What else will they ban....

[kunaji]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_he_me/diet_trans_fat_ban

Earlier this year Chicago banned foie gras and now New York is banning trans fat. What do you think will be the next food item banned? This is getting kinda rediculus.

[Lou]

Cheese ?

[dallas xjs]

potato chips will be next...sorry

[IntrepidXJ]

why can't i choose to eat trans-fats if i like.....and people who don;t want to, don't have to.....maybe that just makes too much sense?

[ECKSJAY]

why can't i choose to eat trans-fats if i like.....and people who don;t want to, don't have to.....maybe that just makes too much sense?

Yeah, too much sense for those who whine about the availability in the first place. Banning anything is just stupid.

[RedHeep]

Leave it all free. If it doesn't affect someone else, it's not the government's business.

IIRC, Ben Franklin said something about revolution and democracy keeping government honest. Maybe it's time we had one.

[ECKSJAY]

Leave it all free. If it doesn't affect someone else, it's not the government's business.

IIRC, Ben Franklin said something about revolution and democracy keeping government honest. Maybe it's time we had one.

We're long overdue for one. ;)

[XJ_Vikings]

Banning trans fat is stupid, if anything just put a surgeon generals warning on anything with trans fat in it.

[yardape]

Hate to be the barer of bad news but this is really about money. The rise of healthcare costs in the U.S. is going to be the biggest challenge in the next century. And is it due to the cost of healthcare? Not really. Its due to the fact that amercians by and large ignore healthy habits. Preventible disease is on the rise. Over 30% of Americans suffer from obesity. As a result so is diabetes which will be the next American epidemic. With diabetes comes healthcare costs associated with amputations and blindness. Its projected that 1 in 10 Americans will have diabetes in the next century and the life expectancy of the average American will go down, not up. I haven't even addressed the effects of smoking and alcohol use. Who's going topay for all of this healthcare? Ultimately you and I.

While I'm not familiar with this particular piece of legislation and its obvious effect on personal rights, I believe that it is rooted in an unprecidented awareness by the medical community, as well as by state and federal officials, that the lifestyle we Americans enjoy will eventually lead us to ruin.

My opinion? We can't keep doing what we're doing. We have young men and women dying overseas to protect the rights and freedoms of a country that is ready to self implode. that is just not right. Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. Many complained about loss of their freedoms after 9/11. while that may be true, what were the other options? There weren't any really.

On this topic I think we're out of options.

[KarlVP]

They haven't banned smoking yet so I dunno.

[Glenn B]

They haven't banned smoking yet so I dunno.

And there are more smokers in NYC that I have seen anywhere since Europe. I love it, makes me feel right at home.

BTW, look for me in NYC for your black-market transfat fries soon. :D

[5-90]

They haven't banned smoking yet so I dunno.

Pretty close. In Los Gatos, you can't smoke outside in a public area (like a sidewalk) as of about 10 years ago.

Some town down South of here (West Covina, I think) recently banned smoking outside, period. Even on private property (which is a futher erosion of property rights.)

CARB has ruled that cigarette smoke is a "recognised pollutant" - I'm wondering if we're going to start seeing "smog check reports" on smokes...

The costs of healthcare may be going up, but that's something that the healthcare industry should address internally as well - and banning anything really is a silly notion. In 1968, they passed a law saying that felons can't own firearms legally. How many people are in prison because they were felons, and found in possession of firearms? More than a few, I'd bet...

What I eat is a personal choice - despite whan the vegetarians and health nazis think. Stay off my plate!

5-90

[RedBluff]

My favorite gun the AR-15.

[Fergie]

Well, after the last thread on this exact subject, the wife and I have changed eating habits.

We are VERY selective about the ingredients in things, and wont eat anything with hydrogenated oils, or enriched flours, and do our best to stay away from the other bad things.

Do I expect someone to do my grocery shopping for me?? NO! This is my choice, and it took me educating myself on the subject matter.

I do not need protection from myself.

Now, as for smoking, there shouldn't be any type of law limiting smoking in private establishments. Owners should be more aware of the health issues and prevent it on their own accord.

As for smoking in public(government owned) places...there is no presumption(currently) of privacy, and the Government is acting like a private property owner, making their own rules for their own establishment.

Fergie

[casm]

Some town down South of here (West Covina, I think) recently banned smoking outside, period. Even on private property (which is a futher erosion of property rights.)

Close-ish - it was Calabasas, not West Covina. The People's Republic of Santa Monica recently followed suit and did the same.

CARB has ruled that cigarette smoke is a "recognised pollutant" - I'm wondering if we're going to start seeing "smog check reports" on smokes...

Does this mean I need a catalytic converter for my American Spirits? Oxygen sensors? Biannual emissions checks at 15 and 25 drags? Will cigars and pipes be emissions-exempt?

F'ing legislation.

[Beej]

I don't have a problem with it. I'd like to see nicotine and alcohol better regulated too.

Banning trans-fats isn't just random like banning asparagus or butter. Trans-fats are extremely unhealthy for you. They are causally linked to all sorts of health problems, which as was pointed out earlier, cost the average consumer a huge amount of money in increased medical costs, just to sustain the gluttony of a few morons who can't tell the difference between good food and poo-burgers.

Obesity is a health epidemic. Its responsible for more cost to medical systems than heart disease. As our generations age and fatten up, the system will bloat up accordingly. Banning trans fats amounts to proactive medicine (in which medical practice acts proactively to prevent health problems) rather than reactive medicine (in which medical practice reacts to solve an existing health problem. The thing is, since the USA is a litiginous society that uses widespread legal ramifications as social control, the start is of course with banning stuff. This is as opposed to a smart move, like putting more money into education...

[RichP]

Cat converters for cows spewing methane, maybe cat material woven into jockey shorts for the more flatulent high carb eating citizens among us.... Portable air conditioners to chill down all that hot air from politicians....

[Glenn B]

I don't have a problem with it. I'd like to see nicotine and alcohol better regulated too.

Banning trans-fats isn't just random like banning asparagus or butter. Trans-fats are extremely unhealthy for you. They are causally linked to all sorts of health problems, which as was pointed out earlier, cost the average consumer a huge amount of money in increased medical costs, just to sustain the gluttony of a few morons who can't tell the difference between good food and poo-burgers.

Obesity is a health epidemic. Its responsible for more cost to medical systems than heart disease. As our generations age and fatten up, the system will bloat up accordingly. Banning trans fats amounts to proactive medicine (in which medical practice acts proactively to prevent health problems) rather than reactive medicine (in which medical practice reacts to solve an existing health problem. The thing is, since the USA is a litiginous society that uses widespread legal ramifications as social control, the start is of course with banning stuff. This is as opposed to a smart move, like putting more money into education...

Or maybe fat/obese people should take steps themselves? For those of us in good healty, sexy trim, and otherwise good to go, it is a shame to see the Govt. stepping in because of some fatties that just cannot stop stuffing their gills with fast food. Hell, food in general. If you are fat, get some excercise and leave the rest of us the XXXX alone. I love my french fries. But the fatties are ruining it.

[WB9YZU]

While I'm not familiar with this particular piece of legislation and its obvious effect on personal rights, I believe that it is rooted in an unprecidented awareness by the medical community, as well as by state and federal officials, that the lifestyle we Americans enjoy will eventually lead us to ruin.

My opinion? We can't keep doing what we're doing. We have young men and women dying overseas to protect the rights and freedoms of a country that is ready to self implode. that is just not right. Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. Many complained about loss of their freedoms after 9/11. while that may be true, what were the other options? There weren't any really.

On this topic I think we're out of options.
Horse crap! People wear out and citys making up their own health rules banning certain foods is just BS. There is a lot of "Psudo Science" behind what fats are "good" and what fats are "bad".

Americans are living longer than any time in history. We don't need to have baby boomers live longer, we need them to die in greater numbers to keep SSI solvent!

Though that is over the top, the "problem" with the healthcare system is that we have too many sick people, because we have too many old people. "We" regulary perform proceedures on people over 70 that we never would have in the past because of the cost/longivity equation. I disslike sounding cold hearted, but these people no longer benifit society, yet, we spend billions keeping them around past their "due date".

I know that's an unpopular view point, but there is a lot of reality there. To play the Devils Advocate, why should we spend to replace the valves in Aunt Martha's 75 year old heart? She can't walk, is on fixed income (SSI) and asside from having sentimental value, adds nothing to society, but we'll spend a fortune replacing her heart valves so she can live a year or two longer and so we can continue to treat her other problems.

Damn, where's my flame suit, it's around here somewhere...

Ron

[5-90]

I can understand that (although unhealthy foods seem to be cyclic - it's good for you, ten years later it's bad, then it's good again, ad infinitum...,) but I don't think legislation is - or ever was or will be - the answer.

Liken it to fireworks. California has made fireworks all but illegal - therefore, every Fourth of July, we see loads of fireworks-related injuries (burns and damage for concussion) in ER's statewide.

In Indiana, fireworks aren't illegal - if you want to get anything decent, you have to get a fire department permit (last time I got one, it was about five bucks and came with a little booklet to read,) and there aren't as many injuries, relatively speaking.

I can damn near guaranteed that more tonnage is set off in IN than in CA - even accounting for the disparity in populations.

What's the difference? IN makes an effort to educate - CA just tries to control. Since there's no "institutional memory" (read: Dad knows how to handle them, and therefore teaches you, and materials for teaching are readily available,) there's a lot of trial and error going on - and more "error" than "trial."

I shan't argue the hazzard in eating trans fats - but I don't need it constantly pushed in my face, and I do not want "government" making that decision for me - that's not what I hired them to do. Educate me, sure - but let me make my own decisions. That's what "free will" is all about (or was that "free willy?")

That's the problem I have with all these bans - they're making decisions for me, and I am big enough and old enough to look after myself - I'd thought. Government doesn't have a good decision-making history anyhow...

Example? FarmerMatt mentioned, earlier this year, that CalAg wanted him to burn a tyre before spraying anything in his orchards? What the Hell! So, will that get him in trouble with CARB/CalEPA? If so, can he pass the fines along to CalAg - or deduct them as a farm expense? And, what's wrong with something harmless - like coloured water - which is what we used to do in my granddad's garden when I was a kid (since it behaved similar to the stuff he sprayed around anyhow...)

If people like that are making decisions for us, I think we should seriously question their sanity and rationality... Hell - burning rubbish is an improvement over burning a tyre - and you can use the ashes in your garden or yard afterwards...

Oh - and I'm not a huge fan of gerontology, either. You want to know MediCare is losing money? My mother-in-law is keeping oxygen companies and PG&E solvent, and it's costing us money. She's got more accessories than Barbie, and her room uses more electricity than the rest of the house together! Ouch...

5-90


I don't have a problem with it. I'd like to see nicotine and alcohol better regulated too.

Banning trans-fats isn't just random like banning asparagus or butter. Trans-fats are extremely unhealthy for you. They are causally linked to all sorts of health problems, which as was pointed out earlier, cost the average consumer a huge amount of money in increased medical costs, just to sustain the gluttony of a few morons who can't tell the difference between good food and poo-burgers.

Obesity is a health epidemic. Its responsible for more cost to medical systems than heart disease. As our generations age and fatten up, the system will bloat up accordingly. Banning trans fats amounts to proactive medicine (in which medical practice acts proactively to prevent health problems) rather than reactive medicine (in which medical practice reacts to solve an existing health problem. The thing is, since the USA is a litiginous society that uses widespread legal ramifications as social control, the start is of course with banning stuff. This is as opposed to a smart move, like putting more money into education...

[Beej]

Or maybe fat/obese people should take steps themselves? For those of us in good healty, sexy trim, and otherwise good to go, it is a shame to see the Govt. stepping in because of some fatties that just cannot stop stuffing their gills with fast food. Hell, food in general. If you are fat, get some excercise and leave the rest of us the XXXX alone. I love my french fries. But the fatties are ruining it. Oh Glenn, you always bring such positive energy...

:D

Its funny how we equate 'trans-fats' with fatness. I was talking about obesity, but I definitely misspoke when I went from talking about trans-fats to talking about obesity. Trans-fats are very unhealthy and lethal to everyone and even in small amounts. That's why they have such a big alarmist risk associated with them. Obesity is a major issue as well, but not necessarily because of trans fats.

Another huge problem is stress. It makes us angry, irritable, bitter, generally emotionally ugly as well as increasing risk of heart disease, increasing heart rate, blood pressure, and artery-clogging while simultaneously decreasing our immune response, benefit from activity and penis-size.

In particular, angry, bitter, fit, ex-military men who smoke and work on computers all day run a serious risk of penis shrinkage...

:greensmok

[5-90]

Many complained about loss of their freedoms after 9/11. while that may be true, what were the other options? There weren't any really.


Options? Thirty years or so ago, we raised our kids to look after themselves and be self-sufficient. Airport security was "broken" long before that - we haven't improved anything. I still wouldn't trust these mental midgets to look after my pet rock (I found it telling that, when I applied to TSA and jumped through all the hoops, the phrase they used was "grossly overqualified." Wisky Tango Foxtrot? Did IQ's drop sharply while I was away?)

Now, I don't have a problem with security, when it's done effectively. In the absence of letting people protect themselves and allowing them the means to do so (ideal,) we should model security after something that works. Witness Israel - when was the last time you heard of a flight coming out of Ben Gurion being hijacked?

The correct answer - never. Ben Gurion is probably the only airport where I felt somewhat safe when unarmed...

Granted, we need to tell the ACLU to shut up so we can actually profile (done correctly, profiling is a means to make more effective use of limited resource. Done wrong, it's racism. It's a fine line - but the Israelis don't seem to cross it...) Take a lesson from people who feel safe when surrounded by enemies - and learn from that.

General opinions on Israel notwithstanding, they've managed to do security properly, and in that regard should be emulated.

5-90

[CanMan]

Or maybe fat/obese people should take steps themselves? For those of us in good healty, sexy trim, and otherwise good to go, it is a shame to see the Govt. stepping in because of some fatties that just cannot stop stuffing their gills with fast food. Hell, food in general. If you are fat, get some excercise and leave the rest of us the XXXX alone. I love my french fries. But the fatties are ruining it.

I agree. I may not be slender or in shape, but quit the bitching about foods. If you don't want em, dont eat em. Simple as that. I like to call them American Fries too.

I hope they ban Canadians next... :D

[Ramsey]

Oh Glenn, you always bring such positive energy...

:D

Its funny how we equate 'trans-fats' with fatness. I was talking about obesity, but I definitely misspoke when I went from talking about trans-fats to talking about obesity. Trans-fats are very unhealthy and lethal to everyone and even in small amounts. That's why they have such a big alarmist risk associated with them. Obesity is a major issue as well, but not necessarily because of trans fats.

Another huge problem is stress. It makes us angry, irritable, bitter, generally emotionally ugly as well as increasing risk of heart disease, increasing heart rate, blood pressure, and artery-clogging while simultaneously decreasing our immune response, benefit from activity and penis-size.

In particular, angry, bitter, fit, ex-military men who smoke and work on computers all day run a serious risk of penis shrinkage...

:greensmok
I love you beej

[CanMan]

Another huge problem is stress. It makes us angry, irritable, bitter, generally emotionally ugly as well as increasing risk of heart disease, increasing heart rate, blood pressure, and artery-clogging while simultaneously decreasing our immune response, benefit from activity and penis-size.

In particular, angry, bitter, fit, ex-military men who smoke and work on computers all day run a serious risk of penis shrinkage...

:greensmok

Facts? :D

[Beej]

Facts? :D Hell no, I'm just makin' it up as I go along...

:greensmok

[CanMan]

Hell no, I'm just makin' it up as I go along...

:greensmok

Sounded about right to me the first time around.

[Powerman]

I think you guys are missing the point. I'm no healthnut. I'm fortunate to eat what I want.. But this is a man made food additive, and there are plenty of other substitutes. Animal fat is better that trans fat, meaning that eating a buch of bacon is better for you that eating stuff made with trans fat. Plus the ban is only for resteraunts. I am all for less government, but don't see this as a huge deal. If you love the stuff so much, go down to your grocery store, get a big ole' can of Crisco and grab a spoon. Eat up, enjoy. Mmmmuuuhh Crisco!:loveu:

[Jeepsloth]

Maybe they should ban personal responsibilty, that would just make all their other efforts to control our lives and determine what's best for us easier. Everyone knows that politicians and lawyers are smarter than everyone else.

[yardape]

Agreed about the need for security.
Now, I don't have a problem with security, when it's done effectively. In the absence of letting people protect themselves and allowing them the means to do so (ideal,) we should model security after something that works. Witness Israel - when was the last time you heard of a flight coming out of Ben Gurion being hijacked?

The correct answer - never. Ben Gurion is probably the only airport where I felt somewhat safe when unarmed...

Granted, we need to tell the ACLU to shut up so we can actually profile (done correctly, profiling is a means to make more effective use of limited resource. Done wrong, it's racism. It's a fine line - but the Israelis don't seem to cross it...) Take a lesson from people who feel safe when surrounded by enemies - and learn from that.

General opinions on Israel notwithstanding, they've managed to do security properly, and in that regard should be emulated.

5-90

Isreal also has one of the best snatch and rescue emergency medical systems in the world. Why? because there is a car bomb or other explosive device being detonated in public spaces every 2 - 3 days. They have plenty of opportunity to parctice on the job. That's a fact that their tourism industry is not quick to advertise. While I don't doubt that airport security may be the best, it also may be at the expense of the general population. And I don't know how there tourism industry impacts the rest of their country

[yardape]

I think you guys are missing the point. I'm no healthnut. I'm fortunate to eat what I want.. But this is a man made food additive, and there are plenty of other substitutes. Animal fat is better that trans fat, meaning that eating a buch of bacon is better for you that eating stuff made with trans fat. Plus the ban is only for resteraunts. I am all for less government, but don't see this as a huge deal. If you love the stuff so much, go down to your grocery store, get a big ole' can of Crisco and grab a spoon. Eat up, enjoy. Mmmmuuuhh Crisco!:loveu:

Agreed. Its not that big of a deal. Its not like "the g-man" is taking away free speech or the right to whatever,.... more importantly, any legislation like this stirs things up,.... like it has here. It makes people think that maybe there is a better way to live and what they are doing to themselves. It makes them think in ways that they normally would not. That's the beginning of education and possibly behavior modification.

[lilredwagn]

Well, after the last thread on this exact subject, the wife and I have changed eating habits.

We are VERY selective about the ingredients in things, and wont eat anything with hydrogenated oils, or enriched flours, and do our best to stay away from the other bad things.

Do I expect someone to do my grocery shopping for me?? NO! This is my choice, and it took me educating myself on the subject matter.

I do not need protection from myself.
Fergie


On the other hand, your thread, which was a direct result (supposed controversy) of the ban brought the issue to my and probably other people's attention. There are so many items to be concerned with, that frankly, the details of why trans-fats are bad and just how bad they are didn't make the to-do list.

A simple statement by the federal government would be ignored like so many other meaningless issues the government takes positions on. Frankly I'm appalled at the language the current S.G. used to describe secondhand smoke (and I'm a liberal ex-smoker). It removed any personal or professional credibility he might have had, and casts doubt on the post as well.

It is possible that local govt. could have informed the public in a successful fashion, but lets face it - the act of proposing a ban has drawn more attention to the issue than any PSA could.

Anyone who reads about this issue and takes the time to read up on trans fats - even if they believe that a ban is asinine - is very likely to modify their own consumption of the product and make themselves more aware of what they are stuffing into their bodies.

By that measure the ban is a necessary and effective piece of public policy whether it passes or not.

[yardape]

On the other hand, your thread, which was a direct result (supposed controversy) of the ban brought the issue to my and probably other people's attention. There are so many items to be concerned with, that frankly, the details of why trans-fats are bad and just how bad they are didn't make the to-do list.

A simple statement by the federal government would be ignored like so many other meaningless issues the government takes positions on. Frankly I'm appalled at the language the current S.G. used to describe secondhand smoke (and I'm a liberal ex-smoker). It removed any personal or professional credibility he might have had, and casts doubt on the post as well.

It is possible that local govt. could have informed the public in a successful fashion, but lets face it - the act of proposing a ban has drawn more attention to the issue than any PSA could.

Anyone who reads about this issue and takes the time to read up on trans fats - even if they believe that a ban is asinine - is very likely to modify their own consumption of the product and make themselves more aware of what they are stuffing into their bodies.

By that measure the ban is a necessary and effective piece of public policy whether it passes or not.

Thankyou. Very well put.

[Matthew Currie]

Agreeing more or less with Powerman and lilredwagon here, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.

First of all, this is a ban for restaurants, not other food sources. Restaurants are traditionally subject to regulation by public health authorities in ways that other things are not, because they are directly a public health concern. People eating in restaurants are not expected to know the details of the ingredients of their meals. They do not have control over the kitchen, and it is not reasonable to expect customers to police the kitchen practices of every restaurant. You can still go to the supermarket and buy a TV dinner or something that's dripping with trans fats, and it will be up to you to read the label, just as it's up to you whether or not you poison yourself with salmonella from badly prepared chicken. Restaurants are different. Restaurants are regulated, in part because without regulation they cannot be trusted.

Trans fats are man made, not a natural part of any food. They're used because they're a cheap flavorful alternative to saturated fats. If McDonald's found that their fries tasted better for less expense dipped in rat poison or lead, you'd have no problem saying they should be forbidden to do so. So why shouldn't they also be prevented from dipping them in another substance that is judged to be a real hazard to public health?

This isn't just a problem of obesity and self control and people taking charge of their own lives, unless you consider it reasonable to say "don't eat at restaurants if you value your health." Even small amounts of trans fats are considered a health risk. You can be thin, fit, and well disciplined, and still, if the food you eat is full of trans fats, known or unknown, you will be at risk.

[RedHeep]

Agreeing more or less with Powerman and lilredwagon here, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.

First of all, this is a ban for restaurants, not other food sources. Restaurants are traditionally subject to regulation by public health authorities in ways that other things are not, because they are directly a public health concern. People eating in restaurants are not expected to know the details of the ingredients of their meals. They do not have control over the kitchen, and it is not reasonable to expect customers to police the kitchen practices of every restaurant. You can still go to the supermarket and buy a TV dinner or something that's dripping with trans fats, and it will be up to you to read the label, just as it's up to you whether or not you poison yourself with salmonella from badly prepared chicken. Restaurants are different. Restaurants are regulated, in part because without regulation they cannot be trusted.

Trans fats are man made, not a natural part of any food. They're used because they're a cheap flavorful alternative to saturated fats. If McDonald's found that their fries tasted better for less expense dipped in rat poison or lead, you'd have no problem saying they should be forbidden to do so. So why shouldn't they also be prevented from dipping them in another substance that is judged to be a real hazard to public health?

This isn't just a problem of obesity and self control and people taking charge of their own lives, unless you consider it reasonable to say "don't eat at restaurants if you value your health." Even small amounts of trans fats are considered a health risk. You can be thin, fit, and well disciplined, and still, if the food you eat is full of trans fats, known or unknown, you will be at risk.

Rat poison or lead can be quantified with facts. Eat poison and die.
The arguement over fats is full of research from different bodies that support and ridicule every facet of both sides. If we trust the government to tell us what is bad for us and subsequently ban it because of their opinion, we're hearing one side of the story.
Is it really bad for you? Probably. But our government doesn't have the right to decide whether or not I eat it, regardless of whether it comes in a restaurant or at the grocery store.
The government in this country has taken a stand on cigarettes, hence the little warning on the label. But I can still go to the store and smoke all the cigarettes I want. I don't want them to be allowed to pick and choose what to make illegal and what to make legal.
This country was founded on the idea that we would be free from government intervention to do what we wanted with our lives. That certainly includes what I put into my digestive system.

[mdl]

If you all understood trans fat you would understand it doesn't need to even be there and theres no point to adding it to food just so the big companys can make more cash by presurving their food longer.

You will still be able to get all of your unhealthy foods that are loved just without the transfat. Who knows... you might have to eat... healthy? Ohh my god...

[5-90]

I try to eat fairly healty to begin with - I just don't see the need for the government to get involved.

Hell, we've got six and a half billion people on this mudball to begin with - and we were overcrowded at four. Maybe we need to clean house a bit? Trans Fats for Asia!

5-90

[87manche]

I nukes for Asia!

5-90
fixed it ;)

[Powerman]

I would be happy to agree with anyone that is upset with this. As soon as you tell me that when you go eat out in New York city, or anywhere for that matter, that you actually insist that your stuff is cooked with partially hydrogenated vegie fat. If you actually will not eat anything fried in that crapppy Canola oil, then this is truly a dark day for you. That is horrible that you can never eat out again in New York city.

There are so many intrusions in my daily life by the Government that pisses me off. That actually impact my life in a "negative" way. That I don't have near the time to talk about on this thread. I haven't lost a wink over this one.

And 5-90 I thought I was the only one that thought the herd needs a little thinning. Maybe this idea will catch on.:laugh:

[5-90]

And 5-90 I thought I was the only one that thought the herd needs a little thinning. Maybe this idea will catch on.:laugh:

Nope - it's not just you.

Maybe that's why "radioactive parking lot" always follows "Middle East" in my mind - to start thinning the herd.

Of course, medical science is somewhat to blame for this. The problem there is twofold - 1) they spend an awful lot of effort to keep culls alive, 2) "advances" in gerontology keep people alive long past their "use by" date. I watch oldsters still loitering about, and I plan to wear out, not rust.

If I get that decrepit, I plan to leave a note and toss myself off of a cliff somewhere, or something. I'll probably keep going on until I hit about 115 and drop dead in my tracks, or get some horrible wasting disease that kills me in a couple of months...

5-90

[crunked]

Partial hydrogenation is an industrial process used to make a perfectly good oil, such as soybean oil, into a perfectly bad oil. The process is used to make an oil more solid; provide longer shelf-life in baked products; provide longer fry-life for cooking oils, and provide a certain kind of texture or "mouthfeel." The big problem is that partially hydrogenated oil is laden with lethal trans fat.

-excerpt from bantransfats.com

viva la BAN.

There is alot of documented medical info on that site about trans-fats. I understand the hesitance to allow the government to ban something, however this junk is bad. Even lead was used medicinally till it was found to be bad...go enjoy your trans-fat by the spoonful, this is america afterall and it tastes sooooo good.

~SM

[stewie]

i just think its a govt conspiracy to keep ramsey and beej from getting any lovin from fat chicks!

[5-90]

viva la BAN.

There is alot of documented medical info on that site about trans-fats. I understand the hesitance to allow the government to ban something, however this junk is bad. Even lead was used medicinally till it was found to be bad...go enjoy your trans-fat by the spoonful, this is america afterall and it tastes sooooo good.

~SM

I don't "enjoy" trans fats (or whatever the Hell else is supposed to be bad for me,) but I do have issue with controlling things by legislation. Educate people, let them make their own decisions, and keep in mind that a free market is essentially self-correcting - if people stop going to a certain place, they're going to find out why now. Then, they'll correct that problem.

Once legislators start banning things - for whatever reason - they get the idea that it's OK to keep doing so. Eventually, "What is not forbidden is mandatory, what is not mandatory is forbidden." That's not a place I want to live.

Granted, most people are becoming rather soft in the head, but that can be fixed as well, if we fix education... A four-year GenEd degree is roughly comparable to my high school diploma - maybe a touch lower on the scale. Didn't used to be that way...

5-90

[crunked]

"Once legislators start banning things - for whatever reason - they get the idea that it's OK to keep doing so. Eventually, "What is not forbidden is mandatory, what is not mandatory is forbidden." That's not a place I want to live."


I agree with this statment. I too feel that actions like this lead to a slippery slope. where does it stop, when does it affect me, when are they gonna ban hamburgers, because everyone knows they are bad for you. Would you rather have a policy change, say, put out by the FDA? That is not really legislation. It is based on scientific study and supported with evidence. Look at the products they control that nobody knows about, remember the pesticde DDT? That was rumored to cause cancer and many other medical and developmental problems in children. When it was banned, farmers, dusters, retailers had a fit then too(although many relatively harmful products are legally allowed to be placed in foods). The two issues are similar, there are suitable substitues. I feel that trans-fats are something that slipped into the marketplace without sufficent evidence of its effects, and now that we are becoming aware, it is time to change. Maybe a warning label, maybe a ban. Trans-fats are not something your average consumers choose to consume, it just happens to be there (just like DDT just happened to be there), and it could be replaced by any number of less harmful oils.

I dont like the public smoking laws. Lets use this as an example. If I owned a bar/grill, and NYC told me that I would be a non-smoking establishment because smoking is bad, I would feel violated. There are other options here, negative pressure to clear a smoking section...or just a sign that states this is a smoking facility...let people make their own decision. There is no substitute for smokers. Its not like I can go down to the corner store and pick up a pack of smoke free cigs so I can go bar hopping. The trans-fat issue is different to me, simply because there is an alterative (regular, healthier oil), simply because most people dont care if their food gets fried in partially hydrogenated crap or not. To eliminate trans-fat in food is something that can help those that dont care to help themselves without infringing on freedom (maybe viewed differently by shop owners/suppliers as I am not certain of cost differences at this time). I am not aware of anyone that seeks trans-fat foods because of a preference...it is just there and people consume it because it is.

just my .02

~SM

[5-90]

"Once legislators start banning things - for whatever reason - they get the idea that it's OK to keep doing so. Eventually, "What is not forbidden is mandatory, what is not mandatory is forbidden." That's not a place I want to live."


I agree with this statment. I too feel that actions like this lead to a slippery slope. where does it stop, when does it affect me, when are they gonna ban hamburgers, because everyone knows they are bad for you. Would you rather have a policy change, say, put out by the FDA? That is not really legislation. It is based on scientific study and supported with evidence. Look at the products they control that nobody knows about, remember the pesticde DDT? That was rumored to cause caner and many other medical and developmental problems in children, and when it was banned farmers, dusters, retailers had a fit then too(although many relatively harmful products are legally allowed to be placed in foods). The two issues are similar, there are suitable substitues. I feel that trans-fats are something that slipped into the marketplace without sufficent evidence of its effects, and now that we are becoming aware, it is time to change. Maybe a warning label, maybe a ban. Trans-fats are not something your average consumers choose to consume, it just happens to be there (just like DDT just happened to be there), and it could be replaced by any number of less harmful oils.

I dont like the public smoking laws. Lets use this as an example. If I owned a bar/grill, and NYC told me that I would be a non-smoking establishment because smoking is bad, I would feel violated. There are other options here, negative pressure to clear a smoking section...or just a sign that states this is a smoking facility...let people make their own decision. There is no substitute for smokers. Its not like I can go down to the corner store and pick up a pack of smoke free cigs so I can go bar hopping. The trans-fat issue is different to me, simply because there is an alterative (regular, healthier oil), simply because most people dont care if their food gets fried in partially hydrogenated crap or not. To eliminate trans-fat in food is something that can help those that dont care to help themselves without infringing on freedom (maybe viewed differently by shop owners/suppliers as I am not certain of cost differences at this time). I am not aware of anyone that seeks trans-fat foods because of a preference...it is just there and people consume it because it is.

just my .02

~SM

Let me throw this one out at you - did you know that it's possible for Congress to pass a law, without actually voting on it, and without making it public knowledge?

Check your Congressional regulations (I don't recall which offhand, I'd have to dig myself) - if something is published in The Congressional Register for 180 days, without being rescinded, commented upon, countermaded, or even read, it carries the force of law - just like if they'd voted on it, passed it, and the President signed it.

I'd like to know how that happened... There are Federal laws that you can go to prison for breaking that you won't find in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations - which is where they're supposed to be...

I know that's Federal, but I'd be quite surprised if major metropolitan areas (SJC, SFO, LAX, NYC, CHI, &c.) and most states don't have something similar - I just haven't had time to dig lately.

WTF, over? It's not enough that we keep getting asinine laws passed that we do know about, what about the ones we don't know about?

5-90

[crunked]

It is kinda scary isnt it. If only we could sneak in a flat tax bill, page 164 under the 3/4 page supermarket ad we would have it made.


~SM

[5-90]

It is kinda scary isnt it. If only we could sneak in a flat tax bill, page 164 under the 3/4 page supermarket ad we would have it made.


~SM

Do you one better - sneak in a tax bill saying what 26CFR does for jurisdiction - you are subject to either Federal income tax or state income tax, not both. Again, I'd have to check (and I haven't been doing any legal digging since I got really started on Jeep books - and it's too much to change gears there...) but there's a section in 26CFR that says exactly that. The only place you are subject to Federal income tax is DC, residents of military posts, and US possessions - in other words, if you live on Federal land (by that logic, Indian reservations are also not subject to state sales tax.) If you live on Federal land, you are not under state jurisdiction, and they can't tax you.

If you live on land under control of a state (off Federal land,) you are not legally subject to Federal income tax, although you have to pay state taxes.

So, why is the government "double-dipping" into my pocket? Spread the word (and, if you find the cites, please pass them back) and maybe we can organise some civil disobedience. I know they can put you in prison for not paying taxes, but what happens if we can get a couple million people to do it all at once?

5-90

[RedHeep]

I know they can put you in prison for not paying taxes, but what happens if we can get a couple million people to do it all at once?

5-90

It's called a revolution. :) We had one once for the same reason.

I don't mind the taxes so much, it's the federal funded test to see how ketchup flows that drives me insane. Cut out 90% of the stuff we spend money on to just spend money and all of the sudden taxes don't seem so bad.

[87manche]

Do you one better - sneak in a tax bill saying what 26CFR does for jurisdiction - you are subject to either Federal income tax or state income tax, not both. Again, I'd have to check (and I haven't been doing any legal digging since I got really started on Jeep books - and it's too much to change gears there...) but there's a section in 26CFR that says exactly that. The only place you are subject to Federal income tax is DC, residents of military posts, and US possessions - in other words, if you live on Federal land (by that logic, Indian reservations are also not subject to state sales tax.) If you live on Federal land, you are not under state jurisdiction, and they can't tax you.

If you live on land under control of a state (off Federal land,) you are not legally subject to Federal income tax, although you have to pay state taxes.

So, why is the government "double-dipping" into my pocket? Spread the word (and, if you find the cites, please pass them back) and maybe we can organise some civil disobedience. I know they can put you in prison for not paying taxes, but what happens if we can get a couple million people to do it all at once?

5-90
techinically you don't have to pay taxes, you just have to file.
http://www.paynoincometax.com/
this guy has been doing that for years, they finally busted him for something. Apparently he's appealing.
I've heard him on the radio, didn't sound like a total crackpot.

[mdl]

God damnit people. Do you understand this shit? It doesn't need to be there! IT'S A GOD DAMN PRESERVITIVE! Trans fat is allready banned in almost ALL europe and asia.

Do you think the government should allow dangerous drugs? Guess what... Trans fat is dangerous too. It doesn't have a strong bearing on taste. It doesn't belong in food. Anyone who says that its a bad thing doesn't really truely understand trans fats. They didn't exist 100 years ago. They don't need to exist any longer.

[rocklandxjer]

well put.
i dont think you can argue against that except the

well we have the right to choose what we eat...

even though, no.. we don't. we have no bearing over what goes into the foods we eat unless we make them ourselves. so whats the big deal if a dangerous artificial preservative is banned. the only thing that is happening is the Government is taking a step to make people healthier. and it doesnt even really negatively effect anybody at all..

[5-90]

well put.
i dont think you can argue against that except the

well we have the right to choose what we eat...

even though, no.. we don't. we have no bearing over what goes into the foods we eat unless we make them ourselves. so whats the big deal if a dangerous artificial preservative is banned. the only thing that is happening is the Government is taking a step to make people healthier. and it doesnt even really negatively effect anybody at all..

The issue isn't whether the stuff is healthy or isn't - the issue is that the government feels the need to ban something else.

The purpose of a government is to protect the body politic from threats from without. People protect themselves on an individual basis. And, a free market is essentially self-correcting - educate people on something being wrong, and the entire issue will self-correct.

At no time did I say that trans fats are not unhealthy - I don't know (personally) one way or the other. However, as long as governments can ban things at will (instead of letting the market see to itself,) they'll keep going while thinking that it's perfectly all right, and they can ban anything they like as long as they can present justification (however loose or specious.)

The issue is government - not trans fats...

5-90

[yardape]

The issue isn't whether the stuff is healthy or isn't - the issue is that the government feels the need to ban something else.

The purpose of a government is to protect the body politic from threats from without. People protect themselves on an individual basis. And, a free market is essentially self-correcting - educate people on something being wrong, and the entire issue will self-correct.

5-90
Honestly, the govenment is not an entity that feels anything. Its a body of men and women making their best guesses based on information provided by their staffers, consituents, husbands, wives, and unfortunately special interst groups (lobbyists).

I guess my question to you then is "Why just from without?" Sometimes the pulic requires protection from within or one another. Wether it be an abusive parent, a maniacal shooter, an angry student who decides to rampage his high school with guns and explosives or a corporate entity putting a chemical into our food that has the health advntages of rat poison. Education is a good thing but its not a magic pill to correct all the worlds' or all our own internal ills. Its the government that legislated laws against murder, rape, larceny, you name it because there are people and corporations out there who will do anything out of anger or to make a buck. Quite frankly I prefer being protected by our laws, educated or not. It frustrates me that laws may be hard if not impossible to enforce, but I believe they keep alot of potentials from crossing the line.

[XJ Dreamin']

The issue isn't whether the stuff is healthy or isn't - the issue is that the government feels the need to ban something else.

The purpose of a government is to protect the body politic from threats from without. People protect themselves on an individual basis. And, a free market is essentially self-correcting - educate people on something being wrong, and the entire issue will self-correct.

At no time did I say that trans fats are not unhealthy - I don't know (personally) one way or the other. However, as long as governments can ban things at will (instead of letting the market see to itself,) they'll keep going while thinking that it's perfectly all right, and they can ban anything they like as long as they can present justification (however loose or specious.)

The issue is government - not trans fats...

5-90

There is no such thing as a free market. Any unregulated market will be monopolized. There, I said it.

[XJ Dreamin']

God damnit people. Do you understand this shit? It doesn't need to be there! IT'S A GOD DAMN PRESERVITIVE! Trans fat is allready banned in almost ALL europe and asia.

Do you think the government should allow dangerous drugs? Guess what... Trans fat is dangerous too. It doesn't have a strong bearing on taste. It doesn't belong in food. Anyone who says that its a bad thing doesn't really truely understand trans fats. They didn't exist 100 years ago. They don't need to exist any longer.

Well, trans fat has existed for a long time. It is natural in dairy products and red meat. The issue in NYC is 'artificial' trans fat that is used for deep frying because it's cheaper. That's why the restuaranteurs do not want to change. Changing to 'healthier' fats will cut into their profit margins to the tune of 3 or 4 cents a gallon (just guessing there, but there is a reason they use 'artificial' trans fat and that is because it is cheaper). Fats were originally partially hydrogenated to change their melting temperature and to prolong shelf life (ala Crisco - which contains no trans fats but costs more than 'artificial' trans fats). A by product of partial hydrogenation is 'artificial' trans fats. All trans fats are bad in quantity. 'Artificial' trans fats are more prevalent because they are cheaper than natual trans fats and trans fat-free products. Eliminating 'artificial' trans fats from the restaurants won't change the taste or availability of any food products. It might make them a bit more expensive.

Oh, and it's not a preservative - it's a fat.

[Matthew Currie]

well put.
i dont think you can argue against that except the

well we have the right to choose what we eat...

even though, no.. we don't. we have no bearing over what goes into the foods we eat unless we make them ourselves. so whats the big deal if a dangerous artificial preservative is banned. the only thing that is happening is the Government is taking a step to make people healthier. and it doesnt even really negatively effect anybody at all..

You still have a right to choose what you eat. The difference here is the question of whether a restaurant should have the right to choose what it serves, and that really is a different issue. Restaurants are inherently a public health concern.

[rocklandxjer]

the restaurants have as much say in what they serve as we do in what we eat. the things they serve homemade (meaning they chose to create this dish) will not have the trans fats in them (most likely)

those that are processed or bought from a distributer may. so the only people that are being subjected to this ban are the people who make the foods with trans fat.

I guarentee restaurant owners could care less whether their meat has trans fat or any other type of artificial thing in it. as long as people eat it.

[Beej]

I went out to buy a bucket of trans fats to run a little "experiment". I thought I would eat the bucket and see what happened.

So apparently I didn't read the label closely enough and it turns out I bought "Tranny Fat" instead of "Trans Fat".

So now I'm sitting here with makeup on in a Chanel dress holding an appointment slip for sexual reassignment surgery scheduled for this afternoon and I don't know what to do...

[5-90]

Do you think the government should allow dangerous drugs?

Now there's an interesting statement! Frankly, this whole "warn on drugs" we're embroiled in is a losing battle - and Einstein once defined insanity as "Doing the same thing the same way, over and over, while expecting a different result."

Look at the figures, the problems, and the issues (not to mention the incarceree population!) involved in drugs. Now, filter out manufacturers and dealers - but stick to the users. Guess what? Some 95% of the people in jail or prison for drug offences are users - and some become users in prison!

Insane.

I favour taking the opposite approach - begin by decriminalising drugs. Government production (Hell, give me some of what Congress is smoking - should be good!) to regulate potency, reduce dangerous "cuts," and generate a tax base for dealing with drug-related problems. You'll start seeing "drug-related" deaths decline (except for OD, I'll grant you,) and the concurrent reduction in price will drop street crime to "support a habit" as well.

Now, regulate it in the same manner as booze - you can drink at home, just don't drive anywhere, right? Don't show up for work drunk/stoned/buzzed/tweeked/whatever - keep it at home. Don't drive while you're flying. Provide sentence enhancements (which we don't normally have) for crimes committed while under the influence.

Remember that "tax base" we generated? Make it similar to the excise charged for booze - but make sure it's earmarked for educational campaigns. We hear about controlling your booze intake all the time, no? Make something similar for dope - "Don't Dope and Drive," or something like that.

Will it work? Who can say? However, it's got to be better than what we're doing - which patently isn't working! This has been going for a good forty years - it's time to try something new.

Drugs are a very good case of a ban that doesn't work.

5-90

[5-90]

I went out to buy a bucket of trans fats to run a little "experiment". I thought I would eat the bucket and see what happened.

So apparently I didn't read the label closely enough and it turns out I bought "Tranny Fat" instead of "Trans Fat".

So now I'm sitting here with makeup on in a Chanel dress holding an appointment slip for sexual reassignment surgery scheduled for this afternoon and I don't know what to do...

You know, I've not seen a picture of you - but I'm still willing to bet you'd make for one ugly chick! :laugh3:

[rocklandxjer]

I went out to buy a bucket of trans fats to run a little "experiment". I thought I would eat the bucket and see what happened.

So apparently I didn't read the label closely enough and it turns out I bought "Tranny Fat" instead of "Trans Fat".

So now I'm sitting here with makeup on in a Chanel dress holding an appointment slip for sexual reassignment surgery scheduled for this afternoon and I don't know what to do...

At least you have your health Beej

[XJ Dreamin']

I went out to buy a bucket of trans fats to run a little "experiment". I thought I would eat the bucket and see what happened.

So apparently I didn't read the label closely enough and it turns out I bought "Tranny Fat" instead of "Trans Fat".

So now I'm sitting here with makeup on in a Chanel dress holding an appointment slip for sexual reassignment surgery scheduled for this afternoon and I don't know what to do...

What's the problem?? :dunno:

damn! Rocklander beat me to it!

Crap!! 5-90 beat me to it!!!!!!

[Beej]

Now there's an interesting statement! Frankly, this whole "warn on drugs" we're embroiled in is a losing battle - and Einstein once defined insanity as "Doing the same thing the same way, over and over, while expecting a different result."

Look at the figures, the problems, and the issues (not to mention the incarceree population!) involved in drugs. Now, filter out manufacturers and dealers - but stick to the users. Guess what? Some 95% of the people in jail or prison for drug offences are users - and some become users in prison!

Insane.

I favour taking the opposite approach - begin by decriminalising drugs. Government production (Hell, give me some of what Congress is smoking - should be good!) to regulate potency, reduce dangerous "cuts," and generate a tax base for dealing with drug-related problems. You'll start seeing "drug-related" deaths decline (except for OD, I'll grant you,) and the concurrent reduction in price will drop street crime to "support a habit" as well.

Now, regulate it in the same manner as booze - you can drink at home, just don't drive anywhere, right? Don't show up for work drunk/stoned/buzzed/tweeked/whatever - keep it at home. Don't drive while you're flying. Provide sentence enhancements (which we don't normally have) for crimes committed while under the influence.

Remember that "tax base" we generated? Make it similar to the excise charged for booze - but make sure it's earmarked for educational campaigns. We hear about controlling your booze intake all the time, no? Make something similar for dope - "Don't Dope and Drive," or something like that.

Will it work? Who can say? However, it's got to be better than what we're doing - which patently isn't working! This has been going for a good forty years - it's time to try something new.

Drugs are a very good case of a ban that doesn't work.

5-90 True Jon, decriminalizing, regulating and taxing street drugs would provide billions in tax money and get rid of many of the associated problems of drug use...

[rocklandxjer]

well it would rid america of the LEGAL problems of drug use...:greensmok

although, think about it, if they were legal, but cost hundreds of dollars more than they do now, less people would buy them and use them. and those who choose too, will be funding the rest of us

[5-90]

well it would rid america of the LEGAL problems of drug use...:greensmok

although, think about it, if they were legal, but cost hundreds of dollars more than they do now, less people would buy them and use them. and those who choose too, will be funding the rest of us

Not so. Prices keep going up - and the more we try to clamp down on dope, the higher the prices will climb, and the more street crime will be associated with dope (I've been through a few attempted muggings, and they all had "tracks." Figures - I don't think any rational kid would stick a knife in my face..)

Reduce the prices, remove the mystique. The rest of the problems, mainly, are economically-related or -generated - and I've got an idea for that as well (re-valuate the dollar, return to the "Gold Standard" - Hell, bring back "specie money" and get rid of this "fiat money" that's worth what they say it's worth. I don't have a lot of faith in money that is backed by "the full faith and credit" of a country that is now several trillion dollars in debt!

And, while we're about it, level out the annual trade deficit of several billion dollars a year, or just tell Congress that any trade deficit will be made up for out of their pockets...)

I've got my ideas. Perhaps I should start working on that monograph I've been kicking around - I should flesh a few of these out...

5-90

[XJ Dreamin']

Most of those drugs are addicting. The addict rarely has a choice without intervention. Make it legal and let them die and cull the herd. But, making an addictive substance legal won't affect it's addictive potential. It will bring with it a whole mess of liability. These drugs were legal at one time. The legal addicts of the time were such a PITA that the drugs were put under lock and key. I would guess that your expected windfall from taxes will be used up double or triple in intervention and liability management.


edit: I removed the Rocklander qoute to give my reply a more general aim. I'm just 'Quote' button happy.

[rocklandxjer]

Thats what i figure. i mean, drugs are not like alcohol, if you were to make alcohol legal to all ages, it would become less of a mysterious thing to youths and would eventually reduce the incidents among teens and early twenty year olds (after the idiots are ridden of)

Although, drugs are different, even if you allow the mystery to die, those who try it will become addicted and the problem will still persist. and those who cant afford it would continue to use street crime as a way to try to get the drugs they need.

[XJ Dreamin']

Thats what i figure. i mean, drugs are not like alcohol, if you were to make alcohol legal to all ages, it would become less of a mysterious thing to youths and would eventually reduce the incidents among teens and early twenty year olds (after the idiots are ridden of)

Although, drugs are different, even if you allow the mystery to die, those who try it will become addicted and the problem will still persist. and those who cant afford it would continue to use street crime as a way to try to get the drugs they need.

I'll need to do some searching, but even without searching I'm willing to bet a BFing that alcohol, dispite being one of the milder of the addictive substances, actually has a greater financial impact on the country due to ease of access than all of the 'illegal' substances combined. In spite of all the press coverage, crack in no way has the same distribution that alcohol does.

Bring back prohibition? Nah, that battle was lost, but it turned out to be a financial battle, not a moral one. It costs less to regulate it than ban it. But, you increase access to some of the more powerful substances and you'll end up paying for every cc of air you breath just to pay for the damage. Drinking and driving a problem? You're talking about a whole different class of problem when you bring in heroine, cocaine, crack and that chit.

Just the fact that teenagers have easy access to alcohol does not mean that increasing access will relieve the problem. Most try it regardless, because it's there. A percentage of them will become addicted. I tried it and didn't become addicted. I have a beer now and then - haven't had anything hard in some time, now. Haven't been drunk since college. Don't miss it. I tried cigarettes and spent 20 years trying to kick it (been clean 6 years 7 months thanks to some 'outside' intervention).

The war on drugs is failing because it's a defensive war. After 9-11 (for whatever reasons led up to it) we didn't sit around and wait for more. We went after them because we perceive a real theat to our national security. And yet, with drugs we just sit around and wait for the chit to pour in. I say once we're done with the terrorists we need to take the same whoopa$$ to the drug producers. Shut it down at the source. It's as much a threat to our security as terrorism.

[rocklandxjer]

I think you may have misunderstood what i was trying to say.

If alcohol were introduced earlier, yes, youths would drink it, and many would get "too drunk" or "stupid drunk" but i think the majority of kids would know the limits and it would become more of a social thing than it already is.

but drugs, you cant just expect the users to understand its bad and stop using it. its addictive.

[XJ Dreamin']

I think you may have misunderstood what i was trying to say.

If alcohol were introduced earlier, yes, youths would drink it, and many would get "too drunk" or "stupid drunk" but i think the majority of kids would know the limits and it would become more of a social thing than it already is.

but drugs, you cant just expect the users to understand its bad and stop using it. its addictive.

Alcohol is addictive, just not as addictive as some other substances. If you provide access to alcohol at a younger age the majority would not become addicted because that is the distribution of susceptibility for addiction to alcohol in the general public. Earlier exposure will only serve to 'cull' out those susceptible at an earlier age. If we just eliminated those who demonstrate addictive behavior we wouldn't have to pay for their rehab or the damages they cause (and the membership of NAXJA would plummet), but that is not acceptable in the US, and I don't promote it seriously.

What I am saying is that 18 seems to be the age at which the cost of regulation balances the cost of liability. Reducing the age of access would only increase the cost of liability, not decrease the cost of regulation.

Now when you talk about something like crack with a nearly 100% susceptibility, there is no point at which the liability of legalizing access can match the cost of regulation.

I still say go after production - wherever and however necessary.

edit - addition: I guess the real question for NYC is: What is the suseptibility for addiction to artificial trans fats? What kind of black market will rise up in the wake of regulation? :D

[Powerman]

Now there's an interesting statement! Frankly, this whole "warn on drugs" we're embroiled in is a losing battle - and Einstein once defined insanity as "Doing the same thing the same way, over and over, while expecting a different result."

Look at the figures, the problems, and the issues (not to mention the incarceree population!) involved in drugs. Now, filter out manufacturers and dealers - but stick to the users. Guess what? Some 95% of the people in jail or prison for drug offences are users - and some become users in prison!

Insane.

I favour taking the opposite approach - begin by decriminalising drugs. Government production (Hell, give me some of what Congress is smoking - should be good!) to regulate potency, reduce dangerous "cuts," and generate a tax base for dealing with drug-related problems. You'll start seeing "drug-related" deaths decline (except for OD, I'll grant you,) and the concurrent reduction in price will drop street crime to "support a habit" as well.

Now, regulate it in the same manner as booze - you can drink at home, just don't drive anywhere, right? Don't show up for work drunk/stoned/buzzed/tweeked/whatever - keep it at home. Don't drive while you're flying. Provide sentence enhancements (which we don't normally have) for crimes committed while under the influence.

Remember that "tax base" we generated? Make it similar to the excise charged for booze - but make sure it's earmarked for educational campaigns. We hear about controlling your booze intake all the time, no? Make something similar for dope - "Don't Dope and Drive," or something like that.

Will it work? Who can say? However, it's got to be better than what we're doing - which patently isn't working! This has been going for a good forty years - it's time to try something new.

Drugs are a very good case of a ban that doesn't work.

5-90

You just love to argue don't you?:yap: In your example look at the incredible amount of regulation you are proposing. The drug market right now is a free market and self regulating. The impact on our society sucks. I'm not trying to debate free markets. You propose a ton of regulation of the activity. 2 totaly different problems. And don't use a trans fat ban is anything like the ban on drugs. Nobody is robbing Grandma for her trans fats.

Also, decriminalizing drugs is not a good idea. It is a horrible idea. It just happens to be a much better idea that the absolutly horrendous one we have in place right now. Look at alcohol. It is legal and regulated. This is a drinking nation. Alcohol cost this country more each year than all the illicit drugs COMBINED. Fact. If alcohol was such a shinning model, we would have rehabs on every corner, no winos sleeping under bridges, and no drunk driving, and all that sin tax base would be paying for it. That doesn't exist.

To even link these two subjects is rediculous. You do exactly the same as me. I look at the menu, order my food, and eat what is on my plate. I don't mind my plate being regulated with standards and safeguards. I am still free to throw whatever goop down my pie hole I want, but at least I am not at the mercy of a unscrupulous restersaunt owner that wants to make a nickle off of feeding me crap. I can still get as big as a house ordering a blooming onion, and bacon cheese potato skins cooked in good oil. In fact, now I can order more. Woohoo, make that a double! Hell while we are at it, do away with fire codes and seating capacities, those are stupid regulations too.

[Beej]

You just love to argue don't you?:yap: In your example look at the incredible amount of regulation you are proposing. The drug market right now is a free market and self regulating. The impact on our society sucks. I'm not trying to debate free markets. You propose a ton of regulation of the activity. 2 totaly different problems. And don't use a trans fat ban is anything like the ban on drugs. Nobody is robbing Grandma for her trans fats.

Also, decriminalizing drugs is not a good idea. It is a horrible idea. It just happens to be a much better idea that the absolutly horrendous one we have in place right now. Look at alcohol. It is legal and regulated. This is a drinking nation. Alcohol cost this country more each year than all the illicit drugs COMBINED. Fact. If alcohol was such a shinning model, we would have rehabs on every corner, no winos sleeping under bridges, and no drunk driving, and all that sin tax base would be paying for it. That doesn't exist.

To even link these two subjects is rediculous. You do exactly the same as me. I look at the menu, order my food, and eat what is on my plate. I don't mind my plate being regulated with standards and safeguards. I am still free to throw whatever goop down my pie hole I want, but at least I am not at the mercy of a unscrupulous restersaunt owner that wants to make a nickle off of feeding me crap. I can still get as big as a house ordering a blooming onion, and bacon cheese potato skins cooked in good oil. In fact, now I can order more. Woohoo, make that a double! Hell while we are at it, do away with fire codes and seating capacities, those are stupid regulations too. To quote 5-90, "piffle".

Decriminalization does nothing but good for a society. Comparing it to alcohol abuse is foolish. Alcohol and nicotine are the two deadliest drugs known. That's not an overstatement. It can be backed up by some quick and simple research. They are 'legal' and regulated. Combined they still make up the vast majority of deaths related to consumption and deterioration of health due to substance use... Look at other countries that have different regulation around drug abuse than the US. The USA, with the strictest regulation and laws has, by far, the most far reaching and consequential drug problem in the world. Time for some new thinking...

[Powerman]

I think you may have misunderstood what i was trying to say.

If alcohol were introduced earlier, yes, youths would drink it, and many would get "too drunk" or "stupid drunk" but i think the majority of kids would know the limits and it would become more of a social thing than it already is.

but drugs, you cant just expect the users to understand its bad and stop using it. its addictive.


I just picked this quote in general to say you guys have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. Alcohol is an addictive chemical just like every other addictive chemical. The only reason it is viewed as a lesser addictive substance is because we are a nation of drunk Anglo Saxons, while the other substances are a small minority. In the brain alcohol breaks down to a opiate like substance, everymuch as addictive as heroin. Addiction is a disease. Call it a mental disorder if you please. Addicts brains of all substances have been shown to be different that "normal" ones in test after test, and study after study. There is no law, regulation, nurturing, upbringing, or support that will change that.

[Powerman]

To quote 5-90, "piffle".

Decriminalization does nothing but good for a society. Comparing it to alcohol abuse is foolish. Alcohol and nicotine are the two deadliest drugs known. That's not an overstatement. It can be backed up by some quick and simple research. They are 'legal' and regulated. Combined they still make up the vast majority of deaths related to consumption and deterioration of health due to substance use... Look at other countries that have different regulation around drug abuse than the US. The USA, with the strictest regulation and laws has, by far, the most far reaching and consequential drug problem in the world. Time for some new thinking...

Agreed, decriminalization ends the flow of money to criminal enterprizes. It would be much better for society to decriminalize, but it would change nothing for addicts. I stand by what I said. Decriminalization is not a silver bullet, or a great idea, but for society, it is a much better practice that the nonsense we have going on now.

There are a lot of reason we have the worst drug problem in the World. Decriminalization has drove addiction underground and made it worse, but to make to make a cause and effect statement that our drug problem has been cause by our laws is just plain false.

[rocklandxjer]

do you all seriously believe that alcohol is a seriously addictive substance??

the only reason its more used than things like "crack" is because people know the effects of the drugs like crack. alcohol has no such effects. it is fermented wheat and hops. its not like any drugs that we call "hardcore drugs"
People are the cause of alcohol abuse, not its chemical makeup.
people make stupid decisions about its use, they know its an inhibitor and yet they choose to drive, or drink so much of it that they actually poison themselves.

[Powerman]

do you all seriously believe that alcohol is a seriously addictive substance??

the only reason its more used than things like "crack" is because people know the effects of the drugs like crack. alcohol has no such effects. it is fermented wheat and hops. its not like any drugs that we call "hardcore drugs"
People are the cause of alcohol abuse, not its chemical makeup.
people make stupid decisions about its use, they know its an inhibitor and yet they choose to drive, or drink so much of it that they actually poison themselves.

Again, I say respectfuly that you are completely ignorant of this subject. All substances act on our own brain chemistry and the pleasure drug Dopamine. The different chemicals take different routes to that mechanism, but that is where they all end. Routes taken, frequency of use, and other behaviours have influence as to a substances addictiveness, but all do the same thing in the end. Alcohol is one of the most destructive and addicting substances there is to an alcoholic. No different than cocaine or opium to others that prefer those substances.

Don't even think that I am sugesting that people are not responsible for their action, but your statement above is the prime reason that drugs are illegal. Society has belived it is a choice problem for centuries. Decades of research and results show that it is not the choice, but the reason it is made that is the problem. Another reason why criminalization has done nothing to change it.

[5-90]

it is fermented wheat and hops.

Depends on what you're drinking...

Beer - barley & hops
Rum - sugar cane
Bourbon - corn mash
Tequila - Agave cactus pulp/juice

That's what gives everything its distinctive flavour - and something in the agave seems to effect me negatively. Last time I got drunk on tequila... Let me just that that no-one was hurt permanently, and I don't drink the stuff anymore (I tend to stick to rum anyhow.)

That's also why you can have "different drunks" on different booze. It would be similar to having "different cuts."

But, I digress. The two problems are not dissimilar - and the problem is really the same. Boiled down to its essence, it's government control.

I'll agree that there need to be some regulations on a free market - but it is essentially self-correcting otherwise, and an educated populace will cause the market to correct itself.

Anyhow, Powerman, what solution do you propose? You don't like mine, so you've probably got something in mind. It's not enough to just automatically say "that won't work" - not without providing an alternative. Your solution may be as extreme as mine (in the other direction) with the solution either somewhere in the middle or taking elements of both - but if you don't like my idea, I'd like to hear yours. You never know - I may like it just as well.

5-90

[rocklandxjer]

5-90
thanks, yea i was just using hops as an example.

i just dont understand how you assume (not specifically anyone, you as in "one") that alcohol is a drug. i guess it could be grouped as a destructive substance, but only to alcoholics. how destructive is it to the normal person? do you see people who drink one or two drinks at a sitting crashing and going nuts, waiting for their next fix? however, how many of those who have just one or two hits of crack or cocaine do you see agitatively waiting until their next hit?

i dont see how you can compare the severity of alcohol and the severity of hard drugs like heroin.

[Powerman]

Anyhow, Powerman, what solution do you propose? You don't like mine, so you've probably got something in mind. It's not enough to just automatically say "that won't work" - not without providing an alternative. Your solution may be as extreme as mine (in the other direction) with the solution either somewhere in the middle or taking elements of both - but if you don't like my idea, I'd like to hear yours. You never know - I may like it just as well.

5-90

We are on the same page 5-90. Legalization won't solve our problems, but it is a far better solution than Criminalization. Addicts will still be addicts. Drunks commit crimes to support their legal habit. Decriminalization will take the enormous profits out of the pockets of organized crime. That in itself is a huge benifit to "society". I belive that addicts should have avenues for rehab paid for by society because it benifits both the addict and society.

Make no mistake about it, I do not believe addicts and alcoholics are not responsible for their own problem. Let's say that if you are a criminal and have a habit, and you admit that and are defered to drug treatment instead of prison. Cool. But let's say 3 strikes you are out. If they are unwilling to take the help offered, and continue to be a threat to society, then they need to be removed from society, period. I just think we should treat the problem instead of the symptoms. Laws only serve to control the symptoms and do a very poor job of it at that. We are really not disagreeing on this subject 5-90, I just thought that this being linked to the food ban was funny.

[5-90]

5-90
thanks, yea i was just using hops as an example.

i just dont understand how you assume (not specifically anyone, you as in "one") that alcohol is a drug. i guess it could be grouped as a destructive substance, but only to alcoholics. how destructive is it to the normal person? do you see people who drink one or two drinks at a sitting crashing and going nuts, waiting for their next fix? however, how many of those who have just one or two hits of crack or cocaine do you see agitatively waiting until their next hit?

i dont see how you can compare the severity of alcohol and the severity of hard drugs like heroin.

Anything that alters body or brain chemistry significantly, or alters behaviour, is a drug. The FDA considers alcohol a drug - Schedule I, I think. It's just a very mild drug to most people (functions of tolerance, heredity, and body mass all play a part. Don't forget liver and kidney function as well.)

Drinking too much alcohol can kill you (cf. "alcohol poisoning,") but it's also possible to drink too much water and throw your system into shock as a result. Salt water is also good for that - it screws up your water balance in the other direction (because of the salt.)

"Severity" is relative - I've run across "functional addicts," just like I've run across "functional alcoholics." Most are just one drink (or one fix) away from a hard crash - but the amount of "drug" involved, or the amount of money involved, will differ.

"Street drugs" just have more drastic effects - and with smaller quantities of the drug in question. That's what makes them the problem - and why we should find a solution that works better than what we're doing now. The only reason that the counties keep putting addicts in jail is because they get money from the feds - the penal institution is a growth industry...

5-90

[Powerman]

5-90
thanks, yea i was just using hops as an example.

i just dont understand how you assume (not specifically anyone, you as in "one") that alcohol is a drug. i guess it could be grouped as a destructive substance, but only to alcoholics. how destructive is it to the normal person? do you see people who drink one or two drinks at a sitting crashing and going nuts, waiting for their next fix? however, how many of those who have just one or two hits of crack or cocaine do you see agitatively waiting until their next hit?

i dont see how you can compare the severity of alcohol and the severity of hard drugs like heroin.

Ammonium nitrate is just a chemical. To some it is a fertilizer, to some it is a bomb. Alcohol is simply a chemical that acts on our nervous system. What people do when they are on it does not change the fact that it is a chemical that acts on the nervous system.

You don't get that because you are not a bomb maker or an alcoholic. A scizofrenic can tell me all day long about the voices in his head, but I will never get it. I have no voices in my head.

Hear is a widley aknowleged study. Researchers found out that when alcohol is broke down in the liver, some of it is converted to serotonin. When your serotonin level increases you feel bad. A normal person looks at that and says, when I drink a lot I feel bad, and they control their intake of alcohol. When a alcoholic processes alcohol in the liver it goes to serotonin. But for reasons they do not understand, some of the serotonin is changed to THIQ. This is a huge long name of an opiate. Doctors have known about this substance for some time. It has absolutly no good medical values because it is highly addictive. So a drunk drinks and actually feels better. When you take away the alcohol, they feel worse and go through withdrawals. They conclude that they feel better when they drink. There are tons of more such findings out there.

Also, nobody just wakes up one day and smokes a couple of hit of crack and destroys their life. They have a long history of drug use (that includes alcohol) before they found the one they really like. So to compare a crack head to a frat boy having a beer, or a responsible person such as your self, is not even near any ball park. Apples and oranges.

[rocklandxjer]

i guess not knowing any alcoholics, i would not know as much about it as many.

i just cannot visualize alcohol as the problem that you guys see it as. i think that there are more responsible people that drink alcohol that the benefits of introducing it earlier and taking away the mystery of it would help people to not abuse it.

im only 17, and you guys arent dumb, im a senior in high school and your right, some age law will never have a total effect on our ability to get it. Though i see dozens of kids thinking its "cool" to get so drunk that they cant control even themost basic bodily functions. my parents introduced alcohol to me at an early age (not really introduced as in let me drink, they told me about it and the effects of it) they still repremand me if i am caught and rightfully so.
and i consider myself to be pretty responsible. maybe its just my experience that shapes the way i think

[Beej]

I just picked this quote in general to say you guys have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. Alcohol is an addictive chemical just like every other addictive chemical. The only reason it is viewed as a lesser addictive substance is because we are a nation of drunk Anglo Saxons, while the other substances are a small minority. In the brain alcohol breaks down to a opiate like substance, everymuch as addictive as heroin. Addiction is a disease. Call it a mental disorder if you please. Addicts brains of all substances have been shown to be different that "normal" ones in test after test, and study after study. There is no law, regulation, nurturing, upbringing, or support that will change that. This is a gross misrepresentation of current research and established fact.

Don't forget there are people who graze this site who are experts working in the fields of which you are discussing, and whom can see through this in seconds...

[rocklandxjer]

Thank God finally some back up ^

heh heh

[Powerman]

This is a gross misrepresentation of current research and established fact.

Don't forget there are people who graze this site who are experts working in the fields of which you are discussing, and whom can see through this in seconds...

I have never taken you for an idiot, so please set me straight. Explain the established facts.

[XJ Dreamin']

Well, go ahead and legalize crack and try to regulate it. I stand by my BF wager that you will not be able to pay for the regulation and liability. The cost to society in real damages, law enforcement (dui prosecution, smuggling intervention, and larceny), lost performance (sick days, worker impairment), healthcare/ health insurance costs, and support of the indigent will far exceed your expected taxes collected. It will be a massive debacle.

There are three costs: Prohibition, Regulation, and Liability. The cost of prohibition of alcohol proved to be more than the American people were willing to pay. We appear to find the costs of regulation and the liability of alcohol consumption to be bearable. The cost of prohibition of controlled substances today is high, but I predict that the costs of regulating heroin, cocaine, and crack, combined with the increased liability that will accompany increased access will be much more than you expect.

Alcohol and tobacco are manageable, even though the two constitute a major drain on the economy, because, while a large element of society enjoys alcohol, a relatively small percentage become addicted. That percentage is small enough that, while the liability they represent is noticeable, it is manageble. The addiction rate for something like heroin, cocaine, or crack is much higher: crack is nearly 100% (unless you've got a different number for that, Beej). I just see any attempt to legalize and regulate substances with that potential for addiction as prohibitively expensive.

5-90: I've already stated my case for an alternative to both the current state of affairs and legalization. Quit fighting a defensive action in the war on drugs. Eliminate the production by whatever means necessary. It should get a priority immediately behind terrorism.

Of course, the third alternative is simply the culling method. Users go to the heroin den. Some do so and function. Some don't leave except when tossed out the back door as a sack full of bones. You can call that a society functioning without regulation, if you can accept the culling process. I hear there's a good market in anatomical specimens for those sacks of bones. You can call that a society without a drug problem, but, again, there are those pesky, daily sacks of bones to deal with. Even so, there are plenty of alcohol related sacks of bones on American streets every day. That's just part of the equation that makes alcohol regulation manageable.

Daughter just woke up. Gotta go.

[Powerman]

This is a gross misrepresentation of current research and established fact.

Don't forget there are people who graze this site who are experts working in the fields of which you are discussing, and whom can see through this in seconds...

Sometimes what I think does not come out right in type. What I meant was that you seem knowledgable and reasonable on a wide variety of subjects. So I am currious why you think I misrepresent. Let me try and put it in context.

This is a Jeep forum, discussing a ban on trans-fat, and here we are talking about chemical dependency and the U.S. policy on drugs. Some put out the view that alcohol was not very harmful, or addictive, and not even a drug.

I tried to put out another point of view to show that there is much more to it that alcohol is good, and crack is bad. This was never meant to be published in a medical journal. No, addiction is not classified as a mental disorder. However, the AMA has classified alcoholism as a disease since the early 1900s, yet a large majority of the general poulation still believe it to be poor dicisions and weak morals. This is a complex problem that can't be neatly fit into a box, or explained by a couple of posts from me on a Jeep forum.

I asure you, if we sat down and talked about it you would find that my knowlege on this subject falls in line with what is accepted in the field of chemical dependency. Where do you think I get it from? If you still belive me to be out in left field, I am still curious as to what you object to.