New York City bans trans fats

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, if you don't like any of those things you have nothing to worry about.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


Smoking
Drinking
Sex
hand shaking
swimming in public pools
air travel
automobiles
hangliding
rock climbing
basicly all sports
Paint
internet porn

etc etc

[ATrebek]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, as long as we have a social welfare system, I don't see how anyone can really object to these types of laws. Or the absurd extensions of these type of laws that all of us can easily imagine. This isn't an endorsement of these types of laws, obviously, but a condemnation of the welfare state, but when you have one you practically must have the other, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which on a slight tangent, makes socialized medicine the biggest threat to personal liberty ever.
You can't [insert dangerous activity here]! If you get hurt, we all have to pay for it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, as long as we have a social welfare system, I don't see how anyone can really object to these types of laws. Or the absurd extensions of these type of laws that all of us can easily imagine. This isn't an endorsement of these types of laws, obviously, but a condemnation of the welfare state, but when you have one you practically must have the other, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which on a slight tangent, makes socialized medicine the biggest threat to personal liberty ever.
You can't [insert dangerous activity here]! If you get hurt, we all have to pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[Woolygimp]

Should unsanitary restaurants be closed down for producing food in filthy conditions? Shouldn't you have the personal freedom to eat there?

Answer this real quick, and we'll go from there.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If you know that you were getting arsenic, and you still ate it, you would be beyond the help of any government.

[/ QUOTE ]

transfats are in almost every packaged processed food.
restaruants use processed food.

if arsenic were as ubiquitious as trans fats, how would you feel?

also, since it is in everything prettyf much, where is the choice now? it seems to me either you have someone making the choice for you to put it in, or someone making a choice for you to leave it out. I mean, we're talking 95%+ of people, not vegans and stuff.

[BCPVP]

You don't have to eat processed food. You don't have to eat at restaurants. You could eat only 100% all natural whatever if you want but many people don't want to do this because it is more costly and less convenient. So you have a choice and are demonstrating your preferences with your actions of buying or not buying such food.

[Woolygimp]

Normal oils and trans fats taste the same except that trans fats are marginally cheaper, and this is why processed foods and large chains use them. I don't see any argument as to why trans fats should be allowed to begin with, and the point I made earlier in the thread is that it's painstakingly difficult to ensure that you aren't ingesting this stuff because products with it don't advertise it.

So if you want to go through the ingredients list for every single thing you order, then great. I just don't see the need for this stuff to begin with.
<font color="red">
I open a large restaurant chain tomorrow and I put arsenic in the lasagna, yet don't advertise it. I'll list it in the ingredients if a consumer were to ask otherwise it's rather subtle. You come in with your family, and your daughter orders the lasagna and then gets sick and dies.

Who's responsible?

Obviously your dead daughter is at fault by being an irresponsible consumer by not asking the waiter if there was indeed arsenic present in the lasagna. </font>

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a difference between outlawing trans fats and outlawing these things. I understand that you don't like outlawing either, and neither do I, but there is a difference. The government think it's helping society to arrive much faster to a place where the market would lead us eventually anyway (no trans fats). The market is slow, outlawing is quick. And people won't protest. If you took away church or ice cream, people would be outraged because they feel like they get something good from these things. If you take away trans fats, nobody (really, nobody) will care except for people who care just because of principle and slippery slope ideas, like yourself and to some degree I.

I think it would be better if the law was that companies had to write on the product (or in the menu) that it contained trans fats. That would probably speed up the market without telling people what they are allowed eat. If this was the law, I would be all for it. At least as long as the mechanisms for enforcing laws are already in place. Laws that force companies to tell people what it is they are selling, seem to be one of the least harmfull and most usefull kind of laws. I'm not opposed to anarchy, but I think laws that make information mandatory are ok.