Originally Posted by dteowner
Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of air that can be accessed by potential second-hand smoke lung cancer victims (it's key to realise that lung cancer victims are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they breath enough smoke to get cancer) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of food available to potential overeaters (it's key to realise that overeaters are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they'll start overeating) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

I can do this all day long.

You can do what? Not use your brain and not make an effort to create a compelling argument?

That's impressive.

First case makes even less sense (amount of air?!?!) - and the second case will not harm other people, but I'm more than willing to reduce access to unhealthy foods - and have a good look at the causes behind overeating.