Here's even better perspective: Eating unhealthy food will kill you and engrain bad eating habits in your children. Therefore, make time to cook or teach your children how to. Seems to me life trumps convenience.
when you're living from paycheck, day to day, you think the same way. putting ANY kind of food on the table is a much more important day to day need than eating healthy for lower income people.
Word
I'm all for the ban. It's not like someone can't go to the store and get some. Fill a syring and shoot it in your neck for all I care. O-Dub, Guzzo, Brian, are all pretty on point from where I'm standing. I'll be watching NYC to see how it develops. If anyplace needs this kind of restaraunt ban it's LA.
This thread is a great read. Thanks to Rockadelic for standing up, getting knocked down, and getting back up to get knocked down again. The dialog is forcing people to make some important points.
It would be nice if there were no laws and everything was left to education and personal choice. I would choose to not eat this stuff all the time and get enough fruit and veg to combat the crap in fast food. I would also choose not to kill people or steal their shit or rape etc.
Unfortunately, someone might choose to do any of the above, and this tends not to go down too well, and ends in anarchy or something like the lyrics to "Sign in Stranger". The general public can't be trusted to behave for the benefit of society. Hence laws. These have been around since Moses had his stone tablets and have generally been considered A Good Thing.
I think the ban is a great idea. The food is popular because it's
Everywhere. Relatively cheap. Fast to prepare. No dishes to wash. Hot. And at the end of the day, tasty!
Try finding something healthy that fits the above criteria. Tell me a banana tastes better than a Clownburger. I know this is conditioning, but this is the real world and this is what we are up against. I only eat fruit and veg becuase I know if I lived solely on the produce of The Clown, The King and The Colonel, I would die soon.
I think the general public knows this too, because they have mirrors and know people who are keeling over with heart attacks when they should be living to a ripe old age, but becuase everyone seems to still be eating this shit, it must be OK. So everyone does. Like they waste and don't recycle, because everyone else does, so it must be OK. If no-one is prepared to do anything, the situation will get worse.
The food machine at work is full of crisps (potato chips) and chocolate bars. I asked why they don't provide anything healthy and they sent back a whiney email about storage shelf lives and contamination etc. So they are not prepared to do anything.
Naw man - this just means that restaurants will go back to old natural favorites like lard. Or ghee. Mmmmm...unclarified butter.
actually, ghee is purified butter. just had some on my happily healthy tofurkey day. just sayin.
ghee and clarified/purified butter are similar, but not the same.
purified butter is pure butter fat prepared by slowly heating usual butter. the water content evaporates and the milk solids/proteins contents can be picked up on top and on the ground of the butter fat to separae them from the fat.
ghee is nowadays produced starting with cream, preliminary souring of the cream and then making butter from it. This butter is heated to evaporate the water content and then heated a little more to brown the milk solids to add flavor and generate antioxidant compounds. The brown residue is filtered off and you finally have pure ghee. Compared to clarified butter, ghee has a nutty taste and keeps fresh for a longer time.
And just to add. Poor people don't eat this shit cause it's cheap. They eat it because they are lazy and don't want to spend the time it takes to prepare the shit mixed in with it's cheap.
But anyone that's been into eating healthy and has been poor knows this.
Besides, it's not the transfats that are killing you. It's that some don't understand the definition of the word "Moderation". And most of the population has totally lost the sense of what the term physical activity means.
Like, if you goto Wendy's. You don't need to have a triple burger. And if you do have one. Having it with a diet coke ain't helping any...
And just to add. Poor people don't eat this shit cause it's cheap. They eat it because they are lazy and don't want to spend the time it takes to prepare the shit mixed in with it's cheap.
Do you always oversimplify? This statement, while in some cases may be true, is so off the mark that it mkes me think you really have no idea about raising families in poverty.
And just to add. Poor people don't eat this shit cause it's cheap. They eat it because they are lazy and don't want to spend the time it takes to prepare the shit mixed in with it's cheap.
Do you always oversimplify? This statement, while in some cases may be true, is so off the mark that it mkes me think you really have no idea about raising families in poverty.
Dude.. I've lived poverty most of my whole life. From the day I was born, my single parent mother worked 3 jobs and raised me healthy. It wasn't until I got into the work force and became lazy and had very little time that I started to eat crap most of the time.
You think it's only poor people that eat at these places. It's the same reason you see middle class and even rich fat people. For many many people, they don't want to take the time or effort into making a proper meal.
It's the same reason I pack lunches for work now. Not only is it better for you, but I can't afford it any longer.
For anyone that thinks eating fast food is cheap, is caught up in the marketing hype of these restaurant chains.
I'm for smoking bans for the sake of workers even though I don't like them as a patron. As for this trans fat ban, I used to fry chicken for a living and would gawk at the people lining up to shove this tasty, tasty trash into their faces (some of these folks would ask if they could eat first and pay when they get to the register!), but I figured if they wanted to take down an 8-piece in one sitting and exit Earth in a fat-injected ball of breading, by all means, do what pleases thyself.
what about the health costs related to taking care of these people once all that shit catches up with them?
if folks can't take care of themselves and the end result means I got to pay for their fat asses than I'm glad this move is being made.
I'm inclined to agree. Didn't someone put a post up sometime elsewhere that a large portion of health care costs in America go toward complications from obesity (heart problems, cholesterol, diabetes, etc)?
i understand folks got a right to eat what they want, but when taxpayers are subsidizing their health costs that affects me as well.
I don't know where exactly I stand on this issue. I eat fast food maybe two times a week and even then, it's something like a $2.50 single burger at Wendy's or a couple of soft tacos from Del Taco. Otherwise, I eat the same amount of food at some mom-and-pop corner place (which probably have just as much, if not more in some cases, oily garbage as any mega-corporate chain), something I cooked at home and the occational dinner from my mother. I eat just enough to stave away hunger pains. I drink a LOT of water during the day, but I also drink quite a bit of beer too. I've stopped using tobacco in various forms since that shit makes me queasy as hell, unless it's a blunt wrap or a couple of cigs if I'm at a party or whatever. I pop multi-vitamins, make sure I eat some form of raw vegetables or fruit and I purposely do a lot of walking (as opposed to using the elevator or parking close to a place I need to visit). I'ts once in a blue moon when I would even take a nibble of birthday cake or candy. Not for health reasons but because of the overload of sugar, which just tastes weird. Don't even get me started on how much it pisses me off whenever I'm at someone's b-day and people will hound me to eat something sweet even though I already politely refused. I drink tea instead of Coke or coffee to get focused. I stopped eating those cheap, salty Cup-O-Noodles but replaced it with canned Campbells Chunky Soup deals which are packed with preservatives. So basically, I indulge in the unhealthy and enjoy my youthful metabolism but balance it out by conciously making healthy decisions.
I'm for banning any unneeded crap in food, but education and encouraging people to stop being lazy is a factor, too. I know a couple of people who preach the wonders of vegetarianism/veganism but are pack-a-day people or cannot stop stuffing their faces with chocolate. I work with women who get scared about "carbs", transfat or the whole "cell phones will give you brain cancer!" garbage but aren't scientific people and just go by whatever the news tells them.
why are you throwing cigarettes and red meat into a discussion about the banning of transfats from restaurants?
the issue isn't steak or Newports, the issue is a hardened fat substance with more negatives attributed to it than postiives
PS I'm still waiting for you to tell me a benefit of transfat Guzzo...Cigs and Alcohol were used as "Analogies"...ever hear of that??
And they were damn good analogies as all three are bad for you, have no positive contributions to society, kill people and (I'm gonna love to see one of you argue this) Transfats do the LEAST harm to our society of the three.
The only difference I see is that Tobacco and Alcohol both have BIG Lobbies in D.C. and Transfat doesn't.
I'm NOT for trans fats....got that through your skull....say it one more time..."Rockadelic is not "for" Transfat".
I am for fair and consistant laws across the board.
I am for Government having LESS say about what I can do to myself[/b]
I do not want my Government to tell me what I can drink, smoke, eat or what kind of sex I can have, regardless of whether everyone approves of this behavior or not.
You guys sound like the Religious Right agruing about Gay Anal Sex.....It's a burden to our Health Care system, it kills people, etc., etc.
And finally I can guarantee you this....If I stated ANY of these opinions on Right Wing website I'd be chided for being a bleeding heart, commie pinko fag LIBERAL.
Think about it.
I'm for educating people on the evils of transfats, giving restaurants tax breaks for eliminating them from their menu, building Government sponsored restaurants that offer poverty stricken areas balanced healthy meals.
But passing a law to prevent people from eating a type of food is a slippery slope and one that I have to believe most of you would be against if it were cigarettes, alcohol or possibly even drugs using "THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT".
I am for the total legalization of drugs, so how on earth could I support outlawing a food!!
I am for the total legalization of drugs, so how on earth could I support outlawing a food!!
i am also totally against limiting people's civil rights in any way. in this case, i really don't see any rights being affected. last time i was at a restaurant, the waiter didnt ask me if i'd like my food with trans fat or without.
You are assuming trans-fat has a taste. imo, the equivalent of this law would be if nyc required all restaurants to filter their tap water. if that were the case, and if you were to assume that by filtering the water, it would not lose any minerals, would you object?
this is a safety issue if anything...unless you are arguing that trans-fat has a taste. as far as butter being more expensive, lets see how the restaurants react before we assume that the prices of cheap food will go up. remember, this ban does not effect any packaged foods. so people are still free to stock up on trans fat at the grocery store.
I am for the total legalization of drugs, so how on earth could I support outlawing a food!!
i am also totally against limiting people's civil rights in any way. in this case, i really don't see any rights being affected. last time i was at a restaurant, the waiter didnt ask me if i'd like my food with trans fat or without.
You are assuming trans-fat has a taste. imo, the equivalent of this law would be if nyc required all restaurants to filter their tap water. if that were the case, and if you were to assume that by filtering the water, it would not lose any minerals, would you object?
this is a safety issue if anything...unless you are arguing that trans-fat has a taste. as far as butter being more expensive, lets see how the restaurants react before we assume that the prices of cheap food will go up. remember, this ban does not effect any packaged foods. so people are still free to stock up on trans fat at the grocery store.
I'm nom transfat expert but the story I saw about it last night on the tube did say it "added taste". Can't swear if that's true or not.
NYC was also the leader in banning cigarette smoking in clubs/restaurants.
I find it absurd that if I want to open a restaurant that caters to those who smoke, I can't.
In NYC I can literally have a meeting of NAMBLA in a public place, where they can discuss how to find and molest children, as long as they don't smoke.
I'll agree that transfat is a ridiculous topic to argue, however, in my mind it goes beyond this simple case, it sets precedents that I would be against being used in other areas.
Remember, my original post that started all this unrest was simply.
"I'm against any law designed to protect sane adults from themselves"
I don't see how you can be selective......How can you pick transfats as a problem and ignore the bigger yet similar problems that smoking and drinking create.
why are you throwing cigarettes and red meat into a discussion about the banning of transfats from restaurants?
the issue isn't steak or Newports, the issue is a hardened fat substance with more negatives attributed to it than postiives
PS I'm still waiting for you to tell me a benefit of transfat
Guzzo...Cigs and Alcohol were used as "Analogies"...ever hear of that??
And they were damn good analogies as all three are bad for you, have no positive contributions to society, kill people and (I'm gonna love to see one of you argue this) Transfats do the LEAST harm to our society of the three.
The only difference I see is that Tobacco and Alcohol both have BIG Lobbies in D.C. and Transfat doesn't.
I'm NOT for trans fats....got that through your skull....say it one more time..."Rockadelic is not "for" Transfat".
I am for fair and consistant laws across the board.
Do you think Cigs and Alcohol should be sold to minors?
why are you throwing cigarettes and red meat into a discussion about the banning of transfats from restaurants?
the issue isn't steak or Newports, the issue is a hardened fat substance with more negatives attributed to it than postiives
PS I'm still waiting for you to tell me a benefit of transfat
Guzzo...Cigs and Alcohol were used as "Analogies"...ever hear of that??
And they were damn good analogies as all three are bad for you, have no positive contributions to society, kill people and (I'm gonna love to see one of you argue this) Transfats do the LEAST harm to our society of the three.
The only difference I see is that Tobacco and Alcohol both have BIG Lobbies in D.C. and Transfat doesn't.
I'm NOT for trans fats....got that through your skull....say it one more time..."Rockadelic is not "for" Transfat".
I am for fair and consistant laws across the board.
Do you think Cigs and Alcohol should be sold to minors?
No
And if you read the thread you'll see I said I have no problem making it illegal to serve Transfats to minors
I don't see how you can be selective......How can you pick transfats as a problem and ignore the bigger yet similar problems that smoking and drinking create.
It's kinda hypocritical.
Again, what rights are you talking about? if given the choice, everyone without a death wish would choose to avoid health risks. smoking and drinking create obvious health risks but people also enjoy both of those activities. i dont think this law is hypocritical because people do not have a preference for trans fat. as far as i know, trans fat is used because it is a cheap alternative to natural fats. Not because it makes food taste any better or worse. Butter is certainly not healthy, but i think this law is more for show than it is for effect. NYC promotes healthy eating/living.
The smoking ban is another story. We have one in philly and initially i was against it for the same reasons you are (civil rights). after seeing the effects however, i now think it was a great idea. smoking is a right, but if it infringes on others right i see no problem on limiting it. there are a lot of things i can do in my living room that i can't do in yours....or in your face if we are in a public place.
I don't see how you can be selective......How can you pick transfats as a problem and ignore the bigger yet similar problems that smoking and drinking create.
It's kinda hypocritical.
Again, what rights are you talking about? if given the choice, everyone without a death wish would choose to avoid health risks. smoking and drinking create obvious health risks but people also enjoy both of those activities. i dont think this law is hypocritical because people do not have a preference for trans fat. as far as i know, trans fat is used because it is a cheap alternative to natural fats. Not because it makes food taste any better or worse. Butter is certainly not healthy, but i think this law is more for show than it is for effect. NYC promotes healthy eating/living.
The smoking ban is another story. We have one in philly and initially i was against it for the same reasons you are (civil rights). after seeing the effects however, i now think it was a great idea. smoking is a right, but if it infringes on others right i see no problem on limiting it. there are a lot of things i can do in my living room that i can't do in yours....or in your face if we are in a public place.
I have no problem banning smoking around others who don't want to inhale second hand smoke. But to say I can't open a "Smoking Only" restaurant, where every adult there, is there by choice, is not a good thing imo.
And you're right....this Transfat law is for show....to test yet another step towards government control.
Do you really want a Government who decides, via test cases, that it's a lot easier and cheaper to just outlaw things as opposed to educating their citizens about the possible dangers of such things.
Killing yourself is OK, as long as you get some enjoyment out of it like drinking and smoking, the problem is Transfat gives no one pleasure???
Your water/filter analogy was good.....but I have to say that I want the burden of providing clean, safe and healthy drinking water on the Government, NOT a restaurant owner. The city can't provide safe water so the burden is on a Restaurant....and they can be held liable....what a crock.
I have no problem banning smoking around others who don't want to inhale second hand smoke. But to say I can't open a "Smoking Only" restaurant, where every adult there, is there by choice, is not a good thing imo.
I agree....and I am sure the lawmakers agree with you too. However, in practice, if NYC were to allow "smoking only" restaurants or even if they left it up to restaurants to say whether they could have the traditional smoking and non-smoking sections...the law would do more harm than good. Restaurants care about making money and there would be a constant survey of the economic benefits of doing one or the other. Places would switch back and forth according to what was popular. Moreover, non-smokers would have it worse than before in situations where they had no choice but to accompany others to "smoking only" places. And I assume by "smoking only" you don't mean that nonsmokers would be required to light up in order to get in. That is a whole other problem.
I have no problem banning smoking around others who don't want to inhale second hand smoke. But to say I can't open a "Smoking Only" restaurant, where every adult there, is there by choice, is not a good thing imo.
I agree....and I am sure the lawmakers agree with you too. However, in practice, if NYC were to allow "smoking only" restaurants or even if they left it up to restaurants to say whether they could have the traditional smoking and non-smoking sections...the law would do more harm than good. Restaurants care about making money and there would be a constant survey of the economic benefits of doing one or the other. Places would switch back and forth according to what was popular. Moreover, non-smokers would have it worse than before in situations where they had no choice but to accompany others to "smoking only" places. And I assume by "smoking only" you don't mean that nonsmokers would be required to light up in order to get in. That is a whole other problem.
No what I mean is a club for people who prefer to smoke.....c'mon...forcing someone to smoke!!!
If a restaurant owner wants to lose all the non-smoking business and cater to those who do smoke, it should be his right....I believe in giving people choices, even if some of them aren't the safest choice in the world. As long as it doesn't harm anyone but themselves and they are of legal age...I can't see a good argument against that.
I don't know why you people are still arguing about this.
People will eat the fast food without transfats, it will be slightly if at all better for them, the companies will continue to make money, what exactly is the issue here?
O-Dub and co[/b] are just happy this law was passed
Rockadelic and co[/b] see this as an infringement on their right to eat transfats in restaurants. Big Brother is forcing them to have to eat hardened fat in such a way that a paid employee will not serve it to them
O-Dub and co[/b] are just happy this law was passed
Rockadelic and co[/b] see this as an infringement on their right to eat transfats in restaurants. Big Brother is forcing them to have to eat hardened fat in such a way that a paid employee will not serve it to them
it's the end of the world as we know it
Is there a black market trade in transfats? If so, I want in.
I mean shit, I got used records and dope. What else can I wash this money in?
Comments
Word
I'm all for the ban. It's not like someone can't go to the store and get some. Fill a syring and shoot it in your neck for all I care. O-Dub, Guzzo, Brian, are all pretty on point from where I'm standing. I'll be watching NYC to see how it develops. If anyplace needs this kind of restaraunt ban it's LA.
This thread is a great read. Thanks to Rockadelic for standing up, getting knocked down, and getting back up to get knocked down again.
Unfortunately, someone might choose to do any of the above, and this tends not to go down too well, and ends in anarchy or something like the lyrics to "Sign in Stranger". The general public can't be trusted to behave for the benefit of society. Hence laws. These have been around since Moses had his stone tablets and have generally been considered A Good Thing.
I think the ban is a great idea. The food is popular because it's
Everywhere.
Relatively cheap.
Fast to prepare.
No dishes to wash.
Hot.
And at the end of the day, tasty!
Try finding something healthy that fits the above criteria. Tell me a banana tastes better than a Clownburger. I know this is conditioning, but this is the real world and this is what we are up against. I only eat fruit and veg becuase I know if I lived solely on the produce of The Clown, The King and The Colonel, I would die soon.
I think the general public knows this too, because they have mirrors and know people who are keeling over with heart attacks when they should be living to a ripe old age, but becuase everyone seems to still be eating this shit, it must be OK. So everyone does. Like they waste and don't recycle, because everyone else does, so it must be OK. If no-one is prepared to do anything, the situation will get worse.
The food machine at work is full of crisps (potato chips) and chocolate bars. I asked why they don't provide anything healthy and they sent back a whiney email about storage shelf lives and contamination etc. So they are not prepared to do anything.
Yay for this law.
ghee and clarified/purified butter are similar, but not the same.
purified butter is pure butter fat prepared by slowly heating usual butter. the water content evaporates and the milk solids/proteins contents can be picked up on top and on the ground of the butter fat to separae them from the fat.
ghee is nowadays produced starting with cream, preliminary souring of the cream and then making butter from it. This butter is heated to evaporate the water content and then heated a little more to brown the milk solids to add flavor and generate antioxidant compounds. The brown residue is filtered off and you finally have pure ghee. Compared to clarified butter, ghee has a nutty taste and keeps fresh for a longer time.
None of you will ever get the minutes of your life back you wasted on this thread.
Where's Cashless when you need him?
"PLEASE
STOP"
RECORD DAY NOW
RIP SOULSTRUT
LOL SAYING
I mean, that shit works soooo well on cigarette boxes.
But anyone that's been into eating healthy and has been poor knows this.
Besides, it's not the transfats that are killing you. It's that some don't understand the definition of the word "Moderation". And most of the population has totally lost the sense of what the term physical activity means.
Like, if you goto Wendy's. You don't need to have a triple burger. And if you do have one. Having it with a diet coke ain't helping any...
Do you always oversimplify? This statement, while in some cases may be true, is so off the mark that it mkes me think you really have no idea about raising families in poverty.
Dude.. I've lived poverty most of my whole life. From the day I was born, my single parent mother worked 3 jobs and raised me healthy. It wasn't until I got into the work force and became lazy and had very little time that I started to eat crap most of the time.
You think it's only poor people that eat at these places. It's the same reason you see middle class and even rich fat people. For many many people, they don't want to take the time or effort into making a proper meal.
It's the same reason I pack lunches for work now. Not only is it better for you, but I can't afford it any longer.
For anyone that thinks eating fast food is cheap, is caught up in the marketing hype of these restaurant chains.
I'm inclined to agree. Didn't someone put a post up sometime elsewhere that a large portion of health care costs in America go toward complications from obesity (heart problems, cholesterol, diabetes, etc)?
i understand folks got a right to eat what they want, but when taxpayers are subsidizing their health costs that affects me as well.
I'm for banning any unneeded crap in food, but education and encouraging people to stop being lazy is a factor, too. I know a couple of people who preach the wonders of vegetarianism/veganism but are pack-a-day people or cannot stop stuffing their faces with chocolate. I work with women who get scared about "carbs", transfat or the whole "cell phones will give you brain cancer!" garbage but aren't scientific people and just go by whatever the news tells them.
What was my point, again?
the issue isn't steak or Newports, the issue is a hardened fat substance with more negatives attributed to it than postiives
PS I'm still waiting for you to tell me a benefit of transfat
Guzzo...Cigs and Alcohol were used as "Analogies"...ever hear of that??
And they were damn good analogies as all three are bad for you, have no positive contributions to society, kill people and (I'm gonna love to see one of you argue this) Transfats do the LEAST harm to our society of the three.
The only difference I see is that Tobacco and Alcohol both have BIG Lobbies in D.C. and Transfat doesn't.
I'm NOT for trans fats....got that through your skull....say it one more time..."Rockadelic is not "for" Transfat".
I am for fair and consistant laws across the board.
I am for Government having LESS say about what I can do to myself[/b]
I do not want my Government to tell me what I can drink, smoke, eat or what kind of sex I can have, regardless of whether everyone approves of this behavior or not.
You guys sound like the Religious Right agruing about Gay Anal Sex.....It's a burden to our Health Care system, it kills people, etc., etc.
And finally I can guarantee you this....If I stated ANY of these opinions on Right Wing website I'd be chided for being a bleeding heart, commie pinko fag LIBERAL.
Think about it.
I'm for educating people on the evils of transfats, giving restaurants tax breaks for eliminating them from their menu, building Government sponsored restaurants that offer poverty stricken areas balanced healthy meals.
But passing a law to prevent people from eating a type of food is a slippery slope and one that I have to believe most of you would be against if it were cigarettes, alcohol or possibly even drugs using "THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT".
I am for the total legalization of drugs, so how on earth could I support outlawing a food!!
i am also totally against limiting people's civil rights in any way. in this case, i really don't see any rights being affected. last time i was at a restaurant, the waiter didnt ask me if i'd like my food with trans fat or without.
You are assuming trans-fat has a taste. imo, the equivalent of this law would be if nyc required all restaurants to filter their tap water. if that were the case, and if you were to assume that by filtering the water, it would not lose any minerals, would you object?
this is a safety issue if anything...unless you are arguing that trans-fat has a taste. as far as butter being more expensive, lets see how the restaurants react before we assume that the prices of cheap food will go up. remember, this ban does not effect any packaged foods. so people are still free to stock up on trans fat at the grocery store.
I'm nom transfat expert but the story I saw about it last night on the tube did say it "added taste". Can't swear if that's true or not.
NYC was also the leader in banning cigarette smoking in clubs/restaurants.
I find it absurd that if I want to open a restaurant that caters to those who smoke, I can't.
In NYC I can literally have a meeting of NAMBLA in a public place, where they can discuss how to find and molest children, as long as they don't smoke.
I'll agree that transfat is a ridiculous topic to argue, however, in my mind it goes beyond this simple case, it sets precedents that I would be against being used in other areas.
Remember, my original post that started all this unrest was simply.
"I'm against any law designed to protect sane adults from themselves"
I don't see how you can be selective......How can you pick transfats as a problem and ignore the bigger yet similar problems that smoking and drinking create.
It's kinda hypocritical.
No
And if you read the thread you'll see I said I have no problem making it illegal to serve Transfats to minors
Again, what rights are you talking about? if given the choice, everyone without a death wish would choose to avoid health risks. smoking and drinking create obvious health risks but people also enjoy both of those activities. i dont think this law is hypocritical because people do not have a preference for trans fat. as far as i know, trans fat is used because it is a cheap alternative to natural fats. Not because it makes food taste any better or worse. Butter is certainly not healthy, but i think this law is more for show than it is for effect. NYC promotes healthy eating/living.
The smoking ban is another story. We have one in philly and initially i was against it for the same reasons you are (civil rights). after seeing the effects however, i now think it was a great idea. smoking is a right, but if it infringes on others right i see no problem on limiting it. there are a lot of things i can do in my living room that i can't do in yours....or in your face if we are in a public place.
I have no problem banning smoking around others who don't want to inhale second hand smoke. But to say I can't open a "Smoking Only" restaurant, where every adult there, is there by choice, is not a good thing imo.
And you're right....this Transfat law is for show....to test yet another step towards government control.
Do you really want a Government who decides, via test cases, that it's a lot easier and cheaper to just outlaw things as opposed to educating their citizens about the possible dangers of such things.
Killing yourself is OK, as long as you get some enjoyment out of it like drinking and smoking, the problem is Transfat gives no one pleasure???
Your water/filter analogy was good.....but I have to say that I want the burden of providing clean, safe and healthy drinking water on the Government, NOT a restaurant owner. The city can't provide safe water so the burden is on a Restaurant....and they can be held liable....what a crock.
I posted that yesterday.....I couldn't care less what you do and don't believe.
I agree....and I am sure the lawmakers agree with you too. However, in practice, if NYC were to allow "smoking only" restaurants or even if they left it up to restaurants to say whether they could have the traditional smoking and non-smoking sections...the law would do more harm than good. Restaurants care about making money and there would be a constant survey of the economic benefits of doing one or the other. Places would switch back and forth according to what was popular. Moreover, non-smokers would have it worse than before in situations where they had no choice but to accompany others to "smoking only" places. And I assume by "smoking only" you don't mean that nonsmokers would be required to light up in order to get in. That is a whole other problem.
man, fuck a duck...and a goose too. mmm...forcefed duck livers are delicious.
No what I mean is a club for people who prefer to smoke.....c'mon...forcing someone to smoke!!!
If a restaurant owner wants to lose all the non-smoking business and cater to those who do smoke, it should be his right....I believe in giving people choices, even if some of them aren't the safest choice in the world. As long as it doesn't harm anyone but themselves and they are of legal age...I can't see a good argument against that.
they exist and have not been banned- "cigar bars".
I don't know why you people are still arguing about this.
People will eat the fast food without transfats, it will be slightly if at all better for them, the companies will continue to make money, what exactly is the issue here?
O-Dub and co[/b] are just happy this law was passed
Rockadelic and co[/b] see this as an infringement on their right to eat transfats in restaurants. Big Brother is forcing them to have to eat hardened fat in such a way that a paid employee will not serve it to them
it's the end of the world as we know it
Is there a black market trade in transfats? If so, I want in.
I mean shit, I got used records and dope. What else can I wash this money in?