Should smoking be illegal?

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

There's some arguments against governmental supplied/tax funded healthcare to be made about this, but this probably isn't the place.

What about perfectly in shape, healthy individuals who want to occasionally eat unhealthy meals?

I wasn't suggesting banning it all together. My suggestion was taking the convenience out of it either by taxing or by banning the super large portions so if a person wants a super sized burger he'll have to get two smaller meals and spend more money. He can still eat just as much as he wants, but now he's forced to go slightly out of his way to do it. As for the 64oz sodas... you can go to a grocery store and get huge bottles of soda for only $3. If you want that much soda that badly go to a grocery store. I think America has this over emphasis on making mass quantities of food cheap. Our food is cheaper than a lot of other countries who pay as much as 8-15% more (depends on the country) for the same food. Meanwhile a gallon of milk goes up by 20 cents and all of the sudden Americans are "starving".

In order to prevent over consumption and using up our natural resources we should make it possible but much more expensive/inconvenient to buy fast food. This way you still have a "choice" but you might be less likely to make that choice.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

I wasn't suggesting banning it all together. My suggestion was taking the convenience out of it either by taxing or by banning the super large portions so if a person wants a super sized burger he'll have to get two smaller meals and spend more money. He can still eat just as much as he wants, but now he's forced to go slightly out of his way to do it. As for the 64oz sodas... you can go to a grocery store and get huge bottles of soda for only $3. If you want that much soda that badly go to a grocery store. I think America has this over emphasis on making mass quantities of food cheap. Our food is cheaper than a lot of other countries who pay as much as 8-15% more (depends on the country) for the same food. Meanwhile a gallon of milk goes up by 20 cents and all of the sudden Americans are "starving".

In order to prevent over consumption and using up our natural resources we should make it possible but much more expensive/inconvenient to buy fast food. This way you still have a "choice" but you might be less likely to make that choice.

Why should I, an in shape, healthy man with a high metabolism, be forced to pay more or go out of my way to eat something I want?

[Moonlit_Angel]

I understand the idea you propose in theory, ladyfreckles, and don't necessarily think it's a bad idea in and of itself. But given the sort of money I see people willing to shell out for cigarettes, I don't know that making other unhealthy things more expensive will make them stop and think a bit about buying that stuff.

Seriously, it is insane the money people spend on cigarettes. I could think of SO many better uses for it.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

There're some arguments against governmental supplied/tax funded healthcare to be made about this, but this probably isn't the place.

What about perfectly in shape, healthy individuals who want to occasionally eat unhealthy meals?

Well let's not forget even when fully private sector we collectively pay. Don't fall for that Republican shell game where they conveniently sweep those kinds of facts under the rug.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Why should I, an in shape, healthy man with a high metabolism, be forced to pay more or go out of my way to eat something I want?

Because mass quantity and consumption of food/substances that are not only harmful to you but are unnecessary is a luxury, not a human right. We pay less for food than other countries do, I think we can handle paying a little more for food that destroys our hearts.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

I understand the idea you propose in theory, ladyfreckles, and don't necessarily think it's a bad idea in and of itself. But given the sort of money I see people willing to shell out for cigarettes, I don't know that making other unhealthy things more expensive will make them stop and think a bit about buying that stuff.

Seriously, it is insane the money people spend on cigarettes. I could think of SO many better uses for it.

The restrictions and taxes on cigarettes have drastically cut down cigarette consumption over the past few decades. Yes, people do continue to do it. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to stop. But it makes people have to think about something like that before getting into it.

[anitram]

I think that as a society we'd be better off educating people about food, making local produce readily available and affordable, particularly in poor neighbourhoods where you can't find fresh fruits and veggies or good quality fish, and maybe incentivize providers of healthy fast food or cheap healthy food on the go.

Removing choice will punish the wrong people and just really doesn't work.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

Because mass quantity and consumption of food/substances that are not only harmful to you but are unnecessary is a luxury, not a human right. We pay less for food than other countries do, I think we can handle paying a little more for food that destroys our hearts.

I think you have a misinformed idea of what exactly a human right is.

Why should we have to have a 'lower' standard of life simply because other countries do?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think that as a society we'd be better off educating people about food, making local produce readily available and affordable, particularly in poor neighbourhoods where you can't find fresh fruits and veggies or good quality fish, and maybe incentivize providers of healthy fast food or cheap healthy food on the go.

Removing choice will punish the wrong people and just really doesn't work.

This, on the other hand, I find totally acceptable.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think that as a society we'd be better off educating people about food, making local produce readily available and affordable, particularly in poor neighbourhoods where you can't find fresh fruits and veggies or good quality fish, and maybe incentivize providers of healthy fast food or cheap healthy food on the go.

Removing choice will punish the wrong people and just really doesn't work.

Except that's exactly what I'm suggesting and I never suggested taking away choice. Make the bad foor more expensive and the good food more affordable will really help people out. Many people eat "bad" foods because it's the cheaper option.

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I think you have a misinformed idea of what exactly a human right is.

Why should we have to have a 'lower' standard of life simply because other countries do?

Because your standard of life is not sustainable and comes at costs that are far beyond what you can foresee or understand.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

Because your standard of life is not sustainable and comes at costs that are far beyond what you can foresee or understand.

Understanding the cost of me eating a burger now and then is above my pay-grade. I see. Care to explain to me just exactly what that cost is? Use little words so I can understand you, please.

[VintagePunk]

Confession: I smoke cigarettes. Gasp.

It's my choice. The anti-smoking message was just getting started when I started, but it was nowhere nearly as prevalent as it is now. When I started smoking, in the 80s as a teen, you could smoke in doctor's offices, in hospital emergency rooms, and walking down the aisles in grocery stores. I'm very happy that it's not like that now, because that's gross. On the other hand, when I'm outside in the open smoking and someone walks by me 20 feet away and curls their nose at the smell...come on, that's ridiculous. That whiff of the scent you're getting for a nano second is doing you absolutely no harm, and you're just being an obnoxious shit.

I know it's harmful, but so are a lot of other things, and I enjoy it. Maybe I'll quit someday, but not now.

I smoked a bit during my pregnancy in the late 80s, before that behaviour was practically criminalized, and despite the "LOW BIRTH WEIGHT!!!" warnings, my child was 9 lbs, 3 ozs. No ill effects at all. My mom, and many of her peers, smoked during pregnancies. We're fine. And yet, in this non-smoking time, when smoking during pregnancy/around your children is verboten, rates of allergies and asthma are higher than ever. Why is that?

Again, fully aware it's not good, and I hope to quit someday (honestly, I've cut down, but never really tried to quit, I like it too much), but the attitudes of some people are nuts. I'm glad it's not allowed in indoor public places anymore. I wear my seatbelt. I don't drive if I've had even one drink. I'm not eating half a cow every week or consuming buckets full of sugar. I wear lifejackets on boats, helmets on bikes. Your sins probably aren't any less than mine.

I also know some pot smokers - in my age group, the occasional users are fine. The regular users seem to be unmotivated burnouts, so don't kid yourself that there's no harm.

Eta - I think that if the anti-smoking messages now were as prevalent when I was a kid, I wouldn't have started.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Understanding the cost of me eating a burger now and then is above my pay-grade. I see. Care to explain to me just exactly what that cost is? Use little words so I can understand you, please.

The "you" I was using referred to the individual. Often the individual does not stop to think about how we are making these foods for so cheap. Shortcuts are taken. Natural resources are used up and the soil is so overused it becomes "dead" and we need even more artificial things so plants will actually grow in it. The world will soon be seeing a food shortage crisis (maybe not in this lifetime) and you have to look at the bigger picture to see why you don't have a right to chemically filled burgers that are mass produced and made cheap and terrible for you. There isn't an endless supply of food on this earth. Nobody is banning the burger, they're just making them cost more. Explain to me how trying to limit consumption by making it a little more expensive to eat a burger and cheaper to eat healthy food violates your human rights.

We're not making it more expensive so we can be like other countries. Other countries pay more for their food because of importing costs and because they don't make food the same way we do--they do it in a much more sustainable way. Yes, it does cost more. We have to question WHY our food is made so artificially cheap.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

The "you" I was using referred to the individual. Often the individual does not stop to think about how we are making these foods for so cheap. Shortcuts are taken. Natural resources are used up and the soil is so overused it becomes "dead" and we need even more artificial things so plants will actually grow in it. The world will soon be seeing a food shortage crisis (maybe not in this lifetime) and you have to look at the bigger picture to see why you don't have a right to chemically filled burgers that are mass produced and made cheap and terrible for you. There isn't an endless supply of food on this earth. Nobody is banning the burger, they're just making them cost more. Explain to me how trying to limit consumption by making it a little more expensive to eat a burger and cheaper to eat healthy food violates your human rights.

We're not making it more expensive so we can be like other countries. Other countries pay more for their food because of importing costs and because they don't make food the same way we do--they do it in a much more sustainable way. Yes, it does cost more. We have to question WHY our food is made so artificially cheap.

I think the ideas in the beginning of the first paragraph are a lot of what's wrong with government interference and regulation: the idea that people are too "stupid" to understand these things on their own, and make educated decisions without the government penalizing you for making the wrong choice. I'd like some links to provide evidence that eating fast-food will one day rob the earth of all edible resources. There are myriads of ways to replenish soil, and I'm confident as science progresses, even more efficient ways will be discovered.

I absolutely never said that trying to limit consumption of unhealthy food limited human rights. I was simply implying that, if you think that disliking the idea of the government putting extra taxes on choices they deem wrong = claiming the right to overeat as a human right, that you must have a misunderstanding on what exactly a human right is.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think that as a society we'd be better off educating people about food, making local produce readily available and affordable, particularly in poor neighbourhoods where you can't find fresh fruits and veggies or good quality fish, and maybe incentivize providers of healthy fast food or cheap healthy food on the go.

Removing choice will punish the wrong people and just really doesn't work.

Yeah, well, everyone wants to cut taxes, and one of the first things to go is education spending when taxes are cut.

[Caleb8844]

As the US school system demonstrates, a better funded education system doesn't necessarily equal a BETTER education system.

[VintagePunk]

Education is getting to be a scam, anyway. I know university educated people who are competing for minimum (or slightly above) wage jobs.

Education is awesome for your brain, your well-being, whatever. Just don't count on a job that pays for it once you're finished.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

As the US school system demonstrates, a better funded education system doesn't necessarily equal a BETTER education system.

And I'm sure the perfect solution is to do nothing but cut funding.

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

Education is getting to be a scam, anyway. I know university educated people who are competing for minimum (or slightly above) wage jobs.

Well, that's higher education. I'm talking about all forms of education.

[Caleb8844]

The solution is a whole other, unrelated issue.

Regardless, I find it hard to believe that, in today's day and age, we need to have specific education to explain to people that the whopper isn't the healthiest of meals.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Well, that's higher education. I'm talking about all forms of education.

True. In no way should there be cuts to elementary or high school education.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

The solution is a whole other, unrelated issue.

Regardless, I find it hard to believe that, in today's day and age, we need to have specific education to explain to people that the whopper isn't the healthiest of meals.

If they're not learning from their families, the main source of one's food education, where will they learn from?

Isn't nutrition a component of health classes, anymore?