Killer Kandy! It's Time for Government Control

[the iron horse]

America is under attack by a brutal industry that peddles death for profit to the American people. Every day nearly 2,400 Americans are cut down by heart disease, nearly one every 34 seconds, creating the largest and most likely cause of death in America.

Backed by addicted fanatics and corporate tycoons this industry targets not only consenting adults, but children as well, with $5 billion spent on Halloween alone. To solve this cycle of violence and fear I propose several steps:

1) A seven day waiting period on all candy purchases. This is to prevent emotion filled binge buying, allowing a person to settle down and reflect on what they are about to do to their body.

2) Back ground check to make sure they are healthy enough to eat the candy. Giving candy to an unhealthy person puts their life and the lives of others around them in jeopardy, and is not only unethical but should be illegal.

3) Ban high capacity candy containers. Why does someone need to have upwards of sixteen mints and/or Life Savers? These products only encourage dangerous eating behavior and no rational person has any use for them.

4) Outlaw the manufacturing, sale, and possession of certain candies that are so bad for you that they lack any reasonable nutritional value. These candies have only one purpose, to inflict bodily harm on those who eat them.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Lawl, like gun control except with candy AM I RITE????

u r so conservative and awesom!!!!

 

[financeguy]

Arguments against statism will always get a fair hearing from me.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Arguments against statism will always get a fair hearing from me.

I prefer when such arguments are not presented to me as if I were a kindergartner.

 

[melon]

Lawl, like gun control except with candy AM I RITE????

I like to "share" with high-powered assault candy. No one will get my PEZ!

 

[Canadiens1131]

I like to "share" with high-powered assault candy. No one will get my PEZ!

PEZ is a personal liberty. RON PAUL 08!!!!

 

[maycocksean]

America is under attack by a brutal industry that peddles death for profit to the American people. Every day nearly 2,400 Americans are cut down by heart disease, nearly one every 34 seconds, creating the largest and most likely cause of death in America.

Backed by addicted fanatics and corporate tycoons this industry targets not only consenting adults, but children as well, with $5 billion spent on Halloween alone. To solve this cycle of violence and fear I propose several steps:

1) A seven day waiting period on all candy purchases. This is to prevent emotion filled binge buying, allowing a person to settle down and reflect on what they are about to do to their body.

2) Back ground check to make sure they are healthy enough to eat the candy. Giving candy to an unhealthy person puts their life and the lives of others around them in jeopardy, and is not only unethical but should be illegal.

3) Ban high capacity candy containers. Why does someone need to have upwards of sixteen mints and/or Life Savers? These products only encourage dangerous eating behavior and no rational person has any use for them.

4) Outlaw the manufacturing, sale, and possession of certain candies that are so bad for you that they lack any reasonable nutritional value. These candies have only one purpose, to inflict bodily harm on those who eat them.

Word.

I had this friend one time who got mad because he thought some guys were messing with his girlfriend. He drove over to the house where she was at where a party was going on and pulled out a big old bag of Snickers. Good thing his dad showed up just then, grabbed the bag of Snickers, and wrestled him into his car. Otherwise all those partygoers woulda started eating and it would have been all over, know what I mean. That's why I fully support the restrictions on candy you've described. All it takes is one careless moment, a ho-ho offered in a moment of rage, and some one's life is OVER.

 

[maycocksean]

Arguments against statism will always get a fair hearing from me.

Even rebuking the argument is as easy as. . .well, taking candy from a baby?

 

[No spoken words]

Re: Re: Killer Kandy! It's Time for Government Control

All it takes is one careless moment, a ho-ho offered in a moment of rage,

Where I come from, you do not mess with another pimp, I mean, person's ho-ho. Not unless you want to get cut down by a wad of Big League Chew.

 

[BVS]

Wow, this is such a strong argument. Seamless...

You couldn't even argue that candy is just a "tool".

 

[Cin]

1) A seven day waiting period on all candy purchases. This is to prevent emotion filled binge buying, allowing a person to settle down and reflect on what they are about to do to their body.

hmmm, ponders how long it would take to make the rounds of all the shops so that supply never runs out. This means I'm gonna have to get a fake ID or get someone else to buy my candy.
It's my civil right to have candy dammit

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'll give up my Wintergreen Life Savers when they pry them from my cold dead hands

 

[INDY500]

If it wasn't for Green M&Ms I'd still be a virgin.

 

[Zoomerang96]

America is under attack by a brutal industry that peddles death for profit to the American people. Every day nearly 2,400 Americans are cut down by heart disease, nearly one every 34 seconds, creating the largest and most likely cause of death in America.

Backed by addicted fanatics and corporate tycoons this industry targets not only consenting adults, but children as well, with $5 billion spent on Halloween alone. To solve this cycle of violence and fear I propose several steps:

1) A seven day waiting period on all candy purchases. This is to prevent emotion filled binge buying, allowing a person to settle down and reflect on what they are about to do to their body.

2) Back ground check to make sure they are healthy enough to eat the candy. Giving candy to an unhealthy person puts their life and the lives of others around them in jeopardy, and is not only unethical but should be illegal.

3) Ban high capacity candy containers. Why does someone need to have upwards of sixteen mints and/or Life Savers? These products only encourage dangerous eating behavior and no rational person has any use for them.

4) Outlaw the manufacturing, sale, and possession of certain candies that are so bad for you that they lack any reasonable nutritional value. These candies have only one purpose, to inflict bodily harm on those who eat them.

are you serious?

here's an idea. if you don't want the candy, leave it on the fucking shelve.

 

[Irvine511]

it's not candy that kills, it's transfats.

sheesh.

 

[the iron horse]

I'll give up my Wintergreen Life Savers when they pry them from my cold dead hands

http://www.thefreesociety.org/

 

[BVS]

http://www.thefreesociety.org/

"Whisper it: non-smokers die too!"

Well no shit sherlock, but people should have as much of a say in when as they can. This is what people like this don't get.

I was in Austin last week and listening to talk radio, their local "freedom" movement talk show host spent an hour with other callers talking about why their movement doesn't get taken seriously. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY, articles and logic like this...

 

[the iron horse]

"Well no shit sherlock, but people should have as much of a say in when as they can. This is what people like this don't get."


How much did you read on link I posted?

What is it do I not get about desiring less government interference in my life?

 

[BVS]

"Well no shit sherlock, but people should have as much of a say in when as they can. This is what people like this don't get."


How much did you read on link I posted?

What is it do I not get about desiring less government interference in my life?

I've read the website quite a few times, you've posted it, quite a few times and I've read it on my own...

For example, the smoking issue. You feel it's perfectly fine to put others at risk because of your habit. That's just selfish irresponsibilty, so the government wants to give those that don't want to breathe smoke the choice to do so. And you, don't care about their choice.

That is just a small reason why so many don't get taken seriously.

 

[financeguy]

"Well no shit sherlock, but people should have as much of a say in when as they can. This is what people like this don't get."


How much did you read on link I posted?

What is it do I not get about desiring less government interference in my life?

Well, how far are you prepared to take this? For the sake of argument, would you legalise heroin? Now I know you're not the type of person that person that would dream of taking heroin and neither am I, I'm just interested in how far you'd extent the market free for all philosophy.


"I don't think any drug that can cause brain damage, failing kidneys, hardening arteries, pain, and suffering should be made available. "

- Layne Staley (1967 -2002)

 

[the iron horse]

I've read the website quite a few times, you've posted it, quite a few times and I've read it on my own...

For example, the smoking issue. You feel it's perfectly fine to put others at risk because of your habit. That's just selfish irresponsibilty, so the government wants to give those that don't want to breathe smoke the choice to do so. And you, don't care about their choice.

That is just a small reason why so many don't get taken seriously.

Thanks for your reply BonoVoxSupastar.

You seem to think I'm stuck on the smoking issue, which I am not, (too me it goes ways beyond that) but thanks for your civil disagreement on these issues.

Take care
a friend

michael

 

[financeguy]

For example, the smoking issue. You feel it's perfectly fine to put others at risk because of your habit. That's just selfish irresponsibilty, so the government wants to give those that don't want to breathe smoke the choice to do so. And you, don't care about their choice.

Do you drive, or ever use motor vehicles? If you do, and you're not equally in favour of describing car use as 'selfish irresponsibility' then you run the risk of being accused of hypocrisy.


Legalised abortion puts plenty at risk, are you going to get on your high horse about that too?

 

[BVS]

Thanks for your reply BonoVoxSupastar.

You seem to think I'm stuck on the smoking issue, which I am not, (too me it goes ways beyond that) but thanks for your civil disagreement on these issues.

Take care
a friend

michael

No, but it's the one you use the most often, and it's the one I see on website's like this most often.

But my problem is, you nor any of these website's address that side of the argument.

 

[BVS]

Do you drive, or ever use motor vehicles? If you do, and you're not equally in favour of describing car use as 'selfish irresponsibility' then you run the risk of being accused of hypocrisy.

Not exactly an equal analogy. First of all driving is a necessary evil, whereas smoking in public isn't. One can get to work without having to smoke within breathing distance of someone else. Secondly, I'm all for cutting down the use of harmful motor vehicle use.

Legalised abortion puts plenty at risk, are you going to get on your high horse about that too?

An even worse analogy. My stance on abortion is that it should be used as a last resort, and the reason it should be legal is that if it wasn't even more lives can be loss using the alternative.

High horse? This one is pretty lazy, even for you.

 

[financeguy]

First of all driving is a necessary evil

Not necessarily.

One can get to work without having to smoke within breathing distance of someone else.

On the face of it, this sentence does not make sense, unless you are unaware that motorised vehicles emit poisonous, highly dangerous fumes into the air. You surely cannot be unaware of this proven fact?

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar Secondly, I'm all for cutting down the use of harmful motor vehicle use.

Fine words butter no parsnips.

Will you answer the specific question previously put to you?

 

[BVS]

Not necessarily.

Really, all schools are within walking distance? Wow, I must live in some oddly large universe.

On the face of it, this sentence does not make sense, unless you are unaware that motorised vehicles emit poisonous, highly dangerous fumes into the air. You surely cannot be unaware of this proven fact?

That's why I put it in context, you aren't suppose to take single sentences at face value without looking at context. That's the point of context.

Fine words butter no parsnips.

Will you answer the specific question previously put to you?

I have, sorry you didn't catch it.

 

[financeguy]

Really, all schools are within walking distance? Wow, I must live in some oddly large universe.

Are you at school? Do you drive to school? If you do (and you haven't clarified whether or not you are a car user - we'll return to that later) why don't you rent a place closer to the school, and that way you can walk to school and stop with your irresponsible polluting of our environment?

That's why I put it in context, you aren't suppose to take single sentences at face value without looking at context. That's the point of context.

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what this means. For purposes of clarification, I will restate my earlier point in a different way.

Fact nr 1: Smoking causes various serious illnesses, including in those who do not themselves smoke

Fact nr 2: Car use emits noxious dangerous fumes which cause various serious illnesses, including in those who do not themselves drive.

And finally, number 3 - I wouldn't go as far to state this as a fact, but I'd be reasonably confident that it's true - deaths, injuries and serious illnesses directly attributable to car use are greater than deaths, injuries and serious illnesses incurred by non-smokers as a direct result of open air passive smoking on the part of tobacco users.

The problem we have is that having accused Iron Horse of being irresponsible with the health of others, it's up to you to demonstrate that you are in a position to throw such accusations around, which thus far, you haven't done.

I have, sorry you didn't catch it.

No, you didn't, and that's typical of your approach to FYM. You ask questions of others but don't deal with questions put to you. Of course, that's your prerogative. But if you consistently ask questions of other posters but fail to answer adequately or at all questions put to you (particularly, I suspect, where the answers might be inconvenient) then you run the risk that objective observers might consider you to be applying a double standard.

 

[BVS]

Are you at school? Do you drive to school? If you do (and you haven't clarified whether or not you are a car user - we'll return to that later) why don't you rent a place closer to the school, and that way you can walk to school and stop with your irresponsible polluting of our environment?

I'm not in school, but you couldn't possibly ask everyone who went to school to move within walking distance of their school, that's just a matter of geography, population, and property...

Yes I drive, I work at 7 different hospitals all over my city.

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what this means. For purposes of clarification, I will restate my earlier point in a different way.

Fact nr 1: Smoking causes various serious illnesses, including in those who do not themselves smoke

Fact nr 2: Car use emits noxious dangerous fumes which cause various serious illnesses, including in those who do not themselves drive.

And finally, number 3 - I wouldn't go as far to state this as a fact, but I'd be reasonably confident that it's true - deaths, injuries and serious illnesses directly attributable to car use are greater than deaths, injuries and serious illnesses incurred by non-smokers as a direct result of open air passive smoking on the part of tobacco users.

All of these are correct, and this is why I said "I'm all for cutting down the use of harmful motor vehicle use." But the part of the analogy you are ignoring is that one is still necessary. Once alternative transportation is available, either public transport, alternative fuels, etc then I would argue this analogy is a comparable one.

A smoker can be asked to not smoke in a restaurant, subway, or public enclosure without compromising their lifestyle. The majority of drivers at this point cannot.

The problem we have is that having accused Iron Horse of being irresponsible with the health of others, it's up to you to demonstrate that you are in a position to throw such accusations around, which thus far, you haven't done.

Honestly, my point with Iron Horse(on this paticular issue) has been more of being irresponsible about his stance. It's one that has always completely ignored the other side for the pure enjoyment of the smoker, and disguising it as freedom.

No, you didn't, and that's typical of your approach to FYM. You ask questions of others but don't deal with questions put to you. Of course, that's your prerogative. But if you consistently ask questions of other posters but fail to answer adequately or at all questions put to you (particularly, I suspect, where the answers might be inconvenient) then you run the risk that objective observers might consider you to be applying a double standard.

I apologize if you didn't understand my answer the first time, hopefully this post clarified for you...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.thefreesociety.org/

It was a play on words on that sort of famous Charlton Heston thing. I really have no fear that the govt is going to try to take candy away from me Just don't tell them about the 10,000 rolls of Life Savers that I have stored in the basement.