NYC Votes to Ban Trans Fats From Eateries

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Unheard
I'm sorry, did I offend you because I stated I don't need the government to decide what is good and what is bad for me?

The US government is a democratic republic. The population majority is deciding what is good and bad for you by voting certain officials in. Take a microeconomics class and you'll see that regulations for public health do have a huge return on investment for all citizens.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Unheard
I'm sorry, did I offend you because I stated I don't need the government to decide what is good and what is bad for me?

The US government is a democratic republic. The population majority is deciding what is good and bad for you by voting certain officials in. Take a microeconomics class and you'll see that regulations for public health do have a huge return on investment for all citizens.

The original intent for this nation was a nation based on individual liberties. The Founding Fathers never intended a nanny-state in which our lives were micromanaged by the government in the interest of the "greater good."

And we are a Constitutional Republic. Do not forget that our democratically elected government is bound by a Constitution that was supposed to limit their power and insure the individual liberty of the people.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Unheard
I'm sorry, did I offend you because I stated I don't need the government to decide what is good and what is bad for me?

The US government is a democratic republic. The population majority is deciding what is good and bad for you by voting certain officials in. Take a microeconomics class and you'll see that regulations for public health do have a huge return on investment for all citizens.

The original intent for this nation was a nation based on individual liberties. The Founding Fathers never intended a nanny-state in which our lives were micromanaged by the government in the interest of the "greater good."

And we are a Constitutional Republic. Do not forget that our democratically elected government is bound by a Constitution that was supposed to limit their power and insure the individual liberty of the people.

and the original intent of the constitution had no bearing on whether new york city can ban trans fats, so i'm not sure why y'all are discussing it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Unheard
I'm sorry, did I offend you because I stated I don't need the government to decide what is good and what is bad for me?

The US government is a democratic republic. The population majority is deciding what is good and bad for you by voting certain officials in. Take a microeconomics class and you'll see that regulations for public health do have a huge return on investment for all citizens.

The original intent for this nation was a nation based on individual liberties. The Founding Fathers never intended a nanny-state in which our lives were micromanaged by the government in the interest of the "greater good."

And we are a Constitutional Republic. Do not forget that our democratically elected government is bound by a Constitution that was supposed to limit their power and insure the individual liberty of the people.

and the original intent of the constitution had no bearing on whether new york city can ban trans fats, so i'm not sure why y'all are discussing it.

Actually it does. Just like it has a bearing on the war on drugs, and other nanny-state restrictions.

Why did the ban on alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment, yet no ban on any substance since has required one?

The answer is simple, the government has found a way to increase their powers by re-interpreting the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Unheard
I'm sorry, did I offend you because I stated I don't need the government to decide what is good and what is bad for me?

The US government is a democratic republic. The population majority is deciding what is good and bad for you by voting certain officials in. Take a microeconomics class and you'll see that regulations for public health do have a huge return on investment for all citizens.

The original intent for this nation was a nation based on individual liberties. The Founding Fathers never intended a nanny-state in which our lives were micromanaged by the government in the interest of the "greater good."

And we are a Constitutional Republic. Do not forget that our democratically elected government is bound by a Constitution that was supposed to limit their power and insure the individual liberty of the people.

Are you claiming that passing a law that prohibits a dangerous substance from being widely used when other far less dangerous substitutes are available is "micro-managing"?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

by elfenix:
and the original intent of the constitution had no bearing on whether new york city can ban trans fats, so i'm not sure why y'all are discussing it.

Actually it does. Just like it has a bearing on the war on drugs, and other nanny-state restrictions.

Why did the ban on alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment, yet no ban on any substance since has required one?

The answer is simple, the government has found a way to increase their powers by re-interpreting the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean.

again, what does the FEDERAL constitution matter for a STATE issue? especially the ORIGINAL intent?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

by elfenix:
and the original intent of the constitution had no bearing on whether new york city can ban trans fats, so i'm not sure why y'all are discussing it.

Actually it does. Just like it has a bearing on the war on drugs, and other nanny-state restrictions.

Why did the ban on alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment, yet no ban on any substance since has required one?

The answer is simple, the government has found a way to increase their powers by re-interpreting the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean.

again, what does the FEDERAL constitution matter for a STATE issue? especially the ORIGINAL intent?

The 14th Amendment restricts the states to from enacting laws that violate their Constitutional rights and freedoms.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

The 14th Amendment restricts the states to from enacting laws that violate their Constitutional rights and freedoms.

well, the 14th amendment certainly isn't part of the original constitution, is it?

and what constitutional right is being denied if people can't sell trans fat? warrants? no. free speech? no. freedom of religion? no. quartering soldiers? no.

again, keep in mind that regulations for health and safety are traditional state issues.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Unheard
I'm sorry, did I offend you because I stated I don't need the government to decide what is good and what is bad for me?

The US government is a democratic republic. The population majority is deciding what is good and bad for you by voting certain officials in. Take a microeconomics class and you'll see that regulations for public health do have a huge return on investment for all citizens.

In theory your statement is correct, but when you add money i.e. lobbying to the system, you should no longer put faith in your public officials.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

The 14th Amendment restricts the states to from enacting laws that violate their Constitutional rights and freedoms.

well, the 14th amendment certainly isn't part of the original constitution, is it?

and what constitutional right is being denied if people can't sell trans fat? warrants? no. free speech? no. freedom of religion? no. quartering soldiers? no.

again, keep in mind that regulations for health and safety are traditional state issues.

If you cannot see the slipery slope, then there is no point in debating the issue.

Look around at all the things that can potentially be "bad" for you. Now, imagine them being banned, one by one as time goes on.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We are a nation of INDIVIDUAL liberties. Arguments like yours are why the Bill of Rights was opposed by many of the Founding Fathers, and why the 9th Amendment was added to appease them. Unfortunately, in today's twisted logic, people consider the 9th to be too vague.

Finally, this is not about the Bill of Rights, but about the limitation of government powers.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

If you cannot see the slipery slope, then there is no point in debating the issue.

Look around at all the things that can potentially be "bad" for you. Now, imagine them being banned, one by one as time goes on.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We are a nation of INDIVIDUAL liberties. Arguments like yours are why the Bill of Rights was opposed by many of the Founding Fathers, and why the 9th Amendment was added to appease them. Unfortunately, in today's twisted logic, people consider the 9th to be too vague.

Finally, this is not about the Bill of Rights, but about the limitation of government powers.

even without the bill of rights, where is it in the FEDERAL constitution that STATES cannot regulate for the health, safety, and general welfare? i'll counter with the 10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

where is STATE regulation for the general welfare prohibited by the FEDERAL constitution. lets see, what is prohibited to the state: levying duties? nope, not doing that. passing bills of attainder, ex post facto laws? they're not doing that either. granting titles of nobility? it's not 'lord' trans-fat, is it? granting private relief so people don't have to pay their debts? nope. raising armies? nope, they're not doing that either.


i'd also like to point out that merely crying slippery slope, without more, is a logical fallacy. not to mention, i can see the slippery slope, but i'm trying to figure out where the FEDERAL constitution comes into play.


best study up on the concept of federalism.

 

[tk149]

Freedom isn't free.

The right to choose is fundamental to the American way of life. Too bad the ignorant and stupid don't understand this, even when it's paraded in front of them.

Maybe when the government mandates supervised daily exercises some of you will wake up.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a state that voted for Hilary.

 

[DrPizza]

Akkk! I *hate* it when people try to use the "slippery slope" argument. Oh No! I'm not allowed to own a bazooka. Next thing you know, they'll take away my right to own a bb gun.

edit: What's the difference between legislating to not allow a man-made chemical which causes heart disease vs. a chemical that causes cancer??

"Oh nooo! They banned lead in paint! The consumer should be allowed to choose lead based paint if he wants. Let the marketplace make that determination. It's a slippery slope - before you know it, we'll only be able to color our houses with crayons."

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Akkk! I *hate* it when people try to use the "slippery slope" argument. Oh No! I'm not allowed to own a bazooka. Next thing you know, they'll take away my right to own a bb gun.

edit: What's the difference between legislating to not allow a man-made chemical which causes heart disease vs. a chemical that causes cancer??

"Oh nooo! They banned lead in paint! The consumer should be allowed to choose lead based paint if he wants. Let the marketplace make that determination. It's a slippery slope - before you know it, we'll only be able to color our houses with crayons."

The "slippery slope" argument is valid, whether you like it or not.

Consider what the exact opposite of "slippery slope" is.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Akkk! I *hate* it when people try to use the "slippery slope" argument. Oh No! I'm not allowed to own a bazooka. Next thing you know, they'll take away my right to own a bb gun.

edit: What's the difference between legislating to not allow a man-made chemical which causes heart disease vs. a chemical that causes cancer??

"Oh nooo! They banned lead in paint! The consumer should be allowed to choose lead based paint if he wants. Let the marketplace make that determination. It's a slippery slope - before you know it, we'll only be able to color our houses with crayons."

Saturated fats cause more heart disease than Trans fats, merely because there is far more of it in our food supply.

Are only dangerous man made chemicals OK to ban? Says you?

Denying the slippery slope is denying the obvious. Each year more items are banned "for our own good." Each year we lose more freedoms "for our own good."

How about using the "camel's nose" argument? Once you allow the government to ban one substance that can cause heart disease in those predisposed to it, what is to stop them from banning any other substance that does the same thing?

Once the camel has his nose in the gate, there is nothing stopping him from coming all the way in.

I want a government, not a parent. I can determine for myself what objects and substances to avoid.