One Million (Preventable) Deaths Per Year

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture
One Million (Preventable) Deaths Per Year

  

   

Sven Sven's picture

To pick up the subject of [url=Saving">http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB124234518114321687-lMyQjAxMDI5NDEy... Lives with Self-Control[/url] from [url=this">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/one-million-deat... thread[/url], which was (thankfully!!) promptly "closed for length" only milliseconds after posters exceeded the much-dreaded 100-post threshold...

Some people believe that there is a "collectivist" solution to, well...pretty much everything, whether it's obesity, low self-esteem, or a whole host of other ills.

So, I was pleasantly surprised to read this post near the end of the now-closed prior thread:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

If you can blame "society" for whatever ails you, it makes it easier to wait for society to come to your rescue, rather than having to do anything yourself or to take resposibility for your own actions. 

I used to hang around with a guy who did a lot of organisational work - some of it as a volunteer-  in the local health district, and was instrumental in  the creation of many of the clinics we have around town today.  Incidentally, this guy was an old CCF medicare warrior from the 50s, and hardly a free-enterpriser.

Out of nowhere one day he said to me, "Instead of waiting for the government to do things for them, people have to get involved and do things themselves."

Obviously, a lot of problems require a combination of individual effort and initiative with social change.  But, I think too often many people look exclusively for "collectivist" solutions and ignore the essential role that individual effort and initiative plays in solving most problems.

By ignoring, or even actively discounting, the critical role that individual effort and initiative plays in solving most problems, those who want those problems solved significantly reduce the probability that those problems will, in fact, be solved.  If a problem is repeatedly characterized as "someone else's fault" - those suffering from the problem come to believe they are, in fact, completely helpless to control or even influence their own lives.

You're not doing well in school?  Well, it's the school's fault - or the government's fault for not providing enough funding for your school - or it's the greedy taxpayers' fault.  It's rarely a particular teacher's fault, it couldn't possibly be the student's parents' fault, and it's never the student's fault (cuz that would be blaming the "victim", of course!!).

You weight 300 pounds (and, as a result have terrible problems with diabetes, breathing, and your heart)?  Well, that's the fault of greedy corporations who produce the processed food which lines your grocery store shelves - or the McD's that you drive two miles to every morning for breakfast - or the local city's fault because there isn't a public park right across the street from your home - or it's because you have to work two jobs and don't have any time to exercise (even though you watch 20+ hours of TV every week).  But, it's never because (1) you simply don't exercise and (2) you eat whatever and however much you want (because, again, that would be blaming the "victim"). 

 The list of it's-someone-else's-fault problems is virtually endless.

Stargazer

Why does this remind me of AA??

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I was happy to see Sven's previous public display of masturbation shut down. I'm not surprised to see him start all over again.

Quote:

"Instead of waiting for the government to do things for them, people have to get involved and do things themselves."

...of course, in order for people to do something for themselves, they have to have access to options. Thus the need for social activists such as the medicare champion quoted here.

al-Qa'bong

My friend's point was that he and others got up off their butts and did something about the problem.  They made the options possible by their actions.  I know this sounds as if it's taken right out of Horatio Alger, but keep in mind that they did this for the common good.  They were collectivists. 

 

Quote:

Some people believe that there is a "collectivist" solution to, well...pretty much everything, whether it's obesity, low self-esteem, or a whole host of other ills.

 

I think you're inaccurate in calling this a "collectivist" attitude. It's no more than refusing to take personal responsibility for one's behaviour.

Fidel

So what about Canadian studies that show rates of cancer and heart disease aren't lowered significantly by low fat diets?  The Canadian cancer society says that the next generation of Canadians will get cancer at a rate of nearly one in two. One in two! Do we blame genetics? At what point do we start looking sideways at our corrupt stooges and their corporate friends who want to pollute our air and water and get away with it?

George Victor

Yes, the individualist in this case cannot see the collectivist for the crowd...:D

George Victor

Well, if you have access to foods grown with that in mind (and can afford those foods, of course), you won't be one of those losers, don'cha know?

Fidel

[url=http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php]Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War[/url] 

by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Quote:
Award-winning author, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., whose 1978 book The Politics of Cancer shook the political establishment by showing how the federal government had been corrupted by industrial polluters, has written a book that is sure to be of equal consequence. [url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=rchrQnlRE5kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Epst... How to Win The Losing Cancer War[/url] is a groundbreaking new book. It warns that, contrary to three decades of promises, we are losing the winnable war against cancer, and that the hand-in-glove generals of the federal National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the private �nonprofit� American Cancer Society (ACS) have betrayed us. These institutions, Epstein alleges, have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars primarily targeting silver-bullet cures, strategies that have largely failed, while virtually ignoring strategies for preventing cancer in the first place. As a result, cancer rates have escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and more than one in every three women. This translates into approximately 50 percent more cancer in men, and 20 percent more cancer in women over the course of just one generation.

Aha! Epstein says America's corporate stooges in government have been corrupted by private industry, too. I think I'll get off my butt next election and help out the NDP in these here parts.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Again, I think that George Victor pretty much pwned this thread way back when it was first opened, post 5 of the last thread:

George Victor wrote:
Libertarianism is so rational, so individualistic, so disconnected from social/psychological reality, so God-like in its certainties.

What buoyant confidence! What dread power!

Unionist

Thanks for heeding [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/one-million-deat... call[/url], Catchfire - and thanks to George Victor yet again for putting paid to the discredited notion that individuals, and not social systems, are responsible for the ills visited upon humanity and nature.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Ahem. Great minds, etc.

Unionist

Ha! I missed that! My hat is off.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

I'm tempted to close this thread, but I've recently been accused of being a little trigger happy with the "close thread" button.

Thoughts? 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well, it seems like some people are getting their exercise from it, although I kind of seeing it as baiting--all in good fun, of course. I also think that Sven harbours a perverse hope that skdadl will import her "Socialism and Civil Liberties" debate into this thread, since he doesn't seem to want to play with the rest of us.

I will point out, however, that nowhere in the last thread did anyone claim that individuals' health-poor choices were "society's fault," despite the repeated use of quotation marks (and bolding and italics and underlining) by Sven to sustain the fantasy. I don't have a big problem with baiting threads like this, but I do have a problem with commu-phobic canards trotted out with nary a care for historical accuracy or mutual respect.

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Well, it seems like some people are getting their exercise from it, although I kind of seeing it as baiting--all in good fun, of course. I also think that Sven harbours a perverse hope that skdadl will import her "Socialism and Civil Liberties" debate into this thread, since he doesn't seem to want to play with the rest of us.

Hey, I like my exchanges with you (or just reading what you write in threads where I am not actively participating).  You're bright, well-read, and thoughtful.

Catchfire wrote:

I will point out, however, that nowhere in the last thread did anyone claim that individuals' health-poor choices were "society's fault,"...

Taken literally, you are, of course, correct.  I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices.  If it's corporations who are producing fat- and sugar-filled processed foods, then it's "society's fault" for allowing that to happen, not the fault of the individual who chooses to eat copious quantities of such food.  In other words, the "it's-society's-fault" POV is a POV that assumes most problems are inherently systemic and that those problems can only be solved by society-wide solutions, solutions that invariably emanate from and are controlled by government.

wage zombie

Sven wrote:

I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices.

How does that POV correlate with the collectivist POV?  I suspect there is no correlation.

G. Muffin

wage zombie wrote:

Sven wrote:

I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices.

How does that POV correlate with the collectivist POV?  I suspect there is no correlation.

Before I answer that, I guess I should ask you what "collectivist" means.

G. Muffin

And then I'll tie it into diminished capacity, British Columbia's Mental Health Act, and the film "Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise, that brilliant spokesman for Scientology and humanitarian and all around fine human bean.

G. Muffin

And then someone will accuse me of going "off topic."

G. Muffin

Why She Died: The Goodbye 3.14

George Victor

G. Muffin wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Sven wrote:

I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices.

How does that POV correlate with the collectivist POV?  I suspect there is no correlation.

Before I answer that, I guess I should ask you what "collectivist" means.

Looking at the above exchange, G.Muffin, you might get several variations on that. Google it up.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
If it's corporations who are producing fat- and sugar-filled processed foods, then it's "society's fault" for allowing that to happen, not the fault of the individual who chooses to eat copious quantities of such food.  In other words, the "it's-society's-fault" POV is a POV that assumes most problems are inherently systemic and that those problems can only be solved by society-wide solutions, solutions that invariably emanate from and are controlled by government.

 

I think that most people understand that if you're cold, you should maybe put a sweater on, and if your feet hurt, maybe you want to loosen your shoelaces. I expect that at a (pun not intended) gut level, we all understand that if people made different choices with regard to what they eat, those people would likely be healthier in the long run.

 

Where you're going to run into pushback suggesting such a bold and revolutionary idea is that to a significant degree PEOPLE WON'T FIX THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. You could cut the price of a bag of carrots in half, and people will still troop to McDonald's. You could subsidize potatoes and brown rice, and people will still order a meat-lover's pizza with dipping sauce. You could open a natural, vegan, organic whole-foods restaurant beside every Burger King, with prices below cost, and people would still hit that Burger King.

 

So, clearly, these people need to be saved from themselves, preferably by rugged individuals who've done mighty battle with their own "brainwashing" and are now free of the yoke of fast food. People who just plain know what's best.

 

I agree with you, by the way. If you have a few hours to catch up on Lost, you have a half hour to go for a walk. Exhaust that option first before we start asking the State to parent us.

Unionist

What about banning trans fats, Snert?

 

Fidel

Or to ban junk food advertising aimed at children, like Quebec has done? There's nothing like plying them with trans-fats, high salt and high caloric diets when they're not long out of the crib and developing life long eating patterns. Tobacco ads were bad enough.

George Victor

And while the focus is still on food, I have observed that the taste of food is one of the last remaining cognitive sensations to disappear from those whose brains are slowly destroyed by some of the two dozen varieties of dementia. And I'm sure  that with their access to the latest science, the corporate purveyors of food know that... as did the tobacco manufactuers. 

But the freedom-lovin' libertarian will resist such recognition of our corporal vulnerabilities to the end.  Probably comes from a "we're made in God's image" beginning, and something to do with Satan.   Amazing how Voltaire spent his entire life putting paid to such nonsense and it persists a couple of centuries later.  (Roger Pearson's Voltaire Almighty: a life in pursuit of freedom is a wonderful account of his battles. And, yes, Voltaire understood "freedom" to be defined only in social context, if not quite so much as Rousseau. 

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Or to ban junk food advertising aimed at children, like Quebec has done?

Québec banned all advertising aimed at children 30 years ago - and after 10 years of court challenges by big business, the ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1989.

Much discussion about that on babble and more info [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/youth-issues/ontario-ndp-wants-ban-food-ads-kids....

Yes, Fidel, such advertising should be banned, but certainly not confined to "junk food". Children should not be brainwashed by advertisers. Although I guess some of our free enterprise babblers would mount the barricades in favour of children's rights here...

The ban in Québec is still there, and it gets enforced when complaints are laid.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
What about banning trans fats, Snert?

 

I find that a bit iffy. I would prefer labelling of them, and letting buyers decide (same with high fructose corn syrup) but I expect that, as I suggested, many people wouldn't care, and would go ahead and buy such products anyway.

 

At the same time, if we can really, genuinely demonstrate that they cause harm the way, say, melamine in milk does then they might cross the line from "not as healthy" to "actively and acutely harmful" in which case banning them would be reasonable. I, personally, just find it really hard to believe that the Crisco my grandmother used in her pie crusts is some kind of toxin.

 

Quote:
But the freedom-lovin' libertarian will resist such recognition of our corporal vulnerabilities to the end.

 

Recognition? I certainly recognize that we like the taste of food. For sure. I wonder, though, by "recognize" do you maybe mean "recognize and then take decisive action against all who sell food"? If you really feel strongly, I suppose I could support a motion to bar people with dementia from fast-food restaurants, if you think it would help.

 

Also, you're darn right about me lovin' freedom! How do you feel about freedom, George? Is it burdening you? 

 

 

RosaL

Oddly enough, Snert worries about the State "parenting" us but he doesn't seem at all worried about what the corporations are doing to us (something much worse than parenting!) Even more oddly, he regards this exploitation/destruction as "freedom"! Well, certainly it is freedom for the corporations! 

Unionist

Snert wrote:
You could cut the price of a bag of carrots in half, and people will still troop to McDonald's. You could subsidize potatoes and brown rice, and people will still order a meat-lover's pizza with dipping sauce. You could open a natural, vegan, organic whole-foods restaurant beside every Burger King, with prices below cost, and people would still hit that Burger King.

 

So, clearly, these people need to be saved from themselves, preferably by rugged individuals who've done mighty battle with their own "brainwashing" and are now free of the yoke of fast food. People who just plain know what's best.

That's your opinion, Snert, but in the real world. when society acts in various ways to discourage bad lifestyles, it works. Too many examples to bother writing them down. But how about this:

Quote:
For more than 25 years, Quebec has had one of the world's toughest policies on the marketing of products to children. Section 248 of the province's Consumer Protect Act prohibits companies from directing their advertising to anyone under the age of 13, effectively preventing sellers of high-fat or super-sweet junk foods from pitching these foods to kids.

According to 2004 StatsCan data, the prevalence of obese and overweight children in Quebec is lower than in the rest of Canada. Children in Quebec also eat more fruits and vegetables and less fast food than children in provinces where industry essentially polices itself when it comes to advertising to children.

[url=http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/38799.html]Canadian Institutes of Health Research[/url]

Fidel

Snert wrote:

Quote:
What about banning trans fats, Snert?

 

I find that a bit iffy. I would prefer labelling of them, and letting buyers decide (same with high fructose corn syrup) but I expect that, as I suggested, many people wouldn't care, and would go ahead and buy such products anyway.

I care. I like public health care and think we should keep costs for taxpayers as low as possible. If people want to eat recreationally, let them do it without the long-term artery cloggers and carcinogens. They'll never miss them in a taste test.

Unionist

Why bother with state-imposed communistic prevention, when a cure is readily available?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/05/obesity-surgery-children.html]... teens offered surgery option[/url]

 

Sven Sven's picture

 

The question of whether a problem is caused by bad individual choices or by systemic flaws is not something that is limited to the issue of obesity.

With respect to obesity and countless other problems, many consider any focus on individual choice as being anathema to being "progressive".  The "Puritan work ethic" and the concepts of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and "personal responsibility" grate on the ears of many like nails on a chalkboard.

To them, individuals suffer principally, if not exclusively, because of systemic problems (e.g., the free market, the profit motive, greedy taxpayers, "the rich," private property rights, a variety of "-isms," etc.) which can only be solved by systemic solutions, which are engineered, promulgated, and enforced by government bureaucrats.

I think a very significant (but not necessarily the primary) driver of much of that approach is by people who personally benefit from the existence of systemic solutions: Government employees as well as people employed by non-profits who support governmental solutions, because if there must be big, systemic solutions, then there must also be a massive number of people employed to create and put those solutions into effect (the federal government alone in the U.S., for example, employs about two million non-military bureaucrats).  And, even before that, there are people employed to advocate for the adoption of new systemic solutions.

So, if there was any admission that "personal choice" was part of the solution to any particular problem, then that would threaten the jobs of those who rely on problems being addressed solely by systemic solutions.

But, as significant as that may be, I think that repeatedly denying the importance the role "personal choice" plays in many social ills makes solving those problems almost impossible.  If obese people, for example, are convinced by the advocates of systemic solutions that personal choice is not that important or that their problem simply cannot be resolved without a systemic solution, then many of those people will take no responsibility, and take no personal action, to help themselves - when such personal effort is, in fact, critical to solving their problem.  Instead, it becomes: "Woe is helpless me - because it's someone else's fault."

And, like I said, this is not limited to the issue of obesity.

You got fired from your job?  Well, it must have been "management's" fault or because you're not in a union shop - it could never be the fact that you're always late, continuously producing sub-standard work, and always trying to get others to pick up your share of the work.

You're failing in school?  Huh.  It must be that the school's fault.  The fact that you spend hours every day playing video games instead of cracking open your books couldn't possibly be the cause of your failure.  Instead, the school needs more money - that is "the solution"!!!

In reality, many problems require a combination of systemic solutions and personal initiative.  If a society has poor roads and a virtually non-existent transportation infrastructure, even Herculean personal efforts will not result in a competitive economy.  If laws don't prohibit hiring and firing for discriminatory reasons, both society and the individuals effected by those discriminatory actions will suffer.

So, if people are genuinely interested in solving problems, then they must admit the critical role that individual choice plays in causing those problems.

Sven Sven's picture

Fidel wrote:

If people want to eat recreationally, let them do it without the long-term artery cloggers and carcinogens. They'll never miss them in a taste test.

I suppose you better ban alcohol, drugs, and tobacco while you're at it, too, no?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Too many examples to bother writing them down. But how about this:

 

That's great, but they're kids. We're stepping in because they're children. I think children, by definition, need to be protected by adults. Adults shoudn't require the same, unless they're cognitively child-like or some similar.

 

Quote:
Well, certainly it is freedom for the corporations! 

 

It's freedom for all of us. A corporation is free to say "Hey, buy our quadruple cheese explosion-burger" and you and I are free to say "no thanks". How is this kind of freedom not good, Rosa? Is your own freedom to say "no thanks" just not working out for you? Do you really NEED the state to address this offer of a quadruple cheese explosion-burger on your behalf? Or are you doing OK with saying No, but you'd like the state to intervene on everyone else's behalf, in case they don't also say No?

 

Unionist

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Too many examples to bother writing them down. But how about this:

 

That's great, but they're kids. We're stepping in because they're children. I think children, by definition, need to be protected by adults. Adults shoudn't require the same, unless they're cognitively child-like or some similar.

Two questions, then:

1. Do you agree with a total ban on all commercial advertising targeting children?

2. Should adults be allowed to drive automobiles not fitted with seat belts and airbags?

 

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

[According to 2004 StatsCan data, the prevalence of obese and overweight children in Quebec is lower than in the rest of Canada. Children in Quebec also eat more fruits and vegetables and less fast food than children in provinces where industry essentially polices itself when it comes to advertising to children.

[url=http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/38799.html]Canadian Institutes of Health Research[/url]

I wonder how much of that is due to the limits on advertising and how much of it is cultural. Quebec, in many ways, has a very European culture to it whereas the rest of Canada is more heavily influenced by America. Obviously, European diet and exercise habits are fat better than those in America and the population over there tends to be much healthier.

Sven Sven's picture

Unionist wrote:

Two questions, then:

1. Do you agree with a total ban on all commercial advertising targeting children?

Although your question was directed to Snert, I have a clarifying question: How would you define "children," age-wise?  Would the ban apply to 17-year olds as well as to six-year olds?

Snert Snert's picture

1.  Yes.

2.  I'd say yes, if there were some reasonable other way by which adults could protect themselves in the case of an accident.  If you find your face suddenly going through your own windshield, you can't just say "No thanks" to that.  I see our current seatbelt laws as a bit of a kludge (and I'm mindful that one of the strongest lobbies for mandatory seat belt laws was the insurance industry, who saw seatbelts as a great way to pay out fewer claims).

Unionist

Sven wrote:

Although your question was directed to Snert, I have a clarifying question: How would you define "children," age-wise?  Would the ban apply to 17-year olds as well as to six-year olds?

The Québec legislation applies to under-13 years old. There's lots more info about it in that previous thread. I think under-13 is justifiable, and that's what my question meant.

 

Unionist

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

I wonder how much of that is due to the limits on advertising and how much of it is cultural. Quebec, in many ways, has a very European culture to it whereas the rest of Canada is more heavily influenced by America.

Uh... no. I have noticed nothing "European" about Québec cuisine, which in fact has been separated longer from its European origins than that of any other immigrant group in Canada. Tourtière, tarte au sucre, fèves au lard, cretons, pouding chômeur, St-Hubert fried chicken, Mae West, Schwartz's and Snowdon Deli smoke meat... oy vey. All traditional, all pretty deadly stuff. Anyway, modern Quebeckers shop and eat the same way as other Canadians (and North Americans), but the advertising ban after 30 years has obviously had an impact.

 

RosaL

Snert wrote:

It's freedom for all of us. A corporation is free to say "Hey, buy our quadruple cheese explosion-burger" and you and I are free to say "no thanks". How is this kind of freedom not good, Rosa? Is your own freedom to say "no thanks" just not working out for you? Do you really NEED the state to address this offer of a quadruple cheese explosion-burger on your behalf? Or are you doing OK with saying No, but you'd like the state to intervene on everyone else's behalf, in case they don't also say No?

 

The king is free and so are the peasants. The emperor is free and so are the serfs. The guys with the big guns are free and so are the defenseless elderly. What could be better?

Sven Sven's picture

RosaL wrote:
 

The king is free and so are the peasants. The emperor is free and so are the serfs. The guys with the big guns are free and so are the defenseless elderly. What could be better?

I'm sorry, but that analogy (or metaphor, or whatever it is) doesn't even make sense in this context.

Sven Sven's picture

 

Unionist wrote:

The Québec legislation applies to under-13 years old. There's lots more info about it in that previous thread. I think under-13 is justifiable, and that's what my question meant. 

Thanks for that clarification.

In concept, I have no problem with such a ban.

From a practical perspective, I would be interested to know how Quebec has implemented the law.

If a kids' magazine is written with the intent of being read by a certain age (say seven- to ten-year olds), it would be relatively easy and appropriate to ban advertising from that magazine (even if an occasional 14-year old read it).  Likewise, if a cable television program runs at 11pm, it would be reasonable to assume that the large majority of viewers would be 13+ years of age (even though some small percentage of 13 or younger kids might see it) and, thus, reasonable to permit advertisements for Twinkies on such a program.

But, in many, many other instances, the dividing line would be far from clear:

  • A billboard for Twinkies, which would be seen by everyone, of any age, passing by the billboard.
  • An ad for Twinkies on Hockey Night in Canada, where there would undoubtedly be a significant portion (although probably not the majority) of the viewers are in the 13-and-younger age group.
  • An ad for Twinkies in the online version of The Onion, which is likely to be seen by many 13-year olds.
  • A snack ad in Sports Illustrated.
  • Online advertising generally presents a huge challenge for those wishing to censor food ads from the eyes of the young.

So, while not a bad idea in concept, it would seem like a nightmare to actually enforce it in any meaningful way.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The guys with the big guns are free and so are the defenseless elderly.

 

The clown in red shoes is free, and so are the adults who can ignore him.

 

Unless you really see yourself as somehow oppressed by a fast food restaurant, your examples are foolish.

 

Are you saying you need help, Rosa? Please be plain, if so. But you really seem to be saying "I can't say no to fast food without the State's help!"

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

Uh... no. I have noticed nothing "European" about Québec cuisine, which in fact has been separated longer from its European origins than that of any other immigrant group in Canada. Tourtière, tarte au sucre, fèves au lard, cretons, pouding chômeur, St-Hubert fried chicken, Mae West, Schwartz's and Snowdon Deli smoke meat... oy vey. All traditional, all pretty deadly stuff. Anyway, modern Quebeckers shop and eat the same way as other Canadians (and North Americans), but the advertising ban after 30 years has obviously had an impact.

Just speculation on my part. Certainly, whenever I go to Montreal (where my dad is from and I have still have family), I tend to gorge myself on smoked meat and poutine but I think other parts of Quebec aren't quite the same. Still, I wonder how many MTLers are eating Schwartz's EVERY DAY. That stuff is good but will kill you fast.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I'm making a somewhat larger point.

 

I'd settle for a smaller one that relates to the discussion.

RosaL

Snert wrote:

Quote:
The guys with the big guns are free and so are the defenseless elderly.

 

The clown in red shoes is free, and so are the adults who can ignore him.

 

Unless you really see yourself as somehow oppressed by a fast food restaurant, your examples are foolish.

 

Are you saying you need help, Rosa? Please be plain, if so. But you really seem to be saying "I can't say no to fast food without the State's help!"

 

I do see myself oppressed by the system of which McDonald's is a part, yes. I don't know when I was last in a McDonald's. I'm making a somewhat larger point. 

George Victor

Snert wrote:

Quote:
The guys with the big guns are free and so are the defenseless elderly.

 

The clown in red shoes is free, and so are the adults who can ignore him.

 

Unless you really see yourself as somehow oppressed by a fast food restaurant, your examples are foolish.

 

Are you saying you need help, Rosa? Please be plain, if so. But you really seem to be saying "I can't say no to fast food without the State's help!"

If you are saying that all are equally vulnerable to the sales pitch, it is you who are the clown, Snert.

RosaL

Snert wrote:

Quote:
I'm making a somewhat larger point.

 

I'd settle for a smaller one that relates to the discussion.

 

If you can't see its relation to the discussion I don't have time right now to explain it to you. Perhaps someone else can oblige. I may have time this evening. 

Briefly: how much choice do you think medieval serfs had? Take it from there. 

Unionist

Sven wrote:

 

From a practical perspective, I would be interested to know how Quebec has implemented the law.

 

Check these links for an introduction:

[url=http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law... regulations[/url]

[url=http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1989/1989scr1-927/1989scr1-927.html]The Supreme Court decision - very interesting[/url]

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/youth-issues/ontario-ndp-wants-ban-food-ads-kids... real-life examples of enforcement[/url]

[url=http://www.opc.gouv.qc.ca/WebForms/CommuniquePresse/CommuniquePresse.asp...'s a release (in French)[/url] from last July about McDonald's pleading guilty to 6 counts of violating the Act. Burger King was similarly condemned in an earlier case.

The fines are puny - but the violations themselves are the exception rather than the rule. Generally speaking, the rules are respected, and it makes a huge difference in terms of the climate IMHO.

Your questions are all good - but when you start with a social and political will, and legislation to back it, you can answer those questions.

Pages

Topic locked