YOUR turn in the Barrel, drinkers and fatasses

Interesting how nobody's commented on this thread. Everybody had a rant or opinion when it was shs that was going to kill everybody. My guess is that this is the same genre of crap propaganda as the shs studies were - huge hoaxes to make millions of dollars. But dark & I said long before the Ohio smoking ban passed, that IF it passed, it'd only give the nanny state ammunition to go after something else - and I believe we predicted it'd be overweight people. There's so much proof out there that obesity causes more death, disease & medical expenses than smoking or shs does, but it's politically incorrect to single out somebody because they're fat (or fire them, as some companies have done with smokers). I just read that the surgeon general has come under attack in the courts because he slipped through bogus & iffy shs studies to push the bans through - scare people enough, tell a lie long enough, and by God, if the surgeon general says it's true, it must be true.......... By I digress. When they start taxing people by body weight to pay for health care programs for illegal Mexican children (or middle class who make too much money for welfare - a family of 4 can earn up to $83,000 (depending on state) & still be eligble for SCHIPS), then maybe it will be more fair. As for me, I won't ever vote "yes" for a tax levy of any kind again. The way I see it, smokers already pay far more in taxes than non-smokers - I've done my part. There's something fundamentally unfair & wrong about taxing a politically unpopular minority to pay for services to other groups. Until it becomes fair - where ALL citizens have to pay equal amounts in taxes (for SCHIPS, etc.), then I am done donating or voting for any levies.

It's not that nobody is interested. It's that the anti-everything groups seems to control the agenda and levers of power. "It's for the children." By the way, I heard today that the MADD group's new push is for a .0625 alcohol limit while driving. Nobody doubts that their ultimate goal is .0000.

My point pete, was that - Where are all the cheerleaders, the 'rah-rah. we think it's a great idea to deal with fat people & drinkers'? Because that was the mindset (still is) they had about shs & the smoking ban - they all thought it was a great idea, and believed all the hype (when mostly, they just didn't like the smell - and that they thought, was damned good enough to force businesses go smoke free. So why aren't all those same 'rah-rah' health nut posters doing the same 'rah-rah, we love this' dance NOW, over THIS? They all seemed so crazy worried about their health, so this should be a GOOD thing to them, right? That the govt. & nannys are going to be taxing & banning & regulating their food, fat intake, portion size (there WILL be the day where restaurants will be restricted to steak size - will be the end of the 12 oz or larger monster cut of beef), and alcohol. You'd think they'd all be marching in the streets to get the govt. to deal as harshly with alcohol as they did with shs, or at least be taken as seriously. (alcohol causes more deaths & problems than smoking does- and nobody ever died or got a disease from shs). Curiouser, & curiouser....... When they start taxing & banning alcohol, fast & junk food the way they do tobacco - THEN you'll hear them posting their gripes. I vote that everybody who is 50 or more pounds overweight be taxed to help pay MY families medical bills. (because that is what tobacco taxes are used for, and are going to be raised for - to pay for other people's medical care). NOBODY ever paid our medical bills but US. Same old, same old.

My point pete, was that - Where are all the cheerleaders, the 'rah-rah. we think it's a great idea to deal with fat people & drinkers'? Because that was the mindset (still is) they had about shs & the smoking ban - they all thought it was a great idea, and believed all the hype (when mostly, they just didn't like the smell - and that they thought, was damned good enough to force businesses go smoke free. So why aren't all those same 'rah-rah' health nut posters doing the same 'rah-rah, we love this' dance NOW, over THIS? They all seemed so crazy worried about their health, so this should be a GOOD thing to them, right? That the govt. & nannys are going to be taxing & banning & regulating their food, fat intake, portion size (there WILL be the day where restaurants will be restricted to steak size - will be the end of the 12 oz or larger monster cut of beef), and alcohol. You'd think they'd all be marching in the streets to get the govt. to deal as harshly with alcohol as they did with shs, or at least be taken as seriously. (alcohol causes more deaths & problems than smoking does- and nobody ever died or got a disease from shs). Curiouser, & curiouser....... When they start taxing & banning alcohol, fast & junk food the way they do tobacco - THEN you'll hear them posting their gripes. I vote that everybody who is 50 or more pounds overweight be taxed to help pay MY families medical bills. (because that is what tobacco taxes are used for, and are going to be raised for - to pay for other people's medical care). NOBODY ever paid our medical bills but US. Same old, same old.

Dean Wormer....He's Back

Fat, Drunk, and Stupid Rules!!

I know I hate it when I'm sitting at the bar at Frickers and the fat guy next me is blowing chicken wings and beer in my face...

In regards to this article, I would hope the smoking employees (on their own time, at home) who got fired from Scott (to 'save money on insurance costs'), would demand that all overweight employees, or those who can be proven to drink alcohol (I realize, that one is a stretch, won't ever happen), be fired for the same reason's they were. I challenge Scott to do so - but they won't. It's too politically incorrect to fire somebody based on body weight, and unless their drinking culminates in several dui's, it won't even get a nod. Just hypocritical. I see your point sarah, but don't buy it completely. IF this were an article about shs, the anti smokers would be doing their happy dance here in print, and challenging dark (or me) at every turn. Personally, I"ve chosen to just stay away from this forum for periods of time - time outs, if you will - simply because the threads are usually the same old, same old about bickering at TPS, or whines about Carty, or city council, or what to do with Southwyck. I learned a long time ago to save my breath about posting well researched & highly accurate information about the truth behind the shs studies/ban/propaganda/ACS/money trail - because anti smokers simply close their minds to it. If the ACS & surgeon general said this propaganda was true, then by golly gee, it must be true - is how the antis' see it. In spite of the fact that articles proving that the surgeon general/ACS/ money trail/ Big Pharma have been called to task (some in courts) over this. When backed in a corner with the facts, the antis always fall back on either 'I don't like the smell', or, "I don't believe it". The slippery slope has begun already, and it will pick up speed fast, and start to affect the antis at some point. When SCHIPS needs more funding & can't get it from tobacco taxes, they will get it from alcohol, fast food, or somewhere (they are already complaining they don't have enough money for SCHIPS now - they claim there are fewer smokers, which may be the case, but does not explain such a big decrease in tobacco taxes entirely - many people simply buy tobacco out of state, or have family & friends mail it to them, or roll their own, or buy online. THAT explains the decease in tobacco tax money more than fewer smokers.) When they tack on a $1 - $4 an 8 pack of beer (or more), or tack on $1. per fast food sandwich or happy meal, people will start to bitch.

as a lifetime member of DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers) let me point out that MADD is going to be at somewhat of a loss when they finally achieve their stated goal of a return to prohibition. That'll sure fix everything.

So, Maggie Thurber is a sailor and Canada isn't all that far away. I'm in Mad City, but my brother has a pick up truck I could convert into a tanker. I'm starting to think this might be a win-win situation here.

Funny thing is that I agree with some of the points that you make, but come on...how do you expect anyone to take you seriously with all your "chicken little" posts? All you have to say is the end of the world is nigh. Blah, blah, blah...I'd rather discuss issues with someone who doesn't explode in a fit of hate and rage at the drop of a hat, crazy old man.

kindly do not come into any threads of mine if you don't like them. That's the same thing I tried for months to get through McCasket's head, but he didn't listen until recently. And I DO appreciate it. I, like Starling, just avoid the countless same-o same-o Carty/TPS threads, precisely for the same reason you claim-some good points may be made, but I find them repititious. Funny.....you all adore those threads, and never seem to get enough of them-yet call Starling and I repetitious. The only reason most of you aren't outraged by this shit the way we are is you don't care. Fine. Don't. But then refrain from insulting us or commenting. I'm abandoning the thread now, because, as always, people like you start the personal crap, and things rapidly deteriorate.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

"and nobody ever died or got a disease from shs"

Patently untrue. There is a wealth of scientific data to support it.

Outraged by WHAT? That the panel found *possible* linkages between obesity and cancer, as well as alcohol and red meat. I'm at a lost as to why people would jump on this thread and throw outrage around. The panel's scientific findings are interesting (thanks for posting them!), but by themselves are not shocking at all. Food for thought indeed (poor pun intended). As evidence mounts, and the politics sink in, then indeed it will be an interesting conversation.

And alcohol does indeed have a long history of taxation and regulation, much more stringently than tobacco.

wombat - produce the proof (and not just an article that says so).

wombat - produce the proof (and not just an article that says so).

Sorry, didn't want to come off too strong, but I love that phrase. Although nicotine pudding - Big Pharma's next move? I mean, if jello shots can be merchandised for millions ;)

Starling, I have provided a number of primary scientific journal articles in past postings. I don't feel like going back, reposting, and rehashing it. You disagree with me and with what is currently the accepted viewpoint in most medical circles. Fair enough.

But if the research isn't enough, I also have family who work in two ERs. They see people struggling with COPDs walk through their doors every darn day.

Although, funny thing, I see that there's an expose coming out on one of the major news channels outlets about employers who charge more for health benefits to overweight employees. Dark is right on the mark.