NYC Bans Trans Fats At Restaurants

[a6m5]

I'll be happy to discuss those subjects with you and how the government chips away at our rights slowly in many areas.

I don't know how far it will go, since I think that part's been already established, since there must be million regulations set in place, robbing our rights, depending on your view. What do you think about a discussion along the lines of "pros and cons of government regulations"?

Some laws/regulations might seem a necessary, or reasonable compromise. Which ones were put in play by the voters, and which were something that government decided on our behalf? I don't know, but I think it would be an interesting discussion.

 

[a6m5]

Sorry for double post.

You're killing me smalls! - From the Sandlot.

http://images.google.com/images?sou...-8&q=smalls sandlot&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

This is what came up under "smalls sandlot". I hope you meant that Trans Am. I like Trans Ams.......

This discussion has not outgrown the thread. If you acknowledge the fact that the ideology behind the law is what the problem is.

You're right. My argument has outgrown this thread. Whatever that means.

Case closed. Good night!.................. j/k

What is the ideology behing this law? Safety? Health risk prevention?

Ok, here's a simple question. Does the NYC banning trans fats in restaurants limit personal choice?

Yes. But to most people, in a very minute way. If trans fats are making people sick, killing them. And if there are other oils that can substitute without affecting the taste, or the price, I don't think the ban is a big deal.

See, we aren't going anywhere with this! Please don't reply. I am begging you. We are beating a horse that died pages ago. Still think we haven't "outgrown" this thread?

 

[Zrow]

Your right, it's not a "big" deal. But it is another law limiting our personal freedom, however small, and it won't be the last of them.

 

[a6m5]

Your right, it's not a "big" deal. But it is another law limiting our personal freedom, however small, and it won't be the last of them.

For the millionth time, I understand. But our society is made up of laws and regulations. Do we keep the laws and regulations that we have now, and don't add anything new? Or should we just do away with them, completely. If we are going to pick and choose, who should decided which regulations are good, which are not.

This is a much bigger discussion than the one on trans fats ban.

 

[Zrow]

Well I mean the whole point of this thread is that "bigger discussion" - we're not sitting here debating the pros and cons of trans fats.

Laws are bad if they're passed to needlessly protect people from themselves. This law isn't protecting people from KFC selling it to them - it's protecting people from making the decision to buy it. Why should the government be able to do that?


EDIT:
And how many laws can be passed like this before it stops being "no big deal"? It's not WHAT they regulated, it's WHY.

 

[a6m5]

Well I mean the whole point of this thread is that "bigger discussion" - we're not sitting here debating the pros and cons of trans fats.

I just looked at the first post again, and it looks like it has a lot to do with trans fats, but whatever.

Laws are bad if they're passed to needlessly protect people from themselves. This law isn't protecting people from KFC selling it to them - it's protecting people from making the decision to buy it. Why should the government be able to do that?

Fair enough. Sounds like you'd agree with my suggestion on mandatory label/sign warning about items containing trans fat then?

 

[Zrow]

I just looked at the first post again, and it looks like it has a lot to do with trans fats, but whatever.

Okay, word for word it's about trans fats, but the point of debate are the principles behind it.

Fair enough. Sounds like you'd agree with my suggestion on mandatory label/sign warning about items containing trans fat then?

Why? Trans fats aren't poisonous, they're just bad for you.

 

[a6m5]

Okay, word for word it's about trans fats, but the point of debate are the principles behind it.

OK.

Why? Trans fats aren't poisonous, they're just bad for you.

"Bad for you" I guess is one way to put it. I know that they are not poisonous, but as I've admitted earlier in this thread, I am no expert on trans fats, and am basing my argument on the pretense that trans fats pose serious enough health risk.

 

[Swift]

"Bad for you" I guess is one way to put it. I know that they are not poisonous, but as I've admitted earlier in this thread, I am no expert on trans fats, and am basing my argument on the pretense that trans fats pose serious enough health risk.

Serious enough? What is the limit or where do you personally draw the line at what is serious and what isn't?

 

[Danoff]

I don't know how far it will go, since I think that part's been already established, since there must be million regulations set in place, robbing our rights, depending on your view. What do you think about a discussion along the lines of "pros and cons of government regulations"?

I think we can use trans fat as an excellent example of that kind of regulation, and we can debate whether trans fat should be regulated right here in this thread.

No, I do not think it should be regulated. It's not anywhere near dangerous enough to be considered criminal, and there are many other substances that are unhealthy that people love to eat. The proper role is to allow the market to sort things out. If people care enough about trans fats in their food, restaurants will start to remove them voluntarily so as not to lose business.... and guess what, they already have started.

But until people care enough about this issue to stop eating out at certain places, it doesn't even begin to be serious enough to warrant a law.

Some laws/regulations might seem a necessary, or reasonable compromise. Which ones were put in play by the voters, and which were something that government decided on our behalf? I don't know, but I think it would be an interesting discussion.

If we don't already have a thread on that we should start one. In terms of the discussion at hand, I would say that this law is not necessary and not a reasonable compromise (as it isn't a compromise at all). It wasn't put into play by voters (almost no law is), but it wasn't decided by people who don't answer to voters either.

Civil government is about protecting the rights of its citizens. In order to suggest that the government has a necessary and proper role in this area you'd have to make the case that people have a fundamental right not to have trans fat offered to them for consumption.... and that's a ludicrous statement.

 

[Swift]

If we don't already have a thread on that we should start one.

Good idea. 👍 Feel free to start one when you have a chance.

 

[a6m5]

Serious enough? What is the limit or where do you personally draw the line at what is serious and what isn't?

It's impossible for me to come up with any guidelines. It will have to be decided case by case.

On trans fats, I'd say it's reasonable if: a) There are serious enough health risk. b) Alternative is available without affecting the taste or the price.

I think we can use trans fat as an excellent example of that kind of regulation, and we can debate whether trans fat should be regulated right here in this thread.

No, I do not think it should be regulated. It's not anywhere near dangerous enough to be considered criminal, and there are many other substances that are unhealthy that people love to eat. The proper role is to allow the market to sort things out. If people care enough about trans fats in their food, restaurants will start to remove them voluntarily so as not to lose business.... and guess what, they already have started.

But until people care enough about this issue to stop eating out at certain places, it doesn't even begin to be serious enough to warrant a law.

I think I did hear that Wendy's have already switched from using trans fats. A lot of the argument in this thread has been based on how people should be careful on what they eat, it's not goverment job to ban trans fats. But in many of the restaurants, you'll never know if they are still using trans fats or not. What do you think about some kind of warning signs or label?

If we don't already have a thread on that we should start one. In terms of the discussion at hand, I would say that this law is not necessary and not a reasonable compromise (as it isn't a compromise at all). It wasn't put into play by voters (almost no law is), but it wasn't decided by people who don't answer to voters either.

Yeah, anytime government ignores voters, it does make me nervous.

Civil government is about protecting the rights of its citizens. In order to suggest that the government has a necessary and proper role in this area you'd have to make the case that people have a fundamental right not to have trans fat offered to them for consumption.... and that's a ludicrous statement.

I think the problem could be that critics are seeing this as the right issue, where the City is seeing this as a health issue. Kinda like with lead paint, where they believe the health risk is serious enough, and can be replaced with another ingredient that will do a same job for same money.

Edit:
Hey, I just noticed that no one has created the new thread on government regulation yet. I'm in a bit of hurry, so please feel free to create one, if you guys are actually waiting for me.

 

[Danoff]

I think I did hear that Wendy's have already switched from using trans fats. A lot of the argument in this thread has been based on how people should be careful on what they eat, it's not goverment job to ban trans fats. But in many of the restaurants, you'll never know if they are still using trans fats or not. What do you think about some kind of warning signs or label?

Shouldn't be necessary. If people are that concerned about it, they won't eat there without reassurances that it is healthy.

I think the problem could be that critics are seeing this as the right issue, where the City is seeing this as a health issue.

It is a rights issue. The right to live an unhealthy life.

Edit:
Hey, I just noticed that no one has created the new thread on government regulation yet. I'm in a bit of hurry, so please feel free to create one, if you guys are actually waiting for me.

Done.