Consumer groups are a much more efficient form of control than government agencies. :shrug:

Oh, it passed in Montana too. Then got overturned in court as a violation of property rights. We even have a provision in our constitution for a safe and healthy environment and it still couldn't hold its ground.

I live in California...and remember pre-smoking ban vote how all the restaurant owners, bar owners, etc. were up in arms because they thought they'd lose money, customers, etc. because of the ban.

Didnt happen....no one lost money, no one lost customers. People smoke outside....or on patios, etc.

Big deal. Smokers still get to smoke...and non-smokers dont have to tolerate second-hand smoke.

Not sure outside of California, but here...there are strict laws about alcohol and tobacco within so many ft/yds of schools. So not much different there....not telling you that you cant....just certain places you cant.

I'm not a smoker...but I am a drinker...and I see the value in that law. So I dont feel (as a drinker) that my rights are being infringed upon. I cant walk down the street with an open beer here either (but again, I dont feel like my rights are infringed).

LMAO Nice.

If businesses want to make a buck off the smoking public they are doing no harm.

Isn't that what you're advocating?

So tell me: If the FDA or any government agency is informed that a certain substance is a public health hazard (such as Transfat), shouldn't the government inform the people to whom is serves? Additionally, once this information is made public and corporations refuse to change their practices, isn't it the government's duty to enact a law requiring those businesses to comply?

Many food chains and food corporations (Kraft & Frito-Lay, for example) changed their recipes almost immediately after the Transfat issue was made public.

After considerable time, many food chains hadn't make the change. The government allowed a reasonable amount of time for many of these change to be made, yet they weren't.

So, as an issue of public safety, what should the government done to protect its citizens:

1. Not interfere. Allow people to continue to ingest food that would clog their arteries (and most people, unknowingly ingest such a product).
2. Require that all manufacturers and restaurants discontinue the use of Transfat oils in favor of non-Transfat oils?

I'd prefer Two. I personally don't have the time to find out if every restaurant or food that I ingest has Transfat.

Shouldn't I get SOMETHING for my tax dollars?

There's a nice restaurant in downtown KC called the Majestic Steakhouse. On the main floor, there are 4 non-smoking booths in the very front, and everything after that is non-smoking (there's a bar between the two, which helps). I've eaten there a few times and have had no problems with smokers while eating. However, downstairs is the Jazz club, which is all smoking... being that it's downstairs in an old building (bad vents), it's a cloud of smoke.

If I want to enjoy a great steak, I can do so without the smoke. There are people who walk by that have been smoking, but whatever. If I want to listen to have a drink and listen to jazz, I have to put up with the smoke in the restaurant, and then go home smelling like smoke, and then wash my jacket so it doesn't smell like smoke for days.

So why can't those who want to smoke, do so in the smoking section (which includes the bar upstairs, so you wouldn't even need a table)... if it's while they eat or after they eat, and then have a smoke-free area downstairs to drink and listen to jazz? That's my point... you don't have to ban it all together, just compromise a little.

...

An analogy might be that if you have a screaming 2 year old, don't bring them to The Majestic Steakhouse. Have some decency for those around you and either find a babysitter or go to Golden Corral. Don't be oblivious to your surroundings and make other people deal with it. I'm not going to bring a little kid to a restaurant like that, nor am I going to be loud and obnoxious myself; and I expect the same from other people. It's the same for smoking... if smokers have a place to smoke upstairs, do it there, and then have respect for the non-smokers that want to go to the jazz club.

Logical, respectful, and everyone could be happy... yeah, too good to be true. ;)

Show me the harm. Seriously. Have you ever researched the study that everybody basis their "second-hand smoke" is dangerous argument? They study is full of holes at worst, and at best shows no real statistical significance. I'll try and find a link to back this up in case you don't believe me. Granted, there is an extreme minority of people who ACTUALLY, not psychosomatically, have allergies to smoke. Unfortunately, we can't cater to everyone.

Do people who operate a public business require a permit? Do you think that a permit should be required? Should people who operate a business be subject to audits or health inspections? What would be the difference? It's the same means to the same end. And it is the most efficient means to that end.

If you'd rather blow toxins into the face of your fellow man rather than go outside, then I doubt you have the respect to understand the other side of this argument.

So open a smoke-free jazz club and reap profits. Don't tell others how to run theirs.

I thinks it's very clear that I have no respect for you. I wouldn't spit on you if a smoker accidentally set you on fire.

Actually, no.

Actually, it was a huge part of my internship. So I do know quite a bit about the statistics and it is a proven fact that second hand smoke is a cancer causing agent. But citing statistics has never been my tact. I would much rather people explain to me their own logic for their own positions. I think that my logic in favor of protecting the rights of non-smokers is much stronger than those who defend the rights of smokers to impose the negative health consequences of their choice onto others.

Especially since it's as simple as taking it outside. I mean, com'n. How much of a whiner does a smoker have to be? Just step outside, smoke your cigarette, and shut the **** up. Okay?

No, it's pretty clear you don't get it.
To inform them? Sure. People need good information so they can make an informed decision for themselves.
Not at all. A knowledgable public will be able to decide if they want to purchase a product made with trans-fats, or it's alternative. It's called "voting with dollars". If enough of the public decides they don't want trans-fats, the company will adapt or die.
Yes, that's how we know "voting with dollars" works. The people that purchased those products pushed the business to adapt to their demands. Thanks for helping me make my case. :thumb:
Sure. Their customers were voting with their dollars to continue using trans-fats, after the public became aware of the health issues. Or the FDA and the companies were not honest in stating they used trans-fats, but that's a different matter (legal requirements of reporting ingredients). Some would argue we would be better off replacing the FDA with a private organization, but that's a discussion for another day.
I'd prefer One. I personally don't care to have laws passed and give the government expanded power just because a few people are too lazy to take responsibility for what they choose to eat.
You do. In this instance, you get information about the effect of Trans-Fats on your health, and (if complying with the FDA) knowledge of what companies use them. You can use that to make an informed decision for yourself, as can everyone else.

I know it's tough to decide these things for yourself, but nothing worthwhile is easy. ;)