# Please Explain Why is this expectable



## jetboatdeath (Jul 29, 2008)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25896233


LOS ANGELES - City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet.
The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.
The yearlong moratorium is intended to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The action, which the mayor must still sign into law, is believed to be the first of its kind by a major city to protect public 
 
The government can now say what people can buy and eat and were they can do it.
Is this what we elect people for to baby sit us.
 They are taking over when is it enough?
Why is this not racists?
How can a Liberal defend this?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 29, 2008)

N-no, no Arby's? No Jack In The Box ULTIMATE Cheeseburgers?? No Taco Bell's 7 Layer Burritos? 

That's it! I'm outta here!


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 29, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> N-no, no Arby's? No Jack In The Box ULTIMATE Cheeseburgers?? No Taco Bell's 7 Layer Burritos?
> 
> That's it! I'm outta here!


 
No new junk found places. They're not banning them wholesale. And really, this kind of law is kind of a mute point. If you want to open a new Taco Bell, it's a simple matter of making it up like it's not a fast food place. or just waiting a year when the moratorium ends.

That aside, if not to protect the people, then what is the purpose of government?


----------



## jetboatdeath (Jul 29, 2008)

You think it is their job to protect us, from trans fat and Taco Bell? 
Dont you think they have a few other more important things to protect us from?
Why should my personal choices be decided by the Government?
What happened to personal accountability? I know if I eat fast food every day I will not be healthy, there for I dont.
And most of all do you want this government being in charge of something as simple as what you can eat in L.A?

What next no whole milk?
No brown eggs?
No sugar, salt.

I know a group of people who eat peanuts and die, who protects them?
Can I sue the government for not protecting me because I ate 4 lbs of ice cream and got sick?


This is not the Governments job. Just another freedom rite taken away for the good of the people


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> No new junk found places. They're not banning them wholesale. And really, this kind of law is kind of a mute point. If you want to open a new Taco Bell, it's a simple matter of making it up like it's not a fast food place. or just waiting a year when the moratorium ends.
> 
> That aside, if not to protect the people, then what is the purpose of government?


First... the word you are trying to use is MOOT, not mute.  This is a mistake lots of people make that completely deflates their argument, because they look stupid saying that the argument is silent, when they mean that the issue is irrelevant, often because the decision has already been made (hence, "moot courts" as student exercises).  

Beyond that, the process of building a business is complicated.  It's seldom practical to simply "wait a year."  The proposed law (while enacted, it hasn't been signed by the mayor according to the article) defines a fast-food restaurant rather narrowly.  It's a laudable goal, though I don't think that it's the best or most effective way to go about it.  As you note -- it won't address existing businesses.  It's unclear from the article whether it would effect business that have already been approved.  It's not even clear if there are even new markets for those businesses in the communities...  It's very easy for, say Sedona, AZ, to ban any new shipyards.  Shipbuilders aren't exactly trying to build dry docks there...

As to the purpose of government...  That's a whole different issue.  For the moment, let me simply refer you to two documents that are a bit over 200 years old...  The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States.  Both set out some ideals on the purpose of government and it's relation to the governed.


----------



## kenpofighter (Jul 29, 2008)

We the people of the United States of America have the right to eat FREEDOM FRIES!


----------



## Big Don (Jul 29, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> First... the word you are trying to use is MOOT, not mute. .


You don't recall this:


			
				Joey on Friends said:
			
		

> The point is moo. You know, like a cow's opinion, it's moo, it doesn't matter


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 29, 2008)

jetboatdeath said:


> I know a group of people who eat peanuts and die, who protects them?


 
That would be the fact that the there is a federal law saying that all food contents must be printed on the label.

As for what you said latter, here's a fun fact about Democracy. It Democratic!!!! If you don't like a law, then (and this is the hard part) you can protest! You can try to get a repeal done, you can vote out the people that passed it, and so on! DUH!

JKS, thank you.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 29, 2008)

_Expectable_ or _acceptable_?  Either way - ever since various city and state governments began passing laws about trans fats in restaurants, I've been _expecting _more such input from the nanny state.  Do I understand it?  Yes.  Do I accept the government's right to make such a decision?  Not really, no.  I understand all the health benefits that come from eating better food - but I doubt this will have the desired effect... and unlike smoking, where those around the smoker are directly affected by the actions of the smoker, people who eat too much do not _directly_ affect the health of those around them in the same fashion.  There's an effect, yes - but it's much less direct than second-hand smoke.

At some point, the government at all levels needs to realize that we are adults, and let those who chose to do so go to hell in their own handbasket.  Protecting those around the person is one thing - but protecting people from themselves is generally ineffective.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 29, 2008)

Eventually  a person's gotta pay their own price for ****tin' in their own mess kit.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Jul 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> That would be the fact that the there is a federal law saying that all food contents must be printed on the label.
> 
> As for what you said latter, here's a fun fact about Democracy. It Democratic!!!! If you don't like a law, then (and this is the hard part) you can protest! You can try to get a repeal done, you can vote out the people that passed it, and so on! DUH!
> 
> JKS, thank you.


 
Are those the same labels avalible in the fast food joints?
Voting people out is not the point, things like this should not even make it to the table.
Why do you think laws are now written with a year clause. Try to repeal a law in a years time...
You have a young mans outlook on the way politics is suposed to work, not the way it does....

And protest, please how old are you again?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 29, 2008)

jetboatdeath said:


> Are those the same labels avalible in the fast food joints?
> Voting people out is not the point, things like this should not even make it to the table.
> Why do you think laws are now written with a year clause. Try to repeal a law in a years time...
> You have a young mans outlook on the way politics is suposed to work, not the way it does....
> ...


 

They have to tell you if you ask what the contents are.
Thats why you should try voting for people who are more qualified.

Old enough to know that if a good chunk of the population of the city signs a little piece of paper protesting the passage of law, the mayor will veto it. And even if not, you need something like 40% of the cities population to agree that the needs to be re-looked at, and the city council will have to re-pass it. Odds are, it will not be re-passed if it got that far.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> They have to tell you if you ask what the contents are.


Off topic, and yet, so, so very worth noting:
The "ground beef" served by Taco Bell, it's third ingredient:WHEAT


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 29, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Off topic, and yet, so, so very worth noting:
> The "ground beef" served by Taco Bell, it's third ingredient:WHEAT


 
Further off topic, a freind of mine told me that there is a higher grade of beef in Alpo Dog Food then in the Big Mac. New reason to avoid McDonalds.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm not sure how a moratorium on fast food restaurants is going to help to attract restaurants that serve healthier foods.  What, is Whole Foods saying, "We'd love to put a store in your broke-*** neighborhood, but the McDonalds Mafia is holding us back"?

Besides which, healthier food tends to be more expensive.  Which means they are replacing cheap food with more expensive options.  Why do L.A. city officials hate poor people?


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 30, 2008)

Not to mention the impact this will have on the availability of low-paying entry-level (i.e., minimum wage) job openings.  Poorer inner city neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates directly related to the higher unemployment rate among teens.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 30, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I'm not sure how a moratorium on fast food restaurants is going to help to attract restaurants that serve healthier foods.  What, is Whole Foods saying, "We'd love to put a store in your broke-*** neighborhood, but the McDonalds Mafia is holding us back"?


 Yeah, I'm sure THAT is the problem... [/sarcasm]





> Besides which, healthier food tends to be more expensive.  Which means they are replacing cheap food with more expensive options.  Why do L.A. city officials hate poor people?


Why are the minorities being told they aren't smart enough to make the right choices in what to eat?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 30, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I'm not sure how a moratorium on fast food restaurants is going to help to attract restaurants that serve healthier foods. What, is Whole Foods saying, "We'd love to put a store in your broke-*** neighborhood, but the McDonalds Mafia is holding us back"?


 
I'm geussing that they're includuing a tax credit or something.


----------



## TwentyThree (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm stunned that the community isn't up in arms over this clearly classist and racist proposal.  Simply stunned.


----------



## jkembry (Jul 30, 2008)

Kacey said:


> _Expectable_ or _acceptable_?  Either way - ever since various city and state governments began passing laws about trans fats in restaurants, I've been _expecting _more such input from the nanny state.  Do I understand it?  Yes.  Do I accept the government's right to make such a decision?  Not really, no.  I understand all the health benefits that come from eating better food - but I doubt this will have the desired effect... and unlike smoking, where those around the smoker are directly affected by the actions of the smoker, people who eat too much do not _directly_ affect the health of those around them in the same fashion.  There's an effect, yes - but it's much less direct than second-hand smoke.
> 
> At some point, the government at all levels needs to realize that we are adults, and let those who chose to do so go to hell in their own handbasket.  Protecting those around the person is one thing - but protecting people from themselves is generally ineffective.




Well said Kacey.  I would add...that perhaps it is time that we start teaching our kids that fast foods may not be the best for you and getting their face away form the commercials that are "training" them to want to eat at these places (meaning away from the TV and outside playing...or reading...or whatever).

That being said...I don't see any problem with taking them there as a treat every now and then...just don't make a habit of it.


----------



## Lynne (Jul 30, 2008)

Do you know that there is no empirical evidence to prove that saturated fats and foods high in cholesterol cause heart disease?  In fact, there is no scientific proof that high cholesterol causes heart disease.

I don't know what scientific proof there is regards transfats being harmful.  Like most of you, I have often heard that transfats, high fructose corn syrup, and white flour are the bad guys (sometimes along with potatoes, carrots, etc).

People try to blame fast food for the obesity epidemic.  They say, "it's something in the food."  No doubt, refined carbs cause many people to overeat.  The blood sugar rises, then drops, causing an insatiable appetite.  They end up being overweight and undernourished.  The end results if often Type II diabetes and heart disease.  I'm not sure education is going to help much.  People are going to overeat and not move if that's what they want to do. Also, it's not terribly difficult to overeat healthy food either.

If transfat is truly artery-clogging (and it probably is), then I applaud the government for banning restaurants from using it.

However, a moratorium on fast food restaurants is ridiculous.  Nutrition is complex and there really is very little clinical nutritionists truly know about nutrition.

As an aside, our local grocery store banned welfare customers from purchasing fresh potatoes last year.  Yet they allow them to buy bags of potato chips, Cheet-os 
and cartons of ding-dongs.  Figure that one out.

Oh, and a moratorium does sound rascist.


----------



## jkembry (Jul 30, 2008)

Lynne said:


> As an aside, our local grocery store banned welfare customers from purchasing fresh potatoes last year.  Yet they allow them to buy bags of potato chips, Cheet-os
> and cartons of ding-dongs.  Figure that one out.




Huh.....If they have money to pay for the chips....how can they be banned from buying potatoes?


----------



## Lynne (Jul 30, 2008)

jkembry said:


> Huh.....If they have money to pay for the chips....how can they be banned from buying potatoes?


 They'd put up a sign that said, "Food stamps cannot be used for fresh potatoes."  I asked the clerk why.  Come to find out, it was a local thing in our county.  Someone at Social Services had determined that clients were becoming obese from their large potato consumption.  This shows ignorance (I don't mean stupidity but lack of knowledge).  Potatoes actually have fiber, protein, Vitamin C and a host of antioxidants.

I asked the clerk if food stamp clients were still allowed to buy junk food and she said yes.

I notice that many food stamp clients load their carts with nonnutritious crap.  They might be better off eating a few too many potatoes.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 30, 2008)

Lynne said:


> I don't know what scientific proof there is regards transfats being harmful.


 
Geussing you've nevert seen Super Size Me?


----------



## Lynne (Jul 30, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Geussing you've nevert seen Super Size Me?


 Oh, yeah. I did see that movie a few years ago.  I remember the guy gained some phenomenal amount of weight and really skewed his blood lipids, maybe his blood sugar, too.  I remember the doctor was worried about irreversible damage.  His liver enyzmes were off, etc., which probably indicated a fatty liver.  Of course, he ate crap for all meals and he supersized.  Just the overeating would do all of that damage.  Overeat brown rice and beans and you will get fat; it's just not as calorically dense as a lot of fast food.

I don't eat McDonald's myself.   One can make healthier decisions if they eat there.  I do eat some fast food though - Taco Bell and Wendy's.  So, no purist here.

Then there is the story of the guy who lost 82 pounds recently eating McDonald's. But he made healthy choices.

As far as the scientific proof regards transfats, I haven't done the research.  They probably are harmful.  But sometimes the media jumps on a single study and makes it sound like the holy grail of truth.  Personally, I try to avoid transfats - I know that the oils have been oxidized and right therein is a problem.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 30, 2008)

Lynne said:


> Oh, yeah. I did see that movie a few years ago. I remember the guy gained some phenomenal amount of weight and really skewed his blood lipids, maybe his blood sugar, too. I remember the doctor was worried about irreversible damage. His liver enyzmes were off, etc., which probably indicated a fatty liver.


 
That in of itself sounds kinda like proof of the effects of the contents of fast food. it's far from the sceintific method, but it does work .


----------



## shinbushi (Jul 30, 2008)

What is stupid is that South Central Ooops I mean South LA is one of the most Crime ridden piece of crap neighborhoods in L.A.  There are many more important problems killing the residents than fast food.  Typical Liberals rather than fixing real problems trying to control people like a mommy or daddy.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 30, 2008)

I see it as similar to a municipality prohibiting new businesses to use neon signs due to a building's "historic" factor. Or cities having ordinances against drinking beer out of cups (not bottles) on the street. Odd stuff... but for a reason.

It's not like it's a Congressional Act, it's a city-wide decision. It can be changed. Maybe people in that neighborhood are not just tired of being morbidly obese, but would like their property value to rise, attracting better businesses and eventually gentrifying that particular neighborhood in general to make the property owners a little more wealthy.... in a 15-20 year time frame.

I see it all the time. I've even seen communities protest the opening of a new McDonalds and successfully shut it down through a boycott.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 30, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> I see it all the time. I've even seen communities protest the opening of a new McDonalds and successfully shut it down through a boycott.



Now if only we could do that with Walmart.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jul 30, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Now if only we could do that with Walmart.


 
It has been done.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 31, 2008)

jetboatdeath said:


> You think it is their job to protect us, from trans fat and Taco Bell?
> Dont you think they have a few other more important things to protect us from?
> Why should my personal choices be decided by the Government?
> What happened to personal accountability? I know if I eat fast food every day I will not be healthy, there for I dont.
> ...


 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but they aren't BANNING fast food places, they just aren't allowing them to be built or opened in a one year window to try and encourage "healthier" places to open to give more options to people.

The gov't has been choosing what gets to open where for quite a long time now with zoning laws etc.  This isn't anything new, just the media trying to stir up controversy.

How is this any different than the gov't banning smoking in many places?


----------



## Kacey (Jul 31, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> How is this any different than the gov't banning smoking in many places?


First, let me repeat that I think the government is turning way too far into a nanny state.

Second, as I said earlier, if you smoke, I have to breathe it - and tobacco smoke makes me nauseous and triggers my asthma in the short term, never mind any of the potential long-term problems.  If you eat trans fat in my presence, however, that has no impact on my health, although it potentially could, in the long run, affect my insurance rates.  That is why I agree with smoking bans, but not with laws about which foods can be sold where.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 31, 2008)

Kacey said:


> \That is why I agree with smoking bans, but not with laws about which foods can be sold where.


 
There are already all kinds of laws regulating food. Until the FDA was made it was common for butchers to take the meat that had fallen on the floor and selling it anyways. There was all kinds of horribly disgusting practices. This is just the government trying to do more of the same.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 31, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> There are already all kinds of laws regulating food. Until the FDA was made it was common for butchers to take the meat that had fallen on the floor and selling it anyways. There was all kinds of horribly disgusting practices. This is just the government trying to do more of the same.



Ah... so in your mind, laws about hygienic food handling (which are a public health concern) are the same as treating the population of various areas as being too stupid to choose their own food?  I'm not saying that these people are choosing their food wisely - and that does lead to a health concern - but there's a reason there are so many fast food places in the area, and it has more to do with economics than anything else.  Fast food is _cheap_ - which is related to quality of the food and the service - and as you improve both food and service, you also increase cost.  I know plenty of people who cannot afford anything more expensive, no matter how nearby it may be.  The government is, in this case, attempting to legislate the law of supply and demand - and that's not going to work; laws that attempt to do so have always fallen flat... Prohibition having been the most spectacular example.

IMHO, the money spent to enforce this law would be better spent on programs that educate people about cheap ways to find good food, as many people don't understand how to buy or prepare good quality, healthy food - that would attack the root of the problem, instead of a symptom, which is what they are doing now.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 31, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Ah... so in your mind, laws about hygienic food handling (which are a public health concern) are the same as treating the population of various areas as being too stupid to choose their own food?


 
I never said that and you know it.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 31, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> There are already all kinds of laws regulating food. Until the FDA was made it was common for butchers to take the meat that had fallen on the floor and selling it anyways. There was all kinds of horribly disgusting practices. This is just the government trying to do more of the same.





Kacey said:


> Ah... so in your mind, laws about hygienic food handling (which are a public health concern) are the same as treating the population of various areas as being too stupid to choose their own food?





CuongNhuka said:


> I never said that and you know it.



That may not be what you meant - but that is how the above reads to me.  If you meant something else, please explain what it was.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 1, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> That in of itself sounds kinda like proof of the effects of the contents of fast food. it's far from the sceintific method, but it does work .


 
Far from scientific is an understatement.

All the movie shows is that for one person, eating McDonalds* may *cause that one person to have health problems.  And I say may because we do not know what other things that he did that may have cause or exaserbated these conditions.  

This movie shows nothing about what effect one aspect of food, transfats, could have on the majority of the population.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 1, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> That aside, if not to protect the people, then what is the purpose of government?


 
Oh, and the answer to this is: to protect peoples freedoms.  And these laws are a direct contradiction to that.  

Of course, thats what I believe is the purpose of government.  Some have different ideas, which would include protecting people from themselves.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 1, 2008)

Kacey said:


> That may not be what you meant - but that is how the above reads to me.  If you meant something else, please explain what it was.



FWIW thats how it reads to me as well.

I disagree with them banning/delaying the opening of the places on principle.  If they want Healthy places to go in instead... they should give incentives to the people who want to open a healthier food place instead of regulating who can open their business.  Give a Loan/Grant/Tax Break to the guy who wants to open a place there that isn't fast food, so that it becomes affordable.  After all, its much cheaper and easier to open an "add water" restaurant that you can Franchise out for 50k than it is to build something new from the ground up, and I think that makes it look far more lucrative to wanna-be business owners...


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 1, 2008)

Kacey said:


> First, let me repeat that I think the government is turning way too far into a nanny state.
> 
> Second, as I said earlier, if you smoke, I have to breathe it - and tobacco smoke makes me nauseous and triggers my asthma in the short term, never mind any of the potential long-term problems. If you eat trans fat in my presence, however, that has no impact on my health, although it potentially could, in the long run, affect my insurance rates. That is why I agree with smoking bans, but not with laws about which foods can be sold where.


 
Unhealthy people do affect us and what we pay in insurance rates.  I do care about that.  

Again, this isn't a law about what food can be sold where.  Understand what you are arguing about.  This is about a zoning ordinance that says that they will not approve any new fast food restuarants to be opened in a certain area.  The existing places are fine and can operate as normal.  Zoning laws exist all over the place in cities.  Having a porn store by a school doesn't affect you, but many cities have a zoning ordinance about what can be opened by a school.  Did you look at what the obesity rates are for the area in question?  If I remember correctly it is almost double the national average, so that area probably does feel the financial effects of it.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 1, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> Unhealthy people do affect us and what we pay in insurance rates.  I do care about that.
> 
> Again, this isn't a law about what food can be sold where.  Understand what you are arguing about.  This is about a zoning ordinance that says that they will not approve any new fast food restuarants to be opened in a certain area.  The existing places are fine and can operate as normal.  Zoning laws exist all over the place in cities.  Having a porn store by a school doesn't affect you, but many cities have a zoning ordinance about what can be opened by a school.  Did you look at what the obesity rates are for the area in question?  If I remember correctly it is almost double the national average, so that area probably does feel the financial effects of it.



I do understand it; I was attempting (apparently not clearly) to point out the difference between the immediate effect of second-hand smoke, and the long-term effect of obesity.  And I did mention insurance rates.


----------

