Please Explain Why is this expectable

[jetboatdeath]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Big Don]

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

You don't recall this:

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

 

[CuongNhuka]

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]

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]

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

 

[jetboatdeath]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jkembry]

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.