Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year?  Thousands!  Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people!  Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them!

Obesity kills more people that all other causes combined!  It is time we put a stop to it!  Let's make it illegal for fat people to be fat anywhere near children or thin people!  Pass the law now to save ourselves from ourselves!  After all, if we can get a majority to agree with us, we can deprive fat people of their life, liberty and property!  Screw the constitution!

Reply #2 Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year? Thousands! Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people! Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them! Obesity kills more people that all other causes combined! It is time we put a stop to it! Let's make it illegal for fat people to be fat anywhere near children or thin people! Pass the law now to save ourselves from ourselves! After all, if we can get a majority to agree with us, we can deprive fat people of their life, liberty and property! Screw the constitution!

Glad to have you aboard!

Well...now we're just going to have poor, naked, hungry fat bastards running around grazing on various plants. I'm definately above a medium, so I'd better move to a warmer climate.

~Zoo

I'm definately above a medium, so I'd better move to a warmer climate.

Sorry, you are not allowed to be fat outside of your house. If you are caught outside, you will be arrested. Your fatness is infringing on the thin people's right to a beautiful view. Second hand fat is going to kill us all unless we stop fat now.

I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.

And if you ever wonder why moderate non smokers and even undecided non smokers go in and vote against smoking when "compromise" would be so much better....look at most of these replies.

God forbid anyone would want to look after their own health and that of their children.

I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.

Banning what I do on my property is pretty totalitarian, Tova. When we're talking about public property, it's another issue altogether, but what I do in my home (not yet banned) or business (banned in many areas) is my concern...provided I accept the risks for what I do.

Now, if you decide you don't want to patronize my business because I allow smoking, that is definitely your right. If enough people decide not to patronize the business, I would have to weigh the benefits of remaining a smoking establishment vs. the extra revenue I would bring in if nonsmokers returned because I didn't allow smoking. Frankly, I find smoking an abhorrent practice, but I have strong reservations about enforcing my view on others.

As far as multi-unit dwellings go, I can actually see the point. Too many apartments are poorly constructed, and smoke can seep through the cracks into a nonsmoker's apartment pretty easily. This effectively removes the choice for the nonsmoker.

But, back to my main rebuttal: I made the comparison with "public gluttony laws" because there IS a comparison to be made. Certain eating habits damage the individual, and eating to excess in public can trigger that desire in others. But is it really the role of government to micromanage our lives?

I'm a nonsmoker. But most of my life, I've had little difficulty avoiding smokers when I really choose not to be around them. One highly notable exception is in restaurants, and there I would not at all be against a compromise solution.

As you pointed out, though, Tova, smokers in the state of Ohio, at least, have noone to blame but themselves for all of this. Because if they hadn't tried to pass their "smokers' rights amendment", the rebuttal movement might never have formed, and would certainly have been less likely to gain such momentum. But if this were the ONLY example of overregulatory governmental laws, I would be inclined to dismiss it. The sad truth is, this is one of MANY such ridiculous laws.

Oh, but they have not passed any such laws. Show me where any state, municipality, or federal government has outlawed the sale of cigarettes?

Come on. There are thousands of known carcinogens LEGAL and for sale in the US. I guess that's all about money too. Yet if you took most of them into an restaurant and put them in people's food, air, or water, you'd go to jail for trying to poison them.

WWW Link

The legality of cigarettes has no bearing. They are still legal and people can still smoke 100 packs a day if they want too. The places smokers can smoke has been curtailed for the sake of the part of the population that doesn't smoke...but they are still free to exercise their smoking right.

Just like condoms are legal, but having sex in public is not.

Sorry Tova, but there is simply nothing that can rationalize these sorts of extreme fascist bans in a supposedly free society. Requiring a bar or other business to post a sign stating that smoking is permitted there would be reasonable, passing a law that forbids the owner of the business from allowing it is not no matter how many far fetched justifications one can come up with.

Requiring a restaurant to provide separate, isolated, and well ventilated dining areas for smokers and non-smokers is reasonable, banning it entirely is not.

Passing a law that says if you live in an apartment or condo you can't smoke in your own home is in no way reasonable. Passing a law that says you can't smoke in your own car is not reasonable.

This is all nanny state bullshit. Fascism. If people are so damned worried about their health and the health of their children they should be worrying far more about the damn cars they drive than some guy smoking a cigarette. The exhaust from a car is far more toxic than a 100 cigarettes. You inhale more carcinogens just driving down a busy street for 20 minutes than you ever could sitting in a bar full of smokers. The entire issue is nothing more than PC bullshit.

Back to the real topic here: demonizing the fat bastards in the name of public health and PC Fascism everywhere!

Additional step for The Plan:

As far too many of these fat bastards spend too much time sitting in front of their televisions and computers instead of getting much needed exercise, we need to lobby for a substantial tax increase on both cable television and internet services.

The real fascists here were trying to force everyone in Ohio to allow smoking by making it a constitutional RIGHT. Thereby over ruling all no smoking laws and ordinances.

Ummm, no. Fascism is authoritarianism (simplified version). Smoking bans are fascism, trying to amend the constitution in order to defend one's rights is a reaction to fascism. The real crime is that Americans allow this to go on in this country without a single complaint, and even support it, until it becomes directed at them personally.

The other real crime is that people in this country have completely forgotten that the whole point of a democratic society is compromise.

The whole, "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, because I wasn't a Jew" thing comes to mind here...

That comes to my mind every time I read/hear about yet another one of these bans being passed in a supposedly free society.

Reply #21 In Australia, wowsers have taken candy, chips and softdrinks from school canteens in a bid to reduce childhood obesity instead of addressing the problem directly with proper exercise and diet regimes, which include treats. Bloody idiots...

Is happening here as well.

No Tova, it becomes fascism when perfectly sane and reasonable compromises are refused out of hand in favor of authoritarian rule. If you can't understand that most simple of concepts I don't know what to tell you.

As for your hyperbole, well that's really all it is, isn't it?