What about people who can't help being fat ? In other words your going to have to prove that he/she eat bad food/sat on their arse and got to be 20+stone of fat.
Last edited by Chorcai (2009-07-29 09:19:12)
Last edited by Chorcai (2009-07-29 09:19:12)
Old fat people use it too.Red Forman wrote:
Not even close to being true. You know we have public health care right? And old people use it. Old smokers you know? To take care of them costs money.Mitch wrote:
A smoker only hurts himself also.
You can sue because of asbestos exposure.Mitch wrote:
Old fat people use it too.Red Forman wrote:
Not even close to being true. You know we have public health care right? And old people use it. Old smokers you know? To take care of them costs money.Mitch wrote:
A smoker only hurts himself also.
Old... Roofers/siders who breathed in pounds of asthbestis use it too.
You can tax everything just because someone who does it is going to be old someday.
studies on second hand smoke would differ from what you think is "probably" the case.Mitch wrote:
A smoker only hurts himself also.lowing wrote:
This is not a tax on fat people, this a legislation of personal lives. As far as taxing smoking products, I agree with this since a smokers smoke affects everyone in the area including non-smokers. Fat people hurt no one except themselves.
The accasional breathing in of the smoke from a person next to you is nothing to harm you. Its probly like smoking 1 whole cigg a month. Which is next to harmless.
And if your talking about the annoyance factor or smokers - 100% honestly - 'obese' people (not 'fat', actually discustingly obese people) annoy the shit out of me. Its just gross to see the human body roll so many times.
Most of these studies that are done are biased, and used to further a cause.. Everything out there pretty much causes cancer..lowing wrote:
studies on second hand smoke would differ from what you think is "probably" the case.Mitch wrote:
A smoker only hurts himself also.lowing wrote:
This is not a tax on fat people, this a legislation of personal lives. As far as taxing smoking products, I agree with this since a smokers smoke affects everyone in the area including non-smokers. Fat people hurt no one except themselves.
The accasional breathing in of the smoke from a person next to you is nothing to harm you. Its probly like smoking 1 whole cigg a month. Which is next to harmless.
And if your talking about the annoyance factor or smokers - 100% honestly - 'obese' people (not 'fat', actually discustingly obese people) annoy the shit out of me. Its just gross to see the human body roll so many times.
Fat people annoy or offend you, I get it, but you have no legal right NOT to be offended or annoyed by your own prejudices.
People had a predjudice against smokers and the smell of smoke - So a law was passed here saying you are not allowed to smoke inside any public building.lowing wrote:
studies on second hand smoke would differ from what you think is "probably" the case.Mitch wrote:
A smoker only hurts himself also.lowing wrote:
This is not a tax on fat people, this a legislation of personal lives. As far as taxing smoking products, I agree with this since a smokers smoke affects everyone in the area including non-smokers. Fat people hurt no one except themselves.
The accasional breathing in of the smoke from a person next to you is nothing to harm you. Its probly like smoking 1 whole cigg a month. Which is next to harmless.
And if your talking about the annoyance factor or smokers - 100% honestly - 'obese' people (not 'fat', actually discustingly obese people) annoy the shit out of me. Its just gross to see the human body roll so many times.
Fat people annoy or offend you, I get it, but you have no legal right NOT to be offended or annoyed by your own prejudices.
Goddamit Mitch you say shit about smoking because you think it's cool to smoke. Are you even old enough to smoke?Mitch wrote:
People had a predjudice against smokers and the smell of smoke - So a law was passed here saying you are not allowed to smoke inside any public building.lowing wrote:
studies on second hand smoke would differ from what you think is "probably" the case.Mitch wrote:
A smoker only hurts himself also.
The accasional breathing in of the smoke from a person next to you is nothing to harm you. Its probly like smoking 1 whole cigg a month. Which is next to harmless.
And if your talking about the annoyance factor or smokers - 100% honestly - 'obese' people (not 'fat', actually discustingly obese people) annoy the shit out of me. Its just gross to see the human body roll so many times.
Fat people annoy or offend you, I get it, but you have no legal right NOT to be offended or annoyed by your own prejudices.
I demand a law banning fat people because they ruin my appitite and i dont want to have to look at that when im in a restaurant - Just like non-smokers didnt want to smell smoke.
Its the same logic.
Which basically means just about everything that comes in a package.Stubbee wrote:
I see a big correlation in the increasing size of Americans and the increasing usage of HFCS in consumer foods.
No it is not, someone being FAT does not interfere with your life at all, smoking someone elses cigarette does when that person does noty want to breathe it.Mitch wrote:
People had a predjudice against smokers and the smell of smoke - So a law was passed here saying you are not allowed to smoke inside any public building.lowing wrote:
studies on second hand smoke would differ from what you think is "probably" the case.Mitch wrote:
A smoker only hurts himself also.
The accasional breathing in of the smoke from a person next to you is nothing to harm you. Its probly like smoking 1 whole cigg a month. Which is next to harmless.
And if your talking about the annoyance factor or smokers - 100% honestly - 'obese' people (not 'fat', actually discustingly obese people) annoy the shit out of me. Its just gross to see the human body roll so many times.
Fat people annoy or offend you, I get it, but you have no legal right NOT to be offended or annoyed by your own prejudices.
I demand a law banning fat people because they ruin my appitite and i dont want to have to look at that when im in a restaurant - Just like non-smokers didnt want to smell smoke.
Its the same logic.
Last edited by Masques (2009-07-29 14:05:00)
Yes it does.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Which basically means just about everything that comes in a package.Stubbee wrote:
I see a big correlation in the increasing size of Americans and the increasing usage of HFCS in consumer foods.
I will buy what you say IF skinny people never get sick, never have heart attacks, never have strokes, never get cancer, etc. what about anorexia bulimia, we gunna tax them as well?Krappyappy wrote:
fat people cost us a lot of money in the form of increased insurance. they get sick and the insurance companies charge the rest of us for it.
they also strain the medical system and use up a lot of resources.
being fat certainly DOES affect other people negatively.
Agree.lowing wrote:
I will buy what you say IF skinny people never get sick, never have heart attacks, never have strokes, never get cancer, etc. what about anorexia bulimia, we gunna tax them as well?Krappyappy wrote:
fat people cost us a lot of money in the form of increased insurance. they get sick and the insurance companies charge the rest of us for it.
they also strain the medical system and use up a lot of resources.
being fat certainly DOES affect other people negatively.
Since this is not the case, you are trying to legislate pure prejudice.
And the taxation would achieve what?ghettoperson wrote:
I like your thinking! We could create a far superior society that way.Red Forman wrote:
Ya man. And let's tax everyone who is not blonde hair and blue eyed. Let's also tax ugly people. Oh, and let's tax retarded people since they cost us so much money. Let's just create a master race.ghettoperson wrote:
Don't tax fatty food, tax fatty people. Say everyone with a 25% body fat percentage or over.
PS. Before you start getting too worried, Tubs, 25% is fairly high.
ahhh excellent point, let me also add, a ban on hang gliding, hiking, sky diving, surfing, flying, mountain claimbing, drinking. etc........ all of which have their inherent dangers, and could inconvience any one of us, through emergency services.Red Forman wrote:
Agree.lowing wrote:
I will buy what you say IF skinny people never get sick, never have heart attacks, never have strokes, never get cancer, etc. what about anorexia bulimia, we gunna tax them as well?Krappyappy wrote:
fat people cost us a lot of money in the form of increased insurance. they get sick and the insurance companies charge the rest of us for it.
they also strain the medical system and use up a lot of resources.
being fat certainly DOES affect other people negatively.
Since this is not the case, you are trying to legislate pure prejudice.
What about all the little teenies and college chicks who use tanning beds? People just want to pick and choose and I find that funny and sad.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-29 17:01:23)