Good question today -

It's interesting how we frequently call upon the government to do something about a problem and simultaneously chastise it for infringing on our rights. Should we let our obesity epidemic in low income areas remain unchecked or should we allow Big Corporate to peddle its substandard unhealthy wares to the most vulnerable people?

We often toss around the word rights. We have rights, gosh darn it, rights!!!

When this nation, in an effort to form a more perfect union, set down lists of compromises such that individual states would retain their sovereignty, and simultaneously abdicate power to an umbrella federal government for specific, more global phenomena, our Fore Fathers reserved for us certain inalienable rights. But those rights are not limitless - perhaps because in order to preserve a social fabric, the founders conceded that it's a little bit of give and take from all of us - not just take take take.

In our history, we've been deemed to have a right to travel, and to procreate (or not), yet we do not have a fundamental right to education, or to certain government benefits. If those two last things didn't make the list of "must haves", my guess is one’s right to a Whopper w/ cheese and fries isn't going to score high points with legislatures or courts.

And even those rights which have been deemed fundamental, the right to vote, the right to free speech, for example, can be limited by the government when the law is narrowly tailored, and applied in the least restrictive means, to achieve a compelling government interest. And rising health care costs, government medical aid, and lack of hospital space just might be a compelling government interest. Who knows, that's for the people with robes to decide one day, perhaps.

In the end, it's true that perhaps the job market is affected because the chain restaurants employ at competitive salaries. But it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either the government gets involved, and individuals are left to use their imaginations about putting the commercial space to marketable use, or the government doesn't get involved, and the lower income people request the government's help in resolving their ailments.

Since the ban is only for one year, I advocate the experiment of letting people figure out a way to put that commercial space to better, healthier use in order to create more jobs.

That IS a tough one.

I was thinking the other day about how the government finally feels free to regulate smoking, yet only monitors alcohol consumption as it relates to post-drinking crimes (DUI, disputes, etc.) And I think the deciding factor is that smoking is bad for you, but also the people around you. Although one could argue that alcohol consumption can be harmful to more than just the consumer, it's a much subtler harm and harder to prove scientifically.

This governmental action only roughly fits with that hypothesis, though. One could argue that poor nutrition and obesity affect lifelong health issues, especially for families with children. But it's a tougher connection to prove. As you point out, nutritional choices are personal, and don't often have direct impact on others.

On the other hand, even if fast food options are limited by this law, groceries aren't. No one will starve, and it might forcibly change some folks' eating patterns.

But that doesn't help with the job prob.

TOUGH one!

I think it would have been a better idea to offer incentives to grocery chains to open there, rather than ban fast food. Instead of taking food choices away from the people in the area, that would give them more choices. The LA Council seems to think by banning fast food, grocery chains will move in there, but if they haven't already, why would this help?

I definately disagree with this one. I don't think that banning fast food is going to encourage people to stop eating it. It might actually have the opposite effect.

I won't mind if fast food was banned across the nation. The major problem that I have with this is that they are targeting poor neighborhoods. This is not going to help people who, as you said, may rely on the jobs these restaurants provide and/or don't necessarily understand why the food served there is not a good choice (I mean, Burger King is serving apple fries now and it is affordable).

LA is judging people who are already oppressed. If I lived in those neighborhoods, I would feel like I was being punished for being poor. Furthermore, they are telling them that they are mindless consumers who can't (not won't) make healthier food choices.

Why not audition this ban in middle or upper-class neighborhoods? Isn't obesity a national problem? I don't deny that classism plays a part in who is most affected, but this ban is perpetuating classism rather than working against it.

If they want to improve the lives of oppressed people, why not provide government relief in the form of reduced prices on healthy food and education on nutrition? If they want healthy resturants and grocery stores to move in, why not provide government incentives (tax breaks?)? This is just an easy way for the government to say they are "doing something" about obesity.

I agree - I bet there are lots of fast food joints, but no grocery stores in walking distance. Grocery stores provide jobs as well as a place to buy better food.

Having a nice, bright, clean one in Columbia Heights made a big difference to that neighborhood in DC.