Nice Planet 2012

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

It's all about choices, of which you've made one in your post. And I wholeheartedly agree.

Soon the state will regulate our pop consumption. Then it will be our snack foods. Then it will be our alcohol. Eventually everything consumed will require prior approval... What happened to personal responsibility?

In fact, how can they allow cigarettes yet pop is somehow taboo? Give me a break.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Soon the state will regulate our pop consumption. Then it will be our snack foods. Then it will be our alcohol. Eventually everything consumed will require prior approval... What happened to personal responsibility?

In fact, how can they allow cigarettes yet pop is somehow taboo? Give me a break.

They already regulate alcohol, in a way.

And as I mentioned on FB to you, as a smoker, either ban tobacco, or allow it in all public areas, and let owners of private establishments decide for themselves. None of this half-arsed crap.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

I guess I was referring more to them banning things like pitchers, bottles of wine, etc.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

I guess I was referring more to them banning things like pitchers, bottles of wine, etc.

Gotcha.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

They already regulate alcohol, in a way.

And as I mentioned on FB to you, as a smoker, either ban tobacco, or allow it in all public areas, and let owners of private establishments decide for themselves. None of this half-arsed crap.

I had an anti-smoking Nazi call me on a talk show once (I swear this is true) to proudly boast that she had a "Thank you for not smoking" sign on her front door. She was not amused when I asked her if it lit up. And she had no answer when I asked her why. To guard against all the smokers who sneak into her house when she's not there to fire one up? Don't all of her friends and family members know of her preference? And in the unlikely event a smoker, who doesn't know her, comes into her home won't he be tipped off by the absense of ash trays? And in a worst case scenario, if somebody were to actually light up, all she has to do is tell them "we don't smoke in this house." No, the reason why this babe had the sign on her front door was to show the world how morally superior she was. Give me a freakin' break.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

I had an anti-smoking Nazi call me on a talk show once (I swear this is true) to proudly boast that she had a "Thank you for not smoking" sign on her front door. She was not amused when I asked her if it lit up. And she had no answer when I asked her why. To guard against all the smokers who sneak into her house when she's not there to fire one up? Don't all of her friends and family members no of her preference? And in the unlikely event a smoker, who doesn't know her, comes into her home won't he be tipped off by the absense of ash trays? And in a worst case scenario, if somebody were to actually light up, all she has to do is tell them "we don't smoke in this house." No, the reason why this babe had the sign on her front door was to show the world how morally superior she was. Give me a freakin' break.

Exactly. For hockey road trips, usually 1-2 people are smokers, the rest are not. Smokers do not ask to stop for a smoke. We take our opportunities. At non-smoking houses? We use a bottle/can outside for our butts. We try to blow away the smoke from others (the wind doesn't always cooperate). We are respectful of others choices. I wish the same could be said for ours.

But I digress. The ONLY reason tobacco is still legal is the lobbyists. 100% the lobbyists. The voters would ban it. And yes, that would be fine. Majority rules in an election. I can roll with that.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

But I digress. The ONLY reason tobacco is still legal is the lobbyists. 100% the lobbyists. The voters would ban it. And yes, that would be fine. Majority rules in an election. I can roll with that.

Smokers are still a significant minority. A huge stink would be made of any Congresshuman who voted to completely ban smoking.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Smokers are still a significant minority. A huge stink would be made of any Congresshuman who voted to completely ban smoking.

True. And you do have groups like Cigar Aficionado that would fight like hell to at least keep cigars legal, and as distasteful many of that crowd might find cigarettes, their best option to keep Tobacco products would be to keep any and all tobacco products around, even of the lower end of the spectrum.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Exactly. For hockey road trips, usually 1-2 people are smokers, the rest are not. Smokers do not ask to stop for a smoke. We take our opportunities. At non-smoking houses? We use a bottle/can outside for our butts. We try to blow away the smoke from others (the wind doesn't always cooperate). We are respectful of others choices. I wish the same could be said for ours.

But I digress. The ONLY reason tobacco is still legal is the lobbyists. 100% the lobbyists. The voters would ban it. And yes, that would be fine. Majority rules in an election. I can roll with that.

There are lots of things a majority might vote for which are nevertheless unconstitutional. Besides, Prohibition worked so well, and we had a real success story on our hands making everyone in the country (just about) a law breaker with the double nickel. Now apart from the thousands of people who would lose their livelihoods, you'd almost immediately have a prohibition-like response, only with tobacco. The Kennedy family, among others, would immediately begin running Mexican tobacco. China would get in on the trade, flooding America with cheap knock-off cigarettes at inflated prices, thus hurting the balance of trade even more. You might even have some cigarette salesmen from one Chicago gang lined up and shot by another Chicago gang.

 

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Soon the state will regulate our pop consumption.

Trust me, "big sugar" is next. Its not that far away. I have several family members who own a decent amount of stock in one of the big Cola companies, and I've repeatedly implored them to dump it as soon as possible. It's only a matter of time...

 

[SteveP]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Trust me, "big sugar" is next. Its not that far away. I have several family members who own a decent amount of stock in one of the big Cola companies, and I've repeatedly implored them to dump it as soon as possible. It's only a matter of time...

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Well, yes - technically, the government scientists (and other scientists as well) DO know what's best for public health. But people ought to have the freedom to make bad choices - and the responsibility to deal with the consequences of those choices.

Unfortunately, with increasing government interference in the health care market, health insurers are basically not allowed to charge fairly to cause people to pay for those consequences, so those consequences have become an externality of the choice rather than a consequence. Therefore, the government feels it has to step in to apply another band-aid (banning sugary drinks) to correct for this unintended consequence, and the cycle continues.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Well, yes - technically, the government scientists (and other scientists as well) DO know what's best for public health. But people ought to have the freedom to make bad choices - and the responsibility to deal with the consequences of those choices.

Unfortunately, with increasing government interference in the health care market, health insurers are basically not allowed to charge fairly to cause people to pay for those consequences, so those consequences have become an externality of the choice rather than a consequence. Therefore, the government feels it has to step in to apply another band-aid (banning sugary drinks) to correct for this unintended consequence, and the cycle continues.

Well, the Left certainly feels like it has to step in. The Right is perfectly happy to ignore market failures rather than acknowledge their existence. It's a collusion of ineptitude.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Well, yes - technically, the government scientists (and other scientists as well) DO know what's best for public health.

The same scientists who told us for years that margarine is healthier than butter, and that eating carbs is better for us than consuming those dreaded fats? Oops.

Human nutrition is an inexact science that not even the best scientists fully understand.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

This is just embarrassing...

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

The same scientists who told us for years that margarine is healthier than butter, and that eating carbs is better for us than consuming those dreaded fats? Oops.

Human nutrition is an inexact science that not even the best scientists fully understand.

Yet they probably understand it better than most others. And not everything is a huge mystery. Knocking back one of these each day probably won't help you stay in shape, if only for the calorie count.

That said, I have complete faith in the government's ability to screw up regulation.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

The same scientists who told us for years that margarine is healthier than butter, and that eating carbs is better for us than consuming those dreaded fats? Oops.

Human nutrition is an inexact science that not even the best scientists fully understand.

They've learned a lot in the past 25 years. And hell, its pretty simple really for figuring out you're overweight. If you're taking in daily the caloric intake that it would take to feed a starving African kid for a week, that's why you're fat. You could eat ice cream every day if you wanted to and lose weight as long as you're not consuming a calorie more than what you're burning that day.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

I'd like to nominate Martin Short for some sort of award for not slapping that comprehensively stupid b*tch Cathy Lee Gifford, for asking him questions about his marriage. His wife has been dead for a couple of years. And Gifford got caught playing the "we're all good friends" game, like she really knew or cared anything about Short's marriage, and really showed her a*s. Short, to his enduring credit, just smiled, and said how much he loved his wife. I doubt most people would have had the grace to do that. Martin Short is a mensch. And we all know what Mrs. Gifford is, don't we?

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

You could eat ice cream every day if you wanted to and lose weight as long as you're not consuming a calorie more than what you're burning that day.

Until you keeled over from cirrhosis and malnutrition, sure.

 

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Nice Planet 2012

Human nutrition is an inexact science that not even the best scientists fully understand.

It might be "inexact" but its really quite simple. EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. Granted there are cases where that won't work for someone due to genetics or whatever, but 99% of the time, you can live a perfectly healthy life by that credo.