Behavior Can Not Be Legislated
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The Socialist Republic of California is at it again, and this time they have your Big Mac in their sights.
As you may have read, the state of California has put a lid on the opening of new fast food restaurants in certain poor sections of Los Angeles. Is it the role of government of any level to regulate and determine what you can or can not eat and from which company you can or can not purchase from based on the fact that you are poor?
I see lawsuits coming in droves over this. The ban does not effect fast food restaurants already in operation, therefore it does not address the State of California’s concerns what-so-ever. Poor people still have access to the same level of behavior that the SR of C says should be banned, so how in the world does this address the governments concerns? Are they suggesting that since one more Big Mac stand or one more Taco Bell burrito can’t gain entry to the marketplace - then this magically solves the problem?
Government at any level should not be legislating ‘fixes’ for obesity. What they should be doing is investing heavily in education in those ‘poor sections’ of the city.
What say you?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I wonder if, in this case, because the area to be affected is an economically depressed city, the government is intervening because many of the residents rely on state care (MediCal) and thus cost taxpayers a lot of money when they have complications with diabetes, obesity, and other health-related issues that go hand-in-hand with poor eating habits. I wonder if the state is influencing the decsion because it is looking at how much it spends in keeping people on metformin and other drugs.
I wonder if the government would be so pressed to interfere in America’s dining habits if we had some kind of national health care system in place, inwhich case keeping Americans off fast food would be a wise thing for the government to help us do. As it is, of course, the drug lobbyists snuggle up to law-makers and by golly we have a nation of poorly-fed people who are slowly dying of complications from that, who prove to be fantastic cash cows for those drug companies.
I wonder if, as a country, we the people took back our rights and responsibilities of self-governing, how many fast-food restaurants and drug companies would somehow fizzle away. I wonder what would happen if we each took our job as citizen more seiously how that might impact who legislates what (what we eat, take in the form of rx drugs).
I wonder what it would be like to be a community of Americans instead of a glom of drones to be milked and used for profit by greedy coporate interests who are sleeping with the government that WE THE PEOPLE have lost faith in.
I don’t know, I simply wonder.
Behavior - should it be legislated? I think it IS being legislated in more ways than most Americans realize.
Vote:
0 0 Why would this happen only in the “poor sections” of the city? The poor are not the only ones with obesity problems. Do you Mr Bumpy think the poor are the only ones that need to be educated on obesity? Makes thinks no.
Good post though. Just one more example of “more government” in our lives where we don’t need it.
Vote:
0 0 I am seriuosly dissapointed in the jump to conclusions i see here. This particular area that they banned new fast food in was a 32 square mile area that had hardly any grocery stores and a lot of fast food restaraunts, and their main concern was the obesity of children, which has huge impacts on the rest of their lives. unlike an adult who decides not to care about their weight anymore. These children had an obesity rate 10 percent higher than immediately surrounding areas and almost no access to grocery stores where the could go buy a cheap apple or banana, they had/have access to the dollar menu, and thats not good for the kids. I too hate the gov involvment in my life and would like to see less of it, but i think if the l. a. city council was looking out for their constituents they would have never let a 32 sq mile area go without a grocery store. I see some serious bscktracking here and not much else. at least they arent telling ppl they cant eat fast food, like some ppl are implying
Vote:
0 0 I agree with loud and proud that we are being legislated in many ways without realizing it sometimes.
I can’t pretend to know all the reasons they are taking this action, but if the free market capitalist system won’t support stores in those areas that can sell fresh groceries (and have you noticed how much LESS you can buy if you spend you dollar on things that are good for you? If I was poor I would be buying crap because that’s pretty much what I could afford) then banning fast food isn’t the way to get fresh groceries into the hands of those who are poor.
Sometimes government outsmarts itself and plays Barney Fife…shooting himself in the foot while trying to do good deeds.
Vote:
0 0 Another unfortunate possibility may be that because this 35 square foot area is so poor, it could be a high crime area. That may be why no grocery stores have opted to open in the area. It’s all about the almighty dollar.
Vote:
0 0 They have to legislate these types of food to get us all ready for nationalized health care. It is just one more step among many to herd us where they (the government) want us.
Vote:
0 0 Are you saying, Bundy, that they’re legislating against fast food so that they spend less money on the populace when nationalized health care comes to town?
In other words, those who eat a lot of fast food end up costing the Medicaid/Medical budget too much money?
I’m just wondering if I’ve missed your point…
Vote:
0 0 It seems that conservatives always decry “legislating behavior is impossible” unless it’s behavior that they want to legislate against (gay marriage, immigration, drug use, union organizing, etc). My point is not that this particular legislative effort is good or bad - just that it’s rather simplistic to write it off as “legislating behavior.”
One of the side-effects of conservative philosophy is that existing class distinctions - those based on race, sex, religion, wealth & power, orientation, etc - get reinforced and solidified. In fact, it’s easier for conservatives if the poor stay in their place, eating really bad food and getting really bad health care. It’s even better if they get caught up in the cycle of illegal drug use and incarceration.
So I tend to distrust conservatives when they argue that we shouldn’t do something that might change that situation, based on some high “moral principle.” Frankly, I’m sick and tired of their “moral principles.”
Vote:
0 0 I’ve seen documentaries that suggest that there is a concerted effort to maximize profits in some areas by maintaining or increasing the levels of some of society’s most abhorrent and egregious social sins.
Makes me shudder. Behavior should not be legislated, yet it can certainly be manipulated.
Vote:
0 0 I wonder
How is banning new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods similar to or different from creating “revitalization districts” such as Idaho Falls has done to encourage downtown revitalization, Taylor Crossing, Snake River Landing, and the proposed business district across the river from SRL?
AND
How is banning new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods similar to or different from zoning adult bookstores or video stores from being within whatever distance from schools or churches (which Idaho Falls has used to effectively ban entirely from city limits)?
Don’t just argue your belief. Describe how it is similar and different in both cases. I don’t have an opinion on this so I want to hear honest discussion of the merits.
Vote:
0 0 Hoagie,
Why do you always put the majority of your comments in the category of conservatives bad, liberals good? Just wondering how we get on the topic of legislating what food we can eat to some evil conservative plan.
If you really want to play that little game look at the jurisdictions that have not only proposed but passed these measures (New York City and Los Angeles) this is also happening in San Fransisco. Last time I checked all these cities were dominated and controlled by heavily Democratic city councils. Your comment about conservatives could essentially also be said for liberals.
The point here is that government is attempting to legislate personal choice……and those politicians and bureaucrats can and do come from both sides of the isle. To suggest otherwise is naive and dangerous because it focuses emphasis on one group of morality based lawmakers and ignores the other. Democrats, like Republicans, also legislate and enforce laws based on morality. Abortion is a morality play…..don’t touch my body. Affirmative Action is a morality play…..to even the deck by discriminating against people based on skin color. It is not merely a conservative notion.
If Hoagie thinks that Conservatives are the only folks perpetrating absurd laws, think again. Check out this article. Wait till the very end to get the point! Yes Virginia, you will be shocked and amazed that politicians of all colors and stripes are encroaching on us.
Vote:
0 0 Breaking my promise not to deal with Bundy … I guess I can manage as long as he/she doesn’t misrepresent what I say in this thread.
Go back and read what I wrote. I did not write that liberals/Democrats don’t legislate morality. I said that conservatives do, but claim that they don’t.
Try again.
Vote:
0 0 Sure, behavior can be legislated. Idaho Falls folks can’t serve liquor on Sundays and can’t stick a nickel in a slot machine these days, or patronize a brothel, but they could when I was growing up here. Island Park exists due to legislating behavior. Behavior is legislated all the time, everywhere.
L.A. is simply looking at the economics. Too many people in that area are too fat and too poor. Everyone has to eat, and no one will stay lifetime healthy on a diet of fast food. There are a majority of people living in that area who have lived on fast food their entire lives.
Why is this? Again, it’s simple. Try walking to a grocery store in Ammon, or trying to get some public transportation. Add about another 10 miles to the trip, and you have it- the poorest and fattest don’t own wheels.
What do you expect L.A. to do? Legislate the requiring of opening grocery stores that are accessible?
If a poor fat guy gets diabetes, or has a stroke or a heart attack, L.A. gets stuck with the medical bills. How much does a stroke cost these days? I dunno, but my guess, from a friend’s experience, is around $100,000 at a minimum, and somebody has to pay the bills. Multiply one stroke by a hundred a week, and that’s some real money that comes out of taxpayer’s pockets.
This isn’t a ‘magic solution’… if anything, it’s desperation.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent post. I agree that is reaching levels of desperation because the more the nanny state has taken over, it has assumed the responsibilities of caring for people who eat too much, smoke too much, drink too much……So, all these folks imbibing too much will end up costing the taxpayer too much. This begs the question, what has happened to personal responsibility and why is it that we have allowed more and more laws to govern behavior and at the same time “bail” people out of the bad choices that they make? Do we really expect different behavior when it seems we often reward (pay for) and make it easier for people to continue the same destructive behavior(s)?
Vote:
0 0 Hi, Bundy…
While we may disagree on some things, I’m completely with you on the personal responsibility issues. As I see it, both parties are equally prone to jumping on whichever issues will benefit them most.
I’ve always believed that abortion is a matter of personal responsibility. I’m old enough to have known 2 young women who had abortions done illegally, back in the day before Roe vs. Wade. I know they both came through healthy, but both could have faced criminal charges as well as trusting their lives to some potentially very shady people.
I think abortion should never be a method of birth control, but I also think that it is a matter for the woman first, her family, and her religion. For the state to impose it’s own ideas on the matter is just as socialistic as any other social control, like restricting fast food restaurants.
Freedom by it’s nature requires everyone to tolerate some things that are controversial and emotional. One of America’s great strengths is our rough tolerance of controversy, but there are many agendas that are best debated, and won or lost, outside of the governmental realm.
I’m not trying to drift this thread off course, but I think politicians are all too prone to pander to whatever organization with a social agenda that hollers loudest and/or coughs up the most cash.
Vote:
0 0 #15: “This begs the question, what has happened to personal responsibility and why is it that we have allowed more and more laws to govern behavior and at the same time “bail” people out of the bad choices that they make?”
Bundy, that was perfectly stated.
Vote:
0 0 I totally agree with the concept of not bailing people out of their bad mistakes. Our government does it all the time, for individuals and for businesses. There are too many instances to name.
Boomer’s final paragraph in #16 is very astute.
In this case, how would we make people “pay” for thier own bad choices, for food? How can we prove that their health problems are directly related to their diet, and then refuse to pay for the medical care that is needed as a result?
I think it’s the inability to directly prove this suspected causal link, and the fact that we’ll all get stuck with the bill if Medicaid/Medical refuse to pay (not to mention the screaming of the big business hospital ERs who would no longer be paid) that leaves the government with few alternatives.
Legislating against the increase of fast food restaurants in that area was a typical government band aid because they couldn’t find a cheap easy way to educate the populace and make the healthy foods affordable choices, and didn’t want to take the hard unpopular stance of refusing to pay for obesity related medical expenses.
Lastly, I really think there are many other causes for obesity, and fast food is just one small part.
Vote:
0 0 I also agree with the last 4 posters. Personal responsibility has been lost somewhere along the way. And I’m sick and tired of people expecting help or hand outs because of their bad choices. The whole fast food issue is complete BS. It will actually cost you less in the long run to eat at home instead of frequenting these establishments and it’s not up to me or our government to educate these people. I’m also tired of this whole concept of “lets all feel sorry for the poor”. Sure people fall on hard times, we all have at some point in our life, but it’s how you act and what you do when these times come that define you. My Mom raised 3 children on her own and did it without help from anybody. She held 2-3 jobs and busted her butt to put food on the table each night. She didn’t accept food stamps or govt assistance and she dug herself out of the hole and the situation she was in. ANYBODY can do this if they choose to. But all to often people would rather whine and complain about it and ask for handouts instead of rolling up their sleeves and fixing the situation they’re in. And for those who do want help, there are plenty of govt programs out there already in place that will help get you an education or technical skills to get you a better paying job. Just one more reason I refuse to give these people that stand on the corner begging for money a dime. They can get a job but they refuse to. They’d rather lower themselves and standards and sit out there and beg for money as opposed to working like everyone else. Not to mention these people are pulling in hundreds of tax free dollars each week, so why should they.
One of the food banks actually came up with a great idea. They’ve made up these flyers that you can give these people instead of money. It lists where they can go for food, shelter and help to find them employment. I can’t recall which location provides this information, but I’ll look it up and post the info. They ask that you stop enabling these people by giving them money and instead give them this information instead.
I’ve worked hard over the years to get to where I am in life and I’m not about to help someoby who doesn’t want to help themselves.
Enough with the “bail outs”, take responsibility for your actions.
Vote:
0 0 How is this any different than when the government stepped in and started shutting down Big Tobacco? Restrictions came in to place that reduced the number of places people could smoke, taxes were increased, and the number of smokers gradually declined.
Lawsuits were adjudicated and settlements were made. Ultimately, less of the cost of health care (publicly funded in many cases) was passed on to the taxpayers–all for “choices” people made to smoke.
You can call that Big Brother stepping in. But for a non-smoker, I think it is great that I don’t have to encounter cigarette smoke out in public very often, nor does my child, my child isn’t subjected to ads like Joe Camel making smoking seem appealing to kids, and I’m not paying as much of my tax dollar toward someone else’s decision to inhale poison.
In the same vein, reducing people’s access to crap food is great, as far as I am concerned. Why should my dollars pay toward someone’s heart condition, obesity issues and liver problems based on their inability to pass up McDonald’s?
I’d be fine for the government to step out of this one, if there was any way in the world for people who make these grotesque food decisions for themselves and their children to stay away from my tax dollars to fund their medical care.
Vote:
0 0 It amazes me that there are constant stories about obesity and blaming lack of exercise. The real concern should be that our food is shot full of hormones and other growth agents that are passed onto us. The same can be said for vegetables and food irradiation processes. The media either doesn’t understand, ignores, or doesn’t care to report these causes that enhance obesity more than lack of exercise ever could or would. This is another reason why co-ops with organically grown food are becoming more popular….and more needed than any set of regulations or laws from the government could ever solve.
Vote:
0 0 Because obesity and excercise go hand in hand. and if you don’t think they do you’re only kidding yourself. I don’t buy any special “hormone or antibiotic free” meats or organic vegetables and I’m not obese. But I also don’t eat junk food or fast food either. I excercise on a daily basis and am active in a number of outdoor activities. This is what keeps my weight in check. Before I was married I dated this girl who was a couch potatoe and fairly overweight. I got into her lifestyle for awhile and we didn’t do much of anything aside from sitting on the couch watching tv and eating junk. I packed on 20 pounds within 6 months. Eventually I got out of that relationship and back into my old routine of excercising everyday and I’ve never been healthier. And I don’t buy any special organic foods. So you cant tell me that excercise has nothing to do with it. That’s a cop out plain and simple. But that’s the problem with obesity, people that are obese will give you every excuse they can of why their that way, but never admit it’s because they eat junk food and get very little excercise.
Vote:
0 0 #22 guest, it’s really easy to believe that because a certain thing is true for you, it must therefore be true for everyone.
You say “But that’s the problem with obesity, people that are obese will give you every excuse they can of why their that way, but never admit it’s because they eat junk food and get very little excercise.”
I am obese. I don’t eat junk food. However, I don’t exercise, either, because I have an incurable condition that causes my legs to be 13-16″ around at the ankles and even bigger all the way up…and the pain is tremendous and constant. Movement is agony.
So not every fattie that you see is a pig, nor do they all make junk food or poor food choices.
CR67, it’s very expensive to buy fresh foods. My family can eat more cheaply at a fast food place (I’m the only one in my family that is fat, and I’m the only one who hates fast food) than at home, if we buy healthy foods.
Shades of grey…reality is very often neither black or white.
Vote:
0 0 That’s where I have to disagree with you. If you add up all the money you spend on meals at a fast food restaraunt (unless you buy everything off the dollar menu) for the week, you can easily purchase food from a grocery store to cook for the week which will both be healthier for you and last you longer. You can purchase a whole package of chicken, hamburger, etc for the price it would cost you for one fast food meal and that hamburger or chicken can make 2 or 3 dinners. A large bag of frozen veggies is 2 or 3 bucks which again will last you and your family at least 2-3 meals.
Sorry, I just don’t buy the claim that fast food is cheaper than grocery bought food. More convienent and “faster” yes, cheaper….not in my opinion.
Vote:
0 0 Nemesis, I think that your condition is one of very few exceptions. And from what you described, it’s been hell for you. But for the most part I agree that people are fat and/or unhealthy due to the reasons listed in Guest’s comment.
One of my kids is thin but has also had a few health issues that have concerned us. In an effort to buy healthier and cheaper foods I offered to make his lunch every day and even take it to him just to see him eat better. I asked what he prefers for lunch and his response was “Oh Artic Circle’s jalopeno burger” as he grinned.
Most cases I’ve seen, eat out all the time, eat constantly, don’t eat the right foods, don’t exercise and yes, they have every excuse available to man as to why they “can’t” lose weight. But it isn’t that they can’t lose weight or can’t eat healthy, it’s that they choose not to make the right choices.
I agree that healthy food does tend to be a bit more expensive and I think it’s difficult for the very low end of the poverty scale to afford to eat healthy. Buying mac and cheese and ramen noodles is going to cost a lot less then trying to find a nice meal in the grocery store. But most of us can afford to eat better than that.
Vote:
0 0 CR67 - Unhealthy and fast food is absolutely cheaper than healthy food. That’s because of subsidies and price supports. Industrial agribusiness has a lot to do with how Americans eat, and it isn’t good for us.
This gets us back to the subject in a new way. Free-market types always argue that the consumer is king, and that the market will handle it efficiently. Well, it isn’t a free market when there are other factors involved: the agribusiness lobby, tax breaks, a fake corn-ethanol market, crime and poverty (as discussed for LA). The average consumer in LA doesn’t have the options that we have here in Idaho. And we don’t have the access to fresh produce than does the average consumer in Europe.
To argue that “behavior can’t be legislated,” and that we should leave everything up to individual choice, is simplistic and unrealistic. The poor in LA are stuck in a bad situation - not of their own making, but created and enforced by market-based policies (with the help of industry-favored tax policies).
The proposed solution - to limit fast food outlets - may not be the best solution, but the current solution sure isn’t working. Therefore, arguing that “personal responsibility” is somehow involved is a nice way for conservatives to avoid acknowledging their own responsibility for the failure of the non-existent “free market” economy.
Vote:
0 0 Give me a break! You keep labeling this as free market evil conservatives causing this problem. Lay off the political rhetoric. It is old and tired. Milton Friedman did not create the problem.
If you have a problem with the Free Market then why don’t you suggest a law that everyone in LA and elsewhere is required to grow a small garden for their personal use. The point is that this is not a liberal or conservative issue. We have folks from both sides making stupid decisons and passing laws that bogus and take away personal freedom. Not everyone can be thin, not everyone should be thin, and the government should not be getting involved in our business out of some misplaced care and concern. These laws are harkening back to laws passed in East Germany and other communist regimes. I would rather be fat and free than slim and socialist.
If you really think the government can take better care of you than yourself then let them take care of you all you want. You will be sorely suprised that it is the wrong choice. Remember, these are the same idiots that couldn’t take care of people in New Orleans and tried to take their guns as well. Yeah, just what I want give the government my Big Mac and my guns. What will I have left then? Next they will want to take the Food Channel and Rachel Ray down because they show yummy food that I might want to eat. What a crime! LOL!!!!!!
Vote:
0 0 Like I noted, you must be eating off the dollar menu. Most fast food “combo meals” are over 5 dollars. Multiply that by a family of 4 and thats at least 20 bucks for just one meal. You can’t tell me that you can’t go into a grocery store and spend 20 bucks on healthier alternatives. I do it EVERY single week! I never said you had to buy “organic” food. There are plenty of large packages of chicken, pork, beef and what have you for around 5-8 dollars a “family sized” package. Do the same with frozen vegetables and you’ve got two or three meals for a family of four, for what you would spend on one fast food meal.
Hmmm is exactly right. Nemesis’ condition is not everyone’s condition and the majority of obese people are simply making poor choices and choosing not to excercise or eat healthy. Like I noted in an earlier post, my Mom took care of three boys being poor and we never ate out. All of our meals were home-cooked, so I know from experience, I’m not just spoutin off at the mouth. You have the right to disagree with me, but I know what I know from living it, and eating at home is much cheaper than eating fast food. That’s merely a cop out and I don’t buy it for one second.
Vote:
0 0 Talk about giving people a break! I said that the particular response “you can’t legislate behavior” is a conservative argument that makes no sense. There are solutions to the problem - they may be conservative or liberal. But arguing that everybody just needs to take care of themselves is ignoring a lot of the problem - namely that the big agribusinesses and food service companies, etc., are taking advantage of our system of government by lobbying for favorable laws and tax breaks. To then say that the poor are on their own is extremely shallow thinking.
Besides, zoning decisions have always been a part of American life. It’s not “socialism,” your boogyman. If there are too many of some type of store, city councils stop approving them. It happens all the time.
Your last paragraph is just dumb.
Vote:
0 0 LOL sorry Hoagster….that last comment of yours just blew me away. I think I’ll just stop while I’m ahead. Excellent comment Bundy. Have a great night folks! 
Vote:
0 0 CR67 -
I imagine that the times have changed since you were brought up. The tax code wasn’t written to benefit agribusinesses. In fact, there probably weren’t any agribusinesses.
Also, were you living in LA with no supermarkets or local farms nearby?
Vote:
0 0 I agree. Why does Idahogie and Nemesis have to label everyone’s comment. LIke thats “a conservative” view or that’s a “liberal” view or that’s “socialism” or communism….can’t somebody have a view point and not be labeled around here?
Vote:
0 0 CR67 -
In #29, I was responding to #27, not to any of your comments. But Bundy’s last paragraph was all about how I think the government can take better care of me than I can. He again is making completely baseless statements, and it really wasn’t worth answering. Sorry for the confusion.
Vote:
0 0 Still awaiting your acknowledgment of your error, GofaG. You insulted Nemesis without cause. Once that happens, I’ll explain why calling a viewpoint either conservative or liberal is not a problem.
Vote:
0 0 well that’s your pov. I don’t feel I insulted anyone.
Vote:
0 0 I say a view is conservative and you complain.
You say you were shocked at such an uncivil comment by Nemesis, then I point out the basis for it, and show you why it was not out of the blue. Yet you insist you didn’t do anything.
I see how this works. Are you Bundy or Easterner?
Vote:
0 0 okay, Idahogie, can you please, please, just relax? I assure you, I am neither Bundy nor Guest of a Guest (check with Joe if it makes you feel better or more in control). The fact that you are resorting to ’sock-puppet accusations’ simply because several people disagree with your opinions is very telling.
The name-calling (”dumb”) and demands that people agree you are correct in your opinions and that posters apologize to other posters. . . it is way over the top and completely unnecessary.
We aren’t all going to agree here. That is the hallmark of a ‘discussion’ site. Please, can you please be more civil and stop the name-calling and accusations?
Thanks.
Vote:
0 0 Speaking of Behavior can not be Legislated, I don’t know if anyone here watches Everybody Loves Raymond, but certain posters on this board remind me of Marie. You know, the twisting and turning of the spoken word, assuming they know how Deborah feels at any given time, all in an effort to make Deborah look like an uptight fool through no fault of their own. But notice, the one who usuallly looks foolish isn’t Deborah. Putting this take on comments like post #37, helps me make light of it.
Vote:
0 0 Thank you Easterner for your comments on # 37. Idahogie seems to think I’m bothered by peoples comments. No, I don’t get all riled up over comments the way you do Idahogie. All I did was pose a question as to why peoples comments have to be labeled “conservative, liberal, socialist, communist” etc. It doesn’t bother me, it was merely a question.
And for the record I dont need to “acknowledge” any error on my part especially when I didn’t see it as an “error”. What is this grade school? Stop with the constant scolding of posters as was mentioned last week by other posters. Not everybody has your viewpoint Hoagster so please keep that in mind when participating in these debates.
Now, to get back on topic…comments 27 & 28 both express my views as well. Thanks guys!
Happy posting everyone….lets all remember to not let it get personal. It’s just a blog, we’re all just throwing thoughts into the wind here.
Vote:
0 0 Some folks just never learned to play nice in the sandbox. In fact, some folks probably wouldn’t let anyone play in the sandbox unless played the correct way. Too bad. It sucks to be insulted and demeaned over having a different opinion.
Vote:
0 0 Hi there-
As a former resident of Idaho Falls that now lives in California, I read this board often but don’t usually comment. The two cultures are very different, and I prefer to stay out of heated arguments about who’s right and who’s wrong. I felt compelled to comment to this topic though, since I work in the weight management industry and see a slightly different side of things. Here are the first three paragraphs of this article, which I’ve seen copied in several other places:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20726137/
LOS ANGELES - A city councilwoman is proposing a moratorium on fast-food restaurants in south Los Angeles, which has more such eateries than any other part of the county.
The ordinance proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry would stop new fast-food restaurants from opening in the area for up to two years while the city establishes a long-term plan to deal with the restaurants that have been linked to health problems.
“The people don’t want them, but when they don’t have any other options, they may gravitate to what’s there,” Perry said in Monday’s Los Angeles Times.
I’ve read several articles on this temporary legislation, and to me, it sounds like it was proposed by a councilwoman who is listening to the people she works for. If the people in that area are expressing a desire for change, and that they want to see fewer fast food restaurants, is it so wrong that she is using legislation to help find a solution?
Keep in mind that LA is not a cheap place to operate a business. Fast-food restaurants can easily become the aggressors. Smaller restaurants/grocery stores have a hard time competing against their large marketing budgets. They also may not have the benefit of large-scale supply contracts where they can get the food they sell for really cheap.
Also keep in mind it’s only recently that people have begun to really understand the danger of over-eating fast food. These fast food restaurants have been there for years. Even if they don’t want them there, there is still the dilema of how to not support them when you still have to feed your family and that’s all there is. If it was the area you lived in, how would you go about changing those percentages?
While I don’t think the government has any right to tell people what they can and can’t eat, I have no problem with them adjusting the zoning in response to what people want, as long as it’s what the people in that population are asking for.
Just my opinion, based on some knowledge of that area…
Vote:
0 0 Thanks for giving us more of the story! Although I’m hesitant to have a government solution, sometimes it’s the only way something gets done. But it does seem as if it’s just a freeze until they figure out what they want to do in the long term.
Maybe some hefty tax cuts to grocers who want to locate in that area? Some type of incentives so that more than just fast food places want to be there. Isn’t that the way communities do business these days?
Vote:
0 0 Guest of a Guest -
Sorry about my abbreviation of your name. I was tired of typing it out, and I didn’t see what you saw in it. I won’t use that abbreviation again.
Your comment here:
Idahogie seems to think I’m bothered by peoples comments. No, I don’t get all riled up over comments the way you do Idahogie.
Your comment on the offshore drilling post:
I didn’t see anyone mention anything even remotely to that effect. For someone who preaches “civil debate” on this site on almost a daily basis, I was shocked to see a comment like that coming from her.
No, you don’t get bothered by other people’s comments at all.
Further, when I pointed out where Nemesis’s comment came from, you responded in anger to me, instead of with decency towards Nemesis. If you need a lesson in how to behave, look at my first paragraph again.
Vote:
0 0 I would think tax cuts could provide a good incentive if it were done properly. Some competition would also provide an incentive for fast-food restaurants to promote healthier foods as well. I don’t think all fast-food is evil. But they are there to make money, and they will sell whatever their customers demand, whether it’s burgers or salads.
I think that this is all part of a larger culture shift that has to be made though. People can say they want healthier foods, grocery stores, and restaurants, but they also have to commit to buying their food there even if it’s a little pricier or inconvenient. It seems that people are starting to shift back to the “buy local” philosophy even around here, and think that is key to these types of food places surviving.
I think Idaho is very lucky to have so much visible agriculture. People there understand the amount of work it takes to put fresh foods on the table. People who have lived their whole lives in a big city don’t always value that. I think it would be great to have more of an emphasis on agriculture in city schools so that kids grow up understanding that food doesn’t start out in a can!
Vote:
0 0 No problem Idahogie, you’re more than welcome to use it. It’s also obvious that what bothers you and what bothers me are two entirely different things. The quote you pointed it didn’t bother me at all. It was merely an observation I made. Of which I thought were ok to make in a blog type setting. Guess I should get out of the proverbial sand box cause I’m not playing right huh?
Have a great evening!
Vote:
0 0 I think it’s so much easier to give out public assistance but the education component to make better choices is not a mandatory accompaniment. If I’m raised on burgers and fries, will I want something different as an adult?
It’s proven that we want to educate folks away from bad behavior earlier in life, so why wouldn’t we spend money to educate the children in these areas to make better choices as adults?
It couldn’t hurt…and how would we know if it could be effective unless we’ve tried it?
Vote:
0 0 I completely agree with you about education, especially starting at a young age. I struggled with my weight much of my life, and I there are things I learned as an adult that I really wish I had learned as a child.
People always say that the parents are the ones buying the kids the bad foods, and it’s true, but kids have a huge influence on what their parents buy. I was so self-conscious of my weight in my early teens. If I had known more about healthy eating and known what to say when my mom asked what I wanted for dinner, my parents would have supported that.
Vote:
0 0 I have to disagree on the last two comments. To me that’s just not owning up to responsibilities of your actions. You cant honestly tell me that you never knew and/or never heard about or was educated about eating healthy. That’s a crock and you know it. Every single one of us took some sort of health class in school which taught us about eating healthy. Remember the triangle chart that listed all the food groups. Whether or not you decided to pay attention to that is a different matter altogether. I just don’t buy this whole “oh I’m not educated or I wasn’t educated about eating healthy at a young age”. That’s BS and you know it. I’m so tired of overweight people coming up with every excuse in the book aside from owning up to their responsibilities. It’s always the fast food restaraunts fault or somebody elses fault, never the person responsible. And then have the nerve to say “we’re just now finding out that fast food is bad for us”? Give me a break! If you’re just now finding this out, than you’ve kept your eyes closed to eating healthy your whole life. Sorry, but I don’t buy what you’re peddling here.
Vote:
0 0 So Guest House, are you saying in # 48 that better education isn’t necessary, other than what we are already taught in school?
The police tout the DARE program as something that works very well. However, it’s in addition to ordinary grade school stuff.
Our children are already taught in health classes to not use illegal drugs. So therefore per your assertion, DARE should not be needed.
I don’t think I can agree with a blanket statement that what we are teaching already is good enough, if lots of people are not getting the message or remembering it as an adult. Sure, personal responsibility plays into that, but it should play into lots of areas, including illegal drug use…
I truly think that what we learn from our parents has a lot of potential to override what we learn in school, unless the educated issue is really emphasized on a regular basis, and not just given in grade school, and not just hit and miss but actually specially developed.
If my problem is the public taxpayer’s cost of obesity in our population, then what is already happening now is not the answer, or I wouldn’t have this problem.
Vote:
0
Vote:
“Government at any level should not be legislating ‘fixes’ for obesity. What they should be doing is investing heavily in education in those ‘poor sections’ of the city.
What say you?”
Me says, I agree.