I have friends who like dark beer, which we all know causes the most unholy smelling flatus of all time, which could possibly be very costly to my health...so my official position is that all dark beer should be banned from bars, hospitals, college campuses, schools, parks, and public sidewalks. Wait. I can't tell people they can't sell dark beer because it is a legal substance? Ok well then, we should as city make a regulation that states dark beer can be sold in the bar, but must be drank outside at least 50 feet from a public entrances, not around children, the elderly, on hospital property, a college campus (even though those that go to school at a COLLEGE are most likely over the age of 18 and according to the law are free and clear to make their own life choices). a park, a sidewalk (hummm.....) or near open flame. Safety first! The tax on dark beer should be raised too 2000% and the money raised from this sin of drinking dark beer and expelling the remains of digestion will go public schools, since we all know that throwing more money at the schools will fix them. Or maybe we could use it for "infrastructure." All dark beer bottles should also be printed with a cirrhosis liver on the bottle or can, along with a Surgeon General's warning about the serious health risks associated with drinking dark beer. And we should not be nice about it either. Tell them straight up how it will make their crap smell for days and might lead to an enraged spouse. Tell them they might have acidosis for days, and most of all sure they know that drinking dark beer while pregnant can cause major birth defects. What? Drinking light beer while pregnant can cause the SAME birth defects? That's ok, light beer drinkers are sensible people, no need to cover their beer bottles with all this. So, in short drinking dark beer is not illegal. Goodness no! That would be an infringement on your personal rights. But since it offends so many we just had to regulate it a bit. Hope you don't mind.
No really, for reals...
I personally do not believe the science behind the whole second hand smoke debate. My dad grew up in a house that people smoked in, and he is fine. I grew up in a house that someone smoked in, until someone did a study and decided that it was not the best health decision. And it's not, but I think the amount of second hand smoke a non-smoker is subjected to in a lifetime is not going to be any worse then the smog, pesticides, and other harmful chemicals they inhale in a lifetime... but that's another debate. :D
So someone next to you smoking. THAT KILLS. Someone next to me is eating a fast food cheesburger. THAT DOESN'T KILL...me anyways. Well...as for someone eating a cheeseburger, maybe said someone is just having one fast food burger, and the other said someone is just having one cigarette? No, not likely, but just one fast food cheeseburger has about the same effect on your body as smoking just one cigarette does. Cumulative effects are what is issue here, and those that consume fast food in mass quantities raise obesity rates, which in turn raises insurance premiums. Except unlike the smoker population, they are not required to pass a swab test for insurance, even though they are killing themselves just as readily. While they do not affect my health, they affect my pocketbook which is sometimes even more viciously protected. We should all be getting cardio exercise everyday, but I don't see anyone getting taxed more or paying higher insurance premiums for being a couch potato. Those that drink and are irresponsible and decide to drive most certainly affect the health of others. But that's just a small population of drinkers right? There is a population of smokers that are irresponsible as well. They smoke with kids in the car, litter, or are rude and light up in a group of non-smokers they do not know from Adam. The only differences between the drinker and the smoker is that while the drunk driver is breaking the law and possibly killing someone, the smoker has done nothing illegal and (for the sake of second hand smoke proponents) cannot be directly tied to the untimely death of another. Though I would agree we can label that smoker a jerkface, common courtesy is the real problem.
Do I really think that people should be told they cannot eat fast food as much as they want? Or that we should be monitored and told we have to get our heart rate up over 70 three times a week for at least an hour? Or that we should bring back the Prohibition? No, not at all. It's exactly my point. I think that would be asinine. Those types of Big Brother laws are what lead to Dystopia, but I feel that this smoking ban law is riding that same wave. Business owners should be able to decide if they want to allow something that legal taking place in their establishment. Obviously those that allow smoking now feel it helps their business rather then hurt it, because if it was hurting them then they would had already axed it. They are not in the business for anyone's health, they are there to make money. Thus the reason they chose to run a business in a capitalist nation. That is how freedom works. More laws and more regulations just cause people to be less trusting of the government, because it seems that the establishment has decided they cannot trust us and that we need regulated to death. So many preach tolerance, but fail to be tolerant of what they personally do not like, which is a double standard. There is a name for them: HYPOCRITES. There are plenty of things in this world I do not like, so I stay away from them. As long as it is legal, they have the right to do what I do not like, but it is MY responsibility to stay away from it and shield my children from it. I do not expect them to change their ways for my sake, I will change mine for MY sake.
