There could be your chance to be rich! Go to Vegas or somewhere else that allows restaurant smoking and open a non-smoking bistro.
Then profit.
Or did it not work simply because the overwhelming majority of people were perfectly fine with the smoking/nonsmoking seating? The anti-smoking zealots really cured a problem that didn’t exist. I don’t remember hearing anyone but a handful of do-gooders complaining about restaurant smoking sections.
Why would any good capitalist do that, when they could open one that allowed smoking and therefore attracted smokers? The non smokers will be unhappy, and their health will be at risk but they’ll come anyway.
And I don’t have the proper amoral, predatory outlook to make a good businessman. I don’t*** like*** cheating and exploiting people. I’d actually care if I condemned people to death for profit.
Then you weren’t paying attention, probably because admitting a problem existed involves admitting the free market is imperfect. Plenty of people complained, not to mention made jokes about smoke magically stopping at the “No Smoking” sign. But there was no profit to be gained in setting up no-smoking restaurants or bars, so few if any were.
No. It’s like being afraid of giving an entity power to dictate what I consume; a power I cannot legally resist. It’s more like going to the doctor and having him tell me chocolate can be dangerous to my health, so it is now illegal to eat it. It’s a completely valid argument, but your failure to see that doesn’t surprise me.
Of course it is hindered, because you have grand plans for what people should and shouldn’t do.
In other news, we have always been at war with Oceania and there are five lights.
Sure there is: don’t make laws prohibiting behavior between consenting adults.
His fear it understandable; your failure to understand it only makes your view more troublesome. What you seem to be fully endorsing is a tyranny of the majority - whatever 51% of the people say must go. Can you truly not understand his fear here?
My freedom most certainly is, because you want a say in what I eat or drink. I have no interest in what you eat or drink. Hence your vote harms me, while mine does no harm to you.
I don’t think smoking is a “personal” anything. It’s the major cause of increasing health costs. We are reaping what we sowed in letting it go on this long, and even subsidizing growers.
I support your conclusion but not your reasoning. The reason I am against smoking is because it hurts other people. Using “increasing health costs” as a justification only works because you’ve deliberately turned health costs into a negative externality, at which point you’re using government control to justify government control. That, and like “interstate commerce”, it seems sufficiently broad that there’s not much the government couldn’t shoehorn in.
Yes. It’s the same principle as laws against drunk driving; if you want to drink alcohol that’s your business, but when you start endangering other people it becomes society’s business.
If the Republicans and Big Food will block cuts in subsidies, won’t they also block the taxes? Or looked at the other way, if the American people can impose the taxes, why can’t we just impose the subsidy cuts instead? Bluntly, paying farmers to grow something and then taxing it to prevent people from eating it is incredibly stupid. So stupid that I can picture the government doing exactly that.
No it’s not. Look up the word “choice” in the dictionary. I have choice when I can decide what to eat, not when the government tells me what to eat, regardless of whether the government is democratic or not. Your attempt to define “choice” as the state where the government manages our diets would bring a knowing smile from George Orwell if he were still around.
True, but that’s no reason to take away choices, just as the fact that we can’t eliminate crime doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce crime.
Your entire line of reasoning is based on the fallacy that the government and each person have the same goals. If the government sets out to reduce obesity, that’s a specific goal where success or failure can be measured. Ordinary people, on the other hand, don’t necessarily have the goal of better health. Some may decide to attach more importance to eating tasty food than to extending their lifespan. Hence you cannot attach the label of “failure” to their personal decisions.
This statement is not so much wrong as inane. There are no qualifications for choosing food, any more than there are qualifications for choosing clothing or hair style. Hence there’s no way that anyone can be unqualified to choose their own food.
There’s a reason why the anti-smoking campaign succeeded but the anti-tasty-food campaign failed. Few people smoke. Hence it was possible to democratically impose anti-smoking measures. But everyone eats, and almost everyone likes to eat good food and disregard the health consequences at least once in a while. Hence the anti-food campaign is going up against almost everyone.
That’s simple reality. The anti-smoking campaign started in the 50’s. By the 90’s, smoking rates had declined sharply. So it took 40 years to succeed. The anti-tasty-food campaign has been going for about 40 years now, and it has achieved exactly nothing.
Chocolate, on the list of dangerous items, is essentially harmless. Its not comparable to trans fat. UHC would be good or neutral for everyone; good for those who don’t have health care or have crappy health care, and neutral for those who already have good health care. I believe the government has the right to ban things, and unless you’re a devout libertarian, you would probably agree that some things are better off banned. There’s nothing anti-freedom about giving up a bit of power, especially since you could just have it changed the next election
Eh, if you’ve going to descend into pointless hyperbole about my supposed “grand” plans then there’s no point in arguing with you, you’ve already made up your mind
Star Trek and some other reference? Are you debating or can I start making pop culture references? If you cant refute what I said than just say so and leave quietly
Consenting adults take advantage of others. There is absolutely no way to guanrantee everyone’s ability to freely exercise all choices they choose to. If a company has a monopoly on some vice that I’m forced to consume or use and the alternative is to quit my job and move with money I don’t have, then that choice isn’t free. Capitalism isn’t what its cracked up to be.
I understand it, I just dont agree with it. I feel that people who see every slipperly slope into its most extreme end, use language that exaggerates, or postulate the unreasonable outcomes of small changes are doing a disservice to debate. All you keep saying, aside from pointless tangents about my grand plans to conquer Oceania, is that “you dont understand, you’re a tyrant”. Why dont you try actually debating the point? Why would small bans of things that are actually harmful like smoking or trans fats inevitably lead to concentration camps for the dissenters? Its an insane proposition.
His fears are exaggerations. We’ve had bans on things like exploitive labor practices, environmental damage, or hell, even certain types of guns, and we’re still free. People who’ve predicted dissenter prisons are left to argue with shitty examples like the Japanese internment (only done during war and panic, later repudiated and apologized for) or Guantanamo (similar fears, in the process of being removed now). In fact, since we’ve banned smoking ads to kids, smoking has decreased. Having anti-trust laws has lead to less companies having monopolies on one industry, and food safety laws have made our food generally pretty damn safe. Sure, lots of things could be improved. But you’d be hard pressed to cite any example where a complete lack of regulation of a dangerous product or service has been bad for people en masse.
Lots of things have been banned for decades. Are we really that much worst off than before?
A small say. I’m not going to stand behind you and slap burgers out of your hand. My voting to make restaurants more healthy has a miniscule impact on you. And I’ve already made it clear that my paying for your health care harms me, albeit by a little. That’s why my vote only counts a little.
I think the fact that the “pro-tasty food people” have better arguments and a better moral position helps. Eating “bad food” doesn’t directly hurt other people, smoking does.
Personally I think one of the great failures of the “anti food people” is the moralistic overtone they often take. Moral arguments against smoking work because the anti-smoking argument DOES have a moral leg to stand on. Smokers who smoke around others are putting them in danger; and the high addictiveness of tobacco undercuts the “it’s my choice!” argument. IMHO, the “healthy eating” people on the other hand undercut themselves when they try to portray poor diets as bad ( as opposed to foolish ). The people who eat “bad food” and say it’s no one else’s business have a much better case to make than smokers who say the same about smoking.
Yes, a paltry45 million Americans smoke (~21% of the population). I can count that on one hand.
Quoth outliern:
Since nobody else has answered this, the consensus now seems to be that saturated fats are bad, but trans fats are even worse. And the whole point of trans fats to begin with was to replace the unhealthy saturated fats. The ideal would be nothing but olive oil (a monounsaturated fat with antioxidants and other good stuff in it), but a move from trans fats back to saturated fats would be a step in the right direction, without really sacrificing anything in terms of taste.
That said, while I don’t have a problem with a government banning trans fats, I’m not really sure it’s necessary. Consumers have learned by now that trans fats are bad, and food companies have likewise learned that putting “Now with no trans fats!” on a label makes them sell more, so as long as there are laws prohibiting the food companies from lying about that (and there are, and have been for some time), the problem will take care of itself.
Absolutely.
If you have an uncle who tells you he is hard up and needs to borrow money for rent, do you have an interest and a right in making sure your loan is being used to actually pay for rent and not drugs or vacations or something? I might be willing to assist someone with a critical need, not some arbitrary want. Why is health care any different?
You touched apon a key issue with any socialized service. People want it both ways. They want all the benefits of the service but don’t want to pay any of the costs or have any restrictions.
So the way I see it, it’s a tradeoff. You can either live however you please and pay for your own healthcare with whoever will insure you. Or we can institute a more socialized system but there will be more restrictions.
That is a horrible example because the Africans, Native Americans and so on did not ask to be taken care of by the White Man.
If discussing government involvement in our personal lives, then yes…we are worse off. All of the bans that passed decades ago open the door to the bans we are considering today. If/when these bans pass, they will open the door to more bans in the future. If nothing had ever been banned, it would be a lot more difficult to get a proposed ban passed, but the more things that are banned, the easier it is to ban more things.
For example, if there hadn’t been other bans passed on tobacco, I doubt we would be seeing this ban:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html?_r=1
If there is a ban passed on trans fats, why wouldn’t they ban some other unhealthy food?
You don’t generally see the size of government shrinking, but they seem to be great at creating reasons to expand.
What I’m hearing from you is “Someday, something I like might be banned so I don’t want anything banned so that things I enjoy will have a harder time being banned”. Would you consider banning child labor wrong? Or discrimination and sexual harassment in the work place? What I’m getting at is that some things are completely correct to be banned and eliminated, and such a restriction need not be said to lead to inevitable loss of all freedoms.
Sure, if the country never banned anything, then there would be huge momentum against banning things like smoking or trans fat now. I get that. But I see that as a fair and necessary trade off of eliminating things that are objectively bad and evil. I would rather have the possibility exist to ban things I enjoy like junk food than still have labor exploitation legal.
Is no curtailment of vices acceptable to you at all?
I think banning child labor was a great thing. I think it is a lot different than the types of bans being discussed in this thread though. The first, and most obvious difference, is that it involves a child, and not two consenting adults. The other difference is that child labor, even in your own home is illegal. Eating trans fats, or smoking, in your own home is a 100% legal activity. Why are you allowed to smoke in your own home (private property), but not allowed to smoke in a bar (also private property)? What happens on private property should be up to the property owner.
I concede that some things are better off banned - murder, rape, theft, etc. What I choose to consume is not in that list of things. And giving up power to choose is the very essence of anti-freedom, hence my snarkiness earlier. Can’t you see that you are arguing that x is not x? You seem to be trying to convince me that removing choice from my life is not removing freedom. Choice is freedom.
A proposition I did not bring into the debate; straw makes my skin itch. The outcome I am postulating is very reasonable: a continued restriction of what we can and cannot consume, in the best paternalistic tradition of protecting us from ourselves. It’s a trend that seems to be accelerating and would only have more traction in a society dependent upon UHC. Twenty years ago, bans on smoking and trans-fat and unique taxes for soda would have been scoffed at. Any slippery slope I am describing is one we are already sliding down.
And this one of the cruxes of the issues. Who decides what is a vice? What potentially upsetting behavior do you engage in that others might consider a vice? Pre-marital sex? Drug use? Masturbation? Gambling? Drinking alcohol? Etc. etc. Why do you want to cede the power to life your live how you want to others?
Tobacco companies mislead and deceived customers for years.
Food companies tried to downplay the problems with transfats.
What should be banned is bad information from companies trying to profit.
Well if you put it that way, do you see yourself as not free because you can’t fly? Because you can’t teleport to Mars, or shoot fire out of your fingertips? I believe I have free will, but I know that my free will is limited by many things such as biology, geography, and finances, among other things.
You want to say that giving up a bit of your freedom is intrinsically anti-freedom? Fine, then I won’t press the issue. But I see nothing wrong with it. You are neither free to do those things you say you’re happy are banned, but I’m sure some people want those legal. Just because you’re giving up some freedom doesn’t mean its a bad thing, especially when the things people are being asked to give up are harmful, dangerous things
If it takes 20 years from smoking to trans-fats, imagine how long it’ll take to actually ban something that people care about :dubious:
Ultimately, you think its reasonable, I don’t. I would rather risk banning too much and suffer the consequences than having something like thousands of people die each year because we’re too afraid where it will go. How much smoking and fats and sodas are worth the thousands of people going bankrupt and dying because they can’t afford medical care? I’ll gladly give up some freedom to prevent that from happening.
Votes to change what may be overreaching is still always available, sort of like a safety net for freedom, so even if we end up going crazy and banning meat, there’s always the next election
The people who vote, of course. I HATE that religious people run the government and there are laws against prostitution, censorship on TV, and dumbass school boards actually lumping creationism in with science class. Do I think that is good, no. But would I trade those things for no regulations at all? Hell no! If enough people want to ban my pre-marital orgy and drug parties where participants race masturbate and spectators gamble on who’s going to cum first, then I’ll leave the country or fight back through organizing votes. I certainly will NOT blame some ancient law on tobacco banning as the catalyst
I have a different crux for your consideration: Since we already have regulations and bans of many many things, what makes those ok and new ones not? If you had to choose between an unregulated hellhole that allows child labor, exploitative monopolies, unregulated foods and drugs, and no limits on money buying access to power, and regulations, which one would you take?
Given the political pressures that have already been described in this thread – yes, you’re so naive that you make a child who believes in Santa Claus look like a hardened cynic.