What's your take?

[corax]

Whether I have my belt on or not, doesnt affect the safety of anyone else in the crash, only me. So if I dont want to wear one and die in a car wreck, why not let me? One less car on the road.

Seat belt laws were a product of Insurance lobbyists. It cost the insurance industry too much to pay out for care of people who were maimed or disabled by not wearing their belt. So now we have seat belt laws. At least a few states have gone back on helmet laws for motorcycles, which were spawned by the same people. Myself, I won't get on a bike without a full face and jacket, but to those who don't . . . we all dig our own graves

Oly hit it on the head

. . . our government was created for the people, by the people, now it is for special interest, by special interest.

[oly884]

Whether I have my belt on or not, doesnt affect the safety of anyone else in the crash, only me. So if I dont want to wear one and die in a car wreck, why not let me? One less car on the road.

Seat belt laws were a product of Insurance lobbyists. It cost the insurance industry too much to pay out for care of people who were maimed or disabled by not wearing their belt. So now we have seat belt laws. At least a few states have gone back on helmet laws for motorcycles, which were spawned by the same people. Myself, I won't get on a bike without a full face and jacket, but to those who don't . . . we all dig our own graves

The seatbelt law is in the same category. Yes, seatbelts save lives, and lives saved means insurance companies spend less money. For a while I would thought that insurance companies could simply deny coverage if it was shown that the person injured didn't have their seatbelt on, but that opens up a whole new can of worms (think, immoral insurance agents/companies). Now, I don't know what a good solution is. Fining people for it seems stupid, but allowing these idiots to live off of insurance for the rest of their lives because of a horrific accident doesn't seem fair to the people that DO wear seatbelts.

The issue becomes very tricky because, in the end, the actions by the idiots who don't wear helmets, don't wear seatbelts, or eat their fat-asses to obesity all end up costing us (you and me) money.

But what is worse though? Giving the government this kind of power, or just paying the price? I say giving the government more power is worse.

[thook]

Giving the gov't the power to choose for the people is never good. People will still never really learn personal responsibility. Experience is the greatest teacher, and complete personal responsibility is the ultimate in liberation and empowerment. People with even half of free thinking mind will still think, but the ability to create a collective world based on free thinking will be gone. Free thinkers will just go mad. I would.

This kind of gov't control is for sheeple. I'm not a sheeple, and I know there are many like me. Since I'm in the world and a part of it...as insignifcant as they may seem on one level....it's still partly mine. The gov't can go fuck themselves if I can't go get a burger or pizza or taco bell every once and a while. I take really good care of my body....better than most anyone I know. I enjoy a few vices, but that's my prerogitive. I'm granted the right to take part of whatever our world has to offer by my existance. This is true for everyone in it. People that live on their vices...fast food and such....are products of a trend towards control. Lazy minds and bodies are easy to control....and, even feed off of. This is what the gov't wants. Not the greater good. If the greater good were the motive, we would NOT be in the condition we are in now. This all started long ago.

But, hey...it's duality. What else can you expect? The only way out is to dispell duality as reality.

(Sorry....I know this rambles here and there, but I have a good excuse. It's almost 3am..)

[thook]

What's the matter? Did I kill the thread?

[oly884]

Yes, way to go!!!

I like what you had to say, I think it's spot on. I would imagine this is more of a hot-button issue with people, hence the infrequent postings.

[Seanz0rz]

i hate the fact the govt is in every aspect of our lives. my parents raised me to be extremely self sufficient, to the point of really educating me the best they could on growing my own food, etc. it has become clear to me that the government rarely has our best interest in mind when making decisions.

please mr. federal government, dont tell me what i can and cannot eat...

[calrockx]

This isn't the government telling you what you can or cannot eat. This is just an attempt to introduce some more variety/healthier options to that area of LA, an area that needs some more variety than fast food offers. Those fatties can still eat a big mac every day if they choose, but at least now it'll be easier to consider better options.

[Seanz0rz]

well thats my problem with this issue. it is something that needs to be addressed for the better of the community. but where do you draw the line on this? is it ok to take away our right to free speech because its less harmful to someone?

i dont like this, but i think its a necessary evil. however, i think people get complacent on issues like this and let our freedoms slowly slip away. that is my concern and why i disagree with it. otherwise i think its fantastic an innercity community will no longer have to deal with only one option for dinner. have some low cost healthy alternatives. its much cheaper to shop at a discount grocery store and prepare food than it is to eat at mcdonalds every day.

[oly884]

This isn't the government telling you what you can or cannot eat. This is just an attempt to introduce some more variety/healthier options to that area of LA, an area that needs some more variety than fast food offers. Those fatties can still eat a big mac every day if they choose, but at least now it'll be easier to consider better options.

I don't see how it will be any easier than it was before to eat healthier, are there NO places to eat that are healthy? Or is it going to make it easier by denying the ability to choose a fast food place?

And from the way I take it, the government IS telling people what they can eat by denying the ability to open a new burger place. They are preventing business from opening and selling a certain type of food.

I would think that giving a tax break to companies that offer a healthier menu would do far more in the long run. Tax breaks = more money for the company, therefore it's a very easy choice. Not only that, but the companies will FIGHT for who can make their menu healthier and get more business.

Substituting personal responsibility for things such as this is not going to solve the issue, it's a simple band-aid to a larger problem.

[thook]

This isn't the government telling you what you can or cannot eat. This is just an attempt to introduce some more variety/healthier options to that area of LA, an area that needs some more variety than fast food offers. Those fatties can still eat a big mac every day if they choose, but at least now it'll be easier to consider better options.

I see what you're saying and I can understand why the council would think it a good idea. But, it depends on what will be considered the "healthy alternative" to the fast food joints. It's a low income area....which ultimately means the people in the area will be limited on what will be affordable to them. Usually, healthier means more expensive and healthy just can't be prepared as cheaply or nearly as quickly. So, I can't see an actual healthy alternative lasting very long.

Tax breaks? Now, that's not a bad idea. Knock down the costs for the business and people would have more incentive. IF they were to actually get tired of being sick and realize the shark like nature of fast food franchises. Then again, I don't know. People can be pretty lazy.

I work at a health and nutrition store and see a lot of different people. Some actually want to make a change and get healthy while others want nothing more than a magic bullet. A magic bullet that might restore their health while they can continue on eating whatever according to their compulsions. Would something like this moratorium help these people? No. Not even if you explained to them all the reasons they feel like shit and what they could do about it, they will buy something they read about in a magazine and think they've made a real step towards health. And, a lot of times these are LOW INCOME people. "There's a grocery store nearby, folks!"

I think the said restaurant industry is correct. It won't help. Neither from the business standpoint or the customer base. Ultimately, people will just have to deny fast food marketing and themselves and make some real effort. I can honestly that's what I've had to do for myself, and that I'm the only one in my family who is not overweight and sick all the time. AND! I earn less than any of them. AND, AND!! I didn't my city council/gov't to tell me what to do.