smoking ban starts in less than a month!

Originally posted by le sonick:

Originally posted by Jaguar:
Hmmm, maybe. Not sure if that's the right approach but one to consider. (I would prefer to give that one some honest thought before jumping so some conclusion.)

fair enough. i just think that this whole thing came about by a small group of rabid supporters and no alternatives or compromises were set, no citywide votes were held and virtually no exceptions were given to this ban.

perhaps if we had this issue on an election ballot or some other sort of vote.

You are probably right on that. And I agree that it would have been more fair as an election ballot since this is supposed to be a country by the people, for the people. (I just know we're gonna get someone going off it this being a republic and what all that means.)

Originally posted by le sonick:
if smoking is so bad for you and everyone else on earth, i just wish they would outlaw cigarettes!!! cause trust me, i wouldnt smoke em if i couldnt buy em legally!

I'm not going to help you on this one as I draw the line just short of that, against my own best interest.

see, jag, us baltimoreons think alike after all!

(the fact that a vote would've been nice!)

have you been reading those ground rent stories in the Sun?

Originally posted by le sonick:
see, jag, us baltimoreons think alike after all!

(the fact that a vote would've been nice!)

have you been reading those ground rent stories in the Sun?

;)

Even when we disagree.

No, don't read The Sun. Well, occassionally. Haven't heard or read anything about it anywhere. What's up? I assume, prices and taxes.

was there any voter backlash against supporters of the smoking ban?

since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.

I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.

To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.

Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.

To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.

Except, I don't think the cruelty factor has a damn thing to do with it. (Unless the ban is more involved than I realised.)

Do gooders love it because it makes them feel oh so self-satisfingly righteous and the politicians love it because they just end up turning it into a tax which pulls in more money.

I'm not really sure how all of this is playing out but it seems that when they have to allow the sale, they'll just tax it. That way, the elite can still have their delicacies while the less well off just settle for liverwurst. Is that really any better for you? Don't know but I doubt it. You still need food though, in some form.

Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.

To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D

Have you ever asked a duck what it thought? He might just prefer to not have to work for it's food. I'm sure most humans would certainly feel that way - that's why the take-out and restaurant business is doing so well.

What is so wrong with being a do gooder? Woudln't the world be a better place with more doo gooders ans less do badders?

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.

To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.

Except, I don't think the cruelty factor has a damn thing to do with it. (Unless the ban is more involved than I realised.)

Do gooders love it because it makes them feel oh so self-satisfingly righteous and the politicians love it because they just end up turning it into a tax which pulls in more money.

I'm not really sure how all of this is playing out but it seems that when they have to allow the sale, they'll just tax it. That way, the elite can still have their delicacies while the less well off just settle for liverwurst. Is that really any better for you? Don't know but I doubt it. You still need food though, in some form.

Assuming that reincarnation is a reality (which I tend to lean towards but can't prove) in my next life, I want to come back as one of those cows in Japan who are raised in a sling and force fed beer and receive massages every day in order to eventually make it as a treat on someone's dinner plate. Again, this is assuming reincarnation is reality. It would be such a nice respit of a life in between the trials and tribulations of human life.

Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
What is so wrong with being a do gooder? Woudln't the world be a better place with more doo gooders ans less do badders?

Anyone have any Preparation-H?

right on!!!!

It's not. I can't prove it, but it's not.

Originally posted by Jaguar:
Assuming that reincarnation is a reality

Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
It's not. I can't prove it, but it's not.

Originally posted by Jaguar:
Assuming that reincarnation is a reality

And what makes you so damned sure?

Look, I'm under no assumption that being killed for another person's meal is a kind and gentle way to go, no matter how the death is implemented. And if I had the choice between being a meal for a shark or not, I'd choose not like every other creature out there.

But there is a vast difference between putting an animal down in order for me to eat and torturing them BEFORE putting them down for me to eat. So what if the overall reason isn't the animal's well-being; they still win out in some regard, don't they?

And I'm with Rhett; what's the harm in not wanting to run some animals through the hell for our enjoyment? If it was taking food out of the mouth of the poor, then I'd find it a bit ridiculous. But for the enjoyment of those that are already well-off? That's a no brainer.

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.

To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.

Except, I don't think the cruelty factor has a damn thing to do with it. (Unless the ban is more involved than I realised.)

Do gooders love it because it makes them feel oh so self-satisfingly righteous and the politicians love it because they just end up turning it into a tax which pulls in more money.

I'm not really sure how all of this is playing out but it seems that when they have to allow the sale, they'll just tax it. That way, the elite can still have their delicacies while the less well off just settle for liverwurst. Is that really any better for you? Don't know but I doubt it. You still need food though, in some form.

Wait a minute. If I'm understanding the ban right, it doesn't have anything to do with the cruelty. I'm not at all arguing with you about that. But isn't their grounds for the ban based on the fats and that's it? Maybe I'm wrong but I've only heard about the human dietary issues. In that case, I think the ban is ridiculous. If it's because of the cruelty factor, well, that's a whole other story that I might go with.

Either way, I think I'm moving to France.
(If only I could!)

there is no evidence that shows foie gras is cruel to the animal. instead, it is another attempt to keep the cute and cuddly animals from being eaten.
food for thought

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
there is no evidence that shows foie gras is cruel to the animal. instead, it is another attempt to keep the cute and cuddly animals from being eaten.
food for thought

You read Men's Vogue?

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
there is no evidence that shows foie gras is cruel to the animal. instead, it is another attempt to keep the cute and cuddly animals from being eaten.
food for thought

You read Men's Vogue?

i had no idea there was a men's vogue. . .got it from egullet.

Yeah, they did a pretty good job of sneaking that logo in there, didn't they? :D

<img src="http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q233/aobehr/vogue.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i had no idea there was a men's vogue. . .got it from egullet.