KC residents - How are you voting on the smoking ban in April?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

IMO, the owner takes precedence. It's a private business with the right to refuse service. I don't believe the customer has the right to demand service.

Isn't that what you're advocating?

So tell me: If the FDA or any government agency is informed that a certain substance is a public health hazard (such as Transfat), shouldn't the government inform the people to whom is serves? Additionally, once this information is made public and corporations refuse to change their practices, isn't it the government's duty to enact a law requiring those businesses to comply?

Many food chains and food corporations (Kraft & Frito-Lay, for example) changed their recipes almost immediately after the Transfat issue was made public.

After considerable time, many food chains hadn't make the change. The government allowed a reasonable amount of time for many of these change to be made, yet they weren't.

So, as an issue of public safety, what should the government done to protect its citizens:

1. Not interfere. Allow people to continue to ingest food that would clog their arteries (and most people, unknowingly ingest such a product).
2. Require that all manufacturers and restaurants discontinue the use of Transfat oils in favor of non-Transfat oils?

I'd prefer Two. I personally don't have the time to find out if every restaurant or food that I ingest has Transfat.

Shouldn't I get SOMETHING for my tax dollars?