Italy to ban plastic bags

[hooplala]

Doh! I did link to the wrong article.

All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,

Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar.  You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins.  Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.

No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this:  No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.

Idiots talking out of their asses are everywhere. And?

Tip toe back up through the quotes and you will find what my comment is in regard to.  Hint: it rhymes with "hairy toad".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think it makes sense to allow "smoking bars". It would be a special permit.

When I was in Providence, I learned that you can't smoke a cigarette in a hookah bar.  

[AFK]

Doh! I did link to the wrong article.

All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,

Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar.  You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins.  Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.

No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this:  No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.

Well, it certainly is true that more people leading unhealthy lifestyles contributes to health costs.  However, I don't think it is the place of government to correct that through legislation.  It is the role of agencies like mine who educate and raise awareness of the health consequences to the public in hopes that you can affect some behavior change.  

[Fujikoma]

Doh! I did link to the wrong article.

All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,

Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar.  You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins.  Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.

No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this:  No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.

Well, it certainly is true that more people leading unhealthy lifestyles contributes to health costs.  However, I don't think it is the place of government to correct that through legislation.  It is the role of agencies like mine who educate and raise awareness of the health consequences to the public in hopes that you can affect some behavior change. 

Hooplah explains what I said earlier quite nicely.

This is only a phase.

Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?

Because:

1.  It's a luxury (beats taxing food), and

2.  People are going to buy cigarettes anyway, thus ensuring a revenue stream.

[Fujikoma]

Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?

Because:

1.  It's a luxury (beats taxing food), and

2.  People are going to buy cigarettes anyway, thus ensuring a revenue stream.

And do you think they will stop with tobacco?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And do you think they will stop with tobacco?

Yes.  Nothing else is taxed in America right now, right?

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

[Epimetheus]

This is only a phase.

So we shouldn't allow smart legislation because idiots may later try to make bad legislation that is vaguely related.

[Adios]

Lots of things have 'sin' taxes.

[AFK]

Doh! I did link to the wrong article.

All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,

Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar.  You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins.  Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.

No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this:  No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.

Well, it certainly is true that more people leading unhealthy lifestyles contributes to health costs.  However, I don't think it is the place of government to correct that through legislation.  It is the role of agencies like mine who educate and raise awareness of the health consequences to the public in hopes that you can affect some behavior change. 

Hooplah explains what I said earlier quite nicely.

This is only a phase.

Hooplah talked about private citizens complaining that they have to pay the costs of other's unhealthy decisions.  That is markedly different than a policy being enacted by a city council or State legislature.  I assume when you talked about "they" you were referring to governments.  Hooplah was referring to a citizen, not a government.  

Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?

Certainly, there is an element to tobacco tax increases that is aimed at curbing smoking amongst the population.  But that is really a secondary benefit.  The primary goal is to raise funds for prevention, smoking cessation, and other programs to help offset the costs of smoking.  It's a "charge for harm" if you will.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Lots of things have 'sin' taxes.

The bastards will be taxing my Goddamn heroin next! 

[East Coast Hustle]

Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.

Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue. 

Dont you think its a bit tripe compared to other more important things, like idk, reducing carbon emissions with a "no-driving" day calendar?

I mean, all in relation to health.

Not really. I mean, for one, a mandatory "no driving" day would really fuck over someone like me if it fell on any day except Sunday. Unless that's not what you mean, but in that case you'll have to clarify.

Yeah that, where 10% of cars arent allowed to drive once a week.

Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.

ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.

[AFK]

Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?

Because:

1.  It's a luxury (beats taxing food), and

2.  People are going to buy cigarettes anyway, thus ensuring a revenue stream.

And do you think they will stop with tobacco?

They.   They.  They.  Who are "they"?  What do you think "they" are ultimately up to?  Trust me, what goes into these policies is a lot less interesting and conspiratory than you think.  

[East Coast Hustle]

What? Give people a CHOICE? Why do you hate America? Non-smokers aren't forced to go into a smoke friendly establishment. But smokers are forced to go into a non-smoker friendly establishment. If we choose to go out, which I stopped doing when the law passed here, as did many others.

Oddly, it hurt business so badly owners are fighting the law in court. But what do I know?

The two bolded parts put your statement at odds with itself. You can't be forced to choose to go out.

Hell, I still enjoy the occasional smoke, but lets not characterize the divide between smokers and non-smokers as something it's not. You CHOOSE to smoke, or to not smoke. It's not as though policies against public smoking are akin to Jim Crow laws.

Anecdotally, most of the bars I hang out in in WA have seen an increase in business since the smoking ban was implemented. YMMV.

[Adios]

What? Give people a CHOICE? Why do you hate America? Non-smokers aren't forced to go into a smoke friendly establishment. But smokers are forced to go into a non-smoker friendly establishment. If we choose to go out, which I stopped doing when the law passed here, as did many others.

Oddly, it hurt business so badly owners are fighting the law in court. But what do I know?

The two bolded parts put your statement at odds with itself. You can't be forced to choose to go out.

Hell, I still enjoy the occasional smoke, but lets not characterize the divide between smokers and non-smokers as something it's not. You CHOOSE to smoke, or to not smoke. It's not as though policies against public smoking are akin to Jim Crow laws.

Anecdotally, most of the bars I hang out in in WA have seen an increase in business since the smoking ban was implemented. YMMV.

Are you married?