Previous Next
Do you think cities should be able to ban fast food restaurants from opening because of health concerns?
Asked at Massachusetts Street on July 30, 2008
“Actually, I do think they should be able to. There are so many things in fast food that are harmful aside from it causing obesity. If it’s harmful to people, they should be able to restrict it.”
“No. It’s not the government’s responsibility to protect people from themselves.”
“I don’t think it’s an entirely bad idea, but they need to focus on providing an affordable alternative.”
“I think so. I think it would have a positive effect on the community.”
Related story
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 163 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 274 comments
- Study suggests continued population drop in Kansas May 29, 2012 · 13 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 45 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 93 comments
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 35 comments
- God, marriage May 25, 2012 · 200 comments
- Brownback tells federal judicial panel to toss legislative redistricting maps May 29, 2012 · 3 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 136 comments
- Blog: Writing Your Erotica: An Afternoon Lead By Dixie Lubin In The Company Of Other Women May 28, 2012 · 47 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- Kansas football scouring country May 29, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- How to help: Guides needed for Lamplight Tour of Black Jack Battlefield and Nature Park May 27, 2012
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Frank Male files for county commission; keep an ear open for local sales tax talk; city hires new city engineer; wholesale water district buys land near Kaw; weekly land transfers May 29, 2012
- Library kicks off reading program May 27, 2012
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Thellman files for re-election to county commission; News of salvage yards, curbside recycling and a pig May 25, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Informed (anonymous) says…
Abso-freaking-lutely not!! It's called 'free enterprise', folks. It's fast food. It's not illegal -- except maybe in California.Mr. Berry seems to be the only one who grasps the concept of government.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
"No. It's not the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves."Right, it's the government's responsibility, in part, to protect unwitting individuals from those who would profit at their expense, including thedeliverers of health damaging substances in the guise of "food."Legality is transitory.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Oh... and I'd like some trans-fatty fries and a cocain-ola with that.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Next target: people who chew gum with their mouths open.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
Sounds like something a certain former city commission would have tried.I think bookstores should be banned for causing eyestrain, coffeeshops for selling stimulants, car dealerships for harming the environment, movie theaters for promoting promiscuity and violence and the city commission itself for promoting absolute stupidity.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Fark off, gubmint! Why don't we just incarcerate the fat people and put them in slave (cough) rehabilitation camps until they get thin again.
71_Hawk (anonymous) says…
I don't think they should ban the fast food places, but they should ban the drive up. It wastes gas, pollutes the air, and it would at least make the patrons get out of the car and drag their lazy butts up to the counter and back! At least they would get a little exercise!
takeastand (anonymous) says…
Socialism - government control from cradle to grave
geekin_topekan (anonymous) says…
Before we worry about greasy fried starch we should enforce laws that are already on the books.Let's start by making it illegal to drive drunk and kill people and run home and hope they don't come and get you before the booze wears off.Once we get some enforcment in that catgory,then lets worry about fast food restaurants.
jonas (anonymous) says…
takeastand: Errr. . . there's nothing in this about socialism, except for where the term has been bastardized to be synonymous with autocratic control.
ohjayhawk (anonymous) says…
No, for the reasons Ryan and blue said.I don't have a problem, however, with the government requiring all restaurants to disclose their nutritional information. I think people should have the right to eat the stuff if they want, but I think they should have the right to be informed about what they are eating.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
You had better believe if I am going to pay taxes to provide your National Health Services I am going to want to control every single thing you do that might impact your health, everything. Not only how much and what you eat but how much you exercise, how much you drink, what time you go to bed, everything. Now get your lazy butt off the couch and get outside and do your mandated National Health Exercise Routines while I do a refrigerator check.
trinity (anonymous) says…
i'm with ryan berry. whatever happened to personal accountability?? sheesh.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
trinity (Anonymous) says:"i'm with ryan berry. whatever happened to personal accountability?? sheesh."When you personally paid for your own health care, no problem. When I pay for it you will be accountable to me. Sheesh!
jonas (anonymous) says…
sigmund: So, if they're accountable to you for what you paid for, you would have control over, what, a thousandth of a percent of their total health and lifestyle for each individual? Shoot, I think we just used up my accountability to you. Later.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
I agree Ryan Berry is on the right track, but, I cannot take him seriously because of the "thing" on his head? At first, I thought he was a Shriner, and there might be a little motorcycle at his feet, then I thought, no, he is a bully who took a toddlers hat away. So, at this point, i am confused.My next thought is, has anyone seen Rundle or Sheiner and Highbooger lateley? Have they move and set up political office in Cally?
dancemomx2 (Sheila White) says…
i say no!! it's my choice to eat at these places. i don't need anyone to tell me what is healthy and what isn't. i personally have no health insurance so i guess i'm not accountable to anyone but myself. thankfully, in this community, we have a free exercise program Red Dog's Dog Days. everyone needs to take some responsibility for themselves and there families. quit making everything political. there are certain areas of my life i don't need the government to worry about. .
autie (anonymous) says…
Why does the question pick on fast food joints? If having healthy food only on the menu was the issue, one would close down 90% of the food joints in town..All that fatty, carb laden Italian stuff at Tellers; out. buffalo Bobs greasy ribs and chicken; out. all that high sodium chinese buffet crap..sorry coach. If you are truly accountable and responsible to your health..stay home and eat nothing but June Cleaver meals...may I be excused, Mom?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
jonas (Anonymous) says:"sigmund: So, if they're accountable to you for what you paid for, you would have control over, what, a thousandth of a percent of their total health and lifestyle for each individual?"Excellent question friend. I didn't mean 'me' personally but the 'collective' me, us, the Citizen Health Service funded by the Workers. As a reward for missing my broader point merrill is holding a voluntary forced march to the Bozo Beet Bazaar for a spirited round of beet picking and you are invited!
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
People should be able to eat whatever they want. They know the risks. If a person don't mind being a fatso and having angioplasty at age 45, that's his/her right.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Another poorly worded question of the day.Should cities have this police power? Yes, and they do.Would I support them using this police power to ban trans fats? Definitely not. People should have the freedom to choose what they eat. As an alternative the city could require fast food restaurants to provide more information to the public, or discourage trans fat use by having a "sin tax" thus making it more expensive than the alternatives.
trinity (anonymous) says…
it must have been really windy the day this ots was put forth; explains why ryan berry's head is in question. his hat's just blowing off! :)
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Most people don't realize that as soon as the government controls heath care the next step is to criminalize or outlaw everything they determine is bad for you to decrease costs. Vote Republican where in order to preserve your right to choose.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
They can have my BigMac® when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
canyon_wren (anonymous) says…
I'm with Ryan and trinity--and agree with ohjayhawk, too--that it probably is a good idea (though not necessarily mandatory) for fast food places to disclose nutritional information, but there is so much information out there (you can scarcely avoid it) about the dangers of various fast food selections that only a nincompoop would be ignorant of what isn't good for him/her. I certainly am opposed to any more control by the government over our lives--and as geekin topekan points out, so few of the really necessary laws are being enforced with any regularity--let's get those taken care of before we come up with some of these nit-picking ones.
jonas (anonymous) says…
you_ignorant_sick_animals (Anonymous) says:"just goes to show all the little socialistic idiots that Lawrence Kansas has produced with it's liberal views. I bet you like Hillary for President too."So, are you going to tell me what I believe in this issue? Because you seem to know a lot about it, and I'm wondering where you got it from. And I've been leaning towards McCain. Obama reminds me too much in his situation of a leftist version of Bush in 2000, and I've always found Hillary to be evil in a somewhat undefinable way. At any rate, she gives me the creeps. (Perhaps I could say, the Willies! kyahaha)"My name says it all."Well, something we agree on. "My next name on here will be Jonas_is_brain_dead."Uh oh. They're on to me. You wouldn't know how long it took to learn to type with a flat EEG.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"Vote Republican where in order to preserve your right to choose."Ummm. . . . .okay. . . . .
jonas (anonymous) says…
sigmund: All in good fun, tomodachi. I knew what you were talking about.
nobody1793 (anonymous) says…
There are meals at Applebees (as an example) with twice as many calories as a McDonalds value meal. The problem is portion control not the contents.
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
Sig ~ that is exactly what I was thinking yesterday. I have fended for myself my entire life with no assistance in any form. If I am forced to finance everyone else's health care, you bet I'll have a big stake in their lifestyle choices. If you thought the boozos and merrills of the world were control freaks, you ain't seen nothin yet. It swings both ways, and I have a feeling that those who are on the opposite end can be far more suppressive. For some who are so fond of forcing their personal likes and dislikes on the masses, they may be creating a huge monster.
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
Ryan, you are more intelligent than your years!
sgtwolverine (anonymous) says…
No. No no no no no. No no no; no no no no no. No!
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
Ryan, you are more intelligent than your years!That's Ryan Berry folks.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Jonas...I meant to say "Vote Republican in order to preserve your right to choose"
autie (anonymous) says…
OK satirical...No cookies for you. especially the ones with lots of real butter. I will not support republican ideology but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to eat whatever the hell you want to eat..Ever have an old fashion,homemade donut that was cooked in real lard and glazed hot??? too good..they could be used to control the masses.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Informed: "Abso-freaking-lutely not!!"Is there a better way to say it than that? The answer is no. Satirical, I believe this is in response to the recent trans-fat issue passed in California. See what happens when you let a Republican be governor.
fu7il3 (anonymous) says…
The problem is that it places a lot of control in a government of what businesses they allow. Are all restaurants that serve unhealthy food accountable? Are desserts banned? French fries, even if they aren't from a fast food place? If you don't allow McDonald's, but allow Chili's to sell burgers, isn't that odd?If you give individual city leaders the ability to make decisions like that, you leave it open to corruption. Whose to say that Wendy's doesn't pay a commissioner a lump sum to keep a Hardee's out?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Remember, folks: We're talking about fast food. Unhealthy stuff.Especially the really, really bad ones like Subway... Quizno's... Mr. Goodcents...Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://www.independentvoting.orghttp://marciaford.blogspot.com
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Beatrice:"Satirical, I believe this is in response to the recent trans-fat issue passed in California. See what happens when you let a Republican be governor."Thank you, I follow current events and am well aware Arnold is a Republican, however he is a Republican in name only. Perhaps I should have said, vote for conservative Republicans. Arnold might be fiscally moderate, but he is socially liberal. The idea to limit peoples' choices in order to protect them from themselves is part of the liberal Orwellian Utopia belief. Conservatives believe everyone has the right to make choice, but with choice comes personal responsibility.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
An interesting book, along the lines of this discussion...http://www.amazon.com/Eat-This-Not-That-Pounds/dp/1594868549http://www.menshealth.com/eatthis/index.php
classclown (Class Clown) says…
beatrice (Anonymous) says:Satirical, I believe this is in response to the recent trans-fat issue passed in California. See what happens when you let a Republican be governor.===========================================This is in response to this article.http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/30/la_blocks_new_fastfood_outlets/
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says:"Thank you, I follow current events and am well aware Arnold is a Republican, however he is a Republican in name only."_________________________________________________________________________And that's a good thing, for the GOP, even if some refuse to acknowledge it.But then again, most of today's GOP hardcore partisans "CITOMs" ("Conservative In Their Own Minds")! :p--Ag
Satirical (anonymous) says…
I think invictus proves my argument that liberals want to control people's lives, to prevent negative social consequences. Liberals believe the government's responsibility to always bail people out when there are negative social consequences, and by limiting choice limits the requirements of government. Whereas conservatives want to allow free choice but also personal responsibility, so if you make a bad choice you must generally suffer the consequences.
BuffyloGal (anonymous) says…
Are we seriously thinking that one can compare Japan to the US? Japan is homogenous to a fault while the US is not. The variety of people, let alone sizes is enough to give anyone pause. Why not compare to a similar county with equally problematic health care issues? Australia has a national health care system and problems of obesity similar to our own yet they do not outlaw cigarettes or alcohol or McDonalds nor is one charged more for the service since it is an automatic 1.5% of your tax dollar. Meanwhile back here in the land of the free and the home of the brave I have health insurance and despite being very healthy I pay more than I should have to to cover all the rest of the people also on the same plan who were not as wise in their lifestyle decisions. Am I resentful? No. Under a national plan the results would be the same but the payment would be salary-based and not industry-based.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"I meant to say "Vote Republican in order to preserve your right to choose""Then I guess I meant to say "Errrr. . . . . . okay."I question your statement, not your grammar.
acg (anonymous) says…
There ya'll go again, putting labels on everyone. I'm a liberal and I think this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. But, the notion that one can vote republican and preserve their choices is a freakin' hoot.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Leave the restaurants alone, but set a person's health insurance rate according to their BMI.
BuffyloGal (anonymous) says…
"if you make a bad choice you must generally suffer the consequences" - it's those fine Christian values that we so love about you!
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
While I'm all for state and local entities having the authority to experiment with different approaches to governance as long as the subject involved is not Constitutionally protected/prohibited one way or the other I would be reluctant to support the idea of a restaurant ban based on health concerns. Such a ban is unlikely to break many hearts in Lawrence (or anywhere else for that matter), but it is important to ask what would be banned next? (Before approving any new authority or power, it is a good idea to ask if you would really want your political opponents to have said authority or power. How would the "other" side use this power?) Will parks be banned because children sometimes get hurt there? The smell of baking bread has been deemed a pollutant in some cities. Is Panera at risk of being closed down? (If they try to shut down Wheatfields, I'll lead the protest march ... peacefully, of course.) Alcohol causes all sorts of health problems. Do we really want Douglas to be a dry county? Whether or not I personally support a ban or prohibition, I always ask how I will like it when something I enjoy or approve of is banned.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Jonas..."I question your statement, not your grammar"Oh, so you just wanted to make a pointless comment without providing justification? That is a new tactic (sarcasm intended).
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Acg:.I am a conservative not because I was raised that way, but because I have carefully analyzed the goals of each philosopy and believe conservatism is far wiser than liberalism. In fact statistically given my background I should be a liberal, but I cannot reconcile their beliefs with what I know is right. Liberals want to do good, but often fail to realize that the government is wasteful and inefficient and does more harm than good. Liberals want to control people's lives, to prevent negative social consequences. Liberals believe the government's responsibility to always bail people out when there are negative social consequences, and by limiting choice limits the requirements of government. While you may claim you are a liberal and don't agree with such a ban on trans fat, this view it either shows (1) you may not be a liberal on certain issues, or (2) You fail to realize liberal philosophy.Conservatives want to allow free choice but also personal responsibility, so if you make a bad (or good) choice you must generally suffer the consequences. They don't believe government's responsibility is to always bail people out, or to take away what you have earned because you have succeeded more than someone else. This results in liberals calling conservatives mean for making it governments job to bail people out, or only caring about the wealthy for allowing those who take risks and succeed the fruits of their labor. Conservatives believe government can help in certain situations but as a general rule should let people win or lose based on their own choices.Vote for conservatives if you believe in personal responsibilty and want to maintain the right to choose.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says:"I think invictus proves my argument that liberals want to control people's lives, to prevent negative social consequences. Liberals believe the government's responsibility to always bail people out when there are negative social consequences, and by limiting choice limits the requirements of government. Whereas conservatives want to allow free choice but also personal responsibility, so if you make a bad choice you must generally suffer the consequences."_____________________________________________________________________________So, I have a decision to make, regarding a product or service.You, the manufacturer/provider of said product/service, provide information to me and other consumers. We take the information you give us, and act upon it.My decision turns out to be a bad one, for me.Later, it comes to light that your information was (intentionally) inadequate. Perhaps you didn't provide a clear, accurate, and complete picture of the product/service in question. I made the decision based on your poor/deceptive information.Who is at fault?--Ag
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Oh, and I'd be happy to offer up some, uuuhhhmmm... "inspirational examples" ;)
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Seriously, if we are going to have a National Health Service then very shortly thereafter we will also have a Government Agency of Approved Foods and Lifestyle Choices with very broad regulatory powers to restrict "bad choices" in order to keep health care costs manageable. "Slim For Life" and daily "Jazzercize" won't just be a good idea, it will be the Law.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Ag..."Who is at fault?"Your scenario is too general to provide a blanket answer, so I will create a more specific one.I think in the fast good industry most consumers don't make their choices based largely on the health benefits it provides. So in order to prove fault one must show by a preponderance of the evidence (or maybe a slightly higher standard) that s/he relied on the false information to their detriment. If a jury agrees, then the company should be liable.If we are talking about a toy that has lead paint or something, as long as you show damages, I think it would be fairly easy to prove fault. Although I am not an expert in product liability law.My statement that a person must suffer the consequences of their choices assumes there is no asymmetry of information, and all buyers have the knowledge a reasonable purchaser would want to know. If the facts change then so does the answer.
merrill (anonymous) says…
This would require some specifics. Which health concerns?
conservativepunker (anonymous) says…
No. No one is forcing people to eat there. Besides, it's just one more step towards socialism and Kamerad telling us what we can and cannot do.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says:Jonas:"Oh, so you just wanted to make a pointless comment without providing justification? That is a new tactic (sarcasm intended)."Perhaps I felt that your unjustified comment deserved a response equally unjustified. I wouldn't go as far as to call either pointless. But if you need justification, abortion and homosexual unions. (and no, I don't want to hijack this board for a discussion on either) To call Republicans the party of choice is only possible when you pre-define which choices are the ones that count.
jonas (anonymous) says…
And that last is, of course, true of the Democrats as well, so don't start.
booyalab (anonymous) says…
BuffyloGal, even if the Japanese choose to be homogenous "to a fault", the important thing is that they chose it as opposed to being coerced into it. But any area in which an individual has to be coerced is an area in which they would have otherwise chose differently. If Japanese employers WANTED to fire employees whose waists were bigger than 33", they would have already been doing it. They wouldn't need a penalty.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
If fast food slowed down their process to become "slow food," then they should be exempt. What applies to fast food should apply to say, Freestate, Zen Zero, Pachamama's etc. Should every restaurant be banned, so the socialists will be happy? We should have to grow our own food, but we couldn't cook it because cooking would cause pollution or "global warming" and we'd have to wash it from rain collected from the roof of our earthen shack. It sounds so socially appealing.I bet Ryan is voting for McCain.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Ag...Adding to my earlier statement in response to your question; I think it would be extremely difficult to prove by any standard of proof that a person's health was significantly negatively affected solely as a result of fast food, due to the numerous other factors that affect an individual's health and factors which could have caused the health problems. Although, I am not precluding the possibility, and again disclaim I am not an expert on product liability law.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Jonas:"Perhaps I felt that your unjustified comment deserved a response equally unjustified."I provided justification by stating the alternative goals of liberals, while my statement initially required a negative inference, I later explained my comment prior to your pointless statement. I didn't say conservatives believed in universal choice. Many conservatives don't support the right to an elective abortion for the same reason they don't support the right to choose if you want to murder someone else. Many conservatives don't oppose the right of homosexual to choice to have a relationship, they just don't agree that the government is required to sanction their relationship.I notice you do not offer a counter argument to my larger arguments about liberal and conservative philosophy. Is that because you have no disagreement?
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
The article about Japan's health system was interesting. It said that the average man's waist size in the US is a whopping 39 inches. That's average! I think national health care should be made available in the US with premiums based on the person's waist size. Anyone over the "at risk for diabetes" range should pay extra, while those in the healthy range should pay very little.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
The poop slinging is in full effect today. I'm going to Taco Bell and order about 10 bean burritos. I'll be back later this afternoon to join in. I skipped through most of the jibberish, but have we had a Godwin's Law moment yet?
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Haiku_Cuckoo..."I think national health care should be made available in the US with premiums based on the person's waist size."My guess is, if this type of discrimination were legal or feasible, the private industry would already be doing this.
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
"My guess is, if this type of discrimination were legal or feasible, the private industry would already be doing this."Discrimination would be living one's life like a careless slob and expecting healthy people to pay for your medical bills. Oh wait...that's already happening.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
merrill (Anonymous) says: "This would require some specifics. Which health concerns?"Already it begins.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Fangorn makes an appearance!!! Nice to hear from you. One of my absolute favorite conservative Republicans who can discuss an issue with reason and without demonizing others in the process. I don't often agree with him, but I appreciate the way he argues a case. Nice to see you back.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Haiku_Cuckoo"Discrimination would be living one's life like a careless slob and expecting healthy people to pay for your medical bills."That is not discrimination. That would be liberal philosophy that society is responsible for ensuring individuals are protected from their mistakes.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Satirical... would it be conservative philosophy that government is responsible for ensuring individuals are protected from others, or the mistakes of others? Or that government/society is responsible for ensuring that one economic/religious class of citizens is "protected" from the "dangerous" ideas of others?Your continual bleating of the "liberal" epithet is quite telling of your own character...!Chain smokers, for example, claim that they have "freedom" and a "right" to slowly kill themselves, and poison the air for those around them... and then expect to have their medical bills paid by my insurance dollars.There's a reason that Winston and Marlboro invest a good portion of their marketing dollars in the "Nascar Nation"... ;)--Ag
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
I would like to make the point that "socialism" refers to government ownership of the means of production. The concern some are mentioning is not (necessarily) socialism but rather totalitarianism. I would assert that socialism requires totalitarianism, since it runs counter to human nature, but the two terms are not synonymous.Agnostik: I believe those smokers should have the freedom to slowly kill themselves, if they so choose. No one can claim they didn't know it is unhealthful to smoke. However, I don't believe they have any right to my resources to provide medical care for their irresponsible choices.
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
Beatrice: I can't promise how often I'll be able to participate - I travel a lot for work and military anymore - but I really miss this place. I'll try not to throw too many bombs! ;)~ It's good to see you're still posting.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Ag:."Your continual bleating of the "liberal" epithet is quite telling of your own character:!"My analysis of liberal and conservative philosophy is accurate. True liberals don't hide from their philosophy. But many young and ignorant individuals don't realize the true differences between the two ideologies, they just know who their friends back and what the media tells them. "would it be conservative philosophy that government is responsible for ensuring individuals are protected from others:" - agConservative philosophy does believe in protecting its citizens, which is why many conservatives are for tough punishment for criminals, and want a strong national defense."Or that government/society is responsible for ensuring that one economic/religious class of citizens is "protected" from the "dangerous" ideas of others?" ag If I understand your statement correctly, this is not true conservative philosophy. Assuming we are referring to adults."Chain smokers, for example, claim that they have "freedom" and a "right" to slowly kill themselves, and poison the air for those around them: and then expect to have their medical bills paid by my insurance dollars." - agThis is a liberal socialist philosophy (everyone is responsible for everyone else, equal in their misery and stupidity). It is not a conservative philosophy."There's a reason that Winston and Marlboro invest a good portion of their marketing dollars in the "Nascar Nation": ;)" agIf you are suggesting cigarette companies should be taxed on their externalities (negative health consequnces), I do not necessarily disagree.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Since we everyone seems to be so preoccupied with the definition of socialism, here is another suggestion:"Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services... "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Quigly (anonymous) says…
OMG this is the biggest joke yet.I thought I lived in America? Free enterprise? This is getting out of hand. It seems obvious that this country can not use their own free will and NOT go and eat a nasty coney hot dog. If people would just stop going to fast food they would go under and that would solve the problem.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
spiderman...Of course everytime someone wants to have a discussion about the difference between liberal and conservative philosophies someone has to change the topic. We are not discussing whether the military budget is justified or not, we are disussing the government limiting the people's ability to make choices.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Worth repeating:"15 July 2008 at 9:09 a.m.spiderman (Anonymous) says::i am withdrawing from the forum..."
Lulu (anonymous) says…
By all means necessary. Nationalize fast food restaurants and make them serve healthful vegan meals for the masses. Nationalize corporate businesses and pay a decent wage to the unions. I would finally be proud of my country.
monkeyspunk (anonymous) says…
I think there should be restrictions on the use of transfats. There are plenty of previous examples of certain ingredients being regulated, why not this?As for a "fast food" joint, any kind of legislation like this will be so damned vague that a local gov't would be able bar any restaurant they pleased from opening. What constitutes fast food? Wendy's uses no trans-fats in their items, while some sit down restaurants in town still continue to use oils that are known to be very unhealthy in comparison to their alternatives.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Satirical: "Another poorly worded question of the day."While potential springboards for discussion, one should not be constrained by poorly worded questions. *Answers* are too important for that.Satirical: "Would I support them using this police power to ban trans fats? Definitely not."For all you would-be supporters of artery clogging trans fats, it's amazing how fast half a smile can disappear from a face when the consequences of such a diet are *realized*.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Tangential..."For all you would-be supporters of artery clogging trans fats, it's amazing how fast half a smile can disappear from a face when the consequences of such a diet are *realized*."I don't support or advocate people eating trans fats, but I support their right to choose, rather than assuming I am better or smarter than everyone and force everyone to only engage in actions I find are acceptable.
Guardian (anonymous) says…
If people don't realize many of these fast food places are not the healhiest places to eat they are probably under te supervision of some adult care provider anyway. But hey, I'm all in favor of the government controlling every aspect of my life.Vote for Obama!
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Lulu!!!
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Fangorn and Lulu!!!! Have we just done the Time Warp again? Or are they the same pers..... No, can't be.
sunflower_sue (anonymous) says…
I swear I posted earlier today welcoming Fangorn back and stating my firm belief that government has no right to interfere in our relationship with speedy food. But alas! Maybe I didn't hit enough buttons...or maybe I've been disappeardeded. I'll see if I can getRdone this time.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
To the best of my knowledge, no one has taken issue with the closing(s) only being in porr neihborhoods? Sup w/dat??????
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
If only even_money could make a come-back appearance......
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
The hero of the day, Ryan Berry, said:"No. It's not the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves."Why are drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) illegal? Why is the drinking age 21? Why are there restrictions on smoking?Before you invoke the "harming others" argument, realize that medical problems due to fast food (diabetes, teen obesity, cancer) drive up health care costs for us all.Anyone have a good answer?
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
I'm still hoping for the Innocuous Posts comeback.
autie (anonymous) says…
We have to eat the cows to minimize the tons of pollutants they put in the air, thus eliminating global warming. We have to kill ourselves with fast food to save the planet. But you see, drugs and drinking don't impact the enviornment the way cow flatulence does..
jonas (anonymous) says…
Satirical: Yes, that second paragraph is precisely what I was talking about. There are things that you see as appropriate for free choice, and things where you don't. Justifications that you are willing to accept and ones that you are not. These preconceived -- and open for questioning -- notions and perceptions are the only things that enable you to lay claim to the concept of free choice. I would imagine that you would find the same result in your views on public subsidies. While you might not support universal health care, public transportation, or some social welfare spending, do you hold the same view in regards to law enforcement, emergency response, and national defense? We all have a set of assumptions and justifications that color our view of acceptable restrictions and mandatory actions in regards to what is considered free choice, so you laying claim to it is at least presumptuous, if not arrogant. As to your definition, which I am assuming is the one you directed at acg, what's there is reasonably accurate, but I would suggest that there is a problem with encapsulating the loose and far from collective viewpoints of what would amount to millions upon millions of people within two or three paragraphs. I would also say that there is a definite bias within the voice, words that are used descriptively in one fashion or another to convey a particular tone, somewhat unnecessarily, but I think we knew that going in, didn't we?And my post feels bad that you keep calling it worthless. It sacrificed itself for the greater cause, but so far it has birthed several other less than worthless posts, wouldn't you say?
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill, in "On Liberty" Just thought I'd share that! :))Medical problems due to fast food drive up health care costs for all of us primarily because those who make poor life choices are not made to bear the cost of those choices themselves. Whether through our semi-socialistic Medicare/Medicaid system, or through insurance premiums, we are forced to pay this added cost. Risk pools cannot be too narrowly tailored without being called discriminatory. So if Joe Blow has Big Macs four times a week, downs a six pack a night and does no exercise more strenuous than 12-oz. curls, he can push up my healthcare costs because we may fit together in some broad category. Now if he also smokes two packs a day, then his premiums will be higher and he will bear something closer to the actual cost of his own healthcare. But we can "discriminate" based on very few factors, so Lulu's vegan diet will pay the same premiums as a red-meat-only carnivore.
jonas (anonymous) says…
beatrice (Anonymous) says:"Fangorn and Lulu!!!! Have we just done the Time Warp again?Or are they the same pers:.. No, can't be."I don't know. It's always been my theory that Lulu is the product of either a rather gifted imagination, or a rather stubborn one. It doesn't rule this out completely.
dminear60 (anonymous) says…
yourworstnightmare is correct. Another example...the govenment protects us from ourselves everytime we buckle up in our cars. dancemomx2, "i don't need anyone to tell me what is healthy and what isn't." Your joking right? Unless you are a dietician, we all need to be informed as to what is healthy, unhealthy or generally bad for us. sunflower_sue : does "speedy food" have to mean unhealthy food? Last time I was at a fast food place, it was neither speedy or healthy. Jonas, hang in there buddy. You are taking a beating today.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"I don't know. It's always been my theory that Lulu is the product of either a rather gifted imagination, or a rather stubborn one. It doesn't rule this out completely." JonasI always thought Lulu was an ultra-left liberal automated dictation box. Every now and again it burps out wacky posts that I enjoy. There are a couple of ultra-right conservative automated boxes on here as well. At least Lulu doesn't rely on cutting and pasting.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Yourworstnightmare:."Why are drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) illegal? Why is the drinking age 21? Why are there restrictions on smoking?"Best counter argument of the day so far."It's not the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves" I was using that exact phrase arguing against criminalizing drugs 10 years ago. However, there are several good counter-arguments to that position including the extreme negative effects on society, and the fact the government can protect people from themselves (seat belt laws, helmet laws, criminalizing suicide, etc.)"Before you invoke the "harming others" argument, realize that medical problems due to fast food (diabetes, teen obesity, cancer) drive up health care costs for us all." - nightmareFirst, there is a difference between physical costs, and monetary costs. Increased medical care only increases monetary costs.Second, the health care industry is not totally controlled by the government (yet), so the health care costs are only born by those who chose insurance companies whose premiums are based on this model. Every taxpayer is not required to pay for these increased costs. Third, this line of thinking is exactly the liberal philosophy that will lead to major restrictions on what you can do, and what you must do if medicine is socialized through the government. Everything will be justified to lower costs and freedom will be lost.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Jonas:I had trouble figuring out exactly what your counter argument is.First I was referring to liberal vs. conservative philosophy, not variations of the philosophy which most people adhere to. I have my own variation but as a general rule I tend to favor conservatism because it leads to more freedom and better social results, as opposed to an fantastical Orwellian utopia.Second, law enforcement, national defense, etc are public goods and therefore the costs are mandatory. Otherwise you would have a free rider problem that would destroy it. People would choose to opt out of financing national defense because they will be just as safe without one person's taxes. Again, I do not advocate nor does conservative philosophy support absolute freedom of choice in whether taxes should be paid for public goods, which are non-rivalrous (one person's enjoyment doesn't prevent another person's enjoyment of the same).
Bossa_Nova (anonymous) says…
should my health insurance rates go up because some fat a$$, who doesnt take care of himself, requires more healthcare due to his irresponsible lifestyle?
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
Government banning the food people freely chose to eat, sounds like commie sh*t to me!
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Jonas, Good to see you here in force.The answer is no, no, a thousand times no.And the 'insurance' argument is no good. If it was, well, let's begin the cuts.....No ATV vendors, inherently dangerousNo tobacco at allNo liquor stores or barsNo cell phones - cancer causers now, allegedlyNo skateboard shops , rock climbing outfitters, heck, any adventure sporting goodsetcetera etcetera
dminear60 (anonymous) says…
Think about all the things the government has said was bad for us...asbestos, phen phen, DDT, Ephedra, cigarettes. Is it really a stretch to add trans fats to the list of items that our government warns us against? I do not think fast food places should be banned but I would like to think the industry is trying to reduce the level of trans fats in the food it serves. Perhaps the fast food industry should be required to list the calorie content and trans fat content of the items on their menus and truly give the consumer a choice.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
sue: "does "speedy food" have to mean unhealthy food?" No, but only if you are willing to pay for the quickness. With food, and many other things, you can only have two out of the following three: fast, good, cheap. If it is fast and cheap, it won't be good; if it is good and cheap, it won't be fast; and if it is fast and good, it won't be cheap. You can't have all three, so it is a matter of choice.
Quigly (anonymous) says…
OMG I just saw the cocain-ola LOL that's a classic.
BuffyloGal (anonymous) says…
Well, if we're into banning, let's be sure to put palm oil (you know, in kid's peanut butter) on the list and high fructose corn syrup which is of course its own food group in this country.
dminear60 (anonymous) says…
BuffyloGal: Good point. Maybe we should add microwave popcorn, diet soft drinks and serrano peppers grown in Mexico!
fu7il3 (anonymous) says…
Ban microwaves altogether. They interfere with pacemakers.
mondojeepin (anonymous) says…
I love the fact that the people that are against fast food will probably eat it w/in the next week... same as the Anti-Walmart people who still shop there...
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Satirical: "I don't support or advocate people eating trans fats, but I support their right to choose, rather than assuming I am better or smarter than everyone and force everyone to only engage in actions I find are acceptable."*Satirical*, you're being... *yourself*... right?Certainly, you're not suggesting that people "choose" to consume trans fats.This is done out of ignorance... in oblivion.By regulating trans fats out of the marketplace, we can help to ensure that Reticent can hold onto his BigMac® for a little longer, before it is pried from his cold, dead hand, tilde smile on his face.
Guardian (anonymous) says…
I don't remember ever reading a story about someone being arrested for operating under the influence of Chicken McNuggets or "Driver arrested in fatal traffic accident-Whopper blamed!"I suppose there are support groups somewhere for those who suffer Big Mac Attacks.Wow! Comparing fast food to drugs and alcohol make about as much sense as performing an appendectomy on yourself! Very, very stupid.
BuffyloGal (anonymous) says…
Perhaps you should have checked the obituaries instead!
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
OK, spiderman. Let's ban ATV's, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, any kind of exercise equipment, any risky outdoor activity --- anything where some one could get hurt and therefore need medical attention further driving up your health insurance rates. We need to ban peanut butter, milk, peanuts, bacon or any sorta pork, anything fried, red meat --- any kind of food that has the potential to supposedly cause cancer, gotta keep those rates down. Cell phones, TV's, X-ray machines ---- who knows the damage they're causing. Lotsa people OD on prescriptions and require treatment, so they're out to...... and the list goes on and on and on......
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Whoa, jaywalker... ban roll on....
Guardian (anonymous) says…
"BuffyloGal (Anonymous) says: Perhaps you should have checked the obituaries instead!"Checking to see if people died from eating fast food as opposed to people dying from nothing?
jonas (anonymous) says…
satirical: I might not have been making a counter-argument particularly. Perhaps the clearest explanation is that, truthfully, I see a huge part of our social problems as springing from the tendency to label and box people into narrow fitting definitions, agendas and cliches, none of which are particularly true or justifiable in any consistent sense. To be more specific to this argument, I see the theoretical ideologies of the two parties, or the two political persuasions, take your pick, as being only that, theoretical. The application leaves little difference between the two sides, save for the specifics of which agendas are accepted as gospel and which are targeted as harmful. Neither can say, I feel, that they are trying to leave the citizens to their free choice. The rest was simply a demonstration of the variance of what is viewed as free choice, which is about as subjective a term, in practice, as right versus wrong. You offer fine justifications of the need for socialist practices in certain things, such as police and defense, for the public good. Yet there are justifications to be made for the other things, and whether you think those justifications are valid can be as much a product of your own assumptions as any truth to the matter.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"I have my own variation but as a general rule I tend to favor conservatism because it leads to more freedom and better social results, as opposed to an fantastical Orwellian utopia."So do I, but more along the lines that total socialism or communism ignores the reality of humans needing self-affecting incentives in order for them to do much of anything productive, and the hanger-on phenomenon you yourself mentioned in your last post. But again, I find purity of ideology in this sense to be destructive. I believe that there Are ways in which the government, as the stabilizer of society, can be utilized effectively to provide for things that the free market will not recognize (and any economist worth their salt will readily admit that there are externalities that get missed or overlooked due to the structure inherent in the free market) Unfortunately, and I imagine that you will agree with this, our current government is so untrustworthy and so incompetent as to make that a virtual impossibility. But personally, I think at least part of the problem is the divisiveness inherent in our political discourse, whether between our politicians or our citizens. The T is a good example, I drove for it for 2 years so I have some insight into it. It's a terrible system, with a terrible set-up and sub-par management. It could be saved, quite easily, cut down to serve more effectively and reach the point where the over-all economic impact of people being able to go to work and contribute balances any public subsidy it receives. The fixed route (regular city busses) could be stripped down to half of what it is now without a decrease in service, with some change of routes and transfers, etc. But of course, that voice is lost in the debate, overcrowded by the cries of "Socialism!" and "Neo-conservative!" So nothing gets done, and everyone's unhappy, where there could be some benefit.
jonas (anonymous) says…
jaywalker (Anonymous) says:"No cell phones - cancer causers now, allegedly"They also blow up gas pumps, according to somebody other than actual cited cases of such things occurring.
BuffyloGal (anonymous) says…
Guardian I was thinking more of heart disease from a lifetime of consumption. Sorry if you couldn't connect the dots.
jonas (anonymous) says…
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says:"I always thought Lulu was an ultra-left liberal automated dictation box. Every now and again it burps out wacky posts that I enjoy. There are a couple of ultra-right conservative automated boxes on here as well. At least Lulu doesn't rely on cutting and pasting."That was my first impression, back in the day, as well, but I don't think so. There's no consistency, in the long run. Too many different positions contradicting themselves. The only consistency is that they all are so extreme in their nature and their positions as to be virtually insane. I'll admit to the potential fallibility of this theory, but only as precaution. The only two real choices I see are this theory, or that they are someone brainwashed into insanity, not by a specific ideology but by a specific person.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Jonas says:" I think at least part of the problem is the divisiveness inherent in our political discourse, whether between our politicians or our citizens. "Where you say 'part', jonas, I'd argue 'primarily.' Checks and balances in the system were wisely set to reach middle ground, and to that end opposing parties had operated in much the same way. But it seems to me that since the end of the cold war the divisiveness to which you refer has become extreme polarization. Where before our leaders worked to compromise, now it seems preferabe for a party to not reach a resolution and be able to say, 'but we held our ground, we didn't give in to them', than to actually achieve what's best for all. And it's that 'to them' that is most disconcerting. We're all Americans. It does great disservice to split the country along ideological lines of us vs. them, ala Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
"support groups somewhere for those who suffer Big Mac Attacks." LOL!That one line made the effort of reading everything today worthwhile!
Guardian (anonymous) says…
Yes BGal, I connected the dots. Apparently you didn't. Mortality will affect us all at some point. If I choose to gorge myself with fast food, that is my choice and none of your, or the government's business. If I choose to eat healthy and exercise regularly, same deal. Are you any less dead if you die from "natural causes" rather than from heart disease? And the post about fast food costing the American taxpayer money is a very strong argument against mandatory socialized medicine, aka national health care. It will only go downhill from here.Bottom line- you have no right to tell me how I can or can't live my life unless I affect your life. Even at that, your influence over me would be limited.
lawrenceguy (anonymous) says…
Not bothering to read the other 142 posts. Most off topic I'm sure. My answer is a firm heck no. That has to be the most reactionary, useless, anti-free market, weak, waste of time ordinace I've ever heard of. People want that kind of food, that is why there is demand for it and why companies build that type of resturaunt there. Many things may be done to quell the demand for unheathly foods, but this law is not among them. People are stupid, not much an ordinance will do about that. And thats coming from a pro-government, corporate-loathing, fast-food-hating, brown-rice-eating, Volvo-driving, liberal, skinny athlete. Must be a stupid idea.
RobertMarble (anonymous) says…
Anyone who thinks it's good to let government pull this crap is an idiot.
edson443 (anonymous) says…
This is really becoming ridiculous. Does anyone else notice the creation of "micro-managing laws?"
jonas (anonymous) says…
jaywalker: Tongyi ni de kanfa. (I agree with your point of view) I wonder if its always been like this, though.
blakus (anonymous) says…
Noooooooooo! I say! My portfolio would go down the drain if fast food was banned. I love money, I love trans fats, I love that people will never think for themselves and get fat!
denak (anonymous) says…
I have a problem with this on several fronts.First, I think this smacks of elitism. Just because an individual lives in a "low-income" area, does not mean that one is less intelligent and incapable of running one's life. It is not the city commissioners job to "save' them from themselves.Secondly, the reasoning given for banning new fast food resturants was so that other "healthier" resturants will open. How do they determine what is healthier? Do people really believe that Applebees and Chili's is healthier? Meixcan food? Chinese food? Given that the average serving size in a resturant...any resturant...is twice what a person needs in a day, it doesn't matter if it is Chili's or McDonalds, if you go out to eat, you are going to consume large amounts of calories and fat.Third, why do the city commissioners think that these chains will move in? I am willing to bet one of the reasons there are so many McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts in these neighborhoods is that these chains have relatively low start up. It is probably much more expensive to start up a Applebees, then it is to start up a McDonalds. Also, there is the issue of insurance?When I lived in California, the supermarket down the street, went out of business because they could no longer afford the insurance of being in a "low-income" neighborhood.Fourth, if the city commissioners really wanted to promote healthy eating in these neighborhoods, they should clean up some of these parks so that honest law abidding citizens do not have to fear for their lives from gangs. What mom is going to send their kids to the park to play and get some exercise when they have to put up with drug dealers and gang members?Lastly, if you want to promote healthy eating, crack down on these mom and pop corner stores that price gauge. These corner stores charge twice as much for whole wheat bread and skim milk(if they even carry it) then what a supermarket would. I read an article recently that said in some "low-income" neighborhoods, that it is easier to find and buy a gun, then it is to find and buy fresh fruit. If that is true(and it seems to mesh with what I've seen), the city commissioners should be more concerned with that then McDonalds.Dena
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
denak: I find much to agree with in your first several points - although considering what it costs to buy a McDonald's franchise, I beg leave to doubt that Applebee's would be any higher. However, I would like to address something you bring up in your last point.Mom and pop corner stores charge more than large supermarkets for a number of reasons, especially in areas that have a higher crime rate. Even in a low-crime neighborhood, the corner store still has lower efficiencies than the large stores that can purchase in quantities that mom-and-pops could never move. But in high-crime areas they face the additional costs of repairing vandalized property, higher security guards to deter trouble, replacing higher losses (i.e. stolen goods). And such stores often serve a higher portion of foot traffic than do the large supermarkets. Someone on foot will rarely buy as much as someone in a vehicle. Finally there are also the higher insurance costs you yourself mention in your third point. All of these additional costs must be passed on to the customers (what you call price gouging) if they are going to remain profitable and be able to stay in business. The store down your street in California apparently lost this battle and could no longer keep revenues ahead of expenses. I think the solution lies in the remarks in your fourth point. Eliminate the factors that increase the costs of doing business in such areas and you allow the traditional corner stores to remain profitable while charging lower prices.For an excellent discussion of this very issue, read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy".
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
Good lord, I must be tired. In my last post, please substitute "hire" for "higher". Yes, I do occasionally speak (and write) English!
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…
And in other news: I went to the open house at the football complex tonght. I shook Mr Manginos' hand, and you know what? The Man has definatley lost weight. Someone in the line said they heard it was eighty lbs. Both and the comlex look good.
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…
Besides, wouldn't you also have to ban French, and many Italian foods as well? Fat is fat baby. Time to close Tellers down. The scum!!!
more_cowbell (anonymous) says…
Don't ban fast-food restaurants. Tax them. Through the you-know-what.That's the way to deal with consumption of other unhealthy substances... tobacco, alcohol, um... well, we haven't legalized pot yet, so we can't tax it. Tsk... would be quite the source of revenue.*Any* restaurant with a certain percentage of food meeting the definition of "unhealthy" (there are FDA guidelines already, thanks to the nutrition labels) should be taxed. Of course, they'll pass that tax on to the consumer, the same as happens with drinks and smokes. So those who want to sin are free to sin, provided they pay a "sin" tax (which ideally is meant to fund the consequences--health and otherwise--of their sin).Labeling might help too. Such as "the Surgeon General has determined that consumption of this food is hazardous to your health" etc. etc.Also, prohibit most forms of advertising, much as has happened with tobacco--and which hasn't really happened with alcohol... which might explain why alcohol abuse is more of a health concern now than tobacco abuse. Especially advertising directed at children. "Happy Meals?" Anyone remember the "Joe Camel" print ads?Imagine what prime-time television would look like without fast-food commercials. X-DSo, no, don't ban it. Just tax it for the burden it places on the health-care system (again, similar to tobacco and alcohol).I imagine that even restaurants such as Teller's would be taxed (on items that exceed FDA standards). But somehow I think that would have less of an impact on their customer base than on business at McDonalds and Wendy's. :-p
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
"the power to tax involves the power to destroy..." s.c.o.t.u.s., McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819I would be more inclined to support the taxation of irresponsible choices if I had any faith at all that the revenue generated would be used to offset the additional costs incurred to the general public. Remember the tobacco settlements? How much of that actually made it to anything even remotely healthcare-related?
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
This is Lawrence: "Let's make trans fats illegal, but let's legalize pot."
jonas (anonymous) says…
Umm. . . oldenuff, sorry to spoil your Lawrence derision, but this is in reference to an LA (city not state) law blocking new restaurants. I don't think this is being discussed in Lawrence. At least, not yet. . . .Oh, pots probably better for you than fast food.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
If the city council wants to effect change by reducing the market for bad products, how about eliminating ALL the Liquer stores in that area? Quit selling cigarettes, and remove all unecessary fattening foods from food stamp purchases? Or provide incentives for purchasing healthy foods and create a weight program that rewards weight loss in families through healthy eating.
BuffyloGal (anonymous) says…
Guardian - first, Settle Pettle. I think the distinction here is that alcohol and tobacco come with warnings. Fast food doesn't. If you want to find out the fat content in a restaurant it is often in fine print and located near the rear exit or dumpster outside. If you refer to my initial post, I am not in favor of banning fast food as I leave that to personal choice. I do however think that this country is going to suffer for it more than we currently do and a nationalized health care system is not going to make it worse. A national system means that more people will take the time to go to see their doctors when a problem first arises, not when it has reached boiling point because they might miss work. The peace of mind that comes from knowing that you are covered, your family is covered, and that your tax dollars are not all going to support the Pentagon instead cannot be underestimated!Last year one of the best selling books in this country asked why French women are never fat. Well, the book as I understand it requires one to completely overhaul one's eating habits and meals to a more French approach. This is ideal if your goal is to look like a French person but unrealistic as to how this can be done in a country that lives for additives in its food. We are poisoning ourselves and while I don't agree with California's approach, I do believe that people need to be better educated about what they are putting into their bodies.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Worth repeating:"15 July 2008 at 9:09 a.m.spiderman (Anonymous) says::i am withdrawing from the forum:"
jonas (anonymous) says…
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says:"Worth repeating"Why?
Guardian (anonymous) says…
Riddle me this logic, how many robberies, burglaries, thefts, muggings occur because someone needs a Big Mac fix? Fortunately, a CCH license isn't needed to defend one's self from the Hamburglar. I suppose we could decriminalize drugs and increase our welfare dependency rolls by subsidizing drug habits. You normally live up to your screen name. What happened here?
Ami (anonymous) says…
The goverment should have rules about stuff that should not go into food.Other than that, it is a free market, a resturant that manage to sell it stuff, will stay in business.
RobertMarble (anonymous) says…
screw all that crap....bans, taxes, etc....just leave the fast food joints alone. Freedom of choice must not be high on the priority lists of most it seems. Choose to eat the crap if you want; or choose not to. We don't need big brother to make the decision for us. Before you speak out in support of expanded government regulation, pause & try to think it through. It's rarely a good thing.
ReadingSports (anonymous) says…
I'll take my fish, fresh and wriggly, and you keeps nasty chips!
blessed3x (anonymous) says…
Better watch which fast food restaurants you keep out and which sit-down restaurants you allow.http://health.yahoo.com/experts/eatthis/11230/americas-bestand-worstrestaurants/
ReadingSports (anonymous) says…
Oh, I'm lost. I thought this was the poll on overweight pets. Maybe they should combine the two polls. Should restaurants serve overweight pets? It would solve both problems. I don't cities should be able to tell restaurants to be slow. Some places I go in, and I wait forever for my food. Otherwise, folks seriously. Grip. As in get one. Lighten up a bit. If you don't like it, then don't go to SF, and if you do then Lawrence has a westbound freeway entrance. See ya.
acg (anonymous) says…
Had the yummiest burger from Hardees for lunch today and it was like crack, seriously. Still don't think they should be allowed to ban fast food, though. The concept just pisses me off. They've banned just about everything good. All that's left is booze and when that goes, I'm going to crawl into a tub and open a vein. So glad to see Fanghorn and Lulu are back!