Examples:
- California banned the use of trans-fatty oils in restaurants.
- Maryland passed a law banning alcohol consumption in state parks.
- In Utah, you have to buy the Rum separately from the Coke in a restaurant.
- Los Angeles wants to ban sodas from schools.
- State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-NY) wants to ban the use of salt by restaurant chefs.
- Officials in Santa Clara County, California are proposing a ban on toys in Happy Meals.
- Leola, South Dakota has banned ownership of German Shepherds, Dobermans, etc.
- New York City banned homemade baked goods at school fundraisers due to calorie risks.
- Pasadena, CA is considering banning smoking INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME.
Other great posts:
http://projectworldawareness.com/2010/04/theyre-taking-the-happy-out/
http://www.hubdub.com/m67743/Will_the_Big_Apple_assalt_salt
http://www.sodahead.com/living/food-police-want-to-ban-happy-meal-toys-is-this-too-far/question-928375/
I see the nanny state is alive and well.
ReplyDeleteAll of the measures above (with an exception of banning German Shepherd Dogs in that backwater place in SD) are in fact are good measure geared towards more healthy food and/or lifestyle choices and not limiting any Constitutional rights. Banning trans fat or trans-isomer fatty acid is keeping your own arteries clean and, at the end of the day, you alive.
ReplyDeleteIs it more preferable for be free to have your coronary artery been blocked by 99% at the age of 55 (and contribute great deal of money to the corporations responsible for adding those poly-saturates to your food since they are cheap), have a heart attack and end up in cat lab or have government to intervene and banned those?
So what you are saying is that people are too stupid to make decisions about what is good or bad for themselves? The Constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness. If someone wants to eat badly, it is their God-given right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give a government entity the right to abridge personal freedom when it does not impinge on another person's right. What the government CAN do is deny taxpayer funded medical care people. Each person will have to be responsible for their own health care, and therefore their own actions. By the way, who should get to decide what is right fr you or me?
ReplyDeleteI agree that everyone should be responsible for its own actions, especially when it comes to what they eat.
ReplyDeleteBut... If you went to medical school and saw upclose and personal how blocked artery looks like you'll think long and hard whether you would eat a biscuit from KFC with high pct of trans fat. If you, from the other hand, grow up in the project and did not make it through the high school you might think that KFC is a best thing since the slice bread.
What I'm trying to say that in the later case it is a responsibility of the Government to protect its less fortunate if education and everything else failed for them. They are especially vulnerable in front of massive commercials and ad flows design by professionals. They do need protection and banning what is well and long proven to be harmful should be banned. It is not an attack on someone personal freedom, it is an act of mercy if you wish.
Next - denying txpayer' funded medical care. So what - if one does not have a job and insurance he/she should die on the hospital's steps? Maybe we can just round up and execute all poor people before they became an issue?