Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:28 pm
by Leisher
We had a chain elsewhere about similar steps out in "Free California", but SF just passed a law in which they're banning toys in children's meals unless they're arbitrarily healthy.
Horseshit.
1. They have no right passing shit like this.
2. KIDS DON'T HAVE PURCHASING POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!
I cannot emphasis #2 enough!!! Stop blaming companies and try being a fucking parent!!!
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:53 pm
by TheCatt
I'm actually for this.
I'd love more fruit and veggie options at fast food restaurants.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:14 pm
by GORDON
Apparently no one else cares, if the local government needs to legislate menus at restaurants.
San Francisco is good for that shit, though. They don't allow any chain restaurants in large parts of the city. If you are a visitor there, it is always a crap shoot whether or not you will like what restaurants are in the area, because you've never heard of any of them and you end up making blind guesses.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:40 pm
by TheCatt
So is there a level at which it is OK for governments to make decisions like these? It's clearly one thing for the federal government to do it, but what about state/county/city?
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:12 pm
by Malcolm
On one hand, no. The gov't has absolutely zero rights to impose dietary constraints except in circumstances where a particular crop of food is infected. They already steal my money & control other parts of my life, stay the fuck out of my digestive tract.
On the other hand, if the gov't foots the bill for the negative consequences of obesity/shitty nutrition, they've got a financial interest in keeping the numbers down.
Edited By Malcolm on 1286921566
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:14 pm
by TPRJones
TheCatt wrote:So is there a level at which it is OK for governments to make decisions like these? It's clearly one thing for the federal government to do it, but what about state/county/city?
Yes and no. Technically yes, it is something that state and local governments can do. But, no, it is not something I think any level of government should consider doing.
Market forces work. If enough people want fruit, there will be fruit. If not enough people care, then legislating fruit that is not widely desired just raises costs - thus driving up prices, because in the end even if the fruit rots from not being ordered the other customers will end up picking up the tab - so someone on the city council can claim to have accomplished something.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:34 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:On one hand, no. The gov't has absolutely zero rights to impose dietary constraints except in circumstances where a particular crop of food is infected. They already steal my money & control other parts of my life, stay the fuck out of my digestive tract.
On the other hand, if the gov't foots the bill for the negative consequences of obesity/shitty nutrition, they've got a financial interest in keeping the numbers down.
I would still say that is a no/no situation. Government shouldn't be in either situation.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:03 pm
by Malcolm
Yeah, but if the later is assumed to be true, then they logically have a vested interest in keeping their costs low. Granted that's just one more reason for them to stay the fuck out of public health care.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:53 pm
by Leisher