Should McDonald's be banned?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If there are those of you who think that overeating and obesity are not medical problems on a par with cigarette smoking....you are fooling yourselves. According to the NCHS data (Centers for Disease Control) for 2001, the number one cause of death in the United States among all people was heart disease. Granted, cigarette smoking has been implicated in increased risk of heart disease but there is no doubt that poor diet and lack of exercise are significant causative factors. The government would certainly be justified in monitoring your eating habits, exercise habits and general weight and then prescribing a diet and exercise program that you must follow if you happen to fall outside of 'healthy' parameters.

Like to have a couple of beers when you get home from work or on the way home? According to the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependency, 105,000 Americans die annually from alcohol-related causes. The 17,274 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 1995 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 30 minutes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that alcohol was involved in 41 percent of fatal crashes and in 7 percent of all crashes in 1995. The government would certainly be justified then in monitoring your alcohol usage or prohibiting it completely because of the risk to your health.

There is no doubt that many people find the smell of smoke offensive. There are also many people who find the smell of perfume, after-shave, deodorant, LACK of deodorant, unchanged underwear, spicy foods, stinky feet, that last onion-covered hot dog you ate, the results of your 'chili with beans' binge the night before, hair spray, etc., etc. to be offensive as well. I'm sure that most people would be just as likely to be put-off by an overly perfumed individual or by the one who just came back from a nice spaghetti lunch (with extra garlic bread) as they would by a person who just finished a cigarette. The government would certainly be justified in monitoring your personal hygeine habits, your selection of fragrances and your dining habits before you go out in public and then mandating how often you should bathe, the amount and type of fragrance you should apply, and what you should eat before and during your time spent in public places.

There is no question that cigarette smoking is bad for your health...it would be stupid to try to debate such a thing. There is also no question that drinking alcoholic beverages to excess, overeating, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, skateboarding, skydiving, race car driving, mountain climbing, skiing, water skiing, being a couch potato, mountain biking, talking on your cell phone while driving, etc., etc., etc. are also bad for your health (or at least have the potential to be). The government would certainly be justified in monitoring your leisure-time activities and then mandating which are acceptable risks and which are not.

In 2002 there were 30,242 gun-related deaths in the United States. Many people find gun ownership to be offensive. Having a gun in your home certainly leaves you more at risk to a gun-related accident than NOT having a gun in your home. The government would certainly be justified in deciding that you should not keep a firearm in your home for any reason because it places both you and the other occupants of your home at risk.

Now obviously nobody is suggesting that the government should really monitor your leisure activities, bathing habits, etc. (though they DO monitor your gun ownership) but aren't the principles the same as the government (or the courts) mandating how much fat should be in a McDonalds burger? Here in the Dallas area, the City of Dallas has banned smoking in all restaurants. If I wanted to open a 'Smokers Only' restaurant....it would be against the law (though I'm sure it would be an instant hit!). Even if I put a gigantic red neon sign outside the restaurant saying 'SMOKERS ONLY' I couldn't do it. Hardly 'equal treatment under the law'!

-Joe
 
Joe..................You are the WORDsmith. Brilliant. You've earned a Guiness. LOL
 
A very wise man once said:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote:
----- Benjamin Franklin

There is more than one lesson in those words. A weakness of democracy is the possibility of a "tyranny of the majority." simply put, if 51% of the people think it is right, that does not make it right, or just. History is rife with examples.

The other lesson is that liberty will always be under attack, and taken from those who are not willing, and able to fight to keep it. Never give up a liberty or freedom, however small or inconsequential. None of us have so much to spare.
 
There is a good ol saying that you must forgive me if its been said already.

If guns where outlawed the only people to have them would be outlaws.

Leaglize marajana for example and I hole heartdly belive that after a year or so teh auctal usage in the US would drop. It would no longer be a 'cool thing to do' or it woudl no longer be rebelious so why do it?
 
Having a gun in your home certainly leaves you more at risk to a gun-related accident than NOT having a gun in your home
Tell that to the SUBJECTS of Great Brittain. They are now many times more likely to be assaulted in their own homes, or on their own streets, and with guns, since private gun ownership was outlawed. Portraying guns as a danger to yourself simply by owning one is misinformation spread by the liberal media to advance their agenda of people control. Look up the work of University of Chicago scholar John Lott, very interesting. One title is More Guns = Less Crime.

Gee, one of the nice things about AA was how diverse people all got together with a common interest among them. discussions of poitics or religion is a certain way to spoil a party. Please try not to hold my belief in the supreme rule of the individual against me. The sad fact of being an anarchist at heart is that it is a lonely existence. I once threw a party to organize all the local anarchists and none of them came :D
 
Ok folks. In all honesty we need to jump back on the subject train or move on. Seems like we have two threads all mangled into one.
 
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.
There are three kinds of lies. Lies. Damned lies. And statistics.
------Mark Twain (I believe)

The media feeds us statistics: for example: you are 40 percent more likey to have a heart attack if you take Vioxx. What they don't report are the real numbers. While I did not read the actual study, it would go something like this. People not taking Vioxx had one heart attack per thousand people in the study. People taking Vioxx had 1.4 heart attacks per thousand, a forty percent increase. Nevermind that the other 998.6 people had their arthritis or back pain controlled, the statistics are "significant" as far as the math goes, so now the lawyers can run adds seeking Vioxx users who had a heart attack for their multimillion dollar class action suits.

Tonights news: women who have migrains with visual disturbances are 50 percent more likely to have a stroke. Major health issue? NO! The incidence of stroke in the women studied was like one in 20 thousand, so even twice that is 10,000 to one against it. I'd take those odds to Vegas!
 
This was actually a very well controlled study which did take into account the other variables ( socio-economic, education of the parents, ...) As a science person, I always look at the study with a skeptic's eye.
Be careful with your belief in statistics. Study bias, response bias, the bias of the person paying for the study, all play a large role. Remember the "scientist" who could prove that certain races were less intelligent? It wasn't Hitler, it was Herrnstein and Murray with their 1994 book "The Bell Curve." The math was totally valid. Do you believe it?

Edit: sorry FishFreek. Came into the thread late, and any thread that proposes a "Ban" invites a wide range of freedom debates. A little hard to stay on track about McD's:)
 
As long as its legal to kill unborn children I should be able to choke down a table full of Big Macs while smoking a Marlboro Red armed with an uzi and chasing it down with a tall Jack and Coke while betting fistfulls of my own money on the superbowl and watching a porno tape. Not even all of those acts combined are the equivalent of terminating the life of an unborn child who has NO choice in the decision.
 
TomK2 said:
This was actually a very well controlled study which did take into account the other variables ( socio-economic, education of the parents, ...) As a science person, I always look at the study with a skeptic's eye.
Be careful with your belief in statistics. Study bias, response bias, the bias of the person paying for the study, all play a large role. Remember the "scientist" who could prove that certain races were less intelligent? It wasn't Hitler, it was Herrnstein and Murray with their 1994 book "The Bell Curve." The math was totally valid. Do you believe it?

Edit: sorry FishFreek. Came into the thread late, and any thread that proposes a "Ban" invites a wide range of freedom debates. A little hard to stay on track about McD's:)

I agree TomK2 - I once read a correlation beteen increased ice cream sales and violent crime.

But again my point was on the issue of the effects of second hand smoke. The physical effects on the brain are quantifiable with brain imaging technology. The long term effects are still being studied and the report I mentioned was one of many.

My issue is that those who cannot make an informed choice whether to breathe second hand smoke COULD be at risk. These are the children who cannot roll the window down in the car. Isn't it worth looking at if the well being of our children is at stake?

And again- I do not support micro -management of the government into personal lives. If a person choses to smoke - so be it, but be informed as to the possible effects on yourself and those around you.
 
Glad to see so many "gun nuts" :roll: here. I own 1 or 2 and will defend my right to keep them. I keep them safe, but loaded. If you break in on me well say hello to St. peter. but they are locked up to where no one but me and my wife can get them.

Mcdonalds should not be banned. Of course if you eat there much you probally have no taste buds left for real food. But then again that's your choice. I eat there some, once or twice a month. Sometimes just to remind me why I don't eat there more often. Now hot wings I'm a sucker for. Finally found some place that can make some good ones so if anyone knows anything bad about the hot wings don't tell me. :taped:
 
Wow, a 10 page debate and nobody's gotten the boot yet! :D

Anyway, sure, go right ahead and ban McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, and Hardees if you want - but don't dare lay a finger on KFC! Mmmmmm.....honey BBQ wings. :D

I believe that this boils down to informed choice.
Everybody knows that excessive consumption of greasy, fried foods is unhealthy.
Everybody knows that excessive consumption of alcohol is unhealthy.
Everybody knows that smoking is unhealthy.
Armed with that knowledge, you make a choice and live with its consequences.
The only exception to this, IMO is when children are involved, since they don't have the capacity to make informed choices yet.

Some of our 'enlightened' leaders in NY have suggested adding an obesity tax to fast food purchases. The money would supposedly go to the state to offset obesity-related expenses incurred by Medicaid/Medicare. Would this stop people from going to McDonalds and the like? Highly unlikely! In NYC, a pack of cigarettes costs $7.50!!!! Combined city and state taxes are over 3 dollars per pack. Yet, I still see lots of people buying cigs in my neighborhood.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg said he raised the city tax by $1.5 in order to save lives. Ha ha ha ha ha! I think he just needed more revenue for the city, and he knew that those poor nicotine-addicted slobs would be an easy, politically expedient target. BTW, bless all you smokers, gamblers, and drinkers. Without your generous contributions to NYC and NY State, my personal income taxes would be higher. :p
 
QTOFFER said:
In NYC, a pack of cigarettes costs $7.50!!!! Combined city and state taxes are over 3 dollars per pack. Yet, I still see lots of people buying cigs in my neighborhood. Mike Bloomberg said he raised the city tax by $1.5 in order to save lives. Ha ha ha ha ha! I think he just needed more revenue for the city, and he knew that those poor nicotine-addicted slobs would be an easy, politically expedient target. BTW, bless all you smokers, gamblers, and drinkers. Without your generous contributions to NYC and NY State, my personal income taxes would be higher.

Right on target QTOFFER! Did you know that two of the major manufacturer's actually lowered their price by the same amount? The City gets their money and smokers think they are getting a bargain! I happen to be one of them. :(
 
I think McDonalds should be banned because the guy in the cube next to mine eats it a lot and later on in the day has really, really rank, um, emissions.

Down with stinkiness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom