…except when you’re a poor resident of California, apparently.
Isn’t it funny that the same people who would scream bloody murder if someone proposed a ban on abortion in their state don’t have a problem with banning trans fats or denying the poor neighborhoods of Los Angeles access to cheap prepared food?
Regardless of your stance on abortion (and please don’t kick off that debate in the Comments), it has to strike one as odd that these folks have no issue with a woman hoovering out her uterus, but then actively try to prevent the same woman from having a super-sized Big Mac meal afterwards. Do you own your body, or don’t you?
Of course, banning new McDonald’s and KFC restaurants from being built in East and South L.A. means that all kinds of healthy restaurants are going to move into those neighborhoods to pick up the slack, ready to serve nutritious fare at prices that can compete with the $0.99 Value Menu…
Anyone pay attention in your Economics class? Let’s see if you can predict the effect of that particular piece of city ordinance, and what kind of effect it’s going to have on the obesity rates in East L.A.
Of course, they’re using the old “public health care costs” argument, which should give the proponents of a National Health Care System pause. This is the writing on the wall, folks…when the State picks up the tab for fixing your boo-boos, the State soon claims the right to control what you do with that body, and what goes into it. At that point, it’s only a matter of time before your “free” health care means putting up with a ban on risky sports and greasy foods, and mandatory exercise will be just around the corner. After all, when the State pays to have your body fixed, you become a number on a public expenditure ledger, and they’ll pass whatever laws they can think of to keep that number as low as possible.
21 Comments
July 30, 2008 at 5:55 am
I’ll take “Zip, Zero and Zilch” for $100 Marko or maybe make that “More Government Control” . . .
July 30, 2008 at 6:12 am
It’s a twist on a strategy that has proven successful in removing undesirable population groups from an area. By eliminating basic services and replacing them with more advanced – and much more expensive – services, you not only begin driving away the targeted problem but also make the area more desirable to your preferred population groups. This begins the “snowball” of gentrification and the reclamation of these urban wastelands.
July 30, 2008 at 6:22 am
Plus, you can claim a halo for “finally taking steps against Public Health Issue XYZ.”
Pretty smart, actually.
July 30, 2008 at 7:27 am
[...] My body, my choice! [...]
July 30, 2008 at 8:22 am
Oh don’t even get me started! I’m a person of healthy weight, and yes sometimes I want a whopper. Why should anyone be trying to deny me access? Getting rid of every fast food restaurant in the world won’t fix Americas weight issues. Diet, exercise, education, and access to healthy food are necessary for that.
July 30, 2008 at 8:27 am
Seatbelt and helmet laws already encroach there….
July 30, 2008 at 9:13 am
might be an opportunity for purina….
can a balanced, nutritious formula of fibre and vitamin pellets be far behind?
“people chow…strong bones, clean teeth, regular bowels and shiny coat in a convenient bag”
July 30, 2008 at 9:39 am
“my body, my choice”
On one end we have abortion, which has essentially become a sacrament that cannot be questioned (a 12yr old can get one without question but a school nurse cannot give that same 12yr old an aspirin without her parent’s permission) and on the other end the govt. strictly regulates what drugs/medicines and surgeries we can get, who we are allowed to get them from, and even prevents us from checking out on our own if we’re in horrible pain from a terminal disease.
There is absolutely no consistency in that, but why would the govt. want consistency? If there was some type of consistency in our laws we might be able to figure out a lot of stuff on our own, by not knowing what is allowed we keep on having to go back to the govt. to find out if we have permission.
July 30, 2008 at 10:18 am
And that, more than anything else, is why I oppose a nationalized health care system. The moment our government foots the bill is the moment they will want to manage costs by managing every detail of your life.
July 30, 2008 at 10:37 am
Not to mention that it entirely eliminates a relatively low-investment, almost-guaranteed-profitability, source of entry level employment. It’s almost like they want folks in the bad areas of town to be barred from any sort of legal or gainful employment… nah, that couldn’t be it.
July 30, 2008 at 11:10 am
It couldn’t be that they’re just vote-grubbing with the easiest possible target, could it? Why, that would shock me.
That’s one of the problems with democracies – you have the politicos pandering to the largest available bloc for the easiest possible win. I haven’t heard of a better system yet, but it is one of the critical vulnerabilities.
July 30, 2008 at 11:38 am
If they want to ban fast food because of the health risk, then lets ban cars, guns, knives, forks, spoons, rocks, air, water, gravity, sunlight, fish, meat, etc, etc, etc. Waking up in the morning is a health risk. Do you want to ban that too?
If you think about it, life is a terminal disease.
Yes, I am overweight. I am working on dealing with that. That being said, I am sorry, nobody has the right to dictate what I can and can not eat.
July 30, 2008 at 11:44 am
Did you know if you stood right in front of a large airport’s radar, it could COOK YOU DO DEATH with it’s DEATH-RAYS?!?!!!!
Ban airports!!!11!!1!!111!!!!eleventy
July 30, 2008 at 12:30 pm
So fast-food chains spend money developing “healthy” meals (aka “That’s what rabbits eat. I”d rather eat the rabbit.”), changing the oils/fats/grease on the grill and in the fryer, on and on… then are told “That’s all very well, now go away.”
Yeah. And I’m sure that the people who work in the area, with a half-hour lunch break, are going to flock to sit-down wait-forty-minutes-for-a-table, please-tip-well restaurants, and bring along their non-working neighbors who can’t get a job even if they were trying.
July 30, 2008 at 1:17 pm
This so reminds me of the first couple of scenes from “the island”
July 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm
In NYC a McD’s meal costs as much or often more then an alternative freshly-made non-transfat meal. I *am of the opinion* that the fast fooderies can produce a healthier product using non-trans-fats for a similar price. Trans-fats are particularly useful when making food for long shelf-lives. A whopper doesn’t need it. What’s wrong with good ol’ butter or olive oil in which to sizzle up your beast burger?
So I think the economic argument is on shaky ground.
However, that doesn’t mean that the gov’t has any business banning it.
A cleverly targeted public awareness campaign combined with encouragement of the chains to migrate away from it would probably be effective. Make “trans-fat-free!” a market choice tipping point so folks can vote with their heads and dollars. Pretty soon every place would have to be trans-fat-free to compete and you could still have your Whopper.
The dollar menu is a loss leader – I’m not sure it’s a good comparison.
-E
July 30, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I think it appropriate for every fast food restuarant in California to close for 1 and 1/2 days a week, in protest.
The lost revenue to the state would be tremendous. Nothing cures assholery like hitting them in the wallet, even if you must take a hit also.
Think of it, no sales tax, reduced income tax from employees, lower corporate and company taxes, lower contributions to workemen’s compensation agencies, social security administration, ad nauseum. All of which are favorite cash cows for diversion of funds. That would sure as Hell put a crimp in the state’s plans and bankrupt it. They already spend more than they have and do business on the promise of ever increasing revenue, what effect would decreasing revenue have on them? A very major deleterious effect.
And let’s not forget all the municipal, state and federal workers who will become too cranky to abide in their own offices when they cannot eat lunch, or at least, cannot eat a lunch they prefer or can afford. I wouldn’t want to be aupervisor in one of those offices in the afternoon.
Most people on limited lunch hours would have to brown bag it in order to be back at work on time, and/or eat breakfast at home, therefore there would not be ahifting of revenue to other sources to fill the state coffers.
And if that doesn’t work, shut down and move your business to America.
July 30, 2008 at 7:57 pm
E,
In the old days they used plain old lard for cooking, astonishingly people were slimmer back then.
July 31, 2008 at 7:17 am
“This is the writing on the wall, folks…when the State picks up the tab for fixing your boo-boos, the State soon claims the right to control what you do with that body, and what goes into it. At that point, it’s only a matter of time before your “free” health care means putting up with a ban on risky sports and greasy foods, and mandatory exercise will be just around the corner.”
You are right! In the UK, all sorts of nannying laws have been brought in ostensibly to lighten the burden on the National Health Service. The argument seems to be that we are acting ungratefully if we smoke or drink or eat salty food and if we do insist on doing these things then we must pay through the nose in tax to do them so we can pay the NHS back for our carelessness.
July 31, 2008 at 7:47 am
Of course, that kinda falls over when the amount of money you put into the NHS is entirely unrelated to your lifestyle.
Y’know, except that ill people generally can’t make much money, and therefore don’t put much in. And they need more healthcare, so they take more out. I’m sorta in that bracket at the moment, but goodness knows I’ve paid enough tax in preceding years to cover the bills.
Then again, the UKGov doesn’t really need any excuses to meddle – no inconvenient constitution or anything, a tradition of sticking their noses in and a carefully cultivated culture of “Well, I can’t do anything, I’m just one person”. Got it sewn up very tidily, they have.
August 1, 2008 at 2:17 pm
[...] training program. I’d apply but I fail the “consistently” criterion. – Both the Munchkin Wrangler and the Agitator have very wise things to say about the LA fast food ban. Published [...]