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

My position is that:

1. MOST if not ALL of the general public have a position on the issue without ever having read one thing that didn't come from TIME magazine. The studies just are NOT overwhelmingly in agreement. And the political scapegoating involved in things like the EPA Report never register on the public's screen because of their inherent distrust (well deserved) of Big Tobacco.

2. Non-smokers do not have to ban smoking to not be exposed. The free market can provide for all.

That's rude. I wouldn't do that and don't support it as long a you don't go Nazi-anti-smoker on me. I get tired of hearing people rant about how OBVIOUS it is that I am harming THEM when I know I've read tons more about than they have, and I know I would gladly put cig out or move if they were a little more polite.

Cool. At least you see a need to backup your argument. One of the most ironic things I've found since all this started months ago was that NO ONE would actually even see if there WERE studies that concluded differently. In fact I believe in the first thread I made these claims it was 96 posts of people giving me the 'i don't need science to tell me' crap before anyone even brought up the possibility that I was wrong on what the studies said. That is scary to me. Especially from people normally so diligent.

I should add that Jeff did once look up the EPA Report, although I think I insulted him before he posted it, so he probably should not be included in the above group.

 

Sorry for the confusion... I just don't have to deal with smoking in Salt Lake... except for the occassional jack-mormon that puffs away and throws a couple of curse words around... just so you know his stance on his faith.

I'm originally from the South... actually tobacco country... and cigarettes there are a god given right or something.

 

<b>Hayes</b>: I don't know about these other folks but I've never called for a ban on smoking. I think I could be comforted by strangling restrictions....

What I seek is a helluva lot more consideration for non-smokers from smokers than I see nowadays. I mean "hurt-your-back-bending-over-backwards" kind of consideration.

Go to the woods and smoke-- just don't waft it toward my lungs!

I see no reason why smokers should have rights to ruin the air I breathe. They have no economic incentive. At least industrial polluters have that.

You can't wait around until everything harmful is scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt before you make personal- or public-policy about it. Then it may be too late.

 

I thought we already were restricted from strangling smokers.

 

... that's "strangling" as in "narrow."

 

Hayes,

I never stated that I was sure about any scientific studies or anything, so no need to lump me into some general "you" category. I was just interested because it seemed as if you were sure...but then unsure.

All I am sure about are as follows:

1. I am allergic to smoke.
2. I have weak lungs due to an earlier illness, exacerbating said problems with smoke.
3. I think that one day smoking in restaurants and other "public" indoor places might be banned, but that is fairly far down the road...there are very few smoke free environments that I know about...meaning that I am forced into a situation at least once every two weeks or so.

 

I don't think there's any 'believe' about it. It's either harmful or it's not. Hayes has done a great job of showing that it's not conclusive as to whether it's harmful. I think your mocking him with the "write it a hundred times" thing is ridiculous. Trying to refute his arguments is probably a better approach.

'baud -- how are you ever 'forced' into breathing second-hand smoke?

 

OK. Sorry about that. I have and will say that the studies do not show the risk the general public has been shown to 'intuitively' believe it would be. I will defend that in an argument on this bbs or in person. I am not sure enough to constantly blow smoke in my kids face (although I don't blow smoke in anyone's face).

I can't imagine how you are 'forced' into a smoking environment, but that may be a result of where you live (not sure where that is). I admit it sucks that you are allergic to smoke. However, the percentage of the overall population that is actually allergic to smoke is very small, and by definition your problem is different from the question of whether ETS carries a significant health risk to the general population.

One other thing for some of you to consider. Why is it in Western Europe (France, Spain, Italy, Portugal), where the diet is much better than the American diet, but the alcohol and cigarette consumption is higher, are there less instances of what the media would term 'smoking related illnesses?' Its one more reason I think the other variables have more to do with these illnesses than smoking.

 

Yeah. thanks.

Well, gee. I don't drive a car. How about you stop driving cause I don't want your exhaust in my lungs. Go drive around in the woods. I don't want your outdoor bar-b-que smoke in my lungs as it wafts across my lawn and into my lungs. Don't spray ANYTHING chemical on your lawn or if you're a farmer cause its going to runoff in my groundwater. Don't put up a light so you can see your basketball goal in your driveway because the light pollution destroys my night sky and view of the stars, not to mention too much light pollution is killing sea turtles as it drives them out of traditional nesting areas (depending on where you live of course).

The simple fact is that all of us make decisions that affect what pollutants I am ingesting merely for your own convenience. Many of those activities are things I do not get to do. Do I get to tell you to 'go do it in the woods?' I don't think so. I deference to people like Rimbaud I would certainly say that in places like a subway or a school (for children) there should not be smoking. The free market can take care of the rest if the non-smoking community spends as much time letting the business community know what they want, and what kind of place they will frequent, as they do b****ing about how little the feel like being inconvenienced by smokers. If we're both in a park and my smoke is bothering you, move. If you thought my music sucked you might move. If you thought I stunk cause I hadn't showered you'd move. If you thought I was using to much lighter fluid on my barbque and you didn't like the fumes you would move. You just look down on smoking, so you want to 'strangle' me with regulations. I disagree.

I don't agree that you can create policy based on some ad hoc 'I can't define it but I know it when I see it' basis.

 

I understand that El Paso has passed a law that bans smoking pretty much everywhere, including in bars and restaurants.

At least that's according to Texas Monthly this month (the one with Staubach, et al on the cover).

 

Hayes, what economic benefit do you get from your smoking? We tolerate automobile exhaust because there is a greater public benefit-- that does not exist with cigaret smoke.

There's not much ad hoc about the offensiveness of cigaret smoke in closed quarters.

 

Hayes,

Understand, I was not trying to speak universally...that is why I kept it a persoanl level.

To both your and Freak's question...I am "forced" just in that being around second hand smoke can often be unavoidable, since it exists in most public spaces. Sure, I could lock myself indoors...but then I am not really living. I already am missing out quite a bit - I am an avid blues and jazz fan, but can rarely go to live performances due to environment.

Again, this is nothing universal and I am not trying to make you feel bad or anything, just speaking about why I, personally, am very concerned.

 

I don't leave my side of town very often, I had assumed Tinsley had succedded in making H-town non-smoking...

What I DO know...is that over here, the city passed an ordinance that prohibits smokin in every business in Baytown unless they seal-off a room with seperate ventilation systems for the smokers...smokin is also banned within 15 feet of the entrances to the businesses...want the name of my real estate agent???

 

It would be fairly easy to economically justify less automobile usage. Many many many angles. For example, we reduce the huge dependency on foreign oil (which has multiple layers of effect on the economy - no oil shocks, no huge ass trade deficit), or we reduce what the ultimate cost of the Greenhouse damage will be or plenty of others, less autos on the road means more mass transit, increasing the overall efficiency of the economy as less of the GDP is spent on transportation. GM and Ford et al aren't just going to close, they will have to turn away from the internal combustion engine and develop (or more likely take out of mothballs) alternative energy technologies, and these innovations will drive a whole cycle of economic gains. Really. The list is endless.

But that begs the question of which is more important, my right to make a decision that somewhat infringes on you, or your/own right not to have pollutants forced on me/you.

As per the close quarters, my simple answer is that you do not have to be in close quarters with a smoker.

 

I can understand that. And really I agree that sucks. However, I would say that non-smokers are a much larger portion of the population that smokers. If non-smokers addressed this to the business community (we are not coming to events that allow smoking) then I see no reason the market would not provide for those who are like you and just CAN'T handle or even do want to be around the smoke (although taking smokes out of the blues and jazz is kinda like taking out the alcohol). Yes, it sucks for you now. But the non-smokers ARE organized. I just say they should be exerting pressure on the business community, instead of passing laws that don't allow like minded people (smokers) to exist. I am less symphathetic about a park or open air public space since I don't think you passing the bench I'm on and going one or two benches down is such a big thing to ask of a tolerant person. Even the luddites out there should realize the basic science of how much cigarette smoke dilutes in the open space and how that is different than first hand smoking (although I understand at your concert example where this might not be true).

 

Hayes, your economic factors have nothing to do with individual liberty or well-being.

Cars are more or less a necessity. Cigarets are a habit.

Do you know how many times I've been comfortably situated somewhere (indoors or outdoors) and had some smoker come plop themselves down and foul my air? It's a lot. Should I still be the one to move in such an instance?

 

Take heed, TheFreak has written something brilliant. Let us remind him of these words when the science might not be on the conservatives' side (I know I know... TheFreak is a 'moderate', lol).

Actually I'm not sure which is more amazing... the fact that TheFreak has approached actualization, the fact that a smoker wrote something as lucid as:

or the fact that giddyup is rationalizing different poisons based on the public good and the market approach.

giddyup, by your suggestion:

Would you concede, that public transit fulfills the 'necessity'. A bike fulfills many a necessity. Battery powered cars are a hoot. SUVs aren't necessary for most of the small peckered business people that purchase them.

regulate it all!

 

yes, achebe, I concede that public transport fulfills the "necessity" but we in America have gone far beyond the necessity into The Land of Convenience.

I don' think I am rationalizing different positions. We are a nation where our conveniences are their luxuries.

I think I'm just being practical not idealistic.