No Food For Fat People

by **Frag Monger** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:42 pm

Info about Second Hand Smoke:

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2002 that:

There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans. ... Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).[81]

Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents a small but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The overall risk depends on the effective dose received over time. The risk is more significant if non-smokers spend many hours in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent, such as a business where many employees or patrons are smoking throughout the day, or a residential care facility where residents smoke freely.[82]

In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years. Surgeon General Richard Carmona summarized:

The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.

The study estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30%. The report also found that passive smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in children.[83]"

SOURCE

by **MrJimbo** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:07 pm

Let's replace the word "smoking" with "spitting."

Would you want to ban second-hand spit if it affected you?

Everyone has the right to spit, but would it be a violation if you spit into someone else's lungs that did not want it?

Rights in this country are guaranteed so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. When you eat an unhealthy meal, it generally does not infringe on the rights of others. When someone smokes, the smoke fills whatever container it is in. That potentially infringes on the rights of others.

With that said, when I go to bar, I expect there to be smoking. I am an adult, and if I do not want to deal with it, I stay home.

by **Ghost Wolf** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:17 pm

MrJimbo wrote:
With that said, when I go to bar, I expect there to be smoking. I am an adult, and if I do not want to deal with it, I stay home.

Precisely the point. If an individual wishes to open an establishment that caters to non-smoker, fine. Likewise, one where smoking is permitted. No need for government interference. The arguement that it is "for the public good" is used to undermine freedom more often than not. Not the government's buisiness.

by **Frag Monger** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:54 pm

MrJimbo wrote:Rights in this country are guaranteed so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. When you eat an unhealthy meal, it generally does not infringe on the rights of others. When someone smokes, the smoke fills whatever container it is in. That potentially infringes on the rights of others.

Precisely.

As for the bar argument, though, what about the staff who work there? Should they all be forced to breathe smoke from patrons? The argument that you shouldn't apply to work there if you don't wanna beathe smoke isn't valid, IMO. Any public establishment must be required to provide a safe work environment for any employee - smoker or not.

The only possible exception I see here is a tobacco shop. In WA state, currently it's illegal to smoke even in tobacco shops (i.e. Those that specialize in cigars & pipe tobacco). If that is the nature of the business, then I don't think it's a problem.

by **AlicornsPrayer** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:15 pm

Frag Monger wrote:
MrJimbo wrote:Rights in this country are guaranteed so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. When you eat an unhealthy meal, it generally does not infringe on the rights of others. When someone smokes, the smoke fills whatever container it is in. That potentially infringes on the rights of others.

Precisely.

As for the bar argument, though, what about the staff who work there? Should they all be forced to breathe smoke from patrons? The argument that you shouldn't apply to work there if you don't wanna beathe smoke isn't valid, IMO. Any public establishment must be required to provide a safe work environment for any employee - smoker or not.

The only possible exception I see here is a tobacco shop. In WA state, currently it's illegal to smoke even in tobacco shops (i.e. Those that specialize in cigars & pipe tobacco). If that is the nature of the business, then I don't think it's a problem.

Frag, lose the whole 'what about the employees' argument. It doesn't float for two reasons...

If you've ever been to a bar (where smoking was allowed), the employees 99% of the time are smokers. If you go to any restraunt and go out back you'll find the majority of employees standing out there taking their breaks and smoking cigarettes.

Secondly, the same applies in regards to what was said about customers...If a potential employee doesn't want to be around cigarette/cigar smoke then simply go apply at a job/business that doesn't allow smoking. There's plenty of jobs out there where smoking isn't allowed, so trying to find suitable employment in a non-smoking enviroment is easy.

The fact is that a small minority of people, in this instance being non-smokers are forcing a majority of people to adhere to their preference...That of no smoking. They are infrinding on the rights of others, to do with their bodies what they wish, simply cause the non-smoker doesn't want to make adjustments to their lives, but force that adjustment on another. And then they're using the smoke screen (no pun intended) to go further and futher into stripping the rights of the smokers.

I do have to say this though...I really don't see these laws lasting too long to begin with. It's going to go through the same cycle that alcohol prohibition went because people LOVE their vices and are not going to put up long with a busybody creating laws that take away their right to those vices.

The fact is, nobody is being 'forced to inhale 2nd hand smoke' anywhere...Because the person that has a problem with cigarette smoking (unless they're bound, gagged, and chained to a spot by force) are free to go to a smoke-free enviroment at any time. At least prior to these laws being created, there were places that gave the person the choice to choose 'smoking or non-smoking establishments'...And the only people now benefitting from the law is the non-smoker while the rights of the smoker are being stripped away.

That's not freedom...That's the stripping of freedom period. To me that's no different then someone who strips the rights from women having the choice over their own body and want to create laws to take that right away, or those that are doing their best to keep same sex couples from having the right to choose their life partner so create laws to strip that right and choice from another...

It's not about 'what's good for the person'...It's all about 'I want it my way and dang them for wanting control over their own selves'.

by **OneVoice** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:49 pm

Frag Monger wrote:It's quite clear & obvious to about 99% of the population that smoking does cause cancer and other health issues (or at the very, very least, severely increases such risk to those who have genetic factors that would lead to it).

Sorry... but you'll never get anywhere close to that 99% number if you polled all of America. Not even possible. You couldn't get 99% of the population to agree on what color the sky is.

But, if we outlawed everything in society that "may" increase similar risks to genetic factors that "may" would lead to assorted illnesses... well... welcome back to the stone age.

The 'proof' is sufficient for laws to be enacted.

LOL ... you have a lot to learn about how our government works. In fact, we even have judges (especially on our Supreme Court) who legislate from the bench... which, of course, is unconstitutional, but doesn't stop them.

If there really was no link whatsoever between smoking & cancer/other health issues, then why aren't smokers suing the government for passing laws with no evidence?

Again... LOL... why would the government be passing anti-smoking laws even if there were sufficient proof? If I open a diner and place a sign on the front door that says "SMOKING IS PROUDLY ALLOWED IN HERE" ... well, do the anti-smokers not know how to read? Do they not have the right to eat somewhere else? Since when are we supposed to lose our "freedom" to a sect of people who simply want to shove their anti-smoking views down the throats of everyone? We should be suing the government regardless of the proof factor.

No... wait... on second thought, we should not have to sue the government about this. The laws never should have been passed in the first place.

P.S. There are people out there who can live to 90 eating nothing but junk food too - does that mean it's not bad for you?

Who says junk food is bad for you? Again, that depends on how much of which you eat.

But two things about your statement:

1. Junk food doesn't cause cancer either.

2. Junk food, no matter the health hazards associated with it, should not be outlawed either.

"Think Freedom" when all else fails. :wink:

by **OneVoice** on Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:55 pm

Ghost Wolf wrote:If an individual wishes to open an establishment that caters to non-smoker, fine. Likewise, one where smoking is permitted. No need for government interference. The arguement that it is "for the public good" is used to undermine freedom more often than not. Not the government's buisiness.

BRAVO

by **Frag Monger** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:03 am

AlicornsPrayer wrote:Frag, lose the whole 'what about the employees' argument. It doesn't float for two reasons...

If you've ever been to a bar (where smoking was allowed), the employees 99% of the time are smokers. If you go to any restraunt and go out back you'll find the majority of employees standing out there taking their breaks and smoking cigarettes.

This can vary from place to place - and I guarantee you that the number is not as high as 99%.

AlicornsPrayer wrote:Secondly, the same applies in regards to what was said about customers...If a potential employee doesn't want to be around cigarette/cigar smoke then simply go apply at a job/business that doesn't allow smoking. There's plenty of jobs out there where smoking isn't allowed, so trying to find suitable employment in a non-smoking enviroment is easy.

It still doesn't work. Say you studied to be a chef. Should you have to leave out 50% or more of the places you want to apply to cook for becuase they allow smoking and you don't want to work where smoking is allowed? Is that fair?

AlicornsPrayer wrote:The fact is that a small minority of people, in this instance being non-smokers are forcing a majority of people to adhere to their preference...That of no smoking.

You may want to check your statistics before you call non smokers the 'minority'.

"The answer is from a recent Gallop poll and it states that approximately 21 % of Americans are regular smokers, down from 23% in 1999."

21%. That's all. So why should the majority be inconvenienced by that small minority of smokers?

It's the smokers who refuse to make adjustments to their lives - like smoking outside so others can enjoy their food/beverages without choking on smoke.

AlicornsPrayer wrote:I do have to say this though...I really don't see these laws lasting too long to begin with. It's going to go through the same cycle that alcohol prohibition went because people LOVE their vices and are not going to put up long with a busybody creating laws that take away their right to those vices.

The tobacco laws are nowhere near equivalent to prohibition. They will last & expand. Here in Seattle, the first few businesses (bars) are now being sued by the city for not enforcing the ban.

AlicornsPrayer wrote:The fact is, nobody is being 'forced to inhale 2nd hand smoke' anywhere...Because the person that has a problem with cigarette smoking (unless they're bound, gagged, and chained to a spot by force) are free to go to a smoke-free enviroment at any time.

Again, you want the majority to be inconvenienced by the vast minority. In PUBLIC places (that are for all public citizens, smokers or not), it's clear that the person causing the inconvenience (the smoker) should go elsewhere. It's unfair for 30 non-smokers to have to leave a place to avoid 2nd hand smoke because one smoker lights up.

AlicornsPrayer wrote:At least prior to these laws being created, there were places that gave the person the choice to choose 'smoking or non-smoking establishments'...And the only people now benefitting from the law is the non-smoker while the rights of the smoker are being stripped away.

Since when has smoking been a 'right'? Also, the idea of segregated smoking vs. non smoking areas of restaurants & other establishments (including airplanes) were done away with beause the segregation did not prevent the non smokers from still having to breathe air filled with 2nd hand smoke.

I just don't see why the majority of us should suffer because of the selfishness of the smoking minority.

Now - ready for a shock? I'm a smoker. I just agree w/ all the smoking laws. I don't see why my smoke should be inflicted on non-smokers in public places.

by **Frag Monger** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:15 am

OneVoice wrote:LOL ... you have a lot to learn about how our government works.

1. Watch the personal insults. I know perfectly well how our government works.

2. If you think that medical proof of these issues didn't play a part in the laws being enacted, then you are kidding yourself.

by **OneVoice** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:09 pm

Frag Monger wrote:Now - ready for a shock? I'm a smoker. I just agree w/ all the smoking laws. I don't see why my smoke should be inflicted on non-smokers in public places.

Excuse me... but... uh... smoking is not "inflicted" upon anyone who doesn't, of their own free will, visit an establishment that allows smoking.

They have a constitutional right to visit another business that bans smoking.

This is how freedom works. Feel as you choose to feel... do as you choose to do... but don't force your beliefs upon others and outlaw their freedoms just because you don't like what they choose to do.

by **Frag Monger** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:47 pm

OneVoice wrote:Excuse me... but... uh... smoking is not "inflicted" upon anyone who doesn't, of their own free will, visit an establishment that allows smoking.

How about waiting under a covered bus stop in the rain - and having a smoker under there with you? The choices then become to deal with it or to get wet. IMO, it's the smoker who should be getting wet. The non-smoker shouldn't be forced to chose between clean air and staying dry at a public bus stop.

Do as you chose to do, but don't force your smoke upon others and belittle their right to clean air. Smoking is a choice. If yo chose to do it, then do it in a way that is courteous & respectful to non-smokers.

by **killerbee** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:32 pm

OneVoice wrote:
This is how freedom works. Feel as you choose to feel... do as you choose to do... but don't force your beliefs upon others and outlaw their freedoms just because you don't like what they choose to do.

That philosophy worked really well in the banking sector, didn't it?

With freedom comes responsibility. If that responsibility is not demonstrated, freedom becomes greed. It is then the Governments job to create regulations to stop the greed.

by **highway80west** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:57 pm

Frag Monger wrote:
OneVoice wrote:Excuse me... but... uh... smoking is not "inflicted" upon anyone who doesn't, of their own free will, visit an establishment that allows smoking.

How about waiting under a covered bus stop in the rain - and having a smoker under there with you? The choices then become to deal with it or to get wet. IMO, it's the smoker who should be getting wet. The non-smoker shouldn't be forced to chose between clean air and staying dry at a public bus stop.

Do as you chose to do, but don't force your smoke upon others and belittle their right to clean air. Smoking is a choice. If yo chose to do it, then do it in a way that is courteous & respectful to non-smokers.

I deal with that situation by (1) covering my nose if it is crowded at a transit station or (2) walk far away from them.

by **OneVoice** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Frag Monger wrote:
OneVoice wrote:Excuse me... but... uh... smoking is not "inflicted" upon anyone who doesn't, of their own free will, visit an establishment that allows smoking.

How about waiting under a covered bus stop in the rain - and having a smoker under there with you? The choices then become to deal with it or to get wet. IMO, it's the smoker who should be getting wet. The non-smoker shouldn't be forced to chose between clean air and staying dry at a public bus stop.

Do as you chose to do, but don't force your smoke upon others and belittle their right to clean air. Smoking is a choice. If yo chose to do it, then do it in a way that is courteous & respectful to non-smokers.

1. A bus stop is not an establishment. It's a public place. It's paid for by tax-payers to use by all people. You never have, and never will, see me complain about banning smoking in "public" places. However, you cannot use any analogy even close to this when discussing privately-owned businesses. It is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" to outlaw smoking in a restaurant, bar, casino, club, office, warehouse and/or all other businesses if the "OWNERS" wish to allow smoking. You don't have to buy at that store. You don't have to eat at that diner. You don't have to work at that warehouse. And on and on and on...

2. Smoking is not only a choice... it's a "right" we have under the laws of a free nation. Government buildings, sports arenas, bus stops, court houses and the like can all be "smoke free". But not businesses. The OWNERS who worked and saved and built them have the RIGHT to allow what they wish.

by **OneVoice** on Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:49 pm

killerbee wrote:
OneVoice wrote:
This is how freedom works. Feel as you choose to feel... do as you choose to do... but don't force your beliefs upon others and outlaw their freedoms just because you don't like what they choose to do.

That philosophy worked really well in the banking sector, didn't it?

No... no... and NO again.

Nothing under the realm of "freedom" caused our financial crisis. The government "forced" lending institutions to make those sub-primes loans available, or risk being fined... or risk being harassed by groups like ACORN and other fanatics. The government (and radicals) removed "freedom" from the system.

With freedom comes responsibility. If that responsibility is not demonstrated, freedom becomes greed. It is then the Governments job to create regulations to stop the greed.

The only "job" our federal government has is to obey our constitution. The constitution "clearly defines" which powers our federal government is given, and ALL other power is given to the individual STATES. This portion of our constitution has been stomped on over and over again for many years. Our government continually abuses its power. Liberal judges legislate from the bench. Too much more to list here.

No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Re: No Food For Fat People

Who is online