Wow just wow!!!!!

You mention wine, and yeah, I'm sure some would suggest banning it too, but that's a very different deal. As you say, wine is good for you in moderation. It's getting drunk that's bad for you.

 

There's nothing about trans fats that is good for you. They are just a way cookie manufacturers and fast-food outlets cut corners to save money.

There's absolutely NO real benefit from smoking weed other then the fact that it provides you an outlet from dealing with pain. It kills brain cells, it harms your lungs as all smoke does, it's not good for you, and yet plenty of countries have absolutely no problem with it. In fact if the US could grow and sell the best of it, and could corner the market here, I bet you it'd be legal and be right next to liquor.

 

 

Trans fat in moderation isn't as bad for you as people make it out to be, it's all about moderation. I don't think the solution for slimming people down is eliminating food, that's taking away peoples choice. If trans fat in food bothers you, don't eat the food it is in, it's that simple. I don't need the government telling me what brand of cookie I can put in my mouth just because one has trans fat and the other doesn't I want my own option, if I don't want trans fat then I'm not gonna have it. But if I want a dang Krispy Kreme donut frickin let me have one.

The thing is there's no reason you can't have your Krispy Kreme without trans fat. It doesn't taste any better, or whatever.

 

I gather the really nasty side-effect of trans-fat is heart attacks in people you would never think were unhealthy to look at them. They might be young and skinny, and then suddenly drop dead from a coronary occlusion.

 

IMO, "OK in moderation" is for stuff like salt, carbs, calories, sugars and such that you actually need. Stuff that has significant downside and no upside, I'm cool with banning.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Fatherpeteus

If trans-fat is being removed because it provides no real benefit, I humbly suggest that life follows. It is a futile consumption of resources that is certain to end in death. It has no purpose. I'm fairly sure it was never meant to be as well. Why have something when we can have nothing!

If you want to get REALLY technical there's A LOT they should ban with the logic of "we weren't meant to eat that" in mind. The point is that ALL things in moderation aren't so bad, it's just the matter of moderation. People say alcohol is bad for example, but a beer a day helps prevent cancer as it was clinically proven hops are ridiculously good for your body. Wine is good for the heart if I remember correctly, and weed is used to help cancer patients among many other deadly illness victims calm and happy. It's just the matter of HOW you handle things. I personally love me a Krispy Kreme donut from time to time, and while I don't eat them like it's going out of style I don't need any food "banned" from me. Also I don't trust anything that health authorities tell me after they had the balls to tell me Milk was good for me, and then tell me that Milk could cause serious problems later in life if I consumed too much of it.

 

Your ability to self moderate puts you in a sizeable minority, Sauce. But alas the majority don't appear to have such control. So what will you do when YOUR health care costs go up dramatically due to their extreme health conditions? (This is a rhetorical question and is perhaps best for a conversation in person over a few nicely warmed ales!)

 

There's absolutely NO real benefit from smoking weed other then the fact that it provides you an outlet from dealing with pain.

As for cannabis, there is a good deal of research proving a dramatically improved quality of life for sufferers of Multiple Sclerosis. So to say that there is NO real benefit isn't entirely accurate. This is actually a topic I've followed with some self interest as medicinal cannabis is still outlawed in the UK, and my Aunt now has been at Grade 9.5 MS for the last 10 years. (Grade 10 is death).

 

I personally feel that if we were all able to control ourselves properly, nothing should have to be banned. But until such time as there is a test for self control to decide who is responsible enough to buy what; I think we're just going to have to deal with the fact that it only takes one bad seed to ruin the whole apple cart!

 

Edited May 5, 2010 by Xiaolin

The thing is there's no reason you can't have your Krispy Kreme without trans fat. It doesn't taste any better, or whatever.

 

I gather the really nasty side-effect of trans-fat is heart attacks in people you would never think were unhealthy to look at them. They might be young and skinny, and then suddenly drop dead from a coronary occlusion.

 

IMO, "OK in moderation" is for stuff like salt, carbs, calories, sugars and such that you actually need. Stuff that has significant downside and no upside, I'm cool with banning.

 

 

The same kind of side effect could be said for Alcoholism, Smoking, hell even doctor prescribed drugs. Everything has a real risk to it, and that's just something you have to learn to deal with. We're not banning people from smoking cigarettes. We're not banning people from drinking, from taking asprin for headaches, or any kind of drug for any number of problems that undoubtedly have ridiculous side effects. The point is that while the side effect of Trans-fat may be bad, it doesn't make it something that needs to be banned in my opinion. Things that need to be banned are maybe large sizes at fast food places, the lack of real produce being used in fast prepped meals. These kinds of things need to go, trans-fat while bad, is just like salt in the mix, it's bad, but it's not a huge deal in my opinion.

 

 

QUOTE (Sauceboss @ May 4 2010, 04:38 PM) *

If you want to get REALLY technical there's A LOT they should ban with the logic of "we weren't meant to eat that" in mind. The point is that ALL things in moderation aren't so bad, it's just the matter of moderation. People say alcohol is bad for example, but a beer a day helps prevent cancer as it was clinically proven hops are ridiculously good for your body. Wine is good for the heart if I remember correctly, and weed is used to help cancer patients among many other deadly illness victims calm and happy. It's just the matter of HOW you handle things. I personally love me a Krispy Kreme donut from time to time, and while I don't eat them like it's going out of style I don't need any food "banned" from me. Also I don't trust anything that health authorities tell me after they had the balls to tell me Milk was good for me, and then tell me that Milk could cause serious problems later in life if I consumed too much of it.

 

 

Your ability to self moderate puts you in a sizeable minority, Sauce. But alas the majority don't appear to have such control. So what will you do when YOUR health care costs go up dramatically due to their extreme health conditions? (This is a rhetorical question and is perhaps best for a conversation in person over a few nicely warmed ales!)

 

QUOTE (Sauceboss)

There's absolutely NO real benefit from smoking weed other then the fact that it provides you an outlet from dealing with pain.

 

As for cannabis, there is a good deal of research proving a dramatically improved quality of life for sufferers of Multiple Sclerosis. So to say that there is NO real benefit isn't entirely accurate. This is actually a topic I've followed with some self interest as medicinal cannabis is still outlawed in the UK, and my Aunt now has been at Grade 9.5 MS for the last 10 years. (Grade 10 is death).

 

I personally feel that if we were all able to control ourselves properly, nothing should have to be banned. But until such time as there is a test for self control to decide who is responsible enough to buy what; I think we're just going to have to deal with the fact that it only takes one bad seed to ruin the whole apple cart!

 

 

I totally see what you are saying at that first part, and with that in mind I can understand, even without that in mind I can understand why they would just go and ban things. Don't get me wrong, while I'm debating this whole thing, I do UNDERSTAND the point being given to me, I just don't entirely agree. I don't like the idea of the government having THAT huge of an impact on my personal life. Telling me what I can and can't eat it's a little too much for me personally.

 

 

As to your second part, I see where you're coming from, and more importantly I hope the BEST for your aunt, and I hope she can get some medicinal cannabis. With that said, you kind of proved my point, while it improves the quality of life, (and this really does matter so I guess "no real benefit" isn't a proper statement.) Outside of relieving them from the pain while they're smoking it, and while the after effects are controlling them it doesn't do anything to actively fix the problem. It's a painkiller, which isn't bad, don't get me wrong if I had MS I would be smoking the shit out of some medical cannabis on the regular, but when it comes to actually fixing the problem it's not really doing that. Again though I hope your aunt can get it, because no one deserves to go through that kind of pain ever, and I totally see your point so I admit that what I said isn't ENTIRELY true, you have a solid point.

 

 

I just don't like the fact that one bad seed ruins my entire apple cart, and that will ALWAYS bother me. I enjoy having a choice.

 

 

I don't like the idea of the government having THAT huge of an impact on my personal life. Telling me what I can and can't eat it's a little too much for me personally.

.....

I just don't like the fact that one bad seed ruins my entire apple cart, and that will ALWAYS bother me. I enjoy having a choice.

 

Responding to your quote but more so just responding to this argument in general because it comes up so often.

 

Does anyone actually know (including myself) the amount of things the government has already and will cram down our collective throats regularly with and WITHOUT us even knowing it?? (eg. what's added to our food supply already, laws and regulations, restrictions, mandatory things...) I mean do people argue about the fluoride being added to the water just because we were never given the choice? sure it helps prevent cavities but it sometimes alters the way developting teeth grow. anyhoo...

 

this argument was heavily debated when seatbelts were introduced to cars (how dare you tell me what to do for the sake of safety!!)

 

Here's the thing with trans fats... *they are created and added to foods*. it's an artificial additive. Basically, trans fat is made when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil--a process called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these fats.

 

Don't take this the wrong way - anyone that is of the mind that we shouldnt have the government telling us what to do, I'm on board with you - to an extent. However, in this instance, we are discussing restricting something that is detrimental to our health which was added to foods *without telling us*. (lets trade MY health for food shelf life and flavor? no thanks) We were never given the option to not have it put in. So you're choice and free will were already infringed upon when this horrible additive was introduced to our food supply. Now I hear an argument to leave it there, based on the idea of free choice. *scratches head*

 

I <3 this guild and this discussion

 

edited because i grammar nazi myself

Edited May 7, 2010 by Killerpriest

Here's another good one:

 

http://www.khou.com/news/Candy-Gets-Third-...n-93033319.html

 

 

gogo healthy stuff.

 

Here's a quick little writeup on what is good and bad for ya, and why, presented in an easily digestible (har har pun intended) fashion.

 

Healthy food stuffs

Here's the thing with trans fats... *they are created and added to foods*. it's an artificial additive. Basically, trans fat is made when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil--a process called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these fats.

 

Don't take this the wrong way - anyone that is of the mind that we shouldnt have the government telling us what to do, I'm on board with you - to an extent. However, in this instance, we are discussing restricting something that is detrimental to our health which was added to foods *without telling us*. (lets trade MY health for food shelf life and flavor? no thanks) We were never given the option to not have it put in. So you're choice and free will were already infringed upon when this horrible additive was introduced to our food supply. Now I hear an argument to leave it there, based on the idea of free choice. *scratches head*

I'm kinda with KP on this one.

 

The original intent of 'government regulation' was to protect the citizens from predatory acts by companies or individuals. This is true of any industry be it food, drug, financial services, whatever.

 

The problem, as I see it, is there are companies out there that market their products based on quality and there are those that do so based on accesibility and convenience. Longer shelf life = the later.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a smoker and I know full well the product I'm puffing on is damaging my health. As a result, I don't really freak out when new regulations or taxes are imposed on said product, especially as it pertains to 2nd hand smoke and the effect MY habit may have on OTHERS. Still, if I'm stupid enough to keep smoking, it's my loss and I think the government has an obligation to keep it as my loss only.

 

Problem is, there are a ton of theoretically safe products and production practices that we, the public, know very little about and many companies feel no obligation to inform us of this unless there is a consumer outcry (boycott) or government intervention/regulation.

 

As an extreme illustration of this point: Anyone ever seen the old cigarette adds where they have DOCTOR'S talking about how great these things are? I'm sure you can find clips on

. I think that's the kind of thing regulation is supposed to prevent.

 

Next problem: Grey areas. What happens when there is not enough conclusive evidence, or the facts can be 'spun' to suit a pro or con argument? I think sometimes regulators go too far in that regard, such as in Gryph's link (and sometimes not far enough).

 

...Wow, I think I've said enough for now.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Feanore

Here's another good one:

 

http://www.khou.com/news/Candy-Gets-Third-...n-93033319.html

 

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

 

Just... wow.

Calories in > Calories burned => Weight gain.

 

And yeah, call me a flaming liberal or whatever, but parents who stuff their kids with ho-hos because they've trained the kid to be addicted to sugar and now it's a fight to make them eat anything else... I wouldn't say that's bordering on neglect.

 

I agree with this completely. My parents raised me on fast food and junk food. Heck, I used to drink a 12 pack of Dr. Pepper before lunch time at school, and i do have to blame my parents for most of it since that was all I was served at lunch / dinner during home meals. Also whenever we went out to dinner it would be the same thing. They also consistently had me taking medication for ADHD, that my doctor had diagnosed me with, but as with the sugar addiction above, 'hyper-ness' comes from that really easily.

 

I myself eat out quite often, and so the calories in > calories burned => weight gain part is completely true. Most kids who are obese (and not for genetic reasons, that happens, I get it) are not just that way because their parents don't properly feed them, but it is also a LARGE part due to what the kid does during their spare time. My parents never took me out to the park, or tried to get me involved in any sports, whereas other people I know can't imagine an indoor life like mine. Just think of the growing gaming market. What were you doing when you were in 4th grade? I know I was playing pokemon. I played it during class in free time, I played it on the playground during lunch, and when I wasn't playing pokemon, I'd be playing the card game or another card game. And just look at what we have now. If you get your kid addicted to WoW as much as some of us are (I know I am), there is no way he/she is going to be going outside for a sport anytime soon.

 

Everyone here can say that unhealthy eating leads to a poor lifestyle, and yes it can, but it doesn't always have to. No kid is actually force-fed fast food everday, I've never met a family in my life who didn't take at least some care to make sure their kid got the proper nutrients. In my opinion it is the fact that parents in the electronic age are becoming lazier and lazier and not being outgoing with their kids.

 

That's just my opinion on it all. I don't blame food industries or improper diets. I blame lack of exercise and other fat burning mechanics. Having a generally active lifestyle => having a generally healthier kid.