Man, Rausseo, if I did believe everything I said, I probably would be a psycho!

0.08 BAC *is* criminalized. So an equivalent amount of pot intoxication should be thusly criminalized (if we have criminalization at all). And unless you can establish that, you cannot thus legalize.

.08 BAC is an arbitrary line because laws have been passed to lower the burden of proof required to convict citizens of the crime of driving while impaired.

Some behavior arguably more dangerous than .08 BAC (exhaustion, dragging the CD case out of the back of the car, slapping your misbehaving kid) doesn't get that special treatment. Some behavior less dangerous than .08 BAC (smoking a joint) is more severely punished.

I drink occasionally but not with any regularity. On an empty stomach, if I drink 3 pints of beer in an hour, I will be pretty drunk. But I'll be below .05 because of my size. I would not consider driving, but by the BAC test, I'd pass. I have friends who drink more regularly and are under 150 pounds, who can drink a six-pack in an hour and not be at all impaired, but they'd fail a breath test.

The standard shouldn't be "create a system that poorly measures impairment and draw an arbitrary line in the sand" just because we've already done that with alcohol. I suppose it's a little better that drawing that arbitrary line at zero like they do in some countries(Sweden?). Ideally, we'd have an objective test for what we want to prevent --impairment while driving-- instead of a test for what level of alcohol we think would constitute impairment while driving. With 2007 technology, is that so difficult to develop?

I agree with everything here.

Wow, this thread blew up today. I don't think I have anything to add; the two sides seem to be lacking a common ground, and furthur argument is merely sound and fury.

The standard shouldn't be "create a system that poorly measures impairment and draw an arbitrary line in the sand" just because we've already done that with alcohol. I suppose it's a little better that drawing that arbitrary line at zero like they do in some countries(Sweden?). Ideally, we'd have an objective test for what we want to prevent --impairment while driving-- instead of a test for what level of alcohol we think would constitute impairment while driving. With 2007 technology, is that so difficult to develop?

We agree wrt the arbitrariness of BAC limits. I regularly argue that I should be allowed to drink *while* driving. We have a law defining impairment, so it shouldn't matter if I am presently consuming, if I am not impaired.

I agree - I am simply saying if you want legalization you need to demonstrate (or falsely demonstrate) you control for "abuse". Yes, the standard for BAC isn't well done, but there *IS* a std. Make one for THC, and legalize away.

I'm saying we have precedent for how to handle recreational drugs with an outline for what defines societal "too much". Develop similar guidelines for pot, and then smoke up, Johnny.

I suppose it's a little better that drawing that arbitrary line at zero like they do in some countries(Sweden?).

Yep, better watch out, the chocolate might be filled with rum.

Great. I don't check BBTF for a day and I miss a thread about smoking pot, including references to Flight of the Conchords, civil liberties, a kid's nutsack being used "for a speedbag", and other fabulous insights? I feel so left out!

I'm heading home to spark up, put on some Neutral Milk Hotel, and forget all of this ever happened.

And Guts, I think Crosby and I have found some level of agreement.

Do you think the BAC is too low, or do you really think no DUI laws are needed? That preventative policing isn't "allowed".

I think that the BAC threshold is too low given that it essentially makes drunk driving a strict liability crime. I would prefer crossing the BAC threshold to be a fact considered during trial as opposed to a matter of law in determining guilt; but I recognize that my position of completely eliminating strict liability from the criminal code is extreme. (Fine for civil liability in my opinion.)

I think that no extra crime of DUI is necessary (driving recklessly should cover it), although it may be reasonable to assume a certain level of intoxication should satisfy as a matter of law the proof of "reckless" mental state in reckless driving charges.

Preventative policing is fine specific to this example in the sense that we should punish reckless driving even if the driver does no damage to any person or thing.

Who keeps weed in neatly divided bags?

Seriously?

Some services sell only in individual units of eighths; if you want to, say, make a batch of brownies with a recipe that calls for 3/4 of an ounce, you need to buy six individual portions.

How about someone who buys more than one unit at a time from a service because they don't live in the delivery zone? (Think suburbanites who order from a friend's in Manhattan.)

I'm saying we have precedent for how to handle recreational drugs with an outline for what defines societal "too much".

I guess I just don't like that precedent. I think "too much" is "the amount where you become impaired."

Develop similar guidelines for pot, and then smoke up, Johnny.

How could you even begin to try? Medicinal marijuana is illegal. How do you get a study of degrees of impairment over time the way you can with alcohol?

You could easily undertake a study where a random sampling of folks consume measured doses of alcohol over time and then perform reaction-time tests to find the magic level where X% (whatever you care for X to be) are impaired to Y degree. That study can be duplicated, error checked, etc. by other scientists.

I suppose some scientists in Amsterdam might be able to do it, but they're probably too busy eating Bugles and listening to jam bands.

Preventative policing is fine specific to this example in the sense that we should punish reckless driving even if the driver does no damage to any person or thing.

Hmmm. But the guy isn't reckless driving *yet*. He'll be reckless driving in a few minutes (and we stopped him for speeding). You smell some alcohol? Do we remove him? Or during a checkpoint, do we remove him from the traffic system? What about stopping him for a headlight out, or a busted taillight? That's not reckless, but does probable cause get a breathalyzer? If he hasn't been reckless *yet* but is clearly intoxicated, does he not have to be "preventatively" removed?

How could you even begin to try? Medicinal marijuana is illegal. How do you get a study of degrees of impairment over time the way you can with alcohol?

You could easily undertake a study where a random sampling of folks consume measured doses of alcohol over time and then perform reaction-time tests to find the magic level where X% (whatever you care for X to be) are impaired to Y degree. That study can be duplicated, error checked, etc. by other scientists.

You can get permission to do studies. It's not even that hard. Or even use Marinol (or an equivalent). Really, it's not that complicated. We do it *for every other pharmaceutically adtive ingredient*.

Who keeps weed in neatly divided bags?

Seriously?

Some services sell only in individual units of eighths; if you want to, say, make a batch of brownies with a recipe that calls for 3/4 of an ounce, you need to buy six individual portions.

How about someone who buys more than one unit at a time from a service because they don't live in the delivery zone? (Think suburbanites who order from a friend's in Manhattan.)

How about someone that likes to make sure he only uses so much. Or when he goes out, likes to take just enough for some, rather than the whole stash.

I mean really - have you people really never been around a significant pot culture? There's lots of reasons and lots of differnet reactions to the consumption (and the quality and intake style).

Do the people who favor legalizing pot also favor liberalizing cigarette laws?

Yes. As a concession, I'm willing to accept laws restricting the rights of minors (although I think the drinking age is far more harmful than helpful), but for adults, certainly I favor liberalizing laws on cigarettes. My position on marijuana is a rights argument, not a utilitarian one, so it doesn't depend on a comparative argument about the properties of the two substances. (That having been said, a utilitarian argument also favors legalization.)

I wonder what all you libertarians feel about those Mexicans who have chosen to disregard our country's immigration laws.

Like many libertarians, I believe that, in the absence of a welfare state (which libertarians also endorse), there shouldn't be restrictions. Given that we have a welfare state, we unfortunately can't let everyone in.

hey dial got post 420!!

im a page behind but in response to google boy there is indeed pot that tastes like flavors, eer had bubblegum? yeah it rocks, or even blue berry. hell just keeping it in a jar with a fresh orange peele and it tates like an orange.

I mean really - have you people really never been around a significant pot culture? There's lots of reasons and lots of differnet reactions to the consumption (and the quality and intake style).

Around people who smoke a bunch of weed? Sure. Around people whose life revolves around the culture? Not so much. Everyone I know generally has a bag or some container of weed rather than 10 individually-wrapped baggies. Yeah, I get the person who doesn't want to bring an entire stash to the concert, but my statement was more about not knowing people who carry around two dozen neatly-wrapped individual baggies.

As said above Chris Dial and weed we now have Petco part two. I got nothing to add other then the BAC is too low and this whole notion of blaming the dispenser of alcohol is crock of poo.

the two sides seem to be lacking a common ground, and further argument is merely sound and fury.

The Internet is the perfect place for absolutism...and I should know, since I've engaged in plenty myself over the years. In real life, though, people aren't absolutists; how can they be? The world is way too damn complicated for that. Laws only work if people behave themselves and don't act like selfish, clueless oafs; in this case:

*You'd think the dude would realize that smoking pot is at best a waste of time (with a bit of the ol' thrill factor for those who like breaking the law) and at worst a real bummer for the people in the car you just plowed into;
*You'd think said dude would realize that toking down at work is the Worst Idea Ever;
*You'd think a kid at a baseball game would have better things to do than rat out stoners, such as paying attention to the damn game. Christ on a bike, I hate it when people come to ballgames and never look at the friggin' field. Wanna check out the girl with the smokin' @ss? Do it at home, or wherever you yardigans congregate, not at the Temple of Baseball. (I swear to God, if I were president, I'd pass a federal law requiring every attendee at a baseball game to bring a scorecard and keep track of at least six innings, just to prove they were paying attention. And no Rizzutto-esque WWs allowed.)
*You'd think the off-duty copy would rather watch the game and/or have a good time rather than jam the dude's keister in jail;
*You'd think cops in general would be better off catching violent criminals and/or terrorists rather than relatively harmless stoners. (In the cops' defense, it's a lotta work catching violent criminals...why, some of them even have guns of their own! And yelling "Stop...in the name of the law!" isn't too effective either.)
*You'd think the justice system would...actually, rather than get into a rant about the justice system, just bring Jill Hennessy back to "Law And Order", and I'll be happy, OK? (Yes, I know her character died; so did Bobby on "Dallas", and he came back. In a shower, no less.)

(RMc has to get up and walk around a bit after imagining Jill Hennessy in the shower. Boy howdy.)

But noooOOOOOOO! Instead everybody acted like oafs, and the result is some brain-addled doofus in jail for smoking pot, and -- far worse -- a longish thread on Primer.

although I think the drinking age is far more harmful than helpful

My view is that the age of majority ought to be uniform -- 19 years old. So the drinking, voting, smoking, financial responsibility, gambling, full criminal responsibilty, driving without restrictions, serving in the military, etc, minimum age would all be nineteen.

Whatever number it is set at after puberty, it is somewhat arbitrary. However, I favor 19 because almost all 19 year olds are out of high school. Because 18 year olds are mostly in high school, they could (and likely would) serve as the buyers of alcohol for all of their much younger peers.

Christ on a bike, I hate it when people come to ballgames and never look at the friggin' field. Wanna check out the girl with the smokin' @ss? Do it at home, or wherever you yardigans congregate, not at the Temple of Baseball.

If I had a girl with a smokin' @ss at home, I wouldn't be at the ballpark.

I remember a Sunday brunch once where a bunch of kids thought they were hiding in the corner and that nobody could see them so they started to light up. Little did they know that that they were smoking in front of the entire kitchen staff. We didn't think to call the cops though. The owner used to buy his weed from the assistant manager. My former brother in law got fired when he and a few others were down in the basement smoking and the owner walked in on them while giving a tour of the place. Another assistant manager avoided getting fired when he avoided detection by crawling through a crack in the wall. Another Sunday Brunch I came into the place only discover the entire kitchen crew in the freezer smoking it up. Then there is Super Bowl Sunday, one of the deadest days of the year and yet some stupid owners insist on staying open. If you ever want high as a kite people serving you or cooking for you go out to eat on this day. I walked in on my Sous Chef trying out his jicama bong he just carved and then when we went to get our pizzas from the owners other restaurant we had to make them ourselves because all the employees were out back getting stoned.

Don't even get me started on where I have found (and I guess where I have done it as well) employees and customers having sex and giving out BJ's. Sometimes you might just want to pass on the guac.

If I had a girl with a smokin' @ss at home, I wouldn't be at the ballpark.

Point taken.

i have a simple soultion for testing if the driver is too stoned. walk up and hold taco bell or some brownies under their nose, if they start drooling they are too stoned to drive.

i have a simple soultion for testing if the driver is too stoned. walk up and hold taco bell or some brownies under their nose, if they start drooling they are too stoned to drive.

It would be like this except for weed instead of beer.

What's wrong with a ban on transfats? If the governments sees there are public health problems, it should do nothing to address them?

Maybe it should, but transfats are a private health issue, not a public health problem.

Maybe it should, but transfats are a private health issue, not a public health problem.

Right-o, Davey boy. No matter that if they made trans fatty foods so cheap, poor people would be almost obligated to buy them exclusively so as to stretch their budget. Screw the poor!! We owe them nothing!!!

Right-o, Davey boy. No matter that if they made trans fatty foods so cheap, poor people would be almost obligated to buy them exclusively so as to stretch their budget. Screw the poor!! We owe them nothing!!!

If the poor are obligated to eat transfatty food for budgetary reasons, won't they starve when it's forbidden?

But I guess there's always Soylent Green.

Obesity is a public health issue. If transfats are a major contributor to obesity, then dealing with transfats becomes a public health issue. I fail to see the problem...

You can get permission to do studies. It's not even that hard. Or even use Marinol (or an equivalent). Really, it's not that complicated. We do it *for every other pharmaceutically adtive ingredient*.

I thought it was basically impossible to get permission from the guvmint to do marijuana studies? am i wrong? i hope so.

Drinking and driving with a 0.04 BAC is legal. Doing so with a 0.11 BAC is not. Establish some BTHCC levels. It's not that complicated. It's more than pro-pot people are too F-N lazy to do it.

Heck, "legalizers" armed with "we can control usage behind the wheel of a car and in the workplace" data phenomenally strengthen their position.

Yes, they phenomenally strengthen their position among the Chris Dial demographic. But since nobody except you is saying, "I'm against legalization because there's no potalyzer machine," it's really a red herring. That's not to say that developing such a test would be a bad thing, but it would do nothing to change the political debate among the small number of non-Chris Dials in the US. So, no, it has nothing to do with "laziness."

If the poor are obligated to eat transfatty food for budgetary reasons, won't they starve when it's forbidden?

No, because of the "s" word that makes people like Dave nutso..."subsidies".

The owner used to buy his weed from the assistant manager.

This is a bad spot to find yourself in as an employee. I've had the pleasure of smoking up one of my owners on a few occassions (mainly for laughs, etc) and now he's always asking "where's the party tonight?" or "did you bring the treats?" during Friday meetings. Of course, he thinks Steve Miller is the "greatest rocker ever", so it's not too difficult to out-smart him.

Obesity is a public health issue. If transfats are a major contributor to obesity, then dealing with transfats becomes a public health issue. I fail to see the problem...

If that is the case, then ####### everything is a public health issue. Do you want the government to come to your house to make sure that you eat enough leafy green vegetables? That's where that argument leads. Where is the line?

And a transfat ban? Great. Now people will think "no, transfats are banned, so McDonalds isn't bad for you now!" People do stupid #### all of the time, and the government shouldn't be swooping in saving people from themselves.

And a transfat ban? Great. Now people will think "no, transfats are banned, so McDonalds isn't bad for you now!" People do stupid #### all of the time, and the government shouldn't be swooping in saving people from themselves.

Let me see if I get this: People are stupid, so let's not ban transfats. Mold is smart enough not to form on transfats, but because people will readily consume it, leave it alone. I see. And the government should allow the herd to cull itself. I see.

I guess I'm really blind here, but I fail to see the issue with the transfat ban. It's not like their saying you can't serve hamburgers. I'm not a huge fan of Bloomberg, but he's taken some bold steps to help people. Is anyone out there crying because they can't have transfats?

I don't think you can go slippery slope on this one North Side- there's plenty of things the government says foods can and can't contain. Unless you'd rather go slippery slope the other way....

This is foolish. The city regulates all businesses in some form or another. The city gives out liquor licenses. The city already regulates what businesses can and can't do. Should businesses be allowed to not serve Mexicans if they decide it's intheir best interests?

Yes.

According to the rationality behind your argument, that's their decision. If they think it's best for their business, then that's their call. Besides, that wasn't the argument; they turned it into a labor issue, which I think was a smart move. Employees have the right to a smoke-free workplace, and bartenders shouldn't be any different.

Employees have no such "right." They have the right to not work in a place with smoke. That right is exercised by deciding to work somewhere else, not by forcing a business owner to change his business for them.

Pretty much, yes. We're not talking about dumping toxic waste in a river here.

Follow your own logic. 50 years ago, I'm sure you would've said that the government shouldn't tell business where they can and can't dump their toxic waste. But we know better now. You're drawing the line where it used to be; we didn't used to know what waste had what health impact; we do now, so we regulate it differently. We have increasing evidence of how bad transfats are, so we take steps to limit how much people can be exposed to them. I'm not sure where the problem is.

The problem is that the decisions aren't even vaguely analogous. Nobody is "exposed" to trans fats the way they are exposed to toxic waste. They choose to ingest trans fats, or not. Toxic waste is being dumped on someone else's property. Completely different.

Personal freedom in your model seems to be the right of advertisers to convince people to #### themselves up. That's not freedom, it's ####### slavery.

No, that's freedom. Freedom includes the right to make bad decisions. Or the right to decide that a decision isn't bad, no matter how much GoogleBoy thinks it is. Smoking is not inherently bad.

I don't think you can go slippery slope on this one North Side- there's plenty of things the government says foods can and can't contain. Unless you'd rather go slippery slope the other way....

I suppose. I am not too worked up about transfats, really. Also, there is good reason for the government to regulate the amount of mouse feces that ends up in a can of soup, or whatever undetectable-by-ordinary-people components end up in someone's food. I don't know if it accomplishes any more than massive lawsuits would, though.

Unfortunately, these things often end up in a moral hazard situation, and people don't have to think about anything, because the government will make it safe. The level of responsibility shouldered by consumers seems to be consistently lower. And the "public health issue" argument really pisses me off. Everything is a potential public health issue!

Haven't read through the end yet but...

If they legalize pot, I'd probably grow some in my backyard. Phillip Morris can go F themselves.

If they leaglize it the same way tobacco is legalized, it would still be illegal to do so, just as it is illegal to distill your own spirits.

And the "public health issue" argument really pisses me off. Everything is a potential public health issue!

What choices would you like to be allowed to make for yourself that you can't make now? What choices can you realistically envision being prevented from making?

Unfortunately, these things often end up in a moral hazard situation, and people don't have to think about anything, because the government will make it safe.

This reminds me of a 2 year old's desire to be allowed to walk up a steep flight of stairs by himself...just to show that he can do it. It's not wise to let him, but we should (according to your logic), because he needs to have that sense of independence.

I know we aren't 2 year olds, but the analogy is apt, IMO. Again, the ?'s in 448 need answering.

Chris:

Well, Pops, on Page 2 DMN claimed "intent" wasn't a reason to arrest someone, and I am no lawyer, but I think he's wrong. I was watching Matlock in a bar the other night, and the sound was off, but I got the gist of it.

I don't believe that's an accurate paraphrase of anything I said. Looking back at page 2, what I actually said was that we don't arrest people because they "might" do something. These are very different; you needed to turn the sound on the television, because you didn't quite get the gist of it.

This thread has been educational.

I now know why I'm addicted to BBTF.

Bozo filters are for kids.

How many people think that Nieporent's major problem with regs has to do with the amount of public dollars that have to be spent to implement them, raise your hands.

Mine is up.

I guess I'm really blind here, but I fail to see the issue with the transfat ban. It's not like their saying you can't serve hamburgers. I'm not a huge fan of Bloomberg, but he's taken some bold steps to help people. Is anyone out there crying because they can't have transfats?

Again, you keep asking the question from the wrong direction. Is any business owner complaining. That's the relevant viewpoint.

I don't think you can go slippery slope on this one North Side- there's plenty of things the government says foods can and can't contain. Unless you'd rather go slippery slope the other way....

Sure. You know, the market is pretty good about responding to consumers' preferences. If consumers really cared about this issue -- and showed it with their wallets -- the businesses would have changed on their own, without the need for new regulations and threats of lawsuits by consumer advocacy groups and such.

You know, the market is pretty good about responding to consumers' preferences.

Thank god consumers don't enjoy the taste and smell of asbestos.

Again, you keep asking the question from the wrong direction. Is any business owner complaining.

Yes, I am a restaurant owner and I want to serve asbestos pancakes. My customers love them, but those bastards in the government won't let me do business.

Libertarians just don't have the balls to be anarchists. They like to pick and choose which laws suit them, and which ones they think aren't necessary because they don't protect their interests.

I know we aren't 2 year olds, but the analogy is apt, IMO.

The whole point is that we aren't 2-year-olds, yet a great many people, and our government, wish to treat us like 2-year-olds.

What choices would you like to be allowed to make for yourself that you can't make now? What choices can you realistically envision being prevented from making?

Most of this thread is about marijuana, so how about that? As for those I envision, how about eating beef, drinking, smoking, eating sugar-laden (or high fructose corn syrup) foods? You might say "oh, that isn't going to happen," but there are too many people who believe 1) that they need the government to make these choices, so they can save themselves from themselves, and 2) that government needs to make these choices because people are stupid. That is certainly the big-government Democrat line, and I say this as a person with great disdain for the current GOP.

Yes, I am a restaurant owner and I want to serve asbestos pancakes. My customers love them, but those bastards in the government won't let me do business.

Fine. Just don't pretend the pancakes don't have asbestos in them. Have a big sign that says "I serve asbestos pancakes that will kill you. No kidding. In like 2 years."

All of the products you mention are fine when used in moderation, so I would not agree that we are in danger of being denied them. The marijuana, issue is economic. As soon as they figure out how to regulate and tax it, it will be legal. I might be wrong about that, though.

Trans fats are not benign in any amount. They may enhance flavor, but they have no nutritional value at all (on the contrary, they do harm), so it isn't food, so it shouldn't be allowed to be presented as food. Do you want to bring back red dye number whatever it was?

Fine. Just don't pretend the pancakes don't have asbestos in them. Have a big sign that says "I serve asbestos pancakes that will kill you. No kidding. In like 2 years."

No kidding? Sheesh. edit...With all due respect, you're insane.

Libertarians just don't have the balls to be anarchists. They like to pick and choose which laws suit them, and which ones they think aren't necessary because they don't protect their interests.

On a side note, I have never seen so much hatred for libertarians as I have here. It is curious. I think of myself as a libertarian, but not as a Libertarian, as in a member of the hardcore party.

I am certainly willing to say that there are pragmatic reasons to dig into personal liberties sometimes, but I would very much like it to be for rare exceptions.

The whole point is that we aren't 2-year-olds, yet a great many people, and our government, wish to treat us like 2-year-olds.

Nonsense. The whole point is that there is a value to legislating safety measures, whether stubborn individualists want to admit it or not. Demanding that we be allowed to put our hands in proverbial fire in the interest of what you define as "freedom" is childish.

Trans fats are not benign in any amount. They may enhance flavor, but they have no nutritional value at all (on the contrary, it does harm), so it isn't food, so it shouldn't be allowed to be presented as food. Do you want to bring back red dye number whatever it was?

OK, I was a little over-the-top on the asbestos pancakes example, but that was ridiculous in the first place. But trans fats, you say, enhance flavor. That isn't like red dye # whatever at all, or like asbestos. People could have small amounts of trans fats and not drop dead at 52 from heart disease. They would have to do other things well, and not eat shitty-ass McDonalds every day, but it isn't a guaranteed death sentence. Also, it may be worth it to people to get the flavor enhancement. No, I don't really eat fast food, or at TGI Fridays or Bennigans or the types of places that are likely to drown food in trans fats. But if people like it, who am I to say they can't?

DMN at least has the balls (or lack of brains) to admit he's FOR drinking and driving without limits (as long as there is no accident). He's at least *against* preventative law enforcement.

I don't think this is precisely what he said, but if it is, it's a whacked philosophy. I mean, is it also OK to shoot a high powered rifle at your neighbor, provided you don't harm him nor his property? Is it OK to drive 75 though a school zone provided you don't hit any kids? Is it OK to fly your private airplane through O'Hare's airport traffic area provided you don't hit any 747's?

Libertarians just don't have the balls to be anarchists. They like to pick and choose which laws suit them, and which ones they think aren't necessary because they don't protect their interests.

I'm begining to agree with this.

I have to go to bed. Not ducking out. Just giving in to my bio-clock.

CJB - what's wrong with selling abestos pancakes, as long as the customers are receiving full disclosure? Seriously - people should be allowed to do what they want with their lives, and if I want to shorten my life by eating something bad for me, the government has no right, and absolutely no responsibility, to tell me otherwise.

The marijuana, issue is economic. As soon as they figure out how to regulate and tax it, it will be legal. I might be wrong about that, though.

I don't think "economic" was the word you were looking for here. And you might be wrong - many, many ideas about how to regulate have been presented in this thread alone, and the gov't is very good at taxing things.

Misirlou - I'm still confused about your flower-size argument from yesterday.

Nonsense. The whole point is that there is a value to legislating safety measures, whether stubborn individualists want to admit it or not. Demanding that we be allowed to put our hands in proverbial fire in the interest of what you define as "freedom" is childish.

This is where we are at an impasse. Yeah, I see the value, but I do not agree that the cost of individual rights is worth it. These things aren't DDT, or asbestos, or any number of things that spill over with no accountability.

Yes, they phenomenally strengthen their position among the Chris Dial demographic. But since nobody except you is saying, "I'm against legalization because there's no potalyzer machine," it's really a red herring. That's not to say that developing such a test would be a bad thing, but it would do nothing to change the political debate among the small number of non-Chris Dials in the US. So, no, it has nothing to do with "laziness."

Yes, it does more than against my demographic, but I understand why you don't think so. You are against "preventative" policing. That's fine, but also fantasy.

Fine. Just don't pretend the pancakes don't have asbestos in them. Have a big sign that says "I serve asbestos pancakes that will kill you. No kidding. In like 2 years."

and

CJB - what's wrong with selling abestos pancakes, as long as the customers are receiving full disclosure? Seriously - people should be allowed to do what they want with their lives, and if I want to shorten my life by eating something bad for me, the government has no right, and absolutely no responsibility, to tell me otherwise.

So are you both ok with the government requiring and enforcing full disclosure? If not, why would you assume the business would disclose the information on its own?

But if people like it, who am I to say they can't?

People don't like the trans fats. They like the burger. X does not equal Y here.

Trans fats or high-fructose corn syrup don't add taste at all. They just save money for the producer. Mass produced food is tasteless #### for this reason. For example, anybody who likes an egg cream knows to get the U-bet Kosher chocolate syrup, because it's made with refined sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup. Why? Because it tastes better. \

There's also the rather large issue of the government's support for our health care system. The government's a fairly big funder of our health care system as is, and may be more of a funder in the future. The government has a right to control its costs by banning unnecessary products from our lives that do no good except keep costs down for General Mills.

This is where we are at an impasse. Yeah, I see the value, but I do not agree that the cost of individual rights is worth it. These things aren't DDT, or asbestos, or any number of things that spill over with no accountability.

No, it's worse. America is fat as ####, and all those people in the hospital for heart attacks have to have their bills paid somehow.

what I actually said was that we don't arrest people because they "might" do something.

Fortunately we established that "we do". Possession of X amount might not get you arrested, but fined. Possession of X in parcels will. HTH.

So are you both ok with the government requiring and enforcing full disclosure?

Generally, yes. Selling pancakes with abestos in them while advertising them as normal pancakes is consumer fraud, which is a bit of a different issue. I should be able to eat all the transfatty pork sausages I want, but if those pork sausages are actually made of rat or something, that is a problem I would be OK with the gov't fixing.

There's also the rather large issue of the government's support for our health care system. The government's a fairly big funder of our health care system as is, and may be more of a funder in the future. The government has a right to control its costs by banning unnecessary products from our lives that do no good except keep costs down for General Mills

Or the gov't could not subsidize health care.

Or the gov't could not subsidize health care.

Sure, if you want a health care system like Rwanda's, go ahead. But since we're dealing in reality here, the government is not going to stop funding the health care system anytime soon, and no political pressure outside from the five people that vote Libertarian is going to be exerted to change that.

There's also the rather large issue of the government's support for our health care system. The government's a fairly big funder of our health care system as is, and may be more of a funder in the future. The government has a right to control its costs by banning unnecessary products from our lives that do no good except keep costs down for General Mills.

I deferred to CJB's knowledge of trans fats. My bad. Well, that would still keep costs down for consumers as well, but it really doesn't matter much, because your point about the government and health care is the real reason.

What is worse? Trans fats, or that most of the people in the United States live in pedestrian-unfriendly, sprawling suburbs, and therefore drive everywhere? I suppose getting rid of trans fats means that the drive-through fast food people eat in the car will be less bad for them, but they are still going to be fat as hell.

BTW, most of the elimination of trans fats is coming from voluntary removal, not the government (outisde of NYC and wherever else has a law), right?

What is worse? Trans fats, or that most of the people in the United States live in pedestrian-unfriendly, sprawling suburbs, and therefore drive everywhere? I suppose getting rid of trans fats means that the drive-through fast food people eat in the car will be less bad for them, but they are still going to be fat as hell.

Probably the latter, and, hey, I'm all for measures to stop sprawl and increased investment in public transportation.

What is worse? Trans fats, or that most of the people in the United States live in pedestrian-unfriendly, sprawling suburbs, and therefore drive everywhere? I suppose getting rid of trans fats means that the drive-through fast food people eat in the car will be less bad for them, but they are still going to be fat as hell.


Except you've just hit on why it's a good idea to ban them. It's less bad.

No one is suggesting that banning trans fats is the magic bullet to a healthy America, but there is no real good purpose for them other than General Mills keeping their costs down. And since banning trans fats costs less than pedestrianizing sections of downtown or removing Title whateveritwas from the GI Bill, it's a relatively painfree solution.

BTW, most of the elimination of trans fats is coming from voluntary removal, not the government (outisde of NYC and wherever else has a law), right?

Well, when New York City is effectively banning your product that's a pretty good reason to get rid of transfats. 15 million people bring more revenue than what's saved over using refined sugar or good ol' lard.

Fortunately we established that "we do". Possession of X amount might not get you arrested, but fined. Possession of X in parcels will. HTH.


Chris, no, we didn't. You have it kind of backwards. The reason for that is not because someone "might" be a dealer. It is to punish dealers without having to prove they are dealers. More appropriately, we would say that we "might" punish people who aren't dealers.

The problem is that the decisions aren't even vaguely analogous. Nobody is "exposed" to trans fats the way they are exposed to toxic waste. They choose to ingest trans fats, or not. Toxic waste is being dumped on someone else's property. Completely different.

This is based on some false notion of "choice" and personal accountability. If you know people with less money are going to eat massive amounts of transfats, contributing to their obesity and a host of other related problems, it is irresponsible not to try to help those people if you can do so without depriving them of their personal freedom. If you know that people are generally uneducated about the harmful impacts of these foods, then you either have to force the business to educate their customers or force them to make healthier foods. To go with North Side's example, Would rat droppings in food be OK if they hid a chart somewhere in the place that detailed how many were in each bowl of soup?

I always find your "punish the weak and stupid for their weakness and stupidity" refreshing though Nierporent. U R TEH UBERMENCHIEST!!!!

Restaurant owners already follow guidelines about what they can and can't use in their foods.

Again, you keep asking the question from the wrong direction. Is any business owner complaining. That's the relevant viewpoint.

See above. They have every right to complain. But the city gives them permission to do business, and to do so they need to obey the laws and regulations of the municipality. And by your logic, if the owners don't like the city's regulation, they're free to move somewhere else to do business. We regulate like this all of the time. All Bloomberg is saying is that if you have a restaurant in NYC, these are the standards you've got to abide by because we've decided it's in the public's best interest, even if it may impact the restaurant's bottom line. If they don't like it, they can go to Jersey to make money. The government provides the infrastructure the business needs to operate, they keep the currency stable so that profits can be predictable, provides and maintains a lot of the attractions that bring people into the city, ect. The business in this case has to compromise some of its freedom in order to benefit from these things.

I guess the city shouldn't be telling the business owners they're not allowed to keep rats running around the kitchen either.

Did you know Rwanda has a total of 21 dentists? link I'll assume this was a hyperbolic statement, as there is no way the health care system of the USA, the richest country in the world, could ever look anything like Rwanda's, one of the poorest. Even if the gov't spent not one dollar.

I said earlier this page that there's just no common ground here; this quote

Libertarians just don't have the balls to be anarchists. They like to pick and choose which laws suit them, and which ones they think aren't necessary because they don't protect their interests.


I'm begining to agree with this

makes me think I'm right.

If consumers really cared about this issue -- and showed it with their wallets -- the businesses would have changed on their own, without the need for new regulations and threats of lawsuits by consumer advocacy groups and such.

History doesn't really back up this perspective. The ability of business to manipulate regulatory agencies and legislators (e.g. perc, asbestos, dioxin, tobacco) belie your claims. There's also the question of informed consent. A lot of people have a hard time filling out a driver's license application. Informed consent would be more meaningful if the education system were a damn site better.

BTW, most of the elimination of trans fats is coming from voluntary removal, not the government (outisde of NYC and wherever else has a law), right?

I doubt it. The threat of the stick is more likely the carrot here, as it happens sometimes.

No one is suggesting that banning trans fats is the magic bullet to a healthy America, but there is no real good purpose for them other than General Mills keeping their costs down.

I won't argue it, but many people (DMN for sure, I would think) would not dismiss General Mills keeping their costs down so readily. What do consumers think? Well, look at the size of the specialty/organic/health food nook at the supermarket and compare it to the rest of the place.

I doubt it. The threat of the stick is more likely the carrot here, as it happens sometimes.


That may be, but sometimes dragging their feet works out - if the government comes along and makes McDonalds and Burger King and Popeyes and all the others eliminate trans fats, then no one gets an advantage.

In this case, I think it was to avoid looking bad when the competitor decides to eliminate trans fats and then advertise how its competitors are killing you.

I'll take libertarians more seriously when they get as worked up about stuff like the 4th amend. and Jose Padilla as they do about bans on transfats and other restrictions on businesses.

Well, look at the size of the specialty/organic/health food nook at the supermarket and compare it to the rest of the place.

Which grocery store are you talking about, the Whole Foods at North and Clybourn or the SaveMore at 43rd and Greenwood?

Because when you get into the SaveMore, you're lucky if the veggies are in cans. The produce is, to put it mildly, well past its prime.

Edited to add: I've also ignored issues of affordability, access and the fact that SaveMore's aren't what you'll be finding in Englewood or Lawndale, either. There you'll be lucky to find much in the way of produce.

Edited to also add: I'm sure there's some greenery available in Englewood and Lawndale, but it's the stuff we're talking about here and not the kind you typically eat.

It is to punish dealers without having to prove they are dealers. More appropriately, we would say that we "might" punish people who aren't dealers.

Right. You punish people who appear to have the intent to distribute. Not that *do* distribute, but those you perceive *might* distribute, based on qunatity and packaging.

Being in the industry I am typically, okay always, against all of the stupid (yes stupid) regs that some politico or special interest group wants to impose. I think smoking bans are silly, I think banning foie gras is silly, I think banning transfats are silly, I think nickel and diming small businesses with tons of little taxes simply because you can is silly, I think forcing employers to be the governments strong arm is silly, I think the way unemployement works is silly, I think states controlling the liquor is silly, I think not allowing people to buy and ship wine in is silly, I think not allowing people to have unpasteurized cheese is silly, I think that the fact that we have to assume that our customer is an absolute moron who lacks any form of common sense and ability to make decsions on their own is silly.

Sure. You know, the market is pretty good about responding to consumers' preferences. If consumers really cared about this issue -- and showed it with their wallets -- the businesses would have changed on their own, without the need for new regulations and threats of lawsuits by consumer advocacy groups and such.

The market does a good job of responding if consumers have enough information to make an informed choice. That frequently is not the case, especially w/r/t to obscure food ingredients like transfats.

We're making 500 easy. 600?

The market does a good job of responding if consumers have enough information to make an informed choice. That frequently is not the case, especially w/r/t to obscure food ingredients like transfats

And full disclosure/fraud prevention is a worthy gov't pursuit. The trouble starts with paternalistic laws, aiming at making choices for said consumers.

I won't argue it, but many people (DMN for sure, I would think) would not dismiss General Mills keeping their costs down so readily. What do consumers think? Well, look at the size of the specialty/organic/health food nook at the supermarket and compare it to the rest of the place.

Well, to be frank, DMN's political beliefs are on the fringe of American politics, and since American politics is fringey anyway, that shows you how far on whacko-ville they are. Republicans in short pants mean nothing to me.

I don't understand what the popularity of organic foods has to do with this. Supermarket shelves are dictated by the cost of the supplier as much as anything else, and can we drop the premise that all Americans know what's best for themselves? They think they do, but they often don't. Besides, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and the organic sections of supermarkets are increasing at pretty rapid speed, so I think "good" food is more popular than you're giving credit.

There's also the question of informed consent. A lot of people have a hard time filling out a driver's license application. Informed consent would be more meaningful if the education system were a damn site better.

Speaking of informed consent, a very big reason to shake a stick at trans fats and high fructose corn syrup is that a lot of these pseudo-foods are found in the diets of kids. Kids really don't have the capability to give consent to what goes in their bodies - if it tastes good is the sole defining factor for most kids. And often their parents don't understand it either, or if they do, they find it less worrisome than Junior screaming his head off for candy. Heck, I think my mom was probably above average in terms of deciding what I put in my body (I always seemed to have the healthiest lunch at school), but even then I still got the odd bag of M&M;'s at 7 because dammit I wanted M&M;'s.

The working poor tends to have extremely high rates of child obesity which bears this out - parents who are either too tired or unwilling to monitor their children's diets, and an emphasis on what fills up a stomach cheaply rather than giving kids what they need.

Nobody knows about transfats? I think trans fats have been very public for a very long time. Wasn't the switch to trans fats a very public move due to pressure to find an alternative to saturated fats? Who doesn't know that you are not supposed to eat trans fats?

I'll take libertarians more seriously when they get as worked up about stuff like the 4th amend. and Jose Padilla as they do about bans on transfats and other restrictions on businesses.


Why do you think that I am not concerned about erosion of rights under the 4th Amendment? You are making a big assumption there.

Which grocery store are you talking about, the Whole Foods at North and Clybourn or the SaveMore at 43rd and Greenwood?

Of course not Whole Foods. I can't speak for the SaveMore at 43rd and Greenwood, but how about a Dominicks or Jewel (aka Safeway and Albertsons) just about anywhere else in the city or the suburbs? The point is that people don't want to pay extra.

can we drop the premise that all Americans know what's best for themselves? They think they do, but they often don't

This is the fundamental difference, right here.

Speaking of informed consent, a very big reason to shake a stick at trans fats and high fructose corn syrup is that a lot of these pseudo-foods are found in the diets of kids.

Speaking of, there was a very poignant scene in Season 1 of The Wire that underscores this point. I'll say no more as I'm sure there are some here who haven't watched it.

So if we pull the bad cheap stuff out of the poor peoples cheap food and make it no longer cheap what are they going to eat? Healthy food ain't cheap and it ain't quick to make. The two biggest reasons why the poor people eat the bad food. It is quick and easy. So are we to worry about the poor peoples health to the point that they starve?

The point is that people don't want to pay extra.

No, people think they don't want to pay extra. If people didn't want to pay extra on anything, they'd go wholesale, or buy happy value meals from McDonald's. People who can afford it tend not to shop at the SaveMores of this world because Safeway has better quality stuff.

People make decisions to pay more based on quality all the time. You pay more for a steak at Morton's than you do at Sizzler.

So are we to worry about the poor peoples health to the point that they starve?

Total hyperbole. People are not going to starve. If people need an extra half hour to cook, the amazing invisible Mr. Hand of the market will make time for them. That's what Adam Smith said.

And no one's suggesting banning Burger King. It's suggesting banning some of the chemicals inside burgers from Burger King.

The point is that people don't want to pay extra.

Well there is a rather large segment of people who are very clearly willing to pay extra, the old baby boomers and the young urban professionals are both very much willing to spend extra for quality or health. But yes there is a very large segment of the population (I like to call them Wisconsinites) that simply want cheap food and lots of it.

Speaking of, there was a very poignant scene in Season 1 of The Wire that underscores this point

That was like maybe the 4th most important point they were making in that scene. But The Wire is excellent - all the non-legalizers here should watch S3.

people think they don't want to pay extra

Again, a chasm here.

Right. You punish people who appear to have the intent to distribute. Not that *do* distribute, but those you perceive *might* distribute, based on qunatity and packaging.

Not exactly. I don't want to waste more time on this, because I suppose you are going to believe what you want to believe, but the reason the law is like that is to punish people who *do* distribute, not because they *might* distribute. It just ends up punishing people who don't distribute. I know you can see the difference, even if practically it isn't a big deal.

Of course not Whole Foods. I can't speak for the SaveMore at 43rd and Greenwood, but how about a Dominicks or Jewel (aka Safeway and Albertsons) just about anywhere else in the city or the suburbs? The point is that people don't want to pay extra.

Well, the largest grocery store chain in Florida is Publix, and their selection of natural and organic foods has exploded recently, to the point where they account for about 20% of the food items, and a much higher percentage in certain categories like fresh produce and meat. Heck, even mainstream suppliers are getting into the act. The other day I bought some Keebler organic crackers.

Of course not Whole Foods. I can't speak for the SaveMore at 43rd and Greenwood, but how about a Dominicks or Jewel (aka Safeway and Albertsons) just about anywhere else in the city or the suburbs?

You're missing my point. You're not going to find a Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Dominicks or Jewel anywhere ####### near 43rd and Greenwood, Englewood, Lawndale, or other non-black market economically deprived areas. You'll also find little in the way of fresh vegetable availability, and large segments of the population with little time, money, access to reliable transport, and sometimes just plain energy to make it to another neighborhood where there is cheap and abundant produce.

This is where the libertarian argument about the all mighty empowered consumer falls flat on its ####### face. Sure, the traditional left's arguments may fall on their face, but until there is fresh, wholesome food made available at decent prices and near where people live the targeted population isn't in a position to find it without great effort.

The CDCP's spent a lot of money on some really good programs to work on obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other health problems related to poor diet. You know what? People may have their awareness raised, but until they can get fresh veggies affordably and locally it is all going for naught.

What would work? If stores that stock healthy stuff were more available locally. Why not? The big bad government?

Christ, these arguments do get really nonsensical sometimes.

PS: I edited to fix a typo.

No, people think they don't want to pay extra. If people didn't want to pay extra on anything, they'd go wholesale, or buy happy value meals from McDonald's. People who can afford it tend not to shop at the SaveMores of this world because Safeway has better quality stuff.

People don't want to pay extra above the threshold of quality they have determined to be appropriate, then. People could eat a lot healthier, but they don't.