Question of the Day
Should the government be able to dictate to restaurants which ingredients are acceptable? Next thing you know, we will have Health Department inspectors at kiddushes telling us that the kishke and chulent are off limits.
Should the government be able to dictate to restaurants which ingredients are acceptable? Next thing you know, we will have Health Department inspectors at kiddushes telling us that the kishke and chulent are off limits.
Labels: Random Thoughts
posted by MoChassid @ 3:45 PM
11 Comments:
At 6:15 PM,
Gil Student said…
I think real kishke is illegal, which is why only vegetarian kishke is available unless you know someone in Williamsburg who can hook you up with the real thing.
At 6:19 PM,
DovBear said…
I am in favor of this legistlation.
Why should we the taxpayer have to pay (via medicare, and medicaid) for the heart diseases this chemical causes? Why should all of our health insurance rates go up because some rest. are serving poison?
At 6:20 PM,
DovBear said…
MoC, how about a post explaining why you think it's a good ifea for the US to become a police state.
At 7:23 PM,
The back of the hill said…
Respectfully, I have to say that Dovbear is ......
Next you'll be putting Indian restaurants out of business because most of what they serve qualifies as 'heart-attack-on-a-plate' with at least TWO sticks of butter per serving. W
here then will Indians go when they are sick of plain lentils and vegs, white-folks pablum, and a near absence of flavours they are used to?
An Indian celebration without butter? Loads of butter? Bucketfulls of the heartstopping yummy goodness of real butter? Unthinkable!
If restaurants are only allowed to serve wholesome, healthy, goodferyou food, what point will there be in going to restaurants?
Salad, fercrapssakes, you can eat at home.
At 10:33 AM,
DovBear said…
He shouldn't decide what I am permitted to eat in the safety and security of my own kitchen.
But if a rest. wants certfication from the state, why shouldn't the state be able to require the rest. to sell foods that won't contribute to our already stratospheric medical bills? Do you appreciate just how deadly these fats are? Do you understand what government and individuals pay each year to treat these diseases? I think anything that makes people healthier, and brings down medical costs should be supported.
If a rest wants to sell poison, let them contribute more money to the states medicare and medicaid fund.
At 10:35 AM,
DovBear said…
Why do you think the state should be able to decide what I am permitted to smoke?
You accept the logic of the argument (no marijuana. no smoking indoors) why don't you accept that the state can also regulate the types of food served by rest which are under the states supervision? Believe me, a few platfuls of those fats are far worse for you that eating something a roach might have run across. The state can prevent the rest from selling roachy vegetables. Why can't it prevent the rest from selling deadly fats?
At 3:37 PM,
DovBear said…
Apples and oranges. Alcohol was banned. No one could have a drink, anywhere, anytime.
This rule merely says that rests. can't poison people.
If you want to eat the poison in your own home kol hakovod, but you can't be served it in a state supervised rest.
I think that's a fine law. And remember we're not talking about an actual food, but a chemical. You can still have frenchfries and patries and the rest. It's possible to prepare them in a way that isn't deadly.
I really see no downside.
At 5:05 PM,
DovBear said…
Neither calories nor sugar are poison in the way that these fats are.
At 5:06 PM,
DovBear said…
There would be massive costs involved.
Healthier americans mean massive SAVINGS
At 6:14 PM,
DovBear said…
We already stop rest from serving cockroach eggs and mouse dung. How much more could it possibly cost to keep them from selling poison?
At 6:14 PM,
DovBear said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home