CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-31-2008, 10:07 AM   #51
Glen Pennington
Member Glen Pennington is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Loveland  OH
Posts: 35
Re: California bans trans fats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Dent View Post
Ahh yes, because the government routinely admits to mistakes, and throughout history downsizing bureaucracy and reversal of stupid laws has been a common occurrence.
Nobody's arguing that trans fat is bad. Of course it is. It is not the governments place however, to ban things that it decides are unhealthy.
Alien & Sedition Acts, various Jim Crow laws, Lawrence vs. Texas, Loving vs. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, the 13th-14th-15th-16th-17th-19th-24th amendments come to mind when thinking of reversing stupid laws. It happens.

Look at what the market was like pre-Pure Food and Drug Act, it wasn't pretty. Maybe the trans fat ban goes to far and maybe people have changed and these laws are no longer needed. Of course, 1,300 people have come down with Salmonella since April.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 10:27 AM   #52
Jake Dent
Member Jake Dent is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stafford  Virginia
Posts: 243
Re: California bans trans fats

Yes, it happens. Not often though.
It just boils down to us being two different types of people. I am the type of person who likes as little gov involvement as possible. I don't believe the gov should ban things "for our own good" with few excepetions.
Some people think it's the goverments job to regulate, ban etc things that they believe are bad for us.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 10:37 AM   #53
Glen Pennington
Member Glen Pennington is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Loveland  OH
Posts: 35
Re: California bans trans fats

We're probably closer in opinion than it appears, I just draw the line at a different spot. I'm not a fan of smoking bans (although I appreciate smoke-free venues for live music!) and I don't agree with the fast food ban in LA. But industrial additives and ingredients that aren't needed and are bad for us, I don't care if they go away.

Cheers!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 10:59 AM   #54
Christian Gotcher
Member Christian Gotcher is offline
 
Christian Gotcher's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Annapolis  Maryland
Posts: 751
Re: California bans trans fats

So, let me get this straight:

Group A- Don't ban anything. Government infringement. All drugs, cyanide, arsenic, yay, let 'em all die.

Group B- Make information paramount- let people know transfats, alcohol, smoking, and all that is bad for you, and let them make their own choice. Law should focus on discovering what's unhealthy and making that information universally known.

Group C- Don't ban a product unless it proves to be harmful to people surrounding you. Smoking shouldn't be banned because you can do it in your own home, but it can be banned in public spaces because others need to use those spaces and don't have a choice.

Group D- Because we all are interlinked in one way or another, one person's lack of health affects us all in terms of medical costs and the social support an unhealthy person requires.

Group E- People are stupid and need to be legislated or they'll hurt themselves. Limiting transfat is similar to making suicide (attempted, obviously) punishable.

Group A is obviously an exaggeration (Group E is as well, but I've heard that sentiment expressed... so I'll leave it at that). A few devil's advocate arguments, though, against each.

B- Not only can we not trust people to do the best for themselves, we can't trust them to do the best for others. Law wouldn't exist were we not limiting people's tendencies to harm each other. Smoking in public spaces, parks, sidewalks, and the like denies me the healthful use of spaces that I need to go about my business, so information is not enough. People have been aware of the dangers of transfat for some time- I've seen reports on CNN and Fox News on multiple occasions, and there's nobody on this earth (I hope) who thinks the McDonalds and Twinkie diet is healthy, yet people have still been bloating themselves on bad foods and weighing down the healthcare system.

C- If that's the case, why shouldn't suicide be allowed, and other, more lethal, addictive drugs? They don't hurt others except emotionally, and you can't quantify emotions in court. Sure, isolationism is great and protects the rest of us, but at what point is intervention necessary to save the individual from psychosocial forces (the pressure to take narcotics, for instance) greater than they can handle? (Interventions for alcoholics comes to mind)

D- Am I my brother's keeper? When I'm making the right physical choices and living a healthy life as best as I can, why should I have to pay for the indolence and laziness of someone who's made worse choices, willingly and knowingly, than me? It punishes the hard-working, and that's not fair.
__________________
M/22/155|Murph-28:19|Helen-9:39|Annie- 5:12|CFT-700|1.5 Mile-8:35|Strict PU-24|Fran-5:24 log
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 02:55 PM   #55
Bart Hodlik
Member Bart Hodlik is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 231
Re: California bans trans fats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Dent View Post
Nobody's arguing that trans fat is bad. Of course it is. It is not the governments place however, to ban things that it decides are unhealthy.
I don't seriously believe that a bunch of politicians got together, and decided that trans fats are bad. Like it was said before in this thread, one would seriously doubt that they even know what trans fats are. So the issue was more than likely pushed by concerned people or groups, as it should be. Not a bunch of politicians. Half of the senators and house reps barely even know how to use email.
__________________
Obsessed, is the word lazy people use to describe the dedicated. - Russel Warren
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Agoura, California Craig Bravman In Search of CrossFitters 0 05-03-2008 09:34 PM
New York City may ban 'hazardous' trans fats Kevin McKay Nutrition 12 10-03-2006 07:52 AM
Trans Fat in GF Ground Beef at Trader Joe's Mike Minium Nutrition 3 06-16-2006 12:24 PM
Denmark bans trans fats!!! Tyler Hass Nutrition 0 05-06-2003 02:03 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.