Salt Monitor

Drowned Out

FiveB247x wrote:

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.

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.

yet you give us nothing but conjecture, projections and fear-based assumptions.
Your statements are 100% opinion – no facts. You sound like a DARE cop with your statements about prohibition. The claims you make are hardly uncontested. In fact, most of the data I’ve seen contradict them.
But forget the stupid fucking stats, they never get this argument anywhere…

You say that the slippery slope doesn’t account for real life….exactly what is real life about your practice of holding people to a standard of zero toxins in their diets and personal habits? It will NEVER happen. In every one of these threads you seem to think if a person does not follow your own personal, rigid lifestyle guideline, they are a detriment to society and unwilling to accept personal responsibility. I don’t know why your rhetoric surprises me tho, since you wished cancer on all smokers before, then spent multiple posts defending that position. Talk about extremism.


As for the OP - I have no problem with food standards....but think there are better ways of going about this. First - make food labels more efficient and easier to read. The average person has no clue what any of that means to them. Get rid of the nutrient chart....break them into groups and give each nutrient/toxin a grade or colour code (hey, works for terror alerts!)...make it easier for people to make an informed decision.

michelleelise

"New York" does not want to make it illegal. That's a pretty big generalization. One nutty legislator wrote it up because his father isn't supposed to eat salt. Any legislator can propose any bill they want for attention, it doesn't mean the whole state "wants it". This'll get voted down quickly.

he still stands

Drowned Out wrote:

Your statements are 100% opinion – no facts. You sound like a DARE cop with your statements about prohibition. The claims you make are hardly uncontested. In fact, most of the data I’ve seen contradict them.
But forget the stupid fucking stats, they never get this argument anywhere…

You say that the slippery slope doesn’t account for real life….exactly what is real life about your practice of holding people to a standard of zero toxins in their diets and personal habits? It will NEVER happen. In every one of these threads you seem to think if a person does not follow your own personal, rigid lifestyle guideline, they are a detriment to society and unwilling to accept personal responsibility. I don’t know why your rhetoric surprises me tho, since you wished cancer on all smokers before, then spent multiple posts defending that position. Talk about extremism.


As for the OP - I have no problem with food standards....but think there are better ways of going about this. First - make food labels more efficient and easier to read. The average person has no clue what any of that means to them. Get rid of the nutrient chart....break them into groups and give each nutrient/toxin a grade or colour code (hey, works for terror alerts!)...make it easier for people to make an informed decision.

agreed...

the only thing i can think of that the government should do is to forbid companies to advertise that their food is healthy! when it is shit. Like advertising the hell out of "NO TRANS FAT!"... 'FEWER CALORIES THAN PREVIOUS!"... "LOW FAT" (but high as hell in sugar)... etc etc.

Go to the grocery store and look. Tell me how many food items you can find that aren't advertised as being "healthy" in some regard. Even the damn cookies and potato chips.

People are stupid. People get misled. It doesn't mean we should make everything illegal, but maybe stoping advertisers from cashing in on stupidity is a good move.

Gern Blansten

Godfather. wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

I think it'd be pretty silly to use this as an example of government infringing on rights. This is the government giving you rights back. When the salt is already added to your food, you have no choice. We should definitely cut back to more moderate levels and let people shake salt over their food if they want to kill themselves more quickly.

I agree with you the salt intake thing but why is the goverment getting involved ? they don't do anything
with out a tax or some kind of money changing hands.

Godfather.

uh.....maybe because they believe health care costs could decline by instituting such a thing?

come on man

Starfall

Drowned Out wrote:

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.

yet you give us nothing but conjecture, projections and fear-based assumptions.
Your statements are 100% opinion – no facts. You sound like a DARE cop with your statements about prohibition. The claims you make are hardly uncontested. In fact, most of the data I’ve seen contradict them.

Moreover, Portugal has decriminalized almost all drugs for nearly the entirety of the past decade, and they have not only reduced the load on their law enforcement and justice systems, overall drug use has gone down.

haffajappa

Godfather.

FiveB247x wrote:

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.

ha ha I'm in !

Godfather.

JR8805

Personally, I'd be really happy to have less salt pre-included with foods. I often get foods that I think are either way too salty or way too sweet. (I wouldn't mind a sugar limit on foods, either, to be honest.) I figure if you personally feel you'd like a bucket of salt with your food, you can do it yourself. And even then, your bucket of salt will add less salt than foods actually infused with the stuff.

Godfather.

Gern Blansten wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

I think it'd be pretty silly to use this as an example of government infringing on rights. This is the government giving you rights back. When the salt is already added to your food, you have no choice. We should definitely cut back to more moderate levels and let people shake salt over their food if they want to kill themselves more quickly.

I agree with you the salt intake thing but why is the goverment getting involved ? they don't do anything
with out a tax or some kind of money changing hands.

Godfather.

uh.....maybe because they believe health care costs could decline by instituting such a thing?

come on man

you could be right but ...salt ? that's like micro management in health care when there are far greater concerns with other thing's being sold on the market,what's next sugar ? crap how about caffine ?
I don't know man it just don't sound right to me.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

Godfather. wrote:

you could be right but ...salt ? that's like micro management in health care when there are far greater concerns with other thing's being sold on the market,what's next sugar ? crap how about caffine ?
I don't know man it just don't sound right to me.

Godfather.

yes SALT. did you read my explanation on why salt is bad for you? and how if these processed foodmakers would limit salt it would make everyone a little healthier? and like i said yes sugar too, sugar causes diabetes, but not as much as high fructose corn syrup, which is being used much more often than sugar these days. do you know why diabetes is bad for you? how about hypertension?

_

I agree with whoever said this would only give MORE power to the consumer to decide how much salt they want in their food. With all the complaints about our power being taken away, shouldn't we be happy with something that would give us more power? I think it's funny how we only get upset about our power supposedly being taken away by the government, but not by big business. I think it's even more funny/sad that we are so adamant about protecting big business's "right" to fuck us.