Paul Daugherty: just ban all food

Thursday, December 07, 2006

just ban all food

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06fat.html?em&ex=1165640400&en=8f3cc947aa59b695&ei=5087%0A

Look, I dislike smoking as much as the next guy. My dad smoked for half a century. It took him almost as long to quit. He tried patches, gums, nicotine implants, hypnosis, cold turkey. Finally, he just stopped. It's an ugly, expensive and altogether useless habit.

But c'mon. When do we stop with the social engineering? Ohio's new law has accomplished what I never believed possible: Smokers are now sympathetic figures... I never was bothered by a smoker at a restaurant... restaurants have sophisticated air circulating systems that keep smoke to a minimum... was never bothered at a ballgame, either. These people arent criminals; they're just being treated that way.

Check out the above story and see if we're going too far with this. Rest in peace, Marlboro Man.

18 Comments:

at 10:23 AM

Anonymous said...

Mark Twain said it best, "When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it's always twenty years behind the times."

at 10:31 AM

Anonymous said...

As far as transfats are concerned, there's no logical explanation for them to be in food, other than the fact that it's a cheaper way to fry things. It's not like they're banning food with vitamin D in it, transfats far and away cause more heart disease than alternatives.

And, secondhand smoke does cause cancer (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422#2), so the burden is on smokers to enjoy their habit away from those of us that don't choose to do so.

at 10:32 AM

Anonymous said...

Paul, if you've never been bothered by a smoker at a restuarant or ballgame, then you can't possibly dislike smoking as much as the next guy. Although this new law benefits me, as someone who hates being around smoke, I do recognize that it infringes on the rights of private business people.

at 10:40 AM

Anonymous said...

I typically agree wholeheartedly with your comments, but I was surprised to read your sympathetic views on smoking in public! I can't believe you have never been bothered by a smoker in a restaurant or at a sporting event. I agree that smokers are not criminals and should not be treated as such, but I have also observed smoker arrogance on countless occasions (basically their belief that they should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want regardless of its effect on others).

I just do not see the injustice being done to smokers by not allowing them to smoke in public places. Not only will it be beneficial to other patrons in bars and restaurants, but also to bartenders, waitresses and others who have to work in smoke-filled environments on a daily basis.

As far as the ban on trans fats in NYC...I again do not see the big deal. Fried foods will still be readily available...just fried in a different type of fat. Plus, you can still get your fill of foods with trans fats at the grocery.

Too bad people don't create such an uproar when it comes to things really important in society...like crime and injustices done to truly innocent people...instead of whether their french fries will still taste the same!

at 10:47 AM

Anonymous said...

I'm usually a crazy free market anti-government libertarian (I hate the seat belt law). But this isn't a matter of regulating choice. In a public venue, smoking becomes a public health problem. I didn't believe how bad second hand smoke was until I read a neutral study. It kills people, plain and simple. This isn't about anything other than saving lives. If smokers want to kill themselves, fine, do it. But this law prohibits them from killing others. Bravo.

at 10:59 AM

Anonymous said...

I choose to NOT go to bars and restaurants because of the smoke. I won't join a bowling league because of the smoke because I get sick from all of the second hand smoke.

Like NY, one of the best things about California is the non-smoking. I can go out and not smell like smoke when I get home.

at 11:03 AM

Anonymous said...

9:48 perfectly illustrates what the real issue is, it isn't about health but it's about smelling bad after a night of drinking. (nevermind alcohol is far more destructive than cigarettes).

Here is a reality check, more people die in automobile accidents than from second hand smoke. not only do more people die from cars, the pollution cars produce every day makes urban areas flat out stink. If you apply the same rationale used to ban second hand smoke, health and smell, then next november a law banning driving should be on the ballot.

at 11:14 AM

Dustin Dow said...

Paul, I think an acceptable level of trans fats for people to intake daily is zero. So I'm glad NYC took this step. Too many people are currently unaware how trans fats are so severely affecting their health and that of the population at large. If skyrocketing medical costs are ever to be controlled, it has to start with a healthier public.

at 1:25 PM

Anonymous said...

Paul,
Being a non-smoker, I'm happy bout the ban. I've not been able to enjoy certain things like bowling or bingo simply because of all the smoke. As for the trans fats, I think people should eat it if they choose so - unlike smoking, it doesn't affect me.

Biker

at 1:38 PM

Anonymous said...

Doc-

You are way, way off on this one. Smokers as sympathetic figures? Hardly.

Do you have kids? How would you feel about exposing them to soemthing that is medically proven to be hurtful even, in some cases, for a single exposure? I work in pediatric healthcare (business side, I'm not a clinician) and, while I used to be farily tolerant about this issue, no more! There is just too much data.

The law aside, smokers have a moral obligation not to expose others to their smoke. Just as a person would have a moral obligation to inform their partners about STDs or hepaptitis.

There are documented medical facts about second hand smoke in bars andd restaurants for adults as well. It is an occupational health issue as surely as exposure to other toxic chemicals.

I have friends who are smokers and there is not a single one of them who will even ask to do it in our home or near our kids outside. I have never had to raise--or even discuss--the issue with them; they recognize what they are doing is unhealthy and take it upon themselves not to expose others to it.

Unfortunately, they will be dying off at the same rate as the smokers who insist on their "rights" at the expense of other people's rights.

at 2:58 PM

Anonymous said...

Hey, Dustin, this is a grown-up blog. Why don't you post on the Juco College blog you have?

Or do you and Doc have some arrangement to boost each others numbers?

at 3:27 PM

Anonymous said...

I agree with Paul. Government is taking a larger role in our lives with the passage of each of these overbearing laws. Is it the government's job to make decisions for us? When did we as a society stop taking responsibility for our own lives? Just about everything we do is legislated, and now the government is telling us what kind of food we can eat. If you are not smart enough to pay attention to what you are eating, then you have to live with the consequences. Let's not put more statutes on the books so that Joe Sixpack doesn't have to use his brain anymore when he goes to Burger King.

at 8:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Paul,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. You are spot on on this whole trans fat thing and tobacco smoking.
I think the problem with 2006 America is that too many folks think they have all the answers. It's a lot like mid-1930's continental Europe, and that scares the crap out of me. If you don't care for it, legislate it away. Freedom, be damned. I used to be a Republican, but I'm not anymore. I'm joining the Libertarian party, where there is still a healthy skepticism about the coercive power of the state.

Chip Lapp
Kenwood OH

at 12:07 AM

Anonymous said...

Hey Anon 11:03,

If people drove their cars indoors into restaurants, bars & office buildings, polluting & stinking those places up, we would seek to ban driving indoors. No one is saying you can't smoke, you just can't smoke indoors in public places. Silly comparison.

I believe George Carlin said "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in the pool." Nuff said.

at 9:04 AM

Anonymous said...

not silly at all

car accident deaths 42,000
second hand smoking deaths 37,000

on top of the accidents

http://www2.dupont.com/Autoairfilters/en_US/educ_center/educenter.html

"In-car air pollution levels frequently reach concentrations that may threaten your health. Every day harmful airborne particles including vehicle exhaust, fine road dust, pollutants and allergens are drawn in through your car’s fresh air vent. Automobile and diesel truck exhaust emissions are a major source of pollutants including benzene, toluene (hazardous exhaust pollution), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Recent studies have indicated a correlation between riding in traffic and changes in heart rhythm."

this is from the same group that constantly gives us statistics on the dangers of second hand smoke

its not a silly comparison at all

at 11:50 AM

Anonymous said...

Chip, Chip, Chip,

The problem is when your "Freedom" infringes on my health and quality of life. Go smoke your cigarettes in your house, or, failing that, outside our PUBLIC places.

Practice your religion in your church, don't shove it down my throat.

This is not about 1930's Hitler-esque coercian, this is about respecting the people around you.

at 1:16 PM

Anonymous said...

Let's pass a law banning people with green eyes. They piss me off! I'm offended by people who drive Orange cars too! Can't we pass a law against people who drive those too? I'm Ok with orange cars by the way, I just hate their drivers. After all, this is America and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about protecting drivers of Orange cars. Can we get the Gestapo to enforce these laws?

at 5:19 PM

Anonymous said...

Tobacco is not an illegal drug(yet). Smokers are not going to able to "just go" outside if you've been paying attention. Truck drivers are not allowed to smoke in their cabs.
Smokers pay billions, thats's billions with a "B" in state and federal tax's!!! The new laws are OK by me. That is if all the non-smokers pick up the tax slack and then I'll quit. Everybody wants it both way's when it comes to most things but smokers have been very accomodating in regard to non-smoking sections. All that and pick up the tax tab too. Wonder why it hasn't become illegal to smoke? Who do you think will complain that their tax'a have gone up? I'm asking YOU out there little Ms. It's All About Me Barbie and Mr. Politically Correct Ken. Oh I'm so sorry, that wouldn't be right. I guess I'll help you pick up the extra burdon as well if that time comes. Might as well since I now have some expendable income, because I gotta sit home and have dinner and a cocktail.

Previous Posts

Thursday, December 07, 2006

just ban all food

18 Comments: