good question?

[acroyear]

San Francisco Bans Happy Meal | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | American Voices:

"Why don't the San Francisco politicians do something to truly protect children, and ban all seismic activity within city limits?"

S.F. is a lovely city, but the "nanny state" factor, whether it's over-zealous health codes cutting into personal privacy, or over-zealots arses trying to ban the night-life, has simply got to go.

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

outright bans are antithetical to "America".

what should be done is to lobby to require alternatives (which HAS been successful at the kids meal level, if you'll note the choices of apple slices instead of fries, plus milk instead of soda, all at no extra cost).

it also helps to simply not patronize restaurants that don't offer lower-sodium, lower-calorie alternatives. "Eat This Not That" has done marvels at getting restaurants to change (Chili's in particular), because it really did have a direct impact on their patronage.

but a blatant ban is not the way to go. regulation doesn't mean take my choices away from me. it should NEVER mean that.

i don't have a problem with adding taxes to non-healthy items (sodas, for example), as it is in a sense a luxury item. we don't need a freakin' coke.

but i do have a problem with any government authority believing it can just ban my choices outright.

"think of the children" has got to go. think for your own damn children if you want, but stop trying to think for mine.