Welcome to PatsFans.com

Here comes the nanny state again

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wolfpack, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Seems like we just had this conversation about a month ago, huh? Well at least I know MrsPFnVA will agree with me in opposing any such legislation along these lines.

    My favorite part is the final paragraph where they essentially admit "you haven't done what we suggest you do, so now we are going to try and force you to."

    FDA Should Regulate Salt, Panel Says - ABC News

    FDA Should Regulate Salt, Panel Says

    CHICAGO (Reuters) - The Food and Drug Administration should regulate the amount of salt added to foods to help Americans cut their high sodium intake, which can lead to high blood pressure, kidney failure and strokes, an influential federal panel said on Tuesday.

    The Institute of Medicine said this was needed because Americans get most of their salt from processed and restaurant food, and merely telling them to eat less salt has not worked.
     
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,244
    Likes Received:
    197
    Ratings:
    +675 / 2 / -9

    The country is now being run by "left wing socialist liberal control freak politically correct dip sh!t closed door ruthless rat bastards"

    Most All Of Them Will Lose Their Jobs Come November And The "Beautiful Poster Boy" In The White House Will Lose His In 2012

    BUY A SALT SHAKER AND THEN TELL THE NAZI SCUM TO "KISS MY A$S"

    ATTENTION GAY COMMUNITY YOUR PRESIDENT IS YOUR ENEMY BEWARE.
     
  3. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,897
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +560 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    That's kinda what they did with cigarettes, isn't it?

    First no advertising on prime-time TV, then extra taxes, then no smoking in public buildings, then extra taxes, then no smoking in private buildings, then more taxes, then non-smoking sections in restaurants, then more taxes, then no smoking at all in restaurants, then more taxes, then no smoking outside of certain places, then more taxes, then no smoking in bars, then more taxes.

    If they can draw a definite conclusion between deaths and salt they might have a shot at banning it from exterior sources eventually. It'll be harder than the cigarette thing because they'll have a really hard time drawing a correlation between death and second-hand salt, but who knows?

    I'm agin' it because I love salt. The thought of potato chips without salt, french fries without salt, pretzels without salt - well, yuck. I have no problem with those things being sold mind you, I just don't want to buy them and I want the choice to remain my own.

    I'm less upset about the idea of salt being removed from food while it's being cooked in a restaurant because I'd rather salt it myself, anyhow - plus adding it in the kitchen does take away the choice of the consumer - so in fairness to those who wish to avoid salt, go ahead and leave it out of the food being prepared.....just put a big salt shaker on the table.

    I don't like the idea of not having it in food I buy in the store. It's just not going to work the same if I have to salt my own pretzels or chips. As previously mentioned, go right ahead and sell those items unsalted - but leave the salt on others. Since it's not going to affect anyone other than myself it should be my choice and not the AMA's or the government's.

    But - like all good smokers everywhere, I also know that we adapt - and we live. Maybe we even live longer.
     
  4. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I oppose advertising bans on cigarettes purely on Constitutional grounds. As I understand it, the cigarette industry has accepted the ban and voluntarily complied with it but there are those who believe it would never survive a Constitutional challenge.

    But anyway, cigarettes are a horrible analogy because 2nd hand smoke affects others present. So there is a good reason to forbid smoking in public. But it won't affect your health one damn bit if I add a dash (or a couple teaspoons) of salt to my lobster bisque.

    It is a frightening infringement on our civil rights. And it isn't just salt the nanny statists are going after. I just saw an ABC News article on all the problems with sugar, and how it should be more regulated, etc, etc.
     
  5. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,897
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +560 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    It's a bit of a quandry, however. Some of us tend to bi^ch about having our health care premiums raised by the fact that so many people are overweight and in poor health due to improper diet and a lack of exercise - so it makes it hard for those same bi^ching people to argue against forcing people to be healthier - thus saving all of us money.
     
  6. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well this ties directly into a prediction I made about Obamacare where now that we all have a vested interest in each others' health, it opens a very frightening window into regulating your neighbor's lifestyle.

    Where are we going to draw the line? How about we illegalize all dangerous activites, since they can result in a trip to the hospital? So no more skiing or surfing or skydiving. Promiscuity is unhealthy and spreads disease, so let's regulate that too. And, of course, we must mandate all citizens have a healthy weight. People should be forced to participate in mandated morning exercise just like in 1984, right?

    In fact, I don't think people who have a genetic history of poor health should be allowed to procreate! It's too damn expensive on the rest of us (that is, those who actually pay taxes). So if there is a history of heart disease in your family, which is genetic, then it's time for a little snip-snip. Are certain types of cancers genetic? Those people must be neutered too!
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>