Just a little bit more, just a little bit more...the nanny state is a warm embrace that turns into a choke hold. If you desire to have the nutritional information presented to you, only frequent those restaurants who post it. If it's so popular, eventually everyone will do it.
On bottled water? There is one. Depends where you live I guess. I have one right now that has 0 for everything besides sodium (5mg/1%) and calcium (4%). It also has the PPM analysis on the side. Conversely I have a Vitamin Water bottle that has significantly less on it.
Honest question, maxiep, not snark: why is fighting obesity "nanny state" but fighting recreational drug use sound policy? In both cases, policy makers are trying to fight ill effects on society.
A couple of things. First, food is legal; drugs aren't. And although alcohol is legal, in excessive amounts it makes the other person dangerous when they get behind the wheel. No one caused an accident from excessive french fry eating. The only ill effects on society for obesity are to the individual. The ill effects for illegal drug use are borne by everyone, from increased crime to the damage impaired individuals do to others. It's one of the fundamental reasons I'm against this health insurance bill. It takes what is a personal choice and makes it a societal one. Now, the fat person is a burden to society because they create excess health care costs. Before, that burden was borne specifically by the private insurance companies that chose to take them. And for the record, I think fat people, heavy drinkers, illegal drug users and other people with risky behavior should pay more. Instead of that, however, we're going to try to modify their behavior for the societal good. We're a nation of individuals.
This is begging the question, though maybe my initial question was unclear. You support drugs being illegal, but I'm asking why making that illegal isn't "nanny state." There's been no real evidence that anyone caused an accident from excessive pot usage, though. Essentially the only ill effects on society from marijuana usage is to the individual. Yet, no one is suggesting making french fries illegal. You feel mandating posting the calorie count for them is excessive government regulation, but outright banning marijuana isn't. That seems surprising to me.
I've gone over my drug stance before, so I won't repeat it here. I'll just say that marijuana is probably the mildest drug and not really the one I was addressing. However, anything that slows your reflexes or alters your perception when you're behind the wheel isn't a good thing. I'm not saying my drug/alcohol stance is entirely consistent--there are too many issues at stake.
I'm with speeds on this one. Where's the harm? It costs the restaurants next to nothing and it provides consumers with information to make better decisions. Too bad it costs us $1T in new taxes and a bunch of other worthless and misguided stuff to get something like this done.
There's all kinds of stuff that the government does that isn't harmful. However, that doesn't mean they should do it. Gee, Denny didn't you just chastize me for not being enough of a Libertarian?
The constitution fully considers that we have a congress with the power to make laws. I don't see one iota of harm to either personal or economic Liberty here, so where's the beef (and how many calories in it?) In fact, I see more personal and economic Liberty with this law because people can be more informed consumers.
I operate on the idea that laws are the last refuge to solve a problem. I prefer fewer laws to more laws. I also look at this as a burden to restaurants to calculate what the content is. Twenty outlets sounds like a lot, but there are loads of restaurant groups that size. Furthermore, those that own franchises have an extra cost to calculate that count. Finally, there is a legal cost to make sure the count is accurate. What if someone sues? To me, it's akin to banning smoking from restaurants. If there were a hue and cry from the population, then let the market settle it. Restaurants that wanted the non-smoker business would ban smoking; those that wanted it would continue to allow smoking. If restaurants think they can gain customers from calculating calories, then let them do it. But don't force restaurants to do it. This is supposed to be a free society, where you have to accept the consequences of your actions. If you keep trying to protect the stupid, you only enable them further.
I operate on the idea that laws are made by Citizens in government to promote the General Welfare of We the People. Those laws should be colorblind and otherwise non-discriminatory in any way. I don't see the calories means squat to the restaurants. You like the food, you eat there. If you care about counting calories, you pick stuff on the menu that fits your diet.
In isolation it's not a big deal. My point is it's none of the government's business. And I'm a proponent of small government. When we look to the government to solve our problems, we reject personal responsibility and give up a little bit of our freedom.
well, its now the government's business to keep everyone healthy now that they will be a stakeholder in healthcare.
