An obese person is not hurting me or mine with their bad habits.

So eat on!

Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year?  Thousands!  Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people!  Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them!

Obesity kills more people that all other causes combined!  It is time we put a stop to it!  Let's make it illegal for fat people to be fat anywhere near children or thin people!  Pass the law now to save ourselves from ourselves!  After all, if we can get a majority to agree with us, we can deprive fat people of their life, liberty and property!  Screw the constitution!

Reply #1 An obese person is not hurting me or mine with their bad habits. So eat on!

Yes they are. They are consuming an unfair share of resources and costing us billions of dollars a year in additional health care costs. It must be stopped!

Reply #2 Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year? Thousands! Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people! Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them! Obesity kills more people that all other causes combined! It is time we put a stop to it! Let's make it illegal for fat people to be fat anywhere near children or thin people! Pass the law now to save ourselves from ourselves! After all, if we can get a majority to agree with us, we can deprive fat people of their life, liberty and property! Screw the constitution!

Glad to have you aboard!

They are consuming an unfair share of resources and costing us billions of dollars a year in additional health care costs. It must be stopped!

That statement can be made about America in general.

I'm talking about my standard of health and that of my kids, a micro level. I don't want anyone doing damage to them that can easily be avoided.

Do you have a right to smoke? Yes, of course you do. But I believe that right stops as soon as the second hand smoke hits my nose. Then there has to be negotiation or else my right to breathe is violated.

We actually agree Mason. I don't hear you saying you want to smoke everywhere, and I am not saying there shouldn't be places for it to happen.

Well...now we're just going to have poor, naked, hungry fat bastards running around grazing on various plants. I'm definately above a medium, so I'd better move to a warmer climate.

~Zoo

I have said many times it is only a matter of time before cities start enacting public gluttony laws. Sadly, the majority of Americans do not care that we are fast heading towards totalitarianism.

Democratic totalitarianism....what a concept.

I'm definately above a medium, so I'd better move to a warmer climate.

Sorry, you are not allowed to be fat outside of your house. If you are caught outside, you will be arrested. Your fatness is infringing on the thin people's right to a beautiful view. Second hand fat is going to kill us all unless we stop fat now.

Sorry, you are not allowed to be fat outside of your house. If you are caught outside, you will be arrested. Your fatness is infringing on the thin people's right to a beautiful view. Second hand fat is going to kill us all unless we stop fat now.

Ah, well...damn. Looks like I'll have to rally and start eating skinny people to even out the odds.

~Zoo

I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.

And if you ever wonder why moderate non smokers and even undecided non smokers go in and vote against smoking when "compromise" would be so much better....look at most of these replies.

God forbid anyone would want to look after their own health and that of their children.

I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.

Oh, but they have not passed any such laws. Show me where any state, municipality, or federal government has outlawed the sale of cigarettes?

I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.

Banning what I do on my property is pretty totalitarian, Tova. When we're talking about public property, it's another issue altogether, but what I do in my home (not yet banned) or business (banned in many areas) is my concern...provided I accept the risks for what I do.

Now, if you decide you don't want to patronize my business because I allow smoking, that is definitely your right. If enough people decide not to patronize the business, I would have to weigh the benefits of remaining a smoking establishment vs. the extra revenue I would bring in if nonsmokers returned because I didn't allow smoking. Frankly, I find smoking an abhorrent practice, but I have strong reservations about enforcing my view on others.

As far as multi-unit dwellings go, I can actually see the point. Too many apartments are poorly constructed, and smoke can seep through the cracks into a nonsmoker's apartment pretty easily. This effectively removes the choice for the nonsmoker.

But, back to my main rebuttal: I made the comparison with "public gluttony laws" because there IS a comparison to be made. Certain eating habits damage the individual, and eating to excess in public can trigger that desire in others. But is it really the role of government to micromanage our lives?

I'm a nonsmoker. But most of my life, I've had little difficulty avoiding smokers when I really choose not to be around them. One highly notable exception is in restaurants, and there I would not at all be against a compromise solution.

As you pointed out, though, Tova, smokers in the state of Ohio, at least, have noone to blame but themselves for all of this. Because if they hadn't tried to pass their "smokers' rights amendment", the rebuttal movement might never have formed, and would certainly have been less likely to gain such momentum. But if this were the ONLY example of overregulatory governmental laws, I would be inclined to dismiss it. The sad truth is, this is one of MANY such ridiculous laws.

Banning what I do on my property is pretty totalitarian, Tova. When we're talking about public property, it's another issue altogether,

My point exactly.

Frankly, I find smoking an abhorrent practice, but I have strong reservations about enforcing my view on others.

Except Gid, in Ohio, which is all I've been discussing, this was passed as part of an employee protection program. "It is your employer's legal responsibility to inform you of both general and specific hazards connected with your job and to provide you with a safe and healthful workplace."

WWW Link

Enough voters, enough "we the peoples" in Ohio think second hand smoke is dangerous not only to themselves and their children, but to the people who work in it.

Do you think its totalitarianism that adults under the age of 21 can't drink? That bars who serve them are violating the law and can be fined?

I don't. And I believe if most Americans did think it, it'd change. That beauty of democracy.

Oh, but they have not passed any such laws. Show me where any state, municipality, or federal government has outlawed the sale of cigarettes?

Come on. There are thousands of known carcinogens LEGAL and for sale in the US. I guess that's all about money too. Yet if you took most of them into an restaurant and put them in people's food, air, or water, you'd go to jail for trying to poison them.

WWW Link

The legality of cigarettes has no bearing. They are still legal and people can still smoke 100 packs a day if they want too. The places smokers can smoke has been curtailed for the sake of the part of the population that doesn't smoke...but they are still free to exercise their smoking right.

Just like condoms are legal, but having sex in public is not.

I don't. And I believe if most Americans did think it, it'd change. That beauty of democracy

We have to be very careful, however, how far we extend "democracy". If enough "we the peoples" voted to execute certain minorities, for instance, we (hopefully) wouldn't stand for it, because a democracy cannot exist unless we afford certain protections to minorities.

Now that is an extreme example, and a comparison that I am loathe to make because I don't feel the smokers' rights issue is in any way a civil rights issue. But the point in making it was to show you that even in a democracy there MUST be exceptions to simply allowing a majority vote to make the end determination of what our rights are as citizens.

If we truly feel we must ban smoking altogether, why aren't we banning cigarettes? We certainly would be within our rights to do that much (although I certainly wouldn't support such a ban). We are, in essence, banning the use of a product purchased legally. The alcohol ban is on purchases, not on usage, Tova, and while I again am not in favor of all of the laws on the books, they are not bans that target usage.

I have already conceded (albeit grudgingly) the right to ban smoking on public property, Tova. That's not the issue here at all. The issue is when the ban is extended to PRIVATE property, as this amendment clearly does. The owner has the right to make reasonable determinations as to what (legal) activities may or may not occur on his property, just as you, the consumer, have a right to determine whether or not to patronize the owner's business. I already stated I wouldn't have much of an issue with requiring signage to forewarn customers that said establishment is a smoking establishment, but I think that ultimately the property owner should have some of the rights and privileges of ownership.