Society/Culture New York City - home of the 'nanny state'

[Clay Davis]

What do you mean by regulation? Do you mean that all restaurant food needs to come with full details of nutritional information?

Nope, just calorific information, as the State of New York has done. Simple.

 

[bit_pattern]

I agree that smoking is disgusting. I feel the same way about weed smokers too, and heroin users, cocaine users too.

That said what other people take is none of my business. I just choose not to do it.

Well that's good for you, I'm prejudiced because I've seen too many people die from smoking related diseases.

But if we took your market based approach to everything we'd still have lead in petrol, use DDT, asbestos etc etc etc.

 

[Niximus]

Well that's good for you, I'm prejudiced because I've seen too many people die from smoking related diseases.

But if we took your market based approach to everything we'd still have lead in petrol, use DDT, asbestos etc etc etc.

There is a huge difference between banning substances that are harming the environment and innocent people and banning substances that when used in your own home only harm the user who has made the choice to use it.

 

[bit_pattern]

How much do you reckon the average fast food punter really knows about trans fatty acids? Enough to approach a fast food outlet and request the full nutritional guide? If they know that much they probably wouldn't be there in the first place. There is no reason at all why an artificial fat like that should be allowed in the market when it is such a danger to health and when there are plenty of alternatives available.

And tobacco smoke is quite harmful to innocent people, that has been well known for at least two decades now.

 

[Clay Davis]

S'not that simple unfortunately, anything that stimulates the CNS to that degree is going to have a cardiotoxic profile.

Still, better cocaine than some of the 'legal' alternatives like mephedrone MDPV, which are heart attack's just waiting to happen (although, it's not legal here, because we have pre-emptive analog laws, it is in GB and the US)

I actually think the difference between drugs and something like trans fats is that when you use say, cocaine, you know you are using cocaine. Whereas with food, you might think what you're eating contains healthy fat (even saturated fat is an essential nutrient), but actually is made from dangerous trans fats.

 

[cancat]

I would, actually, or I'd at least severely curtail th ability of big corporations to profit from addiction, death and suffering in the way that they do - sold under the counter, zero advertising, blank boxes with no branding, tax the s**t out of them and use the excess to subsidise nicotine replacement therapies and pharmaceuticals for quitting.

All corporations set out to make a profit and the tobacco companies are making money on a legal substance. I think the discussion needs to be around health vs people's right to choose.

If tobacco was a new substance applying to be introduced there is no way it would be approved. But seeing as it it an existing product with millions choosing (or 'choosing') to use it for the forseeable future I don't think we should ban it.

 

[Niximus]

How much do you reckon the average fast food punter really knows about trans fatty acids? Enough to approach a fast food outlet and request the full nutritional guide? If they know that much tbhey probabl wouldn't be there in the first place. There is no mreason at all why an artificial fat like that should be allowed in the market.

How much does the average person know about nutrition at all? Perhaps we should ban everything except the government approved diet of fresh fruit and vegetables?

And tobacco is quite harmful to other people, that has been well known for at least two decades now.

As I said when used in your own home it's fine.

 

[cancat]

Nope, just calorific information, as the State of New York has done. Simple.

That's fine but make it voluntary.

 

[bit_pattern]

As I said when used in your own home it's fine.

Even if children live in that home? And what about 'third hand' smoke? Tobacco smoke coats surfaces with a range of toxic chemicals, so much so that Apple technicians won't even touch a computer that has been exposed to tobacco smoke during usage.

How much does the average person know about nutrition at all? Perhaps we should ban everything except the government approved diet of fresh fruit and vegetables?

No, but food vendors should be required to clearly label all their food with nutritional guidelines (as all packaged food in a supermarket is required to), and artificial fats that are not needed and are detrimental to human health should be banned. There was a time when food came in cans soldered with lead, do you think we should remov regulations preventing food manufacturers from doing that?

 

[Niximus]

Even if children live in that home? And what about 'third hand' smoke? Tobacco smoke coats surfaces with a range of toxic chemicals, so much so that Apple technicians won't even touch a computer that has been exposed to tobacco smoke during usage.

Well you treat second hand smoke as exactly what it is, forcing a non-consenting person to take your drug.

Smoking around a child would be punishable in the same way as if you slipped something into their juice.

No, but food vendors should be required to clearly label all their food with nutritional guidelines (as all packaged food in a supermarket is required to), and artificial fats that are not needed and are detrimental to human health should be banned. There was a time when food came in cans soldered with lead, do you think we should remov regulations preventing food manufacturers from doing that?

Lets for a moment go to a world where lead soldered cans have been made legal again. Would you not buy the can next to it with 100% Lead Free written on it?

 

[Niximus]

Off to bed now so won't be replying

 

[bit_pattern]

Well you treat second hand smoke as exactly what it is, forcing a non-consenting person to take your drug.

Smoking around a child would be punishable in the same way as if you slipped something into their juice.

It 'would' be? But it's not...

Lets for a moment go to a world where lead soldered cans have been made legal again. Would you not buy the can next to it with 100% Lead Free written on it?

Depends if I knew the consequences of ingesting lead, but if it was something that had the word 'fat', and all I associated fat with is weight gain, and thought it meant the same as 'low fat' or the like, then yeah, probably.

But, just for the record, you'd be happy to allow lead back into food packaging? Or do you think that banning it was probably a good idea?

 

[bit_pattern]

Off to bed now so won't be replying

Yeeeaah, cos you just knew you were about to get pwnt

lol I jest...

 

[Niximus]

Got this just as I responded so I'll go one more

It 'would' be? But it's not...

Depends if I knew the consequences of ingesting lead, but if it was something that had the word 'fat', and all I associated fat with is weight gain, and thought it meant the same as 'low fat' or the like, then yeah, probably.

But, just for the record, you'd be happy to allow lead back into food packaging? Or do you think that banning it was probably a good idea?

Do you think if it were allowed that any companies would start using it again?

 

[medusala]

Depends if I knew the consequences of ingesting lead, but if it was something that had the word 'fat', and all I associated fat with is weight gain, and thought it meant the same as 'low fat' or the like, then yeah, probably.

This is one of the common criticisms of food labelling and govt campaigns/regulation.

Many food processors now label in bold "low fat", "2% fat" etc on their packaging. However, the companies involved quite often pump up salt, sugars etc to offset this change with the result that there are no net health benefits.

It is not dissimilar to govt forcing banks to show the "real" interest rate via APR legislation. Banks quickly worked around this via fees, penalty clauses etc.

Many of these things have unintended consequences which negate the good intentions.

 

[Niximus]

Yeeeaah, cos you just knew you were about to get pwnt

Yeah hardly.

 

[bit_pattern]

Got this just as I responded so I'll go one more

Do you think if it were allowed that any companies would start using it again?

If it was a cheaper alternative they might, but that doesn't answer the question, you are skirting around the issue, do you think it was a good or a bad idea to ban lead soldering in cans, or even lead coated corks on wine bottles?

 

[Niximus]

If it was a cheaper alternative they might, but that doesn't answer the question, you are skirting around the issue, do you think it was a good or a bad idea to ban lead soldering in cans, or even lead coated corks on wine bottles?

Patience, I'm getting to address that.

So they might? You don't sound very convinced. Why might it be that they wouldn't use it.

*I know I said I was going to bed, the GF started watching something else so I have a little longer.

 

[cancat]

If it was a cheaper alternative they might, but that doesn't answer the question, you are skirting around the issue, do you think it was a good or a bad idea to ban lead soldering in cans, or even lead coated corks on wine bottles?

You have also skirted round the 'should smoking be banned' issue. Yes or no?

 

[bit_pattern]

CC - I don't think I've skirted around anything, a resounding 'yes' from me on that score.

Patience, I'm getting to address that.

So they might? You don't sound very convinced. Why might it be that they wouldn't use it.

*I know I said I was going to bed, the GF started watching something else so I have a little longer.

If it was a cheaper alternative, some manufacturers probably would, like I said. Now, do you think lead should have been removed from food production, yes or no?

 

[Niximus]

You have also skirted round the 'should smoking be banned' issue. Yes or no?

Nah he has answered that, he is for a smoking ban but legalisation of drugs - go figure.

That said, I'm not skirting, my answer is multi part and requires him to participate in between.

 

[Niximus]

If it was a cheaper alternative, some manufacturers probably would, like I said. Now, do you think lead should have been removed from food production, yes or no?

Right so the manufacturers that wouldn't go back to this 'cheaper alternative' what would it be stopping them going back?

 

[bit_pattern]

No, I support the regulation of drugs, there is a critical difference. And, why should my participation have any bearing on your answer?

 

[Niximus]

No, I support the regulation of drugs, there is a critical difference. And, why should my participation have any bearing on your answer?

Because you'll make my point.

 

[bit_pattern]

Right so the manufacturers that wouldn't go back to this 'cheaper alternative' what would it be stopping them going back?

I see what you are getting at but we are talking about something that has already been banned. Lead soldering was used to manufacture cans right up until the mid ninties in America, lead lined corks were used in Aus right up until the late ninties, yet the dangers of lead were known for decades before that. So if the market is so great then why did it take so long for lead to be taken out of food containers? Because the market didn't react until the government acted for them and banned it. The market only cares about the bottom line, if it's cheaper then they will do it unless the government stops them.

So, would you be happy to see lead products used in food manufacturing or not? And, yes, you ARE skirting around the issue, in a big way.