Obese man sues McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC

Eating at McDonald's, BK, KFC and Wendy's is a choice. Even there, he could order salads, grilled products, etc. The tobacco companies created an addictive product and claimed that it was not conclusively harmful or addictive, even though they knew (from internal memos) it was harmful and addictive. Fast food didn't create an addictive product hasn't come out and claimed that it is not harmful. They haven't claimed that it is harmful, but I wouldn't expect them to do that.

I don't eat out much, but I am gaining weight. I smell a lawsuit against Kroger!

 

Then the parents should have their children taken away for child endangerment.

btw, I was being sarcastic

 

There's also the fact that one can actually go without smoking. One cannot go without eating. We make choices on what we eat and don't eat, but we can't just go without.

Smoking is a choice, too, but it's a choice between doing and not doing. Not between doing one way or doing another way.

 

"Hopefully it will change the eating habits of the American public," he [Hirsch] said.

Hooray! Thank you Mr. Hirsch for making these tough decisions for us. I have another problem, sir: I could ride my bike to work, but I insist on driving the .75 miles to my office. Could you please sue someone (automakers? oil companies? anyone...) & force me to change this detrimental behavior.

Thanks in advance.

p.s. I'm frickin' tired of hearing people equate being "addicted" to fast food with addiction to nicotine/smoking. Personally, I haven't visited a fast food establishment in about 6 months & don't plan on doing so in the future...no big deal, there's lots of other food choices out there. I've only had 2 smokes in the past week & am just about ready to kill someone...

 

Hell no. I know, without a doubt the second hand smoke is harmful. I grew up in a family that smokes, made me so sick that I can't even stand the sight of damn cigarettes. I've never even come close to lighting one up. I've found that, now that I'm out and on my own, I feel a lot better, have a lot more energy, and breathe easier. Anytime I go home now, the smoke had a definite negative effect on me. I try to get out as often as possible. I feel bad for my family, because their obviously harming themselves. But, its their decision. So, I don't support the bullsh*t lawsuits against the tobacco industry either. (Not the modern ones anyway, after they put the warning labels on) Fools killing themselves through smoking are still fools nontheless.

Anyone who has seen lungs from autopsies done on smokers and people who live with smokers know the truth. One exaple I saw showed a thirty year old man lungs who lived with a smoker being in substantiall worse condition than a man who lived through 60 years of LA smog. It also showed the lungs of a smoking man who was about 35. It was just sick, they were in such bad condition. Hell, I can go home and look around at the dingy color of the walls and everything that was once white and tell you the 2nd hand smoke is bad for you. I don't need any damn studies or chemical info. You don't need scientists to tell you that when you jump in a fire, you're going to get your ass burned. I think Hayes Street is just acting like a dumbass on purpose. He knows better.

 

There was a healthy, vegetarian, fast food chain (maybe 2 or 3 restaurants) in San Francisco. For whatever reason (not enough business and high rent rates in SF?) they closed down and are now going to distribute their products via the frozen food market. So, yeah, the country is probably not ready for such places just yet.


In regards to smoking and second hand smoke...why are we taught to stop, drop, and roll? Is it because getting smoke in our lungs is bad? Sure, a fire will have a high volume of smoke...but if burning substances (paper, leaves, etc) are not bad, then why bother? What about air pollution in general?

Why not smoke in front of your kid? You seem pretty confident that there is no evidence of harm - prove it.

 

OK, this is pretty much my point, even more than whether ETS (not first hand smoking which I also conclude can increase your risk of lung cancer) causes harm. People like AstroRocket say "I don't need no damn big city scientist to tell me nothin.' Ain't nothing but a bunch of damn revenuers anyhow." I don't think this everyday Joe approach is a wise one for our public policy decisions.

Lets say you have a male, 54, dies of a heart attack. He is a not a smoker, but all of his wives and his parents smoke, and his co-workers smoke. Did the smoking kill him? We know there are certainly plenty of studies that say smoking increases heart disease. So we say...'yes?' What if he's also 80 pounds overweight? Studies say obesity causes heart disease. What if he POURS salt on his meals? Too much salt can cause heart disease. What if he has been married 5 times, gives alimony to 4 and supports the 5th, and has 5 kids. He works as a Postal worker. Stress is inextricably linked to heart disease. He is also an alcoholic. Overconsumption of alcohol can also affect your heart. Which killed him? Would he have had a heart attack if he did all those things except being around smokers? Probably. And yet you in your pseudo-scientific brilliance are POSITIVE it killed him. I think your 'we don't need no schoolin' attitude shows everyone WHO is really the dumbass.

Were you taught to stop drop and roll when you saw someone smoking? WHERE exactly are you from?

'Oooooh, prove it big man.' Nice. I am an adult. I make my own choices. As an adult I do not have to work, live, play, eat, sleep, run. walk, or anything else around smokers if I choose not to. I am a smoker so my risk of lung cancer is higher than a non-smoker. I am ok with that. I don't think it is necessary for me to use my child as a test subject to prove what most of the studies on ETS already show.

 

Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.
Second hand smoke isn't harmful.

Maybe if I write it enough, it will actually be true!

Look, you can point to all the studies you want and I can show you a hundred others that say the opposite. Whatever. I know that my grandmother died from clogged arteries, black lungs and an acute case of emphysema (sp?) because her husband (my grandfather) was a lifelong smoker. I know that every time I breathe in second hand smoke, I feel like I want to puke.

Most of us don't go around willingly sucking on exhaust pipes, but we know the carcinogens in pollution make us sick.

You sound obsessed by this one particular oddity of science considering it isn't your life's work or job. If you find out one day that you were absolutely and unequivocally wrong, will that change your attitude about the direction you blow your smoke?

 

Actually you are wrong. You can't point to hundreds of ETS studies that show a statistically significant result. There it is.

Don't most of you who normally are SO rigorous in your examination of the facts find it ODD or DISTURBING that you would throw off any science based inquiry in favor of 'how i feel/what i know intuitively.' I find it shocking. I can't think of another issue where the result would be similar. Even though these obesity claimants make the same type of arguments, patterned in fact, after the anti-smoking lobbys arguments, you cast of THEIR results. Why? Because of their personal choice and because of cofounding factors (not being able to isolate fast food itself as the cause of death/damages).

I am sorry for your loss.

Could be in your head as a result of your grandma. Could be you are allergic to smoke.

Yes, Jeff. But the question is HOW MUCH makes you sick. Just like salt, just like fat, just like alcohol and pesticides and car exhaust and EVERYTHING ELSE.

I answer these assertions whenever they are posted. WHY? Because many of you are basing your opinions on things you've heard, or what you feel intuitively. That doesn't work when you are talking about one of many factors that could result in these damages you are describing. Intuition is not enough. So call me repetitive, yes. Obsessed, no. Of course I could say YOU are obsessed since you continue to pass of your personal feelings as FACT.

Oh, and to answer your question. Yes. If I felt there were valid studies not manipulated by political concerns, that concluded ETS WAS a statistically significant risk then I would not blow smoke towards non-smokers. But really, as I mentioned from my discussion with Desert Scar, I am more concerned with how quick people are to abandon scientific evaluation and investigation when they feel particularly emotional about an issue. Not with whether ETS is really bad for you.

 

After reading your claims Hayes, I did find some interesting literature that seems to leave (just reading the abstracts mind you, I don't have that much time) ETS effects up in the air (get it, in th...)... although you're being somewhat disingenuous. The studies do show allergy and numerous children's studies where smoke has a correlation with a ton of maladies. I would like to get a hold of the EPA's report though too. I just want to see the stats. They have access to sample sizes, of e.g. 50 million, so lol... they might have some interesting work. Do you have a link to that paper? I can't find it on the Cambridge or any of the other bio databases, and nature and sciencemag just have cursory overviews (although I have to remind myself to go back and use broader term searches).

re: Rimbaud's query.... I'm afraid that Rimbaud has made a convincing allusion to your underlying intuitions... ie convenience. You choose to not smoke around your child, but don't want to be burdened by including everyone else into your sphere of influence. 'Cause golly gee... these damn people are just bugging you, the poor old smoker.

Of course you're going to pay more respect to your child than to mine, or to your child than to me... but just the fact that you intuit that there's something weird about ingesting carcinogens, at least for your child suggests that I can make the same claims upon you.

(ps when I was a kid people used to friggin' smoke in the grocery store in the South... does that still happen?)

 

No, they just taught us that smoking was baaaad.



'Oooooh, prove it big man.' Nice. I am an adult. I make my own choices. As an adult I do not have to work, live, play, eat, sleep, run. walk, or anything else around smokers if I choose not to. I am a smoker so my risk of lung cancer is higher than a non-smoker. I am ok with that. I don't think it is necessary for me to use my child as a test subject to prove what most of the studies on ETS already show. [/QUOTE]

If you are an adult, you should not resort to childish replies. I did not in any way mean "prove it big man." The point was - you seem so confident there is no problem, but do not smoke around your child...why? You choose not to because you are just being nice? How is that nice, if there are no problems with it? It just seems, like Achebe said, that you are being disingenuous and you are not so sure and have fears. Otherwise, you would not care.

 

Okay, I avoided my usual profanity laced tirade and tried to make a post showing my own experience and this is where it got me.


Well f*ck that. This kind of sh*t pisses me off to the nth degree. When the hell did I say anything about heart disease? where the hell did you get that from? LUNGS, moron, LUNGS. You know, the thing you actually breathe the smoke into? BLACKENED. BLACKENED from SMOKE. Thats right. And last I heard, the people at the osteopathic center who recieved these kadivers were actually scientists. Believe it or f*cking not. And you want to know why I said I don't need scientific evidence to tell ME that second hand smoke is bad? Because, whenever I go home, I see it on the walls of the goddamned house, hell, on ANYTHING white. They've become dingy and stained with the proliferation of cigarette smoke. I know there is no f"cking way that can be anything but bad for anyone. I don't have any damn 'we don't need no schoolin' attitude about the situation. I have my own expeience. Which any idiot could see I was drawing from.

I have nothing against a scientific study into second hand smoke, but in my OWN PERSONAL experience, i don't need a study to show me how bad it is. Maybe others do, which is why the studies should be done. I never called you a dumbass, I said you were ACTING like one. I meant to include one of those little pansy-ass smileys with it to show you I wasn't serious, hell, everyone has different experiences with everything, but apparently my clicking the emoticon on the menu didn't register. So, at this point, f*ck it. You've already called me a name. i don't give a damn.

 

I think Jeff has the link to the EPA Report.

Nope. You see, when you are out with your child, if there is a smoker nearby, you can move. You can go to a non-smoking restaurant. They don't allow smoking in schools or churches or libraries. Don't bring your kid into the pool hall i'm smoking in. I don't bring MY OWN kid into that pool hall. If YOU DO then WHO should be changing their behavior? Me or you?

As I have said in posts on this before, Achebe, we can all have what we want. I can go to bars and restaurants that allow smoking. You can go to bars and restaurants that don't. I can work at a company that allows smoking, and you can work at one that doesn't. I'm not grabbing your kid off the street, stuffing them in a box, and feeding them a steady diet of cigarette smoke.

 

That's my thought exactly. If it isn't harmful, why avoid your child? If someone was smoking at your table or in your home and blowing it in the direction of your child, would you move her or ask them to stop? Why don't you want YOUR child breathing second hand smoke if it isn't harmful?

It is a curious bit of irony.

 

I misinterpreted. My bad.

Well, you are right. I am unsure. But that is in stark contrast to all of you who post because you 'know' what the truth is. I am unsure exactly BECAUSE I have reviewed most of the available literature (studies, memos, hearings, reports etc) and find the conclusions NOTHING like the general perception in the general populace. So it is neither disingenuous not caring. I 'know' most of those posting HAVEN'T reviewed ANY literature on the subject. People that blatantly come out and say 'we don't need no science telling us what is what.' Inhaling second hand smoke is NOT like setting your freaking pants on fire.

Jeff, if someone smokes in my home I tell them to stop. So should you if you don't want someone to smoke. EVERYTIME ANYONE has every been sitting next to me in a park, doorway etc and asked my not to smoke, I am happy to move. If I was somewhere with my child and the person would not move, then I would. What is the problem? As I've already stated, all places where children are in the care of someone OTHER than their parent are already non-smoking. If you are a parent then you ought to be able to handle the rest of the time yourself.

 

Hayes, you and Astro should probably chill...

but back to the topic, I'm confused by your iterative argument generator. Which is your stance?

1) ETS has no statistically significant effect(s)?
-or-
2) Non-smokers have the choice to be poisoned or to not be poisoned.

I'm dubious about claim one, just from a 5 minute review of the literature.
Number two is silly, because there are smokers everywhere in the South... and they all breath on you if you ask them to put their cancer sticks elsewhere.

ps, like derrrr... I work at the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, UT. Although I'm taking a long holiday (we celebrate the middle of summer here for some reason every July 24th), I can probably get some kick ass references on Monday.

I'll find out within a few minutes of walking in Monday, from people whose job it is to stay on top of the science, what's going on. 'til then...

 

Nevermind. You answered this in the last post.

 

When did smoking become a strictly Southern vice?

 

You personal observations about the color of your wallpaper at home is not enough to determine whether there are measurable risks to humans from second hand smoke. Sorry.

The effects of first hand (a smokers) smoke on that subjects lungs has nothing to do with determining if second hand smoke is harmful.

 

Don't have wallpaper. Wish we did. The constant reminder wouldn't always be there. Its not just wallpaper. It seeps into my clothes, back in high school, people always accused me of smoking myself because they smelled it on me. It changed the color of anything white, or capable of reflecting colors from the air. That includes stuffed animals, my computer, 'fridge...anything. 'sigh'

I agree, I'm through with this thread. Its just too personal to me.

Sorry for any offense Hayes Street. I should never have gotten involved.