Proposed NY Trans-Fat Law

[bob60292]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I was saying we would be better off if "doctored cigarettes" were made illegal. Are there other products that big business amps up the narcotics and adds cyanide? (that can be sold without a prescription?) Those should be illegal too. Cigarettes are an addictive drug. Compare it to heroin. Do you run a crack house? Why not? Theres a lot of money in it. You just have to check your soul at the door. Edit to add: Should crack cocaine be legal? Why not? Are you a fascist commie?

_____________________________________________________________ beg to differ/ Cigarettes are an extremely addictive drug. Take a look at the research. I personally know individuals who dealt with lung and throat cancer that smoked up to the last hour of life. They claimed they couldn't stop. I stopped many, many years ago; but I can tell you honestly that I went through withdrawels not too unlike withdrawels from other drugs.

I

[bob60292]

G8
I really would like to correct a tremendous error you seem to be making. You claimed the the government has the authority to grant rights. According to the documents left to us by our founding fathers, including the US constitution the government has no such authority. The government is given, by the people, the job of protecting the God given rights that are ours from the moment we are born, if not before.
When the government fails to protect the rights that are ours to begin with, the government itself becomes invalid because it has no legitimacy apart from that which it receives from the people, and the peoples constitution.
Read the Declaration of Independence so that you will discover the motives and intentions upon which the American Founding fathers instituted government in the US. For example " We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal( before the law) That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these rights ( but not limited to, per the 9Th amendment) are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness"

[gr8fuldaniel]

My argument is that tobacco should be treated the same as crack. It is a narcotic. I dont think crack is a criminal problem, any addiction is a disease. A mental, physical and spiritual disease. The FDA has limited powers regarding cigarettes because they are not properly defined as a food or a drug. But that is changing. There is currently a Bill introduced:

Authority to Require Changes in Tobacco Products. These bills provide FDA with the authority to require changes to tobacco products to protect the public health, such as the reduction or elimination of ingredients, additives, and constituents, including smoke constituents, or reduction in nicotine yields through the issuance of performance standards. A performance standard would be the primary way in which FDA would require tobacco products to be made less harmful. While the bills allow FDA to require changes to the product, the bills reserve to Congress the narrow and specifically tailored authority to ban "all cigarettes", or "all smokeless tobacco products", or "all little cigars", or "all cigars other than little cigars". While FDA can require the reduction of nicotine on its own, even to very low levels, the bills also reserve to Congress the right to require the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero. The language related to the ban is straightforward language that ensures that only Congress can ban cigarettes but it does not prevent the FDA from requiring meaningful changes to tobacco products.

I believe that could be a viable solution, remove the addictive quality of tobacco. They remove all the nicotine now, but then they multiply it before reinjecting in into the final product. I say they remove it and LEAVE it out. It would be a good start. A lot of people would stop if they could, now they can. If this bill gets passed and congress takes action. Throw the lobbyists out! Especially Boner. He had a lot of nerve to pass out checks from Big Tobacco on the Floor of Congress. Disgusting pig.

Its about respect for the American consumer. If Big Tobacco can put addictive drugs in their products then everybody should be allowed to. Where does it stop? Can McDonalds put nicotine in Big Macs? Should Coke be allowed to do the same?
Sometimes you have to baby sit big business, or they will take liberties they ought not.

[gr8fuldaniel]

When the government fails to protect the rights that are ours to begin with, the government itself becomes invalid because it has no legitimacy apart from that which it receives from the people, and the peoples constitution.

Again, Where does the Constitution give you the right to hurt people? Dont respond to anything else. Give me a verbatim answer and your source.

Edit to add:
My mistake, you didnt say the Constitution gave you the right. God gave you the right to harm others. Got a scripure for that?

[bob60292]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Again, Where does the Constitution give you the right to hurt people? Dont respond to anything else. Give me a verbatim answer and your source. Edit to add: My mistake, you didnt say the Constitution gave you the right. God gave you the right to harm others. Got a scripure for that?

____________________________________________________________

Where does the constitution give you the right to prevent people from hurting themselves if that's what they choose to do?
Yes, you're right, you made another mistake, go back and reread what I said.
All you need to know about food is the ingredients. After that, you're on your own. It's your choice. Noone is hurting anyone. You are responsible for yourself, not the rest of us.

[gr8fuldaniel]

All you need to know about food is the ingredients.

If I were a scientist or a nutritionist, maybe. I am not, and neither are a lot of other people. People have a certain weakness, they must eat to survive. Restauranteurs who want to save $0.10 by cooking with margarine instead of butter do not respect the bodies of their clientele. The Restaurant owners rights end where my lips begin. If he is allowed to serve transfats, what is to stop the next guy from using gear oil? Yummy! We all know gear oil probably isnt a healthy choice. Maybe in some combination it even tastes good to a few people, or even more people if the guy finds a way to remove the foul odor. Everybody knows the gear oil can kill if ingested. But the budding profiteer has an unalienable right to poison his customers....as long as he prints a warning in Latin; and in ultra fine type, under a flap on the back of his menu?

[gr8fuldaniel]

If something is marketed as a FOOD, it should meet the minimal criteria that it will not be directly responsible for the death of the consumer.

[belverron]

I'm so tired of hearing about the Constitution. Nothing unconstitutional has happened here, got it? Nowhere in the Constitution are we granted a right to make this kind of choice for ourselves.

Hell, the federal government could probably get away with passing this law under the Interstate Commerce Clause. But it's not the federal government, it's a local government. So they can do it. And it has nothing to do with anything in the Constitution but this, which I've already brought up:

Quote by: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is perfectly within a state's rights. And it's about time, in a nation as obese as ours.

[Fonceai]

@belverron

That's basically the way I see it, also.

And as someone living in the state capital, it's very possible that this might elevate to the state level.

New York was one of the first states to pioneer the "no smoking in public" laws, which, if I'm not mistaken, are still based on the state and not Federal.

[bob60292]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel If I were a scientist or a nutritionist, maybe. I am not, and neither are a lot of other people. People have a certain weakness, they must eat to survive. Restauranteurs who want to save $0.10 by cooking with margarine instead of butter do not respect the bodies of their clientele. The Restaurant owners rights end where my lips begin. If he is allowed to serve transfats, what is to stop the next guy from using gear oil? Yummy! We all know gear oil probably isnt a healthy choice. Maybe in some combination it even tastes good to a few people, or even more people if the guy finds a way to remove the foul odor. Everybody knows the gear oil can kill if ingested. But the budding profiteer has an unalienable right to poison his customers....as long as he prints a warning in Latin; and in ultra fine type, under a flap on the back of his menu?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________


Butter is high in fat and cholesterol. Neither butter nor margerine are healthy . Why not make them both illegal. Also, some foods that are ok for some are poison to others. There are people who are deadly allergic to peanuts. Why not create a new government agency that will be given the authority to physically examine through a series of blood and urin tests,exrays, allergy tests, and catscans etc.and then licience appropriately each individual to purchase certain foods according to his or her individual needs, or prohibit the use of peanut oil completely, and then build a few hundred prisons for those who sell or buy certain foods that may be deemed harmful. We can put all the life saving information on a computer chip implanted in the right hand, left testicle, or central ass cheek or wherever. Let's make it illegal to give obese individuals a full portion, and arrest diabetics for consuming an extra potatoe or owners for selling it to them. The starch is hazardous to the health of a diabetic. The second cup of starchy rice should warrent at least 10 years without parole. Maybe government then can be a better source of health and guidance than God.
Also, lets hire government officials to stand guard in the kitchens of all restaurants at all times to make sure ther're not frying with motor oil. We wouldn't want restaurant owners to jeopardize the businesses that they worked their asses off to establish, and invested their life savings in by deliberately poisoning their patrons. In the long run they'll be grateful. What could be a more noble use of our tax money. We may have to drag chefs out in handcuffs for having used peanut oil, without first checking the license of each individual customer to see if it is legal for him to use it. Peanut allergies can kill.
Maybe we would only increase life expectency by a few years; but just look at the quality of life our ever faithful obedience to government agents can give us. After their glorious achievements with welfare ,crime prevention, social security and drug traffic, what more can we ask for? I just can't wait to pay for it all.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Or people could just do the right thing and everybody lives happily ever after.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel If something is marketed as a FOOD, it should meet the minimal criteria that it will not be directly responsible for the death of the consumer.

I eat transfats on a pretty regular basis. Prove to me that transfats will be directly responsible for my death or even contribute in any significant measure.

Your words are mere fluff. More importantly, and the key to why this law is ridiculous, is that you cannot show me a single person who died of any ailment that could possibly be related to transfats who did not choose to consume them of their own free will. Many people engage in self destructive behavior of all kinds, that is their right.

Your logical disconnect really comes in thinking that somehow this is terrible, evil restaurant owners thrusting trans fats on their consumers. There is a simple solution - if you don't want to eat trans fats, stay away from restaurants that use them. No one is forcing anyone to do anything (except if trans fats are outlawed).
I would be okay with a law that, say, requires restaurants to put symbol next to any item on their menu that contains trans fats... Anything beyond that, and you go from the realm of informed consent to nanny-statism. Your argument that trans fats should be outlawed because people don't know what they get at restaurants is identical to saying people shouldn't have the right to make their own medical decisions because their doctor knows what's best for them. Both concepts are equally chilling.

Your comparisons to running stop signs and other behaviors that directly harm others (through no concious decision of theirs) are patently ridiculous and have already been debunked, so i will not address them.

Quote by: belverron I'm so tired of hearing about the Constitution.

Yes, that pesky Constitution - thwarting do-gooders and busybodies for over 200 years... :rolleyes:

Nothing unconstitutional has happened here, got it? Nowhere in the Constitution are we granted a right to make this kind of choice for ourselves.

Hmm, perhaps you should do some actual learning about the Constitution before you make such a judgment... Lawrence v. Texas says that, "right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them [citizens and the petitioners in the case] the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."
In other cases, the Supreme Court has also said that the Constitution includes as part of the right to life found in the 14th Amendment the right to refuse medical treatment. That is, a person has a right to make a concious decision which may end their life prematurely - identical to the choice to consume trans fats, if you believe the science.

Hell, the federal government could probably get away with passing this law under the Interstate Commerce Clause. But it's not the federal government, it's a local government. So they can do it. And it has nothing to do with anything in the Constitution but this, which I've already brought up:

Wrong again. The rights protected in the Constitution have been incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. Since local governments exist under charter of their respective states, they, too, are subject.

This is perfectly within a state's rights. And it's about time, in a nation as obese as ours.

Whether or not the nation is obese is irrelevant. There are a great many problems that could be solved at the cost of our rights - pretty much all crime, the environment, unemployment, health care, etc. The point is we have struck a balance between rights and control, and when this country was founded, they thought the better balance was in favor of the right of the individual to make their own decisions.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Or people could just do the right thing and everybody lives happily ever after.

That is a horribly ironic statement... You spend the whole thread arguing that we need a government to tell us what to eat, and then you say that people could just do the right thing?

The argument that this is government doing the will of the majority is also illogical. Government may do the will of the majority only so long as it does not trample the rights of individuals. In 1955 the majority of people thought that blacks should go to separate schools and interracial marriage should be illegal. Absolute majority rule only leads to the tyranny of the masses, as Madison said in Federalist #47.

Really, I think everyone in the country should be required to take a class in Constitutional law. It would save a lot of silly laws like this one...

[bob60292]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Or people could just do the right thing and everybody lives happily ever after.

Amen - and dthey will decide what is the right thing for them

[Osborn F Enready]

If you are sick of the Constitution belverron, you can understand why constitutional supporters are sick of nanny-staters and socialists.

Lets divide the nation then, since the value of political and social unity under the pretext of being United States, has been lost?

Fragmentalization, is happening all over the world, including here, mainly due to polarization by the bi-partisan leadership. Is this what you prefer?

This is the same tone that pre-dated the opinion of the civil war, and I think we are witnessing the grounds being built for another one right now.

[brien]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I eat transfats on a pretty regular basis. Prove to me that transfats will be directly responsible for my death or even contribute in any significant measure. Your words are mere fluff. More importantly, and the key to why this law is ridiculous, is that you cannot show me a single person who died of any ailment that could possibly be related to transfats who did not choose to consume them of their own free will. Many people engage in self destructive behavior of all kinds, that is their right. Your logical disconnect really comes in thinking that somehow this is terrible, evil restaurant owners thrusting trans fats on their consumers. There is a simple solution - if you don't want to eat trans fats, stay away from restaurants that use them. No one is forcing anyone to do anything (except if trans fats are outlawed). I would be okay with a law that, say, requires restaurants to put symbol next to any item on their menu that contains trans fats... Anything beyond that, and you go from the realm of informed consent to nanny-statism. Your argument that trans fats should be outlawed because people don't know what they get at restaurants is identical to saying people shouldn't have the right to make their own medical decisions because their doctor knows what's best for them. Both concepts are equally chilling. Your comparisons to running stop signs and other behaviors that directly harm others (through no concious decision of theirs) are patently ridiculous and have already been debunked, so i will not address them. Yes, that pesky Constitution - thwarting do-gooders and busybodies for over 200 years... :rolleyes: Hmm, perhaps you should do some actual learning about the Constitution before you make such a judgment... Lawrence v. Texas says that, "right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them [citizens and the petitioners in the case] the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention." In other cases, the Supreme Court has also said that the Constitution includes as part of the right to life found in the 14th Amendment the right to refuse medical treatment. That is, a person has a right to make a concious decision which may end their life prematurely - identical to the choice to consume trans fats, if you believe the science. Wrong again. The rights protected in the Constitution have been incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. Since local governments exist under charter of their respective states, they, too, are subject. Whether or not the nation is obese is irrelevant. There are a great many problems that could be solved at the cost of our rights - pretty much all crime, the environment, unemployment, health care, etc. The point is we have struck a balance between rights and control, and when this country was founded, they thought the better balance was in favor of the right of the individual to make their own decisions. That is a horribly ironic statement... You spend the whole thread arguing that we need a government to tell us what to eat, and then you say that people could just do the right thing? The argument that this is government doing the will of the majority is also illogical. Government may do the will of the majority only so long as it does not trample the rights of individuals. In 1955 the majority of people thought that blacks should go to separate schools and interracial marriage should be illegal. Absolute majority rule only leads to the tyranny of the masses, as Madison said in Federalist #47. Really, I think everyone in the country should be required to take a class in Constitutional law. It would save a lot of silly laws like this one...

Tivo: Excellent post. Your legal knowledge is once again very helpful in understanding questions for a legal POV.

Your last statement made me think.

Really, I think everyone in the country should be required to take a class in Constitutional law

Do you perhaps think that a little bit of knowledge could be dangerous here?

[Fonceai]

So even if this is what the majority of the interested voters wanted, it's wrong?

Even if they are taking advantage of the process in order to use it as it was intended?

It reminds me of the question I wrote earlier:

Why is it when the gov't doesn't obey the will of the people, it is criticized. But when the people use the gov't to make the changes they want, no one recognizes it as contradicting the first complaint and instead just points a finger at the "government entity"?

[belverron]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Hmm, perhaps you should do some actual learning about the Constitution before you make such a judgment... Lawrence v. Texas says that, "right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them [citizens and the petitioners in the case] the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

Quote by: Justice Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions. ... In Griswold ... [t]he Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. ... After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. ... In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. ... The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education ....

When you take more than a soundbite of this case, it doesn't say quite what you want it to, does it?

Quote by: tivodan1116 Whether or not the nation is obese is irrelevant.

Oh really? Because one of the elements lacking in the Texas sodomy statute was a compelling governmental interest. New York has a compelling governmental interest in the health of its citizens, and weight is an indicator of a problem there.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Wrong again. The rights protected in the Constitution have been incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. Since local governments exist under charter of their respective states, they, too, are subject.

You missed my point entirely. I meant that not only do I think the states, with their broad legislative power, could enact this law, I also think the federal government could do it through Interstate Commerce. They definitely could have before the Rehnquist Court.

Absolute majority rule only leads to the tyranny of the masses, as Madison said in Federalist #47.

Federalist #10, actually, although somehow I think that he, like Kennedy, didn't have trans fatty acids in mind when he wrote it.

By the way, tivodan, I'm currently enrolled in a constitutional law class, and I've completed one in civil liberties, which is more appropriate to this discussion in any case. And in case you were wondering, yes, I am smarter than you :rolleyes:

Quote by: brien [tivodan's] legal knowledge is once again very helpful in understanding questions for a legal POV.

Do you still think so, or do you recognize that he's taking legal soundbites out of context to promote his own beliefs?

[Fonceai]

To tivodan's credit, he is legally knowledgable.

Like all citations of law, it's a question of who finds a case to support their argument.

It has nothing to do with intelligence, just who is better at Google searches.

And no offense, but tivodan is lawyer, and you're currently a student of law.

I do notice that you elaborate much further on certain points, and I do agree with your overall assessment that this law is well within the rights of the citizens of New York.

Something that I'm beginning to read about more is "victimless crimes". If this kind of law is unconstitutional, then it implies a violation of Constitutional rights.

Whose Constitutional rights are being violated?

[belverron]

Quote by: Fonceai To tivodan's credit, he is legally knowledgable.

In whatever area of the law he specializes in, I'm sure. In this he clearly is on unsure footing.

Quote by: Fonceai Like all citations of law, it's a question of who finds a case to support their argument.

Which he has failed to do.

Quote by: Fonceai It has nothing to do with intelligence, just who is better at Google searches.

I was responding sarcastically to his signature, which has bugged me since I've encountered his posts.

Quote by: Fonceai And no offense, but tivodan is lawyer, and you're currently a student of law.

I am not in law school and do not consider myself a student of law. I'm majoring in government and politics with a concentration in political theory and probably will not go on to law school. I still trounced him, though.

I think you exaggerate the differing degrees of education we possess regarding constitutional law, and civil liberties in particular.

Quote by: Fonceai I do notice that you elaborate much further on certain points ....

I do, don't I?

Quote by: Fonceai Something that I'm beginning to read about more is "victimless crimes". If this kind of law is unconstitutional, then it implies a violation of Constitutional rights.

Are you balancing the right of people to eat what they choose where they choose against the right of others to consume non-poison? If so, I would say that people possess neither right.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: =tivodan1116 Your words are mere fluff. More importantly, and the key to why this law is ridiculous, is that you cannot show me a single person who died of any ailment that could possibly be related to transfats who did not choose to consume them of their own free will. Many people engage in self destructive behavior of all kinds, that is their right.

There are also children who have been fed this deadly product. They eat it of their own free will, along with other people who eat for lack of an option. Should people have to choose between poisoned food and the pain of hunger.

Heres a Harvard study that tells how deadly Trans fats are, do you have a source that says they are not?

Hidden Trans Fats Exposed: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health In 1981, a group of Welsh researchers speculated that trans fat might be linked with heart disease.(5) A 1993 Harvard study strongly supported the hypothesis that intake of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils contributed to the risk of having a heart attack.(3) In that study, the researchers estimated that replacing just 2% of energy from trans fat with healthy unsaturated fat would decrease the risk of coronary heart disease by about one-third. An influential symposium on trans fat later in the 1990s drew public attention to the issue. Today we know that eating trans fats increases levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, "bad" cholesterol), especially the small, dense LDL particles that are most damaging to arteries. It lowers levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles, which scour blood vessels for bad cholesterol and truck it to the liver for disposal. It increases the tendency of blood platelets to clump and form potentially artery-blocking clots. It also fires inflammation,(6)an overactivity of the immune system that has been implicated in heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and other chronic conditions. This four-pronged attack on blood vessels translates into heart disease and death. Replacing partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with healthy unsaturated vegetable oils would prevent at least 30,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year, and as many as 100,000.(7)

Read that last line again. It say removing transfats WOULD prevent between 30,000 and 100,000 deaths each year. Not that it might prevent death. It would.
I swear, you anarchists would fight to put lead back in paint so you could watch your own kids grow up mentally retarded. But they would be FREE to EAT PAINT with lead. And then they could jaywalk because there wouldnt be any laws against it. Hooray!!
YAY!!

Edit to add:

Quote by: tivodan1116 Whether or not the nation is obese is irrelevant.

Right, This issue is not about obesity, it is about heart disease