New York's Latest Assault on Individualism

From The Center for Consumer Freedom:


Grapes can kill you. And New York City lawmakers want to make sure you’re aware of that danger the next time you unassumingly pick up some produce at your local grocery store. Grapes aren’t the only “threat” targeted by city lawmakers in a bill that would mandate warnings on bite-size foods -- known to be choking hazards for kids younger than five. The ordinance would also add popcorn, pistachios, and peanut butter to the ever-growing list of dangers to our health.

This morsel mandate is a clear-cut example of a public-policy “slippery slope.” Councilmember Domenic Recchia justified his proposal by citing the city’s menu-labeling law as a precedent: “If they can put the number of calories on products sold to the public from fast food restaurants, then we could put labels on products that are dangerous to children.” Following that logic, politicians could label, regulate, or ban anything that’s potentially harmful, which translates to “anything under the sun” (and probably the sun itself too).

L.A. Wants to Ban Fast Food Restaurants

The incrementalism of the lifestyle fascists (see smoking) aims at an easy target in never ending quest to politicize all private behavior and destroy individualism:

LOS ANGELES - In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food
is the easiest cuisine to find — and that’s a problem for elected officials who
see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.
The City Council
was meeting to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a
swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with
obesity...

Oh Yeah? Then what about this guy?

A Virginia man lost about 80 pounds in six months by eating nearly every
meal at McDonald's.
Not Big Macs, french fries or chocolate shakes. Mostly
salads, wraps and apple dippers without the caramel sauce.

The busybodies and little dictators ignore the LAW of supply and demand as always:

The California Restaurant Association says the moratorium, which could be
extended up to two years, is misguided.
Fast food “is the only industry that
wants to be in South LA,” said association spokesman Andrew Casana. “Sit-down
restaurants don’t want to go in. If they did, they’d be there. This moratorium
isn’t going to help them relocate.”

And they won't. Not only is there no demand, the crime associated with these neighborhoods that sit down restaurants are far more vulnerable to, makes the investment not worth the risk.
What restaurants to they expect to flock there anyway? Since when is discouraging business from locating to an impoverished a good idea? What is acceptable to these pests? Obviously the people in South LA aren't interested in the diet government bullies want to foist on them. They probably should eat better foods. They should also learn some personal responsibility.