Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New York food regulations and bans- thoughts?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
    Why do legislatures think that they know what is best for us in the first place?
    Well, actually that's kind of the point of our form of government. We vote for the people we choose to represent our interests in the lawmaking bodies. Obviously, its practice is far from flawless but it's not insane that legislatures would legislate our actions. That's kind of the reason for their existence.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Violette_R View Post
      Well, actually that's kind of the point of our form of government. We vote for the people we choose to represent our interests in the lawmaking bodies. Obviously, its practice is far from flawless but it's not insane that legislatures would legislate our actions. That's kind of the reason for their existence.
      NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!

      Are you telling me that voting for a city council gives them the right to dictate your food choices? Absolutely not!!! All governments are getting out of control, and this is a perfect example of it.

      When we vote for a city government we expect them to provide city services, and write laws relevant to the managing of a CITY, not telling people what they can and can't eat!!!

      Every time they overstep their boundaries, and we accept it, we become a little less free. Like I said, are you prepared to have the soda police at your childrens birthday party?

      Its misguided, unenforecable, and repulsive. It cheapens ALL laws, and eventually leads people to lose respect for the rule of law in general.
      "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

      Comment


      • #18
        The reason we are having this discussion is because government policy has financially supported the increased production in HFCS products and marketing efforts to increase consumption by any number of means. Go ahead and try to argue that it's the right of New Yorkers to consume 128 ounce tubs of soda and big bad government is trying to violate that right.

        The government caused this problem. But you're all okay with that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Mayor McFascist needs to be banned. If people want to murder themselves with HFCS and trans fats, it's their right. I won't touch the junk, but I'm not about to take away someone else's choice to do so.

          Comment


          • #20


            I think it's just another tyrannical move by government and even under the most benevolent intentions would not make the slightest difference.

            Meanwhile...

            Officials: NYC High School Students Entering CUNY Need Remedial Help « CBS New York
            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
              The government caused this problem. But you're all okay with that.
              Kind of foolish to look to the government to remedy a disease it helped create and perpetuates, no?

              It's like going to a surgeon that amputated the wrong limb to do it correctly this time but the surgeon has a track record of almost always getting it wrong even with more than one attempt and unlimited funds thrown at them.
              | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

              “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                I'm all for laws that protect children, because after all, anyone can squirt a baby out and then the child is subject to that person's whims for 18 years. Children, imo, need protection from bad adults.

                However, I have always been against the government telling me what substances I should put in my body. Labeling is fine, and I think we fall short on labeling in this country. But once a person is old enough to vote, serve in the military, sign contracts, etc., the govt should stay the hell out of telling us what we can/can't put into our bodies.

                I feel very strongly that we should have access to healthy foods. I feel just as strongly that we should have access to heroin. (And by inference, anything in between.) And most of all, access to information so that we can make our own decisions.

                Considering that politicians in general are some of the least ethical and moral people on the planet, I find it ludicrous that we should listen to them about any personal decision that helps or harms no one but ourselves.

                If you want to smoke in bars, there are states that still allow it. Apparently, those states still leave it up to the business owners to decide which policy is best for their individual business.

                Well said. I agree.

                Comment


                • #23
                  They have smoking bans where I'm from too, and I'm 100% in favor of them! Those, however, aren't really for the smokers, they're for non-smokers who don't want to have to breathe in second hand smoke in bars and restaurants. Sorry if this offends anyone, it's your decision if you want to smoke, but just be prepared to go outside to do it. And no asking people who don't want to breathe in second hand smoke to go outside isn't just as fair, because a person sitting in a room not smoking isn't exposing those around them to harmful chemicals...same can't be said of a person sitting in a room smoking.

                  The food bans, though, I'm less sure of. On one hand I think it's really effed up how it's so much easier to find crap food than healthy food in restaurants. Many of us have observed that one of the biggest changes you make when going Primal is cooking a lot more, and eating out a lot less. I also don't buy the argument from the food industry that the only reason they sell unhealthy food is because it's what people want. Most people don't even know how much of their food is cooked in soybean oil or that their savory tasting special sauce has as much high fructose corn syrup as a candy bar.
                  However, should the government make it illegal to sell these things? I really don't know.

                  The transfat ban, I've heard, has had collateral damage because meat has naturally occuring fats in the trans form so there's the issue of would it fall under the ban? I'm sure the possibility will make vegetarians happy, though.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Violette_R View Post
                    Well, actually that's kind of the point of our form of government. We vote for the people we choose to represent our interests in the lawmaking bodies. Obviously, its practice is far from flawless but it's not insane that legislatures would legislate our actions. That's kind of the reason for their existence.
                    I was not consulted on this.... how do we change this silly setup then?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Interesting that you can still drink as big a beer as you would like there. My understanding is you can still get all the free refills you'd like, which pretty much defeats the alledged purpose for the most part. That's just another example of ineffective policy--which is pretty much anything government does.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                        I'm all for laws that protect children, because after all, anyone can squirt a baby out and then the child is subject to that person's whims for 18 years. Children, imo, need protection from bad adults.
                        I disagree with this, we need to stop treating children like property.

                        They should not be subject to anyone's whims for 18 years, not to their parents, not to governments.

                        A child isn't born with prejudices, they are taught to them by their elders. A child isn't born apathetic, our public education and culture beat their curiosity out of them. A child may make some stupid choices, but stupid choices are by no means exclusive to young age.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Violette_R View Post
                          Well, actually that's kind of the point of our form of government. We vote for the people we choose to represent our interests in the lawmaking bodies.
                          What about the people who vote against, or the people who don't vote, and the people who can't vote?

                          IMO voting is a criminal act.

                          If you don't like what your neighbor is doing, you can't lock them in your basement, that would be kidnapping.

                          However, if you lobby government to make a law against what your neighbor is doing, they will lock them up for you, and now it is somehow not kidnapping, even if you are basically just delegating the dirty work to law enforcement.

                          I would be surprised if more than 50% of the actual population (not just voters) agreed with the laws that get passed. How can anyone justify such a system when it isn't even what it claims to be?

                          Originally posted by Violette_R View Post
                          Obviously, its practice is far from flawless but it's not insane that legislatures would legislate our actions. That's kind of the reason for their existence.
                          Just because something exists doesn't mean it should. I can think of many things that only exist for nefarious reasons, things designed specifically to torture human beings. The world would be a far better place if these things did not exist.

                          Government is at the top of that list, and by no coincidence, everything else I could list was likely used by governments at some point in history.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by s-piper View Post
                            They have smoking bans where I'm from too, and I'm 100% in favor of them! Those, however, aren't really for the smokers, they're for non-smokers who don't want to have to breathe in second hand smoke in bars and restaurants. Sorry if this offends anyone, it's your decision if you want to smoke, but just be prepared to go outside to do it. And no asking people who don't want to breathe in second hand smoke to go outside isn't just as fair, because a person sitting in a room not smoking isn't exposing those around them to harmful chemicals...same can't be said of a person sitting in a room smoking.

                            The food bans, though, I'm less sure of. On one hand I think it's really effed up how it's so much easier to find crap food than healthy food in restaurants. Many of us have observed that one of the biggest changes you make when going Primal is cooking a lot more, and eating out a lot less. I also don't buy the argument from the food industry that the only reason they sell unhealthy food is because it's what people want. Most people don't even know how much of their food is cooked in soybean oil or that their savory tasting special sauce has as much high fructose corn syrup as a candy bar.
                            However, should the government make it illegal to sell these things? I really don't know.

                            The transfat ban, I've heard, has had collateral damage because meat has naturally occuring fats in the trans form so there's the issue of would it fall under the ban? I'm sure the possibility will make vegetarians happy, though.
                            So, in other words govt intervention is only good if it's intervening the way you want it to. It's like believing in free speech until someone says something you don't like.

                            The problem with the whole cigarette/bar thing is that by making the law, you: 1. screw with business owners who established a way of doing business that now has an illegal component and 2. you admit that apparently non-smokers are too stupid to vote with their wallets and go to voluntarily smoke-free bars.

                            I live in a city where it is legal to smoke in bars. There are plenty of bars that have a no smoking policy either for the entire establishment or the indoor part of it. As more people start going to bars that are smoke free rather than put up with cigarette smokers, more bars will adopt no smoking policies. See? No daddy/nanny/bully necessary - just free choice.
                            "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                            B*tch-lite

                            Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                              So, in other words govt intervention is only good if it's intervening the way you want it to. It's like believing in free speech until someone says something you don't like.

                              The problem with the whole cigarette/bar thing is that by making the law, you: 1. screw with business owners who established a way of doing business that now has an illegal component and 2. you admit that apparently non-smokers are too stupid to vote with their wallets and go to voluntarily smoke-free bars.

                              I live in a city where it is legal to smoke in bars. There are plenty of bars that have a no smoking policy either for the entire establishment or the indoor part of it. As more people start going to bars that are smoke free rather than put up with cigarette smokers, more bars will adopt no smoking policies. See? No daddy/nanny/bully necessary - just free choice.
                              1. Drinking a double big gulp doesn't expose anyone but the drinker to toxic chemicals, smoking exposes everyone in the vacinity. That's the difference.

                              2. It's a huge hardship for a business owner to put up a sign that says "No Smoking"?

                              3. So if a business owner wants to leave out open jars of formaldehyde to repel bugs, customers should just go to a difference business with a safer and more effective pest control plan. No need to consider public health.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by s-piper View Post
                                1. Drinking a double big gulp doesn't expose anyone but the drinker to toxic chemicals, smoking exposes everyone in the vacinity. That's the difference.

                                2. It's a huge hardship for a business owner to put up a sign that says "No Smoking"?

                                3. So if a business owner wants to leave out open jars of formaldehyde to repel bugs, customers should just go to a difference business with a safer and more effective pest control plan. No need to consider public health.
                                1. Could be true, but I don't think that matters in the context of what JoanieL said. Its a choice regardless. It is a choice to be around those smoking or to drink that big gulp. You have made the decision to be in a bar that allows smoking so you are informed of and decide the the risk is worth it TO YOU.

                                2. Of course it is if you cater to smokers. Why should you not be allowed to provide a niche market to those who prefer to smoke. Like has been stated people will vote with their feet if your business model does not fulfill a need. There of course are also bars that will not allow smoking at all. So again the patron and workers have a choice as to which environment they wanna be in.

                                3. Yup.

                                I guess it just really comes down to how much you trust others to make decisions for you. I have much more faith in my own abilities to choose what is good and right for myself than any numbnut passing legislation. But thats just me.
                                Last edited by Neckhammer; 03-09-2013, 09:01 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X