Good or Bad, My Health is My Business?

again, regardless of your answer to me before bill, I see it as creating more choices, not less.

you see it as taking away someones rights, I see it as giving people more rights.

Chai Tea wrote:

again, regardless of your answer to me before bill, I see it as creating more choices, not less.

you see it as taking away someones rights, I see it as giving people more rights.

That is flat out idiotic. You can't create more choice by eliminating choices.

While I agree that the NYC authorities are overstepping re trans fats, I stop short of condemning the "nanny state" for all public-health rules.

To wit: laws requiring motorcycle helmets. Some say, "It's my own business if I ride without a helmet." Except, of course, if you crash. Then you'll be hauled off to a trauma center for some highly costly care, quite likely on the public dime.

Then the issue concerns all of us.

Public Dime argument is bankrupt unless you are going to address every issue of equal consequence from the same perspective.

You can't create more choice by eliminating choices.

Kinder Eggs containing toys are not suitable for children under the age of three due to the small parts which may be ingested or inhaled. They are sold all over the world, however they are banned in the United States where the Food and Drug Administration has deemed the encapsulated toy to be a choking hazard. Kinder Egg-like confections are available, but only in a form filled with small candies and/or stickers. There are some stores in the United States that sell genuine Kinder Eggs, often in conjunction with other imported British or other European sweets, although their importation is technically illegal due to the FDA ban.[1]

In 1992, the New Jersey Health Department banned restaurants from serving raw and undercooked eggs. No more; soft-boiled eggs, poached eggs, eggs over-easy, eggs sunny-side-up, raw eggs, hollandaise sauce, steak tartare, etc. Eventually sanity took over and the ban was repealed in 1993.

This shows you just how stoopid legislators can be. They feel that they can legislate, not only morality, but diets, as well.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Public Dime argument is bankrupt unless you are going to address every issue of equal consequence from the same perspective.

Oh? Does the same logic apply to laws against drunken driving?

Chai Tea wrote:

again, regardless of your answer to me before bill, I see it as creating more choices, not less.

you see it as taking away someones rights, I see it as giving people more rights.

That is flat out idiotic. You can't create more choice by eliminating choices.

and then there's the foie gras ban ...

anyone remember

Quote:

In 1992, the New Jersey Health Department banned restaurants from serving raw and undercooked eggs. No more; soft-boiled eggs, poached eggs, eggs over-easy, eggs sunny-side-up, raw eggs, hollandaise sauce, steak tartare, etc. Eventually sanity took over and the ban was repealed in 1993.

This shows you just how stoopid legislators can be. They feel that they can legislate, not only morality, but diets, as well.

it all seems so unamerican

Chai Tea, you're getting warmer. You've abandoned "more choices" in favor of "choices remain exactly the same". Now quit with the Cool Hand Luke act and admit your error. As mentioned above; KFC has already decided to get away from trans fats in their chicken (Supply and demand doing it's duty sans government interference). With all of the attention this is getting, more restaurants will no doubt follow suit. But wait; Popeye's chicken hasn't changed a thing! This, of course, means you have a choice! However, the subject at hand is eliminating that choice, by law. Few propositions could be more ridiculous than claiming that eliminating choices doesn't eliminate choices.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Few propositions could be more ridiculous than claiming that eliminating choices doesn't eliminate choices.

bill, you don't like reading my entire posts, do you?