Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'm also actually surprised at that considering KY is also a 'red state.' I felt such a move was more an en vogue thing in 'blue states'. Personally I've never been sympathetic to this cause when it comes to bars. Other places, yes, but not bars. Bars aren't gyms or churches. As a person who worked in bars for many years, I was always honest that bars are 'dens of vice' even though I enjoy them tremendously even as a non-drinker myself (just being typically Irish in that regard I guess) and that they specialise in dealing a seriously addicting narcotic, i.e., alcohol, that has tremendous negative social consequences that affects society as a whole besides those who consume it. Bars also entertain other vices, some of which also have negative social consequences both to the participants as well as others through their collateral effects. Smoking is/was one of the many vices also entertained there, and alot who hang out in bars smoke. To me, it's always been insincere to allege, as often done, that the drinkers, carousers, junk food eaters, etc, only harms themselves whilst second-hand smoke harms more than the smoker considering all the negative collateral social costs caused by alcohol usage and the other vices. Moreover, it falls on unsympathetic ears to me that people who choose to work or hang out in bars to protest against the effects of smoke whilst those who work and attend them have the primary purpose of trafficking and/or indulging in narcotics like alcohol and other vices.

I take a different approach on this than above because it deals with food itself. The government has long regulated unsafe things with foods. Take, for example, the Red Dye #3 of the maraschino cherries that was causing cancer. This was detected and removed with something safer. If trans-fats can be removed and replaced with something safer, then that seems highly appropriate.

The legal problem I see is that such regulation falls within the ambit of the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution considering all the products involved flow in such commerce. This means no city ordinance can conflict with any federal regulations concerning such traffic and/or the federal system can always preempt such ordinances. I am sure such an ordinance will draw lawsuits and lobbying on the federal level from all those who make products involving trans-fats.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'm also actually surprised at that considering KY is also a 'red state.' I felt such a move was more an en vogue thing in 'blue states'. Personally I've never been sympathetic to this cause when it comes to bars. Other places, yes, but not bars. Bars aren't gyms or churches. As a person who worked in bars for many years, I was always honest that bars are 'dens of vice' even though I enjoy them tremendously even as a non-drinker myself (just being typically Irish in that regard I guess) and that they specialise in dealing a seriously addicting narcotic, i.e., alcohol, that has tremendous negative social consequences that affects society as a whole besides those who consume it. Bars also entertain other vices, some of which also have negative social consequences both to the participants as well as others through their collateral effects. Smoking is/was one of the many vices also entertained there, and alot who hang out in bars smoke. To me, it's always been insincere to allege, as often done, that the drinkers, carousers, junk food eaters, etc, only harms themselves whilst second-hand smoke harms more than the smoker considering all the negative collateral social costs caused by alcohol usage and the other vices. Moreover, it falls on unsympathetic ears to me that people who choose to work or hang out in bars to protest against the effects of smoke whilst those who work and attend them have the primary purpose of trafficking and/or indulging in narcotics like alcohol and other vices.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Lawsuits and higher insurance premiums are the reason in Canada.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...omp021009.html

Andrew

Originally Posted by partofme

I have been trying to find more quality time with my wife. I miss her. I know she can't cook so I would need to do it which is difficult considering the time I'm not at work I'm usually taking care of my eight months old. Right now he is asleep right by me but at any time he could wake up and be hungry, need attention, or have a shitty diaper. I wonder if a healthy fast food restaurant would work. Good healthy food on the go in a drive thru. Porbably not or it would exist.

Originally Posted by biggyg2

Much of it is in environment. People take the path of least resistance and at the same time convenience of living. McDonald's did not become a multi-billon dollar company selling salad. Probably our kids will revert back to a much healthier living and despise the fast food world much like cigarettes have become in this generation.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I think that is just a false pretext by those who don't like smoking in bars whilst they allow and/or fuel themselves on booze and other vices. Ireland's 'health nazi' Minister of Health, Martin Mullen, drove an anti-smoking bill through the Dail (Irish Parliament) once he saw that NYC pulled it off, and now, IMO, the pubs there have lost alot of character. What was once a vibrant place of socialites letting all their hair down, I almost feel like I am in a doctor's office when going into some pubs given its antiseptic feel and mood. If pubs are concerned about higher insurance, etc, I can certainly understand the owners personally electing to ban smoking from their establishments and it would be their right as owners to do so, and certainly non-smokers can choose to go there. The fact that so few bars chose to do so explains full well the kinds of clients that usually attend them--people who enjoy indulging in vices whether that may be an occasional thing or an ordinary thing. It seems just undeniable that the en vogue efforts to ban smoking in them is intended to mould social behaviours and/or are the efforts of those who want to make others put up with their own respective vices and/or trafficking in it along with all their ill effects whilst crying foul about not wanting to put up with the legal vices of others. If politicians are so concerned, then they ought to ban alcohol and/or tobacco rather than profit off it likewise through tax, etc and be honest about it. And if non-smokers are that health conscious, then stay out of bars and certainly don't profit off them.

Originally Posted by Thane

I know how that goes man. I got TWO little king crappers running my life :-)


http://www.angelfire.com/home/thanes...e/twoinda.html

I work and do a good portion of the cooking too. I guess I consider myself lucky that I don't have to spend all day every weekday around a one year old and an almost three year old. They're fun and all but they do tire you out mentally LOL

My big daily entertainment/excitement is maybe checking on my animals:

http://www.angelfire.com/home/thanes...ge/snakes.html

Maybe watching the news (if I can stand the bullshit fed us by the MSM).

Or watching Dr. Phil and his study of stupid Americans LOL

What an exciting life. I guess it's how you look at it. I probably would have stayed in Australia or Borneo if I'd known this is what I got to come back to LOL. But it really is a healthy thing and I make good times out of it. Attitude and priorities LOL

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

The government has no business at any level legislating this. What principle permits government to ban this, but not a myriad of other things. Is it public health? Because you certainly are not going to "catch" being overweight from the person eating trans-fats at the next table?

And for the record, the 29% who think this is a good idea, you are dangerous if you have any well thought out philosophy of government which has led you to think the government has any business passing such a law.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I fully agree. But in the end the provincial government where i live does not want to pay waitresses workers comp, and the bar owners dont want their insurance to go up. It is a purely economic law. They spin it in public as if they are heros looking out for the health of the little guy, but when it comes down to it the ruling i cited scared them. I am a smoker, when the law was enacted i stopped going to bars entirely, for all the reasons you mentioned, the clientelle changed over night. No bars closed down, but they attract an entirely different type of demographic now. I will say that as a result of the law i smoke far less now, which is a good thing. I used to go to the bar and spend way too much money on overpriced beer and suck back the cigarretes. Now when i socialize with friends I buy cheaper booze and smoke far far less. Not only am i closer to quiting entirely, but i spend far less money on my vices. And there has been a resurgence of the 'house party' among my circles (nobody smokes inside their homes anymore here). Its actually quite fun, and i feel better.

Andrew

Originally Posted by partofme

Your children are adorable.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

And what is "secret" about it? Any idiot knows the foods in question are not inherently good for you.

"Secret", what an absolutely thoughtless and silly statement.

Based on that level of thoughtfulness, I would caution that you should be more concerned about parents "secretly" dropping their babies on their heads.