Should McDonald's be banned?

[fishfreek]

Ill give you the part about buying bad realestate due to deceptive sellers. The part about drugs though I would have to argue it would depend on why the felt they needed to take these drugs. I know fen-fen is a diet pill or at least was sold as one. If your taking it because you blaim fastfood for making you fat then thats different than taking it due to a naturally low metabolisum.

With drug companies whos less ethical? Merck for taking a drug off the market because their own extended studies showed potental increas in heartattacks or Phizer who keeps an equivlent drug on the market when extended studies show simular results yet the company claims that if the drug is taken as recommended by the company there are minimal health risks. Personally I think Merck is more ethical as they removed the product from the market not because it was killing people for being used correctly but because way to many docs where perscribing it inproperly.

Whos getting the tail sued off them now... Merck while Phizer pushes to get medicare to cover 'the little purple pill'.

 

[Fishyfanatic]

I agree with you fishfreek. I would like to see just 1 prescription drug on the market that does not have health concerns. Can anyone name one? There isn't a single drug that doesn't have a health concern attached to it. Think about it. Even tylenol and asprin has warnings about liver disease.

Everyone is getting so up in arms about smoking causing cancer. What about liqour and liver disease? If I want to go to the movies on a Saturday night I don't want to have to be subject to an eratic drunk behind the wheel. It's my right to be able to go out and come home alive. Should we ban alcohol? Because as we all know, it causes liver disease, subjects families to alcoholism, kills thousands of people every year in car accidents, and tears families apart when a drunk driver hits a family on their way home from a soccer game killing those in the vehicle. And most of the time, the drunk driver survives. Alcoholism is just as dangerous as smoking and is addictive.

Guns kill and injur people on an hourly basis. Should we outlaw them? Personally I would be all for the outlaw of guns. Usually the argument is that people own a handgun for protection. BUT, statistically you are more likely to be shot by your own gun in the event of someone breaking into your house. Usually the gun is unloaded and locked somewhere. If the gun is unloaded, do you REALLY think you'll have time to unlock the gun safe and load it when a burgler is 25 feet away? AND, in this day and age, if you shoot an intruder, the family of the intruder has the right to sue you. As I recall, there was a lawsuit filed against someone who shot a burgler and killed him. The family sued for unlawful death and they won! Another instance is when a man was trying to break into an apt and he fell through the sky light. He sued for injuries and he won! THAT is what's wrong with this country. We are all too sue happy and blame everyone else for our own actions.

 

[Clown Monarch]

I have always joked that eventually the govt will tell you that breathing has been shown to cause cancer so what are we to do? Just stop breathing? That would solve so many problems wouldnt it.

I saw on the news last night that the regional air quality index has reached a hazardous level. They attributed the poor air quality to stagnant weather patterns and pollution from cars, buses and local industry. They advised people with asthma, the elderly, and sick people to stay indoors today.

But shouldn't these people have the right to go outside? Shouldn't we ban cars, buses, and local industry?


Which brings up an interesting economic point. I always find it funny when someone says "Everyone has the right to" something - as in "everyone has the right to clean air" or "everyone has the right to health care" or "everyone has the right to clean water". Wrong, except in the idealist Utopian mind - but certainly not correct on the planet Earth where unlimited wants vie for limited resources.

"Everyone has the right to clean air" is like saying that everyone has the right to drive a Ferrari and live in a mansion. Air quality is a commodity just like anything else. It's a world of opportunity costs. The cost of perfectly clean air is industry, cars, buses, trains, heat for your homes, and electricity. The cost of no-smoking policies is our American freedoms.

This is why the decision to provide smoke-free environments should be solely up to the restaurant owner. Rather than complain about smoke, patrons have the right NOT to go to that restaurant. Rather than complain about no-smoking policies, smokers have the right to go somewhere that does allow smoking. The laws of economics will eventually create the perfect balance between smokers and non-smokers.

Economics is a beautiful thing.

 

[BrianNY]

Well this thread rely got off topic. LOL

Fishfreek, it isn't about why someone is overweight and took fen-fen. It doesn't matter at all. What matters is that the person thought the product was safe. And of course there is risk in anything fishyfanatic, but it's the level risk that matters. I won't take a cold medication. That's my choice, but if I did I realize there's a risk (albeit slight).

As for alcohol, I don't agree either. Here's why. I enjoy it and I handle it responsibly. Enact laws and punish the person who gets behind the wheel drunk. But don't tell me I can't drink because someone else abuses it. On most issues, if one has an all or nothing perspective, they seeing it from a way too narrow point of view. JMO

 

[Clown Monarch]

Well this thread rely got off topic. LOL
JMO

I tried to re-rail it with that last post, but the tangent topics are good ones too.

 

[BillyZ]

I enjoy it and I handle it responsibly. Enact laws and punish the person who (doesn't). But don't tell me I can't (/) because someone else abuses it. On most issues, if one has an all or nothing perspective, they seeing it from a way too narrow point of view. JMO

I slightly edited your comment to reflect my opinion on just about everything. Be it drinking, smoking, guns, driving, what have you.

What is responsible though? I think thats the definition that causes the conflict. IMO, it's irresponsible to drive after drinking. Most would agree, obviously, there are those who don't think they have any problems driving after drinking. That's why there's laws attempting to stop it. And it's not because they might hurt themselves. It's because they could hurt SOMEONE ELSE. Someone who did NOT choose to drive and drink irresponsibly. Thats an example of someone imposing their choices on someone else and risking someone elses rights with their own actions. In that same respect I think it's irresponsible to smoke around others who don't. Those of you who think that's ridiculous, I'll invite you along to the hospital with me the next time I have to take my wife in for an asthema attack. Before smoking was banned in all public buildings in NY my wife and I pretty much couldn't go anywhere that people were smoking. It's a matter of life and death for some people. Those who smoke have made the choice to affect their life with smoking. Others have not. And some people just refuse to take responsiblity with their smoking and think they have the "Right" to subject everyone else to their choice. I'll refer back to my original post in this thread. What you have the "Right to do" depends on if your actions impose on someone elses rights. period.

 

[fishfreek]

I think its fairly clear from all the on topic posts that McDonalds should be permitted to contiue to operate as is has for the last 50 years.

Life has inharent risks. Its a part of living.

 

[BrianNY]

WOW. What great members we have here. 7 pages on a tough topic and everyone stayed respectful..........no one was flamed.

 

[dralarms]

7 pages on a tough topic and everyone stayed respectful..........no one was flamed.

That's cause

What great members we have here.

I do not favor a ban on mcdonalds or any other resturant, it is our choice, I do however favor either a ban on smoking in resturants or better ventilation so that the non smokers don't have to smell the smoke. The "cancer" card does not apply. As a former smoker (quit jul 3, 1992) sometimes it just chokes me to death. Cigars are another subject altogether. You should only be allowed to smoke those nasty things on your own property (ducks and runs for cover). Actually if the smoker would have a little respect for the non smoker and visa versa things would be fine.

 

[millipede]

You can all say what you want about people making their own choices. Yes, we should be responsible, but this is America we're talking about. I thought it was well said(though I can't quote directly) in MIB. A person is intelligent but people are ignorant. People as a whole in this country don't think about most of what they do. They for some reason trust the governement to keep us safe. And there's a big difference between foods, alcohol, and cigarette smoke. Smoke is harmful in ANY quantities to anyone near it. There is NO responsible use of cicarettes. 'what's wrong for me might not be wrong for someone else??? That's the problem with this society. People don't want to accept they do anything that's wrong. Smoking is wrong. There is no other side to that issue. There is no gray area. I don't care what other people are going to say to justify it, there is no right side to smoking. You cannot tell me that is't only wrong for me but right for someone else. It kills people. Are you deaf? I really can't understand why someone can accept something like that but make a choice that something somewhat similar is bad. Smoking pot for instance. Sure there are some differences, but some of the differences set smoking pot as better for your health than cigarettes. And all the drugs that are banned, should the government really just open things up and allow us to do anything we want whether it hurts ourselves or the people around us? That is Exactly what some of you are saying. The "right" to smoke and hurt and kill people is not a right I would ever want to fight for. It is wrong. It's obvious that I'm just hitting my head against a wall here. Feel free to continue living under the dilusion that we are free and the government isn't controlling things already. The so called right to
be able to smoke was not the publics decision, it was the government. They can't afford to lose that.

 

[Clown Monarch]

Smoke is harmful in ANY quantities to anyone near it.

So are many things. The steel mills near me churn smoke into the air all day long. The big steel-hauling trucks are always a danger to everyone else. The strip-clubs and porn shops along the truck route cause crime, litter, and prostitution. When I was on the train this morning, some woman was coughing in front of me. All of these things are potentially harmful to me, but where should the line be drawn?

 

[Danio35]

As far as the cost associated with health care from obesity and smoking, one can argue that it's just accelerating the time frame of when those costs are brought to bear. Perhaps there may even be fewer health care costs for a fat smoker that drops dead of a massive coronary without ever having a stay in a hospital, than the 90 year old that is hospitalized perpetually with a variety of age related illnesses. There's always a counterpoint!

Now THAT is an interesting countepoint, BrianNY. I've never thought of it that way. Interesting.

 

[Danio35]

With drug companies whos less ethical? Merck for taking a drug off the market because their own extended studies showed potental increas in heartattacks or Phizer who keeps an equivlent drug on the market when extended studies show simular results yet the company claims that if the drug is taken as recommended by the company there are minimal health risks. Personally I think Merck is more ethical as they removed the product from the market not because it was killing people for being used correctly but because way to many docs where perscribing it inproperly.

.

Just a quick thought about the drug company debate. My husband was on Vioxx for pain. Now he cannot take it anymore and he has serious pain daily that affects his daily life. Plus, it affects mine because the daily pain makes him such a grouch. He's tried the alternatives, but they don't work. I wish they would bring Vioxx back for him. He used it responsibly and has none of the risk factors.

As an NP, I've worked with several elderly people who are in chronic pain. Vioxx takes away or minimizes the pain. They cannot take the alternate meds because of the risk of stomach ulcers.

What about Viagra? It has a definate link to deaths and men with heart disease taking nitrites, but they didn't take it off the market. They just got the word out to avoid giving Viagra to men with these risk factors. I believe Vioxx should be given the same chance.

I guess this thought wasn't as quick as I thought it would be.

 

[PK Tester]

I have to say...

Smoking should be banned from restaurants. I have one of the worse cases of asthma the doctor has ever seen...Someone simply smoking near me can throw me into an asthma attack and eventually kill me.

I'm really tired of the crappy job restaurants do to separate smokers and non-smokers. If the government forced some sort of better division well fine.

There are many citys here in Ohio that have plainly banned smoking in public places and yes they will ticket you.

I just have to say...I believe it is unfair for me to have to be near smoke in a restaurant. I try my hardest to avoid it and have for years but sometimes I do not have a choice.

 

[fishfreek]

Merck took Vioxx off the market I belive on its own accord. I dont belive the FDA had anything to do with it. ALthough they might not allow it to reenter the market.

 

[Danio35]

Here's an interesting article about why Vioxx was taken off the market:

http://www.vioxx.com/rofecoxib/vioxx/consumer/index.jsp

Apparently, they were studying the effect of vioxx on colorectal polyps and found that there was an increase in cardiovascular events. But, there were 2 other studies that did not show adverse effects. It just seems to me that they pulled it off the market too quick, but I may not know the whole story.

 

[reefrunner69]

Guns kill and injur people on an hourly basis. Should we outlaw them? Personally I would be all for the outlaw of guns. Usually the argument is that people own a handgun for protection. BUT, statistically you are more likely to be shot by your own gun in the event of someone breaking into your house. Usually the gun is unloaded and locked somewhere. If the gun is unloaded, do you REALLY think you'll have time to unlock the gun safe and load it when a burgler is 25 feet away? AND, in this day and age, if you shoot an intruder, the family of the intruder has the right to sue you.

The right to own guns is the reason you have the right to voice an opinion that might differ from the gov'ts. The second ammendment was put in place for a reason, that by the people for the people thing We have the right to own guns, not necessarily to protect us from crime, but to allow us to protect ourselves from our government.

There was a town in georgia several years ago that made it a law that each household must contain a gun and someone in the houshold must be trained in the safe operation and handling of firearms. It was made legal to wear a sidearm openly in the public, what happened you might ask? Crime dropped in that town 98% in the first year. Should there be more laws on handguns? Possibly, should they be outlawed, definitely not. If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be the cops and the criminals.

7 pages on a tough topic and everyone stayed respectful.

IMO this was true when posted, things have changed a little bit though.

 

[Clown Monarch]

Guns kill and injur people on an hourly basis. Should we outlaw them? Personally I would be all for the outlaw of guns. Usually the argument is that people own a handgun for protection. BUT, statistically you are more likely to be shot by your own gun in the event of someone breaking into your house. Usually the gun is unloaded and locked somewhere. If the gun is unloaded, do you REALLY think you'll have time to unlock the gun safe and load it when a burgler is 25 feet away? AND, in this day and age, if you shoot an intruder, the family of the intruder has the right to sue you.

The right to own guns is the reason you have the right to voice an opinion that might differ from the gov'ts. The second ammendment was put in place for a reason, that by the people for the people thing We have the right to own guns, not necessarily to protect us from crime, but to allow us to protect ourselves from our government.

There was a town in georgia several years ago that made it a law that each household must contain a gun and someone in the houshold must be trained in the safe operation and handling of firearms. It was made legal to wear a sidearm openly in the public, what happened you might ask? Crime dropped in that town 98% in the first year. Should there be more laws on handguns? Possibly, should they be outlawed, definitely not. If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be the cops and the criminals.

7 pages on a tough topic and everyone stayed respectful.

IMO this was true when posted, things have changed a little bit though.

I just read about that town recently - although I thought it was West Virginia.

"We have the right to own guns, not necessarily to protect us from crime, but to allow us to protect ourselves from our government. "

Ah, a man after my own heart - and a Jefferson fan I'll wager.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Sorry, I can't help but to laugh at this thread, not for content, just for nature (only read to page 4 sofar )

McDonalds should have been banned long ago for the animal slaughtering techniques. I read an article about how they go about killing their animals (and how they don't meet certain standards of human-ness)... it was absolutely horrible.

You mean there is meat in there somewhere?

Oh, surprising no one has mentioned that a single bigmac has the calories to keep an average person going for a full day (no fries or coke with that), and the lack of disclaimer, tisk tisk. yet they have to label "coffee" as hot, duh, if it wasn't i wouldn't be buying it.

If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be the cops and the criminals.

I got into this debate with perhaps the wrong person a while ago, I will agree that it must be one extreme or the other, either all out, or all in..

Consider, right now down there you have the right to bear arms , so some people use this right and own 1 or 2 or 80 guns, while 2 people do not..

Now, having no gun, a man comes up with an obvious gun and demands your wallet, but out of fear that you may have a gun, he shoots you first, then takes your wallet. (incase you didn't know, 95% of all criminals that will commit armed robbery are scared), now did the right to bear arms protect you? no, same scenario, but you have a gun, and it's obvious that you have a gun, the man shoots you and takes your wallet (perhaps in the back), third scenario, he knows you do not have a gun, demands your wallet, you give it to him, and he leaves, about a 1/1000 chance of being shot.

the reason I say all in, or all out, is if the case is an obvious gun on you, he may not attempt it at all due to fear.

the way your law is down there, that town may not have taken the action I would have, but it did take an action that can only reduce the crime rate.

 

[Clown Monarch]

Nope you were right - it's Kennesaw, Georgia that requires gun ownership.