Replies

"So does tha mean that the alternative to smoking is is JUnk food binging?"

No, it is not meant as an alternative, unless an individual choses that. What it means that in the name of public health we have allowed the rights of individuals to be trampled upon. Now, we can expect the same rights to be trampled upon regarding food.

No where in the constitution is a right identified that protects me from others offensive behavior. Your mother has the ability to chose where she wants to go and she is not required to enter any particular bar or tavern. Should we ban public consumption of peanuts, some people have life threatening allergies to them? How about shellfish? Does someone with these allergies have the choice to stay away from such products and should they maintain that freedom?

The alternative should be to allow the property owner to chose how to use his property. If you feel so strongly about a smoke free environment, then you should risk your own money and start a restaurant or bar that is smoke free. If the market really exists you would end up with a handsome payoff for taking the risk. Instead, the weaklings of our society, expect the government to legislate to their preferences. They are weak because they are not able to make a simple choice, the government must eliminate one option all together in order to eliminate the choice.

Junk food won't be banned, instead it will be heavily taxed. Just like cigs!

So what does that have to do with the point I was making. You trwist and turn this into Constitutional debate, when my question still remains unanswered, is junk food binging the only alternative for non-smoking.

I for one do not eat junk food, but I do smoke. I smoke outside when I light a cigar, or go to a cigar bar, where I an my friends choose to smoke.

So whats the answer? Do smokers have to turn to obesity and other obsseive eating behaviors to replace smoking?

Ops4 God Bless America!

CSM wrote: "Junk food won't be banned, instead it will be heavily taxed. Just like cigs!"

Big Macs kill, when used as directed. Roughly half of all those who establish an addiction to Big Macs and related products will contract heart disease and die from it. In addition, many innocents who live near Big Mac production facilities will die from the air pollution caused by their cooking. As the Antismokers have pointed out so thoroughly, ventilation and filtration are NO solution. Those living in cities where Big Macs are prepared are ALL vulnerable, particularly children and the elderly, as various carcinogenic, mutagenic, and ciliatoxic elements are released into the air.

At particular risk are those children dragged into the dens of corpse eaters as the compounds pour out of the kitchens into the dining rooms. Without the safety marker of tobacco smoke in the air very few customers are aware of the lack of ventilation signified by the slight aroma of stale grease and french fries, and yet these toxins permeate into the deepest and most delicate recesses of lung tissue.

While it is not practical at this point to jail those who gnaw on the flesh of dead animals, the practice CAN be reduced with proper social engineering techniques. The easiest path of course is simply taxation. Most people will actually be grateful to have their diets enriched by soybeans and wheat paste even if they experience an initial annoyance at no longer being able to rend flesh with their teeth.

Ultimately we can move into the schools and give out tshirts and prizes to students who come up with creative poster ideas such as "My Mommy Loves Me: She's a Vegan!" and as we popularize the idea that bits of rotting corpses stuck in the teeth are a turn-off for kissing. Removing meat eating from films and banning it on the streets is of course a long term necessity, though, as with smoking, a certain level of population reduction through proper taxation (i.e. 300 - 800% of basic product price, as with cigarettes) will be necessary before a final solution is at hand.

- Cantiloper
www.Antibrains.com