Hey ho, hey ho, trans fat has gotta go.
John Daley isn't sure if government should get involved, but adds: You can always get a bag of Doritos on the way home.
Also: Give me artery-clogging fat or give me death.
Ugh. How about we spend the money to make healthy choices available to more people? Or educate children about nutrition? Or really anything else, other than some stupid sham that does nothing other than attract the ridicule of other cities. (Chicago? I'm looking at you.)
(Ok, that's 1 down, 9 to go!)
Ugh. I want to bust a cap in the ass of the next politician who says he or she wants to do something for my own good.
Just leave us the f$%* alone, will you, please? If I want to eat nothing but trans fats, that's my business, not yours. My body, I eat whatever the hell I want and you can just go and... AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!
World death rate holding steady at 100%.
That would be fine if your poor eating choices only affected you. Unfortunately, when the effects of your choices finally catch up with you, we all pay a price, for example through increased healthcare costs, both private and public.
Banning trans fats has a very small negative effect on everyone. I don't think they should ban any particular food, but I see no problem with banning a harmful ingredient which can be removed fairly easily.
Most personal decisions affect people beyond that individual. Some indirectly cause negative effects on others. But what about positive effects? I ate a healthy breakfast. Where is my reward for that positive effect for society?
(Frankly, I don't care. I made that choice because it benefits me 1000x more than it benefits the Commonwealth.)
Why stop people from eating trans fats if they want?
Because trans fats are harmful? So is nicotine or an excess amount of anything: saturated fat, cholesterol... hell, even water.
Because the ban will have "a very small negative effect on everyone"? Not true for the restaurant business, especially small restaurants with smaller budgets and personnel than the fast food chains.
In a free society there needs to be a damn good reason for taking away an individual's choice, no matter how small that choice seems. These are not good reasons.
I've had a similar dciscussion in one place online already,a dn I find it pretty silly. Trans Fats:
--Do not add anything to the taste of a dish. I suspect that 99.8% of us don't know whether what we're eating has trans fats or not. it's not like smoking, where you may really crave that cigarette. There are plenty of alternatives to trans fats and we wouldn't know the difference, but our arteries would.
--The RIGHT to trans fats? Come on--are you that vbored that you're standing up for your right to a non-naturally occuring food additive? Did you protest when saccharine was taken out of soda? As the original post points out, you can always buy those Doritos. But if you were in NYC, once the ban goes into effect, those who don't want to have to worry about trans fats can rest assured that they're not in our restaurant meal.
--Talking about the health costs is basically a red herring, IMHO. I believe that people's health needs should be met, period. And people's rights to healthy foods should be protected, too. Which they aren't currently, when a restaurant doesn't have any obligations around using, not using, or letting cutomers know that they're using trans fats.
Hey! What's wrong with fat cross-dressers?
You're working under a mistaken assumption. You assume that I expect the state to pick up the tab for my bad decisions. I don't. If I do something that ruins my health, I expect nobody to pay for the repairs except me.
If I can't pay for them, too bad for me.
So, everybody can just stay the f*** out of my decisions regarding food, drink, smoke, chainsaw juggling, whatever.
If you did in fact injure yourself chainsaw juggling, and ended up with, say, a severe brain injury and were completely dependent for everything, the state would be picking it up. Private insurance dumps you when your medical expenses get to a certain limit per year, which you easily reach if you have a severe disability. This is assuming you even have an insurance policy that you can stay on once you aren't working. You'd also be eligible for rehab and residential services that aren't paid for entirely by insurance, and which the state pays for.
Yes, to a point, you can make your decisions and pay for them. I gave an extreme example, of course. But you could also have a heart attack and be unconscious for quite a while until found and end up with a similar severe disability.
These are some of the reasons the government wishes to legislate public health and safety. And it isn't like this is anything new; it's long been illegal to use rat poison in restaurant food, for instance.
With all due respect, Eeka, you still don't get it. I don't want the state to pick up my costs, ever. I don't care if I'm utterly incapacitated or just suffering from a hangnail. If I haven't made provisions for my own care, then it's my problem, not yours.
There will always be some individuals who need community care because of their inability to take care of themselves due to congenital conditions, mental problems, or other extenuating circumstances, but I have all of my faculties, so it is not the state's job to be my caretaker.
I have no more right to expect the rest of the citizens of the Commonwealth to pick up my tab than I do for them to guarantee me happiness in any other area.
Again, when I worked in a program for people with severe brain injuries, most of the folks had previously been employed, had insurance, etc. Then they sustained brain injuries and became unable to care for themselves in the most basic ways. Everyone in our program had been kicked off of their private insurance for exceeding the limits and had been picked up by MassHealth, which covers anyone with a substantial disability.
It really can happen to anyone. Anyone can suddenly have a severe disability and need 24/7 care and millions of dollars of medical intervention per year. Private insurance doesn't cover this, and there are very few people who have enough cash saved up for what this ends up costing.
I think perhaps we've strayed into apples and oranges territory here. I'm talking about taking responsibility for my own decisions, whereas you seem to be talking more about things that befall a person without their consent.
I'm all for the community taking care of those who have been hit with bad luck. I think it would be a hellish society if we didn't.
I'm not for the state regulating my lifestyle choices, no matter how ill-informed someone else may think those choices are. And if I choose to make bad decisions, it is my belief that it should not be your responsibility to pay for them - or your right to stop me from making them.
Just pointing out why the state does have some business in regulating things that affect one's health. Helmet and seatbelt laws, for instance, were enacted partially because it does become the whole commonwealth's issue when you're a vegetable because you flew out your windshield. You're right that the state picks up people's bills regardless because it is mostly out of our control and no one should be left in an alley to fend for themselves because they were unlucky enough to become brain-injured. But this is also why the state makes laws to attempt to prevent such things. Same reason the state makes laws that you can't serve people rat poison in their meals. Yes, poisoning is more likely to make you a vegetable from one occurrence than trans fats are, but trans fats can lead to heart attacks, which can lead to being a state-supported vegetable.
Based on that reasoning, the state should ban skiing.
I mean, we can't keep everyone in a bubble. Maybe ban stuff that has a high (by some standard) chance of fucking up a person and which has no real other reason to do? Like, eating stuff that isn't good for you in any quantity, riding in a car with no seatbelt, etc? And not banning stuff that can be done safely by most people and has other redeeming qualities?
Thanks for the civil discourse. I fear I'm just not making my point properly somehow, though. I'll try one more time and then bow out.
What I'm trying to get across is a philosophical stance that I believe in deeply. Regardless of where the state now stands, or what the state now regulates, I believe that it should not regulate my behavior as long as that behavior harms no one else.
We seem to disagree on whether or not certain behaviors do hurt others. In the world now, yes, you are right, some personal choices do impact others through increased health care costs, etc., but I believe that it does not NEED to impact others.
I wish to stem the tide of government taking responsibility away from me. I do not want to reach the tipping point where it becomes inexorable that every decision WILL impact others and where all actions that could have even a small impact on society as a whole are seen as the government's business rather than the individuals.
And that's enough blather out of me. I'll bow out now and leave you the last word. Again, thanks for the fair fightin' :-)
The problem is that this debate isn't over the government telling you what to eat. It is a debate over the government telling food processors and preparers what they can put into your food. Trans fats are artificial substances with known negative health consequences. I can't think of any food that will disappear from shelves or menus because of a ban on trans fats--processors and preparers were able to make food before the advent of trans fats, they'll be able to make food after they go away. The problem with artificial trans fats is that it is very difficult to know where they are and how to avoid them.
I see a lot of red herrings about fat people, health costs, exercise, and the taking away of cheeseburgers, all of which miss the point completely. The food people eat is being altered in an unhealthy way and the state government is asking to have an end to that practice, no more, no less, in the same way that lead was removed from gasoline and paint.
Boston is full of fatties! :P
Time to ban trans fats :)
More Nanny Stating, more "experts" saving us from ourselves! Whatever happened to being pro-choice?!
Caveat emptor- let the buyer (or eater) beware.