Quote:
|
Originally Posted by timmgirvan
I don't think there is a legal leg for them to stand on! There would have to be a general election to pass a law,I think. How 'bout you?
|
I'm with Timm on this one. I would think they could make an argument to insist all restaurants post the trans fats contents on their menus, but not to forbid them cooking with them.
Of course, I also thought the smoking ban here wouldn't stand up legally, and it did. Go figure. The NYTimes did a cute article about the ban, two years later, where they found even most smokers were happy with the ban, for two reasons: A) their drycleaning bills had gone down and B) having to go outside to smoke was a great way to meet girls who were also outside to smoke. Now, if Bloomberg had only thought to present the ban that way-- "Ban smoking; find romance," people would have RACED to see the law enacted.
