free refills now target.

[Exterous]

No one is outlawing anything. You could buy two sodas, or go to the store and buy as many 32 oz bottles of soda as you like. Way to freak out over a minor change.

Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis unveiled a proposal that would outlaw large-size sodas and other sugary drinks in area restaurants to the City Council on Monday.

She’s also suggesting that city officials consider banning free refills of sugary beverages

You aren't very smart are you?

(Oh and you could just spend twice as much to get two sodas instead of getting a free refill? Why the hell would you want to do that? What if you wanted 4 refills? Just spend 4x as much! Yeah - thats a freakin great idea)

 

[Ninjahedge]

The law is stupid.
People are stupid.
Blaming it on "Liberals" is stupid.


The whole thing is, people should watch how they double speak when they post about this crap. I am not saying that you do not have the right to express your opinion, but when you go on and say "Gubberment should keep their hands out of everything in my life", yet are anxious to defend OTHER issues that the government DOES regulate that they APPROVE of along similar lines is just plain duplicitous.

Objecting to a particular law does not make it so every law needs to be banned. Objecting to this nanny-regulation with overstated zeal has little weight and may just provoke an equally absurd counter-measure.

 

[thraashman]

The law is stupid.
People are stupid.
Blaming it on "Liberals" is stupid.


The whole thing is, people should watch how they double speak when they post about this crap. I am not saying that you do not have the right to express your opinion, but when you go on and say "Gubberment should keep their hands out of everything in my life", yet are anxious to defend OTHER issues that the government DOES regulate that they APPROVE of along similar lines is just plain duplicitous.

Objecting to a particular law does not make it so every law needs to be banned. Objecting to this nanny-regulation with overstated zeal has little weight and may just provoke an equally absurd counter-measure.

Threads like these make me think we should start a thread about how all conservatives want to round up gay people and put them in fenced in internment camps to die out over time. And then we could get all liberals to come in and agree that that's what all conservatives want to do. It's the same logic you're getting in this thread of "if one wants to do it, all want to do it, attack the group as a whole".

 

[ShawnD1]

Instead of legislating sugary drinks, why not do to the fatties what they did to the smokers--alienate them and make them feel bad for their choices. Lots of TV ads, maybe from thetruth.org or whatever the site is. At least it might be entertaining to watch--like the bullhorns in front of the buildings, they could just have the bullhorns in front of the fatties walking in the streets.

The fatties will either commit suicide, lose wait or just go get another soda--BUT AT LEAST THEY SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE.

The problem is that none of the things used to deter smoking will work against food.

When I was a kid, anti-smoking people either said or implied that smoking just 1 cigarette made you hopelessly addicted, which is a lie, but you don't know it's a lie until you smoke 1 cigarette. You can't use that same lie with food. People eat food every day just to stay alive, so kids will immediately know that this is a lie.
They also tried to portray tobacco companies as evil corporations that want people to die. It's hard to say that about food because food is not inherently dangerous. Too much food is what's dangerous, and "too much" varies a lot from person to person so it's hard to accurately say how much is too much.

 

[JockoJohnson]

The problem is that none of the things used to deter smoking will work against food.

When I was a kid, anti-smoking people either said or implied that smoking just 1 cigarette made you hopelessly addicted, which is a lie, but you don't know it's a lie until you smoke 1 cigarette. You can't use that same lie with food. People eat food every day just to stay alive, so kids will immediately know that this is a lie.
They also tried to portray tobacco companies as evil corporations that want people to die. It's hard to say that about food because food is not inherently dangerous. Too much food is what's dangerous, and "too much" varies a lot from person to person so it's hard to accurately say how much is too much.

True. I was being mostly sarcastic in my response but laws like this are just stupid. You can't legislate health but you can inform people. I wouldn't have a problem with the gov't doing PSA ads where they inform people of the consequences. People always find ways around laws if they want to. Being informed is more valuable in changing a behavior then to just create a law.

Prohibition worked out great, didn't it? So did the war on drugs. Then Congress won't make cigarettes outlawed due to bribes from lobbyists so others stepped in and did the information campaign. It helped alot.

Maybe it's not politically correct to point out that fat people are fat and unhealthy and a burden on the medical system and society in general.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Nah, Tobacco does not want you to die.

If they could find a way to cure cancer, or extend your life at minimal cost, they would do so (they lose so many "good, loyal" customers that way).

They just do not CARE that you will die if you start using their product.

Odd that in a country where things like nail polish remover (acetone) can be removed from shelves because of a slim cancer risk (not even from the use on fingers either) that Tobacco not only stays, but is subsidized by the government......


OT!!!!!

 

[BoberFett]

Threads like these make me think we should start a thread about how all conservatives want to round up gay people and put them in fenced in internment camps to die out over time. And then we could get all liberals to come in and agree that that's what all conservatives want to do. It's the same logic you're getting in this thread of "if one wants to do it, all want to do it, attack the group as a whole".

Uhhhh... threads demonizing all conservatives are started around here constantly. It's practically an ongoing theme in this forum that all conservatives are mentally deranged and dangerous.

 

[Ninjahedge]

JJ and others....


The key is not to outlaw crack, but to just make it harder to come by.

If you allowed crack to be sold at the school cafeteria you would have more problems than only allowing it with a prescription (wark). Same goes with this stuff.

The things that would work better than forbidding refills or super sizing would be proper dietary regulation for school children (which has been mucked up to NO end), taxation of items that end up costing us money in the end (health care), and a restriction on advertising showing completely unrealistic situations (like sexy women getting orgasmic while eating a Big Mac).

All the other stuff will do is just make people pissey.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Uhhhh... threads demonizing all conservatives are started around here constantly. It's practically an ongoing theme in this forum that all conservatives are mentally deranged and dangerous.

Um..........


too easy.

 

[hal2kilo]

If you draw a logical conclusion to any of these stupid laws, then any "all you can eat" buffet should be closed. Heck we have a stupid TV show with an idiot whoes skill is to see how much he can eat. Where's the bitching there?

 

[thraashman]

If you draw a logical conclusion to any of these stupid laws, then any "all you can eat" buffet should be closed. Heck we have a stupid TV show with an idiot whoes skill is to see how much he can eat. Where's the bitching there?

If you're referring to Man vs Food, that show is by no means stupid but absolutely fascinating. I get great ideas of places to eat on vacation from that show.

 

[Phokus]

I'm just amazed that government has the time to regulate consumption behavior.


Yes fat people are a scourge on society, but this will not stop them from being fat. They need a complete lifestyle change, which cannot be legislated.

The government has legislated consumption behavior successfully before: see indoor smoking bans and the improvement in bar/club/restaurant experience for most people (and more people going to those establishments after the ban)

In this case, this was a bad way to go about it, if the government, instead, added taxes to bad food making it expensive to buy, it would add incentives to eat healthier, depending on how much the tax is.

 

[her209]

The government has legislated consumption behavior successfully before: see indoor smoking bans and the improvement in bar/club/restaurant experience for most people (and more people going to those establishments after the ban)

In this case, this was a bad way to go about it, if the government, instead, added taxes to bad food making it expensive to buy, it would add incentives to eat healthier, depending on how much the tax is.

Too be fair, someone consuming sugary drinks in large amounts doesn't affect another persons experience at a restaurant like smoking does.

 

[BoberFett]

Um..........


too easy.

Yes, but we're talking about the government limiting intake of certain foods, not your mother. Please stay on topic.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Yes, but we're talking about the government limiting intake of certain foods, not your mother. Please stay on topic.

My mother is a 63 year old Physicist.

"Easy" just does not fit in SO many ways.

/me avoids use of "on your mother" retort.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Too be fair, someone consuming sugary drinks in large amounts doesn't affect another persons experience at a restaurant like smoking does.

I had that argument about that with the passing of the no-smoking regulation at bars.

The point was, if I were allowed to take a sip of scotch and spray it on everyone sitting next to me, then I would say that it would be unfair to not allow smoking in a bar.

So long as they cannot contain it, it is an infringement on the people around you through no choice of their own.

"If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else!"

No, you couldn't. Because in every group, there was always someone that smoked (almost always), which made groups go to bars that allowed it. Bars that didn't did not last long. So unless you tolerated it, the only other place to smoke would be a restaurant or home.



OT

 

[DrPizza]

I completely disagree with making laws to deal with this. However, before half of this country became fat, way back in the 70's, a 16oz bottle (glass bottles) was a treat. Now, people treat it as if it's an equal replacement to water. And now, the serving size keeps going up and up. There were 16 ounce cups, then 20 ounce cups, then 24, the 32oz "big gulp", and then, 7-11's or someone, trying to outdo the others, started serving 48 oz & 64oz. Since the drinks are intended to be consumed at once, they may have "serving size 8oz" stamped on the side, so they can point out how few calories there are in a serving, but most consumers can't do the math and multiple by the 8 servings they're about to drink.

The entire thing was a gradual cultural change. Portion sizes went through the roof at places as their way to compete with other businesses. Now, we're stuck with everyone serving humungous portions on everything. How do we transition back to reasonableness?

 

[Tom]

smoking bans are based on second hand smoke, and its bloody annoying to have to breath other people's smoke.

government soft drink limitations have no correlation.

Besides that, there's no reason to think this would accomplish anything useful, its beyond moronic.

 

[Tom]

I completely disagree with making laws to deal with this. However, before half of this country became fat, way back in the 70's, a 16oz bottle (glass bottles) was a treat. Now, people treat it as if it's an equal replacement to water. And now, the serving size keeps going up and up. There were 16 ounce cups, then 20 ounce cups, then 24, the 32oz "big gulp", and then, 7-11's or someone, trying to outdo the others, started serving 48 oz & 64oz. Since the drinks are intended to be consumed at once, they may have "serving size 8oz" stamped on the side, so they can point out how few calories there are in a serving, but most consumers can't do the math and multiple by the 8 servings they're about to drink.

The entire thing was a gradual cultural change. Portion sizes went through the roof at places as their way to compete with other businesses. Now, we're stuck with everyone serving humungous portions on everything. How do we transition back to reasonableness?

Buy the size you like ?

 

[rayfieldclement]

If someone wants to tell me what to eat or drink or how much it is time to leave the union or throw them out the union.

 

[Bateluer]

The right to choose and be responsible for your body when down the drain when you demanded other people pay for your medical care. When you require others to pay for your health problems, then those others have every right in the world to tell you you cannot smoke, drink a gallon of Pepsi a day, or live on Twinkies.

You cannot have it both ways, either you're responsible for yourself or you're not.

 

[Ninjahedge]

But then that brings in the wrinkle that most health care professionals will not let you die.

They will try and heal you no matter what you can afford and bill you for it later.



As for the sodas... I think the free refil is a lame duck.

The 16oz rule is bad enough, but it may help things if you have to keep getting up to refill your cup. I think they need to increase the cup size salable at these places to something like 20 or 24 ounces, but get rid of the frigging huge ones. You want more? Buy two. By the time you get to the bottom of a 48 oz it is either melted (slurpee) or flat.

 

[Exterous]

The right to choose and be responsible for your body when down the drain when you demanded other people pay for your medical care. When you require others to pay for your health problems, then those others have every right in the world to tell you you cannot smoke, drink a gallon of Pepsi a day, or live on Twinkies.

You cannot have it both ways, either you're responsible for yourself or you're not.

The cost of insurance being socialized is not new. Its been that way for a long time yet people have not had this 'right' you speak of before

 

[nehalem256]

The cost of insurance being socialized is not new. Its been that way for a long time yet people have not had this 'right' you speak of before

So you actually want to pay for people that make poor life choice?

 

[Genx87]

I'm just amazed that government has the time to regulate consumption behavior.


Yes fat people are a scourge on society, but this will not stop them from being fat. They need a complete lifestyle change, which cannot be legislated.

Give these authoritarians 30 years.