Fast food bans.

[WritingPad]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12166825 4978871827.html?mod=yhoofront

Do you think it is right for the government to step in and say whether or not people can eat fast food? I for one say no. If someone wants to eat food that may not be good for them, that's for the person to decide, not the government. (Personally, I hate fast food, but that's irrelevant.)

[Christopherr]

I figured this would come from California...

Let's cripple businesses that bring the US money while casting aside the free market, guys!

[KeithHybrid]

If someone wants to eat food that may not be good for them, that's for the person to decide, not the government.

Exactly. I don't want the government stepping in and telling me how I should kill myself.

[Christopherr]

At 8/1/08 12:28 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Exactly. I don't want the government stepping in and telling me how I should kill myself.

Are you an idiot? Fast food is by no means suicide, face it. It's definitely dangerous to eat constantly, but not suicide. In fact, lots of things are dangerous, but not suicide because no intention to kill oneself exists.

-Alcohol
-Cigarettes
-Motorcycles
-Skydiving
-And more!

[therealsylvos]

Can we give california back to mexico?
Please?

Seriously when I watched the vid I felt a huge urge to choke the bitch.

They want more health food stores, thats why all the ones we currently have are going out of business

[yourefat]

At 8/1/08 01:57 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Can we give california back to mexico?
Please?

Seriously when I watched the vid I felt a huge urge to choke the bitch.

They want more health food stores, thats why all the ones we currently have are going out of business

I second that. @ the people above me, the government can recommend or encourage whatever they want. They just do not have the right to legislate.

[morefngdbs]

If she stops taking her 'ugly' pills every morning, I'm willing to continue eating healthy subs, with tuna or chicken & lots of veggie's, for my fast food.

[fli]

The government isn't banning fast foods... but they're trying to curb their aggressiveness and their tenacity.

After all,
Unhealthy people cost the government a lot to aid.

It's not even an "I the consumer" issue most of the times!
Because, inevitably, the people who totally bitches and rips up on the government for supposedly trying to "control their lives" are the VERY same ones who are costing the government to aid them in their time of need.

They sue... who helps the businesses who are sued? The government.
If they don't have sufficient insurance, who gives them aid? You guessed right.

Folks, yes... consumerism is about having choice.
But there are such things such as MAKING a RIGHT choice too.

[yourefat]

At 8/1/08 02:18 PM, fli wrote: After all,
Unhealthy people cost the government a lot to aid.

Don't go all 'Japan' about it....

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/1/08 12:14 PM, Christopherr wrote: I figured this would come from California...

Gee, the state with a brilliant, tactical governor who has an unbridled love for free enterprise and despises socialism is obviously in the middle of a plot to succeed from the union and form a marxist state.

Let's cripple businesses that bring the US money while casting aside the free market, guys!

"Free Market" has nothing to do with this. NO ONE is saying that by limiting the free market, they are going to be making money off this deal. They've been covering this on the local news stations, and the plan is too temporarily halt fast food on strips that already have excessive numbers of fast food restaurants, so that restaurants, which are harder to start up and require more capital, have time to form.

[KeithHybrid]

At 8/1/08 01:36 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 8/1/08 12:28 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Exactly. I don't want the government stepping in and telling me how I should kill myself.

Are you an idiot?

No, I'm being sarcastic. Everyone knows that eating McBurger on a regular basis, drinking, smoking, and all that shit will considerably shorten your life, so in a way, it is like killing yourself very slowly.

[Al6200]

The government shouldn't shut down fast food, instead the government should force companies to more clearly label their foods. That means fat percentages and values in big red letters, with a graph showing suggested daily values.

And if we really wanted to make fast food healthy, we could. For example, they could mandate that grilled chicken be used instead of friend chicken, no mayonnaise, no fat in sauces, no cheese, etc.

A grilled chicken sandwich at McDonalds, especially if it doesn't have mayonnaise is pretty healthy. Fries are a tougher thing to fix, but it could be mandated that the fries be fried in the healthiest possible oil, and that the fries be thicker so that there is less surface area to be fried.

Microwaved salmon is pretty healthy, although it's a little bit on the pricey size (A good portion of raw salmon is $4, the low mercury kind is much much more).

[CIX]

I wonder how Subway is going to be affect their business.

This will hurt the poor because unskilled people won't find any new jobs and find any cheap food.

Men's Health compiles a list of the unhealthiest foods available and they are all from sit-in restaurants.

At 8/1/08 02:54 PM, Al6200 wrote: The government shouldn't shut down fast food, instead the government should force companies to more clearly label their foods. That means fat percentages and values in big red letters, with a graph showing suggested daily values.

No the shouldn't. People know they're getting an unhealthy meal and a few numbers that you can already access from their sites will not change that fact.

At 8/1/08 02:54 PM, Al6200 wrote: And if we really wanted to make fast food healthy, we could. For example, they could mandate that grilled chicken be used instead of friend chicken, no mayonnaise, no fat in sauces, no cheese, etc.

Maybe because deep-frying is faster that they choose to fry than to grill? You act like fat is the enemy when it wouldn't be a problem if people burned more calories than they consumed.

At 8/1/08 02:54 PM, Al6200 wrote: A grilled chicken sandwich at McDonalds, especially if it doesn't have mayonnaise is pretty healthy. Fries are a tougher thing to fix, but it could be mandated that the fries be fried in the healthiest possible oil, and that the fries be thicker so that there is less surface area to be fried.

They *should* do this. They *should* do that. Open up your own fast food chain if you think people want this.

[KidneyThief]

Unfair to both the people and business. It's and infringement on freedom. If someone wants to eat somthing that they know isn't good for them it's their decision.

[Gunter45]

It's not the government's job to babysit people. The government is not set up to tell us what's good or bad for us. A government trying to protect people from themselves is absolutely fucking asinine.

[Proteas]

You know, reading the title of this topic, I thought the same way a few of the opening posters did about it; only in california could something as DUMB as a "fast food ban" originate or stand a chance coming into law.

Then I actually opened the link, and read the article.

Jan Perry, a Los Angeles city-council member, is spearheading legislation that would ban new fast-food restaurants like McDonald's and KFC from opening in a 32-square-mile chunk of the city, including her district. The targeted area is already home to some 400 fast-food restaurants, she says, possibly contributing to high obesity rates there -- 30% of adults, compared with about 21% in the rest of the city. Nationally, 25.6% of adults are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Okay, let's break that down a bit; 400 fast food restaurants spread out over 32 square miles. That equals out too about 12 and a half restaurants in every square mile. That's 1 restaurant every 1500 feet no matter what direction you walk in.

Does anybody else here see anything inherently WRONG with that picture, or that fact that such restaurants still want to open in that area?

[Serphyas]

If the government required fast-food chains to post their ingredients and nutrition facts, you wouldn't need to ban the opening of new restaurants.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking. Part of me knows that many people realize how terrible fast food is them yet continue to eat there.

[therealsylvos]

At 8/1/08 05:15 PM, Proteas wrote:
Does anybody else here see anything inherently WRONG with that picture, or that fact that such restaurants still want to open in that area?

Nope.
Do you know the population density of that area?
I don't.
But I bet Mcdonalds does.
And if they see a market for yet another store, they have every right to open it, and every right to go out of business.

[Gunter45]

At 8/1/08 05:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nope.
Do you know the population density of that area?
I don't.
But I bet Mcdonalds does.
And if they see a market for yet another store, they have every right to open it, and every right to go out of business.

Bingo. While it is within the scope of the government to regulate business to some extent, this is really a supply and demand issue. Fast food companies don't force people to eat their products. If you don't like fast food, don't eat there. If it becomes unprofitable to have a location there, they'll move of their own accord. It really is just that simple.

[Proteas]

At 8/1/08 05:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Do you know the population density of that area?
I don't.
But I bet Mcdonalds does.

Unless it's Mega City One from Judge Dredd, there's no way it can be so densely populated as to justify that close proximity of restaurants to each other.

And if they see a market for yet another store, they have every right to open it, and every right to go out of business.

They're turning the town into an open air mall food court, give me a break.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 8/1/08 01:36 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 8/1/08 12:28 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Exactly. I don't want the government stepping in and telling me how I should kill myself

-Alcohol
-Cigarettes
-Motorcycles
-Skydiving
-And more!

-Guns
-High places
-Playing in traffic
-Siding with Shaggy in an argument.

[CIX]

At 8/1/08 05:56 PM, Proteas wrote: They're turning the town into an open air mall food court, give me a break.

How dare they bring jobs into the local economy. Give me a break. Leave if you don't like the businesses around where you live.

[Proteas]

At 8/1/08 07:48 PM, CIX wrote: How dare they bring jobs into the local economy. Give me a break. Leave if you don't like the businesses around where you live.

How depressed is the local economy that a McDonalds is a great boost to the job market?!

[CIX]

At 8/1/08 08:25 PM, Proteas wrote: How depressed is the local economy that a McDonalds is a great boost to the job market?!

You're obviously right. Ban McDonald's, losing thousands of jobs won't do anything to the economy.

[poxpower]

At 8/1/08 02:18 PM, fli wrote:

After all,
Unhealthy people cost the government a lot to aid.

How can you blame fast food for obesity though?
To do that would be to imagine that the majority of obese people mostly eat fast food in normal portions.

No, it's not the fast food that makes people fat, it's just eating too much. The culture is such now that people simply have all the food they want and we're genetically programmed to eat more than we need, so unless you make a conscious effort to not eat that much, you'll get fat, NO MATTER WHAT YOU EAT.

And another phenomenon is that poor people can only afford food that makes them fat, like pasta, potatoes, rice and tv dinner shit like chef boyardee and Kraft dinner. They're not eating salmon, white fish and fancy salads with a fruit punch,
They drink Kool Aid, that shit us just sugar.

Anyways, Fast Food is AWESOME, I support it FULLY.
Gooooooooooo fast food!

[Proteas]

At 8/1/08 08:35 PM, CIX wrote: You're obviously right. Ban McDonald's, losing thousands of jobs won't do anything to the economy.

They're not banning McDonalds you illiterate twit, and they're not banning fast food either, they're putting a cap on the number of fast food restaurants that can be built into the area.

[CIX]

At 8/1/08 08:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/1/08 08:35 PM, CIX wrote: You're obviously right. Ban McDonald's, losing thousands of jobs won't do anything to the economy.

They're not banning McDonalds you illiterate twit, and they're not banning fast food either, they're putting a cap on the number of fast food restaurants that can be built into the area.

I'm not saying they are you twit. What's the difference between a cap and a total ban? The economy won't grow.

[Proteas]

At 8/1/08 09:27 PM, CIX wrote: I'm not saying they are you twit. What's the difference between a cap and a total ban? The economy won't grow.

Are you really asking this question?

Cap; no more can be built here.
Total ban; they are no longer allowed to sell their wares and their businesses are torn down, ala prohibition.

You are the weakest link, get the fuck off this board!

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/1/08 08:35 PM, CIX wrote:

You're obviously right. Ban McDonald's, losing thousands of jobs won't do anything to the economy.

Thousands? More like 15ish, the number the average fast food restaurant employees.

[CIX]

At 8/1/08 09:31 PM, Proteas wrote:

???

Why are you for putting caps but not bans?

kaythxbai