No fat people allowed: Only the slim will be allowed to dine in public!

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: theknight571
Where's the proposal to stop selling cigarettes to smokers?

Don't they cost "us" alot of money too?

Cigarettes certainly should be outlawed. From an ex-smoker of 12 years, who now has a kid.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes won't stop people from smoking them. In fact, it'll probably make smoking cool again, just in time for your kid to start.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes would stop people from smoking them.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking! Yeah!

Prohibition did stop some people from drinking.

But not nearly as many as it encouraged to drink.

... a negative number. Alcohol use declined during Prohibition. In any event, a parallel between Prohibition and a ban on cigarettes today would be absolutely asinine. Cigarette speakeasies? I mean, come on. It's a fool's "argument".

You're a moron. All factual studies and evidence show that alcohol use increased during Prohibition.

You're an idiot. This is absolutely false.

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy
if you really think that you are a idiot.

Ah, yes. Despite going on a century of intervening history, the greater acceptance by society then of alcohol use vs. tobacco use today, the greater ability of large-scale criminal conspiracies to operate quasi-openly then than today, the vast differences between alcohol and tobacco, the greater controls on corporations today which would make it nigh-impossible for people to smoke at work, and a host of other differences... I am "a idiot" for not realizing that in reality, the two situations are exactly the same.

No, you're an idiot for not being able to realize that those advancements occurred we did NOT choose the path of prohibition, and that prohibition would erase all of that and put us right back where we were.

But go ahead, keep pretending to yourself that you're saving the world with your perpetual knee-jerking... :roll:

[/quote]

Stupid much? Oh wait-- I know the answer. See, I never claimed to be saving the world. This is just the latest in a long line of what I have grown to call "Vic Specials".

Go on. Talk about the vast number of ways in which we can draw information from the Prohibition era about the efficacy of a cigarette ban today.

Maybe along the line, dumbass, you will "prove" with your impeccable "logic" how a cigarette ban would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere.

Whoopsie!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
:laugh:

And the mice passed a law to bell the cat too...

Now I see the source of your reasoning. :laugh:

That you're a transparent moron? You're not actually helping anyone, and you're only fooling yourself.
It's easy to pretend that you're solving the world's problems by proposing impossible and unfeasible remedies.
It's far harder to actually try to work towards solving the world's problems.

I'm not the one who misstated the facts. You have presented no logical argument. But you get high marks for knowledge of children's riddles and such. A ban on cigarettes is hardly impossible. (That's for you-- I am nothing if not compassionate.)

You must be a troll. No one can be this stupid and this far from reality. You have completely misstated the facts (which I assume is why you don't bother to provide any evidence for them), and you are incapable of understanding something so simple that we teach it to children.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: theknight571
Where's the proposal to stop selling cigarettes to smokers?

Don't they cost "us" alot of money too?

Cigarettes certainly should be outlawed. From an ex-smoker of 12 years, who now has a kid.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes won't stop people from smoking them. In fact, it'll probably make smoking cool again, just in time for your kid to start.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes would stop people from smoking them.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking! Yeah!

Prohibition did stop some people from drinking.

But not nearly as many as it encouraged to drink.

... a negative number. Alcohol use declined during Prohibition. In any event, a parallel between Prohibition and a ban on cigarettes today would be absolutely asinine. Cigarette speakeasies? I mean, come on. It's a fool's "argument".

You're a moron. All factual studies and evidence show that alcohol use increased during Prohibition.

You're an idiot. This is absolutely false.

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy
if you really think that you are a idiot.

Ah, yes. Despite going on a century of intervening history, the greater acceptance by society then of alcohol use vs. tobacco use today, the greater ability of large-scale criminal conspiracies to operate quasi-openly then than today, the vast differences between alcohol and tobacco, the greater controls on corporations today which would make it nigh-impossible for people to smoke at work, and a host of other differences... I am "a idiot" for not realizing that in reality, the two situations are exactly the same.

No, you're an idiot for not being able to realize that those advancements occurred we did NOT choose the path of prohibition, and that prohibition would erase all of that and put us right back where we were.

But go ahead, keep pretending to yourself that you're saving the world with your perpetual knee-jerking... :roll:

Stupid much? Oh wait-- I know the answer. See, I never claimed to be saving the world. This is just the latest in a long line of what I have grown to call "Vic Specials".

Go on. Talk about the vast number of ways in which we can draw information from the Prohibition era about the efficacy of a cigarette ban today.

Maybe along the line, dumbass, you will "prove" with your impeccable "logic" how a cigarette ban would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere.

Whoopsie!

Long line of "Vic Specials?"

Who were you before you were banned?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
:laugh:

And the mice passed a law to bell the cat too...

Now I see the source of your reasoning. :laugh:

That you're a transparent moron? You're not actually helping anyone, and you're only fooling yourself.
It's easy to pretend that you're solving the world's problems by proposing impossible and unfeasible remedies.
It's far harder to actually try to work towards solving the world's problems.

I'm not the one who misstated the facts. You have presented no logical argument. But you get high marks for knowledge of children's riddles and such. A ban on cigarettes is hardly impossible. (That's for you-- I am nothing if not compassionate.)

You must be a troll. No one can be this stupid and this far from reality. You have completely misstated the facts (which I assume is why you don't bother to provide any evidence for them), and you are incapable of understanding something so simple that we teach it to children.

Whoopsie-doopsie, Vic!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F935A25753C1A96F948260

I am nonplused-- someone must have missed the "ban" button when you made Elite on this forum. You have the worst logic, manners and research skills of anyone I've seen. It's a miracle if you can bother to check Wikipedia.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: theknight571
Where's the proposal to stop selling cigarettes to smokers?

Don't they cost "us" alot of money too?

Cigarettes certainly should be outlawed. From an ex-smoker of 12 years, who now has a kid.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes won't stop people from smoking them. In fact, it'll probably make smoking cool again, just in time for your kid to start.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes would stop people from smoking them.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking! Yeah!

Prohibition did stop some people from drinking.

But not nearly as many as it encouraged to drink.

... a negative number. Alcohol use declined during Prohibition. In any event, a parallel between Prohibition and a ban on cigarettes today would be absolutely asinine. Cigarette speakeasies? I mean, come on. It's a fool's "argument".

You're a moron. All factual studies and evidence show that alcohol use increased during Prohibition.

You're an idiot. This is absolutely false.

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy
if you really think that you are a idiot.

Ah, yes. Despite going on a century of intervening history, the greater acceptance by society then of alcohol use vs. tobacco use today, the greater ability of large-scale criminal conspiracies to operate quasi-openly then than today, the vast differences between alcohol and tobacco, the greater controls on corporations today which would make it nigh-impossible for people to smoke at work, and a host of other differences... I am "a idiot" for not realizing that in reality, the two situations are exactly the same.

No, you're an idiot for not being able to realize that those advancements occurred we did NOT choose the path of prohibition, and that prohibition would erase all of that and put us right back where we were.

But go ahead, keep pretending to yourself that you're saving the world with your perpetual knee-jerking... :roll:

Stupid much? Oh wait-- I know the answer. See, I never claimed to be saving the world. This is just the latest in a long line of what I have grown to call "Vic Specials".

Go on. Talk about the vast number of ways in which we can draw information from the Prohibition era about the efficacy of a cigarette ban today.

Maybe along the line, dumbass, you will "prove" with your impeccable "logic" how a cigarette ban would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere.

Whoopsie!

And here we go... lacking any argument or facts, you ignore everything I've argued and troll pointless off-topic insults and straw men.

It is not that a cigarette ban "would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere." I'm sure that somewhere someone might be helped by it. That's not the point. The point is that the cost is greater than the reward, and that there are better and more intelligent ways of going about solving this problem.
You see, that's what you don't understand in all your little online arguments. Why you can't figure out that so many people are against you. It's not because we're evil. It's because you're stupid. We want to solve these problems too. Cut down on violent crime and help people kick their drug addictions. It's just that your solutions are childish, draconian, lacking in respect for basic human rights, and have already been tried and failed.
So when we say, hey, punchkin, your idea doesn't work, it's not because we want people to keep smoking, or that we want them to be fat. Quite the contrary. It's because you're part of the problem.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: theknight571
Where's the proposal to stop selling cigarettes to smokers?

Don't they cost "us" alot of money too?

Cigarettes certainly should be outlawed. From an ex-smoker of 12 years, who now has a kid.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes won't stop people from smoking them. In fact, it'll probably make smoking cool again, just in time for your kid to start.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes would stop people from smoking them.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking! Yeah!

Prohibition did stop some people from drinking.

But not nearly as many as it encouraged to drink.

... a negative number. Alcohol use declined during Prohibition. In any event, a parallel between Prohibition and a ban on cigarettes today would be absolutely asinine. Cigarette speakeasies? I mean, come on. It's a fool's "argument".

You're a moron. All factual studies and evidence show that alcohol use increased during Prohibition.

You're an idiot. This is absolutely false.

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy
if you really think that you are a idiot.

Ah, yes. Despite going on a century of intervening history, the greater acceptance by society then of alcohol use vs. tobacco use today, the greater ability of large-scale criminal conspiracies to operate quasi-openly then than today, the vast differences between alcohol and tobacco, the greater controls on corporations today which would make it nigh-impossible for people to smoke at work, and a host of other differences... I am "a idiot" for not realizing that in reality, the two situations are exactly the same.

No, you're an idiot for not being able to realize that those advancements occurred we did NOT choose the path of prohibition, and that prohibition would erase all of that and put us right back where we were.

But go ahead, keep pretending to yourself that you're saving the world with your perpetual knee-jerking... :roll:

Stupid much? Oh wait-- I know the answer. See, I never claimed to be saving the world. This is just the latest in a long line of what I have grown to call "Vic Specials".

Go on. Talk about the vast number of ways in which we can draw information from the Prohibition era about the efficacy of a cigarette ban today.

Maybe along the line, dumbass, you will "prove" with your impeccable "logic" how a cigarette ban would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere.

Whoopsie!

Long line of "Vic Specials?"

Who were you before you were banned?

He's steeplerot, of course.

 

[BlackTigers]

What does a ban on cigarettes have to do with fat people?

Uhm......carry on.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
:laugh:

And the mice passed a law to bell the cat too...

Now I see the source of your reasoning. :laugh:

That you're a transparent moron? You're not actually helping anyone, and you're only fooling yourself.
It's easy to pretend that you're solving the world's problems by proposing impossible and unfeasible remedies.
It's far harder to actually try to work towards solving the world's problems.

I'm not the one who misstated the facts. You have presented no logical argument. But you get high marks for knowledge of children's riddles and such. A ban on cigarettes is hardly impossible. (That's for you-- I am nothing if not compassionate.)

You must be a troll. No one can be this stupid and this far from reality. You have completely misstated the facts (which I assume is why you don't bother to provide any evidence for them), and you are incapable of understanding something so simple that we teach it to children.

Whoopsie-doopsie, Vic!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F935A25753C1A96F948260

I am nonplused-- someone must have missed the "ban" button when you made Elite on this forum. You have the worst logic, manners and research skills of anyone I've seen. It's a miracle if you can bother to check Wikipedia.

Whoops! http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

You should that, from your own article, it corroborates the data that alcohol use was ALREADY declining prior to the passage of the Volstead Act, and that alcohol use began to increase again long before it was repealed.
I think that most everyone can agree that FDR didn't repeal Prohibition because it was a success.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic
And here we go... lacking any argument or facts, you ignore everything I've argued and troll pointless off-topic insults and straw men.

It is not that a cigarette ban "would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere." I'm sure that somewhere someone might be helped by it. That's not the point. The point is that the cost is greater than the reward, and that there are better and more intelligent ways of going about solving this problem.
You see, that's what you don't understand in all your little online arguments. Why you can't figure out that so many people are against you. It's not because you're evil. It's because you're stupid. We want to solve these problems too. Cut down on violent crime and help people kick their drug addictions. It's just that your solutions are childish, draconian, lacking in respect for basic human rights, and have already been tried and failed.
So when we say, hey, punchkin, your idea doesn't work, it's not because we want people to keep smoking, or that we want them to be fat. Quite the contrary. It's because you're part of the problem.

No straw men here, Vic. Ooooops...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F935A25753C1A96F948260

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic
Whoops! http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

You should that, from your own article, it corroborates the data that alcohol use was ALREADY declining prior to the passage of the Volstead Act, and that alcohol use began to increase again long before it was repealed.
I think that most everyone can agree that FDR didn't repeal Prohibition because it was a success.

An invalid source, Vic. Your source is a well-known advocacy site for legalization of drugs. Find a valid source and you won't look like such a dummy.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
And here we go... lacking any argument or facts, you ignore everything I've argued and troll pointless off-topic insults and straw men.

It is not that a cigarette ban "would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere." I'm sure that somewhere someone might be helped by it. That's not the point. The point is that the cost is greater than the reward, and that there are better and more intelligent ways of going about solving this problem.
You see, that's what you don't understand in all your little online arguments. Why you can't figure out that so many people are against you. It's not because you're evil. It's because you're stupid. We want to solve these problems too. Cut down on violent crime and help people kick their drug addictions. It's just that your solutions are childish, draconian, lacking in respect for basic human rights, and have already been tried and failed.
So when we say, hey, punchkin, your idea doesn't work, it's not because we want people to keep smoking, or that we want them to be fat. Quite the contrary. It's because you're part of the problem.

No straw men here, Vic. Ooooops...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F935A25753C1A96F948260

thats a opinion and not fact.

 

[Goosemaster]

*imagines a cop strong-arming the local bakery to give them an illegal serving of donuts*

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
And here we go... lacking any argument or facts, you ignore everything I've argued and troll pointless off-topic insults and straw men.

It is not that a cigarette ban "would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere." I'm sure that somewhere someone might be helped by it. That's not the point. The point is that the cost is greater than the reward, and that there are better and more intelligent ways of going about solving this problem.
You see, that's what you don't understand in all your little online arguments. Why you can't figure out that so many people are against you. It's not because you're evil. It's because you're stupid. We want to solve these problems too. Cut down on violent crime and help people kick their drug addictions. It's just that your solutions are childish, draconian, lacking in respect for basic human rights, and have already been tried and failed.
So when we say, hey, punchkin, your idea doesn't work, it's not because we want people to keep smoking, or that we want them to be fat. Quite the contrary. It's because you're part of the problem.

No straw men here, Vic. Ooooops...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F935A25753C1A96F948260

thats a opinion and not fact.

Nope, sorry. Meanwhile, Vic's has a huge banner for MarijuanaBusinessNews.com plastered across the top of the page. It's really pretty funny. I was wondering if he'd trot out that tired bunch of bullshit.

 

[Sumguy]

Thread reminded me of this

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
Whoops! http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

You should that, from your own article, it corroborates the data that alcohol use was ALREADY declining prior to the passage of the Volstead Act, and that alcohol use began to increase again long before it was repealed.
I think that most everyone can agree that FDR didn't repeal Prohibition because it was a success.

An invalid source, Vic. Your source is a well-known advocacy site for legalization of drugs. Find a valid source and you won't look like such a dummy.

Attacking the messenger, eh? I love how you do these things and then argue that others made logical errors

Anyway, my source, unlike yours, is not an opinion piece, and is backed extensively by studies and references.

Your opinion piece OTOH is 19 year-old article from a Reagan-era drug warrior pushing a cocaine prohibition policy that has already failed and which, not coincidentally, resulted in Prohibition-era like conditions among poor inner-city youths in the early 90s.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
And here we go... lacking any argument or facts, you ignore everything I've argued and troll pointless off-topic insults and straw men.

It is not that a cigarette ban "would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere." I'm sure that somewhere someone might be helped by it. That's not the point. The point is that the cost is greater than the reward, and that there are better and more intelligent ways of going about solving this problem.
You see, that's what you don't understand in all your little online arguments. Why you can't figure out that so many people are against you. It's not because you're evil. It's because you're stupid. We want to solve these problems too. Cut down on violent crime and help people kick their drug addictions. It's just that your solutions are childish, draconian, lacking in respect for basic human rights, and have already been tried and failed.
So when we say, hey, punchkin, your idea doesn't work, it's not because we want people to keep smoking, or that we want them to be fat. Quite the contrary. It's because you're part of the problem.

No straw men here, Vic. Ooooops...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F935A25753C1A96F948260

thats a opinion and not fact.

Nope, sorry. Meanwhile, Vic's has a huge banner for MarijuanaBusinessNews.com plastered across the top of the page. It's really pretty funny. I was wondering if he'd trot out that tired bunch of bullshit.

its a opionion. the guy wrote into a paper.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
*imagines a cop strong-arming the local bakery to give them an illegal serving of donuts*

Hell, I'm skinny myself. This kind of thing goes through and you know I'm going into business in the food black market. Big money to be made in that emerging market.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
And here we go... lacking any argument or facts, you ignore everything I've argued and troll pointless off-topic insults and straw men.

It is not that a cigarette ban "would fail to improve the health of any person, anywhere." I'm sure that somewhere someone might be helped by it. That's not the point. The point is that the cost is greater than the reward, and that there are better and more intelligent ways of going about solving this problem.
You see, that's what you don't understand in all your little online arguments. Why you can't figure out that so many people are against you. It's not because you're evil. It's because you're stupid. We want to solve these problems too. Cut down on violent crime and help people kick their drug addictions. It's just that your solutions are childish, draconian, lacking in respect for basic human rights, and have already been tried and failed.
So when we say, hey, punchkin, your idea doesn't work, it's not because we want people to keep smoking, or that we want them to be fat. Quite the contrary. It's because you're part of the problem.

No straw men here, Vic. Ooooops...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F935A25753C1A96F948260

thats a opinion and not fact.

Nope, sorry. Meanwhile, Vic's has a huge banner for MarijuanaBusinessNews.com plastered across the top of the page. It's really pretty funny. I was wondering if he'd trot out that tired bunch of bullshit.

its a opionion. the guy wrote into a paper.

Oh no, Mark Moore is a respected Harvard professor. But I'd no more trust his opinions on the effectiveness of Prohibition than I would William Bennett's opinions on the effectiveness of Reagan's War on Drugs.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
*imagines a cop strong-arming the local bakery to give them an illegal serving of donuts*

Hell, I'm skinny myself. These kind of thing goes through and you know I'm going into business in the food black market. Big money to be made in that emerging market.

eh..ju....ju want to bai sung hevous frescos?

I sell ju de chikan if ju wan 2?

edit: or start selling organs with pre-eaten food instead....the margins would be astronomical...

*gets dollar signs in his eyes*

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Nope, sorry. Meanwhile, Vic's has a huge banner for MarijuanaBusinessNews.com plastered across the top of the page. It's really pretty funny. I was wondering if he'd trot out that tired bunch of bullshit.

Which is amazingly ironic considering that your argument is that draconian bans are supposed to work, isn't it?

 

[Chaotic42]

How about more PE requirements at school along with the removal of unhealthy snacks from vending machines and proper lunch food at schools?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
How about more PE requirements at school along with the removal of unhealthy snacks from vending machines and proper lunch food at schools?

yeah. it amazes me that many schools are dropping PE or having ONE semester fora requirement.

when i was in highschool we had to have 3 years of it. Also the Vending machines were locked during school day.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
How about more PE requirements at school along with the removal of unhealthy snacks from vending machines and proper lunch food at schools?

yeah. it amazes me that many schools are dropping PE or having ONE semester fora requirement.

when i was in highschool we had to have 3 years of it. Also the Vending machines were locked during school day.

When I went to elementary school, we had P.E. five days a week for an hour a day. Local elementary schools have it twice a week for half an hour a day. There is some talk of passing legislation requiring more P.E.

 

[maxster]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: theknight571
Where's the proposal to stop selling cigarettes to smokers?

Don't they cost "us" alot of money too?

Cigarettes certainly should be outlawed. From an ex-smoker of 12 years, who now has a kid.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes won't stop people from smoking them. In fact, it'll probably make smoking cool again, just in time for your kid to start.

Newsflash: outlawing cigarettes would stop people from smoking them.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking! Yeah!

Prohibition did stop some people from drinking.

But not nearly as many as it encouraged to drink.

... a negative number. Alcohol use declined during Prohibition. In any event, a parallel between Prohibition and a ban on cigarettes today would be absolutely asinine. Cigarette speakeasies? I mean, come on. It's a fool's "argument".

You're a moron. All factual studies and evidence show that alcohol use increased during Prohibition.

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy
if you really think that you are a idiot.

Ah, yes. Despite going on a century of intervening history, the greater acceptance by society then of alcohol use vs. tobacco use today, the greater ability of large-scale criminal conspiracies to operate quasi-openly then than today, the vast differences between alcohol and tobacco, the greater controls on corporations today which would make it nigh-impossible for people to smoke at work, and a host of other differences... I am "a idiot" for not realizing that in reality, the two situations are exactly the same.

No, you're an idiot for not being able to realize that those advancements occurred we did NOT choose the path of prohibition, and that prohibition would erase all of that and put us right back where we were.

But go ahead, keep pretending to yourself that you're saving the world with your perpetual knee-jerking... :roll:

:thumbsup:

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Injury
MAYBE... just MAYBE instead of pointing the finger at restaurants you could make it a requirement that people pass a bi-annual obesity check in order to receive Medicare, with the option of receiving professional fitness help if you are over to continue it.

Agreed, although you'll need clauses for people who are obese because of a real medical condition (other than gluttony).

What I DO want to see passed, is a bill that maxes out restaurants' food portions. Yes yes everyone can make their own decisions, everyone is responsible for themselves... but when you've just paid $10 for an oversized plate of food, you instinctively eat it past satisfaction. Restaurants give you more but make you pay more - its not good for the general public.