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

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Isn't that what you're advocating?

No, it's pretty clear you don't get it.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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?

To inform them? Sure. People need good information so they can make an informed decision for themselves.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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?

Not at all. A knowledgable public will be able to decide if they want to purchase a product made with trans-fats, or it's alternative. It's called "voting with dollars". If enough of the public decides they don't want trans-fats, the company will adapt or die.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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

Yes, that's how we know "voting with dollars" works. The people that purchased those products pushed the business to adapt to their demands. Thanks for helping me make my case.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

Sure. Their customers were voting with their dollars to continue using trans-fats, after the public became aware of the health issues. Or the FDA and the companies were not honest in stating they used trans-fats, but that's a different matter (legal requirements of reporting ingredients). Some would argue we would be better off replacing the FDA with a private organization, but that's a discussion for another day.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

I'd prefer One. I personally don't care to have laws passed and give the government expanded power just because a few people are too lazy to take responsibility for what they choose to eat.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Shouldn't I get SOMETHING for my tax dollars?

You do. In this instance, you get information about the effect of Trans-Fats on your health, and (if complying with the FDA) knowledge of what companies use them. You can use that to make an informed decision for yourself, as can everyone else.

I know it's tough to decide these things for yourself, but nothing worthwhile is easy.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

No, it's pretty clear you don't get it.

To inform them? Sure. People need good information so they can make an informed decision for themselves.

Not at all. A knowledgable public will be able to decide if they want to purchase a product made with trans-fats, or it's alternative. It's called "voting with dollars". If enough of the public decides they don't want trans-fats, the company will adapt or die.

Yes, that's how we know "voting with dollars" works. The people that purchased those products pushed the business to adapt to their demands. Thanks for helping me make my case.
Sure. Their customers were voting with their dollars to continue using trans-fats, after the public became aware of the health issues. Or the FDA and the companies were not honest in stating they used trans-fats, but that's a different matter (legal requirements of reporting ingredients). Some would argue we would be better off replacing the FDA with a private organization, but that's a discussion for another day.


I'd prefer One. I personally don't care to have laws passed and give the government expanded power just because a few people are too lazy to take responsibility for what they choose to eat.

You do. In this instance, you get information about the effect of Trans-Fats on your health, and (if complying with the FDA) knowledge of what companies use them. You can use that to make an informed decision for yourself, as can everyone else.

I know it's tough to decide these things for yourself, but nothing worthwhile is easy.

Okay, NOW I get it.

You'd prefer NO regulation of ANY kind. NONE.

As if EVERYONE in America were kind, caring, smart individuals who took personal responsibility for their actions.

As if EVERY corporation in America was filled with kind, caring, smart executives whose driving passions were to think of the consumer first and foremost and profits second.

Well Dude, unfortunately, we don't live in a country like that. Whatsoever.

But let me know if you find one. I'd be up for moving there.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Okay, NOW I get it.

You'd prefer NO regulation of ANY kind. NONE.

As if EVERYONE in America were kind, caring, smart individuals who took personal responsibility for their actions.

As if EVERY corporation in America was filled with kind, caring, smart executives whose driving passions were to think of the consumer first and foremost and profits second.

Well Dude, unfortunately, we don't live in a country like that. Whatsoever.

But let me know if you find one. I'd be up for moving there.

Someone is reaching....

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Someone is reaching....

I can't speak for him but I believe that what Mr. Havelock has been advocating is little to no government regulation. Let the public make their own choices with their dollars, regardless of the consequences and keep the government out of private business.

That sounds great to me. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people in this nation aren't responsible and personal responsibility has gone the way of the Wholly Mammoth.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

...Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people in this nation aren't responsible and personal responsibility has gone the way of the Wholly Mammoth.

Then let the personally irresponsible go the same way.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Then let the personally irresponsible go the same way.

Darwinism at its most practical, imo.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Then let the personally irresponsible go the same way.

I'm Ok with this.

In order to be Ok with this, though, you have to be prepared to watch people starve to death. You have to be able to bear the images of people lying, sick and dying, with no medical care.

I'm ready. I know very few people that can/would deal with that, though.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

I'm Ok with this.

In order to be Ok with this, though, you have to be prepared to watch people starve to death. You have to be able to bear the images of people lying, sick and dying, with no medical care.

I'm ready. I know very few people that can/would deal with that, though.

Rather or not they are ready, it is coming. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it is coming.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

I'm Ok with this.

In order to be Ok with this, though, you have to be prepared to watch people starve to death. You have to be able to bear the images of people lying, sick and dying, with no medical care.

I'm ready. I know very few people that can/would deal with that, though.

Just be prepared for it be you due to some accident that you have zero control over. Then be prepared to either watch your kids starve to death, or kill them and eat them to save yourself. Once you're there, you've got a deal.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I can't speak for him but I believe that what Mr. Havelock has been advocating is little to no government regulation. Let the public make their own choices with their dollars, regardless of the consequences and keep the government out of private business.

That sounds great to me. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people in this nation aren't responsible and personal responsibility has gone the way of the Wholly Mammoth.

"Whatever would we do without the government to protect us?!" I'll tell you what would happen. Consumer groups would emerge and give us the same information for a cheaper price tag. People would make their choices with their money, the end.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

...I'd be up for moving there.

You already did.

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Okay, NOW I get it.

Apparently you don't. Pity, I can't spell it out any more plainly for you. It must be the same problem I have understanding a mind-set that's "too busy" to take personal responsibility for the food you eat, places you go, etc. Two very different world-views that are simply incompatible.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You'd prefer NO regulation of ANY kind. NONE.

I didn't say that, or even allude to it. In a perfect world, maybe. This isn't. As such, I realistically move to acceptance of a MINIMUM of regulation. I'll take this as another of your "I can't specifically address the points you made, so I'll just dismiss it by vastly exaggerating what you said" posts. That's OK. You've proved several times in this thread that's "how you roll".

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

As if EVERYONE in America were kind, caring, smart individuals who took personal responsibility for their actions.

It's be nice, but there's a reason the word "Utopia" was chosen for the "perfect place".

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

As if EVERY corporation in America was filled with kind, caring, smart executives whose driving passions were to think of the consumer first and foremost and profits second.

Already addressed previously. See my previous comments about the necessity of an independent "review" as Private industry (or the FDA itself for that matter) may not be sufficently independent to perform that role. Within our current system, I'd rather see a double-check system with the FDA and an independent private group.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well Dude, unfortunately, we don't live in a country like that. Whatsoever.

As you said, no shit, Sherlock. IMO, largely because of folks who encourage a mindset of abdicating personal responsibility because they don't have the time, or are too lazy.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

But let me know if you find one. I'd be up for moving there.

If I found one, why would I fu*k it up by inviting a busybody like you? You'd just come in and start pushing for the same crap. In a couple of generations, it'd be just like here with people whining about how they are too busy and it's too hard to take responsibility for themselves.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I can't speak for him but I believe that what Mr. Havelock has been advocating is little to no government regulation. Let the public make their own choices with their dollars, regardless of the consequences and keep the government out of private business.

Huh. Maybe you are beginning to understand. It's not an "absolute" by any means, but in my case a decent guiding ideal. In short, a minimum of regulation, but not necessarily "none".

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That sounds great to me.

Really? Because it's what you've been arguing against for almost 10 pages. That's a damn odd way of showing how "great" you think something is, IMO.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people in this nation aren't responsible and personal responsibility has gone the way of the Wholly Mammoth.

So by all means, lets continue to feed that sickness.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Apparently you don't. Pity, I can't spell it out any more plainly for you. It must be the same problem I have understanding a mind-set that's "too busy" to take personal responsibility for the food you eat, places you go, etc. Two very different world-views that are simply incompatible.

I didn't say that, or even allude to it. In a perfect world, sure. This isn't. As such, I'll realistically move to acceptance of a MINIMUM of regulation. I'll take this as another of your "I can't specifically address the points you made, so I'll just dismiss it by vastly exaggerating what you said" posts. That's OK. You've proved several times in this thread that's "how you roll".

It's be nice, but there's a reason the word "Utopia" was chosen for the "perfect place".

Already addressed previously. See my previous comments about the necessity of an independent "review" as Private industry (or the FDA itself for that matter) may not be sufficently independent to perform their role.

As you said, no shit, Sherlock. IMO, largely because of folks who encourage a mindset of abdicating personal responsibility because they don't have the time, or are too lazy.

If I found one, why would I fu*k it up by inviting a busybody like you? You'd just come in and start pushing for the same crap.

Busybody?

Dude, you have NO idea who am or how "active" I am but you'd probably be surprised to learn that at heart, I am a Libertarian.

But thanks for engaging in this conversation.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

...at heart, I am a Libertarian.

Except when it inconveniences you. Got it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Except when it inconveniences you. Got it.

Whatever.

Just because you choose to ignore or fail to recognize the widespread public health risks involved with public smoking (and its long term effect to the economy, specifically health care) doesn't mean that we all should.