I totally agree. That’s why I capped the ban to say “Denny’s.” After that, people will care. This will never pass.
Bad parallelism. Suggested re-wording:
If you ban salt and only the band will have salt.
IIRC, the Chicago ban was overturned by the courts. I’m hoping the same will happen here in California. If foie gras is banned, duck will get more expensive, and I’ll be very unhappy.
Don’t hold your breath on that one. If this actually gets passed as opposed to being laughed out of the house, then you can turn this into a ‘gotcha ya’ moment.
Then again, Assemblyman Felix “Dipshit” Ortiz’s bill would basically criminalize Alton Brown…I think I’d watch the show where Alton has to use his sock puppets and other visual aids to convince a judge salt is ok.
Restaurants like Denny’s and McDonalds would be the most affected I believe. Even without the *added * salt there are foods that just cannot be made without it. An easy example is bread…have you ever tried to make it without salt? Oh it can be done, but the end result (with the exception of very few specific recipes) is not something you’d want to make a sandwich with. And then there is bacon, and other “preserved meats”. I submit it is simply impossible to cook a single (whole) meal that would have the proper taste and texture that any sane person would even consider paying money for.
The article specifically said salt in any form so tricks that are used to lower sodium (but not eliminate it) would be right out…
Not only that (and you are correct) but salt is a vital ingredient even if it is a very small amount in a lot of dishes because of the chemical reactions with other things…it can affect texture, depth of flavor and even color and appearance of some things.
Isn’t there a term (other than passive-aggressiveness) for mutiny through obedience? Because if the bill bans salt in all forms, a strict adherence to the law would get it repealed within the month once the legislation discovers all their meals taste like shit.
Ban was overturned in 2008. NY Times Cite. Skip the fruit and add a glass of SGN Gewurz or Sauternes and you have my perfect appetizer.
Apparently he’s not just a twit, he’s all-but-inarticulate:
I propose we fine anyone who uses intake as a verb – take in uses the same letters, even. And no person who thinks “exercising diets” makes sense shall be permitted to hold office in the state of New York.
.
Both are unhealthy things which are targets of prohibition because people either don’t understand that not everyone wants to live forever, are angry that someone else is enjoying something, or are The Only Person In The World and should have the government make things that annoy them punishable as crimes. Regulation of unhealthy food, like regulation of smoking, is initially defended through a cloud of “but if we don’t ban this, we’ll have to spend more on medical care” and demonization of those who don’t spend every hour of the day fretting over their BMI, but ultimately can’t be defended beyond the level of “we have the power, and we get off on using it against those who don’t” when subjected to rational scrutiny.
Forgive me if my sarcasm meter isn’t reading your post correctly, but you do know that salt is a necessary component of a human diet, right?
Or, you know, it could be that tobacco not only has no positive health benefit (even alcohol has some), but it also affects the people around you. I could order a plate of french fries and eat them less than a foot away from my favorite high blood pressure patient, and he wouldn’t get even a twinge.
Smoking is frowned on because it affects other people and there is no benefit to be derived from it. Consumption of salt does not affect other people, and there are proven health benefits to sensible consumption. That is the beginning and end of it.
It won’t pass, though. If it were California, I’d give it a solid 50% shot because they’re freaking crazy over there, but I doubt New Yorkers are that insane. If there does turn out to be a substantial movement behind it, it’ll most likely get moderated down to enforcing awareness in menus, like how most restaurants already do for spicy or healthy foods.
Why not both? And I generally prefer a more acidic dessert wine to accompany Foie than Sauternes…helps to give you that “mouth cut” through all that fat…
And now that you’ve admitted that “I want to be able to go wherever I want without seeing things that annoy me, regardless of what the owners of the establishments think, and my precious whims are so important that those who violate them should be subject to criminal penalties” is the basis of your anti-smoking position, what exactly is going to stop those who are annoyed by seeing salt from doing the same?
Actually, yes. Leary gave The Speech, and it is a brilliant summation of something I believe in … the freedom to choose, even if it may not be the right choice, the freedom to learn from my own mistakes once in a while.
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/denis-leary.html
Leary delivers a defiant speech about freedom:
I wouldn’t run naked through the streets, but I certainly Do draw the line at “permitted foods”. And reading. And the occasional good cigar.
There is a phrase, I’m gonna steal it for a second:
An it harm no one, do what ye will.
The term is Malicious Obedience. In short, you obey the rule to the exact letter, chapter and verse, knowing full well that if you do, it will become a horrible disaster.
Superman did this once with a villain who was magically-powered. Dude had Supes in a choke hold and told him to remain perfectly still. Supes decided that since the guy had given him no frame of reference, he’d follow that instruction to a T.
The Earth promptly sped away at 300,000 miles per hour or whatever speed it goes around the sun, and the dude passed out from oxygen deprivation.
Would the bakery in Queens that my German great-grandparents owned and operated count as frau frau? 
I believe the term you wanted is frou-frou.
You’re suggesting this is logical?