NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005 From: None of your business Status: offline
|
It's simple economics that a government ban will not change. I have 5.00 dollars, that will buy me a crap combo meal that will keep my stomach from growling for 8 hours and some change left over. Versus... I have 5.00 dollars, that will be me a healthy meal, with the addition of another 2.00 which I don't have. Simple math. Banning something that fits into the economic conditions, will not change the economic conditions. Healthy food isn't going to become cheaper do to less fast food places. They aren't dependent upon each other in regards to determining affordability. If someone can explain how banning fast food restaurants makes the community have more money, then it could work, but until the community has more money, they can only afford cheap food, even if you build healthy food joints those that don't have the money for the better food will still eat the crap food, because that is what they can afford. And since we are talking about poor areas, if california's welfare system works like Illinois, then the number one thing you can do to slim down the poor would be to ban soda, potato chip, and candy purchases with the link card(Illinois version of food stamps), I swear a full 80% of the time I see a link card it is buying a Mountain dew or Hershey's bar and it is always in the hand of some Fat bloated heffer, or a anorexic Meth Head, maybe the responsible ones just having bad luck use it at the grocery store, but I see the link card at convenience stores more than any other place, and that is what I see it used for. Maybe if the only thing you could purchase with a link card were healthy groceries then that would change the grocery store equation in poor areas. As is the link card is more of a Pepisco / Coca-Cola / Fritos / Nestles grant program than a means to provide healthy food to poor people.
|