Obese people may be banned from eating.

[tribdog]

My parents didn't smoke, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to die from their actions. If it wasn't for them I wouldn't have caught the most fatal disease known to man. Life. I'm pretty sure everyone dies from it eventually.
I also used to cut asbestos pipes without a respirator while smoking a cigarette which in hindsight wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done.

 

[rewebster]

I doubt barbecue smoke is more hazardous, but it's certainly not healthy. That's why my first husband and I built a brick barbecue pit at the back of our property. The smoke wouldn't bother anyone.

http://www.dana-farber.org/abo/news/press/grilling-script.asp

 

[tribdog]

Back to the fat people law, don't restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter what the reason is? Why is this law needed?

 

[Hootenanny]

Back to the fat people law, don't restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter what the reason is? Why is this law needed?

One has to be careful with systematic discrimination, if the law doesn't expressly permit restaurants to refuse service based on the level of obesity, then any restaurant that refuses service on such grounds is open to claims of breaches in human rights.

 

[tribdog]

One has to be careful with systematic discrimination, if the law doesn't expressly permit restaurants to refuse service based on the level of obesity, then any restaurant that refuses service on such grounds is open to claims of breaches in human rights.

Next you'll be telling me I have to stop refusing to serve black people.

 

[turbo]

Yep, all of this nonsense about banning this and banning that based on the cost to the public has opened the door to absolute control over our lives - there is no logical limit. And it certainly is not in line with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is a constant stream of self-important do-gooders willing to ban or restrict just about anything, using the "justification"' that if it saves only one life, then it's worth it. When someone wrote a piece for the local paper advocating mandatory helmet-use by all motorcyclists, I fired back a letter saying that ALL drivers and passengers in ALL vehicles should be required to wear DOT-approved helmets, because it would save lives. I also suggested that the speed limit should be reduced to 25 mph state-wide because that would certainly save lives. Sometimes satire is the only way to answer this crap.

 

[waht]

I was standing next to an overweight person and gained TWO pounds---I worked in an office with ALL women and ...

I wonder how you did that? Obesity is not healthy, and in most cases arises due to a clumsy life style, whether by a choice or instilled since childbirth. What might be a problem with this is a promotion of such a life style.

Kids in an obese family are way more like to end up obese, and accumulate fat earlier,

http://www.jhsph.edu/chn/Resources/futureoffatness.htmlI suspect obesity in restaurants is not good for their business in a sense a restaurant won't attract more customers. If your first impression in a restaurant is an obese crowd, would you come back to the place again?

 

[NoTime]

If people need to smoke, they can go outside near the dumpsters, with the rest of the trash.

Frankly, I'm offended by you calling my parents garbage.

 

[Cyrus]

Frankly, I'm offended by you calling my parents garbage.

 

[ShawnD]

The data is difficult to accumulate. Are you going to tell me you honestly think that if you sat in a room with a smoker, you would suffer NO adverse affects. Cmon.

It's a well known fact that all smoke causes cancer, but here you're talking about eliminating levels of smoke that show no statistically significant change in cancer rates. If we ban the tiny tiny amount of smoke you get from cigarettes, we would also need to ban camp fires, wood stoves, and coal barbecues in order to maintain consistency. Either that or we could just throw out all scientific knowledge we've accumulated up until now, declare that smoke from burning 10kg of wood in a camp fire is safe, then follow that by saying burning 10g of tobacco is irresponsible. This idea makes perfect sense!

The management will ask them to leave if necessary. If they fail to do, the police will be brought into play.

And that's how it should be. Police should be used to protect property rights, not remove personal freedoms. I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.

Yeah, too bad that smoke particles don't pay attention to sections. I can smell it far off. If people need to smoke, they can go outside near the dumpsters, with the rest of the trash.

In that case you should probably move to a country that actually has building codes. I hear the USA is still taking applications.
The smoking and nonsmoking sections are designated by how the ventilation system was designed. The heated air vents are on the nonsmoking side while the cold air return is in the smoking section. Air flows from the nonsmoking section to the smoking section. Always.

 

[seycyrus]

It's a well known fact that all smoke causes cancer, but here you're talking about eliminating levels of smoke that show no statistically significant change in cancer rates.

You want to quibble, ok.

All smoke causes cancer? But SOME smoke causes no statistically significant change in cancer rates? Doesn't ALL include SOME as a subset?

I'm not sure what studies you are referring to, but I can see TONS of inherent problems in a scientific survey of "second-hand" smokers. Anecdotal evidence being one of the primary prolems. Unless you are referring to experiments carried out on lab animals that were housed in an environment of secondhand smoke.

It's a personal right issue. I have a right to not have to breathe in a smokers filth. Let them wear some sort of containment system.

And that's how it should be. Police should be used to protect property rights, not remove personal freedoms.

What malarky is that? Police are to be used to protect property rights?!

Anyhow, how did we get from yapping in a theatre to protecting property rights? The guys yapping aren't violating anyone's property rights.

Anyhow number 2... I'm sure the police won't be called on the smokers UNTIL management has asked them to refrain from their behavior.

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death..

Oh give me a break.

In that case you should probably move to a country that actually has building codes. I hear the USA is still taking applications. .

Nice quip. Got any more?

The smoking and nonsmoking sections are designated by how the ventilation system was designed. The heated air vents are on the nonsmoking side while the cold air return is in the smoking section. Air flows from the nonsmoking section to the smoking section. Always.

Always is a lot more black and white and effective in your fantasy land, than in reality.

 

[ShawnD]

All smoke causes cancer? But SOME smoke causes no statistically significant change in cancer rates? Doesn't ALL include SOME as a subset?

Since you're implying that statistically insignificant is the same as non-existent,

I'm not sure what studies you are referring to, but I can see TONS of inherent problems in a scientific survey of "second-hand" smokers. Anecdotal evidence being one of the primary prolems. Unless you are referring to experiments carried out on lab animals that were housed in an environment of secondhand smoke.

It was carried out as a comparison of people who lived with smokers vs people who did not live with smokers. The difference in cancer rates between the groups was smaller than the margin of error, so they are statistically the same number.

It's a personal right issue. I have a right to not have to breathe in a smokers filth. Let them wear some sort of containment system.

It's a personal rights issue. I have a right not to listen to Dr Phil. Let him wear some kind of self containing cone of silence.

Part of living in a free country is that you have to put up with everyone else's freedom.

Police are to be used to protect property rights?!

In the free world, yes.

Anyhow, how did we get from yapping in a theatre to protecting property rights?

Because a smoking ban is a direct infringement of property rights. If I want to run a cafe where people can smoke freely, freedom-hating people like you will come in and tell me that I can't do that. I can't run a cafe the way I want. I have to run the cafe the way you want. Well who the hell are you? Did you pay for the cafe? Did you pay the taxes on it? Are you even a customer? If not, shut the hell up and don't tell me how to run my cafe. If you don't like the smoking, get the hell out.

Always is a lot more black and white and effective in your fantasy land, than in reality.

You're right, building codes are such a grey area. If only there was some kind of book where all of the codes were written with exact specifications about ventilation requirements...

 

[tribdog]

Back to the obese law again. Why would a restaurant owner care? Unless it was an all you can eat.
Fat people should hold a hunger strike

 

[ShawnD]

Back to the obese law again. Why would a restaurant owner care? Unless it was an all you can eat.
Fat people should hold a hunger strike

The proposed law is that restaurants would not be allowed to sell fast food to fat people. Well then who else do you sell to? Are you supposed to sell fast food to health-conscious people who know better than to eat fast food?

That's like telling Fountain Tire they're not allowed to sell tires to people who own cars.

 

[Evo]

http://www.dana-farber.org/abo/news/press/grilling-script.asp

That's about grilling the meat on high heat, it creates carcinogens.

The smoke is also unhealthy.

 

[mgb_phys]

When someone wrote a piece for the local paper advocating mandatory helmet-use by all motorcyclists, I fired back a letter saying that ALL drivers and passengers in ALL vehicles should be required to wear DOT-approved helmets, because it would save lives.

Motor/cyclists always seem to be the first victims of this sort of thing at least in the UK:
1, They introduced a limited access rule to limit the power and size of bikes for riders under 25 - this was going to be extended to cars, but somehow never was. It was introduced because of the number of accidents with middle age born again riders!

2, They tried to enforce that all clothing worn by bikers had to meet the same safety ratings as helmets. This was overturned when nobody could agree on an EU safety rating for socks and bras.

3, North Yorks police announced that they would ticket ALL bikes going above 40mph in the winding country roads for dangerous driving - even though the speed limit is 60mph.
Doing 60mph in a 3ton SUV would be perfectly fine.

More car drives die of head injuries in accidents than cyclists - it would mamke more sense to force drivers to wearr bike helmets.

 

[NoTime]

I looked at some of the US CDC death statistics.
For the 35 to 45 age group the leading cause of death seems to be of all things poisoning.
Motor vehicle accidents are a close second.
Perhaps a piece of duct tape over the mouth would be better than a helmet.

I don't think they included fast food as poisoning but ...

The don't seem to include your body just wearing out from age as a category.
I guess they want to be picky about just which straw it was that broke the camels back.

 

[seycyrus]

Since you're implying that statistically insignificant is the same as non-existent, I'll just go ahead and assume you failed grade 10 math.

I was running with your tendency to take the extreme case and apply that to your oppositions arguments. I even said I was going to quiblle. You taking that and using it is just sad.

It was carried out as a comparison of people who lived with smokers vs people who did not live with smokers. The difference in cancer rates between the groups was smaller than the margin of error, so they are statistically the same number.

As I said before. Many inherent problems in that sort of study. Show me the study withthe rats, living in a room filled with secondhand smoke.

It's a personal rights issue. I have a right not to listen to Dr Phil. Let him wear some kind of self containing cone of silence.

So you are you going to equate the action of turning on a radio, to the physical necessity of breathing? Riiiiiiiight.

Oh and by the way, there ARE laws regarding noise pollution. Get out the podium again, Patrick!

Part of living in a free country is that you have to put up with everyone else's freedom..

Oh sure, everyone can do anything they want in a free society.

In the free world, yes.

Because a smoking ban is a direct infringement of property rights. If I want to run a cafe where people can smoke freely, freedom-hating people like you will come in and tell me that I can't do that. ...

Freedom hating people like me...

I can assign roles as well. The difference is, *I* recognize the stupditiy of doing that, whereas you regard it as the norm.

You're right, building codes are such a grey area. If only there was some kind of book where all of the codes were written with exact specifications about ventilation requirements...

First off, If I can smell it, it aint doing it's job. That happened all overthe place where the yhave smoking and non-smoking sections. What world do you live in where you don't realize this?

Secondly... Building codes? What sort of cry against freedom is that? Argh, my civil liberties are being taken away! Next thing you know, it'll be against the law to broadast on any frequency I want ..oh wait ... Bring me my horse! One if by land, two if by sea...!

 

[turbo]

Motor/cyclists always seem to be the first victims of this sort of thing at least in the UK:

We found a way around this crap. We established the United Bikers of Maine, and we teamed up with the Marines and the Salvation Army to support the Toys for Tots program. The largest charity event in Maine happens the first Sunday after Labor Day, when tens of thousands of bikers descend on the state capitol, parade through town, and donate toys, games, clothing, money, etc for the program. The Salavation Army has to send a fleet of trucks to collect the donations. We invite the governor and other politicians to participate in the event, and the last two two-term governors have bought Harleys so they could ride in the parade with us. It's easy to get some political clout if you can give politicians some good press. The parade route is always lined with people of all ages, waving and shouting "thank you" and holding up signs supporting us.