To Smoke, or Not to Smoke (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

The all things in moderation argument is sound, however that still doesn't excuse the intent of tabacco companies, they WANT people to get as addicted as humanly possible so that they can 1. have a customer for life and 2. make as much money as possible.

To me that's intent to harm, they know precisly what they're doing and yet they continue to do so and with full knowledge that their product kills. You know what I call it when one party knows they're killing another party and still continues to do so? First degree murder.

Aluminun cans and fast food didn't kill my mom, cigarettes did, because they were made to look cool and the thing to do by the tobacco companies. My mom's life didn't matter to them, keeping her addicted and getting her money is the only thing that counted and it's for these reasons, this malicious strategy by big tabacco, I will hate them until the day I die.

She could have smoked in moderation, but the tobacco company would have loved nothing more than to see her on a 3 pack a day habit, ehich she was. And now she's gone, and I hold them accountable for every midnight trip to the hospital, every radiation session, every prescription, every scream of pain and the pain my family endured watching her slip away.

I would like nothing more than to see every tobacco company eradicated from this planet.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Not true. The law imposes many more requirements on a business open to the public than it does on your personal abode. For example, you need not comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and install wheelchair ramps up to your frontdoor. You need not have a health inspectors certification regarding the cleanliness of your kitchen and bathrooms. You need not comply with laws against discrimination in determining who you allow to visit your home. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

So, until we can solve the world's bigger problems (by whoever's definition that may be), we should just ignore lesser problems? I guess that means that nothing should be done about petty theft and shoplifting, since there are people committing armed robbery.

 

[Jack Fanning]

Hell no....If business owners don't want to spend the money it takes to keep the food hot/cold, keep food prep areas rat/roach/critter free, or if they don't want to take the time to properly clean their plates, glasses and utensils, then they shouldn't have to.

If you don't wish to eat at a place such as this, then you have every right to patronize another establishment that does adhere to these standards.



Sarcasm off

 

[RobertR]

Since not all smokers smoke that much, that was obviously her choice.

 

[Jason Pancake]

Rich and Scott,
You're citing other laws which infringe on the rights of property owners as proof that these laws, which infringe on the rights of property owners, are just. The litmus test for private property is ownership, not who or what they serve.

Jack,
Are you suggesting that all restaurants would simply fall apart if it wasn't for the wisdom of policicans and the regulations that they force businesses to adhere to? Do you honestly believe that they don't have a personal stake in keeping things clean and healthy WITHOUT the regulations in place? Please.

 

[Jason Pancake]

I forgot to mention my main point regarding the difference between health codes and smoking bans. People who are sensitive to smoke know immediately upon entering the premises whether or not smoke is present. The purpose of health code regulations is to ensure that the business maintains a healthy environment with regard to the unseen effects on health.

 

[RobertR]

You raise a good point, Jason. No health code apparatus is needed for a potential customer to know the smoking status of a restaurant.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Jason,


I brought up the issue of property rights earlier. I mentioned that an employer does not have the right to maintain an unsafe workplace for his employees.

Example: back in my restaurant days, my employer did not have the right to require me to scrub a hot grill at the end of the night without providing proper protective gloves.

 

[WillG]

But you could say this about any entity that sells a product that can potentially have detremental effects on a persons help. Through thier advertising, McDonalds wants you to think that if you are a kid, you are going to go there and have a great time eating their food, if you an adolescent, they want you to think that patronizing their restaurants will make you hip. Budweiser wants you to think that if you drink their beer you will be able to hang out and party with hot chicks.

I don't want to come off like I'm supporting tobacco companies and, once again, John, I sympathise with you on the loss of your mother to cigarette related cancer. However, what the tobacco companies are doing is Marketing 101 just like everyone else does. Get someone to try your product and keep them coming back. And the loss of a single life probably does not mean much to most other companies in the grand scheme of things as well. It sounds cold, but that's the reality of it all.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Robert,
this is what I know, my mom first developed lung cancer and it then spread to her bones and ate away her spinal column, to my knowledge this has never happened to someone from eating at McDonalds, sure people can get heavy eating there, but that is easier to treat than the cancer my mom succumbed to which could not be treated once it reached her bones.

People can diet, or as a friend of mine did, get gastric by-pass surgery done to help them lose those extra pounds. If they develope heart problems, as aweful as that is, it too can be treated and the person can still conceivably live a full and happy life with therapy and medication.

With smoking, though, trust me when I say that when you lose a loved one to smoking, things become all to clear and all of these little rules, warnings and regulations we come up with become insignificant and they cannot hide the fact that your loved one is dead, cigarettes killed them and the tobacco company doesn't give a shit.

 

[RobertR]

It doesn’t matter if the specific cancer your mother had doesn’t happen to McDonald’s eaters, John. The fact is that certain dietary habits happen to increase the risk of various diseases (in other words, what happens to smokers), including colon cancer, stroke, heart attack, and diabetes. As horrible as what happened to your mom was, you could hardly say to a blind/stroke suffering/colon cancer suffering/grieving widow of a heart attack victim “hey, that’s not REAL suffering”. Tell THEM not to be angry at an “uncaring company”.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Alright, then let me put it another way, everyone has the right to single out and hate a group that they feel is responsible for the disability or death visited upon their loved one.

If a widow lost her husband to a heart attack because he ate at McDonalds too much, right or wrong, misplaced or not, she has every right to look upon them with the same animosity that I feel towards the tobacco companies.

Again, I didn't lose my mom to McD's, I lost her to smoking, so that is the focal point for MY personal anger. This a painful topic for me, i'll stick around for a couple of more posts but after that i'm unsubscribing. In the end it isn't up to anyone to understand my hatred towards tobacco companies anyway to be honest.

I believe that they are the one's responsable for my mom's death and I hate them...let me have my anger and by the same token let that widow have her anger towards McDonalds.

 

[RobertR]

I'd never tell you not to feel your sorrow or your anger from your loss, John. But anger is not a sound basis for how we govern ourselves. We have to look rationally at what we mean by individual choice, freedom, responsibility, and property rights, which I very strongly believe are interconnected. in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[MarkHastings]

(Deleted post)

Sorry, I don't want to get into this discussion. Smoking REALLY bothers me and I have sort of a vigilante view on it. Don't want to ruffle feathers.

Carry on...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Robert,
I know that you weren't implying that I shouldn't have my anger, I just wanted to make it clear that sometimes when something as terrible as losing a loved one happens to you, all logic goes out the window.

Is my hatred towards tobacco companies justified? I very much think so, but that's me, and that's all i'll say on this issue.

Mark,
you went where I feared to go, good luck my freind.

 

[Jason Pancake]

Rob,
I brought up the issue of property rights earlier. I mentioned that an employer does not have the right to maintain an unsafe workplace for his employees.

The employees can decide for themselves whether or not their employer is maintaining "an unsafe workplace". The anti-smoking movement has taken it upon themselves to make that decision for them. That reeks of totalitarianism and has no place in a free society.

 

[RobertR]

People could (and DO) make the argument that eating "unapproved" foods DOES affect others. It increases health costs by many billions of dollars, results in loss of productivity to the economy from disease-ridden employees unable to work, wastes energy, etc. etc. And who's to say that grieving family members are unaffected? This is why I come down on the side of individual freedom, not the so-called "good of all" in these matters.

 

[Steve Kuester]

I'll agree with Jason on this one.

I don't think the government should be telling private property owners that they can't use (or allow their customers to use) a LEGAL product on their property. My take? Make smoking illegal, or leave it alone.

Self-disclosure... Never smoked a cigarette in my life. I hate the smell of smoke on me after I've been in a smoke filled environment, so I generally chose to avoid those places, and would never choose to work in one of those places.

 

[Shane Martin]

If Airplanes can ban smoking so can restaurants. I think it's as simple as that.