Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-11-2009, 09:07 AM
 
4,222 posts, read 7,842,467 times
Reputation: 1577

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raivere View Post
Commenting on obesity--Our governments prior goal right now is money. When we go to the hospital for some disease we have, that keeps the hospitals in business. When we want cheap food. Where do we go? Fast food restraunts of course, which in fact <b>can be</b> unhealthy and <b>can</b> lead to obesity. So when someone goes to the hospital because of diabetes, the government doesn't want to tell people what to do because of how much money we (they) would lose. There are programs for obese children though, but that is about it.
Fat children don't have as much of an eating problem as they do getting off their fat asses and going outside to play. I ate lots of crap when I was young but never had a weight problem as I was never in the house sitting around. The government getting involved in something that is a personal choice that "doesn't" affect others like smoking is stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2009, 09:10 AM
 
4,222 posts, read 7,842,467 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by baybook View Post
In California, you can continue to cater to smokers if you want to. You make the business a "private" club and voila.... you can smoke all you want. Is the law not the same in Meck?
That laws are the same everywhere concerning private clubs. For example, the VFW and/or American Legions mostly still allow smoking as they are "private". However, selling memberships at the door to enter is does not institute a "private" club. Several places tried to accomplish this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 09:29 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,087,438 times
Reputation: 22750
Quote:
Originally Posted by dep8477 View Post
I just happened to read an article today that said the World Health Organization says secondhand smoking kills about 600,000 people every year.
I have read the info WHO puts out, too. And my first question is always - "based on what?" Cancer rates? What other factors were considered? A person w/ no access to antibiotics who dies of pneumonia but happened to live around a smoker died b/c of the secondhand smoke or died b/c he/she had improper/lack of treatment for pneumonia?

Again, not interested in arguing - I am just one small research voice out here and I know folks don't listen to what I have to say in comparison to what WHO or ACS prints. But I do believe most folks understand that anyone can take stats and come up with very different interpretations, based on what factors are being considered (and which are being left out).

For example, the facts are . . . lung cancer rates are about identical between non-smokers and smokers. This does not comport well with the anti-smoking campaigns across the globe. Research suggests that folks who get lung cancer have a specific gene . . . but if ACS and WHO focused on THAT rather than . . . well, I think you can see where we go from there. "Fighting" cancer must start at the genetic level, not with popular campaigns that bring in contributions.

But again . . . not trying to argue b/c I know I am not about to convince anyone that the whole debate on second-hand smoke is a ruse (as far as cancer rates) . . . not in any way trying to minimize that there are folks who, when exposed to cigarette smoke, can go into asthmatic response, which for some people could mean a life and death situation.

Edited to add: And also, not trying to minimize what NANCY relayed about cigarette smoke being a migraine trigger. Cigarette smoke also permeates fabric, leaving odors and can leave residue on hard surfaces. It is, quite frankly, nasty.

I am not extolling the virtues of smoking, lol, or trying to minimize the real problems with smoke itself. My point is simply that anti-smoking campaigns (involving lots of $$$) have been created touting second-hand smoke as the World's Most Detrimental Carcinogen and Cause of Bizillions of Deaths simply because a group of folks don't feel the business owners have the right to run their businesses as they choose and cater to the patrons they wish to have in their establishments. And that is what I object to. I find it unthinkable that the government would dictate the behavior of patrons - that should be up to the business owner.

And it sets a nasty precedent. What's next? Weigh in at the door and if someone's weight doesn't fit the established weight charts for "normal weight" . . . the business owner is supposed to turn them away? Or hand them a low-cal menu?

Or start putting a premium tax on food/drink that has xx amount of sugar/carbs in them? Like soft drinks? Ice cream? Big Macs? Where does it stop?

I can cite figures for cardiac deaths and attribute the cause to bad diet . . . and guess what? Those stats would be HIGHER than the ones for second-hand smoke deaths that ACS is so fond of tossing about. So where is the outrage?

Last edited by brokensky; 12-11-2009 at 09:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 09:42 AM
 
Location: France
29 posts, read 61,797 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
That has always surprised me - the ban on smoking in Europe. I just cannot imagine the French giving up their Gauloises cigs, lol. I bought some the first time I went to France - Guess it was an Edith Piaf moment. I wanted to sit at a bistro w/ my cafe au lait, smoking a Gauloises . . .
They have all stopped and hardly smoke Gauloises anymore. They all smoke "blonde" tobacco... No more of that dark, rough Gitanes or Gauloises. Tis a pity... I am a smoker and it is a personal choice. There should be a "smoke room" made available for us in bars and restaurants. I think more americans die of obesity and diseases that bring it on than lung cancer. Just live and let live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 10:09 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,087,438 times
Reputation: 22750
Quote:
Originally Posted by badmommy34 View Post
They have all stopped and hardly smoke Gauloises anymore. They all smoke "blonde" tobacco... No more of that dark, rough Gitanes or Gauloises. Tis a pity... I am a smoker and it is a personal choice. There should be a "smoke room" made available for us in bars and restaurants. I think more americans die of obesity and diseases that bring it on than lung cancer. Just live and let live.
How wonderful to have someone from France find our thread and post on it! And love that c'est la vie attitude, LOL!!!

Statistics are so manipulated - the only way to really see what the trends in mortality causes are would be to go directly to the primary data, which isn't floating around in media articles. The American public has very skewed ideas about what diseases actually cause the most deaths in this country.

It may be of interest to most folks to know that cardiac/coronary disease claims the most lives each year. And the most prevalent type of cancer is skin cancer . . . and that as many new cases of prostate cancer are diagnosed annually as breast cancer. Although it is a wonderful thing that we are more aware of cancer and cancer prevention, most folks would be surprised to know that breast cancer deaths annually are only a small % of mortalities when compared to cardiac/coronary disease-related deaths. Not that any of this is a happy thing to contemplate . . . every death counted is a loved one that someone has lost.

It is just discouraging to me that Americans get focused on whatever the media (and various organizations) determine should be the emphasis on disease management - and health and wellness issues - when the biggest killers have less to do with lifestyle choices such as smoking and more to do with genetic predisposition and FOOD AND EXERCISE than anything else.

And - we will go to great lengths to ban smoking in the very establishments where we go to ingest an overage of calories which is actually the thing killing us all in the greatest numbers, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,713 posts, read 9,656,329 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindaloo View Post
Fat children don't have as much of an eating problem as they do getting off their fat asses and going outside to play. I ate lots of crap when I was young but never had a weight problem as I was never in the house sitting around. The government getting involved in something that is a personal choice that "doesn't" affect others like smoking is stupid.
But obesity does affect others. If members of our society become increasingly overweight, that leads to a rise in health problems related to being overweight. These health problems need to be treated, which costs money, which will come from taxes to fund government-subsidized healthcare and insurance premiums paid by both businesses and individuals. So people getting fat does affect others...as we all will end up paying to treat obesity-related health problems, including those individuals who stay lean, mean and healthy (its kind of like the way some people made a personal choice to buy a more expensive house than they could afford, defaulted on the loan, and now even those of us who were financially responsible are paying for their poor decisions).

I find it interesting that you mention personal choice, as the law you support takes away the ability for people to make choices and enforces a single standard upon everyone. In fact, I would think you would be against this law simply because it smacks of socialism, which you have expressed your dislike of in other threads.

Here's an example: Here in my 'hood (Ayrsley), you have several options for having a meal or a drink: Salsa's, Eat Here Now, Red Lion, Wild Wing Cafe, Potofino's, Saffron and Moe's.

With regards to smoking: only Wild Wing allows smoking inside, and Salsa's allows smoking in the bar area but not in the dining room. All of the other establishments are (voluntarily) smoke-free. (technically, Portofino's does allow smoking at their bar - but their small bar consists of 5 barstools and in all the times we have gone there, about once every two weeks over the past 1.5 years, there has only been one occasion where I have seen one individual having a cigarette there - so for sake of argument let's just call it smoke free).

So if you find yourself in Ayrsley and want to get something to eat or drink and you prefer to be in a smoke-free environment, you have 5 out of 7 restaurants which you can choose from; that seems like a wide range of choices to me. On the flip side, if someone else here does prefer to have a smoke while at the bar or the table, they have 2 out of 7 choices. Everyone has options - everyone has a "choice" - including yourself.

I fail to see the problem here and why this is an issue for people such as yourself who support this law. You do not like to be around smokers, and you have a wide variety of choices available to you in order to be in a smoke-free environment. Do you really like the mediocre food at Wild Wing that much that we need a law to force them to be smoke-free like pretty much every other restaurant in a three-block radius? This is a legit question - what is wrong with a mix of smoking and smoke-free environments where people can choose for themselves where they want to go?

And to the main point. Suppose I decide to open Tober's Bar here in Ayrsley (which would be establishment # 8). All of the costs incurred to open, run and maintain the joint come out of my pocket. Why do I have to be forced to cater to your specific needs as someone who has no ownership interest and no financial stake in my establishment? If I decide to allow smoking, you can stop by and say, "Hey, I like the food, but I don't think I will come back because I do not like being around all of the smokers." As a businessman, if I get that comment alot, I might decide I want to make the place non-smoking because that would be good for business. On the other hand, I can also say: hey - if you don't like it, you don't have come here; go down the street to the Lion instead. But that decision should be allowed to be mine, and mine alone, as the owner. Not yours or anyone else's.

Last edited by Tober138; 12-11-2009 at 11:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Autumn Cove, Lake Wylie, SC
393 posts, read 1,181,813 times
Reputation: 284
Anti-smoker fascism...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,713 posts, read 9,656,329 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by uber_bwnage View Post
Anti-smoker fascism...
As a brief side note (very brief as this could start leaning OT): one of the first national governments in modern times to take up large-scale, anti-smoking and anti-tobacco policies (which included banning smoking in public transportation vehicles such as trains and busses, promoting health education about the dangers of smoking, raising goivernment taxes on tobacco products, placing restrictions on advertising of tobacco products and imposing restrictions on smoking in public places) came about during the Nazi Party's era of power in Germany under Hitler.

And, no, I am not equating anti-smoking policies with Hitler or fascism or making any hyperbolic claims. Just pointing out a fun fact
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 12:20 PM
 
Location: The 12th State
22,974 posts, read 65,257,797 times
Reputation: 15075
Now I understand why those three threads were closed. The way I interpret the main just of this thread is how this new law effecting Businesses and how you feel about this law Let keep it local . Please for me keep it on topic so i dont delete your post or close this thread.
I wont be issuing any infractions because I dont wont to be consider as a

Some of you guys said some really nice things and for the first time it hard to not mix personal feelings when I moderate we will see in January if I can be objective and moderate this forum because you guys are to sweet with your well wishes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 12:50 PM
 
4,222 posts, read 7,842,467 times
Reputation: 1577
[quote=Tober138;11984176]But obesity does affect others. If members of our society become increasingly overweight, that leads to a rise in health problems related to being overweight. These health problems need to be treated, which costs money, which will come from taxes to fund government-subsidized healthcare and insurance premiums paid by both businesses and individuals. So people getting fat does affect others...as we all will end up paying to treat obesity-related health problems, including those individuals who stay lean, mean and healthy (its kind of like the way some people made a personal choice to buy a more expensive house than they could afford, defaulted on the loan, and now even those of us who were financially responsible are paying for their poor decisions).

I agree


I find it interesting that you mention personal choice, as the law you support takes away the ability for people to make choices and enforces a single standard upon everyone.

A person can make personal choices and I support that. If they choose to live in an unhealthy manner by smoking, drugs, or whatever, that is their personal choice and fine with me. When I am forced to endure the smoke from someone's cigarette, it is an invasion of my personal space and an infringement on my rights to live in a healthy/safe envorionment.

In fact, I would think you would be against this law simply because it smacks of socialism, which you have expressed your dislike of in other threads.

Acording to your philosophy we must be socialist because we have laws preventing us from driving drunk, beating our wives, playing our stereos at full blast at 2:00am, speeding in neighborhoods, snoking crack, running red lights, throwing garbage in the street, etc.? Laws are created when the general good, safety and welfare of citizens is not protected. This isn't socialism, it is democracy based on the Constitution. Lets face it, the only people that are going to say that smoking doesn't harm others are smokers that are "hooked".

Here's an example: Here in my 'hood (Ayrsley), you have several options for having a meal or a drink: Salsa's, Eat Here Now, Red Lion, Wild Wing Cafe, Potofino's, Saffron and Moe's.

Great thing is that after Jan 2, I have choices galore! I am not opposed to restaurant/bars having a separate room dedicated to smokers just so the smoke is restricted from other customers. I believe that the trouble in the first place is that places didn't spend money for adequate ventilation. I really don't mind smokers, but most non-smokers are sensitive to thick smoke. And the thick smoke is more than barable. My drinking a whisky or a beer has no impact on the person next to me. The person next to me smoking a cigarette does" have an impact on me. I gurantee that in two months you won't even worry about it. It really isn't going to be as bad as you anticipate. Good time to quit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top