[Ford Prefect]

Smoking bans are not because of the harm done to people who smoke, but because of the people around them who don't.

As for cars, they've become essential to the way our society operates. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it makes banning them totally impossible. We don't get from Point A to Point B with cigarettes.

[Tiara]

Cars can be traded in for public transit very easily but it's just VERY costly. And when something costs money, it just won't happen.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Tiara
Ok... now ban fast-food restaurants and fatty foods because they cause Excess Weight Linked to 90,000 US Cancer Deaths Annually

3000 lung cancer deaths? 90000 overweight related deaths BY CANCER IN THE US ALONE. YEARLY. That's not even counting the non-cancer related deaths involving overweight.

Sorry, but smoking is a mere inconvenience compared to the other problems.

I find it purely hypocritical to ban smoking while allowing far more dangerous practices go on just because iot bothers other poeple. Well, I'm bothered by obese bastards that smell like rotten cheese and sit next to me in the bus. BAN FAT FOOD!

The difference is that fat people don't cram burger and chips down your throat when you sit near them.

[Ford Prefect]

Cars can be traded in for public transit very easily but it's just VERY costly. And when something costs money, it just won't happen.

Unfortunately, the way much of America is set up makes this very difficult, my hometown being a prime example. In the suburbs, everything is spread out, making it impossible to walk anywhere, but putting in a railroad system so people can get from their houses to the center of town, or from one town to another, is a little ridiculous. Even if I want to take a train into the city, I still have to drive from my house to the station, which is a couple of towns over.

I'm not defending the way this works, but the fact is that changing our mode of transportation is not something easily done.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by aldo_14


The difference is that fat people don't cram burger and chips down your throat when you sit near them.

But the fast-food chains practically do. They have made fast-food mainstream and are continuing to do so. They are basically cramming it down your throat. A large part of the US population is considered OBESE (Not fat but obese) because fast-food has become so mainstream. Instead of a healthy meal it has become a simple take-out order or a trip to the nearest Mac for a fat juicy burger. It has become a national medical problem. Moreso then smoking and second hand smoking combined.

I'm sorry, but ever since they started banning tabacco advertising I began to hate that hypocritical bull****.

[Jetmech Jr.]

AT LEAST PEOPLE HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY DO OR DO NOT EAT.
 
If a bunch of fat ****'s want to cram ten pounds of grease, meat, and cheese down their throats, well, kudos to them. But when a person smokes around you, they endanger not only themselves, but THOSE AROUND THEM.

Hurting yourself = Ok, to an extent.

Hurting yourself and those around = Die, mother****er

[Stealth]

But the fast-food chains practically do. They have made fast-food mainstream and are continuing to do so. They are basically cramming it down your throat. A large part of the US population is considered OBESE (Not fat but obese) because fast-food has become so mainstream. Instead of a healthy meal it has become a simple take-out order or a trip to the nearest Mac for a fat juicy burger. It has become a national medical problem. Moreso then smoking and second hand smoking combined.

I'm sorry, but ever since they started banning tabacco advertising I began to hate that hypocritical bull****.

bull****.

people have a choice whether or not to eat fast food.  granted with all the advertisements and locations it's very easy to eat it, but you still have that choice whether you want to or not.  i mean, why not ban cars in America too, because with all those car commercials, people are a lot more inclined to buy a car, and therefore sacrifice money that may have gone to getting their kids a better education, or putting food on the table...

see, you have a choice whether you want to eat fast food... you don't have a choice when it comes to inhaling the smoke from the idiot sitting next to you on the bus that's puffing away.

EDIT:  Grimloq:  chill out dude... you're over-reacting.  no one has the right to do something that may (or in this case:  does) damage other people.  sorry, but when the Constitution talks about citizen's rights, etc. it's not talking about the right to do anything you want... because that's stupid.  when your rights start putting others at risk, that's unacceptable.  

Just like freedom of speech... remember yelling "Fire" in a crowded place?  yeah... you'll get arrested for it.  Why?  because it's putting other people's lives and well-being in danger.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Tiara

But the fast-food chains practically do. They have made fast-food mainstream and are continuing to do so. They are basically cramming it down your throat. A large part of the US population is considered OBESE (Not fat but obese) because fast-food has become so mainstream. Instead of a healthy meal it has become a simple take-out order or a trip to the nearest Mac for a fat juicy burger. It has become a national medical problem. Moreso then smoking and second hand smoking combined.

I'm sorry, but ever since they started banning tabacco advertising I began to hate that hypocritical bull****.

I can walk past a McDonalds (etc) without going in for food.  I would not go into a pub to inhale smoke, I would go in for a pint.  There's a fundamental issue of choice there.

Also, fast food (or any food) does not cause obesity unless it is over-eaten; i.e. a responsible person (i.e. myself) can easily control intake.  But cigarettes if used atall will cause damage.  

furthermore, you can't just blame fast food for it; you have to blame the educational system that is obviously failing to educate children over healtyh eating, and the companies which advertise and sell in shops, etc; whilst I don't think the likes of McDonalds are particularly likeable or ethical companies, the reasons for banning them are far, far less solidly grounded than that of banning public smoking IMHO.

NB: Ford - don't you have buses?

[Stealth]

choice.  that's the keyword there.

Cars can be traded in for public transit very easily but it's just VERY costly. And when something costs money, it just won't happen.

but there's an issue of practicality too... under the "equal rights" doctrine... if cars were to be banned, and public transportation the only practical method of long-distance transportation (by that i mean anything too far to walk or ride a bike), then you'd have to provide equal transportation opportunities for people living hundreds of miles outside city limits... (which would cost a FORTUNE).  either that or FORCE everyone to live within the city's limits, but then there goes all the ranching, farming, and agriculture of the nation.  see, as was mentioned... cars are too deeply rooted into our society now.

[Grimloq]

this argument sucks.

were all wrong, the world sucks. now, that will either make you guys realise that trying to find logic is a waste of time, or will make you depressed and hide from the face of the earth for the rest of yer natural life >_<

[aldo_14]

So you're admitting you're wrong then?

[Jetmech Jr.]

You remind me so much of a Christian friend of mine. His motto is 'Humanity sucks.'

[WMCoolmon]

As far as I know, fast food doesn't secrete calories into the air. You could work at a McDonald's and not experience ill effects from the fat in the food (aside from being grossed out now and then, perhaps). Your parents could chain-eat McDonalds daily for 19 years and you probably wouldn't get any fatter as long as you didn't eat it too. (Although they could probably be Jabba the Hutt next Halloween with no additional costume...provided they live that long.)

Fast food may be a health hazard but only to those who choose to expose themselves to the risk. (Also, as stated above, in moderation it isn't too bad.)

[Tiara]

Well, it does. But it gives me a lot of souls to devour

Anyway, it might be a matter of choice but it is also a matter of principle. I'm sorry, but I just cannot grasp the hypocracy of a government that would ban smoking but allows various other things to go on that are far more harmfull.

I'm not saying that it is right that others should be bothered by smokers. Not at all. But the mere fact that so much time and effort is thrown into an issue that is nothing more then an inconvenience compared to the various other problems in society just pisses me off.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Tiara
Well, it does. But it gives me a lot of souls to devour

Anyway, it might be a matter of choice but it is also a matter of principle. I'm sorry, but I just cannot grasp the hypocracy of a government that would ban smoking but allows various other things to go on that are far more harmfull.

I'm not saying that it is right that others should be bothered by smokers. Not at all. But the mere fact that so much time and effort is thrown into an issue that is nothing more then an inconvenience compared to the various other problems in society just pisses me off.

and once again, i say that i honestly don't see any other issues in which innocent people are getting hurt just by going about their day to day lives, as relevant as smoking.

[Tiara]

Then you, sir, are blind. Blind to the passive persuasions of every day life. But I've noticed that many people actually are ignorant of the things that are going on around them.

[WMCoolmon]

I see what you mean. The thing is, fast food is still food, and you can get it fast (thus the name). It still has some positive benefits, peple burn fat at significantly different rates, etc. I could see the point in banning consumption of certain types of food depending on your body weight/heart rate, but I doubt I'd support it. That's a little more information than I want McDonalds or Burger King knowing.

I don't think it's hypocritical of the government to ban smoking but not fast food unless you look at it from a very simple perspective of the numbers of deaths per year. In which case the government might have to end up banning having children, driving cars, flying, maybe even certain types of jobs due to the number of deaths being more than those resulting from various crimes to prevent from being hypocritical. Heck, a lot of people die from various diseases...should the government ban having those diseases and impose severe penalties if you get/have one?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Tiara
Well, it does. But it gives me a lot of souls to devour

Anyway, it might be a matter of choice but it is also a matter of principle. I'm sorry, but I just cannot grasp the hypocracy of a government that would ban smoking but allows various other things to go on that are far more harmfull.

I'm not saying that it is right that others should be bothered by smokers. Not at all. But the mere fact that so much time and effort is thrown into an issue that is nothing more then an inconvenience compared to the various other problems in society just pisses me off.

I think fast food is a cultural issue. The US has developed a culture around fast food and unhealthy foods. It's a cultural issue when parents feed their children fast food and unhealthy foods from when they're young.

Governments don't control culture (and shouldn't). Of course there're also some gray areas, such as the integration of more diet-oriented health education in schools.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Tiara
Then you, sir, are blind. Blind to the passive persuasions of every day life. But I've noticed that many people actually are ignorant of the things that are going on around them.

yup, i'm blind.

i just wish i could see how obese people (thanks to fast food) are slowly killing each and every one of us

noooooot.  face it.  you're looking at two completely different issues:  one one side of the ring we have people's choice, that affects their lives.  on the other side we have people's choice, that affects their lives, but also the lives of people that are around when they smoke.  hardly comparable...

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So you're admitting you're wrong then?

Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone "too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."