Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

freakofnature -> Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/29/2008 3:58:11 PM)

L.A. councilmembers wish to ban fast food restaurants in the blighted poor areas of South L.A....

Story Here

in hopes to curb the "Epidemic of obesity among the poorest"

From the piece:
quote:

LOS ANGELES - In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find — and that’s a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.

The City Council was meeting to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity.


Did the council members even stop for a minute to think about the good things that these business bring to communities, for one... like jobs? They want the poor people to have fine dinning restaurants that serve healthier food, but the only way this will happen is if you subsidise it. If the finer dining establishments wanted to be in South L.A.... They would be, but most can't afford the food/atmosphere, so how does the council plan to assist the poor in affording finer foods????



HighPlainsDrifter -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/29/2008 5:20:25 PM)

Let them eat cake. Low-fat soy cake. [8|]



Marcus. -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/29/2008 10:42:43 PM)

Let's see. The healthy food is way more expensive. The cheap food the lower income can afford is unhealthy. I guess the lower income folks out there are supposed to starve or go to soup kitchens.



MrFribbles -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/30/2008 1:16:23 AM)

Yet another reason I'm a Libertarian... *sigh*
I think one of the most upsetting things is that they're treating the symptom, not the illness. People aren't obese because of fast food. They're obese because nobody is teaching self-control anymore. People are taught that they deserve what they want, when they want it, however they want it, and let's just sweep the idea of consequences under the rug. If we could teach people that they need to make common-sense decisions when it comes to what they eat, it would do far more good to resolve the weight problem in America than wholesale banning.



deliveredarling -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/30/2008 7:18:02 AM)

Personally, i think there is more to the story that we aren't hearing, such as an unspoken agenda. Take away the food supply, whatever it may be and the people have a choice: move out or drive further. We aren't talking about a high economic status with this community. It's the projects and gangland. I mean let's get real here. A person has a family of five, are the going to go spend $5.oo for a gallon of milk or try to as much as they can from a dollar menu? Food sustains, is a gallon of milk going to satisfy hunger? After all, you've paid for the milk without any leftover for the cereal.
Would any decent businessman put a Saks Fith Ave in the projects? Would they count on the economy of this community to turn a profit? Not seeing that happening. Some the grocery chains have some serious up charges. My family makes a very decent income, yet I still won't shop at those store because of the expense. It seems to me like they are dooming the community. I can't see the grocery chains beating down the doors to come in and open shop. The area is high crime and low work ethic.
What about the owners of the FF chains already there? Are they willing to be put out of business? Where is there say in this?



iluvatar -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/30/2008 7:43:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

Personally, i think there is more to the story that we aren't hearing, such as an unspoken agenda.


I think part of the agenda is to curb health problems related to poor diets. If these people are poor and on public assistance, then the taxpayers are paying for them to go to the doctors when they get sick. If, for whatever reason (ignorance, poverty, lack of options), a segment of the population eats poorly and becomes a greater burden upon, it may be within the govt's purview to find a way to minimize that burden.

-Dan.



colliefan -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/30/2008 8:35:35 PM)

I volunteered for several years at an inner city food bank. People would turn-down whole wheat bread b/c they wanted Wonder Bread. People would demand meat when we had none to give. People would turn down powered milk demanding whole milk. People would turn down dear meat even when told it had the same nutrition as hamburger

Its amazing that libs want "choice" when it comes to killing babies but not when it comes to what we put into our bodies..



deliveredarling -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/30/2008 10:02:04 PM)

quote:


I think part of the agenda is to curb health problems related to poor diets. If these people are poor and on public assistance, then the taxpayers are paying for them to go to the doctors when they get sick. If, for whatever reason (ignorance, poverty, lack of options), a segment of the population eats poorly and becomes a greater burden upon, it may be within the govt's purview to find a way to minimize that burden.


This doesn't necessarily apply to just the poor. We have middle class that can't afford insurance and don't eat any better than the "poor". It comes down to choice and convenience. I guarantee it's easier to run through a drive through than to cook something. According to the dollar menu, it can be cheaper too.



MyCatSmokey2006 -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/30/2008 10:26:13 PM)

As a person who is obese and living on limited income, I find this appalling. They should NOT be banning fast-food restaurants. This doesn't help the obesity problem, it only makes it worse, because then people will probably go to the store and buy lots of junk food, such as candy bars and chips. At least with a hamburger, you're getting some protein.

Instead, they should encourage the social services agencies and other groups to educate people about good nutrition and better cooking methods, so that they can learn to eat more healthy foods. Even though I cannot afford a lot of food, I know how to cook healthy meals and choose healthy foods and it's helping me succeed in my weight loss efforts.

These city leaders should also make affordable exercise facilities available to low income people. This will encourage them to be more active and will work better than any ban on fast food restaurants will do.

Finally, IMHO, this ban opens the door for stigma and discrimination against obese people. It's bad enough that we're judged as lazy and gluttonous by most skinny people who could eat a horse without gaining an ounce. Banning restaurants, or worse, enacting legislation that prohibits overweight people from being served in those restaurants, which was being considered in another state, are just bad examples of too much Big Brother interference into our lives.

Just my three cents...



colliefan -> RE: Nanny-state "We know what is good for you" politics hard @ work (7/30/2008 11:07:38 PM)

quote:

These city leaders should also make affordable exercise facilities available to low income people.


Not their job. It's up to you to find a place. Find a mall that has a walking club. There are a variety of exercise clubs that have a variety of prices and times. Your city may have a recreation program that can help you but in these times of budget cuts, they may be trimed.

That said, keep working on the weight loss program!



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI