There is a lot to consider when looking at such policies.
Do you think this all started with the smoking ban? If so, what's next?
Would you move there and risk having few choices in dining experiences? Does it offend you to think that soon in Massachusetts you'll eat only what the government thinks you should eat?
Do you think this law is fair to dining establishments that have chosen to not use trans fats in their cooking.
Would you move there to start a business? Does it offend you that your private property becomes public property and you must let government dictate your every policy--while you must still try to profit and pay taxes? What was the Boston Tea Party all about?
Do you think businesses should be allowed to decide their own policy, then live or die with the choice of consumers?
What do you think is REALLY behind the spate of business policy decisions taken over by government? Anticapitalism? Low regard for population's choices?
2006-12-20 02:03:16 · 6 answers · asked by Curt 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
perhaps it will open up a whole new business. imagine housewives cruising the neighborhoods looking for a street corner Crisco dealer.
remember, when trans fat is outlawed, only outlaws will use trans fat.
2006-12-20 02:27:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What I think is really ironic is that if the ban on trans fats goes through, Massachusetts will be endorsing laws that regulate purely personal conduct based on a health justification.
The many anti-sodomy laws passed by states were also based in part on health concerns. But the Supreme Court said in effect that we have a Constitutional right to sodomy. Wouldn't we have a constitutional right to eat fatty hamburgers and greasy fried chicken too, then? If not, then in Massachusetts two men can marry but they can't open up a restaurant if they don't make the food the way the state wants them to. Strange.
At least with smoking, there was an argument that it bothered other people.
But the nanny state marches on . . .
2006-12-20 10:35:44 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This whole banning thing is ridiculous. To quote from Radley Balko of Reason: "despite all of the dire warnings about our increased intake of trans-fats over the last 20 years, heart disease in America has been in swift decline ... So, if they're killing us, they're not doing a very good job."
They're planning on banning trans fats in NYC. It reminds me of a fascist society where the government, not the people, make the decision of what they can and cannot eat or drink or smoke etc.
This is a bad trend and if it continues, expect to have more of your rights taken away "for the sake of your health."
2006-12-20 10:27:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It might make profits a little thinner.
It all started with prohibition of drugs and alcohol.
What's next is ice. Restaurant ice is universally vile and full of bacteria.
I'd sooner eat Sushi in the Sahara than go to a restaurant in Massachusetts.
Yes, it offends me. A restaurant should be able to serve dog poop if they can convince their patrons to eat it.
Of course it's fair to restaurants that already don't use trans fats. What a dumb question. That's like asking, "Is it fair to Burger King that Massachusetts regulates strip clubs?"
You know what offends me? That you think you can ask a zillion questions for the price of one.
2006-12-20 10:15:45 · answer #4 · answered by redhotsillypepper 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They want to make everyone look as dyspepsic as Kerry, and Kennedy could stand to lose a few tons too.
2006-12-20 10:08:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You will be Healthier for it...
2006-12-20 10:08:26 · answer #6 · answered by sunnyday4me 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋