What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.493 Comments
- jimmies, on 07/31/2008, -17/+256Buried for innacurate title.
What they don't mention is the HUGE number of fast food restaurants that already exist there. They aren't banning fast food restaurants. They're banning MORE from being built. - Mr.Gone, on 07/31/2008, -8/+156How the hell are they supposed to get to work now!?
- FiP0, on 07/31/2008, -31/+138What's next ? Making the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to teenagers illegal ??
- 0Xonox0, on 07/31/2008, -17/+115Government Logic
Problem: "You try to get a salad within 20 minutes of our location; it's virtually impossible,"
Solution: Ban all food that does not include salad, therefore you must go 20 minutes out of your way and get a salad. - maeon3, on 07/31/2008, -4/+82Make fast food illegal, and then only criminals get to have fast food.
- TheInformer, on 07/31/2008, -19/+74And Big Massa Government intrudes into our lives even more.
- patpl22391, on 07/31/2008, -13/+67Government mandating what poor people can and cannot eat.. Welcome to America!
- Optiks, on 07/31/2008, -16/+64Seen this. Twice. But this MakiMaki front page submission brought to you in 3... 2... 1...
- jaydbell, on 07/31/2008, -8/+50maybe they should prevent check-cashing spots from opening to allow big banks to open in poorer neighborhoods. those check-cashing spots rob you blind! wait...
- krets, on 07/31/2008, -2/+41I can't haz cheezburger?
- idastheman, on 07/31/2008, -2/+35WTF If people want to eat and be fat, why does the ***** government have to step in and get tell them not to? Maybe some people enjoy eating fast food and not eating salads?
The government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot eat.
WTF kind of ***** is this? - juscallmedobby, on 07/31/2008, -5/+37New York banned trans fats a couple years ago & its now actually happening http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
- Eiknujrac, on 07/31/2008, -5/+36That just sounds ridiculous.
- Mitchl, on 07/31/2008, -2/+32Don't Wendy's, McDonalds, Subway, and other fast food locations have salads?
- dzynz, on 07/31/2008, -11/+39They didn't ban fast food, they banned new fast food restaurants. It's not like there isn't a market saturation already. At this point it is a matter of making sure there aren't MORE fast food restaurants usurping space and customers that could be at a locally owned and higher quality joint.
- SammyJr, on 07/31/2008, -9/+35Poor neighborhood = public aid and public health. LA has a financial interest in making sure these people eat better.
- urbandistrict, on 07/31/2008, -6/+31Will this solve the issue? No.
- scheibs14, on 07/31/2008, -4/+27It'll be interesting to see how the black market for double cheeseburgers develops
- swordedge, on 07/31/2008, -2/+24personal responsibility? Never heard of it
- SgtQuackers, on 07/31/2008, -13/+34Gotta love the Democrats trying to rule what everyone can and can't do.
- kaelyiesta, on 07/31/2008, -7/+27One more gentle push towards the authoritarian ***** of fascism.
I haven't eaten fast food in years, no one had to order me not to. In fact, if the government did(even in the round about way of banning future fast food chain construction), I'd be damn sure to eat fast food once a week as a way of telling them "GO ***** YOURSELF" - djm19, on 07/31/2008, -10/+29This is a really sensationalist article. There are already TONS of fast food places in poor LA neighborhoods (and fast food is narrowly defined as a non-table-waited, pre-prepared food venue). This is no different then setting up a zoning ordinance to prevent every other commercial business in an area from being fast food. Every city has zoning ordinances aimed at encouraging something. This is not the death of Americanism.
The poor neighborhoods lack diversity of business. They have to travel miles to reach a super marke, when there might be a plethora of fast food places even closer. This is to encourage other business to buy the property. - b3and1p, on 07/31/2008, -2/+20Hamburgers don't make people fat, people eating hamburgers make people fat!
- figz, on 07/31/2008, -7/+25Maybe they should focus on bringing low-cost healthy alternatives instead. Tough to compete with the dollar menu these days.
- Dauntless1, on 07/31/2008, -1/+19They need to replace it with food that's nutritious AND affordable. People eat at those places because they're convenient and cheap. Give them affordable alternatives
- Maxmaxxwell, on 07/31/2008, -1/+18The word 'Has' is used in the title, meaning it already happened.
Yet according to the article, "The mayor hasn't yet signed the ordinance, but he probably will." - bradbaxter, on 07/31/2008, -2/+18A lot more distrust of government is what you need. This is where you and I are different, I inherently distrust the government while you trust it.
I think that individuals should be responsible for their own dietary choices. I can decide what is right for my body far better than any city council, "expert" or think tank. And if I make the wrong decision about my diet, I am free to do that as well.
For liberals (socialists) it comes down to valuing the "group" over the "individual". In this case, because they want to facilitate the physical health of the "group" they take away the rights of the "individual".
Sure, the government likes to think that so-called healthy establishments will replace the fast food ones, but if this is a poor neighborhood, they most likely won't be able to afford these "healthy" businesses, which would cause the unwise business owner to go belly-up. Which leaves the poor without ANY food establishments. - Skywise, on 07/31/2008, -3/+17Nope. The government can only take away your rights...
- Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -5/+19I agree that is the problem with public aid and public health care. It takes away your freedom.
- ElderBieler, on 07/31/2008, -2/+16Are you kidding me?
The government just crossed a line out of principle. They just destroyed the basic fabric of Adam Smith's 'guiding hand.' The essence of the free market.
This is a slippery slope, they didn't "ban" the fast food. But, made a move with intent to discourage and make it difficult for people wanting to eat that food.
Where does this lead to?
Think about it. - jeffiek, on 07/31/2008, -0/+13You could be right. Maybe the market is saturated. It's possible. Starbucks just found that out. They opened so many they were stealing business from their own stores.
OR. You could be wrong.
The way I see it, there's a perfectly good, civilized, way to tell. When there are too many stores selling the same product, some go out of business (see Starbucks above). When there's lots of business, new stores open.
Sounds to me like the real reason to ban new stores is that there IS A DEMAND. Of course, the government knows what's best for everybody, so the demand will just have to be satisfied at existing stores. You know, the ones now protected from competition by law.
On the bright side, the time they spent dreaming up this cockamamie law was time they didn't spend dreaming up something even worse. - xsecretfiles, on 07/31/2008, -4/+17I'm pretty sure fast food chains don't take food stamps.........
- crunchdigg, on 07/31/2008, -14/+26no NEW fast food != no fast food.
or even no new restaurants
buried - insertAliasHere, on 07/31/2008, -7/+19Knowing that people like you exist makes my brain hurt.
You really don't see anything wrong with this? The city government has basically said that 1/2 a million people are simply too stupid to make good choices about food, so we're going to make it for them. And forget about the fact that some of these fast food restaurants may actually serve some healthy items on their menu. This is a clear example of a government overstepping its authority. - djholybolt, on 07/31/2008, -1/+13@ JoshReflek:
Sorry to tell you but in a free nation(not as free as it used to be, though), people have free will. Free will allows you to do what you please except for the cases of murder, rape, theft, ect.
To say you'd want to ban smoking, drinking, and eating, you are oppressing free will and promoting a dictatorship where a single collective mind gets to choose what they consider decent and what isn't( then they usually go home to have sex with a 16 yr old girl they made their slave in the basement of their house). The problem with this concept now adays(because it's waaaaay too late to start that kinda ***** these days) is that there's too much uniqueness upon the citizens of the country. The diversity is too robust to have any sort of crack-down on anything you had suggested. It'd be like the prohibition days all over again, and we all know that the people that want it will get it and nothing will stop them from carrying on with their business.
Lets just get over this 'health crisis' situation. If people want to stuff their faces to the point of getting a cardiac arrest, then let them be. It just thins out the population of idiots who don't know what moderation means. - Merendino, on 07/31/2008, -2/+14it is not the governments job to keep me healthy through FORCING me to do/not do something. It is my responsibility as a human being to be conscious of my weight. Alternatively its my duty and responsibility that if I do eat lots of terrible food that I take care of my soon to be unhealthy and diseased ridden ass, and not suck it out of the general publics hard earned money through socialized healthcare.
- overridemymind, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11@ JoshReflek:
You know, your comment has sooo reminded me of a few quotes from the movie "Demolition Man"
"Um, smoking is not good for you, and it has been deemed that anything not good for you is bad, hence illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat... Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal but so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence."
That's the path that your kind of thinking is setting us on. Honestly, what I'm eating or drinking is my business, and if I turn out fat -- who the hell cares? If i'm fat from eating greaseball burgers, then that's my choice -- it's honestly noone else's concern if I'm a fat guy or a skinny stick. What business is it of yours, the local government, the state government, or even the federal government?
"It's a health epidemic" *****. It's about personal responsibility, not (in most cases) a disease -- and when you classify one's personal choices and decisions as being a disease -- that leads us down the path of "Your personal freedoms are a disease" Eventually, we get something to the tune of a dystopian society. It may not have happened in yet, but the dystopian police state is coming soon, I fear. Another "Demolition Man" quote pretty much sums up my stance rather nicely:
"...I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in the greasy spoon and think; should I have the t-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries. I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese, ok. I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section, I wanna run through the streets naked with green jell-o all over my body, reading playboy magazine, why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to, ok pal?"
THAT is what the founding fathers of our nation intended (well, more or less) -- the freedom to do something or other simply because we "might suddenly feel the need to" George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock -- our nation is ***** on the sacrifices they made and the victory they won against the tyrannical king more and more every day. They're rolling in their graves. As are the people who died for freedom in WW1, WW2, the Civil War -- our nation is saying "***** you" to all those people more and more every day. - Wavemancali, on 07/31/2008, -6/+17*****. Poor neighborhood = poor neighborhood.
Banning Fast Food = Government Nanny Statism.
The government has no business telling me what I can eat. - cissystrut, on 07/31/2008, -4/+15The market speaks for itself... take it up with the people, not the government
- zyklon, on 07/31/2008, -1/+12That made me drop my head. Well played, sir.
- rebrad, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11It is sad that there are many in the country and many here on Digg that think they know beter than you on how you should live your life. These enlightened members are perfectly capable of making such decisions and occasionally bending a rule or two for themselves but those ignorant proletariat aren't able to make sound decisions unless approved by a committee of their better informed patriarchs. Someone has to care. Someone needs to say "Yes We Can", and take care of these poor creatures. Good behavior will be rewarded with continued assistance of approved heath, nutrition and diversionary entertainment sources. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
- donte, on 07/31/2008, -3/+13Or let people eat whatever the ***** they want. Any government solution, be it by banning something or encouraging/subsidizing some other kind of food is still a means of the state trying to tell you what you should/shouldn't be eating.
Also, most fast food value menus have salads on them. These people's options are not devoid of healthy choices despite having a McD's or Wendy's nearby. People have a choice and they exercise it by ordering the $1 burger instead of the $1 salad. Who the hell is anyone to order them otherwise? - zacharytelschow, on 07/31/2008, -1/+11"Also give these businesses incentive for responsible business practices."
They are pursuing profit through a legal means which provides food at a fair price to the community. Where are the irresponsible business practices here? - NikoKun, on 07/31/2008, -2/+12This is one of those "I told you so" moments...
As soon as we allow government to dictate what we can and cannot put into our own bodies, on the basis of public health, over the rights of the individual... We will start to see control of food... more and more regulations on what types of foods we can eat, and how healthy it has to be...
Eventually we will start to see, criminally enforced diets. -_- It's not a fallacy... It's happening... - rooter1ne, on 07/31/2008, -5/+15@JoshReflek:
Also cars, because cars pollute and can hit people if they're being driven too fast/irresponsibly.
And lakes, because people can drown if they're horsing around and being irresponsible.
And concrete, because people can fall and get brain damage if they're running irresponsibly down the street.
Jackass. - MarshalBanana, on 07/31/2008, -0/+9I got these cheeseburgers, man
- serif69, on 07/31/2008, -0/+9Hey, man, you want some Big Macs? I got a dime of Big Macs. All kinds of fries, burgers, shakes, you name it, I can get it for you, man.
- CosmicJustice, on 07/31/2008, -1/+10Based on your comment history, when it comes to weed you think the govt. should stay of peoples business. Why doesn't that extend to Big Macs?
- MorganMghee, on 07/31/2008, -8/+17Actually, what will happen is that industrious Americans will instead open cafes that serve fresh foods. I'd hazard to guess a lot of people would prefer fresh foods. But fast food is cheap, so profits are higher and more of them are opened than fresh food cafes.
Imagine the kind of information those officials must have on the harmful effects of fast food to make them push the limits of American freedom of choice like this. I imagine several teams of experts and a think tank or two were involved in assessing the possible costs of damages in the future versus the fight they may face now.
When you think of it, it's not that abnormal. People in my town have been complaining for years that the city will not permit any youth activities without regulations and restrictions that make it prohibitive, but pass out permits for senior facilities like play money. -
Show 51 - 100 of 497 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is