E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-05-2014, 09:07 AM   #1
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 505
My Ride: A Car
Was Bloomberg right? Smoking ban and obesity?

On Fareed Zakaria this past Sunday there was a segment regarding China's smoking ban. He goes back to mention how it benefited NY and that many other major cities followed suit.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....-next-smoking/

Link to report in video/text:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040364/

As mentioned in the video. Many claim Bloomberg to be a nanny, but the costs borne to non-smokers was illogical. Same could go for obesity as the article suggests. With a third of American obese wouldn't it make sense to do something? We all will bear the costs for these people's poor habits and misinformation regarding their health. Doing it to themselves is fine, but when their actions impact others shouldn't something be done?
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 09:10 AM   #2
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 505
My Ride: A Car
In related news CVS made the choice to stop selling cigarettes:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/health/cvs-cigarettes/
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 09:14 AM   #3
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
The decision not to smoke or be obese is the right one, but the decision to legislate it is not (in my opinion). We could legislate a million things that would benefit our health, that does not mean we should. You should always err on the side of more freedom.

If you want to fight these things, social pressure is key. Stop telling people that they are fine just the way they are. Stop making every fat kid win a medal. Stop talking about "fat shaming". Give a smoker the finger.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet. - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

Last edited by Act of God; 02-05-2014 at 09:16 AM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 12:10 PM   #4
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
In related news CVS made the choice to stop selling cigarettes:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/health/cvs-cigarettes/
Makes no sense to me. They will lose a fortune, and customers will simply go to walgreens or whatever. Smokers rarely buy just cigs, they usually buy a drink, candy, gum, whatever. I know they realize this, just don't understand why they still want to do it, considering they still sell drugs and alcohol. Having said that, private company, they can do as they please.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 02:17 PM   #5
evolved
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 816
My Ride: 2011 BMW 135i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Makes no sense to me. They will lose a fortune, and customers will simply go to walgreens or whatever. Smokers rarely buy just cigs, they usually buy a drink, candy, gum, whatever. I know they realize this, just don't understand why they still want to do it, considering they still sell drugs and alcohol. Having said that, private company, they can do as they please.
In their statement they fully acknowledged the revenue hit that they are likely to take. I believe it was around 3% of their total, but the CEO said that they are in a solid enough position to deal with the move.
__________________

Present
2011 BMW 135i - BSM
Past
2006 Mazdaspeed 6 GT, 2000 BMW 323ci, 2003 Evolution VIII, 1995 Nissan 240sx w/ SR20DET

E46Sig
evolved is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 02:21 PM   #6
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
In their statement they fully acknowledged the revenue hit that they are likely to take. I believe it was around 3% of their total, but the CEO said that they are in a solid enough position to deal with the move.
Like I said, private company, to each their own. I don't see the logic, since they still sell things that are heavily abused (ie alcohol) so the moral superiority doesn't register with me. Im sure walgreens will have no problems capitalizing on their customers.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 02:30 PM   #7
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
The decision not to smoke or be obese is the right one, but the decision to legislate it is not (in my opinion). We could legislate a million things that would benefit our health, that does not mean we should. You should always err on the side of more freedom.

If you want to fight these things, social pressure is key. Stop telling people that they are fine just the way they are. Stop making every fat kid win a medal. Stop talking about "fat shaming". Give a smoker the finger.

bingo.

if you want smokers to stop smoking, fat people to stop eating so much, then raise their insurance rates or tell them that illnesses related to self destructive behavior will not be covered by their health insurance. That will motivate some people to get off the couch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Makes no sense to me. They will lose a fortune, and customers will simply go to walgreens or whatever. Smokers rarely buy just cigs, they usually buy a drink, candy, gum, whatever. I know they realize this, just don't understand why they still want to do it, considering they still sell drugs and alcohol. Having said that, private company, they can do as they please.
yes, they can do what they want.

but it might even work to their advantage.

chik fil a is a fast food chicken restaurant that makes no secret of its christian values and it closes on Sundays, Xmas and Easter.
a lot of people respect that and frequent the place because of its values.

when I lived in Richmond, VA there was a grocery chain called Ukrop's that was very successful. They did a good job selling groceries but they were also admired because they were closed on Sundays, did not sell beer ( a big profit maker for grocery stores ) and would fire employees if they used profanity.
a lot of people admired them for their values and they were the number one grocery chain in Richmond..........until WM and Target came through and I think they went out of business 2,3 years ago.

who knows..........it might work out for CVS too.
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 02:34 PM   #8
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond42262 View Post
bingo.

if you want smokers to stop smoking, fat people to stop eating so much, then raise their insurance rates or tell them that illnesses related to self destructive behavior will not be covered by their health insurance. That will motivate some people to get off the couch.



yes, they can do what they want.

but it might even work to their advantage.

chik fil a is a fast food chicken restaurant that makes no secret of its christian values and it closes on Sundays, Xmas and Easter.
a lot of people respect that and frequent the place because of its values.

when I lived in Richmond, VA there was a grocery chain called Ukrop's that was very successful. They did a good job selling groceries but they were also admired because they were closed on Sundays, did not sell beer ( a big profit maker for grocery stores ) and would fire employees if they used profanity.
a lot of people admired them for their values and they were the number one grocery chain in Richmond..........until WM and Target came through and I think they went out of business 2,3 years ago.

who knows..........it might work out for CVS too.
Smokers and drunks spend more money. You might be right.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 02:42 PM   #9
Gatriel
Gr Di'
 
Gatriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 352
My Ride: KL38444
Bloomberg's bag to eliminate smoking in public places in New York is logical, as smoking has direct negative consequences on those around the smoker. So, someone's decisions are negatively affecting other people.

His ban on the 7/11 Big Gulp is a nanny-state thing to do.
Gatriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:02 PM   #10
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 505
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatriel View Post
Bloomberg's bag to eliminate smoking in public places in New York is logical, as smoking has direct negative consequences on those around the smoker. So, someone's decisions are negatively affecting other people.

His ban on the 7/11 Big Gulp is a nanny-state thing to do.
I was in agreement with Bloomberg's Big gulp ban for I don't think people are conscious enough or aware enough that their bad decisions impact those around them, specifically obesity. Obviously not everyone shares that view. Is there a point where obesity does become that problem/epidemic that requires intervention? It can have medical cost impacts, economic impacts, and possibly a national security issue (not forgetting uncomfortable travel experiences ). Those impact everyone.

Certainly not calling for a ban to big gulps or soda like the FDA did to trans fats (which I also agree with). Perhaps, a regulation on portion size without limiting access to quantity would see a decline in rising obesity rates. I certainly see more benefits--longer life, healthier nation--than negatives--Soft squeeze dictatorship.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:04 PM   #11
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
I was in agreement with Bloomberg's Big gulp ban for I don't think people are conscious enough or aware enough that their bad decisions impact those around them, specifically obesity. Obviously not everyone shares that view. Is there a point where obesity does become that problem/epidemic that requires intervention? It can have medical cost impacts, economic impacts, and possibly a national security issue (not forgetting uncomfortable travel experiences ). Those impact everyone.

Certainly not calling for a ban to big gulps or soda like the FDA did to trans fats (which I also agree with). Perhaps, a regulation on portion size without limiting access to quantity would see a decline in rising obesity rates. I certainly see more benefits--longer life, healthier nation--than negatives--Soft squeeze dictatorship.
What right do you have to advocate that? You're a liberal fellow, this seems inconsistent with 'keep your laws off my body'.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet. - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:05 PM   #12
Gatriel
Gr Di'
 
Gatriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 352
My Ride: KL38444
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
I was in agreement with Bloomberg's Big gulp ban for I don't think people are conscious enough or aware enough that their bad decisions impact those around them, specifically obesity. Obviously not everyone shares that view. Is there a point where obesity does become that problem/epidemic that requires intervention? It can have medical cost impacts, economic impacts, and possibly a national security issue (not forgetting uncomfortable travel experiences ). Those impact everyone.

Certainly not calling for a ban to big gulps or soda like the FDA did to trans fats (which I also agree with). Perhaps, a regulation on portion size without limiting access to quantity would see a decline in rising obesity rates. I certainly see more benefits--longer life, healthier nation--than negatives--Soft squeeze dictatorship.
Perhaps this is just the libertarian in me, but I think that if people chose to eat ****, and gain a ton of weight, and shorten their lifespans, then we should definitely let them. That being said -- I do not want for us to pay the fat's medical bills, or if we do they have to pay substantially more.

Let people be the choosers of their own destiny -- not the government, and let Darwinism take its toll.
Gatriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:16 PM   #13
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 505
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
What right do you have to advocate that? You're a liberal fellow, this seems inconsistent with 'keep your laws off my body'.
I don't think it is inconsistent. I am fine with people doing what they want, provided it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatriel View Post
Perhaps this is just the libertarian in me, but I think that if people chose to eat ****, and gain a ton of weight, and shorten their lifespans, then we should definitely let them. That being said -- I do not want for us to pay the fat's medical bills, or if we do they have to pay substantially more.

Let people be the choosers of their own destiny -- not the government, and let Darwinism take its toll.
I agree. If presented with information that their lifestyle will kill them and they choose to continue, then they should bear the consequences. That would be ideal especially if other individuals are insulated from their actions. I don't feel that others are insulated from their bad behavior and thus society must suffer for their uncontrollable gluttony.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:21 PM   #14
Marshmallow
Yacht Club Libertarian
 
Marshmallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Joisey, Mid MI
Posts: 2,004
My Ride: E46, E30, Quattro
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
I don't think it is inconsistent. I am fine with people doing what they want, provided it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.
I kno rite! Friggin fat b!tches piss me off everytime I sees dem.

Explain to me how being obese negatively affects people other than said fat person. I know fat people and so far they have not tried to eat me or even take a little nibble. How do they affect you?
__________________


2003 BMW 325xiT "Audrey"
1987 BMW 325i "Lydia"
1990 Audi 90 Quattro Sport 20v "Chloe"

Marshmallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:23 PM   #15
evolved
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 816
My Ride: 2011 BMW 135i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshmallow View Post
I kno rite! Friggin fat b!tches piss me off everytime I sees dem.

Explain to me how being obese negatively affects people other than said fat person. I know fat people and so far they have not tried to eat me or even take a little nibble. How do they affect you?
http://calorielab.com/news/2011/04/1...l-weight-rant/
__________________

Present
2011 BMW 135i - BSM
Past
2006 Mazdaspeed 6 GT, 2000 BMW 323ci, 2003 Evolution VIII, 1995 Nissan 240sx w/ SR20DET

E46Sig
evolved is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:27 PM   #16
Gatriel
Gr Di'
 
Gatriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 352
My Ride: KL38444
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
I don't think it is inconsistent. I am fine with people doing what they want, provided it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.



I agree. If presented with information that their lifestyle will kill them and they choose to continue, then they should bear the consequences. That would be ideal especially if other individuals are insulated from their actions. I don't feel that others are insulated from their bad behavior and thus society must suffer for their uncontrollable gluttony.
So thus, make health insurance contingent upon your BMI and move on.

Just like I would love to see plane tickets based upon total weight. If you're a fat, you get 2 Kilos of luggage because that's all the extra room you have left on your ticket. If you are normal weight you get like 60 kilos of free checked luggage.

The status quo, is skinny and normal sized people subsidise flights for the fats.
Gatriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:41 PM   #17
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatriel View Post
So thus, make health insurance contingent upon your BMI and move on.

Just like I would love to see plane tickets based upon total weight. If you're a fat, you get 2 Kilos of luggage because that's all the extra room you have left on your ticket. If you are normal weight you get like 60 kilos of free checked luggage.

The status quo, is skinny and normal sized people subsidise flights for the fats.
yeah, and fat people should pay extra for larger shirts and pants......and they should pay a carbon tax for extra carbon dioxide exhaled

and they should fine fat hair stylists who are overweight and their stomachs rub against my body when they cut my hair. i don't care if it was a woman, yuck.........
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------

Last edited by Raymond42262; 02-05-2014 at 04:43 PM.
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:54 PM   #18
Gatriel
Gr Di'
 
Gatriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 352
My Ride: KL38444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond42262 View Post
yeah, and fat people should pay extra for larger shirts and pants......and they should pay a carbon tax for extra carbon dioxide exhaled

and they should fine fat hair stylists who are overweight and their stomachs rub against my body when they cut my hair. i don't care if it was a woman, yuck.........
Great ideas, all.
Gatriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:54 PM   #19
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
In their statement they fully acknowledged the revenue hit that they are likely to take. I believe it was around 3% of their total, but the CEO said that they are in a solid enough position to deal with the move.
If they were creative, then they could promote themselves as THE Retailer for Health and Personal Improvement.

They could create an advertising campaign suggesting they know more about health care than anyone else and practice what they preach because they don't sell products that adversely impact your health, unlike their competition.
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 04:54 PM   #20
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
In their statement they fully acknowledged the revenue hit that they are likely to take. I believe it was around 3% of their total, but the CEO said that they are in a solid enough position to deal with the move.
If they were creative, then they could promote themselves as THE Retailer for Health and Personal Improvement.

They could create an advertising campaign suggesting they know more about health care than anyone else and they practice what they preach because they don't sell products that adversely impact your health, unlike their competition.
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------

Last edited by Raymond42262; 02-05-2014 at 04:56 PM.
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use