Salt Monitor

gimmesometruth27

he still stands wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Do you feel the same way for the legalization of all drugs? Or perhaps we have too many laws to begin with, so why not just let people do as they please and no government intervention of any sort and we can let the cards fall as they may?

he still stands wrote:

Jesus christ I don't understand people anymore. Lets just make everything illegal or controlled somehow...

if you don't want to eat salty foods, buy fresh meat, fruit, vegetables, starches, etc. Shop for stuff that has zero or low sodium. There is plenty of it out there. We don't need to tell Tubby McButterpants that he can't have a double cheeseburger and a gallon of fries with 20,000 mg of sodium. If that is what he wants to eat, fine. NONE of our business.

If that is what he eats, THAT is why there is a market for it. No need to punish the vendor either, unless you're all for social engineering. You know, like Hitler.

:evil:

Yes, I do feel the same way about all drugs.

"Do what thou wilt and hurt none shall be the whole of the law."

isn't that what anton lavey and alistair crowley used to preach?

FiveB247x

Well sorry to rain on the parade, but in our society, that isn't practical or realistic. Poverty, violence and crime would all result over the long haul. So unless we want civil unrest and the downfall of our society, I don't think that's the best scenario or option to select.

he still stands wrote:

Yes, I do feel the same way about all drugs.

"Do what thou wilt and hurt none shall be the whole of the law."

he still stands

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

isn't that what anton lavey and alistair crowley used to preach?

I think Crowley coined the phrase "do what thou wilt"... the rest of it came from a book by Robert Wilson and the same philosophy is shared by everyone from Chomsky to Bill Hicks.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

The slippery slope theory usually doesn't pan out. And how come it's just held against the government. How come you don't apply it to the same thought processes and issues in the other direction? You know like allowing citizens the right to bear arms will result in more violence... or now monitoring food will automatically mean everyone will get fat and sickly? Use it in both directions if you're going to apply it and it will show you how silly a theory it really is.

Godfather. wrote:

yeah I know...... "we live in a representative version"
and when they don't prove the salt usage to be lower there will be a fine and a added tax to create a salt watchers task force

Godfather.

I agree that the slippery slope argument can sometimes be a little ridiculous, but look back 30 years and see if Government is more or less involved in everyday lives. The slippery slope argument is more like evolution, it isn't overnight, but it definitely changes.

One could definitely argue that the involvement by government is a good thing, but I don't think you can argue that the government isn't more involved now than it was before

_

So let me get this straight - from people who actually know - please. Is "the government" proposing to...

...require the manufacturers of processed foods to make the public aware of how much salt they add to the food they make available to us?
...require restaurants to make the public aware of how much salt they add to food they serve?
...limit the amount of salt corporations can add to the processed foods they make available to us?
...limit the amount of salt that restaurants can add to the food they serve?
...limit the amount of salt you can add to your own food at a restaurant?
...limit the amount of salt you can add to your own food in your own home?
...limit the amount of salt you can purchase at the store?

FiveB247x

Even if you do want to make that case and say it's been an evolution or slow process of change... look how much our society has changed in that same time frame. Everything in world is now immediate due to globalization and technology.. this effects the way we live in every aspect. Most ignore these facts and just point to government involvement but ignore how much we as people and society function so very differently. It doesn't account or reflect every government program or initiative is the greatest or an absolute necessity, but it does show you how much we've changed (for better or worse is arguable).

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

The slippery slope theory usually doesn't pan out. And how come it's just held against the government. How come you don't apply it to the same thought processes and issues in the other direction? You know like allowing citizens the right to bear arms will result in more violence... or now monitoring food will automatically mean everyone will get fat and sickly? Use it in both directions if you're going to apply it and it will show you how silly a theory it really is.

Godfather. wrote:

yeah I know...... "we live in a representative version"
and when they don't prove the salt usage to be lower there will be a fine and a added tax to create a salt watchers task force

Godfather.

I agree that the slippery slope argument can sometimes be a little ridiculous, but look back 30 years and see if Government is more or less involved in everyday lives. The slippery slope argument is more like evolution, it isn't overnight, but it definitely changes.

One could definitely argue that the involvement by government is a good thing, but I don't think you can argue that the government isn't more involved now than it was before

michelleelise

scb wrote:

So let me get this straight - from people who actually know - please. Is "the government" proposing to...

...require the manufacturers of processed foods to make the public aware of how much salt they add to the food they make available to us?
...require restaurants to make the public aware of how much salt they add to food they serve?
...limit the amount of salt corporations can add to the processed foods they make available to us?
...limit the amount of salt that restaurants can add to the food they serve?
...limit the amount of salt you can add to your own food at a restaurant?
...limit the amount of salt you can add to your own food in your own home?
...limit the amount of salt you can purchase at the store?

The government is requiring nothing at this time. They asked manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the sodium very gradually over time.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Well sorry to rain on the parade, but in our society, that isn't practical or realistic. Poverty, violence and crime would all result over the long haul. So unless we want civil unrest and the downfall of our society, I don't think that's the best scenario or option to select.

he still stands wrote:

Yes, I do feel the same way about all drugs.

"Do what thou wilt and hurt none shall be the whole of the law."

why does legal drug use = civil unrest and the downfall of our society? kind of a slippery slope argument there

ajedigecko

if you want "free health" insurance.........i am thankful the government is attempting to control variables related to health issues.

i work in "free education".........i know for a fact, they control my job requirements.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Even if you do want to make that case and say it's been an evolution or slow process of change... look how much our society has changed in that same time frame. Everything in world is now immediate due to globalization and technology.. this effects the way we live in every aspect. Most ignore these facts and just point to government involvement but ignore how much we as people and society function so very differently. It doesn't account or reflect every government program or initiative is the greatest or an absolute necessity, but it does show you how much we've changed (for better or worse is arguable).

' wrote:

I agree that the slippery slope argument can sometimes be a little ridiculous, but look back 30 years and see if Government is more or less involved in everyday lives. The slippery slope argument is more like evolution, it isn't overnight, but it definitely changes.

One could definitely argue that the involvement by government is a good thing, but I don't think you can argue that the government isn't more involved now than it was before

you are right, society has changed, but that doesn't really disprove that the government has become more involved in our daily lives. Some like it, some just aren't bothered by it, and some see it as a problem...but you cannot deny that it is happening.

FiveB247x

Well I see what you're saying, but in reality and practical terms, if tomorrow all drugs became legal, over the long term what would be the result? And no prohibition or repealing it isn't the same correlation. Hard drug use would increase and as a result, crime would shift from selling and trafficking related crime to individual crime and addiction would rise. Slippery slope doesn't account for real life examples.. but mere assumption or projection of things based on nothing but fear.. not fact.

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Well sorry to rain on the parade, but in our society, that isn't practical or realistic. Poverty, violence and crime would all result over the long haul. So unless we want civil unrest and the downfall of our society, I don't think that's the best scenario or option to select.

he still stands wrote:

Yes, I do feel the same way about all drugs.

"Do what thou wilt and hurt none shall be the whole of the law."

why does legal drug use = civil unrest and the downfall of our society? kind of a slippery slope argument there

FiveB247x

I think it's more of a necessary evil at worse case scenario.

mikepegg44 wrote:

.
One could definitely argue that the involvement by government is a good thing, but I don't think you can argue that the government isn't more involved now than it was before

you are right, society has changed, but that doesn't really disprove that the government has become more involved in our daily lives. Some like it, some just aren't bothered by it, and some see it as a problem...but you cannot deny that it is happening.[/quote]

Godfather.

he still stands wrote:

Jesus christ I don't understand people anymore. Lets just make everything illegal or controlled somehow...

if you don't want to eat salty foods, buy fresh meat, fruit, vegetables, starches, etc. Shop for stuff that has zero or low sodium. There is plenty of it out there. We don't need to tell Tubby McButterpants that he can't have a double cheeseburger and a gallon of fries with 20,000 mg of sodium. If that is what he wants to eat, fine. NONE of our business.

If that is what he eats, THAT is why there is a market for it. No need to punish the vendor either, unless you're all for social engineering. You know, like Hitler.

:evil:

I guess some people need to be told how to eat and live

Godfather.

FiveB247x

Do you not see the correlation between people's health (or not taking care of themselves) and why our entire national healthcare system is messed up? It's one of the largest factors. So simply saying your below comment, isn't a true or realistic reflection of this situation.

Godfather. wrote:

I guess some people need to be told how to eat and live

Godfather.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Well I see what you're saying, but in reality and practical terms, if tomorrow all drugs became legal, over the long term what would be the result? And no prohibition or repealing it isn't the same correlation. Hard drug use would increase and as a result, crime would shift from selling and trafficking related crime to individual crime and addiction would rise. Slippery slope doesn't account for real life examples.. but mere assumption or projection of things based on nothing but fear.. not fact.

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Well sorry to rain on the parade, but in our society, that isn't practical or realistic. Poverty, violence and crime would all result over the long haul. So unless we want civil unrest and the downfall of our society, I don't think that's the best scenario or option to select.

why does legal drug use = civil unrest and the downfall of our society? kind of a slippery slope argument there

right but everything you said is based on fear and assumption. You have no idea if addiction would increase nor do you know that using would increase any more than I do. It is an assumption. Individual crime may increase, but so would police department resources to fight said individual crimes so who knows what the end result would be. Imagine how many more resources we would have on the streets if the feds didn't have a WHOLE AGENCY devoted to drug enfrcement.
I don't think drugs are the worst thing society has to worry about, nor do I care if my neighbor is a coke head. It isn't my life so I really don't care, I say enjoy the coke. I think alcohol addiction causes as many problems as any drug addiction would if it were legal.

Godfather.

FiveB247x wrote:

Do you not see the correlation between people's health (or not taking care of themselves) and why our entire national healthcare system is messed up? It's one of the largest factors. So simply saying your below comment, isn't a true or realistic reflection of this situation.

Godfather. wrote:

I guess some people need to be told how to eat and live

Godfather.

I was joking.
but I do think we have taken this in a whole other direction, people that want more salt will get it
just because there could be government restriction on salt amounts used in processed food doesn't mean that
people will not add their own once cooked.

Godfather.

FiveB247x

Not really though - any city or area where there has been a rise in drug use or addiction things like crime and poverty follow. I don't think my correlation between the two was that much of a stretch at all. And if you don't think having more drug addicts in society is an issue, I don't know what to tell you. And yes alcohol is no better or worse, just merely socially/morally more acceptable for whatever the reason. Also and to bring us full circle, if laws pertaining, drinking age or drinking and driving or limits, etc weren't on the record, don't you think there would be more alcohol related problems in society? I think we could probably all agree yes, so it the singular actions of individuals does effect the greater group.

mikepegg44 wrote:

right but everything you said is based on fear and assumption. You have no idea if addiction would increase nor do you know that using would increase any more than I do. It is an assumption. Individual crime may increase, but so would police department resources to fight said individual crimes so who knows what the end result would be. Imagine how many more resources we would have on the streets if the feds didn't have a WHOLE AGENCY devoted to drug enfrcement.
I don't think drugs are the worst thing society has to worry about, nor do I care if my neighbor is a coke head. It isn't my life so I really don't care, I say enjoy the coke. I think alcohol addiction causes as many problems as any drug addiction would if it were legal.

FiveB247x

I think we should simply outlaw salt until people revolt like in India. Maybe it will be good for all of us in the long term

Godfather. wrote:

I was joking.
but I do think we have taken this in a whole other direction, people that want more salt will get it
just because there could be government restriction on salt amounts used in processed food doesn't mean that
people will not add their own once cooked.

Godfather.

_

michelle822 wrote:

scb wrote:

So let me get this straight - from people who actually know - please. Is "the government" proposing to...

...require the manufacturers of processed foods to make the public aware of how much salt they add to the food they make available to us?
...require restaurants to make the public aware of how much salt they add to food they serve?
...limit the amount of salt corporations can add to the processed foods they make available to us?
...limit the amount of salt that restaurants can add to the food they serve?
...limit the amount of salt you can add to your own food at a restaurant?
...limit the amount of salt you can add to your own food in your own home?
...limit the amount of salt you can purchase at the store?

The government is requiring nothing at this time. They asked manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the sodium very gradually over time.

What nerve! How dare this fascist administration ask manufactureres to voluntarily make their foods healthier!! :roll:

TravisTheSky

Godfather. wrote:

I just heard on the radio that the government wants to put a limit on the salt you use...Resturantes,ETC.
anybody hear anything else on that, is it another one of those "RIGHTS" going down the toilet thing's cause our government thinks we're too stupid to take care of our selfs ?.....what's their angle on this, fines new taxes what ? sounds like bullshit to me.

It's a "fines and new taxes thing:" http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2010/03/11/chefs-proposed-new-york-salt-ban-absurd/

Apparently New York wants to make it illegal for any restaurant to use salt as an ingredient in ANY DISH! Can you imagine being a pastry chef, but not being allowed to use salt in the recipe? The customers would have to add their own salt after the dessert is already finished. Eww...