I agree completely. The tenor of some of your previous posts seemed to suggest that all liberals want to control everything we do, when in fact, it’s a pretty small group of extremists that do. I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t lump all liberals together under that narrow heading.
And yes, it’s quite easy to demonize conservatives in the same way.
This is one of the reasons I am not in favor of socialized medicene. I think that it would make it seem very reasonable for “the people” to have a say in so many things that people do:
“Why should I care if you have a steak? Cause I’m the one that will pay for your by-pass in twenty tears!”
“Why should I care if you have a brewski? I’ll have to pay for your liver transplant.”
“Why should I care if you drive a motorcycle? Because I’ll have to pay your medical bills when you crash.”
You already hear this quite a bit–it was the basis of many suits against the tobacco company. the “I’m the one paying for it” arguement seems to make everyone feel justifyed about regulating behavior. The problem, of course, is that it is often hard to deternmine how much a given behavior actually costs taxpayers–the guy who dies of a massive heart attack at 64 probably costs less, total, than his wife who lives to nintey-six with seven chronic conditions.
I doubt anyone will ever ban fatty foods, but I would not be terribly surprised if a “sin tax” were someday applyed to them.
I think you guys are missing the point. It’s not liberals or conservatives who are pushing these issues. It’s lawyers. The tobacco lawsuit and the gun lawsuits are being pushed by lawyers for their own profit. The lawyers in Louisiana made $6700 per hour on the tobacco settlement. They will continue to go after industries that are to small to fight back. They won’t go after fast food because 90%+ of Americans eat at fast food resturants. Good industries for them to attack are industries that have an element of sin and danger, and that only involve less that about 25% of the population. Industries like motorcycles, ATVs, guns, jet skis, skateboard, ski equipment, etc… are all ripe for the class action suits.
Fatty foods can never be outlawed because the entities that produce them are just too big. pk, are you a member of the NRA? After the AARP, it’s the most powerful lobby on captiol hill. You will never lose all of your guns, just the ones that you could fight back with. And while I’m here, let me ask: Why do you need an assault rifle?
You never reveal so much about yourself, pk, as when you’re describing others.
argyle87 wrote:
You’d be better off asking that in one of the gun control threads, rather than this thread. (There’s at least one that’s active right now in the Great Debates forum.)
The way I look at it three separate things could be happening here:
people are refusing to take personal responsibility for their actions and need to place blame.
Certain factions of teh political system feel that people can’t make decisions for themselves and are trying, with good intentions, to make sure that the gov’t saves them from themselves
people are simply greedy and have been trained by the plaintiff’s bar that they can make money by finding creative ways to place blame.
So which is it? Or if a combination, which one is predominant?
I think that #2 taught the people #1 and led to #3.
But now that I think about it … the question of “why do you need an assault rifle?” is relevant to this debate.
To wit: Why do you need a Big Mac? Why do you need a big steaming pile of nachos with extra cheese? Why do you need a box of Twinkies[TM] brand snack cakes?
The answer is, of course, you don’t. Fully-grown adults who are not starving do not need any food high in fat, cholesterol, or sugar. But I don’t believe need should be the issue! The fact is, I want to eat pizza with extra cheese and pepperoni. I know I don’t need it. I know it’s bad for me. I don’t care. I should not have to justify my eating desires to anyone. I should not have to need a certain type of food before I am allowed to eat it, nor should I have to give a reason to anyone why I wish to eat a certain type of food.
And I WANT my M-16 with 5.56 Full metal jackets and matching grenade launcher. So 
j/k
One nit: there is a constitutional guarantee or teh right to bear arms. There is no guarantee to the right to fatty food.
Not to mention the difference in deaths:
Guns (without suicides): 12,000/year
Heart disease alone: 540,000/year
And to throw another gem from the gun debate in here, IF outlawing fatty foods saves just one life, JUST ONE LIFE, then wont it be worth it? Is yummy food really more important than a human life?
I suppose (just to be a devil’s advocate) in response to Mr.Zambezi, one could argue that it is difficult to commit murder with a twinkie…not impossible mind you, just difficult.
However, you can say that all gun deaths are attributable to guns, but not all heart disease deaths are attributable to fatty foods. Many people die of heart disease because they are old and you have to die of something.
Some people are made unhealthy because of fatty foods. Everyone who gets shot is unhealthy because of a gun.
This isn’t much of an argument aside from just pointing out that the number of deaths from heart disease and guns are not comparable figures.
Bob, we drifted off the OP a bit. The biggest causes of heart disease are tobacco, poor diet, obesity, and (I assume) alcohol . (feel free to correct me here)
Let’s just look at gun suicide stats, since smokking and shooting yourself in the head both hurt only the person engaging in such activity.
Let’s say only 50% of heart disease deaths are cause primarily by the above. the numbers are:
Suicide by gun alone: 13,000
Death by heart disease (no cancer): 270,000
Let’s not forget the long term affects of poor health and obesity: loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, depression (maybe leading to suicide with a gun) , high medical costs. With a a gun it is BANG and then it’s over. With the above mentioned bad stuff, it takes years to die.
Why not ban all that bad stuff? I mean, what could possibly be the harm. Don’t you care about people’s health?
[devil’s advocate still on}
Personally, I say we ban hip-hop and rap. Who’s with me?
Things seem to get a bit trickier when you replace pizza with extra cheese and pepperoni in your post with, say… heroin. Doesn’t the same argument apply? Providing it could be reasonably claimed that I understood the risks, and that I was a competent adult, then I sould be allowed to shoot up to my heart’s content? (so to speak) 
One difference that I see is that your pizza with extra cheese and pepperoni 
is not, in an of itself, inherently harmful. In reasonable quantities bread, cheese, and meat are not only OK to eat… they are dietary staples. OK, so maybe a green salad on the side wouldn’t go amiss… and certainly in preference to fries.
I sit behind a desk and pilot a computer. I don’t get enough exercise, I am 10kg-ish overweight and addicted to coffee. I know this isn’t good for me. But, the point is, I am the only one who can change that – unless we start discussing Govt. enforced exercise and some sort of coffee rationing system.
Banning pizza is not the answer – education and personal responsibility are.
And, whilst it may not be a popular stance, I feel much the same way about other drugs. I don’t use them, I wouldn’t even if they were legal, but I have difficulty supporting any policy that bans consenting adults from doing things to themselves providing they understand the risks and consequences.
Anyway tracer, I’m with you. I don’t want some carrot-crunching, trendy-lefty, bleeding heart liberal trying to protect me from myself.
Apollyon wrote:
Yeah. And I don’t want some bible-thumping, ditto-headed, morally overzealous conservative trying to protect me from myself either. I want access to guns AND abortions!
And pepperoni pizza with extra cheese.
Perhaps there needs to be a recall of sorts. Congress and the State Legislatures would spend a set amount of time (of course, a time limit would be chosen by a third party so they wouldn’t argue amongst themselves about it and waste more time)going over existing laws, discussing why they are in place, and deciding if they should be thrown out or replaced with more modern laws. Perhaps that’s the problem with legislation today. Too many laws are created simply for the purpose of giving prestige to their creators. Perhaps the role of the legislative branch should be not only to create new laws and regulations, but to examine the ones already in place (along with the courts, naturally) and determine their necessity. Fewer laws would mean a more ordered society. Think about how short the constitution is, and think about how long other laws and statutes are. Less is more. I think that will be the key to evading the rapidly advancing police state.
argyle87 wrote:
Unfortunately, laws are created to give prestige to their creators precisely because the legislative branch is made up of politicians. You can win more votes by passing new laws than you can by repealing existing laws. And as long as the primary goal of being a Congressperson is to get re-elected, passing prestige laws will be the primary goal of Congress.
According to the Political Science professor I had in 1989, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. She said that at the turn of the century, the main reason someone ran for Congress was to make good policy, with perhaps a secondary reason being that he enjoyed having political power. The notion of a “career politician” was the exception rather than the rule.
Not too far off. I don’t think booze is much of a risk factor for heart disease in and of itself. Family history has a whole heck of a lot to do with it, both directly (if your dad died of a heart attack, you’re much more likely to do so) and indirectly via high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. Truncal obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and “Type A” personality also come in at the top.
As for fatty foods vs. tobacco, the difference to me is that cigarettes are physioloigically addictive and fatty foods are not. Sure, they can be psychologically addictive, as my fondness for BBQ Fritos occasionally demonstrates. However, one doesn’t go into physical withdrawal for lack of Twinkies. I certainly don’t agree with the tobacco lawsuits, but this is where I see the difference.
Dr. J
Actually, I like the idea proposed of a Fat-In-Food-Tax, based on number of grams. Similar in amount to tobacco taxes, to average 50ct-$1 on a container.
Then, they would stop adding so much excess fat to naturally good food like Chili.
Right now, 2%-fat chili costs the same, but if it were $1 less, the all-fat kind would quickly be put on the Speciality shelf.