Ravellian,
The comment you had deleted was "plain negligent and inconsiderate", to say the least. As big a problem as obesity is for obese individuals, their problem also stems from an addiction which kills. Consequences of obesity: One, eating behaviour of obese parents tends to be passed down to their children. Two, obesity kills and that affects the people they leave behind. Three, health problems, as direct results of obesity, cost the tax payer (YOU), millions of pounds every year. It may also surprise you that smokers are not responsible (or given a vote) for what manufacturers put into fags and that non-smokers also litter streets with larger articles than fag ash. If you have a problem with smokers who pollute the air you breathe, or scent your clothes, please take it up with them.
Not really; I never wished anything bad upon them, just expressed my indifference if something bad does happen to them. It wasn't going to hurt anyone, unlike cigarette smoke and littered cigarettes. I think that some of you might have been too appalled by it to bother to comprehend my larger point, which has scarcely been argued against.
You don't really understand why I have no problem with the obese. First, I'm from the US, where our healthcare system probably doesn't extend medical treatment as readily to the segment of the population which is most often obese (lower and lower-middle class people), as well as the Western European Nations do. Given politics in the US, I would gladly pay for any medical procedures obese people need - it's a whole lot better than what it usually goes towards (wars, military industrial complex, bailing out the biggest companies in the private sector).
Second, some obese people are probably so because they are too poor to afford healthy food - obesity is pretty much a non-issue in the upper class. I guess you could also make an argument that poor people are so stressed and therefore take up smoking as a way to cope - but it would be a rather weak one, as there are many ways to deal with stress, and only one basic way to give your body fuel.
Thirdly, if obesity is passed down from generation to generation, I wonder how much of that has to do with a genetic predisposition - I would be willing to bet a good portion of it is. Yet another reason to absolve the obese.
And lastly - I guess you're right that obesity does affect other people if an obese parent dies young and leaves their family behind. Oh well - it still matters absolutely nothing to me, because it still has no direct effect on my quality of experience or well-being. While I would very much like a similar quality of experience for the collective, this is peripheral to the main point of contention I have with smokers, whose habit is abrasive to the senses of anyone who crosses its path.
I also have a problem with other litter, but I'd be willing to bet there is a lot of overlap there - since smokers are one of the most inconsiderate segments of the population, and often careless enough to throw their cigarettes on the ground, they probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with other litter as non-smokers.
If I haven't gotten through to some of you yet -
what matters to me isn't the effect that smoking/cigarettes has on smokers, but the unwanted effect it has on the unwitting. I don't care if smokers smoke on their property, provided the fumes don't waft onto other peoples (then it is a problem again). But, as I've said
they often treat shared space as if it is their own ash tray; when perpetrated in public, cigarette smoke ceases to be an individual habit and becomes a collective experience, shared by those of us who are unfortunate enough to occupy the same area, or be walking through it.
My post is a response to Mark's failing to acknowledge that anti-smokers don't always (or don't usually) care about what smokers do to their bodies - it's what they do to us. So the analogy to the obese and fast-food eating was irrelevant.