Large Scale Central

Our Government in Action!

General Discussion
#1

Lots of ‘government in action’ in the news in California. Three examples:

  1. California became the first state to ban trans fats in food sold in restaurants. Story at: http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/07/28/health-buzz-california-trans-fats-ban-and-other-health-news.html

  2. The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city. Story at:
    http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-fastfood23-2008jul23,0,7844930.story

  3. San Francisco lawmakers voted Tuesday to make the city the first in the nation to ban the sale of tobacco products at most pharmacies. Story at:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/BAC7121IRV.DTL

I personally find these actions taken under the color of ‘government’ to be outrageous. I’ve been raised to believe in strict limits on government meddling in people’s personal lives, and the premise that we all have a wide freedom of choice in what, when, where and how we live our lives. Doubly so when it comes to what I eat or otherwise ingest!

Where does the U.S. Constitution give these state and local governments the right to control what and where we eat?

I note that in every one of these cases, the ‘greens’ and / or the ‘environmentalists’ are cited as being the driving force behind these new laws. An L.A. City Councilman actually said that someone had to take action because the district where the fast food ban is now in effect had the “highest incidence of obesity in all of L.A.” Following that logic, they need to ban liquor stores in Hollywood to cut down on the drunken media wannabes.

Another laughable sidelight is that Subway is exempt from the ban, as they serve “healthy” food. I saw a news segment where a nutritionist told that the most popular item at Subway is the meatball sandwich, which has more fat and calories than a Big Mac. I assume the L.A. City Council members making the decisions got their information from the TV ads for Subway. Maybe they will need to follow up with a law that controls what is on the menu, or what we can order from the ‘healthy’ restaurants.

An interview with a working man eating a hamburger at a fast food joint in the L.A. area where it is now banned said he worked hard, and ate where he could afford to in order to keep working. What is this guy going to do when he can only eat at a much more expensive permitted ‘healthy’ establishment?

BTW, I don’t smoke and am firmly against folks smoking in my environment. On average, I hit a ‘fast food’ joint two or three times a year. But I am totally able to make these choices for myself, and firmly believe in my fellow Americans being able to make these choices.

I am just fed up with the left wing nanny mentality and even more so with the local politicos who follow this kind of crap like sheep.

Back to model RRing before it’s banned!

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#2

Jerry,
I agree. Too many laws.
However, the majority of people in these communities may support big “protect me from myself” government.
It didn’t get that way by itself.
Ralph

#3

We have the best gummint money can buy!

#4

What’s even “funnier” in San Francisco is that while they’ll happily ban the sale of tobacco products and smoking in general they want easy access for pot smokers. I guess the only way for the average schmuck to get justice is to take a page from the lefties and refuse to obey the law. Seems to work for porn, prostitution, illegal immigration and pot.

BTW I don’t smoke either but I don’t need someone else to tell me I can’t and I haven’t been in a McDonald’s in years. I DO love my juicy hamburgers though heaped with grilled onions. I’m not worried about living to a ripe old age. At 72 if I’m not ripe by now I never will be. hehehe! :smiley:

#5

I’m not certain, but I would guess that the South L.A. district where the fast food restaurant ban is to be enforced, along with being the poorest section of L.A. also has the lowest per-capita number of voting voters. Point being that I doubt the folks affected had much say.

You may also be aware that we have a political districting system here in California that ensures election of the most extreme government representatives, whether liberal or conservative. It also ensures a safe seat system for each of the opposing parties. Both Democrat and Republican state representatives are fighting against any re-districting reform laws.

Which leads me to another outrageous California political item: There is a state ballot initiative that has qualified for the November ballot. This measure will outlaw the use of so-called ‘battery cages’ for chicken farms. The measure was promoted onto the ballot by the U.S. Humane Society. The ‘greens’ and ‘environmentalists’, along with the ‘animals are people too’ groups are all reported as being highly in favor. Many members of our urban based voting population have absolutely no knowledge of egg production beyond “They come from chickens . . . Don’t they?”, and along with our normal low voter turnouts, there is a significant probability it will pass into law. BTW, our many non-voting voters are only outraged after some unintended circumstance occurs, and then it’s too late.

It’s widely predicted that the price of eggs in CA and surrounding states will rise. There will be a further shrinking of California and U.S. egg production as numerous operations will simply go out of business or move elsewhere rather than expending the dollars and effort to comply.

A week or so ago, I met a guy who is an egg producer in the North S.F. bay area. He said he has around 50,000 laying hens at his current operation. He said he, his wife and business partner discussed selling or closing and retiring, but then realized that there was an opportunity opened by this new law.

He said they had recently returned from purchasing 200+ acres of land in Mexico, near the border with Southern California. He plans to significantly expand his operation, while enjoying the significantly lower costs of producing in Mexico along with the higher prices in California. A little more shipping, but the NAFTA allows Mexican truckers full access to the U.S., thus allowing him to get transportation at about 1/2 the price it would be in the U.S. And of course, no battery cage laws in Mexico.

Since he’s a pilot, he said it will actually be a (tax deductible) pleasure to travel between his N. California home and his Mexican egg production operation. He is going to look for a house in Mexico so he can claim it as his (low tax) permanent residence.

Bottom line: We consumers will pay more for a product that is no longer produced here and is less fresh when it arrives. Who knows what the overall quality will be. Just look at the FDA’s recent response to the Salmonella outbreak blamed on tomatoes (or was it the peppers?)

And the chickens will still live in battery cages.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#6

Jerry,
I don’t know anything about battery cages.
The egg producer is cutting and running before the law even passes.
He is probably supporting the law so he can get top dollar for his Mexican eggs.
I’ll spare you my thoughts on this “gentleman”.
Ralph

#7

“It’s not personal, it’s just business.” Michael Corleone

#8
Steve Featherkile said:
"It's not personal, it's just business." Michael Corleone
Ask the employee in the unemployment line if it's personal. Ralph
#9

You ask him, I don’t dare!

#10

Well, Jerry, we don’t call Ca the Granola state for nothin…the land of fruits, nuts and flakes…keeps us in the rest of the nation amused. Sad, but amused…

Thought you might enjoy this…

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/648003f9-616f-44df-bc84-7d2fafc8cc97

#11
Richard Smith said:
What's even "funnier" in San Francisco is that while they'll happily ban the sale of tobacco products and smoking in general they want easy access for pot smokers. I guess the only way for the average schmuck to get justice is to take a page from the lefties and refuse to obey the law. Seems to work for porn, prostitution, illegal immigration and pot.
That's me--typical leftie, out breaking the law all the time!

Meanwhile, conservative nutjob shoots up Unitarian church because of it’s “liberal views”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting

Which laws were the lefties in that church breaking?

Nothing like reasoned discussion to start the day off right. Wonder where i can find some?

#12

Seems to be nutjobs on both sides of the fence…

#13
Jerry Bowers said:
Lots of 'government in action' in the news in California. Three examples:

  1. California became the first state to ban trans fats in food sold in restaurants. Story at: http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/07/28/health-buzz-california-trans-fats-ban-and-other-health-news.html

  2. The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city. Story at:
    http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-fastfood23-2008jul23,0,7844930.story

  3. San Francisco lawmakers voted Tuesday to make the city the first in the nation to ban the sale of tobacco products at most pharmacies. Story at:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/BAC7121IRV.DTL

Where does the U.S. Constitution give these state and local governments the right to control what and where we eat?


I believe that would be Amendment 10, last of what we refer to as “the bill of rights.” “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

So that’s where the US Constitution gives them the power.

Speaking for myself, as a typical law breaking leftie and environmental whacko, I don’t really have a big problem with these laws. Obesity, for example, costs me, as a taxpayer, enormous amounts of money–it’s a huge, pardon the pun, public health problem. I mean, even if you don’t care about the damage to the health of the fat person, every fattie in the street is adding to my health care costs, even in a private system like ours. Poor working parents with few options (try to find a grocery store in a poor neighborhood) go to McD’s for price and convenience, but the health cost is high, especially for children. A moratorium (not a ban) on fast food would do a great deal of public good at no cost to taxpayers

Look at it this way–suppose lead in paint is known to cause brain damage (hey wait–it IS known to cause brain damage). Would you support banning lead paint? Or is that ban just another example of the the “enviro whackos” at work?

Trans fat ban in restaurants? Yawn–who cares? I can hardly tell the difference. Can you tell what kind of fat was used to make those supersize fries? I can’t.

Banning cigarettes–my feelings are a little more mixed. Here again the public costs to me, who does not smoke–are extremely high. I pay for the smoker’s lung problems in terms of increased general costs for health insurance. That’s just a fact. Why should I have to pay for someone else’s bad choices? I’m happy to discourage smoking. But then, I’d support the legalization of marijuana, so I’m not sure I can justify a ban.

The Bush admin just introduced legislation that will make it easier for drug stores to ban birth control devices. How do you guys feel about that one?

#14

Chicago repealed its ban on goose livers, but they are considering a law requiring all cats and dogs to be nutered or spayed by the age of 6 months.

#15

mike,

“…ban birth control devices…” sounds like a Planned Parenthood interpretation (a.k.a. “propaganda” or “scare tactics”)… What is the actual wording?

In WI a law was passed and signed that FORCES Catholic hospitals to inform of and dispense plan B (chemical abortifacient) drugs.

In the same vein, they should also pass laws that force Jews to eat pork and the Amish to wear rainbow colored Afro wigs.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik

#16

By no stretch of the imagination does the Constitution give state and local government the right to tell you what to eat and where. I don’t think “We The People” have anything to do with those laws. Just some more of this “nanny state” mentality that thinks we’re too stupid to make our own decisions. We don’t elect these people to go there and 'Think" for us, we send them there to do what “We The People” want. Granted, some people do make bad decisions. heaven knows I make enough of them. But they’re my decisions and I have to live with them. . I don’t consider obesity a huge public health problem but more of personal problem for the people that are afflicted with it. Some of it is genetics and a lot of it is poor eating habits. They made the bad decision to eat all that crap. I pay higher health care insurance because of people’s genetics. I pay for people with bad driving habits and drunk driver’s with increased car insurance rates. I pay for careless people who have their houses burn down with higher Homeowner’s insurance. In the long run I pay higher taxes enforcing all these “nanny state” laws.

I see a whole lot more than poor people in McDonald’s. Plenty of SUV’s in the parking lot. If they want to eat there, that’s fine with me.

I should be able to decide where I eat, what I eat and what time I eat, not the government. But it’s just a little more personal freedom being eroded away, for the good of the state, so who cares? Sounds a lot like socialism, to me. Didn’t we fight a war over that?

#17

Joe:

As I understand it the admin. wishes to make it easier for individual drugstores to refuse to stock birth control–or really anything–if the product offends the store management’s religious sensibilities. It’s an interesting question. Birth control, ranging from condoms to the “morning after pill,” is legal. Lots of religions have problems with birth control–the Catholic Church, for example, objects to condoms. Should the Catholic manager of a CVS be allowed to ban condoms? Or refuse to sell them to a person who takes them off the store shelves?

I’m leaning towards no. I suspect that if, for example, a store stocked Krylon spray paint and the manager was one of those “enviro whackos” I keep hearing about at LSC, then no one here would support him in his decision not to sell Krylon paint because it offended his political views. But on the other hand, a store is free to sell what it wishes and if it loses business because of choices it makes, so be it.

The difference is the state level ban. If a state chose to ban the sale of contraceptives, it would actually be a much more clear cut question than individual stores refusing to sell them

#18
Ken Brunt said:
By no stretch of the imagination does the Constitution give state and local government the right to tell you what to eat and where. I don't think "We The People" have anything to do with those laws. Just some more of this "nanny state" mentality that thinks we're too stupid to make our own decisions. We don't elect these people to go there and 'Think" for us, we send them there to do what "We The People" want. Granted, some people do make bad decisions. heaven knows I make enough of them. But they're my decisions and I have to live with them. . I don't consider obesity a huge public health problem but more of personal problem for the people that are afflicted with it. Some of it is genetics and a lot of it is poor eating habits. They made the bad decision to eat all that crap. I pay higher health care insurance because of people's genetics. I pay for people with bad driving habits and drunk driver's with increased car insurance rates. I pay for careless people who have their houses burn down with higher Homeowner's insurance. In the long run I pay higher taxes enforcing all these "nanny state" laws.

I see a whole lot more than poor people in McDonald’s. Plenty of SUV’s in the parking lot. If they want to eat there, that’s fine with me.

I should be able to decide where I eat, what I eat and what time I eat, not the government. But it’s just a little more personal freedom being eroded away, for the good of the state, so who cares? Sounds a lot like socialism, to me. Didn’t we fight a war over that?


Absolutely,the Constitution gives the states the rights to tell people what to eat and where–it sure does.

How about bans on food on public places—for example, you can’t bring your hotdog into the national archives to see the Declaration of independence. You can’t bring your sandwich into the public library. Are those OK with you? Or public safety: you can’t smoke while filling the gas pump, or near and around volatile chemicals. Innocent people might get blown up. How about a ban on driving while drinking or drunk? Surely you support that? How about selling birth control devices to, say, 13 year old girls. Would you allow that or support our current ban on it?

So if you accept those kind of bans–and maybe you don’t–you’re accepting the logic of a ban on transfats. Those kinds of bans are based on the premise that public safety requires the regulation of dangerous behavior that is demonstrably harmful to the public good.

I hate bicycle helmets and never wear one–typical leftie lawbreaker–but the logic behind the helmet law is the same. It’s a completely well legitimated legal principle that courts–conservative and liberal courts–have affirmed.

#19
Quote:
How about bans on food on public places---for example, you can't bring your hotdog into the national archives to see the Declaration of independence. You can't bring your sandwich into the public library. Are those OK with you? Or public safety: you can't smoke while filling the gas pump, or near and around volatile chemicals. Innocent people might get blown up. How about a ban on driving while drinking or drunk? Surely you support that? How about selling birth control devices to, say, 13 year old girls. Would you allow that or support our current ban on it?
All of those fall under basic common sense, courtesy, and personal responsibilty , which is another thing you can't legislate no matter how hard you try.
#20

Common sense meaning what–that they make sense to you? That they make sense to most people? If most Californians agree with the measures described, that makes them common sense then.

Fine–my initial point here is that it was perfectly consistent with the Constitution and American “common sense” and legal traditions to set limits on what people can eat and wear and when they can do it.