Are you one of the 59%

[Bill 84 318i]

And why is NPR even going down this road??

Because it's interesting.

Like you said.

[mrsleeve]

touche


but the reasoning could be interesting as well

[nrubenstein]

It depends on the allergens. Nut allergies can be really, really serious - as in getting on a plane where there are nuts provokes a severe reaction. That said, no, I don't support this. In the example of airlines, I would expect them to accomodate allergic travelers - even to the point of offloading nut products for a specific flight, but an outright ban is not justified.

I *do* support smoking bans. Smoking impacts quality of life and health of everyone exposed to it, not just the smoker. And for that matter, smokers should damned well pay more for health insurance.

[nando]

no, because everyone is going to be allergic to one food or another. I know a guy who's allergic to potatos. So, no fries at the airport? right.

how about taking responsibility for yourself?

re: smoking bans. All I can say, is I do not miss the 1990's.

[mrsleeve]

^

This is my point

Smoking bans in PUBLIC Properties Yeah sure, in a PRIVATELY owned Bar or Restaurant or Club ect...... No should be left up too the owner of the establishment

[herbivor]

^ I think the smoking bans are more logical because there are some studies that suggest a link between an increased rate of lung cancer from workers exposed to cigarette smoke on a daily basis.
I'm more impressed with the fact you read and quoted an npr article.

[nando]

^

This is my point

Smoking bans in PUBLIC Properties Yeah sure, in a PRIVATELY owned Bar or Restaurant or Club ect...... No should be left up too the owner of the establishment

what about the workers being exposed to second hand smoke? also, it really sucks to go to a bar/restaurant where there's a smoking section. I always loved that - the imaginary wall that was supposed to keep the smoke out of the non-smoking section? yeah right.

and you can't have it be a choice, because all bars and most restaurants would choose to have smoking, otherwise they couldn't be competitive. We've already tried that and it doesn't work.

Second hand smoke sucks, I don't think the majority of people want to go back to that time. That is also completely different from having a choice to eat peanuts or not on an airplane. you don't get to choose whether somebody's nasty fucking smoke gets blown over to your table.

[mrsleeve]

your points are 100% valid.

And those restaurants that ban it will get your business and from those like you. If there is a demand then there will be a market for it, and if successful then others will follow suit. We were seeing that happening before the GOVT stepped in and decided to protect us from our selves.

[NigelStu]

"A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool" love that quote...

I support smoking bans. Bars are more enjoyable when the only thing masking the view of the girls is the beer goggles.


I do not support food bans of any kind.

Sure, the group is trying to be righteous (in their own minds) in trying to 'save' all the unfortunate people with the allergies. But I think they are doing it wrong.

Instead of spending time/money on finding ways to make life more habitable for those with the allergies (by taking away privileges from everyone - the easy band-aid), they should be concentrating on figuring out WHY the number of people with food allergies are on the rise, how to turn the tables to reduce the % of those allergies in future generations and look to find ways to help those who currently have them.

I feel for those who have food allergies. They don't get to enjoy all the delicious foods I do.

I for one would HATE it if I found out I was allergic to say, wheat, barley, hops, etc.... And making beer illegal just doesn't work.


I can somewhat relate to all of this since I am allergic to oysters, muscles, clams. But I don't see the need to ban the sale of those, I'll just avoid them. Hell, I only found out that I'm allergic because I finally decided to try an oyster. It was gross as hell. I'm glad i have a solid excuse to never eat them again.

[HarryPotter]

Smoking bans are not a bad thing. Sure it's a government run ban hammer. But fuck it's nice to be in a restaurant without the smoke.

Food bans? Now that is just loony. What the hell are you doing reading NPR articles MR.SLEEVE.

[mrsleeve]

What the hell are you doing reading NPR articles MR.SLEEVE.

LOL

you would be surprised where I read articles from ;) I have even been known to read the NYT on occasion.

[u3b3rg33k]

I bring my own peanuts on airplanes and have never been stopped. Honey roasted FTW.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Next up, a poll to see if we should ban opinions, being as they get people all wound up.

Maybe if it happens, or I get lobbyists to start pushing for Opinion Change legislation, I can start a speculation fund selling Opinion Credits to people that use up the amount of government mandated allotted opinions.

[u3b3rg33k]

You'd have to put in a bi-partisan exemption for politicians, or they'd never let it pass.

[Ryan Stewart]

I don't see any mention of government in the article. Jump to conclusions?

I think the conclusion is that 59% of this poll is moronic. Seriously, banning all food allergens? How you dont like chocolate, peanuts (there goes thai food), milk, etc.

Only an idiot would be OK with the ban because they dont understand that people are allergic to staples that exist in every culture.