Quote:
The government would probably be Ok with it, as long as they were fully informed of the risks. But there isn't any because food poisoning infects you alot harshly than exposure to second hand smoke. You won't get lung cancer if you go to a bar every weekend or after work for a drink.
|
That's like saying there's no risk of choking when you swallow. The government would NOT be okay with someone selling diseased food for human consumption, at least the Canadian government wouldn't be.
And who's talking specifically about lung cancer? There are dozens of other lung conditions that are caused and/or exacerbated by cigarette smoke, like asthma, allergies, and emphysema.
Quote:
I only rarely hear about that people that get cancer from exposure to 2nd hand smoke. And usually they are close to or way past there retirement age
|
And I suppose getting lung cancer when you're old is better than getting it when you're young?
Smoking-related diseases cost hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with. Maybe in the U.S. where you all pay your own healthcare costs, and if you get sick it's your own fault, that's not a big part of the issue, but here it's everyone's problem because that money comes out of all our pockets.
Quote:
You say I have this stereotypical American point of view, but it is really you that has it. You have that "it can't possibly be my fault" mentality that plagues america today. Its the knid of mentality that makes it "ok" to sue McDonalds because you are overweight.
|
So it's going to be my fault for breathing in the remnants of your habit? Again, you're taking an example of an individual effect--getting fat from fast food--and applying it to this situation. When I eat a burger, the fat and cholesterol doesn't jump into your blood veins.
The fatbodies who sue McDonald's are retarded, anyways. If this thread was about ridiculous lawsuits, they'd be on top of my list of people to laugh at.
Quote:
Thing is all you health zealots preach about banning smoking, But in the heat of it all you fail to be rational. Maybe funding research into air purification systems, or talking to congress to require owners of smoking estabolishments to require a certain amount of ventalation in there building. But No, you know whats good for people, you have the right to be an irrational twit.
|
The fact of the matter is that your freedoms should not infringe on my freedoms. Making me change my lifestyle to accomodate your addiction does just that.
BTW, ventilation does very little to affect cigarette smoke, unless you're talking about putting your restaurant in a wind tunnel. The big donut chain here, Tim Horton's, put those fancy ventilation systems in most of their new shops and it still stunk like shit.
You always talk about how non-smokers can just go somepleace else... the bar that is all non-smoking, the restaurant that is all non-smoking. Maybe you and Ziggy could come here and we'll go back in time 12 months so you can show me where all those places were. Ironically, the only restaurants that were completely non-smoking were the big fast food joints.
Since the ban was put in place, business at restaurants and bars has increased, and all the people who were complaining about how it would infringe on their rights have been left with their foots stuck firmly in their mouths. The only person still whining is one bumtown hotel owner who is trying to scapegoat the results of his crappy business practices on the smoking ban.
I can actually get a seat in the mall food court now, too! The smoking section isn't filled with people who sit for two hours nursing their 99 cent cup of coffee, while people like me who will buy an entire $8.00 meal have to walk around and eventually decide not to bother at all. If you told the smokers to leave back then, well, you were infringing on their rights as a paying customer!
Everyone eats in 10-15 minutes and makes room for the next wave of customers. Dollars sure make people forget their previous complaints.