New York food regulations and bans- thoughts? page 4

[JoanieL]

Thanks Neckhammer, that saved me a lot of typing.

Also, passing laws like that don't always work anyway. A long time ago (and maybe some still exist), there were "blue laws," that disallowed retailers from being open on Sunday. Want to guess what retailers who knew that Sundays were very profitable for them did? They paid the fine every Sunday. When I worked at what was Philip Morris for a short time (temp job), they allowed smoking in the building. My understanding was that they paid the fine to do that. Philip Morris is now Altria, and instead of having its headquarters in NYC, it is located in Virginia. When a state makes laws that make it hard to do business, the business will find a state more friendly.

And while I can't prove it, this kind of legislating is merely smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that most legislators aren't getting a damned thing important done. So these divisive little issues get blown up, and the crumb snatchers think they've scored a victory when there are still potholes in the roads, public schools are all but gone, people in their twenties getting out of college with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and few job opportunities, one in four children going to bed hungry... the list goes on. But yeah, waste resources on a problem that can be fixed just by letting the consumer act the way consumers act.

[Damiana]

I'm not sure about this actually. I do like it when certain health laws get enforced, like the no smoking in a public establishment, so even if I'm against the sugary drink enforcement I'd still feel like a hypocrite.

[SouthBeachPrimal]

I'm not sure about this actually. I do like it when certain health laws get enforced, like the no smoking in a public establishment, so even if I'm against the sugary drink enforcement I'd still feel like a hypocrite.

Yeah, I think the fundamental question you have to settle in your mind first who owns your body. If you believe you have complete ownership of your body, then you and only you can decide what you do or do not choose to put inside of it. Only you can determine what you allow or don't allow in to your house or business. Only you can decide what you do or don't feed your children. If you believe in self ownership, then you can't support any of these types of laws without being a hypocrite. But if you believe that government has the first claim on your body, and that self ownership exists only to the degree government grants it, then any and all food bans are philosophically sound. Government has the right to ban smoking, Big Gulps, butter, or even breast feeding if they so choose, and you don't really have any right to complain. You have to deal with the question of self ownership first, and then the answer to every other question flows from that.

[Mr. Anthony]

As much as I think crappy soda and fast food are a huge contributor to the general decline of health in our country, it is NOT the job of the government to make it unavailable.

[j3nn]

Yeah, I think the fundamental question you have to settle in your mind first who owns your body. If you believe you have complete ownership of your body, then you and only you can decide what you do or do not choose to put inside of it. Only you can determine what you allow or don't allow in to your house or business. Only you can decide what you do or don't feed your children. If you believe in self ownership, then you can't support any of these types of laws without being a hypocrite. But if you believe that government has the first claim on your body, and that self ownership exists only to the degree government grants it, then any and all food bans are philosophically sound. Government has the right to ban smoking, Big Gulps, butter, or even breast feeding if they so choose, and you don't really have any right to complain. You have to deal with the question of self ownership first, and then the answer to every other question flows from that.

Well said!

[Kata]

I'm not sure about this actually. I do like it when certain health laws get enforced, like the no smoking in a public establishment, so even if I'm against the sugary drink enforcement I'd still feel like a hypocrite.

Those are two very different things. If you consume a sugar drink, the only person you're hurting is yourself. If you smoke in a restaurant, you're hurting other people.

[serenity]

And whose freedom is it we're talking about? Is it the "freedom" to buy a product that wouldn't even exist were it not for corporations trying to increase sales of their products to existing customers, who are already for the most part consuming too much of them? Or is it the "freedom" of such corporations to create such products and market them hard to consumers who are now being told that buying them is the American way by political groups funded by fast food and junk food corporations?

It is neither of those. It is freedom from government intervention in private life. It is the freedom from having a government that forces you to pay taxes and then uses the tax money it has extorted from you to do something as inane and pointless as banning 32 oz soft drinks. It is freedom from being treated like a child who cannot make his own decisions about what to consume. It is freedom from government regulation.

I am not interested in helping multinational corporations do anything, but you have to realize that the U.S. government has done more to promote unhealthy dietary choices than any other entity. Wonder why high-fructose corn syrup is only used in the U.S.? Sugar quotas and corn subsidies. Wonder why CAFO meats are cheaper than meats produced by smaller farms that pasture their animals? Again, government subsidies. See, for example, this: Frankenfoods, the Fraudulent Food Pyramid and Other Folderol by Ilana Mercer

This is just another example of government intervention screwing things up, which then leads to more (ineffective) government intervention to fix the problem that the government created in the first place. The end result is that the problem remains, nothing changes, except for another incremental expansion in the role of government. (Okay, before you yell at me, I admit that the government did not single-handedly "create" the obesity epidemic or whatever. Obviously, industrial farmers, corporations, and other interest groups, such as the powerful corn lobby, also played a role. There are other factors as well, such as the fact that evolutionary pressures no longer function properly in modern society. But my point is that the government definitely played a significant contributory role in causing the problem it is now attempting to solve with completely ineffective means.)

[JoanieL]

Those are two very different things. If you consume a sugar drink, the only person you're hurting is yourself. If you smoke in a restaurant, you're hurting other people.

And if a non-smoker spends his/her money at an indoor establishment that allows smoking, who's the dumb ass?

It's sad to see so many people who rely on the government to get what they want. Reminds of the two year old who keeps screaming 'til Mommy caves. For a community that cries out because raw milk is illegal in a lot of states, and because some public schools insist that snacks contain a whole grain, this boggles the mind.

[Kata]

And if a non-smoker spends his/her money at an indoor establishment that allows smoking, who's the dumb ass?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I guess it depends on how offended the non-smoker gets over cigarette smoke. I don't smoke, but I don't get my panties in a bunch when I go to a bar that allows smoking, because I'm going there of my own volition and I know what I'm getting into. That doesn't mean it's cool to smoke on the subway or in the grocery store.

[bob loblaw]

Just remember, our government has been telling us to eat less meat and more grains. They feed our kids chocolate milk, waffles w/syrup, and pudding for breakfast in schools. (Seriously, I've seen it with my own eyes.)

So, sure, since very few on this forum drink soda, we might turn a blind eye when they take that away. What happens when they ban or tax red meat? Dark meat chicken? Bacon? Whole milk and whole yogurt? What about when the government decides to ban coconut oil because it's high in saturated fat?

It's either freedom for all or freedom for none. You've got to take the good with the bad, or you'll end up with just bad.