Sanjuro wrote:Liv wrote:I completely disagree.
We as a country enable our obesity, our dependence on oil. Look at what's happening in the Gulf or in our wars. Americans need to slow down, lose the cars, and if they want their fast-food they can walk up to a window (like Cook-Out) and have a similar convenience. Anything else is just silly. By your mentality we should have a business that sells crack and crack pipes and we should let people determine after several years of addiction if it's healthy or not to have a McCrackonalds in our neighborhood.
Its very easy to say we should lose the cars and lose the oil dependency, but where will those jobs go in an already over-saturated job market? Either way, certainly losing drive-throughs wont even put a ding in it. I find your analogy illogical.
People have to eat, they just may choose to eat in a healthier manner, or at least not through a window. Jobs wouldn't be lost, at worse they'd move into healthier, better paying jobs such as grocers. Losing drive-throughs can enable change, it won't change it all together. That doesn't mean we shouldn't adopt it.
Liv wrote:There's overwhelming science to say the ratio of fast-foods to grocery stores can effect child-hood obesity and then adults.
Source?
There's many sources... Just google...
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare ... tion/14769Liv wrote:We're not taking away an individuals option to purchase fast-food, though I could probably get behind that too...
But you are taking away the business' right to compete on what it was founded on. And your premise is not sound as the whole business model is built around the food and access to it being fast and there is nothing wrong with it. Like anything else in life we can purchase for ourselves, "all things in moderation".
When your grandfather is dying of cancer, do you go buy him cigarettes when he can no longer leave the house? American's have very little capability for moderation, and I doubt simply adding 10 feet of pavement to get to the food (and shutting off the engine) is going to compromise one's God given right to a double cheeseburger. Drive-thrus say we're greedy country unwilling to even give into a little bit of compromise so the entire world can be a better place. Even if there isn't direct correlation or larger effect (which I highly doubt) it's a chance to make a mental change and say we're not the fat-lazy Americans the rest of the world thinks. We don't take natural resources, or even food in general for granted. That we respect our existence.
Liv wrote: we're taking something that fundamentally just doesn't benefit anyone.
Neither do the donuts you just did a review on.
Low blow... I admit I'm a hypocrite on this subject. I have no will-power. I'm typical, I'm average. I'm for every sense of the word, one who would benefit from this legislation. I've also seen how living without fast-food has caused me to eat more healthy. Not having a Krispy Kreme right down the road meant I didn't have access to the doughnuts immediately. I purchased them not at a drive-thru, but at a grocery store where I also purchased healthy food to make a meal. Let me ask you this... when you went to Krispy Kreme to try them, did you buy salad? I did. Get my point.
Liv wrote:You can't even argue the quickness of it as it's often quicker to go inside. The only argument that can be made is for the handicap.
Thats true, but one can just as easily say that one would often not know either way.. besides, its a good time for me to catch up on txt msgs.
Just remember as you sit in that A/C climate controlled Scion with your crackberry and your gooey cheese hamburger, someone is sleeping in piss stained clothes feeding their last bit of dumpster obtained stale cookies to their pet dog. Sacrifice... sometimes it's worth it.
