New York City bans trans fats

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you can. You definitely can. By limiting the scope of what you can regulate.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's been stated over and over that the scope is nonnatural or manufactured additives.

trans fats fall under that scope.

ice cream, steak, alcohol don't fall in that scope.

see the difference?

[kidcolin]

and it's been stated over and over that your scope is pretty flimsy and subject to change (see refined sugar debate). And therein lies the problem.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
and it's been stated over and over that your scope is pretty flimsy and subject to change (see refined sugar debate). And therein lies the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

refined sugar has a different chemical composition than raw sugar?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Vague answers to important questions. "the right balance" eh?

I'll ask again. Can you articulate a principle or philosphy about govt authority over individuals that results in banning transfats but not regular fats?

Or do you believe the govt should have the authority to ban steak and ice cream? If not, how do you make the distinction that keeps them from doing so while allowing them to ban transfats?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "right balance" is "stuff that I don't like = banned while stuff that I do like = allowed" LDO.

It never seems to occur to these people that someone else's idea of the "right balance" might be objectionable to themselves.

Note this is just a corrollary to the theory that Democracy will be a wonderful, happy place if only we get the "right" people (and by that, I mean the people who agree with whoever is making this argument) elected."

Believe in your dreams!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes you can. You definitely can. By limiting the scope of what you can regulate.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's been stated over and over that the scope is nonnatural or manufactured additives.

trans fats fall under that scope.

ice cream, steak, alcohol don't fall in that scope.

see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Excuse me while I go get some ice cream from the ice cream tree in my back yard.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and it's been stated over and over that your scope is pretty flimsy and subject to change (see refined sugar debate). And therein lies the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

refined sugar has a different chemical composition than raw sugar?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alcohol has the same chemical composition as water + hops?

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vague answers to important questions. "the right balance" eh?

I'll ask again. Can you articulate a principle or philosphy about govt authority over individuals that results in banning transfats but not regular fats?

Or do you believe the govt should have the authority to ban steak and ice cream? If not, how do you make the distinction that keeps them from doing so while allowing them to ban transfats?


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't legislate away human judgment when trying to find balance in regulation, if that's where you're heading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can. You definitely can. By limiting the scope of what you can regulate. Do you see how by *not* limiting the scope of what you regulate, you let yourself become subject to the whim of whoever has power at the moment?

I've noticed that most of the pro-ban-transfat crowd also happen to believe that marijuana prohibition is misguided. If you are one of those, how do you reconcile those two positions? And how do you articulate a principle that govt must follow which allows transfats to fall under the jurisdiction but not marijuana?

Yes, alcohol too. By advocating banning transfats you are basically advocating all prohibitions on all substances because there is no description of the problem with transfats that can't be applied to a host of other things.

Edit: for instance, some crazy guy in this thread has already stated he would ban lowfat milk if he had the power, and his reasons were the same for supporting a ban on transfats. The only reason you can enjoy lowfat milk today is because this clown is not in power.



natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
I support trans fat ban in restaurants for the reason that I can't practically make an informed decision. I can make an informed decision when buying packaged food with a nutrition label, and I would not support ban of trans fats for those.

[kidcolin]

Does it really matter? What about splenda? Saccharin? HFC? These aren't manufactured additives why? So far the crux of your argument has been "H2 gets passed through oil". Refined sugars involve all sorts of manufacturing processes.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]

The "right balance" is "stuff that I don't like = banned while stuff that I do like = allowed" LDO.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, the "right balance" is that which creates the most benefit with the least cost of impinging free choice. Please do not put your own words into my mouth, I'm quite happy with mine.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I support trans fat ban in restaurants for the reason that I can't practically make an informed decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can decide not to eat at places that don't provide "enough" (according to your personal subjective standards, of course) information.