but if we're only going to do labelling, we'll add peanuts, allergens, disclaimers about bones in chicken etc. when you're imposing a duty to warn, the sky is the limit. then they've also got to buy new menus, new displays that will double the size of their current menu (think of a mcd's menu with a list of this shit). when you're placing a ban on a fatal, genetically engineered substance, it stops there unless the public wants more.
Was the public asking for a ban on trans fats or was it the government simply taking matters into it's own hands.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Was the public asking for a ban on trans fats or was it the government simply taking matters into it's own hands.
i dont know, i dont live in nyc. but if it's horribly unpopular or causes huge problems, they will vote the people out of office and then repeal that legislation.
See I disagree Americans do know what food is healthy and what isn't, the problem is they just don't care. They would rather buy the hormone and sterioded filled meat from the local supermarket because it is convenient. It is too much of an effort to find the meat from grass-fed animals or the organic fruits and vegetables. While I think that cutting out trans fats is a great thing it will not make no difference because Americans will keep eating shit and keep getting fat. This has nothing to do with education level or house hold family income and everything to do with our eating habit.
let's compromise. people think they know what foods are healthy. or better yet; are suppose to be healthy. we're told to eat veggies and fruits but we're not told that the fruits are ripened in the truck with gasses. they don't tell you your carrots are dyed nor do you get information about the dyes and additives. you can eat the perfect diet while ingesting carsinogens with every bite. so banning trans fats won't make much of a difference right now. what it does is put companies on notice that the government is watching our health and food supply. research is proving that the way we grow and produce our food is dangerous to our health. the price of food is going to jump as profit motivated producers are forced out of business. i think we're moving in the right direction.
dangerous how? isnt this precisely what pro-life advocates like yourself are arguing for? let the states decide and all that? roe v wade was wrong etc?
I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.
Thank you for stating that much more eliquently than I did.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Thank you for stating that much more eliquently than I did.
all he said was that corporations should be allowed to poison an unsuspecting public until the federal government steps in and does something about it. he claimed that the city health dept has no say in the matter nor does the state. he also points out that cities should not be allowed to be pro-active in protecting its citizens. he insinuates that even though proven harmful; not enough people have died to make change. did i get that right?
I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.
i can't find any classification of trans fats as a food. do you have a link?
all he said was that corporations should be allowed to poison an unsuspecting public until the federal government steps in and does something about it. he claimed that the city health dept has no say in the matter nor does the state. he also points out that cities should not be allowed to be pro-active in protecting its citizens. he insinuates that even though proven harmful; not enough people have died to make change. did i get that right?
What is the difference between cigerettes and trans fats. Both are proven harmful yet our government sees no need in banning the production of tobacco products. It has educated the public on the dangers of smoking and leaves the final decision to the consumer. The same should be done with trans fats. Inform the public on the dangers, make sure that food is labeled (and restuarant patrons are informed) and then leave it in the hands of the consumer. That is how I interpret what he has said. There is no need for our government to be our mommy.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm for levels of government implementing legislation for what they've been granted authority for. In doing anything else the checks and balances of the system are bypassed. Those checks and balances are there primarily to protect the individual. Banning the public consumption of a food falls well outiside city level governance authority. It's NYC basically saying we think the FDA (or other federal or state agency menat to protect us against trans fat) is broken and we are going to make up rules as we go. Oh yeah, in making up rules we trampled all over peoples rights. But that's beside the point, this is for their own good. People on this board rightly have a shit when Bush tries to bypass the constitution and they should equally care about cities taken on legislation they have no authority for.
1. given that you live in canada, why do you spend so much time reading abotu our system of checks and balances?
2. how is that any different from a city passing a noise ordinance? saying "our citizens don't like loud noise and since congress won't do anything about it, we will."
3. power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states. can you tell me where in the constitution it says anything remotely similar to "only congress shall have the power to regulate cooking processes"? seems to me this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that should be left to individual states or cities.
What is the difference between cigerettes and trans fats. Both are proven harmful yet our government sees no need in banning the production of tobacco products. It has educated the public on the dangers of smoking and leaves the final decision to the consumer. The same should be done with trans fats. Inform the public on the dangers, make sure that food is labeled (and restuarant patrons are informed) and then leave it in the hands of the consumer. That is how I interpret what he has said. There is no need for our government to be our mommy.
cigarettes are also banned from use in public places and restricted to use only by adults. any kid can go into mcdonald's and load themselves with these products at will. that is when the obesity epidemic starts... in childhood when kids don't have the ability to make conscious health decisions, they just go by what tastes better. by your logic, we ought to sell cigarettes to children as long as we warn them on the package that smoking is bad for them.
cigarettes are also banned from use in public places and restricted to use only by adults. any kid can go into mcdonald's and load themselves with these products at will. that is when the obesity epidemic starts... in childhood when kids don't have the ability to make conscious health decisions, they just go by what tastes better. by your logic, we ought to sell cigarettes to children as long as we warn them on the package that smoking is bad for them.
What is it with people telling me what the logic behind my statements are. Are you fucking psychic? No I did not imply, by my statement, that children should be allowed to buy cigerettesd and I would appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth in order to win an arguement. We disagree on this and you will not sway my mind so fucking get over yourself already and quit telling me what the logic behind my statement is when in reality you have not one fucking clue what that logic is.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
1. given that you live in canada, why do you spend so much time reading abotu our system of checks and balances?
Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.
Did I pass your test?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
What is the difference between cigerettes and trans fats. Both are proven harmful yet our government sees no need in banning the production of tobacco products. It has educated the public on the dangers of smoking and leaves the final decision to the consumer. The same should be done with trans fats. Inform the public on the dangers, make sure that food is labeled (and restuarant patrons are informed) and then leave it in the hands of the consumer. That is how I interpret what he has said. There is no need for our government to be our mommy.
cigarettes are not banned because of the number of tobacco farmers. tobacco farming is being phased out and you can actually now get a permit to grow hemp. the final decision is not left to the public. i cannot smoke in public as it puts carcenogens in other peoples air. same thing here. you cannot put a dangerous substance in anothers food. drink it straight at home all you want. you cannot poison someone else. that was the basis for the tobacco ruling; and i believe the precident nyc is standing on. trans fat is NOT a food by any deffinition. nyc is as much in its' rights just as cities which banned public smoking. several states banned public smoking this last election. they told us if we need to smoke; eat and drink at home. same here; if you want to poison yourself; do it at home. this is only the tip of the iceberg. once i find a lawyer bold enough to sue the oil companies for the pollution their product causes; all hell will break loose. this based on all the arguments from the tobacco suit. what's good for one is good for all.
Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.
Did I pass your test?
good answer dude. i'm really impressed. not to change the subject; but when i was in school; we were taught that the second ammendment was part of the checks and balances in that citizens are allowed to bear arms in the event all other checks and balances fail and we get a dictator in office. was this ever mentioned? they don't teach it like that anymore.
She is not poor she is slightly retarded the two are not the same. Also individuals like her are a tiny minority and as you even stated she is being put in a group home probabaly because she lacks the ability to properly care for herself. The majority of Americans know what foods are healthy and which are not.
I was thinking about this before. Should we be blaming trans fats for the high rate of cardiovascular disease and obesity in this country or is it because people eat themselves to death. If we where to completely ban trans fats in this country, I would guess, that 90% of the obese people would still be obese because they eat crap and too much of it. McDonald's could stop using trans fats in their food but if you continue to eat there 5 to 6 times a weeks you with probably still be fat and still have a high risk of developing CVD.
That could also be applied to our energy and environmental problems and hell a lot of other issues too. Basically, we consume too much of everything.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
That could also be applied to our energy and environmental problems and hell a lot of other issues too. Basically, we consume too much of everything.
we have almost endless supplies of methane which will kill us when they defrost; but we can access it and solve the world energy crisis. it's clean burning yet nobody listens.
Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.
Did I pass your test?
So you are for businesses having to label their all their food? What about the costs to the business? I would like to see the labeling, myself but I thought you were against it...I could be wrong.
And I don't see it as giving up rights to ban something harmful and unnecessary. You have to use common sense with these things and drop the absolute type thinking. Weigh the pros and cons and look at things as they come up. Like the asbestos analogy, some things are done away with for good reason. Do you think people should be able to use asbestos? Or do you think the cons outweighed the pros? I have no problem with laws that protect the public. If the public prefered keeping the danger then that would be one thing but I've seen no evidence of support for trans fats.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So you are for businesses having to label their all their food? What about the costs to the business? I would like to see the labeling, myself but I thought you were against it...I could be wrong.
And I don't see it as giving up rights to ban something harmful and unnecessary. You have to use common sense with these things and drop the absolute type thinking. Weigh the pros and cons and look at things as they come up. Like the asbestos analogy, some things are done away with for good reason. Do you think people should be able to use asbestos? Or do you think the cons outweighed the pros? I have no problem with laws that protect the public. If the public prefered keeping the danger then that would be one thing but I've seen no evidence of support for trans fats.
I'm not against the banning of trans fat. I'm against the way this is being done by a level of government that has no business to do so. In the same wasy I'd kick up a fuss if the federal government tried to charge me property taxes.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'm not against the banning of trans fat. I'm against the way this is being done by a level of government that has no business to do so. In the same wasy I'd kick up a fuss if the federal government tried to charge me property taxes.
But if the federal government is dragging it's feet or simply doing nothing, the local government should have the right to protect it's citizens.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm not against the banning of trans fat. I'm against the way this is being done by a level of government that has no business to do so. In the same wasy I'd kick up a fuss if the federal government tried to charge me property taxes.
perhaps i've missed something along the way, but i don't understand why state/local government has no business doing this. the tenth amendment states that the federal government has only the powers that the constitution grants it, right? and that the states have powers outside of it (that aren't forbidden), yes? where in the us constitution is this forbidden, or where in the new york state constitution is this forbidden?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
What is it with people telling me what the logic behind my statements are. Are you fucking psychic? No I did not imply, by my statement, that children should be allowed to buy cigerettesd and I would appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth in order to win an arguement. We disagree on this and you will not sway my mind so fucking get over yourself already and quit telling me what the logic behind my statement is when in reality you have not one fucking clue what that logic is.
whoa, touched a nerve. you are the one who compared it to cigarettes... saying "cigarettes are unhealthy but legal so why are we banning this?" i did not put words in your mouth, i simply took your comparison to its logical end. you cant slice it both ways.
my point was, this is not being banned per se, it is being regulated, just like cigarettes, alcohol, or any other dangerous substance. becos that's what this stuff is. it's not a naturally existing food source. it's a genetically engineered fat that quite simply kills people. and it should be restricted as other health hazards are. we dont give cigarettes to children becos they are fatal and addictive. ditto with alcohol... young bodies cannot handle it. likewise, children cannot handle this stuff. they get ti and crave more cos it tastes good but it starts clogging their arteries before the damn things are even developed. and most people out there dont know about it. so restrict the stuff. keep it out of public areas. it's unecessary. if you feel you NEED to have transfat, you can buy it and put it in your food at home, just like smokers buy and smoke at home.
Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.
Did I pass your test?
no, becos you dodged my other 2 questions. didja just realized you had nothing to stand on and hoped id forget?
whoa, touched a nerve. you are the one who compared it to cigarettes... saying "cigarettes are unhealthy but legal so why are we banning this?" i did not put words in your mouth, i simply took your comparison to its logical end. you cant slice it both ways.
Yes you did touch a nerve. And yes I can slice it both ways. Trans fats in a limited amount will not kill you. Trans fats do not have the attactive nature that nicotene has. You can eat a greasy fucking cheeseburger and not affect the health of the person next to you. Finally the only places that cigerettes are prohibited are in enclosed environments, buildings, schools, bars,restuarants, etc. I can still go sit in the park on a bench and puff away affect those people that are near me. The restriction put on smoking are for the benefit of the non-smoker. The smoker still has the choice to kill himself if he/she wishes. You can go out and eat a McDonald's cheeseburger and not have a heart attack on the spot. It is when people don't take care of themselves and eat foods high in trans fats on a daily basis that the health problems arise. As far as children are concerned it is up to their parents to teach them about good nutruition and prevent them from eat shit like McDonalds or Burger King everyday. My kids haven't had any of that crap in a long time because their mother and I don't allow it. We teach our kids about eating healthy foods so when they are old enough to go out with their friends they will make the right decision. We talk about taking responsibility for our actions but then expect the government to take that responsibility away from us. We need to start taking ownership of our lives and that means dealing with the consiquencesof our actions wether theyare positive or negative and stop depending on the government to do everything for us. Look at diet sodas, they contain D-Phenylalamine which is a sythetic form of L-Phenylalamine. Studies have shown that D-Phenylalamine, in high doses, can have some serious affects on the body. Yet we don't ban diet soda from being served in restuarants. Trans fats are unhealthy like most saturated fats but it should be up to us as consumers to decide wether we want to put that into our bodies. It's not like we are eating cynide or arsenic. Instead of focusing on trans fats as the cause of the high rates in obesity and CVD we should look at this country's eating habits. Do you really think that every obese person in NYC will all of a sudden lose weight or that their LDL-cholesterol will suddenly fall to within NCEP proposed levels. No these people will contunie, for the most part, to be obese and continue down the path to a MI because of the way they eat. Banning trans fats to me equals the building of a 700 mile long wall along a 2,000+ mile border to stop illegal immigration. It is a quick and easy responce that will do nothing to fix the problem. Now go ahead tell me what my logic is again since you seem to know.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
It is great that someone is finally taking a stand against this stuff. Studies show trans fats are horrible for your health. With 2/3 of Americans considered overweight and 31% of them censidered obese, this is a good move. Although this will not solve obesity (all fats, good and bad in excess pack the pounds on) it is definately a step in the right direction.
here's a short paper on aspartame and Phenalanine from a student at the University of Wisconsin. Mamasan generally brings up a lot of interesting topics I know this is out of place, I just thought others reading this thread might be interested... cheers.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
here's a short paper on aspartame and Phenalanine from a student at the University of Wisconsin. Mamasan generally brings up a lot of interesting topics I know this is out of place, I just thought others reading this thread might be interested... cheers.
Aspartame has been shown to be safe for human consumption, with the exception of the specific people with the metobolic disorder mentioned in the paper. The phenylalamine that is realed by aspartame after it breaks down is L-phenylalamine which is an amino acid produced by the human body so it is safe. What is not entirely safe is the synthetic phenylalamine, D-phenylalamine, which is used in phenylketonurics which is an artificial sweeter used in Diet Pepsi. Phenylketonurics actually contains a combination of both types of phenylalamine known as DL-Phenylalamine. It is the synthetic portion of this amino acid that early tests have shown to have some side effects on the human body in high doses. So someone who drinks a lot of diet sodas can in fact be causing harm to themselves. Some as someone who eats food high in trans fats will be doing the same. Both the trans fats and D or DL-Phenylalamine are harmless is moderate amounts it is when we over-indulge ourselves that they become dangerous.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
i love this freakin country. regulate everything so its 'good for you'. who does trans fat hurt except the people eating it? and where does this end? how many other foods harm us? are people gonna unite and ban sodas and candy cuz they have no nutritional value and are bad for your teeth? (oh wait, they already have from schools). and red meat...fritos...chips...etc etc. so why isnt alcohol banned? it by far has more ramifications if over-used than food.
Yes you did touch a nerve. And yes I can slice it both ways. Trans fats in a limited amount will not kill you. Trans fats do not have the attactive nature that nicotene has. You can eat a greasy fucking cheeseburger and not affect the health of the person next to you. Finally the only places that cigerettes are prohibited are in enclosed environments, buildings, schools, bars,restuarants, etc. I can still go sit in the park on a bench and puff away affect those people that are near me. The restriction put on smoking are for the benefit of the non-smoker. The smoker still has the choice to kill himself if he/she wishes. You can go out and eat a McDonald's cheeseburger and not have a heart attack on the spot. It is when people don't take care of themselves and eat foods high in trans fats on a daily basis that the health problems arise. As far as children are concerned it is up to their parents to teach them about good nutruition and prevent them from eat shit like McDonalds or Burger King everyday. My kids haven't had any of that crap in a long time because their mother and I don't allow it. We teach our kids about eating healthy foods so when they are old enough to go out with their friends they will make the right decision. We talk about taking responsibility for our actions but then expect the government to take that responsibility away from us. We need to start taking ownership of our lives and that means dealing with the consiquencesof our actions wether theyare positive or negative and stop depending on the government to do everything for us. Look at diet sodas, they contain D-Phenylalamine which is a sythetic form of L-Phenylalamine. Studies have shown that D-Phenylalamine, in high doses, can have some serious affects on the body. Yet we don't ban diet soda from being served in restuarants. Trans fats are unhealthy like most saturated fats but it should be up to us as consumers to decide wether we want to put that into our bodies. It's not like we are eating cynide or arsenic. Instead of focusing on trans fats as the cause of the high rates in obesity and CVD we should look at this country's eating habits. Do you really think that every obese person in NYC will all of a sudden lose weight or that their LDL-cholesterol will suddenly fall to within NCEP proposed levels. No these people will contunie, for the most part, to be obese and continue down the path to a MI because of the way they eat. Banning trans fats to me equals the building of a 700 mile long wall along a 2,000+ mile border to stop illegal immigration. It is a quick and easy responce that will do nothing to fix the problem. Now go ahead tell me what my logic is again since you seem to know.
and in a simple comparison, you can go out and smoke a cigarette and it will not kill you dead instantly. but if you smoke them every day, they will. so it should be up to consumers then right? yet we dont allow children to buy them... why? im honestly curious, if you feel it should be up to parents to watch what their kids eat, why do we bother with restrictions on smoking for them? shouldn't it be up to parents to make sure their kids are being healthy and not smoking? what is the difference here? this stuff isn't cyanide, but it's close enough. it is poison for the body.
no, it wont stop obesity overnight. but it's a step in the right direction. you talk about looking at eating habits, yes, that needs to happen too. but maybe this is the first step on that road. cutting out a substance that does no good, is unecessary, and totally hazardous and harmful for human consumption. it is just like asbestos... there is no good reason to ahve it, no compelling need for people to use it, and no one will miss it. there are alternatives that are just as effective. so why not say "stop using this shit and use something else" which is exactly what we told asbestos users. that didnt destroy or system of free commerce, nor did it strip people of all their rights and choices. it simply held companies responsible for using dangerous substances in the products they sold. there is nothing new in this.
let's forget smoking... do you think contractors should be able to build with asbestos?
good answer dude. i'm really impressed. not to change the subject; but when i was in school; we were taught that the second ammendment was part of the checks and balances in that citizens are allowed to bear arms in the event all other checks and balances fail and we get a dictator in office. was this ever mentioned? they don't teach it like that anymore.
I know we have very different opinions about guns, gun laws. but this, I agree with you.
Comments
Was the public asking for a ban on trans fats or was it the government simply taking matters into it's own hands.
i dont know, i dont live in nyc. but if it's horribly unpopular or causes huge problems, they will vote the people out of office and then repeal that legislation.
let's compromise. people think they know what foods are healthy. or better yet; are suppose to be healthy. we're told to eat veggies and fruits but we're not told that the fruits are ripened in the truck with gasses. they don't tell you your carrots are dyed nor do you get information about the dyes and additives. you can eat the perfect diet while ingesting carsinogens with every bite. so banning trans fats won't make much of a difference right now. what it does is put companies on notice that the government is watching our health and food supply. research is proving that the way we grow and produce our food is dangerous to our health. the price of food is going to jump as profit motivated producers are forced out of business. i think we're moving in the right direction.
you're forgetting the extra deep fryers and added ventilation; plus the disposal fee. your fries are up around $5.00 now.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Thank you for stating that much more eliquently than I did.
all he said was that corporations should be allowed to poison an unsuspecting public until the federal government steps in and does something about it. he claimed that the city health dept has no say in the matter nor does the state. he also points out that cities should not be allowed to be pro-active in protecting its citizens. he insinuates that even though proven harmful; not enough people have died to make change. did i get that right?
i can't find any classification of trans fats as a food. do you have a link?
What is the difference between cigerettes and trans fats. Both are proven harmful yet our government sees no need in banning the production of tobacco products. It has educated the public on the dangers of smoking and leaves the final decision to the consumer. The same should be done with trans fats. Inform the public on the dangers, make sure that food is labeled (and restuarant patrons are informed) and then leave it in the hands of the consumer. That is how I interpret what he has said. There is no need for our government to be our mommy.
1. given that you live in canada, why do you spend so much time reading abotu our system of checks and balances?
2. how is that any different from a city passing a noise ordinance? saying "our citizens don't like loud noise and since congress won't do anything about it, we will."
3. power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states. can you tell me where in the constitution it says anything remotely similar to "only congress shall have the power to regulate cooking processes"? seems to me this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that should be left to individual states or cities.
cigarettes are also banned from use in public places and restricted to use only by adults. any kid can go into mcdonald's and load themselves with these products at will. that is when the obesity epidemic starts... in childhood when kids don't have the ability to make conscious health decisions, they just go by what tastes better. by your logic, we ought to sell cigarettes to children as long as we warn them on the package that smoking is bad for them.
What is it with people telling me what the logic behind my statements are. Are you fucking psychic? No I did not imply, by my statement, that children should be allowed to buy cigerettesd and I would appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth in order to win an arguement. We disagree on this and you will not sway my mind so fucking get over yourself already and quit telling me what the logic behind my statement is when in reality you have not one fucking clue what that logic is.
Did I pass your test?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
cigarettes are not banned because of the number of tobacco farmers. tobacco farming is being phased out and you can actually now get a permit to grow hemp. the final decision is not left to the public. i cannot smoke in public as it puts carcenogens in other peoples air. same thing here. you cannot put a dangerous substance in anothers food. drink it straight at home all you want. you cannot poison someone else. that was the basis for the tobacco ruling; and i believe the precident nyc is standing on. trans fat is NOT a food by any deffinition. nyc is as much in its' rights just as cities which banned public smoking. several states banned public smoking this last election. they told us if we need to smoke; eat and drink at home. same here; if you want to poison yourself; do it at home. this is only the tip of the iceberg. once i find a lawyer bold enough to sue the oil companies for the pollution their product causes; all hell will break loose. this based on all the arguments from the tobacco suit. what's good for one is good for all.
good answer dude. i'm really impressed. not to change the subject; but when i was in school; we were taught that the second ammendment was part of the checks and balances in that citizens are allowed to bear arms in the event all other checks and balances fail and we get a dictator in office. was this ever mentioned? they don't teach it like that anymore.
That could also be applied to our energy and environmental problems and hell a lot of other issues too. Basically, we consume too much of everything.
we have almost endless supplies of methane which will kill us when they defrost; but we can access it and solve the world energy crisis. it's clean burning yet nobody listens.
So you are for businesses having to label their all their food? What about the costs to the business? I would like to see the labeling, myself but I thought you were against it...I could be wrong.
And I don't see it as giving up rights to ban something harmful and unnecessary. You have to use common sense with these things and drop the absolute type thinking. Weigh the pros and cons and look at things as they come up. Like the asbestos analogy, some things are done away with for good reason. Do you think people should be able to use asbestos? Or do you think the cons outweighed the pros? I have no problem with laws that protect the public. If the public prefered keeping the danger then that would be one thing but I've seen no evidence of support for trans fats.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
But if the federal government is dragging it's feet or simply doing nothing, the local government should have the right to protect it's citizens.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
perhaps i've missed something along the way, but i don't understand why state/local government has no business doing this. the tenth amendment states that the federal government has only the powers that the constitution grants it, right? and that the states have powers outside of it (that aren't forbidden), yes? where in the us constitution is this forbidden, or where in the new york state constitution is this forbidden?
cross the river to the eastside
whoa, touched a nerve. you are the one who compared it to cigarettes... saying "cigarettes are unhealthy but legal so why are we banning this?" i did not put words in your mouth, i simply took your comparison to its logical end. you cant slice it both ways.
my point was, this is not being banned per se, it is being regulated, just like cigarettes, alcohol, or any other dangerous substance. becos that's what this stuff is. it's not a naturally existing food source. it's a genetically engineered fat that quite simply kills people. and it should be restricted as other health hazards are. we dont give cigarettes to children becos they are fatal and addictive. ditto with alcohol... young bodies cannot handle it. likewise, children cannot handle this stuff. they get ti and crave more cos it tastes good but it starts clogging their arteries before the damn things are even developed. and most people out there dont know about it. so restrict the stuff. keep it out of public areas. it's unecessary. if you feel you NEED to have transfat, you can buy it and put it in your food at home, just like smokers buy and smoke at home.
no, becos you dodged my other 2 questions. didja just realized you had nothing to stand on and hoped id forget?
Yes you did touch a nerve. And yes I can slice it both ways. Trans fats in a limited amount will not kill you. Trans fats do not have the attactive nature that nicotene has. You can eat a greasy fucking cheeseburger and not affect the health of the person next to you. Finally the only places that cigerettes are prohibited are in enclosed environments, buildings, schools, bars,restuarants, etc. I can still go sit in the park on a bench and puff away affect those people that are near me. The restriction put on smoking are for the benefit of the non-smoker. The smoker still has the choice to kill himself if he/she wishes. You can go out and eat a McDonald's cheeseburger and not have a heart attack on the spot. It is when people don't take care of themselves and eat foods high in trans fats on a daily basis that the health problems arise. As far as children are concerned it is up to their parents to teach them about good nutruition and prevent them from eat shit like McDonalds or Burger King everyday. My kids haven't had any of that crap in a long time because their mother and I don't allow it. We teach our kids about eating healthy foods so when they are old enough to go out with their friends they will make the right decision. We talk about taking responsibility for our actions but then expect the government to take that responsibility away from us. We need to start taking ownership of our lives and that means dealing with the consiquencesof our actions wether theyare positive or negative and stop depending on the government to do everything for us. Look at diet sodas, they contain D-Phenylalamine which is a sythetic form of L-Phenylalamine. Studies have shown that D-Phenylalamine, in high doses, can have some serious affects on the body. Yet we don't ban diet soda from being served in restuarants. Trans fats are unhealthy like most saturated fats but it should be up to us as consumers to decide wether we want to put that into our bodies. It's not like we are eating cynide or arsenic. Instead of focusing on trans fats as the cause of the high rates in obesity and CVD we should look at this country's eating habits. Do you really think that every obese person in NYC will all of a sudden lose weight or that their LDL-cholesterol will suddenly fall to within NCEP proposed levels. No these people will contunie, for the most part, to be obese and continue down the path to a MI because of the way they eat. Banning trans fats to me equals the building of a 700 mile long wall along a 2,000+ mile border to stop illegal immigration. It is a quick and easy responce that will do nothing to fix the problem. Now go ahead tell me what my logic is again since you seem to know.
here's a short paper on aspartame and Phenalanine from a student at the University of Wisconsin. Mamasan generally brings up a lot of interesting topics I know this is out of place, I just thought others reading this thread might be interested... cheers.
Aspartame has been shown to be safe for human consumption, with the exception of the specific people with the metobolic disorder mentioned in the paper. The phenylalamine that is realed by aspartame after it breaks down is L-phenylalamine which is an amino acid produced by the human body so it is safe. What is not entirely safe is the synthetic phenylalamine, D-phenylalamine, which is used in phenylketonurics which is an artificial sweeter used in Diet Pepsi. Phenylketonurics actually contains a combination of both types of phenylalamine known as DL-Phenylalamine. It is the synthetic portion of this amino acid that early tests have shown to have some side effects on the human body in high doses. So someone who drinks a lot of diet sodas can in fact be causing harm to themselves. Some as someone who eats food high in trans fats will be doing the same. Both the trans fats and D or DL-Phenylalamine are harmless is moderate amounts it is when we over-indulge ourselves that they become dangerous.
and in a simple comparison, you can go out and smoke a cigarette and it will not kill you dead instantly. but if you smoke them every day, they will. so it should be up to consumers then right? yet we dont allow children to buy them... why? im honestly curious, if you feel it should be up to parents to watch what their kids eat, why do we bother with restrictions on smoking for them? shouldn't it be up to parents to make sure their kids are being healthy and not smoking? what is the difference here? this stuff isn't cyanide, but it's close enough. it is poison for the body.
no, it wont stop obesity overnight. but it's a step in the right direction. you talk about looking at eating habits, yes, that needs to happen too. but maybe this is the first step on that road. cutting out a substance that does no good, is unecessary, and totally hazardous and harmful for human consumption. it is just like asbestos... there is no good reason to ahve it, no compelling need for people to use it, and no one will miss it. there are alternatives that are just as effective. so why not say "stop using this shit and use something else" which is exactly what we told asbestos users. that didnt destroy or system of free commerce, nor did it strip people of all their rights and choices. it simply held companies responsible for using dangerous substances in the products they sold. there is nothing new in this.
let's forget smoking... do you think contractors should be able to build with asbestos?
I know we have very different opinions about guns, gun laws. but this, I agree with you.