LOL. Thanks Lynn, that made me laugh!
Wasn’t it about the time they invented the motor car?
I stopped reading midway through this thread because I could just -feel- it going south, but…
I will say this. I am overweight. Have been all my life. If the government wants to help me lose weight, hey, I’m all for it. Any help is appreciated.
I know, I know, I’m not cynical enough about the idea. Whatever. I still am allergic to cigarette smoke to an outstanding degree and I’m glad it’s not prevalent. I’m still fat and would be appreciative of help because my willpower sucks. There. OP may be snarky as they want, but I’ll just be honest and forthcomming. Good enough?
Actually, when I take home a doggy bag, it’s usually because I intend to make a second and possibly third MEAL from those leftovers. Just because the food is in front of me doesn’t mean that I have to eat it all at once. Unless, of course, the food in question is chocolate. In fact, I just returned from brunch, and we have most of a T-bone steak in the fridge, waiting to be diced up for dinner.
I was in retail stereo systems in the 60s when smoking was common. We were happy to have a smoker come in. They’re the best sort of customers; someone who’s used to wasting money.
The worst customers were pipe smokers. All they did was fool with that pipe and wander away.
Cigar smokers were a wash. Mostly they were bullies. You had to suck up to them to make a sale.
Oooooh, SOMEONE is a widdle cwanky about smokers rights. But like someone else said. Um, so??? Even if, in some alternate dimension, restaurants did turn away fat people, how would that have ANY bearing whatsoever on smokers?
Do you think you’d somehow get a return on your investment and be able to smoke in restaurants (etc) again? Or is this just a temper tantrum along the lines of “if I’m not happy, NOBODY is allowed to be happy”?
No link, no pay attention.
I think we all know the answer to this already.
Urban Ranger, I think you should let one of us fat people take care of that for you. After all, fat farts stink worse. That is why the government is trying to protect you from fat people.
Has anyone concusively proven that second-hand smoke actually causes people harm? Last time Cecil checked, the said “this time the weasels may be right.”
I thought the OP was going to be if there are any fat people who have considered taking up smoking to lose weight.
I, too, welcome help from the government to lose weight. Especially if they want to pay for my (well-used) gym membership, fiber supplements, and all the health food I pay huge amounts for to try to lose weight. Or at least make it a tax deduction. Also, if they could ban my company from enticing me with free soft drinks, that would be great, too. (I know, “Fatty, you don’t have to DRINK them!”. We could have a whole thread about that.)
peace
in almost every business in america there are laws for workers handling carcinogens, very strict rules to follow and plenty of information available to all employees who may or may not come into contact with said carcinogen.
I have worked in the restaraunt business for a few places, I have never once heard anything about the hazards of second hand smoke, been issued safty gear for use when dealing with second hand smoke, or even really thought about it much beyond the fact that smokers suck.
but really if you went to work for a major manufacturer who used cancer causing products to make their products or had them as a byproduct and tried to work without the safty equipment you would be out of work in a very short period of time. and if they LET you work without the safty gear you have grounds for a nice fat lawsuit against said company.
so when and who do all the waitstaff in america get to sue for years of blatent disregard for their health?
as has been pointed out, unless a fat person falls on you they arent real likely to cause you any direct harm.
As an aside I don’t believe that is true. According to restaurant.org cost of sales (food costs) is the highest percentage of costs for US restaurants. I know that in Sydney, the better the class of restaurant the more dollar you get on the plate. Snazzy $50+ main courses make very little per plate for the restaurant due to the cost of quality produce.
Mind you your point is still essentially valid. In upsizing a meal the only cost increase is food, the rest are static. I guess I’m just nitpicking.
Oh, does the OP drive an SUV?
Ever sit next to one on an airplane?
Not gloating, but this is essentially the same point I made two days ago, and I’ve often wondered, who amongst the anti-smokers would be happy to give up the convenience of their car?* Is there some kind of double standard?
*Actually, we shouldn’t just single out the automobile – if one uses electricity then, more than likely, one is responsible for the burning of fossil fuels and thus contributing to the pollution of the enviroment. Utmost kudos to the first person who can faithfully promise me that they haven’t contributed to enviromental pollution today.
Sofa King wrote:
It tends to effectively slaughter my ability to breathe (my sole known asthma trigger), which is a conclusive enough level of proof for my purposes. I hold my breath while entering and leaving stores.
'Course, I’m person, not people, and I’m not a valid scientific study either. But it looks like what Cecil was looking at was cancer risks, not toppling over from lung shutdown, there.
My computer is powered by a generator attached to a stationary bicycle. I’m posting by*… pant… pant…* Pedal Power!
Wow, way to go with the stereotyping, Audrey!
You don’t know jack diddly about that woman’s health. You don’t know anything about her diet. What you do know is that it’s easy to make assumptions about people based on nothing more than their appearance. It’s also juvenile and ignorant. Unless you have some evidence that this woman’s health is less than optimal (newsflash – you can be overweight and have healthy cholesterol levels, a healthy heart and eschew “junk” food) by what right do you make digs at her?
No double standard. Unless, of course, cigarettes are actually useful for some tangible purpose and their pollution is a secondary and unfortunate consequence of their use for that purpose. The internal combustion engine, for all of its drawbacks, powers our way of life.
Blasting anti-smokers for some supposed hypocrisy because they haven’t eschewed their cars is nonsense when everything that you own and wear, everything which informs you and entertains you, everything down to the food that sustains your life every single day is made possible in way or another by a motor vehicle.
What, exactly, is made possible by cigarettes, again?
Ah, but the bicycle, generator and computer took energy to make – that energy certainly came from non-renewable, polluting sources. So, close, but no, um,… cigar.
Hmm. Who died and made you the arbiter of tangible purpose?
Is there a tangible purpose to beer?
Is it more/less than the tangible purpose for nicotine that millions would claim?
What is made possible by beer?
What is the tangible purpose of an SUV?
Is it any greater than a less polluting mode of transport?
Is all car-use part of this essential set of things you imagine?
Is going for a cruise on Saturday night essential?
Charitably, I could see that you tried to appeal to a shared value system:
cars=good
cigarettes=bad
but unfortunately that’s just your value system, and foisting that value-system upon others is exactly where I raise my objections.
Very little of what we consume could be said to be truly essential, except perhaps clean air, water and somewhere to raise crops (or, I guess, just merely hunt), oh, and an ozone layer. Your computer isn’t essential now is it? Maybe I speak too much for my value system, I could not say my computer is essential, and I’m a software developer (of course, it is essential to develop the software, but that just begs the question).