Banning fast food in poor neighborhoods

[BinaryClock]

I don't think I'm overreacting. No, it isn't a huge regulation, but it is invasive nonetheless. Like I said, it's a slippery slope thing.

PLUS, in a larger context, this is a frightening continuation of a dangerous trend: banning smoking in restaurants, banning trans-fats, now they're starting to broaden the scope. They're protecting us from ourselves! When should we start overreacting? When this invasive regulation tells us every course of our meal? I'm not saying that will happen, but we should nip this overstepping in the bud now.

Also, good quote, ZL. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

There is a line but this isn't it.

[RomanClock]

There is a line but this isn't it.

It isn't but its getting close.

[FluxCapacitorClock]

There is a line but this isn't it.

I disagree that it's something to get fussed about. Banning smoking in restaurants and banning trans-fats are invasive, yes, but are those not bad for us? Honestly, having less smoke around us and having less fatty foods in any aspect is a good thing. Yes, it's invasive, yes, it is a slight violation of the rights of businesses, but I honestly think it's good for us. We aren't going to stop breathing noxious chemicals into our bodies and eating the greasiest, shittiest foods possible on our own; so we need some help breaking those habits.

[Marlin Clock]

What's wrong with banning smoking indoors? I don't see how that could be used as a counterpoint.
I agree with flux.

I have things to say I just don't know what they are yet.

[AbsintheClock]

Last time I checked it was government interference that has done more harm to the poor than the cheeseburger. What do I know though, I'm not a politician.

[Loki Clock]

I disagree that it's something to get fussed about. Banning smoking in restaurants and banning trans-fats are invasive, yes, but are those not bad for us? Honestly, having less smoke around us and having less fatty foods in any aspect is a good thing. Yes, it's invasive, yes, it is a slight violation of the rights of businesses, but I honestly think it's good for us. We aren't going to stop breathing noxious chemicals into our bodies and eating the greasiest, shittiest foods possible on our own; so we need some help breaking those habits.

You're basically saying it's someone's right to tell you how to live your life and hinder you living it in a way they don't want you to.

[FluxCapacitorClock]

You're basically saying it's someone's right to tell you how to live your life and hinder you living it in a way they don't want you to.

No I'm really not. It isn't hurting us when the government says to not put cigarette smoke in public restaurants, and it's certainly not hurting us when they limit our fast food intake either.

[Loki Clock]

No I'm really not.

You see, that would mean that you DON'T want people to be able to make it against the law for you to live your life a certain way, even if they think of it as only bad, like, say, if you're a smoker or someone who eats unhealthy food!

[FluxCapacitorClock]

You see, that would mean that you DON'T want people to be able to make it against the law for you to live your life a certain way, even if they think of it as only bad, like, say, if you're a smoker or someone who eats unhealthy food!

The smoking ban just tells you you can't force non-smokers who want to visit the same restaurants as you to breathe your second hand smoke.

This limitation on fast food may be a little unneccesary in your eyes, but exactly how is it hurting people?

As far as the government limiting lifestyles: maybe I want to live my life selling babies, should the government let me?

[RomanClock]

No I'm really not. It isn't hurting us when the government says to not put cigarette smoke in public restaurants, and it's certainly not hurting us when they limit our fast food intake either.

Id say there is a difference because smokes are a luxury item (you don't need it, really), food (in any form) is still food and food is a necessity.
You know guys, this all started with banning transfat. California has plans in the works to ban cars that don't get certain gas mileage. Not only that, at one point they were talking about limiting the amount of electricity you are allowed to use, and at what temperature you could keep your house at.

[Marlin Clock]

California has plans in the works to ban cars that don't get certain gas mileage.

I really don't see a problem with that as long as it keeps with ex post facto, making it that you can't buy them from that point on and can keep them if bought beforehand.

[RomanClock]

I really don't see a problem with that as long as it keeps with ex post facto, making it that you can't buy them from that point on and can keep them if bought beforehand.

I'm pretty sure its that you aren't allowed to drive a car with less than X mpg, not that you just can't buy them.

[Marlin Clock]

Well, that clearly would break ex post facto and would be deemed unconstitutional quickly.
If they were smart they would just make it so the ban bans sales from that date on.

It's California, anyway. A portion of their population buys a new car each year, so I'm sure it would have some impact.

[TequilaClock]

Sometimes I wonder if they got the money to buy booze, they got the money to buy supplies. Well its all in education I guess.

[Slurpee]

I don't understand how people elect to city council those that they feel are the most qualified for the job, they unanimously make a decision placing extremely miniscule limitations on establishments whose sole purpose is encouraging and making provisions for what is widely recognized as an extremely unhealthy activity (ie eating reconstituted cow shit fried twice in bacon fat (yum)) and before the mayor (also democratically elected) signs it into law, you already have people bitching.
 It was a unanimous decision by elected officials. What's the problem? How is it any different from a dry county?
Isn't it highly probable that the people who actually live there wanted restrictions placed on big businesses that they feel do more harm than good to their already shitty neighborhood?

If anybody affected by this is unhappy, can't they write letters? Can't they vote out the people responsible? Isn't that how democracy works?

[AbsintheClock]

On another note smoking bans in restaurants should be up to the owners themselves, and not the government. If you pink lunged faggots want to trample on my right to chew on a steak while polluting my lungs that's clearly your own problem. Yeah it's unhealthy, but life is full of risks. Not only that but there is NO conclusive evidence that 2nd hand smoke actually causes cancer. NONE. It's all a guess.

[AbsintheClock]

I have no problem with non-smoking sections. Granted ventilators and things like that are not cheap. I am being selfish too, and I will wholeheartedly admit that. However the idea that I can't smoke in any restaraunt at all is absurd. Or even in bars and clubs for that matter. A lot of small buisnesses like cigar stores, and hookah shops are either being shut down or limited to just selling because town ordinances have banned smoking in all indoor places of buisness. The point is the government has no right to ban an activity just because it's unhealthy. If we are going to ban fast food in poor districts while we are at it lets ban table salt from all restaraunts. Table salt is extremely unhealthy. It raises blood pressure, dehydrates the body, and can lead to heart problems. We should ban butter, red meat, and while we're at it we should turn EVERYTHING into the spitting image of the movie Demolition Man. Why not after all, the government knows what is best for you.

Secondhand smoke in all test subjects that I've read have been inconclusive based on the fact that the data collected has no patterns, nor any consistant evidence. These "experiments" are formed solely based on a hypothesis, and a favored effort to skew results to their favor. It's all based on an agenda to tell you what to do.

[PirateClock]

Why would they ban cheap and accessible food to people in low income areas? If any food banning should go on it should be in affluent or middle-class areas. Even then it's probably the most idiotic ordinance I've ever heard in my life.

because low income peeps are generally to stupid to know that stuffing your body full with fat and salt isn't the best idea.


not that i agree with banning things but i can somewhat understand the logic behind it. though just educating people about risks etc would be a smarter move.

[RomanClock]

because low income peeps are generally to stupid to know that stuffing your body full with fat and salt isn't the best idea.

This is sadly what the politicians think, but one: how does eating healthy, more expensive food INCREASE your income? and two: That $300 steak probably isn't too good fro your heart either, "unhealthy" food crosses all economic boundaries. and 3: This assumes that poor people are stupid, they may be financially, but that doesn't mean they are idiots.

PS: This is not a comment on Pirate, just highlighting the idea he pointed out.

[BinaryClock]

This is sadly what the politicians think, but one: how does eating healthy, more expensive food INCREASE your income? and two: That $300 steak probably isn't too good fro your heart either, "unhealthy" food crosses all economic boundaries. and 3: This assumes that poor people are stupid, they may be financially, but that doesn't mean they are idiots.

PS: This is not a comment on Pirate, just highlighting the idea he pointed out.

Cooking your own food. Poor people existed before fast food.