Socialism Tastes… Pretty Bland

[Lounge Daddy]

First smoking banns in businesses and public places such as restaurants… and these smoking bans pretty much began in California and New York.

And now, after restaurant owners have been told that they can’t choose whether or not they wish to allow smoking in their own establishments....

[url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DIET_TRANS_FAT_BAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-09-26-18-13-07"]New York may start dictating what ingredients they may and may not use in their food.[/url]

Edited September 27, 2006 by Lounge Daddy

[Era Might]

Banning smoking in public places is socialism? How much effort does it take to walk outside and give yourself cancer? There's no need to give it to everyone else. Seems to me, if anything, that smoking in public places is socialism. The cancer gets distributed evenly among everyone.

I don't know about regulating trans fatty acids, but it's clearly a public health issue. Karl Marx doesn't hide behind every corner.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1076658' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:05 PM']
I don't know about regulating trans fatty acids, but it's clearly a public health issue. Karl Marx doesn't hide behind every corner.
[/quote]
But I bet he could play a great game of hide-and-seek.

[Lil Red]

why should people who are skinny have their fun fattening foods taken away from them? (oil, butter, trans fat)?

[dairygirl4u2c]

The businesses that are being regulated are private. The people who go there do not have to go there. Why are these private organizations being treated as a public entity? All for one and one for all or something, I don't know. I wouldn't call it socialistic, but it's a socialistic ish phenomenon.

[Era Might]

Well, trans-fat isn't really a food, it's just an unhealthy and unnecessary presence that can be replaced with healthier oil. It's unhealthy whether you're fat or skinny. From Wikipedia:

[quote]Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any incremental increase in trans fatty acid intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.

Despite this concern, the NAS dietary recommendations have not recommended the elimination of trans fat from the diet. This is because trans fat is naturally present in many animal foods, and therefore in most non-vegan diets; its removal from ordinary diets might introduce undesirable side effects and nutritional imbalances if proper nutritional planning is not undertaken. The NAS has therefore "recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet". Like the NAS, the World Health Organization has tried to balance public health goals with a practical level of trans fat consumption, recommending in 2003 that trans fats be limited to less than 1% of overall energy intake.[/quote]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1076721' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:25 PM']The businesses that are being regulated are private. The people who go there do not have to go there. Why are these private organizations being treated as a public entity? All for one and one for all or something, I don't know. I wouldn't call it socialistic, but it's a socialistic ish phenomenon.[/quote]
Private business still have to have public oversight. They are required to obtain a liquor license, for example. They also have to follow standards of cleanliness. Being a private business doesn't exempt you from public health oversight.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1076658' date='Sep 27 2006, 01:05 PM']
Banning smoking in public places is socialism? How much effort does it take to walk outside and give yourself cancer? There's no need to give it to everyone else. Seems to me, if anything, that smoking in public places is socialism. The cancer gets distributed evenly among everyone.

I don't know about regulating trans fatty acids, but it's clearly a public health issue. Karl Marx doesn't hide behind every corner.
[/quote]
Banning smoking in public places such as airports and gov't buildings is good. Banning smoking in private establishments isn't. For the record, I'm not a smoker, I don't hang around with anyone who's a smoker and I wouldn't really like my kids to ever be smokers. BUT, a private business should be allowed to cater to whatever clientel they choose. If I don't like it, I take my money elsewhere. It's a free market.

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1076710' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:12 PM']
why should people who are skinny have their fun fattening foods taken away from them? (oil, butter, trans fat)?
[/quote]
Don't kid yourself-- skinny people get heart disease, too. (but I'm not in favor of the ingredients ban).

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1076721' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:25 PM']
The businesses that are being regulated are private. The people who go there do not have to go there. Why are these private organizations being treated as a public entity? All for one and one for all or something, I don't know. I wouldn't call it socialistic, but it's a socialistic ish phenomenon.
[/quote]
I agree with dairygirl.

[Era Might]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1076732' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:34 PM']Banning smoking in public places such as airports and gov't buildings is good. Banning smoking in private establishments isn't.[/quote]
Like I said above, just because you're a private establishment doesn't mean you do not answer to the public authorities. Yes, you are private, but your are serving the general public. This is why you are required to obtain a liquor license. The government has to ensure your operate responsibly. If you don't follow health standards in your kitchen, the government will shut you down, and rightfully so. The general public has a right to its health even in a private establishment. Second hand smoke is gravely unhealthy.

[homeschoolmom]

I agree about smoke, that's why I go pretty much to smoke free establishments.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1076721' date='Sep 27 2006, 03:25 PM']
The businesses that are being regulated are private. The people who go there do not have to go there. Why are these private organizations being treated as a public entity? All for one and one for all or something, I don't know. I wouldn't call it socialistic, but it's a socialistic ish phenomenon.
[/quote]
Where have you been?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1076732' date='Sep 27 2006, 12:34 PM']Don't kid yourself-- skinny people get heart disease, too. (but I'm not in favor of the ingredients ban).[/quote]oh, i know that, but certain things just taste better cooked with real butter

[homeschoolmom]

Actually, real butter is better than margerine. Butter is natural (and your body can handle that), it's the never-melting, fake-colored, trans fatty carp that's worse for ya....

Butter all the way.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1076840' date='Sep 27 2006, 05:26 PM']
Actually, real butter is better than margerine. Butter is natural (and your body can handle that), it's the never-melting, fake-colored, trans fatty carp that's worse for ya....

Butter all the way.
[/quote]
I was told by a biologist that the debate was still out on which was better.

Personally, I use butter over margarine for all cooking purposes. The only margarine I use is Fleishman's Olive Oil-based margarine with no trans fat (because it's light, supposed to be good for your heart, and tasty).

[veroni213]

You know, it's just as legitimate to call the ban fascist as it is to call it socialist. Both are authoritarian.

Edited September 27, 2006 by TrueImage

[Era Might]

If we're taking to things to the absurd, yes, it's just as legitimate.

By the same token, you could call opposing the ban anarchist.

If, of course, we were taking things to the absurd.