Pleas give me only con oppinions; that is, oppinions that don;t support the banning of trans fat from food restaurants
2007-07-19 04:43:17 · 15 answers · asked by leoncita 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It is not the government's place to make that decision. Government is not there to "protect" us, in that sense.
2007-07-19 04:47:40 · answer #1 · answered by †Lawrence R† 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither. I don't see any reason the government should be educating people about the danger of trans fats or requiring restaurants to notify people. If people want to avoid trans fats, they can simply ask. If enough people care, restaurants will advertise that they are trans fat free. The fact is, this nanny state regulation is designed to make people care. The decision of whether to consume them should be left up to us, but the decision of whether to go to restaurants that notify us about them should be left up to us too. If people really cared, restaurants would be falling all over each other to advertise that they're trans fat free. But the nanny state believes that people *should* care.
2016-05-17 10:20:48 · answer #2 · answered by vilma 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TELLING ME WHAT TO EAT> They do not pay for my health insurance and I won't even see my social security. If Americans want to live in a Big Brother society where everything is micromanaged and controlled thats fine, but not for me. The trans-fats do not have nearly the same adverse effects as ciggarettes or alcohol.
2007-07-19 04:48:50 · answer #3 · answered by Surf Forever 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
government at the federal level has no constitutional authority to govern in this manner, that is why they should not ban trans fat anywhere. at the state and local level if they wish to attempt such a move, and get the support,and vote weather i like it or not so be it.
2007-07-19 04:50:13 · answer #4 · answered by darrell m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Govt is only supposed to "promote the general welfare" not enforce it, letting them ban anything is a bad idea (see how well prohibition and the war on drugs went?) We are supposed to be the "Land of the Free" that means I should have the freedom to destroy myself as long as it does not affect anyone else in the process
2007-07-19 04:54:46 · answer #5 · answered by kerfitz 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is not the restaurants fault you eat there, if you don't want to eat trans fat do what every vegetarian in world has done change your diet
2007-07-19 04:50:29 · answer #6 · answered by kirby r 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's nobody's business the way I eat my food. If I want the "trans fat" in my food then no one has the right to tel me I can't have it. I eat for taste not if it's good for me.
2007-07-19 06:03:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
becuz its a free country or at least is supposed to be.if i want to eat fastfood the solution is exercise not changing the food to fit my lazy azz. personal fittness is personal its up to the individaul to take care of their body not the goverment. overweight people ruin it for healhty people who just want a snack. lazyness is the problem not trans fat. and besides i thought this was a domacracy nit a communism
2007-07-19 04:54:58 · answer #8 · answered by Tonio 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its not the governments place to police what I can and cannot eat. I don't want a government that is trying to protect me from myself, if I want to eat a big ole greasy hamburger with fries I should have that right.
2007-07-19 04:47:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because it is not the governments place to tell me what I can and cannot eat, or what I do and do not serve to my customers. As long as I don't poison them they need to butt the hell out. Where does this end? You never ever want to open this door.
2007-07-19 04:48:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋