No MoreTrans Fat In The Big Apple

I'm not sure what I think of this- on the one hand I applaud a city concerned about it's citizens well- being; on the other hand I'm not at all happy with someone telling me what I can and cannot eat. And those old fashioned cannolis are so yummy.
I'm looking forward to hearing the opinions from the forum.




http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/ ... 1200234128

That will be an awfully big market to police. I'm torn. This is another example of the "your too stupid to know what is good for you so we will make the decision for you" school of government which is not appealing at all.

On the other hand; somewhere, somehow we need to get a handle on increasing health care cost that will bankrupt us in the near future. Living a healthier lifestyle seems to be a good start if the reward is reducing cost to cover more people with insurance.

Diabetes, hypertension, gout, heart disease, CVA, CHF, arthritis and a host of other ills stem from obesity. A healthier cannoli doesn't seem like to much of a burden when placed in a greater context.

Yes, I'll have more mayo on that.

So sayeth the fat man.

While I am all for people choosing to eat healthy foods, I do believe that is a personal choice, not a government law. IMHO, this is yet another item along the slippery slope of personal freedoms that, one by one, are being stripped away from the American public by a government trying to micromanage "health" instead of looking at the big picture for real solutions.

I guess I'm of the opinion that when the government learns how to manage themselves, then they can start on my life ...

Well then...smoke em if you got em....

That's a tough argument. As much as I can see two heads to this debate - and it is a human interest principle, it feels like a shephard to legislative dependency: "Why did the government allow me to make such bad choices for myself?"

I know, I know... sounds like the same argument given against the smoking ban, but where does it end? I was a proponent of the smoking ban, (and I even reluctantly admit to being a smoker), because it affected other life conditions. But if everything that is bad for us, (and I won't say "deemed", cause trans-fats are inarguably bad for us) is stripped from us, I think there will be one hell-uv-a revolt and riots don't digest well.

That's a tough argument. As much as I can see two heads to this debate - and it is a human interest principle, it feels like a shephard to legislative dependency: "Why did the government allow me to make such bad choices for myself?"

I know, I know... sounds like the same argument given against the smoking ban, but where does it end? I was a proponent of the smoking ban, (and I even reluctantly admit to being a smoker), because it affected other life conditions. But if everything that is bad for us, (and I won't say "deemed", cause trans-fats are inarguably bad for us) is stripped from us, I think there will be one hell-uv-a revolt and riots don't digest well.

I actually think is a big difference between banning smoking and banning trans-fats. Smoking is not only harmful to the person doing it but to others do secondhand smoke. Trans-fats are only harmful to the person eating them. Thus in one case you're making a decision that only harm's yourself while in the other you're making a decision that harms others. Quite a difference in my opinion!