Stacy Keach’s character: Cmdr. Malloy:
“The United States is a non-smoking nation! No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women – unless you’re married – no foul language, no red meat!”

To which Kurt Russell’s Snake Plissken answers:
“Land of the free.”

We should be able to make up our own minds or The land of the free is just a cruel joke. After all we are talking about table salt. This would be the final nail for the restaurants in NYC and I can see the rest of the the countries major cities saying, yea that’s what you do and laugh themselves silly all the way to the bank!

Your comment exemplifies one of the realizations that led me to libertarianism. All laws are freedom-reducing acts, excepting those whose only purpose is to undo other laws. Each creates a new set of rules the state uses to justify the punishment of citizens. I realized at some point that since punishment is an implicit part of every new law, regardless of what legislators may claim, it becomes necessary to ensure that all laws prevent a greater degree of harm to society than the harm imposed by the punishment of the law itself.

When modern laws are measured according to this principle, it is remarkable just how many fail this simple test. Then again maybe its unremarkable as this country has had 200+ years of unrestricted legislating with only 3 or 4 revolutionary acts interspersed. When in high school I wondered why the founding fathers made new legislation so hard to pass, now I fear they didn’t make it hard enough.

I’ve lived with them and their attitude for most of my close to 60 years. It is a problem from the bottom up because most want someone to decide FOR THEM.

Laws have replaced ethics and morality in this country. And if it’s not “illegal”, it must be ok to do!

Tiocfaidh ar la!

This is unsurprising in the extreme, makes “dog bites man” look downright sensational.

It seems to me the problem lies in the code of the system. My solution is to outlaw legislation.

I believe it was Radley who, the other day, wrote that if a law is overly broad, it practically invites a prosecutor to interpret it in an overly broad manner, leading to tyranny.

What could possibly be broader than the basic power to create law in the first place? Is that not at the root of societal rot?

Without salt, neurons do not transmit. Cells cannot power their ion pumps. Nature has selected on us to be a bunch of salt junkies because it’s such an essential nutrient. This is the same reason sugars taste delicious as well. Your gustatory sense is quite literally a chemical detector. Salt in excess tends to taste bad – this is the body’s way of telling you you’re overdoing it. I trust my gustatory senses a lot more than I trust this Ortiz clown. Where’d this guy get his degree in biology/medicine/nutrition again? The only people that need to really worry about salt intake are people with kidney disease. If anything New Yorkers, being inclined to use stimulants such as coffee in their daily lives, should get more salt(s) in their diet, as well as more fluids.

Are there no more useful laws left to be written that these hacks have to resort to this silliness?? If this is what it’s coming too, maybe we don’t need elected bureaucrats anymore. I’d say we’ve got enough laws at this point.

Personally, I use Himalayan Crystal salt.

I’m also quite aware it would be screening for type I, and I’m unconcerned about the general public not understanding the difference between the types. In any case, it’s one of the chronic conditions where screening every few years is a good idea – early management is important for developing a working treatment regime and preventing organ damage.

In addition, in some people there is a period before they start needing insulin which can be extended considerably if treatment is given – the drugs to do so are in late-stage trials. That’s harder to do if you’re waiting until the kid’s brought to the doctor with chronic fatigue or has seizures on the playground when they skipped breakfast one day.