[NOS2Go4Me]

No, I'm saying education should be the course of action, not the punishment of a business group for a product that they provide that when eaten in moderation is far less harmful than drinking or smoking.

If anything, ban smoking as no-one's dietary requirements are met by turning your lungs into charcoal. Quality icecream is a dairy serving (sometimes more) but the fat and sugar content means that you need to be judicious in what you eat.

Banning icecream is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They don't want to learn to eat in moderation, they'll just ban the source of temptation.

Would they ever do the same with cigarettes? It's doubtful, especially if cigarettes are a source of revenue for the band. I don't know and honestly I don't care enough to try and find out when they're doing something as silly as banning ice cream.

[ZTWsquared]

PDW,Jul 12 2007, 09:47 AM Wrote:First of all I never heard of this ban and will havee to look into it....
but...
No offense here but you kind of just contradicted yourself a bit...
Why not shoulder the responsibility ?... seems like they have and took action and "removed the problem"

They haven't removed the problem at all ... the problem isn't the ice cream and the problem isn't the person selling it. What they've removed is one source of supply and a hapless scapegoat. The problem is in the individual's choices to purchase and ingest the ice cream.

If removing the ice cream vendor is seen as part of a larger solution then so be it ... but I think people are deluding themselves if they think that by simply banning the supply the problem disappears; and I think you are being disingenuous to suggest that this is the same as "taking responsibility."

And the ban on smoking is to protect those who don't smoke ... it's not an attempt to get people to stop, although it seems to have some small effect in making that happen too. This ban on ice cream is nothing like that at all.