Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Schneed10
No I wouldn't be in favor of a ban on fatty foods like that. First off, it's not a fair comparison. I'm not advocating a total ban on all smoking. I'm advocating a ban in indoor, public places. You're suggesting that the government ban fatty foods, which is going MUCH further than the indoor smoking ban law does. Smokers can still smoke by stepping outside. What you're suggesting is that the goverment limit fatty foods completely. That's not a fair comparison.
Banning fatty foods would be the same as banning alcohol or banning smoking altogether, in my mind. It's going too far and taking away too much personal freedom.
I agree that banning fatty foods would be a health benefit to society. But if you read my previous posts, you'll see I don't agree with having to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms. An indoor ban on smoking doesn't ask too much of smokers: simply step outside to smoke. It's not saying "you can't smoke at all, harumph harumph harumph." You can smoke, just go outside, and come back when you're done. Quite easy.
|
Not a fair comparison? What would be the difference between the government acting on behalf of the health of non-smoking patrons of a restaurant by banning smoking, and doing the same by prohibiting that same restaurant from serving unhealthy foods? In both instances, as I've argued, the patron is not forced to be there. He or she can leave. In your world, the government must protect the health of everyone who goes to that restaurant and breathes the air that fills it, but is coincidentally not obliged to do the same for the food that is served there. What gives?
Your idea of personal freedom is an interesting one. Instead of acknowledging my right to start a business, say, a cigar bar that caters to cigar smokers, you're more interested in the right of a non-smoking patron to walk in that cigar bar, be upset with the smoke, and get the government to close down my business. That's kind of absurd, don't you think?