If I was the proud owner of a McDonalds in San Fran, you could be sure I would be defiant in regards to the Happy Meal law. I would offer 2 prices for a Happy Meal. One w/o a toy and one with say 10 cents more. You know, whatever the cost of the stupid toy. The bottom line, getting around the silly law. I mean look at the ban on smoking. I don't smoke cigs and avoided a great night club because it was too smokey. My choice. However, now the government over stepped their authority and banned smoking. In the past it was government that made segregation a law and unfortunately it was government that over reached once again and force private establishments to serve everyone.
Quote:
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2010
*
Health Tyrants
*
*********** Do federal, state and local governments have a right to intervene in our lives when it comes to choices affecting our health? Recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to forbid restaurants from giving gifts with meals that contain too much fat and sugar, a measure aimed at McDonald's Happy Meals. The reasoning of these tyrants is to prevent McDonald's from using toys to lure children into liking foods the board deems non-nutritious. Fortunately, San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom, by no means a libertarian, has threatened to veto the measure saying, "Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."
*********** If the board of supervisors gets away with this intrusion into parental responsibilities and choices, we can bet the rent money that they will not stop with McDonald's Happy Meals. The reason is that Happy Meals are not the only contributors to child obesity.
*********** What and how much they eat at home, what time they eat and how much they exercise play a role. When San Francisco's Board of Supervisors see that their Happy Meal ban has not produced the desired results, they'll seek to widen their reach. That might include laws that set purchase limits on non-nutritious items in the city's grocery stores. Depending on family size, there would be a limit on the purchases of delights such as Twinkies, Pop Tarts, lard, salt and other threats to good health. Maybe the Board of Supervisors would issue ration stamps that a person would need in order to purchase foods that threaten obesity.
*********** There will be other challenges for San Francisco's Board of Supervisors. Not every California city has banned Happy Meals. Happy Meals lovers can just go across the Bay Bridge into Oakland or the Golden Gate Bridge into Sausalito to dine on Happy Meals or smuggle them into San Francisco. Maybe a Happy Meal black market would emerge. That means the board of supervisors might make random stops of cars coming into the city and have its police make Happy Meal arrests.
*********** You say, "Williams, you're really stretching it; they'd never go to those extremes!" There's no limit to what do-gooder zealots will do to accomplish their mission. Think back to the 1964, the time of the "First Surgeon General Report: Smoking and Health." Back then, tobacco zealots called for "reasonable" measures such as warning labels on cigarettes and restrictions on advertising. Emboldened by their success in getting these relatively benign measures, tobacco zealots moved on to seeking bans on smoking on airplanes and airports; suits against tobacco manufacturers; confiscatory taxes on cigarettes; denying child adoption to smokers; bans on smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces; even bans on outdoor smoking such as in stadia, public beaches and city streets. Had the tobacco zealots called for all of these measures, as a total package back in 1964, they would not have even gotten warning labels on cigarettes. That's the tyrant's strategy: Attacking people's rights to property and liberty on a piecemeal basis reduces resistance.
*********** We Americans have given federal, state and local governments the right to interfere with any aspect of our lives when it comes to issues of health. So should we be surprised when an emboldened Congress enacts Obamacare, even though most American were against it, that not only mandates that we purchase health insurance but will eventually control virtually every aspect of our health care? Should we be surprised when government tells us what food to give our children? Should we be surprised when government taxes soft drinks in the name of fighting obesity? Should we be surprised when governments order restaurants not to serve foie gras or cook with trans fats? If you think government has the right to look after our health, how far would you have it go? How about a congressional mandate for morning calisthenics, eight glasses of water a day and eight hours of sleep each night?
*********** Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
*
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Walter Williams wrote a good piece. However, like many academic types; he is a day late and a dollar short. The Williams article is dated 24 November, 2010. On 23 November, 2010, the SF Board of Supervisors over-rode the mayoral veto.
Walter Williams wrote a good piece. However, like many academic types; he is a day late and a dollar short. The Williams article is dated 24 November, 2010. On 23 November, 2010, the SF Board of Supervisors over-rode the mayoral veto.
You mean it was published on 24th. It's pretty obvious he wrote it over a week ago before the veto.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Am I the only one that sees the irony in libs wanting to control what type food you put in your and/or your kid's body, but many of the same ones will fight tooth and nail for a woman's "right" to abort the child before birth?
I'm shocked that gavin newsome was against the bill. He's always struck me as a lib's lib.
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
Do federal, state and local governments have a right to intervene in our lives when it comes to choices affecting our health?
Does the same question apply to the ingestion of substances such as meth, heroin, etc. There was a time when heroin was legal. Now it is not. Its usage is "a choice affecting our health" too, no? How about steroids? Or better yet (arguably) the "stacking" of supplements by athletes?
While I do not condone all government intervention, some is necessary and logical. History has shown that auto companies were willing to sell dangerous cars as long as the litigation was cheaper than the recall, as but one example where public entities will only do the right thing when forced to do so.
Not necessarily referring to this case, but the above captioned quote is the lead question in the article...it is intended to solicit a resounding, knee-jerk "no!" While I do not disagree with the entire article or the premise, it is not that simple, although the article renders it so.
The premise that we should be allowed to eat anything sold has limits too. The FDA was formed to help protect the public and without it and other governmental oversight we'd have serious issues that we do not have now.
Health Tyrants
