"SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating at
the supermarket.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan 27, 2004

I coducted a study of the effects of eating food only from American
supermarkets. The piece is intended to reveal the nature of the
problem of obesity in America.

Over the thirty day period my health deteriorated rapidly. My
cholesterol went up by 59 points, I had problems with my vision, I was
depressed and vomiting, I lost confidence in myself, and I considered
becoming a woman.

The documentary reveals the source of the health problems in America:
fatty foods, sugar-rich foods, insufficient vegetables, mentholyptus,
and mints. The result of eating these foods caused my blood pressure
to increase by 14 pounds per square inch. By the third day, the
vomiting I endured was so frequent and spontaneous that people called
me "projectile boy".

I am submitting my 184 minute feature production to the Cannes Film
Festival, in the hopes that it will get noticed big directors like
Steven Speilberg, James Cameron, Raymond Martino, and Nacho Vidal.

Oh by the way, I only ate corned beef, heavy cream, butter, kosher
salt, and sudafed. But it was all purchased from American
supermarkets. I call it "The American Supermarket Diet".



Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds has salads,
parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other stuff I don't know
about because I never eat there myself. (I remember the salads were
actually very good.) You can eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and
end up looking even better than Jared.

mrbog wrote:
>
> "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating at
> the supermarket.
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan 27, 2004
>
> I coducted a study of the effects of eating food only from American
> supermarkets. The piece is intended to reveal the nature of the
> problem of obesity in America.
>
> Over the thirty day period my health deteriorated rapidly. My
> cholesterol went up by 59 points, I had problems with my vision, I was
> depressed and vomiting, I lost confidence in myself, and I considered
> becoming a woman.
>
> The documentary reveals the source of the health problems in America:
> fatty foods, sugar-rich foods, insufficient vegetables, mentholyptus,
> and mints. The result of eating these foods caused my blood pressure
> to increase by 14 pounds per square inch. By the third day, the
> vomiting I endured was so frequent and spontaneous that people called
> me "projectile boy".
>
> I am submitting my 184 minute feature production to the Cannes Film
> Festival, in the hopes that it will get noticed big directors like
> Steven Speilberg, James Cameron, Raymond Martino, and Nacho Vidal.
>
> Oh by the way, I only ate corned beef, heavy cream, butter, kosher
> salt, and sudafed. But it was all purchased from American
> supermarkets. I call it "The American Supermarket Diet".
>
> Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds has salads,
> parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other stuff I don't know
> about because I never eat there myself. (I remember the salads were
> actually very good.) You can eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and
> end up looking even better than Jared.

Patricia Heil wrote:

> mrbog wrote:
>>
>> Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds
>> has salads, parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other
>> stuff I don't know about because I never eat there myself.
>> (I remember the salads were actually very good.) You can
>> eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and end up looking even
>> better than Jared.

Where's the trolling? He's right.

--
-Wayne

The only troll is you, Heil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:06:34 -0500, Patricia Heil >
wrote:

>
>
>mrbog wrote:
>>
>> "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating at
>> the supermarket.
>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan 27, 2004
>>
>> I coducted a study of the effects of eating food only from American
>> supermarkets. The piece is intended to reveal the nature of the
>> problem of obesity in America.
>>
>> Over the thirty day period my health deteriorated rapidly. My
>> cholesterol went up by 59 points, I had problems with my vision, I was
>> depressed and vomiting, I lost confidence in myself, and I considered
>> becoming a woman.
>>
>> The documentary reveals the source of the health problems in America:
>> fatty foods, sugar-rich foods, insufficient vegetables, mentholyptus,
>> and mints. The result of eating these foods caused my blood pressure
>> to increase by 14 pounds per square inch. By the third day, the
>> vomiting I endured was so frequent and spontaneous that people called
>> me "projectile boy".
>>
>> I am submitting my 184 minute feature production to the Cannes Film
>> Festival, in the hopes that it will get noticed big directors like
>> Steven Speilberg, James Cameron, Raymond Martino, and Nacho Vidal.
>>
>> Oh by the way, I only ate corned beef, heavy cream, butter, kosher
>> salt, and sudafed. But it was all purchased from American
>> supermarkets. I call it "The American Supermarket Diet".
>>
>> Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds has salads,
>> parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other stuff I don't know
>> about because I never eat there myself. (I remember the salads were
>> actually very good.) You can eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and
>> end up looking even better than Jared.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
> Patricia Heil wrote:
>
> > mrbog wrote:
> >>
> >> Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds
> >> has salads, parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other
> >> stuff I don't know about because I never eat there myself.
> >> (I remember the salads were actually very good.) You can
> >> eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and end up looking even
> >> better than Jared.
>
> Where's the trolling? He's right.

Actually I never even heard the term "trolling" until now. I just
looked it up at usenet.com. It's where people make posts like
"hitler was right!!" Funny that it's called "trolling"- I mean trolls
are passively evil but doing something like that would is pretty
active...

On 28 Jan 2004 11:49:50 -0800, (mrbog) wrote:


>Actually I never even heard the term "trolling" until now. I just
>looked it up at usenet.com. It's where people make posts like
>"hitler was right!!" Funny that it's called "trolling"- I mean trolls
>are passively evil but doing something like that would is pretty
>active...

Wrong genre. It is a fishing term. To troll is to fish by trailing a
baited line from behind a slow moving boat.

Robert Klute
>
>(mrScumbog) wrote:
>
>>Actually I never even heard the term "trolling" until now. I just
>>looked it up at usenet.com. It's where people make posts like
>>"hitler was right!!" Funny that it's called "trolling"- I mean trolls
>>are passively evil but doing something like that would is pretty
>>active...
>
>Wrong genre. It is a fishing term. To troll is to fish by trailing a
>baited line from behind a slow moving boat.

Yup, and mrScumbog caught your slimey ass... now assume the position... bend
over so I can break your cherry, you dumb newbie ass ****.



---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

On 28 Jan 2004 01:23:03 -0800, (mrbog) wrote:

>Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds has salads,
>parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other stuff I don't know
>about because I never eat there myself. (I remember the salads were
>actually very good.) You can eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and
>end up looking even better than Jared.

i thought the mclean burger was withdrawn due to general cruddiness.

your pal,
blake

mrbog > writes:

> Actually I never even heard the term "trolling" until now.
> I just looked it up at usenet.com. It's where people
> make posts like "hitler was right!!" Funny that it's
> called "trolling"- I mean trolls are passively evil but
> doing something like that would is pretty active...


Wrong metaphor. Trolling is a type of fishing that involves
running a boat at low speed while trailing a baited hook
through the water. In the Usenet sense, trolling means
"fishing" for emotional responses.

Your "mythical beings who live under bridges and waylay
hapless travelers" interpretation is a common misunder-
standing. It's what causes so many people to erroneously
refer to people who troll as "trolls." The correct term
is *troller.* A troll is a provocative article posted by
a troller, just as a hack is an ingenious stunt performed
by a hacker.



Geoff

--
"Jon is absolutely right just be aware that there
is a good Geoff Miller on the net and then there
is this one at sun microsystems in california."
--

On 28 Jan 2004 15:25:39 -0800, (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

>Wrong metaphor. Trolling is a type of fishing that involves
>running a boat at low speed while trailing a baited hook
>through the water. In the Usenet sense, trolling means
>"fishing" for emotional responses.
>
>Your "mythical beings who live under bridges and waylay
>hapless travelers" interpretation is a common misunder-
>standing. It's what causes so many people to erroneously
>refer to people who troll as "trolls." The correct term
>is *troller.* A troll is a provocative article posted by
>a troller, just as a hack is an ingenious stunt performed
>by a hacker.

Whatsamatta Geoff - Lobotomy? Shock treatments? Body snatchers?

-sw

On 28 Jan 2004 11:49:50 -0800, (mrbog) wrote:

>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
>> Patricia Heil wrote:
>>
>> > mrbog wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds
>> >> has salads, parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other
>> >> stuff I don't know about because I never eat there myself.
>> >> (I remember the salads were actually very good.) You can
>> >> eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and end up looking even
>> >> better than Jared.
>>
>> Where's the trolling? He's right.
>
>Actually I never even heard the term "trolling" until now. I just
>looked it up at usenet.com. It's where people make posts like
>"hitler was right!!" Funny that it's called "trolling"- I mean trolls
>are passively evil but doing something like that would is pretty
>active...
Trolling...like troll fishing. Only you "fish" for people to respond
many different ways to amuse yourself. Using the message to lure
people to starting an argument. Noticed there alot of those that love
to get their kicks that way. Waste of talent.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:06:22 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On 28 Jan 2004 01:23:03 -0800, (mrbog) wrote:
>
>>Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds has salads,
>>parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other stuff I don't know
>>about because I never eat there myself. (I remember the salads were
>>actually very good.) You can eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and
>>end up looking even better than Jared.
>
>i thought the mclean burger was withdrawn due to general cruddiness.

The McLean burger was introduced in 1990 and discontinued in 1996, not
because it was "cruddy," but because people didn't go to fast food
outlets for low-fat food. I had one once. I expect the 2/3rds
reduction of fat was that it had no mayonnaise-based sauce or cheese.

Frogleg wrote:

> The McLean burger was introduced in 1990 and discontinued in 1996, not
> because it was "cruddy," but because people didn't go to fast food
> outlets for low-fat food.


And that's why, in spite of what's-his-name's contention that you can
eat a healthy meal at McDonalds, the docu-editorial was valid. People
don't go there to eat that kind of stuff, they go for the burgers and
fries.



Brian Rodenborn

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:05:33 -0600, "Julianne" > wrote:

>I think the film maker putting out 'Supersize Me' at the Canne's film
>festival was actually trying to make a statement about society in general
>and the fact that many people don't really consider the health dangers of
>eating unhealthy everyday. Big Macs and Meatlover's pizza have become an
>every day part of life for many Americans and I think the documentary's
>bizarre experiment was designed to shed light on how we overlook the dangers
>of fast food because it has become so woven into our lifestyle.

It is interesting to contrast what people eat today with what was the norm for
my middle class family growing up: three meals a day, each with a protein, a
veggie and some bread, and a snack before bed. Cake, pie, pizza, and any fast or
restaurant food was a special treat with maybe a monthly appearance.


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

I think the film maker putting out 'Supersize Me' at the Canne's film
festival was actually trying to make a statement about society in general
and the fact that many people don't really consider the health dangers of
eating unhealthy everyday. Big Macs and Meatlover's pizza have become an
every day part of life for many Americans and I think the documentary's
bizarre experiment was designed to shed light on how we overlook the dangers
of fast food because it has become so woven into our lifestyle.

Drunk driving is not new but years ago, it was largely overlooked until
awareness of the dangers became a national passion. Cigarette smoking was
acceptable until public awareness increased about the dangers. Without
spending any tax payer monies or putting anyone at risk but himself, the
film maker is just exposing people who may not spend much time thinking
about what they eat to the dangers of overdoing unhealthy food. I think it
is a great film for kids, especially like my son who can eat anything and
still lose weight. He may not get fat but who knows what his arteries look
like or will look like when he hits middle age.

Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices and
being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you are really
considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a really interesting
documentary.

j

"mrbog" > wrote in message
om...
> "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating at
> the supermarket.
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan 27, 2004
>
> I coducted a study of the effects of eating food only from American
> supermarkets. The piece is intended to reveal the nature of the
> problem of obesity in America.
>
> Over the thirty day period my health deteriorated rapidly. My
> cholesterol went up by 59 points, I had problems with my vision, I was
> depressed and vomiting, I lost confidence in myself, and I considered
> becoming a woman.
>
> The documentary reveals the source of the health problems in America:
> fatty foods, sugar-rich foods, insufficient vegetables, mentholyptus,
> and mints. The result of eating these foods caused my blood pressure
> to increase by 14 pounds per square inch. By the third day, the
> vomiting I endured was so frequent and spontaneous that people called
> me "projectile boy".
>
> I am submitting my 184 minute feature production to the Cannes Film
> Festival, in the hopes that it will get noticed big directors like
> Steven Speilberg, James Cameron, Raymond Martino, and Nacho Vidal.
>
> Oh by the way, I only ate corned beef, heavy cream, butter, kosher
> salt, and sudafed. But it was all purchased from American
> supermarkets. I call it "The American Supermarket Diet".
>
>
>
> Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds has salads,
> parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other stuff I don't know
> about because I never eat there myself. (I remember the salads were
> actually very good.) You can eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and
> end up looking even better than Jared.

"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:05:33 -0600, "Julianne" >
wrote:
> It is interesting to contrast what people eat today with what was the norm
for
> my middle class family growing up: three meals a day, each with a protein,
a
> veggie and some bread, and a snack before bed. Cake, pie, pizza, and any
fast or
> restaurant food was a special treat with maybe a monthly appearance.
>
>
> --
> Scott Johnson
> "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
> why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

You just brought up a point that gets under my skin daily! How were our
Mom's able gain a fundamental understanding of the Zone Diet, the Glycemic
Index and heart healthy eating before the books were even written? As a
whole, society was a lot thinner and I don't remember me or my friends being
hungry all the time. We had less diabetes and fewer heart attacks. Of
course, we had fewer TV channels and internet sites, too. And my Mom wasn't
shy about sending us outdoors to play right up until supper. A bunch of
kids weren't gonna mess up her house and my Dad needed a little quiet before
dinner to relax after his hard day at work.

Ignoramus17478 wrote:
> Here's what led to our current obesity:
>
> 1. Sedentary lifestyle (TV etc)
>
> 2. lack of public transportation

Surplus of private transportation, more like. A real lack would mean you
walked.

> 3. Commercial food that is addictive and empty of nutrients (leading
> to craving more food due to missing those nutrients)

High fructose corn syrup, the Devil's blood. ;-)

> 4. Food has become a good deal cheaper, vs. personal incomes.


I'll note 2 and 4 are good things with negative consequences. 1 also, maybe;
the arguments for unrelenting hard physical labor tend to be made by people who
don't have to do it.

Julianne wrote:
> I think the film maker putting out 'Supersize Me' at the Canne's film
> festival was actually trying to make a statement about society in
> general and the fact that many people don't really consider the
> health dangers of eating unhealthy everyday. Big Macs and
> Meatlover's pizza have become an every day part of life for many
> Americans and I think the documentary's bizarre experiment was
> designed to shed light on how we overlook the dangers of fast food
> because it has become so woven into our lifestyle.
>
> Drunk driving is not new but years ago, it was largely overlooked
> until awareness of the dangers became a national passion. Cigarette
> smoking was acceptable until public awareness increased about the
> dangers. Without spending any tax payer monies or putting anyone at
> risk but himself, the film maker is just exposing people who may not
> spend much time thinking about what they eat to the dangers of
> overdoing unhealthy food. I think it is a great film for kids,
> especially like my son who can eat anything and still lose weight.
> He may not get fat but who knows what his arteries look like or will
> look like when he hits middle age.
>
> Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices
> and being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you
> are really considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a
> really interesting documentary.
>
> j

That already happened here.

Default User > wrote in message >...
>
> And that's why, in spite of what's-his-name's contention that you can
> eat a healthy meal at McDonalds, the docu-editorial was valid. People
> don't go there to eat that kind of stuff, they go for the burgers and
> fries.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Hi, I'm what's-his-name. The fact that people don't go there to eat
healthy food isn't McDonald's fault. You'll "so what, it's a valid
point about american eating habbits". I'll say here's what: McDonald's
stock will undoubtedly drop a bit as a result of this because people
will come away with the impression that "Eating at mcdonalds is
unhealthy". That statement is false. "Eating at mcdonald's" is not
unhealthy, any more or less than eating food from the supermarket is.
If the guy made a valid point, then he did so at one company's
expense. Not at "the fast food industry's expense", but at one,
specific company's expense, more so than the others in the industry.
That's the "unfair" part of "an unfair attack".


------------------------------------------
Signatu
Never buy the services of newsfeed.com. I am a paying customer but
I'm using google to post messages, so that I can avoid their damn
advertisement showing up in every post I make.
------------------------------------------

"Julianne" > wrote in message news:<z3bSb.1806$gl2.1398@lakeread05>...
> Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices and
> being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you are really
> considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a really interesting
> documentary.
>
> j

I am not considering becoming a woman. However, if I had breasts I'd
never have to leave my house.

And btw, to your point- it's not a statement about fast food or eating
habits, in general, it's a statement about/against mcdonalds,
specifically. It's titled "Supersize Me". The guy only ate at
mcdonalds. This is targeted, unfairly so. (Mcdonald's fatty food
isn't even the worst- taco bell is.) I posted all about it here, if
you ca http://tinyurl.com/2kkga

"mrbog" > wrote in message
om...
> "Julianne" > wrote in message
news:<z3bSb.1806$gl2.1398@lakeread05>...
> > Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices
and
> > being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you are
really
> > considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a really interesting
> > documentary.
> >
> > j
>
> I am not considering becoming a woman. However, if I had breasts I'd
> never have to leave my house.
>
> And btw, to your point- it's not a statement about fast food or eating
> habits, in general, it's a statement about/against mcdonalds,
> specifically. It's titled "Supersize Me". The guy only ate at
> mcdonalds. This is targeted, unfairly so. (Mcdonald's fatty food
> isn't even the worst- taco bell is.) I posted all about it here, if
> you ca http://tinyurl.com/2kkga

I hadn't looked at it as an attack against a specific corporation before but
you do have a valid point. I saw McD's as a symbol of American Fast Food
because it is the most popular. I saw it as a statement in general about
our cavalier attitude to fast food. I can see how McDonald's could feel as
though it was a unfair attack when Taco Bell, Burger King, etc. are all
selling these types of food.

Having said that, I will admit that if I were in the food industry, I would
do exactly as these major chains have done. I would offer the food in large
quantities that made me the most money. It is how business works. If I
only offered Tofu and salads, my customers would go elsewhere. I do not
blame the industry. The industry will only change as consumers change. It
is good business sense to 'supersize' as it is generally the fries and soft
drinks that are supersized and these are cheap for the restaurants.

Having said that, a situation arose today where I had to tear out here at
2:00 to complete some business in New Orleans by 4:30. It is an hour from h
ere if traffic is good. It is seldom good and I was in a panic. When I
completed my business, I drove a few miles to access the freeway. The whole
time, I was starving and wanting something to eat. Unless I felt like
taking the time to stop and eat which I didn't want to do, there was little
available. Yes, I could have ordered a salad at McDonald's but eating it at
70 miles an hour is hardly practical. I could have stopped at La Madeline's
for soup and salad but that would have required more time than I had. I am
comfortable eating Arby's home-style sandwiches on wheat bread but there
were no Arby's on my route. Hopefully, the fast food industry will realize
there is a market for convenient healthy food on the run.

j

These discussions always remind me eating at my in-laws'. Breakfast
consists of coffee or tea, some sort of fruit like melon or grapefruit,
white toast (with some texture, better than factory made, not as good as
small bakery) with butter, cold unsweetened cereal in the summer,
oatmeal in the winter with whole milk. Lunch is a few stalks of salad
vegetables like celery and carrots, bread, peanut butter, butter,
cheese, possibly a grilled cheese sandwich and bacon. Dinner is a meat,
usually pork, steamed vegetable with butter, potatoes made a variety of
ways but usually boiled. Ice cream for dessert, always vanilla. The
portions aren't measured, but they're always exactly enough for everyone
to get a small portion with no leftovers.


The food is wholesome, fresh, painfully plain (to me). No one in the
family is on a diet. This is the way they've been eating all their
lives. There are about 7 meals that rotate. No one experiments with a
new recipe. This is the way they learned to eat 70 years ago, and since
they've had no problem with it, they see no reason to change it. When
they eat out for a special occasion, they order very much the same foods
they eat at home (and then complain that it isn't as good).


They're healthy in their 80s, not the least overweight. (All this is
true for my sister-in-law in her late 40s too.) No one eats between
meals. As near as I can tell, that's because they don't want to. It
would just never occur to them to buy popcorn at a movie or an ice cream
when shopping mid-afternoon. Snacks are for children and something
you're expected to grow out of by the time you're 11 or 12 years old. I
don't believe anyone has ever thought about the healthiness or
desireablility of this regime. It is just something they do the way I
don't think about speaking English or reading a novel before I go to
bed. I suppose there are people who speak other languages or have other
habits, but knowing that doesn't mean I have a reason to change. Their
eating habits are like that.


If you told most people today that they were expected to eat 3 plain
meals each day with little variety and no snacks, they'd probably ask
"so I do that for 6 weeks, and then what?" The idea of facing those
plain meals forever would be devestating. (I have trouble with it for
only the 2 weeks each year I visit. I get bored and hungry.)


--Lia

"mrbog" > wrote in message
om...
> "Julianne" > wrote in message
news:<z3bSb.1806$gl2.1398@lakeread05>...
> > Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices
and
> > being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you are
really
> > considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a really interesting
> > documentary.
> >
> > j
>
> I am not considering becoming a woman. However, if I had breasts I'd
> never have to leave my house.
>
> And btw, to your point- it's not a statement about fast food or eating
> habits, in general, it's a statement about/against mcdonalds,
> specifically. It's titled "Supersize Me". The guy only ate at
> mcdonalds. This is targeted, unfairly so. (Mcdonald's fatty food
> isn't even the worst- taco bell is.) I posted all about it here, if
> you ca http://tinyurl.com/2kkga


I never thought I would see the day when McDonald's becomes the baby harp
seal tugging at the public's heartstrings.


Krista

--
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista at stumptuous dot com

"Mistress Krista" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
>
> "mrbog" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Julianne" > wrote in message
> news:<z3bSb.1806$gl2.1398@lakeread05>...
> > > Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices
> and
> > > being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you are
> really
> > > considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a really
interesting
> > > documentary.
> > >
> > > j
> >
> > I am not considering becoming a woman. However, if I had breasts I'd
> > never have to leave my house.
> >
> > And btw, to your point- it's not a statement about fast food or eating
> > habits, in general, it's a statement about/against mcdonalds,
> > specifically. It's titled "Supersize Me". The guy only ate at
> > mcdonalds. This is targeted, unfairly so. (Mcdonald's fatty food
> > isn't even the worst- taco bell is.) I posted all about it here, if
> > you ca http://tinyurl.com/2kkga
>
>
> I never thought I would see the day when McDonald's becomes the baby harp
> seal tugging at the public's heartstrings.
>
>
I can see it now. Gangs of schoolchildren throwing rocks at Ronald McDonald.

Lee Michaels wrote in message ...
>
>"Mistress Krista" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
>>
>> "mrbog" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > "Julianne" > wrote in message
>> news:<z3bSb.1806$gl2.1398@lakeread05>...
>> > > Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices
>> and
>> > > being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you are
>> really
>> > > considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a really
>interesting
>> > > documentary.
>> > >
>> > > j
>> >
>> > I am not considering becoming a woman. However, if I had breasts I'd
>> > never have to leave my house.
>> >
>> > And btw, to your point- it's not a statement about fast food or eating
>> > habits, in general, it's a statement about/against mcdonalds,
>> > specifically. It's titled "Supersize Me". The guy only ate at
>> > mcdonalds. This is targeted, unfairly so. (Mcdonald's fatty food
>> > isn't even the worst- taco bell is.) I posted all about it here, if
>> > you ca http://tinyurl.com/2kkga
>>
>>
>> I never thought I would see the day when McDonald's becomes the baby harp
>> seal tugging at the public's heartstrings.
>>
>>
>I can see it now. Gangs of schoolchildren throwing rocks at Ronald
McDonald.

sounds ok to me.



--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

Hangovers only last a day, but a good drinking story lives on forever....

Lee Michaels wrote:

> "Mistress Krista" > wrote in message
> le.rogers.com...
>
>>"mrbog" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>>>"Julianne" > wrote in message
>>
>>news:<z3bSb.1806$gl2.1398@lakeread05>...
>>
>>>>Your parody, while most amusing, addresses individuals making choices
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>being accountable. Unless, of course, it isn't a parody and you are
>>
>>really
>>
>>>>considering becoming a woman. Now, that would make a really
>
> interesting
>
>>>>documentary.
>>>>
>>>>j
>>>
>>>I am not considering becoming a woman. However, if I had breasts I'd
>>>never have to leave my house.
>>>
>>>And btw, to your point- it's not a statement about fast food or eating
>>>habits, in general, it's a statement about/against mcdonalds,
>>>specifically. It's titled "Supersize Me". The guy only ate at
>>>mcdonalds. This is targeted, unfairly so. (Mcdonald's fatty food
>>>isn't even the worst- taco bell is.) I posted all about it here, if
>>>you ca http://tinyurl.com/2kkga
>>
>>
>>I never thought I would see the day when McDonald's becomes the baby harp
>>seal tugging at the public's heartstrings.
>>
>>
>
> I can see it now. Gangs of schoolchildren throwing rocks at Ronald McDonald.

Hmmmm ... pre-tenderized baby seal burgers ... the next new thing?

Steve Wertz > writes:

> Whatsamatta Geoff - Lobotomy? Shock treatments? Body snatchers?


Excuse me? Do you disagree with my explanation of trolling, or
perhaps object to my presence in one of the above newsgroups?
What, specifically, is your beef?



Geoff

--
"Had Chinese food in Berlin once. An hour later,
I was hungry for power." -- Alan Gore

Julianne > writes:

> Drunk driving is not new but years ago, it was largely overlooked
> until awareness of the dangers became a national passion.

It moved into the public spotlight as part of the Nancy Reagan-
sponsored "Just Say No" moral panic and scolding puritanism of
the time. If you remember the early 80s, the news media were
positively obsessed with fanning the flames of public fear over
two issues: drunk driving and child molestation. Remember the
McMartin Preschool hoax, and more to the point, how long it took
for it to be _exposed_ as one?

(You know what a McMartin Sandwich is, don't you? It's a big
piece of meat between two little buns.)


> Cigarette smoking was acceptable until public awareness increased
> about the dangers.

Correction: it was acceptable until society at large became ****y
enough that people felt at liberty to bitch about things that
they'd accepted for decades. The whole "secondhand smoke" thing
is nothing but a way for people who simply hate the smell of
tobacco to couch their protestations in more compelling terms.
They know that if they simply said, "Ewwww, that smells icky,
please put it out," they be dismissed out of hand.

If cigarette smoke is so toxic that even secondhand exposure
to it is a health hazard, consider the level of concentration
of the smoke that people inhale directly from their cigarettes.
Why, it'd be so insanely toxic that smokers would all drop dead
right where they stood, after a single puff!



Geoff

--
"Had Chinese food in Berlin once. An hour later,
I was hungry for power." -- Alan Gore

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Julianne > writes:
>
> > Drunk driving is not new but years ago, it was largely overlooked
> > until awareness of the dangers became a national passion.
>
> It moved into the public spotlight as part of the Nancy Reagan-
> sponsored "Just Say No" moral panic and scolding puritanism of
> the time. If you remember the early 80s, the news media were
> positively obsessed with fanning the flames of public fear over
> two issues: drunk driving and child molestation. Remember the
> McMartin Preschool hoax, and more to the point, how long it took
> for it to be _exposed_ as one?
>
I agree that the public morality took things to extremes with both drunk
driving and child molestation. What concerns me now is the push to lower
the legal limit from 1.0 to 0.8 for DWI. I'm not saying it is a bad idea
but I have yet to find compelling evidence that accidents happen in the
0.8 - 1.0 range that are directly related to alcohol. As a smallish woman,
I would almost bet that two glasses of wine after work would make me illegal
to drive. On the other hand, everyday I read in the newspaper about people
getting their 4th and 5th DWI. Maybe we should concentrate on the drunk
drivers who cause accidents rather than those who drink responsibly. I
guess MADD controls a lot of votes.

Society in general learned a lot from the McMartin case. While it is true
that children are not inherently dishonest, it is a fact that small children
will try desperately to please adults. They can be led and they are
convicted in their beliefs once they are planted.

Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I lost
two brothers in one night) and child abuse needed to come into public
awareness. Cases like the McMartin case also needed to come out so that we
as a society could see the powers that we invest in Prosecuting Attornies.
There is a sane, in between path to follow and generally speaking, it is the
one that involves an individual doing the right thing vs trying to sway
public opinion.

> (You know what a McMartin Sandwich is, don't you? It's a big
> piece of meat between two little buns.)

Okay, that's gross. Funny, perhaps, Zone Perfect, maybe, but gross.
>
>
> > Cigarette smoking was acceptable until public awareness increased
> > about the dangers.
>
> Correction: it was acceptable until society at large became ****y
> enough that people felt at liberty to bitch about things that
> they'd accepted for decades. The whole "secondhand smoke" thing
> is nothing but a way for people who simply hate the smell of
> tobacco to couch their protestations in more compelling terms.
> They know that if they simply said, "Ewwww, that smells icky,
> please put it out," they be dismissed out of hand.

I am waiting for the end result of this uprising. As someone who enjoys a
ciggarette with wine and beer, it was odd for me to go to California after
they banned smoking in all public places. My pre-dinner cocktail was
without a ciggarette and frankly, because I was in a smoke free environment,
I didn't miss it. I wonder, if in a few years, CA will be able to celebrate
a lower Cancer incidence. If so, it is a good thing. If not, screw it.
>
> If cigarette smoke is so toxic that even secondhand exposure
> to it is a health hazard, consider the level of concentration
> of the smoke that people inhale directly from their cigarettes.
> Why, it'd be so insanely toxic that smokers would all drop dead
> right where they stood, after a single puff!
>
>
You are right in that there are no conclusive studies demonstrating the
effects of second hand smoke on healthy adults. I would be leery about
smoking in the presence of infants who have very soft tracheas and can
easily spasm if presented with noxious stimuli. As far as I am concerned,
seperate seating for smoking and none smoking and adequate ventillation
should be fine for both smokers and non-smokers. If I had an infant, I
might look for a smoke free restaurant but it shouldn't be mandated by some
law.

Awareness is good. Crusades, driven by passion a la Jane Fonda and others
who embrace the cause of the week, are seldom beneficial except on a most
superficial level.

Nice post.

j
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "Had Chinese food in Berlin once. An hour later,
> I was hungry for power." -- Alan Gore
>

Julianne wrote:

> Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I lost
> two brothers in one night)

Julianne, that's horrible! (You said it so flippantly, like you had
brothers to spare, that I almost missed it.) I'm so sorry your family
had to go through this. Was it very long ago?

I lost two cousins to drunk driving when we were children. One was
killed instantly, the other was severely brain-damaged and is still
alive... but the person he was is gone. The drunk-driver, my Aunt's
ex-husband (their father) got a broken knee. Life sucks sometimes.

Dally

Julianne wrote:

> I agree that the public morality took things to extremes with both drunk
> driving and child molestation. What concerns me now is the push to lower
> the legal limit from 1.0 to 0.8 for DWI. I'm not saying it is a bad idea
> but I have yet to find compelling evidence that accidents happen in the
> 0.8 - 1.0 range that are directly related to alcohol.

It's gotten to be too extreme. You're right, if I have 2 glasses of
wine even over say 3 hours, I bet I'm legally drunk now. I promise
I would not be even remotely a danger to any other motorist or
pedestrian. None. Just a criminal.
I
> I guess MADD controls a lot of votes.

And I would be surprised if most MADD members never drove over .08.

> Society in general learned a lot from the McMartin case. While it is true
> that children are not inherently dishonest, it is a fact that small children
> will try desperately to please adults. They can be led and they are
> convicted in their beliefs once they are planted.

That was a terrible thing. And that wasn't the only case, as I'm
sure you know. How many lives ruined by hysterical people.

> Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I lost
> two brothers in one night)

I cannot believe that happened to you, I'm so sorry. Like saying I'm
sorry helps, but, wow.

nancy

Thanks, Wendy. Even though it has been over twenty years, I still
appreciate the kind words of others where my brothers are concerned.

When I was 19, my 17 year old brother and my 21 year old brother died in a
drunk driving accident. There were only the three of use coming up and I
was suddenly left all alone. Because we lived overseas during much of my
teenage years and moved frequently, I was unusually close to my brothers.
It was painful.

About six years after they died, my son was born. He is named Brian Michael
after both of my brothers in the Jewish tradition in naming babies to
perpetuate the dead. It was when Brian was born that real healing began.
As Carl Sandberg said, "A baby is God's opinion that the world should go
on."

It was also after my son was born that I began to have an appreciation for
what my parents went through. They are still so very much in love. Now, I
understand how challenged they were.

Life does suck sometimes. After having been a nurse for so many years, I
can honestly say I would rather lose a loved one to death rather than a
persistive vegetative state like your cousin. And yet, every morning I wake
up with the belief that I can make my life better.

Was it Nietzsche who said, "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger"?

Thank you again for your kind words. No, I do not have brothers to spare.
The hole in my life that my only two siblings left when they died is still
there. I visit with them in my dreams. I see them in my son who is their
namesake although I was adopted and there is no genetic link. It was my big
brother who taught me how to write and my little brother who taught me how
to be social. Both of those lessons keep me afloat today.

I feel good remembering them.

j


"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> Julianne wrote:
>
> > Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I
lost
> > two brothers in one night)
>
> Julianne, that's horrible! (You said it so flippantly, like you had
> brothers to spare, that I almost missed it.) I'm so sorry your family
> had to go through this. Was it very long ago?
>
> I lost two cousins to drunk driving when we were children. One was
> killed instantly, the other was severely brain-damaged and is still
> alive... but the person he was is gone. The drunk-driver, my Aunt's
> ex-husband (their father) got a broken knee. Life sucks sometimes.
>
> Dally
>

(Geoff Miller) wrote in message >...
awareness increased
> If cigarette smoke is so toxic that even secondhand exposure
> to it is a health hazard, consider the level of concentration
> of the smoke that people inhale directly from their cigarettes.
> Why, it'd be so insanely toxic that smokers would all drop dead
> right where they stood, after a single puff!

Musicians often have to play in bars. Bars are (used to be, at the
time you're discussing) very smoky. I mean. VERY SMOKEY. If you're a
jazz musician who doesn't smoke (yes, that exists), you'll have damn
near all the problems of a smoker anyway. I should be allowed to be a
musician without being a smoker. Other people's idiotic addiction
shouldn't be making me a smoker.

You should be allowed suicide too, since life makes you so uncomfortable.

And oh BTW. Get a real job asshole.

--
JC

"mrbog" > wrote in message
om...
> (Geoff Miller) wrote in message
>...
> awareness increased
> > If cigarette smoke is so toxic that even secondhand exposure
> > to it is a health hazard, consider the level of concentration
> > of the smoke that people inhale directly from their cigarettes.
> > Why, it'd be so insanely toxic that smokers would all drop dead
> > right where they stood, after a single puff!
>
> Musicians often have to play in bars. Bars are (used to be, at the
> time you're discussing) very smoky. I mean. VERY SMOKEY. If you're a
> jazz musician who doesn't smoke (yes, that exists), you'll have damn
> near all the problems of a smoker anyway. I should be allowed to be a
> musician without being a smoker. Other people's idiotic addiction
> shouldn't be making me a smoker.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> Julianne wrote:
>
> > I agree that the public morality took things to extremes with both drunk
> > driving and child molestation. What concerns me now is the push to
lower
> > the legal limit from 1.0 to 0.8 for DWI. I'm not saying it is a bad
idea
> > but I have yet to find compelling evidence that accidents happen in the
> > 0.8 - 1.0 range that are directly related to alcohol.
>
> It's gotten to be too extreme. You're right, if I have 2 glasses of
> wine even over say 3 hours, I bet I'm legally drunk now. I promise
> I would not be even remotely a danger to any other motorist or
> pedestrian. None. Just a criminal.
> I
> > I guess MADD controls a lot of votes.
>
> And I would be surprised if most MADD members never drove over .08.
>
> > Society in general learned a lot from the McMartin case. While it is
true
> > that children are not inherently dishonest, it is a fact that small
children
> > will try desperately to please adults. They can be led and they are
> > convicted in their beliefs once they are planted.
>
> That was a terrible thing. And that wasn't the only case, as I'm
> sure you know. How many lives ruined by hysterical people.
>
> > Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I
lost
> > two brothers in one night)
>
> I cannot believe that happened to you, I'm so sorry. Like saying I'm
> sorry helps, but, wow.

Oddly, enough, it does help. Thank you. See my previous post to Wendy.

There are always extremes. As you can imagine, I cannot think of anything
more irresponsible than getting behind the wheel of a car and driving when I
am impaired. It doesn't happen often but occasionally, I have had a few
drinks on an empty stomach and seriously questioned my ability to drive. On
those occasions, I got another ride home. But, like you said, there are
many times when I have probably been 'legally' drunk. My darling BF and I
like to meet at a martini bar occasionally. I will have a couple of glasses
of wine. I would most likely be 'legally' drunk after two glasses of wine.

My original post had to deal with fast food and how it has become such an
intregal part of our society that we seldom think of it as being harmful.
Driving while intoxicated was not a big deal 20 years ago. It was very
important that the general public become educated to the dangers.
Meanwhile, there are the militants who have devoted their lives to a
campaign against drunk driving. Now, that they have a victory, there is
little purpose left in their lives unless they tighten the reins even
further. While their mission may have been truly in the interest of society
when it began, it has evolved into a self serving campaign to justify their
existance. I imagine that when fast food places offer alternative meals in
addition to fat laden, unhealthy choices, the fast food militants will
insist that only food they approve of will be on the menu!

And this is from someone who lost two brothers from drunk driving!

j
>
> nancy

"mrbog" > wrote in message
om...
> (Geoff Miller) wrote in message
>...
> awareness increased
> > If cigarette smoke is so toxic that even secondhand exposure
> > to it is a health hazard, consider the level of concentration
> > of the smoke that people inhale directly from their cigarettes.
> > Why, it'd be so insanely toxic that smokers would all drop dead
> > right where they stood, after a single puff!
>
> Musicians often have to play in bars. Bars are (used to be, at the
> time you're discussing) very smoky. I mean. VERY SMOKEY. If you're a
> jazz musician who doesn't smoke (yes, that exists), you'll have damn
> near all the problems of a smoker anyway. I should be allowed to be a
> musician without being a smoker. Other people's idiotic addiction
> shouldn't be making me a smoker.

As a nurse, I am aware that any clinical position I take has risks. I could
get stuck with an HIV or Hepatitis B infected needle. I could put my back
out trying to move a very large patient. I could suffer psychological
damage if I inadvertently harmed a patient. In my current role as a
consultant, I could cost my clients millions of dollars if I did something
incorrect. There are risks that come with every job.

It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would take
into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.

There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure that
jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to assume
the risk, find another line of work.

j

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:32:07 -0500, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>Julianne wrote:
>
>> I agree that the public morality took things to extremes with both drunk
>> driving and child molestation. What concerns me now is the push to lower
>> the legal limit from 1.0 to 0.8 for DWI. I'm not saying it is a bad idea
>> but I have yet to find compelling evidence that accidents happen in the
>> 0.8 - 1.0 range that are directly related to alcohol.
>
>It's gotten to be too extreme. You're right, if I have 2 glasses of
>wine even over say 3 hours, I bet I'm legally drunk now.

I'll bet you're not. According to a brief Google, a 170lb person would
have to consume 4 drinks in 1 hour; a 137lb(?) person, 3 to reach a
blood alcohol level of .08. Most other countries with DUI laws have
limits between 0.00 and 0.05. A glass of wine with dinner isn't going
to get you in trouble, nor will 2 glasses.

If you've ever seen one of those 'experiments' that usually test
people driving around cones in a parking lot, it is luminously clear
that even someone who *appears* perfectly sober is mildly impared at
fairly low blood-alcohol levels, and positively scary at anything
approaching 0.10.

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/ltgo.../april8_02.htm

"Julianne" > wrote in message news:<XlESb.4014$gl2.1724@lakeread05>...
>
> It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would take
> into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
> greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
> nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
> Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.
>
> There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure that
> jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to assume
> the risk, find another line of work.
>
> j

There is a law that (indirectly) prohibits you from tieing an aids
infected hyperdermic needle (or a chainsaw) to a stick and swinging it
around in a crowded room. If I'm a computer programmer and I work
somewhere where people swing chainsaws around for their own enjoyment,
at my risk, should I just consider that an occupational hazard and
change careers? I don't see how the job of writing computer programs
should require that I learn to dodge chainsaws, and I also don't see
how plying the trumpet should require musicians to risk lung cancer.

Your example falls apart because the dangers of your job are
unavoidable. It's not like the hospital makes a policy that you're
job *should* be dangerous. If anything, they do their best to reduce
your danger as much as reasonably possible. No one in the medical
field stands up and says "No, I think nurses should be MORE at risk,
not less." Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is swinging
hyperdermic needles around. There's law agains one, why not the
other.

"mrbog" > wrote in message
om...
> "Julianne" > wrote in message
news:<XlESb.4014$gl2.1724@lakeread05>...
> >
> > It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would
take
> > into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
> > greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
> > nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
> > Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.
> >
> > There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure
that
> > jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to
assume
> > the risk, find another line of work.
> >
> > j
>
> There is a law that (indirectly) prohibits you from tieing an aids
> infected hyperdermic needle (or a chainsaw) to a stick and swinging it
> around in a crowded room. If I'm a computer programmer and I work
> somewhere where people swing chainsaws around for their own enjoyment,
> at my risk, should I just consider that an occupational hazard and
> change careers? I don't see how the job of writing computer programs
> should require that I learn to dodge chainsaws, and I also don't see
> how plying the trumpet should require musicians to risk lung cancer.
>
> Your example falls apart because the dangers of your job are
> unavoidable. It's not like the hospital makes a policy that you're
> job *should* be dangerous. If anything, they do their best to reduce
> your danger as much as reasonably possible. No one in the medical
> field stands up and says "No, I think nurses should be MORE at risk,
> not less." Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is swinging
> hyperdermic needles around. There's law agains one, why not the
> other.

I do feel for you. Even though I enjoy a smoking on occasion, I am
miserable when I am in a smoke filled room.

There are three very solid positions on this issue. One is that if smoke
makes you miserable, avoid it. Surely, someone who can play trumpet can
also find other work of equal pay.

Another position is that smoking in public places should be banned. This is
a solid argument except I have seen no credible studies that indicate that
second hand smoke is a hazard. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but
with the exception of small children and airline personnel who work on long
distance flights, there is no solid research. Thankfully, infants are not
often brought to jazz bars.

The last position is that smokers should be placed away from those who are
bothered by cigarette or cigar smoke. This might very well include the
band. The smokers would have the choice of abstaining for want of a better
seat or settling for a seat far away from the band.

Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is entertainment and relaxation.
There is no law that says I am entitled to a place where I can relax without
being bothered by the ways of others.

This afternoon, I attended a baby shower. I have severe migraines which are
frequently triggered by strong odors. Even pleasant perfumes have been
known to spark a migraine in me. My friends are most indulgent. There were
many people at this shower that I did not know, One of them wore a strong
perfume. I am less prone to actual migraines after Botox treatment but the
nausea and sensitivity to light was very real. So, should I move to ban
perfumes? Is it my responsibility to handle my insensitivity or should I
demand that others tend to my needs?

j

"Julianne" > wrote in message news:<e2jTb.6757$gl2.3218@lakeread05>...
>
> There are three very solid positions on this issue. One is that if smoke
> makes you miserable, avoid it. Surely, someone who can play trumpet can
> also find other work of equal pay.

But isn't that just as absurd as saying that computer programmers who
don't like getting hit by chainsaws (in my previous example) should
change their profession, rather than making chainsaw swinging illegal?
I'm assuming this is not the stance you're taking of the two.

> second hand smoke is a hazard. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but
> with the exception of small children and airline personnel who work on long
> distance flights, there is no solid research. Thankfully, infants are not
> often brought to jazz bars.

Yea but what about the airline personnel study? Did the study show
that they have negative health effects? You kind of quietly dodged
that there..

> Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is entertainment and relaxation.
> There is no law that says I am entitled to a place where I can relax without
> being bothered by the ways of others.

Well no, but like I said, there is a law that you can't swing
chainsaws around for your entertainment and relaxation. In other
words, you're allowed to enjoy entertainment and relaxation, but not
at the expense of other people's health. You can't shoot skeet in
your backyard, because you might shoot someone, but you can do it
elsewhere where your enjoyment won't hurt me. How is that any
different from smoking?

(And by the way, there actually IS a "law that says I am entitled to a
place where I can relax without being bothered by the ways of others"-
that place is your own home, and there are books full of laws about
not being bothered by others while you're in your own home. I know
that's not our main argument here but your statement was flawed and I
had to point it out.)

> nausea and sensitivity to light was very real. So, should I move to ban
> perfumes? Is it my responsibility to handle my insensitivity or should I
> demand that others tend to my needs?

This is a good one (and btw perfume gives me headaches too!) I guess
in this case, I plead "the majority", which I'm normally sheepish
about doing. Another similar example to yours would be the "boy in
the bubble"- someone with a terribly weak immune system, vulnerable to
even the slightest bit of uncleanliness. I guess the difference
between vulnerability to perfume and smoking is that second hand smoke
(if proven to be dangerous) is likely to be dangerous to just about
everyone, (kind of like swinging a chainsaw around).

So as a rule, I don't think anyone should be allowed to do ANYTHING
that directly endangers "most" types of people in the given area, even
if only moderately. Or at least allowing it should be a special case-
like a free speech rally or something, labelled as such in the laws
(like an amendment), and I can't imagine that you think smoking
tobacco qualifies for that kind of "essential liberty" status. So-
"Don't ride your bike on the sidewalk, Don't store explosives on your
front porch, Don't drive with your headlights off, Don't start a
bonfire in the middle of a thick forest, and why not 'don't smoke or
throw acid in a crowded room'". Seems to me that this is the
foundation of law in general, right?

I guess it depends on the study...