San Francisco bans Happy Meals

they must want their kids to be unhappy. they need prozac for 2 years olds now.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I like how you summarily dismiss Libertarian arguments. What foods do you want banned to make us healthier? Are there any freedoms you are not willing to give up?

I want all sorts of food banned. I want food with E coli banned. I want meat that hasn't been handled properly banned. I don't want alcohol sold to minors who can drive. I want food that is deceptively marked banned-- things like filled milk or people who copy others' trademarks. I don't want addictive substances in my food-- I think that keeping cocaine out of coca cola is a great idea.

Also-- I don't want to have to become a nutritionist or have to set up my own lab when deciding whether food meets any of these standards. I want my government to hire experts, equip them with better tools than I could ever use on my own, and work to ensure that the food supply meets some minimum level of safety. I may not agree with every decision that the government reaches, but I am more than willing to give up some portion of my freedom to not have to do those things myself.

You feel issues that can cause serious acute problems and controlled substances are analogous to happy meals?

Ahem wrote:

You feel issues that can cause serious acute problems and controlled substances are analogous to happy meals?

First of all-- what is the "serious acute problem" caused by filled milk or fake Starbuck's coffee?

Second of all-- I was responding to the libertarian drivel that all government regulation is inherently bad. It is simply not true.

Third-- why are you limiting it to "acute" problems? I also want food that causes serious chronic problems banned. I don't want to get cancer because someone is selling me tomatoes covered with carcinogenic pesticides.

As for happy meals -- there are some states where 1/3 of the ADULT population is obese. One out of three adults is unable to nourish themselves properly.

Think about that for a second-- one out of three. At some point, obesity switches from being a mater of personal irresponsibility to a systemic problem. I'm not sure where that point is. Maybe when 50% of the adult population is obese and the nation can no longer field an army-- people will start to insist that the structure of the environment be changed to help people can care for themselves.

Frankly, I don't personally believe that the happy meal toy thing is actually going to address the problem. But San Francisco's elected officials are doing what they were elected to do and giving something a try. Let's see what happens.

4runner wrote:

Frankly, I don't personally believe that the happy meal toy thing is actually going to address the problem. But San Francisco's elected officials are doing what they were elected to do and giving something a try. Let's see what happens.

What a shock. It accomplished nothing but adding a technicality.

I guess they can go back and try to make a law that says you can't charge 10 cents for a toy.

It took a long process to introduce the law, plus one year for it to go into effect.

And it took one minute to find a way around the law and make the law useless.

toro wrote:

I guess they can go back and try to make a law that says you can't charge 10 cents for a toy.

It took a long process to introduce the law, plus one year for it to go into effect.

And it took one minute to find a way around the law and make the law useless.

They made it so the $0.10 goes to the Ronald McDonald House Charity. So now if they ban it, they'll be able to claim it's taking $X away from a charity.

Don't eff with McDonalds.