California bans trans fats

[Jerk]

This is insanity, people. Pure ****ing insanity. Who should make this decision, YOU or the government?




http://www.ar15.com/images/pixels/clear.gif California Bars Restaurant Use of Trans Fats
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/us/26fats.html?em&ex=1217131200&en=177d2d602bc884b7&ei=5087%0A

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: July 26, 2008

LOS ANGELES — California, a national trendsetter in all matters edible, became the first state to ban trans fats in restaurants when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill Friday to phase out their use

Under the new law, trans fats, long linked to health problems, must be excised from restaurant products beginning in 2010, and from all retail baked goods by 2011. Packaged foods will be exempt.

New York City adopted a similar ban in 2006 — it became fully effective on July 1 — and Philadelphia, Stamford, Conn., and Montgomery County, Md., have done so as well.

But having the requirement imposed on the most populous state’s 88,000 restaurants, as well as its bakeries and other food purveyors, is a major gain for the movement against trans fats. That movement has been led by scientists, doctors and consumer advocates who trace the largely synthetic fat to a variety of ailments, principally heart disease.

“I think the potential here is real for a far greater understanding of the harms of trans fats, and to encourage more states to do the same,” Dr. Clyde Yancy, incoming president of the American Heart Association, said of the California law’s enactment.

Trans fats are created by pumping hydrogen into liquid oil at high temperature, a process called partial hydrogenation. The process results in an inexpensive fat that prolongs the shelf life and appearance of packaged foods and that, many fast-food restaurants say, helps make cooked food crisp and flavorful.

But trans fats have also been found in scientific studies to lower high-density lipoproteins, the “good” cholesterol, while increasing low-density lipoproteins, the “bad” cholesterol, high levels of which contribute to the onset of heart disease, the leading cause of death in California and the nation.

Dr. Yancy said a 2 percent increase in trans-fat intake could result over time in a 25 percent increase in the likelihood of developing coronary artery disease. “These are data we are just now beginning to understand,” he said. “It is pretty clear now that it was a mistake for us to embrace these fats.”

Under the new law, restaurants, bakeries, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities” will, in the preparation of any foods, have to discontinue use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats.

Those purveyors will have to keep the labels on their cooking products so that the products can be inspected for trans fat, a process that will become part of the duties of local health inspectors. Violators will face fines beginning at $25 and increasing to as much as $1,000 for subsequent violations.

Trans fats are also linked to obesity, and the bill’s author, Tony Mendoza, a Democratic assemblyman and former fourth-grade teacher from Southern California, said he had been inspired by the number of obese children he saw in school.

“They are heavy,” Mr. Mendoza said. “They eat out a lot, and you realize there are trans fats out there. You don’t want kids to start off on the wrong foot.”

Opposition to the move came largely from the California Restaurant Association, which argued that singling out trans fats as a singularly harmful food product was arbitrary and that a mandate would prove expensive. Further, the association said, a ban for health reasons is the purview of the federal government, not the states.

“We don’t doubt the health findings surrounding trans fats,” said Lara Dunbar, the association’s senior vice president for government affairs. “Our opposition was philosophical. Banning one product isn’t necessarily the right solution.”

In addition, Ms. Dunbar said, many of the state’s restaurants have already eliminated trans fats. “We don’t think you need a mandate,” she said. “Restaurants responded to a consumer demand.”

Among national chains, Wendy’s, KFC, Taco Bell, the Cheesecake Factory and McDonald’s have all begun to move away from trans fats because of consumer concerns.

In many high-end restaurants in this state — where the organic foods movement began and where many a food trend has been born — chefs would no more use trans fats in their cooking than use paper tablecloths in their dining rooms.

Some restaurateurs, however, say the change has been costly, because there are fewer distributors of the alternative oils.

“The only effect it is going to have on the consumer is that we are going to have to raise our prices,” said Tina Pantazis, the manager of Dino’s Burgers, which operates two hamburger outlets — one in Los Angeles, the other in Azusa. Ms. Pantazis said the price of those restaurants’ French fries, which now cost $1.75 an order, would most likely be bumped up to at least $2.75.

The Dino’s in Los Angeles has already begun using new oils, she said, adding that she could taste the difference but that there had been no complaints from customers. The Azusa location will move to be compliant soon.

“I think this is good for the health of the consumer,” Ms. Pantazis said. “On the other hand, people who eat French fries are not concerned with their health that much.”

To many health policy makers, though, trans fats have become almost the enemy that cigarettes became long ago.

New York’s anti-trans-fat movement, led by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, is still in its early days. The first phase, which began last year, made a target of frying oils and spreads. This month, the program was extended to baked goods.

Nearly all the 25,000 restaurants inspected have proved compliant, according to the city’s health department. New York has also offered a Trans Fat Help Center where bakers were schooled in the use of alternative fats.

California, which supplies a great deal of the nation’s specialty crops, already has some of the toughest food restrictions in the nation, including a ban on junk food and trans fats in school meals.

On Friday, Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican whose positions on consumer issues often align closely with those of Democrats who control the Legislature, praised the new statute, which the lawmakers passed last week.

“California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats,” the governor said in a statement. “Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California.”

[Flagstaffsooner]

Maybe Arnold saw this at a Califoria beach.
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k223/JCOLEMISS/fat_woman_in_bikinis.jpg

[yermom]

that's the thing, the consumer doesn't really get a choice, that's the problem.

maybe HFCS will be next

[King Crimson]

This is insanity, people. Pure ****ing insanity. Who should make this decision, YOU or the government?


agree.

[Dio]

Ahnold = RINO

[badger]

Thank goodness the government is protecting me from my own trans fat desires. :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

You know what's next? Employment contracts/policies with terms requiring the employee to abstain from trans-fats. I even foresee contracts/personnel policies in which the employer can terminate people who get fat(tter). All tied to their claim that normal size people are more productive, their attendance is better, and its cheaper to provide their health care.

The military has had such a policy for decades.

srsly. Policies exist which provide for termination if a person uses tobacco...even at home while off the clock. Scott's Lawncare Products up in Ohio is one I can think of that has such an employment policy. You show up for work smelling of smoke and you are gone.

Interestingly, we have a statute in oklahoma that makes enforcement of such tobacco policies, even by private employers, impossible.

[XingTheRubicon]

I don't have a problem with it. This country is way too ****ing fat. I'm also for making seats at fast food restaurants and movie theaters 20" wide or whatever width a fat*ss couldn't fit into. Hire carnies to guess the *ss width in the drive thrus and everyone who's denied, gets the hose...and 20 laps around the restaurant with everyone honking and hurling tomatoes, pickles and ketchup packets.

[Rogue]

Ri-fuggin-diculous. This is over-regulation in the extreme.
As liberal as I am about most things, I'm getting more of a libertarian bent about these unneccessary laws regarding my private life. Most of these things involve choices that really can't be legislated.

Abortion, fatty foods, guns, gay marriages, smoking pot...all choices that shouldn't be prohibited by laws. Both sides are equally as guilty about trying to legislate their perversion of what is proper. You want to eat tofu and granola, not have abortions, and abstain from kinky sex with midgets...fine but don't try to pass laws that say I have to do it your way. Because it won't work. Then we get stuck trying to police and enforce these wacky policies and the answer is always...more money to try to impose the will of today's majority on the rest of the citizens.

I've about had a belly full.

[bluedogok]

maybe HFCS will be next
Doubtful that will happen, ADM pays off enough politicians to make sure it doesn't.


Ahnold = RINO
That is the problem with the existing two party system, a California Republican would probably be an Oklahoma/Texas Democrat and an Oklahoma/Texas Republican couldn't find a party they like in California. Conversely, most of the Texas Democrats that I know would probably be California Republicans because they aren't as "liberal" as California Democrats.

It's just like a guy that I worked with out in Sacramento, they went to what is considered a "conservative" church there. I was talking to his daughter at dinner with them one night, his daughter had a softball scholarship to a Bible college in Springfield, Missouri. She said she found out what "conservative" meant after spend a year there, their "conservative" church in Sac would be considered a much more liberal church by this areas standards.


I don't have a problem with it. This country is way too ****ing fat. I'm also for making seats at fast food restaurants and movie theaters 20" wide or whatever width a fat*ss couldn't fit into. Hire carnies to guess the *ss width in the drive thrus and everyone who's denied, gets the hose...and 20 laps around the restaurant with everyone honking and hurling tomatoes, pickles and ketchup packets.Hopefully you will never have to face a medical situation which makes weight management difficult. Which many people do face, weight problems are not just the domain of people who overeat or eat the wrong things.

[tommieharris91]

You know what's next? Employment contracts/policies with terms requiring the employee to abstain from trans-fats. I even foresee contracts/personnel policies in which the employer can terminate people who get fat(tter). All tied to their claim that normal size people are more productive, their attendance is better, and its cheaper to provide their health care.


Wouldn't this practice be discriminatory? BTW I'm actually all for something like this.

[Rogue]

Wouldn't this practice be discriminatory? BTW I'm actually all for something like this.

It's the beginning of a very slippery slope. Culture, race, gender, and genes come next (after smoking and obesity) in determining who are the healthiest folks to employ and insure. There are still huge disparities in how healthcare is provided to people of color. Generally, they get far less access, preventive medicine, follow-up visits, and expensive tests while getting far more amputations and :eek: orchiectomies.

[Frozen Sooner]

Wouldn't this practice be discriminatory? BTW I'm actually all for something like this.

While yes, it would be literally discriminatory, it is legal to discriminate against someone for their weight.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act only forbids discrimination based on race or color, sex, national origin, marital status, and religion.

If sex or religion are bona fide requirements for a position, discrimination is allowable. ie a Catholic cannot make an EEOC complaint because they were denied a position as a rabbi, nor can a man make an EEOC complaint based on being denied a position as a pole dancer.

Some states have added sexual preference to this list.

[MR2-Sooner86]

For the people who are for this bill and many others that are full of bull**** the government sends to people, do this.

Just shoot yourself. The world is full of many things that can kill you and you're going to die anyway.

This reminds me of the parents that made a school ban tag because it put their kids in danger.

[r5TPsooner]

Maybe Arnold saw this at a Califoria beach.
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k223/JCOLEMISS/fat_woman_in_bikinis.jpg


Those were the strippers that we got for Vet's birthday bash last weekend. He seemed to enjoy there company but were more interested in the BBQ.

[Dead Horse]

Maybe Arnold saw this at a Califoria beach.
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k223/JCOLEMISS/fat_woman_in_bikinis.jpg

4,1,3,2

[tommieharris91]

4,1,3,2

Is that how much they weigh together or individually?

[r5TPsooner]

I have a few questions about those women but I'll just leave it to my sick imagination for the answers.:D

[Frozen Sooner]

skull, if you ever see this...

WE FOUND LANIE!!! ;)

[XingTheRubicon]

Hopefully you will never have to face a medical situation which makes weight management difficult. Which many people do face, weight problems are not just the domain of people who overeat or eat the wrong things.


I was just funnin'. BTW, my mother has one of the aforementioned medical situations. She eats VERY healthy foods and is pretty active yet she has a very difficult time maintaining a healthy weight. One of my less than sly Uncle's mentioned once, while everyone was discussing different metabolisms, that he'd never seen a picture of a fat person at Auschwitz.

[Okla-homey]

Wouldn't this practice be discriminatory? BTW I'm actually all for something like this.


Nope. There are only a few "protected classes" under the Constitution as intrepreted by the Supreme Court over the past hundred years; race, ethnicity, religion and national origin. Gender is "semi-protected." Everyone else is hosed; fat people, physically handicapped people, mentally handicapped people, poor people, ignorant people, old people, smokers, sick people, etc., etc.

Moreover, discriminatory terminations by an employer are tough to prove. Let's say you're a guy they fire because you are of Italian descent. Or Catholic. All they gotta do is say, "naw, we fired him because he's a lazy putz, and his breath stinks too and that was turning off the customers." In an "at-will" state like Oklahoma, you gotta tough row to hoe proving otherwise.

Now, that said, if states choose to enact statutes affording more protections for a class of people, they can generally do so. A perfect example of that is the Oklahoma stat that makes it illegal to fire a smoker just because he smokes.

[Frozen Sooner]

physically handicapped people, mentally handicapped people

In employment matters, the handicapped are a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

None of those protected classes you mentioned are protected as a matter of constitutional law vis-a-vis master/servant relationship. These are protected under statutory law under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Equal Pay Act of 1969. Americans with disabilities are protected under the ADA, and age is also a protected class (forgot them) under ADEA.

[Okla-homey]

In employment matters, the handicapped are a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

None of those protected classes you mentioned are protected as a matter of constitutional law vis-a-vis master/servant relationship. These are protected under statutory law under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Equal Pay Act of 1969. Americans with disabilities are protected under the ADA, and age is also a protected class (forgot them) under ADEA.

Yeah, yeah. But if an Oklahoma employer decides to fire a guy or not hire him because he is unable to do his job because of physical infirmities, he's gone. ADA just says they have to try to accomodate the guy with ramps and wide restroom stalls, etc.. Ditto a guy he who is required to accept mandatory retirement at a certain age if any rational link to a legitimate reason can be shown by the employer. What's more, you can't sue if you don't get a job because you're "too old."

OTOH, if you are fired or don't get the job because of race, religion, national origin or ethnicity and you can prove it, you got a case.

[Frozen Sooner]

The standard under ADA is can the applicant/employee perform the job duty with reasonable accommodation. That goes a bit beyond simply making the building handicapped-accessible. A simple assertion that "Well, the guy can't do the job because he's handicapped" doesn't cut it unless the job is obviously outside of the applicant/employee's abilities even with reasonable accommodation.

The ADA also asserts a right to non-discrimination due to mental issues as well.

And yeah, a mandatory retirement age can absolutely be enforced if it can be shown as necessary for the job. Otherwise we'd have commercial pilots flying into their 90s. :D

You just can't not hire someone because you think they'd retire soon.

[CORNholio]

In 10-15 years when science does its usual flip flop and decides that trans fats are now good for you and this legislation has caused a serious trans fat deficiency will the people push for a bill to make trans fat mandatory?

[Whet]

They banned its use in restaurants but it is still present in a large number of various foods sold in grocery stores. So, does the law really address the problem, or is it another one of those "feel good" type laws?

If anyone works in a grocery store, take a gander at some of the processed foods - particularly down the cookie aisle and the margarine/butter area.... and tell us what you find.

[John Kochtoston]

skull, if you ever see this...

WE FOUND LANIE!!! ;)

You did not just go there. :eek:

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. You know Lanie also?

[Jerk]

About Corn:

I hate HFCS as much or more than anyone here, but I don't want the government to make that decision for me.

[John Kochtoston]

Heh. You know Lanie also?

http://www.bobpitch.com/anon/Dumbass_airplane-II-2.jpg

"I'm familiar with it."

[tommieharris91]

About Corn:

I hate HFCS as much or more than anyone here, but I don't want the government to make that decision for me.

The gubmint is already making that decision for you by putting a 115% tariff on sugar imports.

[yermom]

In 10-15 years when science does its usual flip flop and decides that trans fats are now good for you and this legislation has caused a serious trans fat deficiency will the people push for a bill to make trans fat mandatory?

we aren't talking about saturated fats, much like HFCS this is a product that is man made, and basically exists to save some company money

at least at the grocery store you can find products that don't use them, but good luck...

[Harry Beanbag]

You just can't not hire someone because you think they'd retire soon.


Sure you can, just don't tell anyone.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act only forbids discrimination based on race or color, sex, national origin, marital status, and religion... Some states have added sexual preference to this list.

This is also applicable to federal employees as per Presidential Directive established under... *drumroll!*

The Clinton Administration!

I lurnt that whens I wuz studyin fer captun.

[soonermix]

This is insanity, people. Pure ****ing insanity. Who should make this decision, YOU or the government?


enhance your calm john spartan

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You don't know how to use the three seashells.

[jkjsooner]

I want to have more of a libertarian view but I have to say I like some of these laws.

When DC banned smoking in bars it sure as heck made life for me (as someone who is mildly alergic to the smoke) a lot better. I understand the argument is that I could find a smoke free bar but the fact was they are few and far between. That is true even though less than 50% of the people smoke. The fact is that the bars didn't want to lose the business of minority smokers and the non-smokers were not a passionate as the smokers. But with the new law, smokers are only slightly inconveninced and non-smokers outings at bars became much more enjoyable. Smokers still have the option of taking a short metro ride to Virginia yet they have voted by continuing to go to DC bars which have not at all been financially impacted by the new law.

I think the trans fat issue is similar. You can say we have a choice but the fact is most fast food restaurants don't really give you much of an option.

I understand how these arguments make little sense to a libertarian. I have to agree somewhat but I'm not a big enough of a libertarian to go against something that is not too intrusive and is in my own best interest.

[StoopTroup]

You folks sure seem to know lots about California Trannies.

[bluedogok]

I want to have more of a libertarian view but I have to say I like some of these laws.

[snippage]

I understand how these arguments make little sense to a libertarian. I have to agree somewhat but I'm not a big enough of a libertarian to go against something that is not too intrusive and is in my own best interest.
Soon enough those that "know what's good for you" will eventually keep doing something that is "for the common good" that will impact your life but we will have slid so far down that slippery slope that people will just keep taking the screwing by the gov't.

Really the bestest thing they could do is force us to live in cities and take away our cars since walking is so healthy for us...after all look at all of the fatty things that the French eat everyday but yet are "healthier" than most of the people in the US. Much of that is due to smaller portions and walking. Speaking of smaller portions, when is the FDA going to legislate portion size, after all wouldn't that be in "our best interest" since we can't seem to do anything that is good for us :rolleyes:

It could go on and on, be very wary of those who do things "for the common good"

[StoopTroup]

Anyone hungry?

http://www.freshtofu.com/images/products/tofu-turkey-header.jpg

[CORNholio]

Singling out trans fats and making them illegal is a little hypocritical. If they are outlawing them simply because they are not healthy then shouldn't they make a blanket legislation that outlaws everything that is not healthy. Alcohol is pretty bad for your liver, salt can be bad, refined sugar causes dental problems, stress is horrible for you. Why pick on tasty trans fats? Couldn't this legislation be undone on this premise. Why is cotton candy legal and trans fats are now illegal.

Government needs to know their roll and shut their hole. If I am not impacting somebody elses pursuit of happiness then I don't see how it is the business of the govt if I want a heaping helping of trans fats to wash down my refined sugar.

[CORNholio]

I want to have more of a libertarian view but I have to say I like some of these laws.

When DC banned smoking in bars it sure as heck made life for me (as someone who is mildly alergic to the smoke) a lot better. I understand the argument is that I could find a smoke free bar but the fact was they are few and far between. That is true even though less than 50% of the people smoke. The fact is that the bars didn't want to lose the business of minority smokers and the non-smokers were not a passionate as the smokers. But with the new law, smokers are only slightly inconveninced and non-smokers outings at bars became much more enjoyable. Smokers still have the option of taking a short metro ride to Virginia yet they have voted by continuing to go to DC bars which have not at all been financially impacted by the new law.

I think the trans fat issue is similar. You can say we have a choice but the fact is most fast food restaurants don't really give you much of an option.

I understand how these arguments make little sense to a libertarian. I have to agree somewhat but I'm not a big enough of a libertarian to go against something that is not too intrusive and is in my own best interest.


The govt should mandate that a bar make the public aware that it is a smoking establishment or not before you enter, so that you can make an educated choice whether to patronize it or not. If the bar loses business because the majority don't want to breath smoke then they will change on their own.
Same goes with trans fats. If the public is educated on trans fats and the establishment is required to post trans fat amounts in an obvious place then the people can make an educated choice. If enough of the public chooses not to patronize the place then they will change their menu on their own.
ITS THE AMERICAN WAY.
Why does the govt try to enforce it's will on the people?

Social manipulation. It's been going on for decades.

[Rogue]

Here in NE TN only a couple of places chose to remain as smoking establishments. To do so, they don't allow folk under 18. I love going to those places.

There really should be "with screaming rugrats" and "without screaming rugrats" sections.

While I'm ranting, pregnancy isn't a disability that requires a close-in parking space. OK? It's a choice, an elective procedure, and not one that warrants parking next to the wheelchair folk.

[Blue]

There really should be "with screaming rugrats" and "without screaming rugrats" sections.




Or "p-ussies who are 'allergic' to smoke and drink Mikes Hard Lemonade" section.

[Fraggle145]

Seatbelt laws were the first law of this kind... all of it nonsense.

[Curly Bill]

Seatbelt laws were the first law of this kind... all of it nonsense.

I think the seatbelt law is about the stupidest thing ever. Like it's the government's business if I want to get thrown through the windshield in a wreck, and yes I mean that. Is it wise to use seatbelts? It certainly is. Is it the government's business if I wear them? It certainly is not. It is a nice little money-maker though.

Nanny-state government can bite me!

[Okla-homey]

I think the seatbelt law is about the stupidest thing ever. Like it's the government's business if I want to get thrown through the windshield in a wreck, and yes I mean that. Is it wise to use seatbelts? It certainly is. Is it the government's business if I wear them? It certainly is not. It is a nice little money-maker though.

Nanny-state government can bite me!

Yeah but CB, there's a problem. If your cranium is crushed on your dashboard and you leave little kiddoes daddy-less, chances are, Oklahoma may have to pony up some bucks to help raise them. Ditto your kids themselves. They aren't old enough to choose not to buckle. Thus, Oklahoma decided you must buckle them too. Finally, if you lack health insurance, we prefer that the taxpayers not bear the additional burden of subsidizing your acute care made more acute by the fact you could have avoided cranial crushage had you buckled.

Frankly, I'm pretty libertarian generally, but for those reasons, I like seatbelt laws. I wish we had helmet laws for motorsickles for the same reason. Either wear a helmet, or post a quarter million dollar bond. Then, ride grasshoppa, but if you lay that thing down, and sooner or later, EVERYONE lays their bike down, and you hurt your noggin, we'll levy on that bond to pay for your care and provide for your family if you end up dead or a quivering mass of protoplasm on life support.

That's all i got to say about that.

[Curly Bill]

Yeah but CB, there's a problem. If your cranium is crushed on your dashboard and you leave little kiddoes daddy-less, chances are, Oklahoma may have to pony up some bucks to help raise them. Ditto your kids themselves. They aren't old enough to choose not to buckle. Thus, Oklahoma decided you must buckle them too. Finally, if you lack health insurance, we prefer that the taxpayers not bear the additional burden of subsidizing your acute care made more acute by the fact you could have avoided cranial crushage had you buckled.

Frankly, I'm pretty libertarian generally, but for those reasons, I like seatbelt laws. I wish we had helmet laws for motorsickles for the same reason. Either wear a helmet, or post a quarter million dollar bond. Then, ride grasshoppa, but if you lay that thing down, and sooner or later, EVERYONE lays their bike down, and you hurt your noggin, we'll levy on that bond to pay for your care and provide for your family if you end up dead or a quivering mass of protoplasm on life support.

That's all i got to say about that.

I don't wear a helmet either. ;)

[Curly Bill]

...and I got not kiddoes, I have pretty solid health insurance, and should it come to it I even have life insurance that will cover the burial.

So...get off my back! :D

[SoonerInKCMO]

Frankly, I'm pretty libertarian generally, but for those reasons, I like seatbelt laws. I wish we had helmet laws for motorsickles for the same reason.

I wish motorcycles were illegal for the same reason. Seriously. If you want to manufacture a four-wheeled vehicle you have to prove through all manner of tests that your vehicle is safe and will protect its occupants in a crash. Take off a couple of wheels and you can slap a 100-hp engine between the rider's legs and leave him out in the open to get mutilated and nobody cares. I've been in three wrecks in cars that led to nothing more than a headache or sore neck - each of them would have killed me had I been on a motorcycle. :pop:

[Okla-homey]

...and I got not kiddoes, I have pretty solid health insurance, and should it come to it I even have life insurance that will cover the burial.

So...get off my back! :D

Then you're good. Although if I was your health and/or life insurance carrier, i'd cancel your policy. Because you have a death wish. So there.;)

[bluedogok]

I wish motorcycles were illegal for the same reason. Seriously. If you want to manufacture a four-wheeled vehicle you have to prove through all manner of tests that your vehicle is safe and will protect its occupants in a crash. Take off a couple of wheels and you can slap a 100-hp engine between the rider's legs and leave him out in the open to get mutilated and nobody cares. I've been in three wrecks in cars that led to nothing more than a headache or sore neck - each of them would have killed me had I been on a motorcycle. :pop:
While we're at it, lets just ban ALL personally operated vehicles...after all...it's just for our own and the environments good :rolleyes:

I avoided a wreck on my motorcycle when a car came over the Jersey Barrier at me in the air, I missed the car by about 5 feet. If I would have been in my F-150 or my wife's Escape I would not have been able to avoid the wreck as easily since they are much wider than the motorcycle. If so many of the people in cars weren't such idiots, we would ALL be much safer. About half the people out there driving don't seem to have the necessary skills or provide the attention to properly operate a motor vehicle.

I think EVERYONE should have to ride a motorcycle for two years in traffic before getting a learners permit for a car. I know my riding before driving made me hyper-aware of my surroundings and made me a much better driver. If people didn't feel so cocooned and bulletproof in a car, they would probably drive differently and understand they are controlling what is effectively a 3-4,000 pound missile and not a baby buggy with rubber bumpers and air bags. All of the safety devices in place now have created and air of disinterest and lack of concern for what can happen in a crash.

[Curly Bill]

Them damn swimmin pools are pretty dangerous! Lets ban 'em!!!

...and them gall darn trampolines hurtin kids all the time!!!

Please, won't my government protect me from the bad things!!!


Obviosly I'm being sarcastic here folks but you could see where we could go with this. How far shall we let the government go in regulating our lives, deciding what's OK for us and what isn't. Preferably I'd have the government stay outta my life. If the government wants to do something useful how about defending the borders.

[tommieharris91]

Get rid of steak knives and cooking stoves. They could hurt someone too.

[Curly Bill]

I've been in three wrecks in cars that led to nothing more than a headache or sore neck - each of them would have killed me had I been on a motorcycle. :pop:

I've been in zero wrecks car or motorcycle....so, what's your problem? :D






knock on wood

[bluedogok]

Get rid of steak knives and cooking stoves. They could hurt someone too.
There is a call for it in some places.....

BBC News - Doctors' kitchen knives ban call (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm)

[Curly Bill]

There is a call for it in some places.....

BBC News - Doctors' kitchen knives ban call (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm)

When will the stupidity stop?

[yermom]

never ;)

[bluedogok]

If you want to see what the US will evolve into, just look at the UK. We are just a few years behind them in the world of nanny laws and the use of "devices" like street cameras and GATSO's to "protect" us. Just give it all over to the Department of Homeland Insecurity, after all, they are from the government, and here to protect us.....

[jkjsooner]

The govt should mandate that a bar make the public aware that it is a smoking establishment or not before you enter, so that you can make an educated choice whether to patronize it or not. If the bar loses business because the majority don't want to breath smoke then they will change on their own.
Same goes with trans fats. If the public is educated on trans fats and the establishment is required to post trans fat amounts in an obvious place then the people can make an educated choice. If enough of the public chooses not to patronize the place then they will change their menu on their own.
ITS THE AMERICAN WAY.
Why does the govt try to enforce it's will on the people?

Social manipulation. It's been going on for decades.

I agree that forcing the posting of trans fat amount would be a good and less intrusive solution.

However, what about public building/workspace smoking laws? I'm assuming you think they are intrusive and wrong as well. Afterall, I could choose to work at a place that did not allow smoking in the office. I'm just glad I did not have to limit my potential employers just to get away from nasty smoke.

Given, smoking is a little different because a smoker is pretty intrusive on those around them whereas someone eating trans fat is not - unless you get stuck next to them on a plane.

But the idea about trans fat is that it's simply not necessary and is only used for cost reasons.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

On seatbelts...

They protect you from a lot more than simple ejection from a vehicle, fellas. Anyone that's been in a vehicle subjected to lateral forces without a seatbelt will attest to the fact that your *** might as well be on rollerskates given the amount of movement that takes place within the vehicle. With a seatbelt, you lurch, you jerk, you TRY to go flying butt over teakettle over into the passenger seat, but you don't. You remain behind the wheel of the vehicle. In a position to be able to attempt to correct or react to what caused the lateral movement to the vehicle in the first place.

I've tried that very thing.

Lemme tell ya, it's a real booger trying to drive a chevy pickup from the passenger seat when you're spinning on an ice-covered bridge.

EDIT/ADD: Oh yeah. And because of such, there's a much better chance you'll be in a position to hopefully correct the issue before you endanger life, create incident, or damage property.

[Blue]

Not wearing a seatbelt probably saved my life. I ended up in the passenger seat while the drivers side was completely caved in. I'm not saying that's norm, but just thought I'd add. I do think it's smart to wear one.

Add me to the list that is sick of Big Brother and complaining weenies like jkjsooner. I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg, though. Give them an inch and they'll take a yard.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Ohhhh, I'll give 'em an inch alright.

THREE whole inches!

YEAH!

[MR2-Sooner86]

This whole thing reminds me of the government from Demolition Man.


Anything deemed "bad for you" is now illegal, including alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, non-educational toys, meat, spicy and unhealthy food, table salt and tobacco. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a license.


As for seatbelts, does it really matter? I think they're good until you hit 18. You're an adult and can make up your own damn mind.

As for motorcycle helmet laws, give me a break. Does it matter to you at all? If you get into a wreak with a motorcycle in your car, you'll win.

Seatbelt and helmet laws help keep stupidity in the gene pool. Why keep it?

[jkjsooner]

Or "p-ussies who are 'allergic' to smoke and drink Mikes Hard Lemonade" section.

As far as I'm concerned they lose their rights whenever they invade my right to breath clean air.

And the thing about trans fats is that they're absolutely unnecessary. It's simply a cost saving measure. While you guys may disagree, it really is not the same as banning donuts or sweets. You can still eat the exact same food with the exact same taste without trans fat.

I'm not asking you to agree with it but at least recognize that this isn't a step toward banning every junk food.

[jkjsooner]

Seatbelt laws were the first law of this kind... all of it nonsense.

A couple of points:

1. If person A makes an honest mistake on the road and kills person B only because B is not wearing a seat belt, should A be fully responsible for mansluaghter?

Frankly, humans drive cars and humans make mistakes. If you don't take the necessary precautions to protect yourself then you take some of the blame upon yourself if something bad happens to you.

2. The driver should be required to wear a seat belt as being thrown from the driver's seat keeps you from regaining control of your vehicle and puts others at risk.

[jkjsooner]

I think the seatbelt law is about the stupidest thing ever. Like it's the government's business if I want to get thrown through the windshield in a wreck, and yes I mean that. Is it wise to use seatbelts? It certainly is. Is it the government's business if I wear them? It certainly is not. It is a nice little money-maker though.

Nanny-state government can bite me!


Well, if the government has to pay your medical expenses then, yes, it is their business. Or, frankly, if I have to pay higher insurance premiums then it's my business as well.

I'd first push to change the laws so that hospitals can refuse care to the uninsured before changing the seat belt laws.

[Blue]

As far as I'm concerned they lose their rights whenever they invade my right to breath clean air.

.

It should be the bars right to allow whoever and whatever they want in their own bar. They have no obligation to cater to everyone. Until the govt. stepped in that is.

[jkjsooner]

If you want to see what the US will evolve into, just look at the UK. We are just a few years behind them in the world of nanny laws and the use of "devices" like street cameras and GATSO's to "protect" us. Just give it all over to the Department of Homeland Insecurity, after all, they are from the government, and here to protect us.....

I want more street cameras to catch the a-hole who keeps breaking into my car.

[Frozen Sooner]

It should be the bars right to allow whoever and whatever they want in their own bar. They have no obligation to cater to everyone. Until the govt. stepped in that is.

Really?

8-year-olds should be able to go into a bar if the owner's cool with it?

You should be allowed to see an S&M show at the neighborhood bar?

[jkjsooner]

Add me to the list that is sick of Big Brother and complaining weenies like jkjsooner. I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg, though. Give them an inch and they'll take a yard.

I think that's uncalled for and borders on a personal attack. We can disagree and be civil about it.

[bluedogok]

I want more street cameras to catch the a-hole who keeps breaking into my car.
If you lived in downtown Austin you would probably get your wish soon. The new APD Chief wants something like 100 of them installed in the next few years all over downtown, I guess he wants it to be much like London....of course he also wants police officers drawing the blood of DWI suspects at the scene. I think they need to send him back to El Paso.

[Blue]

It's only personal if you're a weenie. :D

I apologize.

[Blue]

Really?

8-year-olds should be able to go into a bar if the owner's cool with it?

You should be allowed to see an S&M show at the neighborhood bar?

Well, no. Kinda different though. At a place where everyones ruining their liver, it doesn't make sense to tell them to stop ruining their lungs. People know what to expect in a bar. Cigs go w/ beer.

[Frozen Sooner]

So where's the line drawn between "whatever the owner wants to allow is cool" and "some things shouldn't be allowed in a public venue"?

[Blue]

Ban smoking everywhere else. Cool. But not in a FREAKIN' BAR!

and Waffle House.

I'm just a nasty smoker who can't quit. :(

[Fraggle145]

Yeah but CB, there's a problem. If your cranium is crushed on your dashboard and you leave little kiddoes daddy-less, chances are, Oklahoma may have to pony up some bucks to help raise them. Ditto your kids themselves. They aren't old enough to choose not to buckle. Thus, Oklahoma decided you must buckle them too. Finally, if you lack health insurance, we prefer that the taxpayers not bear the additional burden of subsidizing your acute care made more acute by the fact you could have avoided cranial crushage had you buckled.

Frankly, I'm pretty libertarian generally, but for those reasons, I like seatbelt laws. I wish we had helmet laws for motorsickles for the same reason. Either wear a helmet, or post a quarter million dollar bond. Then, ride grasshoppa, but if you lay that thing down, and sooner or later, EVERYONE lays their bike down, and you hurt your noggin, we'll levy on that bond to pay for your care and provide for your family if you end up dead or a quivering mass of protoplasm on life support.

That's all i got to say about that.

Isnt this some of the same logic for banning trans-fats? if you are dying of heart disease or some other fat related illness then the same rules about additional taxpayer and health insurance costs applies including having to take care of children left without parents.

I agree seatbelts make you safe and you should wear one, I just think you should be allowed to kill yourself if you want to. I also think there should be a law forcing people to make their children or those mentally incapable of putting of choosing wear a seatbelt as that is a different issue altogether.

[jkjsooner]

It's only personal if you're a weenie. :D

I apologize.

Accepted. :)

[Fraggle145]

A couple of points:

1. If person A makes an honest mistake on the road and kills person B only because B is not wearing a seat belt, should A be fully responsible for mansluaghter?

No person A should not be responsible.


Frankly, humans drive cars and humans make mistakes. If you don't take the necessary precautions to protect yourself then you take some of the blame upon yourself if something bad happens to you.

Absolutely, if you are an idiot and get whats coming to you, so be it.


2. The driver should be required to wear a seat belt as being thrown from the driver's seat keeps you from regaining control of your vehicle and puts others at risk.

the same could be said of people that produce trans-fats putting the health of other individuals at risk, by supplying them with an undigestible food supply.

It could also be said that those that consume excessive trans-fats put the health insurance companies and the taxpayer at financial risk.

Either way IMO all of these laws are the same, dont kill yourself, if you try we want our cut. I understand for example smoking laws that say where you can and cant smoke as this directly endangers others whereas the seatbelts and transfats are more indirect. However, if i want to frequent a smoking establishment and the owner wants to run a smoking establishment, why do people who dont want smoke have to ruin the fun when they can go someplace else?

Basically I want to know why cant people be left alone to make their own informed decisions regarding their personal lives? Ah, because then the people would have to be correctly informed...

[Blue]

Either way IMO all of these laws are the same, dont kill yourself, if you try we want our cut. I understand for example smoking laws that say where you can and cant smoke as this directly endangers others whereas the seatbelts and transfats are more indirect. However, if i want to frequent a smoking establishment and the owner wants to run a smoking establishment, why do people who dont want smoke have to ruin the fun when they can go someplace else?

Basically I want to know why cant people be left alone to make their own informed decisions regarding their personal lives? Ah, because then the people would have to be correctly informed...

Preach it, Brother.

[Curly Bill]

Well, if the government has to pay your medical expenses then, yes, it is their business. Or, frankly, if I have to pay higher insurance premiums then it's my business as well.

I'd first push to change the laws so that hospitals can refuse care to the uninsured before changing the seat belt laws.

Are you working out everyday, getting plenty of sleep, avoiding all forms of risky behavior, avoiding all manner of possibly harmful food and drink? If not you could be causing my insurance premiums to go up so stop it.

...or better yet, how about everyone, government included mind their own damn business.

[Curly Bill]

Hey I gotta go to the restroom, anyone want to hold my hand so I don't hurt myself?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Echoes]

Hopefully you will never have to face a medical situation which makes weight management difficult. Which many people do face, weight problems are not just the domain of people who overeat or eat the wrong things.

I always always hear this excuse. Certainly, you could never ban something like this for this reason alone.. but, it's such a small percentage of people it's not even funny. I had a teacher in a disabilities classroom discussing weight related disabilities 2 semesters ago, and he threw out a figure that something alone the line of 91-94% of morbidly obese people have absolutely no medical condition that caused it, and rather they are now suffering from many fatal conditions like diabetes, etc.

If you are one of the people who have this problem or know someone who does, then I feel very sorry for you. However, 9/10th of people don't have a medical problem at all, and rather have very low self control.

As for the statistic, I don't know exactly where it came from because I didn't have the class, was just sitting in a lecture to observe some methods. I could always email him and ask though, if someone is wandering.

[Echoes]

I think the seatbelt law is about the stupidest thing ever. Like it's the government's business if I want to get thrown through the windshield in a wreck, and yes I mean that. Is it wise to use seatbelts? It certainly is. Is it the government's business if I wear them? It certainly is not. It is a nice little money-maker though.

Nanny-state government can bite me!

Agree. Completely ridiculous. Just another way for the state to make money. Although the tickets are cheaper, non-seatbelt wearers are plentiful and I bet the $20 adds up fast.

[royalfan5]

My main concern is if any one has thought about the large agribusinesses that process the transfats. Royalfan5 has got to eat you know.

[Curly Bill]

Hey I gotta go to the restroom, anyone want to hold my hand so I don't hurt myself?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


I want to thank everyone for their concern about my health & well-being, not to mention their insurance rates. I took a shower and everything without bringing injury to myself.

We dodged a bullet this time.

[Fraggle145]

I always always hear this excuse. Certainly, you could never ban something like this for this reason alone.. but, it's such a small percentage of people it's not even funny. I had a teacher in a disabilities classroom discussing weight related disabilities 2 semesters ago, and he threw out a figure that something alone the line of 91-94% of morbidly obese people have absolutely no medical condition that caused it, and rather they are now suffering from many fatal conditions like diabetes, etc.

If you are one of the people who have this problem or know someone who does, then I feel very sorry for you. However, 9/10th of people don't have a medical problem at all, and rather have very low self control.

As for the statistic, I don't know exactly where it came from because I didn't have the class, was just sitting in a lecture to observe some methods. I could always email him and ask though, if someone is wandering.

Dude, count me in as one of the people who thinks that if we are going to have tickets for seatbelts, then we need to have tickets for being fat in public.

That said... Many fat people get in the overweight condition and then dont know how to get out. It isnt just about self control its also about eating the right foods and eating enough calories at appropriate times of the day. Many fat people actually put themselves in a position where their body thinks that it is starving because they dont eat enough at the right times of the day which compounds their problem causing the body to hang on to all the excess calories that they consume when they try to make up for the deficit.

the main problem though with eating right is improper education, all of this low carb this, low fat that is all bull****... along with the food guide pyramid and the USDA's recommendation of a low fat diet. People need to eat the "right" fats and carbs and meats. If people would think about it like "how would the cavemen eat and then eat?" they would be better off. It would be mostly whole foods and not all this processed crap.

So they do lack self control as far as eating processed garbage and are irresponsible about not educating themselve by how to eat right, but you can blame many other people as far as the lack of education.

[Blue]

I have a soft spot in my heart for seriously overweight people. It's hard enough to like yourself when you look fine. I couldn't imagine huffing and puffing around all day and looking at my dickey-doo every day in the mirror.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Fellas, fellas, fellas.

The seatbelt vs. transfat law are apples and oranges. Transfat law = nanny state. Seatbelt law <> nanny state. Seatbelt laws obviously address life safety, but also address property damage prevention as well by keeping vehicle operators behind the wheel and in a position to control the apparatus instead of watching the carnage from the rear seat. Again, if public safety is a basic function of government and me and my family's safety is threatened because you have a ten pound chub to buck a seatbelt law, that's a concern. Especially when in over half of all fatality accidents in Oklahoma in 2006, operators and passengers were not using seatbelts, compared to only 12% of injury crashes where there was no seatbelt use, clearly indicating that seatbelts play a major factor in survivability of motor vehicle collisions. A major concern that can easily be addressed.

They're installed by all manufacturers with specific requirements as per federal law. So now, through efforts at all levels from public to private sector, seatbelts are available for use for all operators.

And last but not least, the issuance of a driver's license, AKA the PRIVILEGE to operate a motor vehicle on state, county, and municipal roads and streets, is just that. A privilege, not a right. But given the highways and byways of the state of Oklahoma are owned by ALL of us, and given the threat one poses by NOT wearing one's seatbelt, establishment and enforcement of seatbelt legislation on these thoroughfares is not only well within the scope and duty of the state, but is the responsibility of the state to again ensure the public safety for all those involved.

[yermom]

i'd say they are apples and oranges because one is a personal choice and another is businesses pushing their choice to save a buck on you

would you be against a law that prevented them from putting heavy metals in food because it made the shelf life longer?