"It's good for you, stupid!"

[cryowizard]

I am not a smoker yet I oppose unreasonable government regulation of where people can and can't smoke.

Now, apparently, FDA actually contemplates telling you how many calories you should be eating, lessening your portions in restaurants and forcing some fruits and veggies on you. I love fruits and veggies, but I wouldn't want them governmentally mandated to me, now would I.

Why are they planning this? Yep, because it's good for you, stupid they want to combat obesity.

According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/06/14/200953.html

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Why we don't oppose regulation of anything else, harmful to our health, like toxic materials? Probably, because it is so obvious. Why then we don't trust smoking related studies? Don't tell me there is not enough information. It is just an ignorance.

Privet ot Krakadila.

[cryowizard.livejournal.com]

This post is not even about smoking! Or its studies!

But ok. Y'all watch this:

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A CHOICE.
THAT INCLUDES A CHOICE TO CONSUME A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE AND SLOWLY KILL ONE'S SELF.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A CHOICE OF BEING OR NOT BEING NEXT TO SOMEONE WHO IS CONSUMING A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE, WITH ALL THE HEALTH RISKS CONTAINED THEREIN.
AN ABSENCE OF EITHER CHOICES IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHICH LEADS TO TYRANNY.

Now, to the details, my lass.

First of all, I said "unreasonable" regulation.

Anti-smoking campaign started with putting hazmat labels on cigarette packs.

And that was reasonable -- it only affects smokers and is suggestive, not forceful. The smokers had a choice of ignoring the labels (which they en masse did).

Then they moved to having non-smoking sections in restaurants and non-smoking rooms in hotels.

And that was reasonable. It kept the choice there -- those who cared for not having the smoke around simply asked for non-smoking sections or rooms.

Then they banned smoking on airplanes.

And that was reasonable, because a smoker in the close confines of a plane took away the choice of not smoking from fellow-passengers, and an open flame is hazardous to the plane itself.

But then they started banning smoking in bars. Not introducing non-smoking sections -- banning.

And that's when 'reasonable' went out the window. That, my dear, infringes on other people's liberty to smoke if they so wish. Why? Because tobacco is not a controlled substance, no matter how hazardous it is to ones health. And its consumption is a personal choice, and should not be regulated by the government. Banning takes the choice away from both smokers and bar owners. Bar owners who would want to have their establishments smoke-free, could have simply said so: NO SMOKING HERE. Those who CHOSE to smoke anyway, would have CHOSEN another establishment. So would the bartenders and bar staff who preferred to work in a smoke-free environment. But those who for whatever reasons didn't care or were the smokers themselves would have stayed in smoking bars -- BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. And if they get lung cancer and die -- they do so at they own will, cz these days everyone with half a brain knows that cigarettes are harmful. There's no law against killing yourself, is there.

There is no doubt that smoking slowly kills you. No sane person would dispute that. Yet tobacco is legal, and thus the government should keep its big fat nose out of what people do with it, bar a few very well defined cases.

Government defining what people do with themselves is a slippery slope to 1984.

And for dessert:

Alcohol kills a shit load of people every year. In 2003, 17013 people died in alcohol related driving accidents alone. Drunk drivers kill kids, alcohol sometimes leads to child abuse, broken homes, violence, murder, prison, hunger and death.

Should we ban drinking, too? Oh wait! They tried that already once. Do a bit of research into the history of Prohibition and find how, as a "do-goodie" social experiment, it was a dismal failure.

Never trust "The Government" or bleeding hearts who think they know better than the rest of us what we should do with ourselves!