Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
AceHigh:
What if an owner want their establishment to cater to smokers? Newsflash, there is no need for a smoking ban in order for proprietors to set their own rules in their establishments. Since you are so supportive of shoving your lifestyle down other's throat, I guess you wouldn't be against others doing the same to you? Like go full vegan, get converted to some religion and be subjected to a curfew because you should have a healthy daily rhythm. Social engineering for the win!
Nikkoru:
--- Quote from: occasional on November 11, 2012, 07:32:12 AM ---
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on November 11, 2012, 06:40:24 AM ---As for soft drinks cup sizes, there are better ways for governments to influence health. They could, for instance, put a small tax on escalating sizes of beverages so were less inclined to ingest so much. Or, better still, simply ensure people are better educated about nutrition and fund programs to develop a more health-inclined culture in your city. Banning them outright simply antagonizes people and doesn't change the fact that they still have poor eating habits.
--- End quote ---
Would've made much more sense to ban free refills.
--- End quote ---
I agree to an extent, but people rarely actually utilize refills to any significant degree.
The logic behind the law is, by making the cups reasonably sized to begin with the consumer will be more conscious of their intake. Should they choose to refill or purchase another cup they're immediately and consciously aware they're doing so. Something people typically aren't thinking about when they're half-way through a Big-Gulp. It's a psychological trick that genuinely works, people have different eating habits depending on how their food/drink is presented, especially the appearance of portion sizes. You might be satiated half-way through your meal, but you're still going to eat/drink the rest, that's fairly natural. Reduce the portions and suggest completion of the meal, and that changes. You very rarely hear of people ordering another main after the first -- we anticipate our hunger usually well beyond what it actually is.
Tiffanys:
Over 600,000 people die every year from second hand smoke... It has nothing to do with "lifestyle." That's like saying juggling biochemical weapons in populated public venues is a "lifestyle." Fucking bullshit.
If you want to kill yourself, then have right at it. But do the shit where it doesn't affect other people's health and their lives.
Someone going vegan doesn't make you vegan, in fact it doesn't affect you whatsoever. But someone smoking does affect you, because of secondhand smoke.
AceHigh:
And if you don't want to hang around with smokers, nobody is forcing you to visit the places where they hang out. Banning places where smokers can gather and smoke to their content is irrational and has nothing to do with second hand smoking.
It's just social engineering that aims to make it very hard for smokers to find any spot to smoke any more and thus force them to quit through inconvenience. All public places already banned smoke long ago, there is no valid reason to ban it on privately owned establishments.
One of the bullshit political parties in my country actually suggested to ban smoking in cars. The reason they presented is a real kicker: think of the children! Yeah, they actually claim that smoking in cars should be banned for everyone just because some parents may be irresponsible. Every time they make up such bullshit just to take away yet another spot where smokers can smoke. I am not a smoker myself, but I can't morally support such witch hunt and discrimination as everything else labelled as "social engineering".
Monkeyfinger:
Next they'll start requiring people to wear condoms, like they did in LA.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version