Surprise! "Temporary" Fast-Food Ban in South L.A. Becomes Permanent

Sorry, not buying that. I'm sure that DonnyMost would agree with me that this information is relatively easy to obtain and not a hard subject to understand IF the person is willing to investigate the matter a little. Just because it may be foreign to you doesn't mean it is not evident to a lot of other people.

I do have a soft spot for people regarding this stuff. As somebody who has helped a lot of people lose a lot of weight as a personal trainer for five years now it is sad how little people do know about this stuff. After working with a lot of people on making lifestyle changes I think it is all personal motivation and where this stuff ranks on the list. There are dangers in every single facet of one's lifestyle from smoking to drinking but I believe having choice is freedom. Do I want people to make the best decisions for their health? Absolutely. But do we need a nanny state to force people to that decision? Absolutely not. Remind me again how prohibition went.

 

Hahahahahaha



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

So you are comparing an addictive product like cigarettes to a non-addictive product like shampoo?

 

Yep...addiction has nothing to do with it.

 

Incentivizing good behavior always works better than punishing bad behavior.

I hate the crap food industry with a mighty passion, but banning it (from the private sector) isn't the answer.

 

Absolutely.

I'd prefer we try education over legislation here.

 

This a classic example of the consumer being informed in spite of the seller trying to push a different message. The health risks from smoking are universally known.

 

Sure, after decades and decades of government regulation, taxation, and consumer education.

which pretty much torpedos this argument, doesn't it:

Let's face it, the Marlboro man is your checkmate. I'd move it along if I were you.

 

Overall, that is correct, however, if a particular brand of shampoo made your hair fall out, there are plenty of shampoos to switch to. All nicotine based cigarettes generally pose the same health risk. There is nothing to take the place of that cigarette.

 

So why do people even start?

 

That's just a phoney baloney response to the real world. People don't have the time nor the resources to educate themselves on the potential effects of every ingredient used in every product they use in their daily lives. It's a false choice for you to believe you understand the potential ramifications of products you use. Hell there are companies that refuse to recall defective products because it would be cheaper for you to get killed using it and have your family sue than for them to spend the money recalling it. According to you, if those people had only spent a little time investigating they would know that the company was putting their lives at risk.

 

It's just all very selfish IMO.

Like the shampoo example.

"If it wasn't any good, it wouldn't be able to last this long."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's easy to say when you're not one of the first people who tries the shampoo. God forbid it melts your eyeball.

Then you go to court and win lots of money, yaaaaaaay!!

But people still lost their eyeballs.

How much simpler can I make this?

Also, I am completely baffled by the idea of "putting control in the hands of an 'institution' you may disagree with." Dude, you may not have voted these specific people in as governors, but you chose this government by virtue of being a willing party in the grand game of democracy. If you can't trust those people, I assure you fast food is the least of your worries lol.

That aside, regulators don't have to be government-funded. They can be self regulatory organizations with a huge variety of ways to obtain funding independently.

No one is telling you that you can't have fast food. But the people who set standards and license businesses have decided that McDonald's has far too much bad influence on OTHERS. You may like to screw your health up, but neither you nor McDonald's have the right to intentionally deceive people into screwing their health up. It's all fine and dandy when the available information is clear and reasonably understandable, but the only reason these guys are not going to TOWN on you is because of the regulator.

One day, maybe you will get the chance to see a large company absolutely DEVOUR a medium-sized company in business. That's when you will see that the average consumer has no chance. That's when you see that the big boys are way past ruining your health. They are trying to get into a deeper influence - namely, defining words in YOUR head according to their preference > like "choice", "health" and "happy" without you even knowing it. Then you do all the work for them once you have the money.

All in all, I'm not for banning ANYTHING, I am extremely supportive of education. I think these things should be taught alongside economics, physics, chemistry, etc. in schools constantly and very seriously. There is a very disturbing trend in the world, and it clearly shows that a huge number of people can not make these choices for themselves yet, and can't stop themselves once their income increases.

There is a huge monumental difference between regulation and banishment. Regulation is necessary just like having a government is necessary. Banishment is a whole other thing.

I'm quite sure most of the victims, those that are actually obese, are for these kinds of moves. What's funny to me is how people are taking this as a strike against them when clearly, the action is aimed to controlling the bad food and not the people who eat it. No one can stop you from swallowing deep fried beef fat covered in chocolate sauce. You can eat whatever you want.

 

Lotta people trying to make unfair, extreme comparisons here... trying their best to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Getting a little tired.

 

Liar Mathloom: Someone who works as a regulator in a dictatorship talking big government.

Hooray!

 

What's more tiring is dimwitted zombies beating the "all markets are perfectly optimal and self-regulating" drum like happy serfs.

Beyond stupid.

 

Once the Government SEIZES Power . . . they never concede it.

If you let them tell you what NOT to eat. . .soon they will tell you what to eat.

It is not Freedom to do what you want unless what you want to do is contrary to your overall good health according to someone with a MAYBE a labcoat but more than likely a suit that cost more than you make in a month.


People have the Freedom to be Gullible
The Freedom to be stupid
The Freedom to be misinformed
but they need to have the responsibility to be accountable for it.

That said. I think companies and businesses should be held to an even higher level of accountability. Deception and lying should not be "Oh they just advertising or trying to get their product out there" Lying is Lying.
We should not accept it because it inflates their profit margins.

Rocket River

 

But that's just it: they're NOT telling you what you can or can't eat. They're telling certain businesses that there are certain areas where they cannot operate, based on their product being potentially harmful. This is nothing new. State and local governments have been doing this for ages, and nobody has ever said a thing.

Oh, and the FDA has been telling people what they can and cannot eat for 104 years, and nobody seemed to mind too much. This sudden flare-up of over-libertarianism is ridiculous.

 

lol. Thanks for another fine example of conservatives being hypocrites.

"Preserve OUR constitution"!!!! ...but lets pass an ammendment to ban gay marriage.

RE: California ban? The voters approved it. What's it to me?

Back on track. If California wants to reduce the number of fast food joints from 1000 to 500 in one neighborhood, don't you think THEY are in better position to assess their situation than YOU? Isn't that the whole idea of letting the States govern themselves? ...oh, it works except when YOU don't agree then it's okay to jump down their arse.