Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=firstdown;338128]You have said in earlier threads that you believe global warm is real and we need to do something about it. If you think a high tax will curb people from smoking then we must assume that a high tax on gas will curb consumption. If global warming is that big of a consern then it would make sense to have the higher tax to save the planet v/s taxing cigs which would only save smokers.[/quote]

Of course global warming is an issue but you can't be serious in thinking cranking up gas prices to discourage people from driving is a realistic solution.

Regardless, let's stick to the original topic. Comparing gas to cigarettes is too much of a stretch to even take seriously.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=firstdown;338128]The other reason I made that point is because people don't have problems with others paying high taxes but when it effects them then they have a problem with the tax and from your past post you made my point.[/quote]

I don't agree with that. I'm all in favor of paying higher taxes for something if I know where that money is going and if it's for the better good of society in general.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Mattyk72;338145]I don't agree with that. I'm all in favor of paying higher taxes for something if I know where that money is going and if it's for the better good of society in general.[/quote]
Ok, so the money goes to help cut down on usage, to provide study for alternative sources, and if we cut down usage then we cut down polution which is a hugh benifit to society and we cut down our dependence from other nations.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Mattyk72;338138]Of course global warming is an issue but you can't be serious in thinking cranking up gas prices to discourage people from driving is a realistic solution.

Regardless, let's stick to the original topic. Comparing gas to cigarettes is too much of a stretch to even take seriously.[/quote]
It is about as realistic as taxing cigs to curb use which you say it will. So then it would curb driving habits and a start to reducing green house gases.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=firstdown;338157]It is about as realistic as taxing cigs to curb use which you say it will. So then it would curb driving habits and a start to reducing green house gases.[/quote]

I'm not the one saying it, there have been plenty of studies done that support that.

At what cost will jacking up gas prices have on the economy?? That would far outweigh the benefits to the environment.

Cranking up prices isn't a blanket solution to help curb all behaviors, not sure why you're trying to make it seem that way.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=firstdown;338153]Ok, so the money goes to help cut down on usage, to provide study for alternative sources, and if we cut down usage then we cut down polution which is a hugh benifit to society and we cut down our dependence from other nations.[/quote]

All of this research is already in existence and isn't in need of more funding through extra gas taxes. If you can prove to me that this type of R&D is in desperate need of extra funding, you might have a point.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Mattyk72;338163]All of this research is already in existence and isn't in need of more funding through extra gas taxes. If you can prove to me that this type of R&D is in desperate need of extra funding, you might have a point.[/quote]

Rebuilding the nations instructors seem to be all over the news these days, what about using the money for that and getting me to and from work quicker?

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Mattyk72;338161]I'm not the one saying it, there have been plenty of studies done that support that.

At what cost will jacking up gas prices have on the economy?? That would far outweigh the benefits to the environment.

Cranking up prices isn't a blanket solution to help curb all behaviors, not sure why you're trying to make it seem that way.[/quote]
I was just making a point using your argument for a cig tax. If you think about our conversation on this it has done a 180. I'm using your argument for a cig tax to make a argument for a gas tax and your using my argument against a cig tax to make your argument against a gas tax. LOL

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;338128]You have said in earlier threads that you believe global warm is real and we need to do something about it. If you think a high tax will curb people from smoking then we must assume that a high tax on gas will curb consumption. If global warming is that big of a consern then it would make sense to have the higher tax to save the planet v/s taxing cigs which would only save smokers.

The other reason I made that point is because people don't have problems with others paying high taxes but when it effects them then they have a problem with the tax and from your past post you made my point.[/QUOTE]

Well, when gas prices went from around $2 a gallon to around $3.29 a gallon, did that reduce our gas cunsumption?
No it didn't...why? Cause we NEED gas to get around and go to work. Not all of us can car pool or take the public transportation system.
Taxing gas would only hurt us as a country, not help anything.

Some of you are approaching Matty with ideas of taxing gas to fund alternative fuels. 1- that's not feasible since no one has that intention. 2- How about use the "sin taxes" to fund alternative fuels research?

Not to turn this into an alternative fuels thread, but we already have e-85, it's all about letting the oil companies go, and getting the government to agree to make that switch. People are hesitant.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;338157]It is about as realistic as taxing cigs to curb use which you say it will. So then it would curb driving habits and a start to reducing green house gases.[/QUOTE]

While I applaud the effort for thinking outside the box, this is just not realistic.
Taxing cigs / raising prices has already shown to reduce smoking (as a previous link proved) yet taxing gas / raising prices has shown to not even phase america because we have to use something to fuel our transportation. Right now, we have no other option. But you fail to recognize that we NEED gas (or some other option to fuel our transportation) but we do not in any form or fashion need Cigarettes. They are completely useless to society and in fact are actually a huge negative on society in terms of cancer and other expensive health issues they cause.
No one has been successful in saying "well if you tax cigs, then what about..." (except maybe alcohol which are similar vices). I'd like to see cigs at $10 a pack. Obviously people are too dumb to stop smoking on their own (or too addicted), but if you raise the price to amazing levels, more and more would quit, and those that are suffering smoking related illnesses would be much less of a burden on society.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;338145]I don't agree with that. I'm all in favor of paying higher taxes for something if I know where that money is going and if it's for the better good of society in general.[/QUOTE]

But what exactly is the "better good of society," or who determines what that is? If some fat guy wants to stuff his face and die of a heart attack by age 35, that's his perogative. Likewise, if some idiot wants to smoke himself to an early grave, that's also his choice.

I see no difference between taxing fast food at 150% (so you're typical value meal will cost about $12.50) and taxing cigarettes at 150%. Both are unhealthy. No one needs to smoke and no one NEEDS to eat fast food. Both are supposedly costing taxpayers money. And by the way, I oppose both such taxes.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338217]But what exactly is the "better good of society," or who determines what that is? If some fat guy wants to stuff his face and die of a heart attack by age 35, that's his perogative. Likewise, if some idiot wants to smoke himself to an early grave, that's also his choice.

I see no difference between taxing fast food at 150% (so you're typical value meal will cost about $12.50) and taxing cigarettes at 150%. Both are unhealthy. No one needs to smoke and no one NEEDS to eat fast food. Both are supposedly costing taxpayers money. And by the way, I oppose both such taxes.[/QUOTE]


Again, food, a requirement for life, and continuation of life.
Cigarettes...not so much. Death will happen and much quicker than normal.

Big differences there.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338217]But what exactly is the "better good of society," or who determines what that is? If some fat guy wants to stuff his face and die of a heart attack by age 35, that's his perogative. Likewise, if some idiot wants to smoke himself to an early grave, that's also his choice.

I see no difference between taxing fast food at 150% (so you're typical value meal will cost about $12.50) and taxing cigarettes at 150%. Both are unhealthy. No one needs to smoke and no one NEEDS to eat fast food. Both are supposedly costing taxpayers money. And by the way, I oppose both such taxes.[/quote]

I'd support both such taxes and here's why:

Both products create health problems which are obvious; emphysema, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure which can lead to stroke. All of those medical conditions tend to strike the elderly, and if you follow the money, the federal government pays immense medical benefits (in the form of Medicare) to seniors as a direct result of these diseases. Citizens who smoke and regularly eat fatty foods are much more likely to cost the federal government a lot of coin after their 65th birthday. Taxes on these products help ensure that the people consuming these products are doing more to subsidize the cost of their medical treatment.

No, this tax revenue does not go directly to the Medicare program. But it has a fiscal domino effect. This cigarrette tax revenue goes to fund government programs or reduce the federal deficit, meaning the government does not need to raise Medicare tax rates, or raise income taxes on the rest of us. Ultimately, the smokers end up paying more into the take-a-penny, leave-a-penny jar, and that's the way it should be, because at the end of their lives they're taking quarters and dollars while the rest of us are taking pennies.

This tax isn't about philosophy and trying to dictate behavior. You're dreaming if you think people pass tax laws to affect human behavior. They do it for one reason: money. Specifically, making sure the nation is aligning the inflows and outflows fairly.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338217]But what exactly is the "better good of society," or who determines what that is? If some fat guy wants to stuff his face and die of a heart attack by age 35, that's his perogative. Likewise, if some idiot wants to smoke himself to an early grave, that's also his choice.

I see no difference between taxing fast food at 150% (so you're typical value meal will cost about $12.50) and taxing cigarettes at 150%. Both are unhealthy. No one needs to smoke and no one NEEDS to eat fast food. Both are supposedly costing taxpayers money. And by the way, I oppose both such taxes.[/quote]

I'd define the better good of society as whatever costs us all less money in the long run.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;338226]Again, food, a requirement for life, and continuation of life.
Cigarettes...not so much. Death will happen and much quicker than normal.

Big differences there.[/QUOTE]

Just because a chicken mcnugget is edible doesn't make it a requirement for life. Coca leaves are edible too btw.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;337750][URL="http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs_97-1053.htm"]Here[/URL] is one such study I referenced earlier. It was authored by a member of the Congressional Research Service.[/QUOTE]

Schneed, check this study out. We went over this argument a few pages ago, but basically, some believe that cigarettes actually save the government money because smokers often die before they get their social security checks, before they use a lot of medicare payments, etc. While cancer treatments aren't cheap, nursing home care is ridiculously expensive.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=jsarno;338226][B]Again, food, a requirement for life, and continuation of life.[/B]
Cigarettes...not so much. Death will happen and much quicker than normal.

Big differences there.[/quote]

I fail to see the difference if they both lead to premature death.

Re: smokers tax
 

BOTTOM LINE:
Does anyone feel confident, and comfortable with the Fed regularly exercising it's power to tax..........anything, or to escalate a tax on something so that you can no longer do whatever "it" was?
I do not.
I would like the Fed to account for what it gets now. Would you like to know where your money goes? You never will. Let's face it, this Govt. is FAAAAT!
More tax is not the answer. Less Govt is the answer.
I do not begin to have the confidence in the Fed to support more of our American freedoms being put in jeopardy, to line our politicians pockets.

--Thankyou......thankyou very much

Re: smokers tax
 

But people can live without smoking. Fatty or not, food sustains you.

It'll lead to an early grave, but not as early as not eating period.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=saden1;338244]I fail to see the difference if they both lead to premature death.[/QUOTE]


You don't see the difference?
OK, stop eating right now. Do not eat anything ever again, see what happens to you. How long do you think you'll live? 7 days? 30 days?

Now if you're a smoker, stop smoking now, do not smoke ever again, then see what happens to you. You'll live a lot longer, and life will be clearer and smell better.

See the difference now?

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;338261]But people can live without smoking. Fatty or not, food sustains you.

It'll lead to an early grave, but not as early as not eating period.[/QUOTE]

exactly.

I will admit eating at McDonalds for every meal won't get you far, but how many people actually do that?
The ones that do, are just as dumb as those that smoke a pack or two a day.

ps- not all the food that fast food joints sell are bad for you.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=jsarno;338262]You don't see the difference?
OK, stop eating right now. Do not eat anything ever again, see what happens to you. How long do you think you'll live? 7 days? 30 days?

Now if you're a smoker, stop smoking now, do not smoke ever again, then see what happens to you. You'll live a lot longer, and life will be clearer and smell better.

See the difference now?[/quote]

Well.......if he quits eating, it will kill him!
If he quits smoking, he may come kill you!

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;338266]Well.......if he quits eating, it will kill him!
If he quits smoking, he may come kill you![/QUOTE]

LOL.
He may, but he'll get over that urge and live and long and fruitful life.

Re: smokers tax
 

I still fail to understand how cigarettes equate similarly to fast food. Again, fast food in and of itself IS NOT BAD FOR YOU. What is bad for you is the amounts of it you eat. There is not a single thing in fast food that is only destructive. Every ingredient has healthy benefits as much as any other food we eat. It is not the food that is inherently bad. It is our eating too much of it. Cigarettes on the other hand have no positive benefits in any quantity. The only thing they do...the one singular thing... is kill you.

To me the two are not even in the same ballpark. In fact I cannot think of anything legal that is in the same ballpark as cigarettes. Possibly alcohol but there are numerous studies that show some benefits of alcohol consumption in proper quantities.

As far "the betterment of society issue". Our country long ago decided that we should govern consumption and use of certain things. Many drugs are illegal because they are harmful for example. Because of the uniqueness of cigarettes I really don't see taxing them out of existence as a step onto the slippery slope. I just think if we are allowed to make things illegal like drugs then there is no reason cigarettes should be legal. Seeing as they are legal and making them illegal would put major companies out of business I'd prefer that a less direct action be taken and they get taxed into oblivion.

I'ma conservative and firmly believe the government should stay out of my busniess but I don't think the government should stay out of all of my business without exception. Ridding our society of illegal drugs and other products that kill us prematurely seems like a pretty good job for our government to me.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;338274]I still fail to understand how cigarettes equate similarly to fast food. Again, fast food in and of itself IS NOT BAD FOR YOU. What is bad for you is the amounts of it you eat. There is not a single thing in fast food that is only destructive. Every ingredient has healthy benefits as much as any other food we eat. It is not the food that is inherently bad. It is our eating too much of it. Cigarettes on the other hand have no positive benefits in any quantity. The only thing they do...the one singular thing... is kill you.

To me the two are not even in the same ballpark. In fact I cannot think of anything legal that is in the same ballpark as cigarettes. Possibly alcohol but there are numerous studies that show some benefits of alcohol consumption in proper quantities.

As far "the betterment of society issue". Our country long ago decided that we should govern consumption and use of certain things. Many drugs are illegal because they are harmful for example. Because of the uniqueness of cigarettes I really don't see taxing them out of existence as a step onto the slippery slope. I just think if we are allowed to make things illegal like drugs then there is no reason cigarettes should be legal. Seeing as they are legal and making them illegal would put major companies out of business I'd prefer that a less direct action be taken and they get taxed into oblivion.

I'ma conservative and firmly believe the government should stay out of my busniess but I don't think the government should stay out of all of my business without exception. Ridding our society of illegal drugs and other products that kill us prematurely seems like a pretty good job for our government to me.[/QUOTE]

Good points.
It's called grasping for straws for the sake of an argument.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;338276]Good points.
It's called grasping for straws for the sake of an argument.[/QUOTE]

I think I understand where the point of view comes from because I firnly believe in limited government but I also believe in nuance. This is a very limited but nuanced view I hold. I think nuance is the biggest thing missing in politics today.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;338262]You don't see the difference?
OK, stop eating right now. Do not eat anything ever again, see what happens to you. How long do you think you'll live? 7 days? 30 days?[/QUOTE]

We were not discussing food in general, we were discussing fast food. So, you're above quote is perplexing. You should have asked, "OK, stop eating [I]fast food[/I] right now. Do not eat any [I]fast food[/I] ever again, see what happens to you." I would suppose if you stopped eating fast food altogether, you'd probably be a more healthy individual and, for some, you'd probably be a hell of a lot thinner.

Also, I said cigarettes and fast food are [U]analogous[/U], not [U]identical[/U]. Both have an adverse effect on the general health of the population, regardless of whatever few redeeming qualities each has. If the reason for taxing cigarettes is that they have an adverse effect on the population, I see no reason why one should simultaneously oppose taxing fast food.

Finally, it appears that a fast food tax may be on the horizon in some cities.
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/09/news/economy/fastfood_tax/[/url]
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/10/04/diabetes021004.html[/url]

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338284]Also, I said cigarettes and fast food are [U]analogous[/U], not [U]identical[/U]. Both have an adverse effect on the general health of the population, regardless of whatever few redeeming qualities each has. If the reason for taxing cigarettes is that they have an adverse effect on the population, I see no reason why one should simultaneously oppose taxing fast food.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, they are not identical so why would taxing cigarettes mean you should tax fast food? They should not be treated identically since they are not identical in nature. That's my whole point. I am advocating taxing the stuff that IS bad for you and not the stuff that MAY be bad for you. One is complete social control where the line between black and white is completely gray and therefore impossible to get right when deciding how to fairly tax it. The other is clearly black and white and would be very easy.

Re: smokers tax
 

SGG...do you support the legalization of all drugs?

Re: smokers tax
 

I believe the context of the discussion is taxing fatty/fast food, not food in general...and by the logic being used here one can argue that you don't NEED fatty food to sustain you. You could do with fruits and veggies and live a healthy and happy life. In any case, according to NIH approximately [URL="http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/05-02-14.htm"]440,000 people die from smoking[/URL] and about [URL="http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/PDFs/adultobesbw1201.pdf"]280,000 die from obesity[/URL] related illness (the latest stats I could find).

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;338312]SGG...do you support the legalization of all drugs?[/QUOTE]

No, but IMHO, the difference between cigarettes and crack is just a tad more significant than the difference between cigarettes and fast food. Moreover, I do support the legalization of some drugs, just not the ones that will make you a raging lunatic (e.g., PCP) or hallucinate and possibly harm others (e.g., LSD).

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338243]Schneed, check this study out. We went over this argument a few pages ago, but basically, some believe that cigarettes actually save the government money because smokers often die before they get their social security checks, before they use a lot of medicare payments, etc. While cancer treatments aren't cheap, nursing home care is ridiculously expensive.[/quote]

OK I read through it, this study is pretty flimsy. First it offers no data, it's just a text. Any good study shows the results of statistical tests. But even getting past that, it does not account for the following:

- People who die at 60 of smoking-related problems obviously do not work past age 60. A percentage of those who live past 60 continue to work, contributing tax dollars and to the nation's GDP. The cost side is not the only concern here.

- The cost associated with healthcare to those who don't smoke, but are affected by second-hand smoke. The study only analyzed the health affects on smokers - second hand smoke is responsible for the development of asthma in young children that they often don't shake. Asthma medications are some of the most expensive medications on the market.

- The study was done in 1998. In the last 9 years, costs of healthcare have dramatically increased, especially for pulmonary functions. Lung volume reduction surgery is now a generally accepted methodology for treating emphysema - this surgery came to bear in the last 3 years. It is incredibly expensive and requires very long rehab stays in hospital rehab units. In addition, cardiac catheterizations, cardiac stents, and the usage of ventricular assist devices has become much more prevalent since 1998. These surgeries are also extremely expensive. The costs of nursing home care have not dramatically increased since 1998 - the standard of care in nursing homes has not changed. It is not a section of the healthcare system that sees great growth in expense - all you're paying for is nursing hours, and as any nurse can tell you, they haven't seen many pay increases over the years. I don't have any links, I'm just exposed to this stuff through working in the finance department at a network of hospitals.

Re: smokers tax
 

Schneed,

You raise all fair points. I don't pretend to know all of the answers and I never said the study's conclusion was 100% accurate (though it might be). I just think that before people start making arguments as to why smoking should be heavily taxed on economic/tax grounds, we should know that it causes a net increase in government spending.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338284]We were not discussing food in general, we were discussing fast food. So, you're above quote is perplexing. You should have asked, "OK, stop eating [I]fast food[/I] right now. Do not eat any [I]fast food[/I] ever again, see what happens to you." I would suppose if you stopped eating fast food altogether, you'd probably be a more healthy individual and, for some, you'd probably be a hell of a lot thinner.

Also, I said cigarettes and fast food are [U]analogous[/U], not [U]identical[/U]. Both have an adverse effect on the general health of the population, regardless of whatever few redeeming qualities each has. If the reason for taxing cigarettes is that they have an adverse effect on the population, I see no reason why one should simultaneously oppose taxing fast food.

Finally, it appears that a fast food tax may be on the horizon in some cities.
[url=http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/09/news/economy/fastfood_tax/]Detroit mayor proposes tax on fast-food - May. 9, 2005[/url]
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/10/04/diabetes021004.html]Nutritionists advocate fast food tax to stem diabetes epidemic[/url][/QUOTE]

No, I shouldn't have.
Again, food is a REQUIREMENT for survival. Cigarettes are not.
You also ASSUME that all "fast food" is bad for you, and that is flat out not true.
A flame grilled Burger at Burger King is not something that I see as bad for you. Hell, you will grill out at home, does this mean all beef should be taxed?
How about a grilled Chicken sandwich? Should all chicken be taxed now?
Your argument of comparing food to cigarettes is weak at best.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338332]Schneed,

You raise all fair points. I don't pretend to know all of the answers and I never said the study's conclusion was 100% accurate (though it might be). I just think that before people start making arguments as to why smoking should be heavily taxed on economic/tax grounds, we should know that it causes a net increase in government spending.[/quote]

True, but I'm assuming that we the people derive some sort of benefit from that increase in spending. That money either goes to reduce the deficit or funds government programs. Sure, all government spending is inefficient, but inefficient is not synonymous with worthless.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=saden1;338323]I believe the context of the discussion is taxing fatty/fast food, not food in general...and by the logic being used here one can argue that you don't NEED fatty food to sustain you. You could do with fruits and veggies and live a healthy and happy life. In any case, according to NIH approximately [URL="http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/05-02-14.htm"]440,000 people die from smoking[/URL] and about [URL="http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/PDFs/adultobesbw1201.pdf"]280,000 die from obesity[/URL] related illness (the latest stats I could find).[/QUOTE]

Yes but the context here is whether fatty food is inherently bad. It is not. Cigarettes are inherently bad. There's no realistic argument being made or that can be made that they are unharmful and even healthy in one way or another. Fatty food on the other hand can sustain you and can be part of a well balanced diet It is not needed but it is not simply bad unquestionably. Cigarettes are.

SSG. To me cigarettes are more analogous to illegal drugs than to fast food.

Re: smokers tax
 

BTW. I gotta say this is a fantastic discussion. I see a lot of SSG's points and some of them are compelling. I certainly have been swayed at least a little.

Re: smokers tax
 

[quote=FRPLG;338371]Yes but the context here is whether fatty food is inherently bad. [B]It is not[/B]. Cigarettes are inherently bad. There's no realistic argument being made or that can be made that they are unharmful and even healthy in one way or another. Fatty food on the other hand can sustain you and can be part of a well balanced diet It is not needed but it is not simply bad unquestionably. Cigarettes are.

SSG. To me cigarettes are more analogous to illegal drugs than to fast food.[/quote]

I believe anything that contributes to premature death is inherently bad. I think the movie Super Sized Me showed us how bad fatty food really is. As always moderation is key to life. The more you smoke the sooner you die, the more crap you eat the sooner you die.

Re: smokers tax
 

I surrender jsarno, fried chicken, french fries, whoppers and mcnuggets are essential to life, healthy, have contributed immemsely to this nation's great diet and health, and will make your manhood grow 12 inches. Thank you for showing how I am "grasping for straws" and how my argument was "weak at best."

I have said from the get-go that fast food and cigarettes are not identical. But, to say that one can draw no comparisons whatsoever between the two is, in my mind, more than stubborn and intellectually dishonest. I guess I don't get the "cede no ground to 'the other side'" approach to discussing things.

In any event, has the pre-season started? I can't wait to start talking about football.

Re: smokers tax
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;338463]I surrender jsarno, fried chicken, french fries, whoppers and mcnuggets are essential to life, healthy, have contributed immemsely to this nation's great diet and health, and will make your manhood grow 12 inches. Thank you for showing how I am "grasping for straws" and how my argument was "weak at best."[/QUOTE]


If you're gonna give up, then fine, but at least quote me correctly. I referred to a FLAME BROILED burger, and a GRILLED chicken. I said nothing of French Fries and McNuggets.
If you actually understood your argument was weak, then we'd be on the right path, but you can't say all fast food is bad, nor can you refer to something that is essential for life with something that is a detriment to life. It makes no sense.