NYC bans trans fats from eateries

[26 X World Champs]

At first I was angry about this, but then when I thought about it, I had finally come to the conclusion that just maybe, in this instance, that the gov't might be looking out for us for once. I can see banning indoor smoking and banning trans fats as good for everyone's health. Why should we get mad when something bad is taken away from us?
Well, for once, the NY libs did something right.

:applaud Excellent post and I applaud your clear thinking...we all need to do that more often!

 

[TurtleDude]

Nanny Staters won't just stop with trans fat. Many of them (and Bloomberg is one of them) think guns in the home are bad for your health and want to ban that. PETA extremists think eating meat is bad for your health. On the other hand, its clear the government has an obligation to prevent the sale of adulterated food and drink.

 

[26 X World Champs]

About the smoking thing, my dad smokes every day but when we go to a restaurant, he doesn't smoke and we sit in the No Smoking section. Why can't other people not smoke in restaurants too?

Because they're selfish drug addicts who want their fix more than they respect the health of those around them or even their own health...which is why the drug addicted smokers cannot be allowed to smoke in the public square..and here in NYC they can't and life is definitely better for it...except maybe for the less than 30% of our population who are still Nic Freaks for them life must be more of a hassle than it used to be....poor drug addicts, poor NicHeads!

If it were up to me I would ban smoking in America, period...but that is my personal preference not a realistic expectation I have.

 

[RightinNYC]

Nanny Staters won't just stop with trans fat. Many of them (and Bloomberg is one of them) think guns in the home are bad for your health and want to ban that. PETA extremists think eating meat is bad for your health. On the other hand, its clear the government has an obligation to prevent the sale of adulterated food and drink.

And that's why I have faith in the healthy minority (majority) of the nation who won't let BBerg's hopeful gun policies come into play should he decide to run.:mrgreen:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Nanny Staters won't just stop with trans fat. Many of them (and Bloomberg is one of them) think guns in the home are bad for your health and want to ban that. PETA extremists think eating meat is bad for your health. On the other hand, its clear the government has an obligation to prevent the sale of adulterated food and drink.

I know of no other Forum member who is so obsessed with guns! Seems like every decision TurtleDude makes in his life has to do somehow with his view on guns...it's just plain weird....

Comparing public food health standards to guns is as dumb as it gets but I will consider the source...

 

[RightinNYC]

I know of no other Forum member who is so obsessed with guns! Seems like every decision TurtleDude makes in his life has to do somehow with his view on guns...it's just plain weird....

Comparing public food health standards to guns is as dumb as it gets but I will consider the source...

I don't think its that odd a comparison considering that BBerg's reputation as a "nanny-state" mayor is predicated primarily on his stance toward smoking and guns...

 

[26 X World Champs]

I don't think its that odd a comparison considering that BBerg's reputation as a "nanny-state" mayor is predicated primarily on his stance toward smoking and guns...

I disagree because one is a public health matter the other is a commodity. Gun laws in NYC work in NYC. Would they work elsewhere? Who knows? I sure would like to find out.

Transfat out of restaurants? It's a law that one can argue will be easily succesful everywhere in the USA....just like lead paint being banned...or asbestos...

 

[TurtleDude]

I disagree because one is a public health matter the other is a commodity. Gun laws in NYC work in NYC. Would they work elsewhere? Who knows? I sure would like to find out.

Transfat out of restaurants? It's a law that one can argue will be easily succesful everywhere in the USA....just like lead paint being banned...or asbestos...

I know of no other Forum member who is so obsessed with guns! Seems like every decision TurtleDude makes in his life has to do somehow with his view on guns...it's just plain weird....

Comparing public food health standards to guns is as dumb as it gets but I will consider the source...

No they don't. There is no proof that NYC's idiotic gun laws make your city safer. Rather, they only deprive many of a constitutional right and the source of that deprivation was rooted in racism and bigotry. YOu have nerve to talk about obsession btw. NOt only are you lying again (there are at least two other members who are as concerned with the deprivation of this right as much as I am) your comments are just plain assinine

 

[26 X World Champs]

There is no proof that NYC's idiotic gun laws make your city safer. Rather, they only deprive many of a constitutional right and the source of that deprivation was rooted in racism and bigotry.

Pshing your gun button is as much for fun for me as shooting a gun is for you...

 

[Southern Belle]

About the gun thing: Aren't we supposed to have guns to protect ourselves from the government or whoever just walking in our house and taking us over, or something like that, at least that's why they put it in the constitution...

I was never sure, do the anti-gun people just hate hand guns or every gun? My dad loves to hunt deer because it's fun to him, so they shouldn't be wanting to ban hunting guns, cause that just ain't right, lol... I have a younger brother and sister and they never had accidedents because my dad never left the bullets in the gun or even loaded the gun inside. You just have to be smart if you hunt. As for the other guns I don't know or care but my dad has the right to go gun hunting (he also likes bow hunting but I think he likes gun hunts more)

 

[26 X World Champs]

About the gun thing: Aren't we supposed to have guns to protect ourselves from the government or whoever just walking in our house and taking us over, or something like that, at least that's why they put it in the constitution...

I was never sure, do the anti-gun people just hate hand guns or every gun? My dad loves to hunt deer because it's fun to him, so they shouldn't be wanting to ban hunting guns, cause that just ain't right, lol... I have a younger brother and sister and they never had accidedents because my dad never left the bullets in the gun or even loaded the gun inside. You just have to be smart if you hunt. As for the other guns I don't know or care but my dad has the right to go gun hunting (he also likes bow hunting but I think he likes gun hunts more)

I have no problem with someone owning a gun so long as it is registered and the user has some sort of training. You need a license to drive and you need to take tests, written and driving to be able to drive. I think the same standards should apply to gun owners and like with automobiles I think you should have to reregister your gun every two years so that there's a paper trail following the gun.

I also think there are certain types of guns and ammo that are well beyond what any private citizen can ever justify having so I think there should be standards as to that too.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no problem with someone owning a gun so long as it is registered and the user has some sort of training. You need a license to drive and you need to take tests, written and driving to be able to drive. I think the same standards should apply to gun owners and like with automobiles I think you should have to reregister your gun every two years so that there's a paper trail following the gun.

I also think there are certain types of guns and ammo that are well beyond what any private citizen can ever justify having so I think there should be standards as to that too.

again this nonsense. You don't need a driver's license to own a car or operate one on private property. You don't need to register a car to do either. You don't have people introducing laws to ban cars or to prevent you owning cars of certain speed capabilities. You can own a car that outruns anything the police have on the road. registration plays no purpose but to facilitate confiscation

based on the Hayes decision of 1968, the supreme court has determined that registration violates a felon's fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination
anything a civilian police department has, other civilians should be able to own.

no police officer has ever been killed with "armor piercing ammo" heroes of yours wrote the ban to include any ammo that can penetrate even light weight vests which -for reasons of weight and comfort-are designed to stop only the common pistol cartridges that police officers usually face. EVERY centerfire deer rifle rips right through the concealible vests worn by cops

 

[TurtleDude]

Pshing your gun button is as much for fun for me as shooting a gun is for you...

I am a moonbat hunter-hunting moonbats is what I do--remember the tantrum you threw when I said the same thing to you a few months ago? shall I pull it up-it sent the thread down below but I bet it still exists.

[

 

[tryreading]

If a man made ingredient in a processed food made 72,000 to 228,000 (6% to 19% of 1.2 million) people go blind every year, I bet there would be outcry and hysteria like nobody ever heard before.

If a man made product made that same number of men impotent, it wouldn't be around long. Or what if it caused that many women to prematurely wrinkle in the face?

But an estimated 72,000 to 228,000 heart attacks and related deaths per year from another man made product is okay?

Vioxx only caused about 7,000 deaths a year. Does anybody want a prescription for it? Anybody?

...27785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003.
FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths



Take trans fats off the shelves just like vioxx. They are dangerous, and completely unnecessary.

[I]Even very small amounts of trans fat in the diet can have deleterious health effects. A combined analysis of multiple studies showed that for every 2 percent of calories consumed from trans fat, the risk of coronary heart disease increases by 23 percent. For someone who consumes a 2,000 calorie per day diet, 2 percent of total calories represents just 40 calories of trans fats--about the amount found in a medium order of fast-food French fries. Eliminating trans fats from the U.S. food supply could prevent between 6 and 19 percent of heart attacks and related deaths each year--a staggering number, given that there are 1.2 million heart attacks and related deaths in the U.S. annually.

"The effect and magnitude of adverse health effects of trans fatty acids are in fact far stronger on average than those of food contaminants or pesticide residues, which have in some cases received considerable attention," the authors write. "Complete or near-complete avoidance of industrially produced trans fats…may be necessary to avoid adverse health effects and would be prudent to minimize risks."

The Latest on Trans Fats and Heart Disease: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health[/I]

 

[RightinNYC]

I have no problem with someone owning a gun so long as it is registered and the user has some sort of training. You need a license to drive and you need to take tests, written and driving to be able to drive. I think the same standards should apply to gun owners and like with automobiles I think you should have to reregister your gun every two years so that there's a paper trail following the gun.

I also think there are certain types of guns and ammo that are well beyond what any private citizen can ever justify having so I think there should be standards as to that too.

So would you support making the registration, testing, and certification for guns free?

The courts have held repeatedly that voting, another constitutional right, must be free from taxation such as poll taxes, voter ID cards that could be discriminitory towards the poor, etc.

Cars are different because there is no right to drive, but guns are in the constitution along with the vote.

So, I presume that you would agree that in order to avoid being discriminatory towards the poor and in order to uphold the constitution, all of this testing and registration should be completely free?

If you agree, then I think I can agree to your proposal.

 

[26 X World Champs]

So would you support making the registration, testing, and certification for guns free?

The courts have held repeatedly that voting, another constitutional right, must be free from taxation such as poll taxes, voter ID cards that could be discriminitory towards the poor, etc.

Cars are different because there is no right to drive, but guns are in the constitution along with the vote.

So, I presume that you would agree that in order to avoid being discriminatory towards the poor and in order to uphold the constitution, all of this testing and registration should be completely free?

If you agree, then I think I can agree to your proposal.

Not like you to use a stawman argument? States already LEGALLY impose gun registration fees....

 

[TheNextEra]

But an estimated 72,000 to 228,000 heart attacks and related deaths per year from another man made product is okay?

It's going to be funny when this number doesn't go down after this ban. What's next? The government forcing us all to be vegetarians too? What about government forced exercise?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

lol! I meant that I don't believe it's right, I don't do it, and I never hang out at bars or anything like that. ^_^ But actually driving when you are drunk is already illegal, so... Also it takes a bit more effort than just sucking smoke to hurt someone when you're driving drunk...

The reality of the situation is different. Impairment starts at the first drink. And you are still under te legal limit to drive. Limit or no though, it is a personal activity that has dangers to others. My point is people should be able to make these decisions on there own, and not have the government coming in legislating personal decisions... least in my opinion

 

[Southern Belle]

The reality of the situation is different. Impairment starts at the first drink. And you are still under te legal limit to drive. Limit or no though, it is a personal activity that has dangers to others. My point is people should be able to make these decisions on there own, and not have the government coming in legislating personal decisions... least in my opinion

Yeah, fair enough... we can agree to disagree, I don't see anything wrong with banning smoking, but eh...

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Yeah, fair enough... we can agree to disagree, I don't see anything wrong with banning smoking, but eh...

And I see nothing wrong with banning alchohol, extreme sports, contact sports, red meat, cholesteral as a whole, any and all drugs.... The problem you run into is ..... were do you stop....

 

[Southern Belle]

Oh Alchohol and drugs are good things to ban too, but you stop at that. Sports is a game, red meat is food, you can't ban cholersteral. Smoking and drinking are basically garbage. Unfortunately you can't keep people from sharing medicine/drugs with each other... but it is illegal.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Oh Alchohol and drugs are good things to ban too, but you stop at that. Sports is a game, red meat is food, you can't ban cholersteral. Smoking and drinking are basically garbage. Unfortunately you can't keep people from sharing medicine/drugs with each other... but it is illegal.

Must be nice to be able to pick and choose like that.. But if your going to start banning legal activities i'm not sure where it's going to stop. Your willing to legislate personal choice, for what reason I can not even fathom. I don't understand the desire to allow the government to run your life as opposed to be independent and make your own decisions....

Sports are games people get hurt at, and many times it cost the tax payer money. I have no use in paying for your inability to think before you act.. BANNED.. Red meat can cause health problems, taxpayers pay ... BANNED. Any food that is proven t have something bad... BANNED.. If your willing to ban things YOU don't like then why can't others ban things they don't like? I am missing why your items are more important then others.

 

[Southern Belle]

Must be nice to be able to pick and choose like that.. But if your going to start banning legal activities i'm not sure where it's going to stop. Your willing to legislate personal choice, for what reason I can not even fathom. I don't understand the desire to allow the government to run your life as opposed to be independent and make your own decisions....

Sports are games people get hurt at, and many times it cost the tax payer money. I have no use in paying for your inability to think before you act.. BANNED.. Red meat can cause health problems, taxpayers pay ... BANNED. Any food that is proven t have something bad... BANNED.. If your willing to ban things YOU don't like then why can't others ban things they don't like? I am missing why your items are more important then others.

I think I understand what you mean, but you said I want to ban "legal" activities but you named a bunch of legal activites. The three things I named are already illegal to do in public places... Is it illegal to be drunk in a public place? The bars need licenses to sell it don't they? I know drugs are unless they are perscribed to you.

A person must really be hooked to compare smoking and stuff to fun games and food, lol...

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I think I understand what you mean, but you said I want to ban "legal" activities but you named a bunch of legal activites. The three things I named are already illegal to do in public places... Is it illegal to be drunk in a public place? The bars need licenses to sell it don't they? I know drugs are unless they are perscribed to you.

A person must really be hooked to compare smoking and stuff to fun games and food, lol...

And I will try to explain this a little slower.....

Your judgement is impaired with the first drink. You are still well within legal limits, so it is a completely legal activity. Yet this activity is not banned. Yet this activity causes more deaths then second hand smoke. Although this is not a good comparison for you since you have no problem wanting anything banned you don't seem to agree with.

As for the 3 thiings you named. Please get your facts straight as smoking is not a federal issue and is not banned from all public places. You can smoke in some bars and restaurants along with other locations and establishments. It depends on state and local laws and or the owners discretion. As for the drug thing I was being sarcastic since I have a hard time understanding someones desire to give up there daily basic life choices to the government. I find it fu.cking ponderous how someone is willing to hand anything over the government to legislate, instead of making a personal descision.

All the other examples are activities that have some sort of impact either directly or indirectly to other people. The fact seems to be your the kind of person that has no problem asking the government to ban things you don't like instead of making decisions for yourself. Your pathetic attempt to boil an opposing point of view down to addiction was severly lacking. Wether I am a smoker or not I would still rather make the choices myself. You however would rather hand that burden over to the government

 

[Southern Belle]

Oh okay, I don't know anything about drinking, I just know that bars need liscenses to sell alcohol. (or at least they used to)

I'm no activist or anything, I'm not dead-set on the government banning anything. All I said was that my dad doesn't smoke in restarants and you engaged me in discussion where I gave you my opinion that I wouldn't mind smoking being banned IN RESTARANTS. I don't think I mentioned any other places because I don't care, but everybody should be able to go to the restaraunts they want and bring their kids and babies without having the smoke pollution while they eat.

And that last part was meant to be a joke, hence the but I'm sorry if it came out wrong. ^^