*SCJ:	sh(shall) sh(shall) shall we move this debate on to consider more
	the fact that erm: (.) th(the) the the figures of smokers have have
	decreased since this campaign so so which obviously goes to show for
	the: for the people who are setting up these campaigns that th (.)
	they are actually working they are having eff(effect) an effect and
	'helping smokers who want to give up does that (.) not bring
	anything (.) does that not bring you round to the to the idea that
	these campaigns (.) aren't 'against smokers but are helping them
	does that (.) bring round your ideas: on 'that front in any way .
*SFK:	I'm actually erm: I'm: b(bx) as I I've said before like (.) I'll
	give you an example like my <grandfather> [>1] he smoked all his
	life and he died when he was seventy of erm (.) (.).
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SHC:	emphysema .
*SFK:	no [^ com: laughs from SFK and a couple of other voices] <of er:>
	[>].
*SCJ:	[^ gui: INTN] <of a> [<] a smoking disease [^ gui: INTNclose] .
*SFK:	erm: no of something else that he did [^ com: laughs] .
*SCJ:	unrelated to smoking .
*SFK:	[^ gui: startFalse] unrelated t(to) [^ gui: endFalse].
*STB:	[^ com: joking] natural causes .
*SFK:	[^ com: laughing] that's it (.) and erm there are many other people
	my(myx) m(mx) some it's 'proven that (.) some peop(people) that (.)
	actually getting cancer from (.) erm: smoking is: erm: (.) depends
	on if you ar(are) perceptible [^ com: sic] for this kind of illness
	or not so (.) (.) erm (.) (.) I (.) erm<what I> [>1] xxx really want
	to say [>2] (.) I [^ com: laughs with SCJ] <what's the question
	again is> [>].
*SCJ:	<[^ gui: startFalse] about [^ gui: endFalse]> [<1].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<2].
*SCJ:	[^ gui: INTN] [^ com: helping SFK back on track] <about the
	campaigns> [>] about the campaigns helping people stop smoking
	[^ gui: INTNclose] .
*SFK:	so I don't understand why (.) some people should [^ com: sic]
	should be (.) erm: made feel guilty about the little pleasures .
*SCJ:	and you think it's guilt rather than <rather than 'will> [>].
*SFK:	<yeah> [<] yes <I think it is> [>].
*SCJ:	<you thin(think) you believe it's coming fro(from)> [<] ok (.) and
	coming from from y(your) from your side because you're you're 'for
	these campaigns but not against smoking (.) what (.) (.) what do
	'you: feel do you feel that they're they should(should) that it's
	more will than guilt or <for the smokers to stop> [>].
*SLW:	<I don't think it's> [<] the idea is not to make people feel guilty
	about smoking it's(it's) it's to: [^ com: suspended]
	[^ com: clicks her tongue] .
*SFK:	< [^ gui: SIM] yeah mak(make) make e them feel paranoid> [<].
*SLW:	[^ gui: TCD] < [^ gui: SIM] present the facts no if you> [<]
	present the facts and then (.) they can decide for themselves [>1]
	(.) if if they're adul(adults) they're all going t(to) (.) it's
	targetting young people but it's also targetting adult smokers so
	it's up to you to decide whether you want to (.) listen to these
	facts [>2] (.) see that they have reason or not (.) or just (.)
	ignore them [^ com: multiple overlaps (if you know you're innocent)]
	you shouldn't feel guilty if you feel guilty you obviously think
	you're doing <something wrong> [>].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SHW:	<hm> [<2].
*SHC:	<the feeling of> [<] guilt exactly that comes from the individual
	itself I can't 'make you feel guilty about something <that's your>
	[>1] [>2] <own personal feeling that you hold yourself> [>].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: SIM] oh I think you can> [<1].
*SFK:	<[^ gui: SIM] you can> [<2].
*SHW:	<no you you can make someone feel guilty of something> [<].
*SHC:	<[^ gui: SIM] you can choose> [<].
*SFK:	<[^ gui: SIM] but it(it)> [<] but it's thrown at(at) constantly at
	me and shown in such a biased way that it ge(gex) ge(gex) only
	portrayed as something really awful .
*STB:	<[^ gui: SIM] well it's not right is it smoking> [<].
*SHW:	<[^ gui: SIM] people people who> [<] who do something their whole
	lives and and accept it (.) erm: will never question it (.) when:
	(.) a 'mass of people tell them that what they're doing is wrong (.)
	they will begin to believe that what they're doing i(is) may be
	wrong and then they will feel guilt (.) for their whole lives for
	the thing that they have done and(and) I'm just c(countering)
	countering your argument that (.) other people can't make you feel
	guilty I think (.) <that's clearly wrong> [>].
*SCJ:	<but would they> [<] would these people then not educate people
	younger f(fx) to not to 'not take the habit up in the first place
	would that not (.) would that not be a 'good side of this .
*SHW:	erm (.) I think (.) (.) I don't think we should (.) erm
	underestimate (.) a (.) an individual's (.) (.) capacity for making
	their own mind up [>1] (.) and: I certainly (.) wouldn't assume (.)
	that (.) I'm(I'm) I'm a smoker SFK is a smoker erm: I would very
	much 'refute any argument that we (.) 'encourage other people to
	smoke [>2] (.) I would never <encourage my own children to smoke>
	[>3] but what I 'wouldn't do (.) is (.) actively (.) erm: (.) (.)
	try to change the opinion of my children if they decided <that they
	wanted to> [>].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<2].
*STB:	<but smokers don't but advertising 'would> [<3].
*SHC:	<I completely agree> [<] with you that we're all capable of making
	our own minds up so therefore if we have the campaigns there it's
	just 'another piece of information that can 'help us to make that
	decision [>1] (.) you may still then choose to smoke knowing those
	facts <that's fine> [>].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SHW:	<I o(oh)> [<] I understand and I and I'm agr(agree) in agreement
	with you I'm not 'against the idea (.) of an anti_smoking campaign
	[>1] (.) I: (.) would (.) 'warn that there is a very real 'risk of
	engendering a 'certain prejudice in an anti_smoking campaign I think
	it's very (.) 'difficult to (.) teach someone something 'objectively
	when you're saying not only could this kill you but it could affect
	the lives of other people I think it's very very difficult (.) to:
	tell someone not to do something without making them fell feel
	guilty for doing it I'm not th(the) 'against the idea of an
	anti_smoking campaign I'm against the idea of: 'any prejudice which
	may ensue as a result of it.
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	<ok> [<] .
*SHC:	<maybe> [<] that's the issue that needs to be addressed then .
*SCJ:	yeah <m(mx) i(it) i(it) it might be but> [>].
*SHC:	<[^ gui: startFalse] look at 'how we [^ gui: endFalse]> [<] .
*STB:	<but often> [<] we're 'not telling people 'not to do something
	we're: (.) as we said educating <particularly> [>1] young people I I
	agree that if smokers want to smoke then (.) that's their
	<prerogative> [>2] their th(they) they should be allowed to do that
	(.) <but (.)> [>3] their children may not have erm had access to the
	information that would perhaps (.) sway them 'against smoking [>4]
	(.) and I(I) I think uh with a a medium such as the television or
	the radio it's important that they're aware of the facts [>5] (.) as
	with smoking as with sorry as with drinking and as with (.)
	<unhealthy> [>6] food 'driving etcetera.
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<1].
*SCJ:	<ok> [<2].
*SCJ:	<[^ gui: startFalse] I don't think [^ gui: endFalse]> [<3].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<4].
*SCJ:	<hm hm> [<5].
*SCJ:	<yeah> [<6].
*SCJ:	I mean I don(don't) I don't know we're gonna answer your question
	and put (.) an(and) and stop these campaigns or put publi(publix)
	erm: advertising back on (.) but at the same time I think we've
	brought up a lot of opinions today and and I think it's good to to
	get people (.) erm: thinking about the: the: a(about) the 'two sides
	of the argument so thank you all very much for (.) <coming today>
	[>].
*SFK:	<are we finished> [<] already is it ten ten to .
*SCJ:	yeah it's ten to .
*SHC:	was it only twenty minutes .
*SCJ:	is that 'it .
@Comment:	26.8
@Comment:	debate over but some continuing discussion about whether they are finished or not plus contribution from MNG
@End