Fruitbat
Aquarium Advice Addict
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
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