The province I live in announced this week that they will eliminate all trans fats sold in restraunts by 2010. I am personnally disgusted with this decision. I am all for labeling such foods but to outright ban them is too big brotherish. I find extremely hypocritical that the same government makes more than $2 a pack in tax on cigarettes a product that it is proven that half its users die a slow painful death and are extremely addictive. For christ sakes we are adults and can make are own decsions on what we eat. Though I dont eat at KFC people I know who do say that when they eliminated trans fats the taste of the product suffered. Even if they wanted to put some sort of tax on trans fat I wt would be better than saying you cant have them at all. Sorry for venting but I like me some trans fats.

Edit: I am a retard, someone please move this to OT.

wow

You're missing out on their coleslaw and gravy/poutine. Mmmm. Their hot wings are tasty as well.

Please don't say Manitoba, please don't say Manitoba!

QFT!!!

New York City and Boston seem to be doing okay without transfats. There are still plenty of other yummy fatty foods around.

But you have free healthcare?

yeah, that's terrible. your government is trying to help you. how awful. move this to bad beats...

fwiw its all of canada not just newbish donklumbia

Hopefully they will get around to helping you not piss away your money online playing poker.

Then they will help you not to break your legs skiing by shutting down the lifts.

Then they will go to work on your other sports.


But hey, they are here to help protect you from yourself.

Makes no sense to sell cigarettes then but they do. Makes no sense to sell liqour then but they do. Makes no sense to sell many of the pharmemeuciticals but they do. My guess is in long run more peoples life will be cut short from pollution from carbons but they will never try and take are cars away. But if I want a burger and fries that taste good every once and awhile no I cant because it might kill me 40 years down the road.

There was a good King of the Hill about this a few weeks ago.

I saw that then this week they announce this BS. Maybe I should open a modern day speak easy for fattys

I haven't noticed even the slightest difference in NYC. I understand if you have a theoretical reason to be against it, but practically it will make no difference.

Do you eat types of foods that were effected(had to change the recipes, ect). My understanding is there is pretty much no getting around trans fats when it comes to some pastrys. I also heard McDonalds cant find a recipe that works for there fries. Have you eaten there since the ban?

I eat at McD's but I don't get the fries because they're so darn unhealthy. Hope that helps, though I know it doesn't.

I find extremely hypocritical that the same government makes more than $2 a pack in tax on cigarettes a product that it is proven that half its users die a slow painful death and are extremely addictive.





That can't be true, can it? A smoker has a 50% chance of not contracting cancer/emphysema? It's gotta be much higher than that, yes?

Someone help me out here.

The warning labels on cigarettes up here state that 50% of smokers die from smoking related illnesses.

Speedz, you've seen a King of the Hill episode that relates to everything.

Weird.

As to this topic, I don't know whether I agree with the OP, or whether I think people are so stupid as to need people telling them what to do, or whether I am indifferent altogether.

I'll pick one of those options at random if I'm forced to make a play on the subject later.

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm

I did the test...a 60 year old that has been smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 40 years has a 6% chance of developing lung cancer in the next ten years. I know lung cancer is just one of the possible killers that can be partially caused by smoking, but if it's that low of a percentage it can't be even close to 50% overall.

Not that anyone should take a 6% chance.

It just that good of a show.



I guess I was wrong.

This is almost exactly how I feel. Except I could never have said it so efficiently.

You all have some pretty pics on your cigarette packs too.




There's nothing good about smoking but pretty much everyone gets some kind of cancer if they live long enough. I obviously pulled that statement out of my cancer ridden colon.

6% of smokers get lung cancer? Again, I would expect that to be much higher.

If it was that much higher there would be entire hospitals dedicated to nothing else.

A few years ago McD's was cooking there fries in animal fat. When vegetarians freaked out, they switched and they fries tasted a bit different.

Not really sure how that applies, but this thread made me think of this.

Isnt there?

That 50% number is confusing now. I just went on a health Canada site that says 39,000 out of every 100000 smokers die prematurely(before 70) where as non smokers were at about 16,000 for every 100000. That 50% must include people older than 70 who die of any disease that can be attributed to smoking. I think heart diseaase is the #1 killer of smokers but I am not sure how much of that can directly attributed to smoking as smokers in general have unhealthy lifestyles as compared to non smokers.

this is hilarious.


I believe it was Mark Twain who once said, "there are three types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics."


its extremely easy to bend the truth with statistics.

i think you contradicted yourself.

but if additives in potato chips can cause anal leakage, perhaps the government really isn't looking out for anyone's best interests (unless there is a lobby group for it).

It's funny how, when gov't encroaches, the people who say "it's the slippery slope, next they will regulate <something ridiculous>". The people asking for the regulation say "it would never go that far."

Then a few years later, they are doing it.

People used to be able to smoke in bars, and when they started outlawing it, people with brains said "it's the slippery slope, next they will be outlawing fatty food". Everyone scoffed at those crazy libertarians and other freedom lovers.

Now they are banning fatty food.

Soon they will be attempts to make it illegal for grocery stores to sell fatty food. ("That's crazy, they'd never do that").

It doesn't stop. Once the gov't can protect you for your own good, there's always one more project on the horizon that is only slightly more insane than the last one.

but they're trying to help us! don't they know better whats good for me than I do? they are the government, after all.

But wait, what does this mean?



Ohhhh. Now I get it.

smart ass


I hate you.

I still don't know how I feel about this. But New York is way better off now that people can't smoke in bars (at least in the eyes of a non smoker, of course).

I know man, I go used to go into a bar, kill my liver with intoxicating substances so I can drive home drunk and have unprotected sex with some skank I just met, and some guy has the nerve to blow SMOKE in my face. The nerve!

God, I miss the US of A.

1) The liver can heal. Lungs can't.

2) Drive in the city? Are you mad?

3) Again, what is this "sex" that everyone talks about?

I definitely enjoy going out way more since smoking in restaurants was banned. Do I think that makes it right? No, because lots of bar and restaurant owners have been harmed by these laws. I like going out to eat at smoke-free places, but I don't think that my right to do so is greater than the right of the person who pays the bills to make a living and make his/her own rules at the place he/she is paying for. The same with the rules on trans fats. If people cared about it, any restaurant that wanted could advertise "Trans-fat free!" and people could go there.

Each step of the slippery slope may seem reasonable compared to the last one, but some cities are banning smoking in private residences or in cars now. The rules are made with regard to the harm caused, but never with any thought of the benefit. Everyone knows smoking is dangerous, but some people choose to smoke anyway. Why? Because in their estimation, the kick they get from cigarettes is worth the risk of dying a prolonged painful death.

I know McD's is horrendously unhealthy, but I go there anyway. Why? Because it's fast, predictable, cheap, and sometimes a bit of greasy comfort food is just what I need.

*Everything* in life has *some* risk; there is no logical stopping point. Once the gov't says "we can protect you for your own good", every action you take is up for grabs. It really wasn't that long ago (less than 10 years) that people laughed at the idea that the gov't would ever regulate fatty food. Now it's happening.

I think there's a difference between smoking in public places and trans fats or smoking in private or in your car. I agree with you about the trans fat label on restaurant thing. Really, to be honest, I'm not all that sure I fully know what the difference between a trans fat and an regular fat is. And if I'm eating at a place that regularly serves trans fat, I don't think I'm eating there for my health.

But smoking involuntarily effects those around you. Again, you could say, "just don't go to bars where there's lots of smoke" but those really didn't exist. So, is it in the government's right to ban smoking in bars? Of course it is, in the sense that anything that gets passed into law is in their right. Were they theoretically justified in doing so? Again, I'm not sure, and I think the answer would require a deep discussion into the role of government. But the practical me is happy they did it, even if the theorist may not be.

The only thing I found that tastes a little different is the french fries.. everything else seems the same to me.

really? where?

I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I'm just curious. That's a pretty ridiculous (and unnecessary) step.

<br /><br /><br />

I'm not sure how many of these passed... I think the one in apartments did, the ones for cars, no.

Sorry, I can't do links correctly because of the filters here at work, but here's the link to cut and paste:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-1...king-bans_N.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGOLORI821.DTL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8697348/

I actually agree with the smoking thing. At least here in CA it was billed as protection for the employees. Which makes sense, if you do not smoke but want to be a bartender, waiter, DJ, etc. You should not have to suck down boatloads of Cigarette smoke.

After that most clubs/bars either had an area outside where everyone could smoke, or some bigger ones set up smoking rooms.

But I do agree with Henry on the slippery slope, and I do remember people using the fatty foods analogy when they started banning cigarette smoking indoors. Man thats like 10 years ago now. When I go to Nevada I forget that you can still smoke inside.

There should be a law that forces people to eat LESS. Overeating is the real cause of obesity.

there really should just be a law against fat people in general. over 25% body fat? OFF TO IRAN YOU GO.

there goes the forum

lets be realistic

<br /><br /><br />

Don't limit yourself, man. We should have a law that makes it illegal for anyone to do anything that can be shown to be, in any way, even remotely harmful to themselves.

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS STUFF??? its driving me crazy.


ooo ooooooo.


and I can't heeeeelp myseeeelf.

Sorry about that, I can't make it go away. It's there because I have to use a web proxy because my stupid company blocks this site. For some reason it makes HTML code show up as raw text. I hate it, but really won't go away. If I delete it, the forum appears to put it back.

I figured it was something like that. mainly I wanted to get in a vague Fine Young Cannibals reference.