Leave a comment

(The comment has been removed)

gumby_145 September 28 2006, 02:12:41 UTC
I saw that. That wasn't the point I was making. As I said, the cigarette ban in restaraunts is not the same thing, because it was made with the intent of protecting people other than the consumers of the banned product. This is a ban to protect the actual consumers of the banned product, which I think is fully fucking stupid to begin with, but if they were to do something like that, they should pick a better product than trans fat oils. Apparently, you need to read my lj post better lol =P

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

gumby_145 September 28 2006, 11:51:51 UTC
ok you do make a good point there. And, no I haven't researched any statistics, I was going on a general hunch that way more people have died from smoking related problems than heart disease from obesity. I still feel that's correct, and would be willing to put money on it.

Reply

gumby_145 September 28 2006, 11:53:58 UTC
also, the key here is that they are banning a product at its source for the consumer as opposed to restricting the where and when said product can be used. I think an analogous ban for cigarettes would be to ban their sale in gas stations, wal-mart, and grocery stores, thus protecting those stores' customers from their "marketing style" ;)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up