Smoking in parks

when youve been on vacation in the nature, on cottage or so on you notice how badly a town smell from pollution, mostly caused by car engines..

Also how bad it looks, specially in winter, with black snow and ice around the streets. I cant wait until hydrogen/methanol engines comes around..
 
Darkaner said:
My point was that smokers cause harm to others, maybe not to you, but to me and I guess other people. It's not about you, the smoker, it's about everyone around you.

So no, we shouldn't ban cheesburgers because you wont get lung cancer if I eat one. :)


First off stop thinking I am a smoker PLS! You're response implies that you assume I am.


FOR THE RECORD... I do not smoke. Myself and my husband raise one son in a completely smoke-free home. We eat things like TOFU, VEGETABLES and YOGURT. We enjoy the OUTDOORS. My son is rarely in front of a tv.
I am the daughter to a world-champion swimmer who won two gold medals in the 1976 Olympics in Montreal... not that any1 cares but to say the least I was raised in an EXTREMELY HEALTH CONSCIOUS family ;)


My point with the burgers and children in daycare is that there ARE things that affect others. Being a parent myself I fully recognize how my choices affect my son. therefore, if we are to ban smoking in a place such as a park, let's really think about banning smoking in homes with kids! Pls! I'm not being sarcastic actually :wise: And while we're at that, let's ban all the fat-ass parents out there who care nothing about what their kids do or eat or watch... they are imposing SERIOUS health risks to CHILDREN FFS!

The problem as I see it is that there are countless things which ought to be banned.... and the vast majority of them take precedence to banning smoking in a park :rolleyes:
 
Svetlana said:
Myself and my husband raise one son in a completely smoke-free home. We eat things like TOFU, VEGETABLES and YOGURT. We enjoy the OUTDOORS.

damn hippies! I thought they were wiped out in the 70's :mad:


j/k ;)
 
Svetlana said:
We eat things like TOFU, VEGETABLES and YOGURT.

tut-tut! Yoghurt have lotsa sugar and fat innit!
 
A little nuance: alcohol, caffeine, fatness ( :dunno: ) and the like aren't a health risk for the people around the person (using them). And there are laws forbidding you to be a risk for someone's health when it comes to drinking too much alcohol. Why not do the same for smoking? Ban it from the moment it harms others. Which is from the first cig really.

Anyways like I said before I'd be happy if smoking got banned from public buildings :yup:

Does anyone have more information as to why smoking got banned from that park? For all we know they might have done it because people kept throwing their cigarette's in the grass etc... which would be a valid reason imho.
But I might have to sit next to your fat disgusting ass on the plane...

I have loads of reasons why I don't want to sit next to a smoker, you want to elaborate about your reasons for not wanting to sit next to a 'fat disgusting ass'? :dunno:
 
wanda said:
but it would be okay to ban booze then? That causes many problems like domestic violence, assaults, crime etc.

It's different. Booze doesn't harm anyone around you as long as you use it wisely. Laws are made for the situations in which it could harm others.

Smoking does harm the people around you, starting at the first one.
 
Leafren said:
I have loads of reasons why I don't want to sit next to a smoker, you want to elaborate about your reasons for not wanting to sit next to a 'fat disgusting ass'? :dunno:

It was made as a lighthearted remark to point out that there are similarities behind some of the superficial reasons non-smokers would like smoking banned and a silly remark such as mine about fat people.

The 'you' and the 'I' are used in the same fashion as the person I was retorting to as a way of showing the personal way these statements can be taken.

In otherwords, I was just being an ass!

DD
:evilking:
 
Darkaner said:
Where I live there are huge taxes on alcohol, you can only buy it from special government stores and you can't drink in public places, just because of those reasons.

i guess that's Sweden then - I've lived there and seen the massive queues in those "bolagets" and also the amount of pissed Swedes in Stockholm on the last weekend of the month, having to be dragged off the streets by police with big bats :laugh:

but i guess thats not a health issue or causing offence to anyone.
 
Darkener said:
Where I live there are huge taxes on alcohol, you can only buy it from special government stores and you can't drink in public places, just because of those reasons.

wanda said:
i guess that's Sweden then...

Actually, it is the same here in Seattle...

DD
:evilking:
 
DD,

Eh ok :silly2: I missed Darkaner's post with the 'you's' in it, fast growing thread.


I think that there's only one reason people want smoking banned, namely the health risks smokers cause to others. Nothing superficial about that I'd say. :saint:
 
Leafren said:
You wanna debate about all the cancers/conditions of which it is proven second handed smoking increases the risk to get them significantly? Using the argument that it isn't proven yet smoking causes lung cancer in defense of smoking is like saying 'drugs don't cause herpes so what's all the commotion about', imho.

As an idealist I would say the more toxic fumes they ban from society the better (including car fumes, if only enough money was invested into hydrogen engines etc but some lobby groups won't like that).

My more pragmatic view is: ban smoking from all public buildings. As banning it from the street will not work I think.

Overall, I'm in favour of banning smoking from a park: as a statement and as an anti-littering/poluting act. Actually I think the latter might be the main reason.

PS. You're evil Shade! :silly2:
A little confused here are u saying drugs cause herpes? lol
 
Leafren said:
DD,

Eh ok :silly2: I missed Darkaner's post with the 'you's' in it, fast growing thread.


I think that there's only one reason people want smoking banned, namely the health risks smokers cause to others. Nothing superficial about that I'd say. :saint:

I just want to say the following...
i enjoy this discussion! :girl: I enjoyed it when it was smoking in bars as well, I admit ;) Great conversations and debates imho.

Leaf- I respect what you and some others feel. Smoking is rotten for us all. I just want to clarify that I think there are more pressing issues for our politicians to be after rather than smoking in a park :)
 
Leafren said:
DD,

Eh ok :silly2: I missed Darkaner's post with the 'you's' in it, fast growing thread.


I think that there's only one reason people want smoking banned, namely the health risks smokers cause to others. Nothing superficial about that I'd say. :saint:

Oh, I don't know if I agree with that. I tend to think most of the population is a little more superficial and selfish than your statement gives them credit for. I would argue most non-smokers hate the smell, taste, stinging eyes, and all other superficial reasons firstmost.

They wan't smoking banned because they don't like smoking. The health concerns, I beleive, are a crutch of propaganda being used by those who are intelligent enough to make that calculated descision and being used by the rest of the population because they have been brainwashed into repeating the rhetoric from the groups pumping out these halfbaked studies.

There is a very small majority, in my opinion, who actually care about the health risks to innocent bystanders. You may be one of them, but I doubt most smoking haters are in that group.

DD
:evilking:
 
Svetlana said:
I just want to say the following...
i enjoy this discussion! :girl: I enjoyed it when it was smoking in bars as well, I admit ;) Great conversations and debates imho.

Leaf- I respect what you and some others feel. Smoking is rotten for us all. I just want to clarify that I think there are more pressing issues for our politicians to be after rather than smoking in a park :)

Agreed, I also went off topic within a post I think and started discussing smoking as a whole :silly2:

And yes, there are more important issues. We'll have to agree to disagree then, priority is no factor to me really. If by one simple law a little bit injustice can be taken out of this world, no matter how significant, I'm in favour.

On topic (for a change): I'm in favour of the park ban if it has been done for environment reasons or as a statement (with the park being a public place). If it's done to really protect non-smokers it's naive, people will have cross the streets to get in the fumes-free park. Seems like a null-operation to me.

A solution would be a total ban on public smoking but like I stated before I'm well aware that's unrealistic.

Oh, debates are teh pwn :yup:
 
i guess that's Sweden then - I've lived there and seen the massive queues in those "bolagets" and also the amount of pissed Swedes in Stockholm on the last weekend of the month, having to be dragged off the streets by police with big bats

but i guess thats not a health issue or causing offence to anyone.
:laugh: And soon they are going to lower the taxes to EU levels. Imagine what it will look like then. :eek:
:beerchug: :beerchug: :drink: :drink:

But I don't think drinking and smoking is the same thing really. You can drink certain amounts of alcohol without causing harm to anyone and without developing an addiction for it.

Svetlana said:
Being a parent myself I fully recognize how my choices affect my son. therefore, if we are to ban smoking in a place such as a park, let's really think about banning smoking in homes with kids!
Totally agree.
 
Devil Doll said:
Oh, I don't know if I agree with that. I tend to think most of the population is a little more superficial and selfish than your statement gives them credit for. I would argue most non-smokers hate the smell, taste, stinging eyes, and all other superficial reasons firstmost.

They wan't smoking banned because they don't like smoking. The health concerns, I beleive, are a crutch of propaganda being used by those who are intelligent enough to make that calculated descision and being used by the rest of the population because they have been brainwashed into repeating the rhetoric from the groups pumping out these halfbaked studies.

There is a very small majority, in my opinion, who actually care about the health risks to innocent bystanders. You may be one of them, but I doubt most smoking haters are in that group.

DD
:evilking:

I see your point. I would love to see a world with some more tolerance for other habits and cultures then one's own.

Not agreed on the whole line though (duh :silly2: ): when something is proven, the truth, it can not be classified as propaganda. Because the health risks are proven, people can also not be brainwashed into believing them, they are simply being educated. Also the studies aren't halfbaked:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15820286
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15805186
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15794275
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15794266
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15763654
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15751938

Quote from last publication:

Since the mid-1980s there has been increasing interest in the effects of passive smoking on the health of children. It has been estimated that the total nicotine dose received by children whose parents smoke is equivalent to their actively smoking between 60 and 150 cigarettes per year. This review article considers the evidence for a relationship between passive smoking and disorders such as: prenatal damage to the fetus; poor growth indicators; respiratory illness; atopy and asthma; coronary heart disease; and sudden infant death syndrome. We conclude that paediatricians should not be complacent about the hazards of passive smoking for children and that public health education efforts should be continued.

I would also argue it's very selfish and immoral for a smoker to think people should accept his poisenous fumes in their surroundings just because he likes the taste of a cigarette.

Pubmed is a databank where all scientific publications are stored: www.pubmed.com . Run a search for passive smoking and see the results.
 
I kinda agree with Leafren, I don't even have anything to add :eek:
 
Leafren said:
You wanna debate about all the cancers/conditions of which it is proven second handed smoking increases the risk to get them significantly?

See junkscience.org. We've already been there.

Leafren said:
Overall, I'm in favour of banning smoking from a park: as a statement and as an anti-littering/poluting act. Actually I think the latter might be the main reason.

By that reasoning, you should also ban eating and drinking in parks. People shouldn't be allowed to pollute with their styrofoam cups and plastic potato chip bags.

Leafren - I really suggest you take up reading some philosophical fiction. Might I suggest Anthem for starters?

BTW, One big point that you're missing is this:

They won't ban smoking outright, making tobacco products illegal, because they know the effect that would have. ( Can anyone say "Prohibition"? ) So, they impose laws that limit smoking little by little, until one day, you look back and see that smoking isn't allowed anymore, by default.

The scary thing is when they start doing the same thing with something you enjoy. Hell, I could make a case for the dangers of playing online games. Maybe they should be banned? :eek:

Svetlana said:
I see my tax dollars being well spent by some politician that desperately wanted to go on a trip to Cabo or the Virgin Islands

I see my tax dollars being spent paying a police officer to arrest people for smoking outdoors.

OTOH, the smoker would probably just get a ticket, so that actually generates revenue for the city.

hmmmm.... :umn: ... :duh:

Darkaner said:
Where I live there are huge taxes on alcohol, you can only buy it from special government stores and you can't drink in public places, just because of those reasons.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayan, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284

skam said:
I cant wait until hydrogen/methanol engines comes around..

I heard not long ago that GM is getting ready to put one into limited production. They have been testing it for a couple years now on the road, with one of the big oil companies providing fueling stations.

Of course, you do know that H2O is a greenhouse gas ;)

Svetlana said:
First off stop thinking I am a smoker PLS! You're response implies that you assume I am.

Frustrating, isn't it? For some reason, people can't accept that someone can argue in favor of allowing something that they don't do themselves. Intellectual honesty is a lost commodity.

Svetlana said:
And while we're at that, let's ban all the fat-ass parents out there who care nothing about what their kids do or eat or watch...

Oh, but we don't have to worry about that anymore - didn't you know? Cookie Monster is going to teach kids how to eat right.

Leafren said:
Ban it from the moment it harms others.

Would you apply this same logic to any other activity and/or substance?

Leafren said:
when something is proven, the truth, it can not be classified as propaganda.

Of course, all the references you give are NIH - i.e. Government sources. What about peer-reviewed journals?

Or do you honestly believe that the Government doesn't have their own agenda?

If it was really about the health risks, they would ban it. Instead, they tax it, they impose fines, etc. Now, it becomes a revenue stream. And, BTW, now banning it becomes counter-productive, since you eliminate your revenue stream.

But I'm sure the Government doesn't have such ulterior motives :rolleyes:

Leafren said:
PS. You're evil Shade!

Yep.

PS back - If you need a few extra bucks, I'll pay you for your signature...


:smoke:
 
lol wtf...

didn't even bother to read all these pages...
one word just, or smiley

:kos:

yea damn right
 
See junkscience.org. We've already been there.

http://www.junkscience.com/news3/setimes2.htm

I rather believe thousands of international, independant research groups who just have their articles catogorised on pubmed, the this guy from junkscience. If he's such a great scientist why doesn't he prove ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) is harmless or 'hyped', like he claims. The only thinghe seems to do is find what he claims to be statistical flaws in studies about smoking, to conclude the opposite.

Like the article says:

Average citizens didn't need research to tell them that breathing other people's smoke made their eyes sting, their throats scratch, their lungs ache, their heads throb

By that reasoning, you should also ban eating and drinking in parks. People shouldn't be allowed to pollute with their styrofoam cups and plastic potato chip bags.

Indeed, they shouldn't, if people keep throwing their cups and bags on the grass food should be banned from a park too. I consider a park to be a recreational place with a lot of attention for nature, if nature is threatened measurements should be taken.

A big warning sign to not throw your cigs on the ground would have done it too for me, but again, I don't know the whole story maybe they tried that and people kept throwing cigarette leftovers on the ground.
Leafren - I really suggest you take up reading some philosophical fiction. Might I suggest Anthem for starters?

You may suggest, but I simply do not have the time. Do quote from it though and I'll read with great interest.

BTW, One big point that you're missing is this:

They won't ban smoking outright, making tobacco products illegal, because they know the effect that would have. ( Can anyone say "Prohibition"? ) So, they impose laws that limit smoking little by little, until one day, you look back and see that smoking isn't allowed anymore, by default.

In my previous posts I repeatedly said an outright ban won't work. For the same reason you say. I think what politicians are trying with those laws that limit smoking little by little is to get to a mentality change to where it becomes uncool/unattractive to smoke. I don't see any problems there.

The scary thing is when they start doing the same thing with something you enjoy. Hell, I could make a case for the dangers of playing online games. Maybe they should be banned?

If you claim there are no significant dangers to ETS that's a viable argument. I however believe there are significant health risk for passive smokers and not for people sitting around someone playing an online game.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayan, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284

Quoting, an uncurable illness for people with more memory then reason. -K. Jonckheere-

Just kidding! :silly2:

Frustrating, isn't it? For some reason, people can't accept that someone can argue in favor of allowing something that they don't do themselves. Intellectual honesty is a lost commodity.
Generalization :dunno:

Would you apply this same logic to any other activity and/or substance?

Yes, no matter how idealist it is I think the world would be better off without these activities/substances.

Of course, all the references you give are NIH - i.e. Government sources. What about peer-reviewed journals?

Pubmed is just a centralized databank where the papers of pretty much all internationel research groups are catagorised. It's not becaese a gouvenment institution maintaines a database that the articles in them are sponsored/guided by the gouvernment imo.

Or do you honestly believe that the Government doesn't have their own agenda?

Of course they have their own aganda and I hope it to be a nature and health friendly one ;)

Again the majority of the articles on pubmed are from independant research groups...

If it was really about the health risks, they would ban it. Instead, they tax it, they impose fines, etc. Now, it becomes a revenue stream. And, BTW, now banning it becomes counter-productive, since you eliminate your revenue stream.

Quote from earlier in your post:
They won't ban smoking outright, making tobacco products illegal, because they know the effect that would have. ( Can anyone say "Prohibition"? )

It's a tactic on which you can agree or not, but if they can get to less people starting smoking because of the heavy fines on it I'm in favour. (Note I also refered earlier to the loads of tax money smokers bring in).
 
Last edited:
First off stop thinking I am a smoker PLS! You're response implies that you assume I am.
Frustrating, isn't it? For some reason, people can't accept that someone can argue in favor of allowing something that they don't do themselves. Intellectual honesty is a lost commodity.
I got the feeling Sveta was a smoker from something she said in a earlier post. I guess I was wrong eh? From that you draw the conclusion that "people" have lost their "intellectual honesty". Please, spare us the drama... :rolleyes:
 
Darkaner said:
I got the feeling Sveta was a smoker from something she said in a earlier post. I guess I was wrong eh? From that you draw the conclusion that "people" have lost their "intellectual honesty". Please, spare us the drama... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I can do it, too.

I had a long answer prepared, but I figure you'll decide that's more drama, so I'm sparing you.

FYI, I was expressing a general frustration that I witness regularly in political debate, in response to Sveta's statement. I didn't anticipate that you would take it so personally.
 
:bandit: I´m :whistle: :smoke: and :rolleyes:
Must spam :cowboy: :scratch:
 
Over the line, I think. It's one thing to ban it in public buildings. Ok, I can understand that to a point since everyone is stuck in the same closed in area. Banning it outside though is just rediculous.

No, I'm not a smoker. In fact, I don't really care for the smell of cigarette smoke either, but I still think a law like that would cross the line.

Just my 2 cents...
 
Some interesting articles, to broaden our views :)

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~22097~2828155,00.html

Nisha Varghese, health projects coordinator for the AYC, said the ban is important in a city like Monterey Park, which has a majority of Asian Americans. Studies show one in four Asians and Pacific Islanders are smokers, she said.

The ban, which takes effect next month, expands a state law prohibiting smoking within 25 feet of a playground. Smoking is now banned entirely from all parks except for parking lots and public sidewalks.

A study requested by the Parks and Recreation Commission in February and conducted by the AYC showed 83.8 percent of 636 residents surveyed support a ban on smoking in parks, Varghese said.

Nancy Arcuri, who publishes The Citizen's Voice, a community newspaper, was the only Monterey Park resident to speak against the ban at the meeting.

"Smokers have the same right to use the park as people who exercise there," Arcuri said.

The council voted unanimously for the smoking ban.

Councilman Frank Venti said groups using parks for exercise and recreation should have the right to do so without inhaling secondhand smoke.

"You and I, as taxpayers, will pay the hospital bills for those people smoking freely in the park," Venti said.

Mayor Mike Eng said the city should take things a step further and start education programs for youths to teach them the dangers of smoking.

Councilman David Lau also suggested anti-smoking workshops sponsored by the city.

The ban makes Monterey Park the eighth city in Southern California to ban smoking from parks, joining Pasadena, Baldwin Park, El Monte, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Redlands and Los Angeles, which bans smoking 25 feet from any play area, including sports fields. Across the state, 10 other cities have banned smoking from parks, according to the AYC.

In other action, the council appointed three people to a newly created environmental commission that would advise the council on environmental issues in the city.

Environmental lawyer Thomas Vandenburg, retiree Madeline Detmers and Mark Keppel High School student Dianna Lu were appointed to the commission, the first of its kind in Los Angeles County.

http://sfindependent.com/article/index.cfm/i/012605n_smoking


Smoking banned in parks
By Jo Stanley | Staff Writer
Published on
URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/012605n_smoking
E-mail this story | Print this page

Lighting up in city parks will soon be illegal, after the Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 on Tuesday to ban smoking in parks and other outdoor areas owned by The City.

"The environmental impacts alone give this particular piece of legislation justification," said sponsoring Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, noting that cigarette butts left lying around eventually send toxins into the ground and water, and children playing in parks are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Scofflaws can be fined up to $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second violation and $500 for each additional violation. Pasadena, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills are among the cities with similar bans.

Supervisors Jake McGoldrick, Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin opposed the measure, with McGoldrick and Mirkarimi both saying they had concerns about the law's effects on immigrants who may now gather to socialize and smoke in certain public parks but would be constrained under the prohibition.

"It just has this undertone of elitism," Mirkarimi said.

Mirkarimi also made a late bid to remove an exemption for city golf courses. It failed, 7-4.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, whose District 7 includes the newly refurbished Harding Park golf course, said he feared that extending the ban there would keep away visitors and pro golfers expected to generate money at upcoming PGA tournaments.

"Many of these golfers are chain smokers," Elsbernd said.

Elsbernd and Alioto-Pier contend that golf course staff members keep the greens "immaculate" and so avoid any environmental damage caused by discarded cigarettes.

Alioto-Pier, whose aunt Angela Alioto championed The City's smoking ban in bars years ago while a city supervisor, said new signs to alert the public would be paid for using anti-tobacco funds.

The board must vote one more time on the proposed ordinance.

And a column:
Lighten Up, America!
Do fat people belong in public parks?
By Jacob Sullum


Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry offers several rationales for her ban on smoking in city parks. People leave cigarette butts in sandboxes, she says, and smoking causes air pollution.

But L.A. already has a law against littering, and tobacco smoke in the open air hardly seems like a pressing environmental concern. Unless Perry plans to shut down all automobile traffic and industrial activity in Los Angeles, her zero-tolerance approach to pollution is strangely selective.

Still, Perry does have at least one compelling justification for her ban, which received preliminary approval from a unanimous city council earlier this month. "When kids see adults smoking in a family-friendly place like a park," she said, "it normalizes smoking and causes it to be approved behavior."

In other words, people smoking in public are a bad influence on children, who may be encouraged to follow their unhealthy example. Perry's observation can be extended to other areas of public health.

The day before the Los Angeles City Council voted on the smoking ban, Surgeon General David Satcher released a "Call to Action" warning that Americans are way too fat and getting fatter every day. "Overweight and obesity may soon cause as much preventable disease and death as cigarette smoking," he said, estimating that 300,000 people die each year because they weigh too much.

Satcher said corpulence-related disease and disability cost the country $117 billion last year. And the odds are that you are part of this problem: Three-fifths of American adults are overweight, less than a third get the exercise the federal government says they should, and almost no one complies with the dietary recommendations of the USDA's Food Guide Pyramid.

Given the huge social cost, how much you eat and exercise can no longer be seen as purely private choices. "People tend to think of overweight and obesity as strictly a personal matter," Satcher said, "but there is much that communities can and should do to address these problems."

Banning fat people from public parks, where they set a bad example for the kids, is an obvious first step. Ideally, though, we should be moving toward a world in which no child is exposed to potential role models who normalize obesity and cause overeating to be approved behavior.

I'm not talking about a complete ban on obesity. People would still be free to be fat in the privacy of their own homes (provided they have no children); they would just not be allowed to go out in public until they slimmed down.

Perhaps that solution strikes you as extreme. But surely it's not too much to expect that officials charged with protecting the public health exemplify the good habits we are trying to inculcate in our youth.

"Overweight and obesity are among the most pressing new health challenges we face today," says Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson, who could stand to lose a few pounds himself. At least Joe Califano, when he held a similar position in the Carter administration, had the decency to stop smoking before he started campaigning against cigarettes.

The entertainment industry also has a role to play. Just as it is considered socially irresponsible to project positive images of smokers, the creators of the movies and TV shows our children watch should think twice before portraying fat characters who are smart, cool, popular, or otherwise admirable.

To be fair, Hollywood generally has done a pretty good job on this score, bringing us leading actors who (unlike the general population) are overwhelmingly thin. But there are exceptions.

What sort of message does it send to our young people that a parade of slim characters leaves NYPD Blue under unfavorable circumstances, while the chunky Andy Sipowicz remains at the center of the show? And what was Fox thinking when it released Shallow Hal, which sends the dangerous message that fat women can be happy and loved?

The positive portrayal of portly people in cartoon comedies, a genre favored by children, is especially unconscionable. Immune to the biological forces that affect flesh-and blood people, long-running, lovable cartoon characters such as Homer Simpson and South Park's Chef remain healthy despite their obesity.

At this time of year, one other baneful role model inevitably springs to mind. I just hope you didn't leave out a plate of cookies for him. That's the last thing he needs.

© Copyright 2001 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Good arguments in these articles I think. Both in favour and no in favour.

PS. I'm not trying to push this discussion to one about obesitas, so start a new one if you want for that please :wise:
 
whoa... thats a whole lot of thread... i dont think i can read all that ;)
so i dont know whos said what, or to whom.... sorry...

i think its marginally stupid to ban smoking in open areas like parks, but hey--we hired the politicians, we HAVE to occupy them with SOMETHING. :D and god forbid it be practical... ;)

hmm...oh well. if you want to do something that is as widely percieved as "dangerous," "anti-social," and a "threat" as is smoking... well, then you have to suffer the consequences that the society you do it in will inflict on you. im not saying its a wise decision on societys part, or even moderately intelligible... then again, humanity could be screwing up a WHOLE lot worse than it is ;) dont you think?
hmm... yeah thats about it...
i think ill start a less crowded thread on a similar subject....
 
Move to Holland smoking is an art form there.. :wise:
 
Back
Top