Proposed NY Trans-Fat Law

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You are assuming there is no available substitute. Remember when doctors used to drill holes in the skulls of mental patients to let the evil spirits out? Were you an advocate for those doctors? Should the AMA respect the rights of those doctors? How about asbestos? We know that it kills people, but people like you will argue for its benefits. Let it be, right? (edit to add: There should be no consumer control, let free trade reign! Even with slavery if one so wishes. All the better for the tycoons. Right?)And then there are those damned traffic lights that are always making me late for my appointments. Why should I stop?

Huh???? Holes in skulls??? Traffic lights??? Asbestos ??? Slavery???? I yi yi:rolleyes:

Sorry for the triple post I yi yi

[brien]

Quote by: belverron Milton, you don't know what you're buying when you go to a restaurant. You think you're being healthy when you get a grilled chicken sandwich, only to find out later that it's smothered in butter when it's cooked. At Starbucks, we have a "No Sugar Added Banana Nut Cake." We tell customers that it has only the natural sugar from the banana, which is absolutely true. It's also a significant amount. That little bugger has almost 500 calories and about 28 grams of fat. And people buy it thinking they're being healthy. The people of New York should absolutely be able to influence through the state their environment and the kind of food they can expect at restaurants, and it is just tough for the minority. States can legislate pretty much anything they please. That's federalism. I say, if New Yorkers want to be able to go into a restaurant and feel assured they're not eating their premature death, they have that right. I think it's high time we created a society where you don't have to go to a health food restaurant to be sure you're not being poisoned. I'm really annoyed with how hard it is to eat healthily. If you can't afford Whole Foods or HEB, you have to do your research. For instance, wheat bread is supposed to be better for you. But there's whole wheat, 100% whole wheat, 100% multi-grain, and 100% whole grain. What in Hell's the difference? I don't know. I just know I want to get the one that's good for me. Apparently that's 100% whole grain. But I only know that by chance. What else am I missing? As someone who's trying to eat a healthy diet, I'm ready for some changes. This is one area where I would appreciate it if the FDA were a little more effective. There are too many meaningless labels on our food products.

Why don't you just open government restaurants?

It is incumbent upon the consumer when choosing a restaurant to know what they are consuming. Now I don't disagree that the food should be healthy, but to demand that restaurants 86 butter, that is a stretch. I agree with Milton that restaurants should post, through the truth in adverstising laws already on the books, the ingredients of their menu. Diners should be advised of any foods that are unhealty. If a restaurant uses trans fats, they should advise their consumers. If consumers don't want to eat foods fried in trans fats, they will go to another restaurant. If a restaurant uses potassium sulfates, consumer's should be advised. But to make laws banning substances that are legal, where does it end? Why do we need a law for eveything that the nanny staters want to protect others from in society?

I am all for truth in adverstising but the consumers also need to make an effort to know what is good for them. It is their personal responsibility to know what is healthy or not healthy. The government can't be responsible for taking care of people's personal health through forcing government choices upon restaurants that merely involve unhealthy but legal substances.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: brien I am all for truth in adverstising but the consumers also need to make an effort to know what is good for them. It is their personal responsibility to know what is healthy or not healthy. The government can't be responsible for taking care of people's personal health through forcing government choices upon restaurants that merely involve unhealthy but legal substances.

What about when those people are educated and they use the government as a tool, as in this NYC law?

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai What about when those people are educated and they use the government as a tool, as in this NYC law?

Why do they require government to do that which the public can do merely through market forces? Sounds like a lay man's approach to me. Or perhaps,a minority imposing their will upon a majority. Or even people who feel the need to protect others from themselves. We don't need another law when restaurants are perfectly capable of regulation by their customers when they choose to dine in restaurants that meet their own standards, not someone else's priority or some government mandate by people who usually know less about the restaurant business than those in the restaurant business.

[Fonceai]

Why not require the gov't to do it?

It makes it illegal for the restaurants to lie, and it balances the playing field. It makes it possible for people to rest easy.

This is democracy in action. Why is that so bad?

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Why not require the gov't to do it? It makes it illegal for the restaurants to lie, and it balances the playing field. It makes it possible for people to rest easy. This is democracy in action. Why is that so bad?

Restaurants should be required, and in many cases are required, to post truth in advertisement so their customers know what is in the menu items. However, it should be the individual that makes the final decision to partake in the menu, not the government. Individuals should be the final decision maker in issues of their own personal health, not the government.

People in action.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: brien Individuals should be the final decision maker in issues of their own personal health, not the government.

Oh yeah, I agree.

My health is my responsibility. I shouldn't expect someone to do the work for me.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Oh yeah, I agree. My health is my responsibility. I shouldn't expect someone to do the work for me.

You know Fonceai, I don't expect everyone to agree in life. It wouldn't make sense. I just wonder how many laws will ever be enough. I am so sick of lawmakers making laws I could literally puke. When did we ever expect Washington DC to do everything for its citizens by making laws to guide every aspect of human behavior in our society. Individuals have to be responsible for themselves sometimes.

Please don't get me wrong because we do need laws to regulate the basics of societal behavior for the group, but when it comes to individual responsibility, too many Americans have abdicated their responsibilities to the government. This will end up the bane of our freedom.

[jose]

I once went to a party, a friend of a friends, in California,joints were doing the rounds, I lite up a fag and was asked to smoke it outside? WTF

[brien]

Quote by: jose I once went to a party, a friend of a friends, in California,joints were doing the rounds, I lite up a fag and was asked to smoke it outside? WTF

Interesting because there is much more tar in marajuana smoke than there is in filetred cigarette tobacco smoke. Gives new meaning to "pick your poison."

In this instance I would ask: why do you think they call it dope? :eek:

[Fonceai]

That's actually funny.

It just goes to show, people don't mind if you smoke, they just don't want the second hand.

Hey, at least they asked.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: And New York says "to hell with you" right back. All of those bans, including this one, have something in common. One person's choice should not affect multiple people.

I say:
Well said, so let's analyze the argument, shall we?

Outdoors, smoke does not collect even on a still day with little or no wind. Health risks would be negligible at best, unless you CHOOSE to sit next to, walk next to, or hover over a smoker. Most non-smokers don't do this, because they have a CHOICE to walk further away, around or circumvent any meeting whatsoever.

Indoors (on public property, such as courts, government buildings, etc) I can understand having a smoking ban since smoke collects and there are parts of the public that can't tolerate smoke. In this case, the smoker would be the offender, so they can legally be asked not to smoke in these locations with threat of force if they refuse to comply.(force being a police, or security escort out of the building).

Indoors(at a privately owned establishment) the owner of the establishment is the rule maker, as he has the right to choose who to serve, dress codes, smoking or non-smoking, or also the right to simply refuse service for no given reason what-so-ever. Simply being open to the general public, does not make a privately owned establishment "public property". In this case, ANYONE that offends the owner in any way, shape or form is the offender, and the property owner has the right to ask people to conform to his business policies and rules in order to expect service or goods. The property owner also reserves the right to use force to expel any person who does not conform, or leave the premises when asked.

Fonceai said: Fat bans? Absolutely. It's bad for you. So they shouldn't feed it to you.

I say:
So are you someones pet if you go to their private establishment to eat?

They aren't "feeding me", they are providing a privately picked selection, at the discretion of the owner, for me to consume at my own risk. I have a choice to enter, or leave. I have a choice to view the menu and ask about health concerns BEFORE I purchase, and leave without purchasing or consuming anything.

Many laws have been passed in the name of "empowering the public" to guarantee food safety standards, but except for the most basic issues such as cooking times and basic food preperation guidelines, they really don't work as designed, and actually serve to remove choice from the consumer as well as shift health responsibility to the business owner. This works directly against our rights as both business owners, and consumers, and now that precedent has been set by Bill Clinton, who passed the first anti-smoking laws, we are starting to see the developing trend of directed market manipulation and rights removal.

That is the situation, regardless of what laws are written, as per our rights as American citizens.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8ful said: I dont get it. First you say...

Quote by: Osborn F Enready
If people can't take control of their own lives, and do what they wish if not harming OTHERS, what makes life worth living?

Then you contradict yourself....

Quote by: Osborn F Enready
To hell with NY, and all those idiots who are backing these police-state proposals from smoking bans to drug bans, fat bans to gun bans.

Is this still America?

Is it OK to "harm OTHERS" or not?

I say:
Harm is a matter of degrees, much like force.

Smokers, as a rule, don't consider smoking a "threat" that outweighs the enjoyment they get from the act of smoking. This is why as a rule, smokers socialize with other smokers since they don't mind the second-hand smoke, being second-hand smoke producers. It is their life, it is their choice.

Non-Smokers, as a rule, are bothered, or prefer not to be around second-hand smoke. They have the option to do so, both in any outdoor area, as well as by not going to establishments that "allow" smoking. If they socialize with smokers, it is BY CHOICE of both people.

There is no "harm" being comitted if both parties agree of free will to partake in the act, and the affects of the act.

Gr8ful said: If the restaurants are killing people, should the government just stand by and watch, or not?

I say:
How are they killing people? Are they murdering people with knives, guns, poison, spoiled food, improper food preparation?(raw or germ filled)

That would be KILLING people.

They are simply providing goods or services to the market that the market desires, and the proof of that is that people WANT to purchase what they are selling, or their service.

People have a right to live healthy, or un-healthy. It is their life, it is their choice.

Gr8ful said: I agree with your first post. The restaurants should do what they want. As long as they do not harm others. I dont want to smoke your cigarettes either. Those damned things have killed too many of my friends. Keep them the fuck out of my lungs. Thank you very much.

I say:
Tone down your rhetoric, and don't tell me what to do Dan.

If you don't want second hand smoke, don't go to smoking establishments.
Have enough will-power to find a place you are actually WELCOME, instead of trying to force others to submit to YOUR prefrences using the law?

You don't run me, and I don't run you. Respect that, and we can all get along.

People that support this either aren't thinking clearly, or they are authoritarian minded people I wouldn't consider fellow Americans. Whomever supports laws like this clearly has no basis of understanding of what it means to be an American, or what rights and property are all about.

[Fonceai]

Your smoking argument doesn't hold water.

If any of what you said was actually valid, then people wouldn't be dying from second-hand smoke.

And one thing you forget... areas are "public" but they are actually "private property of the U.S. government." Since the government consists of all Americans, that is where we get the "public" concept.

Therefore, if representatives in the government, on behalf of the voters, deem smoking illegal in "public" areas then it's illegal.

---

As far as the fat is concerned, stop trying to villainize the government. This isn't some ubiquitous government trying to control lives. This is citizens doing exactly what I've said all along... gathering a majority to represent their interests and showing the lawmakers that changes are needed.

This is the point of democracy; the citizens spoke, and the government had to respond.

And while I wouldn't have initiated this kind of thing, I like that it worked.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I say: Tone down your rhetoric, and don't tell me what to do Dan.

I did not intend that for you specifically, but toward smokers in general. (I am 3000 miles away from you)
I have a very close friend that was given 3 weeks to live about a week ago. Cancer. I havent seen her in 3 years, but she is one of my best friends. She helped save my life when I was hopeless. Now I cant do anything to help her. She has to die a victim of her own choices. I want to be like her, if I ever grow up. She is a wonderful person. Beautiful and kind and smart. She is not the only friend who has died from tobacco poisoning. I ahve watch many good people rot away from the inside out. It aint pretty. I dont want to go down to see her, I would rather remember her the way she was. ....Even though I know from the others who were murdered by big tobacco, that I can remember them as they were before and after.I need to remember what tobacco does to my friends so I dont have to ever become enslaved again myself. I dont want that to happen to any of my friends. Even if they want it and think they have a right to die prematurely that way.
Sorry I cussed. I am a bit out of sorts about that insidious little sport of yours.
Its not about choice either. If you smoke, other people who dont want to smoke will breathe it. Just because you dont think its a big deal.... doesnt make it so.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Your smoking argument doesn't hold water.

I say:
Based on what?

Do you have an intelligent rebuttal to the facts I layed out, or just opinion?

Fonceai said: If any of what you said was actually valid, then people wouldn't be dying from second-hand smoke.

I say:
They have not conclusively linked ANY death that I know of, to ONLY second-hand smoke. Do you have a link with independent proof of this, because if you do, I would like to see it.

Fonceai said: And one thing you forget... areas are "public" but they are actually "private property of the U.S. government." Since the government consists of all Americans, that is where we get the "public" concept.

I say:
The "public" concept that you speak of exists only on PUBLIC property of the federal, state, county or city owned areas, AS I SAID, such as Courthouses, jails, police and fire stations, etc.

The "public" concept that you speak of does NOT apply to privately owned businesses. Never has, never will, CONSTITUTIONALLY.

Fonceai said: Therefore, if representatives in the government, on behalf of the voters, deem smoking illegal in "public" areas then it's illegal.

I say:
Incorrect, if you are speaking about the law being applied to PRIVATELY owned establishments, open to the public or not. That is beyond their constitutional authority, and you should know that.

Fonceai said: As far as the fat is concerned, stop trying to villainize the government.

I say:
As soon as they respect their limitations, and stop trying to make enemies of the American people by removing their rights, I will.

In other words, as soon as they start respecting the "Law of the Land", as in the Constitution of the United States.

Fonceai said: This isn't some ubiquitous government trying to control lives.

I say:
Funny, you haven't shown any examples to document or reference your point.

Fonceai said: This is citizens doing exactly what I've said all along... gathering a majority to represent their interests and showing the lawmakers that changes are needed. This is the point of democracy; the citizens spoke, and the government had to respond.

I say:
Wrong, special intrest groups spoke, and the government responded OUTSIDE of its legal authority.

Fonceai said: And while I wouldn't have initiated this kind of thing, I like that it worked.

I say:
And, that is yet another difference between us. I don't support fascism, no matter what guise it takes, including in the "name" of democracy when it violates peoples rights, and the law of the land.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Smokers, as a rule, don't consider smoking a "threat" that outweighs the enjoyment they get from the act of smoking.

How about if NON-smokers take delight in taking a dump on a smokers dinner table right when their food is brought out. The non-smokers dont "feel" they are any more offensive than the smokers. Is one party right and the other wrong? Both persons seem to be harming the health of the other, but neither has actually laid a hand on the other.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: OFE Based on what?

Based on what you quote immediately after asking that question.

Read the whole post and reply appropriately.

Quote by: OFE They have not conclusively linked ANY death that I know of, to ONLY second-hand smoke. Do you have a link with independent proof of this, because if you do, I would like to see it.

To be fair, the second-hand smoke causes cancer. The cancer kills people.

Canadian Cancer Society
Canadian Cancer Society - Société canadienne du cancer

New Zealand
How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke? -- Woodward and Laugesen 10 (4): 383 -- Tobacco Control

Rhode Island Dept. of Health
How your smoking affects others

U.S. E.P.A.
"Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk"

That should do for now.

Quote by: OFE The "public" concept that you speak of does NOT apply to privately owned businesses. Never has, never will, CONSTITUTIONALLY

Then why is smoking in privately-owned businesses still illegal?

I don't feel like playing games, so here's the answer...

Because not all employees are smokers, and not all clients are smokers. No non-smoker should be forced to tolerate second-hand smoke in an environment with smokers.

Quote by: OFE That is beyond their constitutional authority, and you should know that.

Those privately-owned businesses are allowed to be in business through the persmission of the U.S. gov't. They pay for that privilege with their taxes. As such, they are subject to U.S. gov't laws and limitations.

Quote by: OFE As soon as they respect their limitations, and stop trying to make enemies of the American people by removing their rights, I will.

That's your interpretation. As an interpretation, it stands that it's your opinion. An opinion that you have yet to support with any kind of proof, citations, links, quotes, references, etc.

Quote by: OFE Wrong, special intrest groups spoke, and the government responded OUTSIDE of its legal authority.

Prove it. Show me where the gov't is acting outside of it's legal authority.

Quote by: OFE And, that is yet another difference between us. I don't support fascism, no matter what guise it takes, including in the "name" of democracy when it violates peoples rights, and the law of the land.

Nice try at saying I'm fascist.

Lemme put it this way, Zhavric (because that's who you now remind me of)...

Where's your proof? Links? Any of that stuff I mentioned above?

Like this...

New York Citys proposed trans fat ban is latest volley in fight over food safety - LegalSoapbox by FreeAdvice: Legal News Headline

Quote by: Above Link The Supreme Court has held that health departments have the authority to prohibit the sale of foods that are impure, unfit for use or which spread disease _ and Frieden said there is ample evidence indicating that artificial trans fats cause heart disease.

Ban Trans Fats: The Campaign to Ban Partially Hydrogenated Oils
This has all the links you'll need.

To summarize...

Trans-fats are a cause of cholesterol-related disorders. The public health administration has the right to ban the use of any substance that can be found to be directly related to increased risks of health problems.

Recently, when the FDA required that oils containing trans-fats be listed as ingredients on labels, New Yorkers responded.

---

So now where's your links about this being "wrong"?

Because I seem to remember you frequently saying that the government never listens to the public, never acts in their interest, and generally does what it wants.

Now, the public spoke, the New York state government listened, it took action, and you're criticizing "the government" for limiting someone's right to eat something that is bad for them.

Just one link... just one. Prove any of what you are saying about this being Un-Constitutional. Because I think I've posted enough links in this post for you to put up, or shut up.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Cigarettes are a poison delivery system that, when used as directed, will kill one out of every two suckers. This culls the herd and as a bonus enriches the government even more than the tobacconists. The equivalent of pulling the gold teeth from its victims before big tobacco slides its customers into a poison gas chamber. Its not illegal, because every customer is fairly warned right on the package.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel How about if NON-smokers take delight in taking a dump on a smokers dinner table right when their food is brought out. The non-smokers dont "feel" they are any more offensive than the smokers. Is one party right and the other wrong? Both persons seem to be harming the health of the other, but neither has actually laid a hand on the other.

That would be fair.

Inhaling the smell from fecal matter isn't found to cause cancer. It doesn't cause cancer in the person actually taking the dump. And it's legal to do. Hell, old people and babies are legally allowed to do it by accident. And other than the etiquette concern, it's legal to change a baby's diaper in a public place if a changing table isn't available.