New York To Ban Sugary Drinks Over 16 Oz - Update - Stopped by courts 3/11

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070212184119.htm


Inhaling partially oxidized carbon and particular matter is bad for my lungs?? Why didn't anyone tell me this!!?!?!? Oh, doctors and firefighters have been saying that for literally decades? We should make some kind of EPA regulation saying that Korporations not allowed to put too much particulate matter into the air because it fucks up your lungs. That's already a law? Oh. Well then I guess my drug dealer lied to me! I can't believe a person selling stuff would lie to me like that. I expected my friend, Turbo, to keep up with medical literature.


http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm


So adding marijuana tar to my lungs doesn't cancel out the tobacco tar? Next they'll tell me that the sky is blue. God damn liberal elite scientists and their anti-marijuana agenda.

Too bad you are misinformed, you likely had pre-conceived notions of how bad marijuana must be due to all of the propaganda you have absorbed over the years. Yes, there may be a protective effect from cancer by smoking marijuana. I know it may not fit your ideology, but science is science.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer
ScienceDaily (May 26, 2006) — People who smoke marijuana--even heavy, long-term marijuana users--do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd.
Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found.

The findings were a surprise to the researchers. "We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500-1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles.
he study looked at 611 people in Los Angeles County who developed lung cancer, 601 who developed cancer of the head or neck regions, and 1,040 people without cancer who were matched on age, gender and neighborhood. The researchers used the University of Southern California Tumor Registry, which is notified as soon as a patient in Los Angeles County receives a diagnosis of cancer.

They limited the study to people under age 60. "If you were born prior to 1940, you were unlikely to be exposed to marijuana use during your teens and 20s--the time of peak marijuana use," Dr. Tashkin said. People who were exposed to marijuana use in their youth are just now getting to the age when cancer typically starts to develop, he added.

Subjects were asked about lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol, as well as other drugs, their diet, occupation, family history of cancer and socioeconomic status. The subjects' reported use of marijuana was similar to that found in other surveys, Dr. Tashkin noted.
The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all.

The study found that 80% of lung cancer patients and 70% of patients with head and neck cancer had smoked tobacco, while only about half of patients with both types of cancer smoked marijuana.

There was a clear association between smoking tobacco and cancer. The study found a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing both lung cancer and head and neck cancers, findings that were consistent with many previous studies.
he new findings are surprising for several reasons, Dr. Tashkin said. Previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains about 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, he noted. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Dr. Tashkin said. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers--they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung."

One possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
While I don't agree with all your reasoning here, you are employing rational methods for comparing and contrasting things. One thing we seem to agree on is that the two situations are NOT the same. One could support one and not the other and not be logically inconsistent.

That would depend on the argument. What NYC has done ngoes far beyond the norm. It in fact proposes to forbid something based on nothing more than it can. The legal justification ought to be interesting, but as Charles has pointed out the only requirement is that there be some potential adverse effect. What kind of free society is that? Now it hardly is going happen because of political reasons but abortion is a surgical procedure and as such a government can (using this justification) insist that measures be taken to protect the patient. Indeed it has the right to prohibit it using an arbitrary standard like that of NYC. Why not? Abortions do represent a risk after all.

Thats the equivalency, that if the powers that be can use a standard of its own making based on safety, then thats it. The right of the individual is subordinate to the collective.

Now I don't buy the argument in either case, but the right to have an abortion supersedes all? Only because of what might be tolerated, not because public safety is an issue in one and not the other, or be constructed to appear as such by some clever dick.

No, they are both arbitrary excesses and in that sense the same.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Go away referred to him addressing me (in this thread), not to posting.

When someone doesn't want to talk to you, don't keep talking to them, like stalking.

You could always put him on ignore like the others which you can't confound. Oh yeah you can't see this. :D
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Too bad you are misinformed, you likely had pre-conceived notions of how bad marijuana must be due to all of the propaganda you have absorbed over the years. Yes, there may be a protective effect from cancer by smoking marijuana. I know it may not fit your ideology, but science is science.

That's interesting. All the studies I've heard of pveviously found a link, and I haven't looked lately to get up to date including your study.

If it doesn't, that's good news and I'm ready to remove cancer from the list of negatives if that is correct. (I know you were not addressing me).
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
A thought. Surely, we could reduce the transmission of STD's by banning sex. Who's up for that?

Also, why does the left feel that it's their job to dictate to people what they should and should not do? That makes me wonder, is the word dictate derived from dictator? Just a thought. Anyway, how do you get the position of telling other people what to do? Is it an elected position or an appointed position, or wait a self-appointed position? Yeah, I think it's a self-appointed position.

So, if self-appointed people who feel it's their lot in life to dictate to others what they can and cannot do then dictate to others what they can or cannot do, are those of us who are being dictated to required to take this sage advice or can we ignore said advice. I think we can ignore it.

So, if we can ignore it, then why in the hell do we have to listen to sniveling little, micro-managing, progressive control freaks that only feel in control when they're telling everyone else what to do?

Wait...I don't fucking have to. All is well. :)

An additional thought. Why are 1% progressive Democrats that like to tell people what to do better than 1% Republicans that like to tell people what to do? So many questions...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,175
136
A thought. Surely, we could reduce the transmission of STD's by banning sex. Who's up for that?

Also, why does the left feel that it's their job to dictate to people what they should and should not do? That makes me wonder, is the word dictate derived from dictator? Just a thought. Anyway, how do you get the position of telling other people what to do? Is it an elected position or an appointed position, or wait a self-appointed position? Yeah, I think it's a self-appointed position.

So, if self-appointed people who feel it's their lot in life to dictate to others what they can and cannot do then dictate to others what they can or cannot do, are those of us who are being dictated to required to take this sage advice or can we ignore said advice. I think we can ignore it.

So, if we can ignore it, then why in the hell do we have to listen to sniveling little, micro-managing, progressive control freaks that only feel in control when they're telling everyone else what to do?

Wait...I don't fucking have to. All is well. :)

An additional thought. Why are 1% progressive Democrats that like to tell people what to do better than 1% Republicans that like to tell people what to do? So many questions...

Are you drunk?

First, the person 'telling people what to do' is someone in an elected position, not a self appointed one. Second, he's not a Democrat, and he's certainly not a progressive Democrat. He's a Republican turned independent.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Maybe because progressive Democrats like to base decisions on science and tea bagger Republicans base decisions on emotion and religion?
Where is your outrage about speed limits? Big government telling you how fast you can drive.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Are you drunk?

First, the person 'telling people what to do' is someone in an elected position, not a self appointed one. Second, he's not a Democrat, and he's certainly not a progressive Democrat. He's a Republican turned independent.

So being elected is what counts, not that this elected person can construct arbitrary standard and enforce it.

So what's the limit when "benefiting health" is all that need be claimed? Well the answer is there isn't one. Being elected is sufficient to take whatever and ban it if it can be related somehow to health.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,175
136
So being elected is what counts, not that this elected person can construct arbitrary standard and enforce it.

So what's the limit when "benefiting health" is all that need be claimed? Well the answer is there isn't one. Being elected is sufficient to take whatever and ban it if it can be related somehow to health.

huh?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126

It's really not that hard. Bloomberg nominated himself to make an arbitrary judgement and ban something because he felt it wasn't good for people. If that's the standard then anything can be picked. Charles had a list of things, and anything that has a documented potential adverse outcome can under this criteria be banned.

What limiting authority is there over this? People are suggesting Bloomberg has this authority. I am not one of them. I haven't read what yours is, but being elected and self-appointed protectors are not mutually exclusive things. As far as party goes, I don't give a rats ass about that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,175
136
It's really not that hard. Bloomberg nominated himself to make an arbitrary judgement and ban something because he felt it wasn't good for people. If that's the standard then anything can be picked. Charles had a list of things, and anything that has a documented potential adverse outcome can under this criteria be banned.

What limiting authority is there over this? People are suggesting Bloomberg has this authority. I am not one of them. I haven't read what yours is, but being elected and self-appointed protectors are not mutually exclusive things. As far as party goes, I don't give a rats ass about that.

Well you should probably at least give a thread a cursory read before posting in it.

Bloomberg didn't nominate himself to make an arbitrary judgment, and such a ban is most certainly within the city government's power to do. Why wouldn't it be? There's no constitutionally protected right to buy soda in whatever size you want and the regulations certainly have a reasonable and rational basis. Unless you can point out some right that he's violating, some other branch's power that he's stepping on, or how this regulation somehow isn't covered by the NYC mayor's office's powers, I'm not really sure what the argument is.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Originally Posted by Craig234
What part of 'go away' do you not understand?

On that point I would have to agree.

I don't see credentials under your name that would preclude CK from posting.



Go away referred to him addressing me (in this thread), not to posting.

When someone doesn't want to talk to you, don't keep talking to them, like stalking.

Ah OK.

You can hit the triangle on the lower left and report to the Mods that he is stalking your posts.

They are supposed to address that supposedly.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
carbonation-credits1.jpg
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Ah OK.

You can hit the triangle on the lower left and report to the Mods that he is stalking your posts.

They are supposed to address that supposedly.

If two people are having an exchange or argument, and one of them decides to petulantly drop out of the exchange with a flurry of insults, this somehow means the other is now "stalking" if they continue to post in the thread?

Sorry, I don't see that in the posting rules, and I've never been on any forum where that was policy. Report my posts if you want, but if that's how things work here, I won't be sticking around. I doubt it, though.

Furthermore, Craig has either intentionally or unintentionally distorted the point of the comparison between this ban and restrictions on abortion. The point isn't and never was to say that they are equivalent. The point was to say that Craig was using "ends justify the means" reasoning, saying that since the ban will reduce soda consumption, that means it is justified. Abortion opponents use the exact same rationale to justify hurdles to abortion, which as werepossum pointed out, is a much more serious matter more deserving of hurdles.

In fact, "ends justify the means" can be used to justify almost anything.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I think Jon Stewart summed up this proposed ban best:

Jon Stewart said:
"It combines the draconian overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect,"
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
That would depend on the argument. What NYC has done ngoes far beyond the norm. It in fact proposes to forbid something based on nothing more than it can. The legal justification ought to be interesting, but as Charles has pointed out the only requirement is that there be some potential adverse effect. What kind of free society is that? Now it hardly is going happen because of political reasons but abortion is a surgical procedure and as such a government can (using this justification) insist that measures be taken to protect the patient. Indeed it has the right to prohibit it using an arbitrary standard like that of NYC. Why not? Abortions do represent a risk after all.

Thats the equivalency, that if the powers that be can use a standard of its own making based on safety, then thats it. The right of the individual is subordinate to the collective.

Now I don't buy the argument in either case, but the right to have an abortion supersedes all? Only because of what might be tolerated, not because public safety is an issue in one and not the other, or be constructed to appear as such by some clever dick.

No, they are both arbitrary excesses and in that sense the same.

I actually see it the other direction. The gov can mandate tests to see if your baby is not genetically good enough to be born...then use the risk of birth to force an abortion.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Boom, stupid post.

Just the fact that that PS's paper clip starts off with "Midget Mayor" tells me it is not in for a rational discussion.

As I have said before, I do not agree with the proposal, but I can see its merits and its base.

But focusing on such a small item, and banning it from sale, will do nothing. If he wants to do something, a nominal tax on larger sized beverages that countermands the discount that distributors get by selling it in larger quantities, might be more amenable and more useful.

If you can't ban a sin (successfully), you tax it and use the money to help somewhere else.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Well you should probably at least give a thread a cursory read before posting in it.

Bloomberg didn't nominate himself to make an arbitrary judgment, and such a ban is most certainly within the city government's power to do. Why wouldn't it be? There's no constitutionally protected right to buy soda in whatever size you want and the regulations certainly have a reasonable and rational basis. Unless you can point out some right that he's violating, some other branch's power that he's stepping on, or how this regulation somehow isn't covered by the NYC mayor's office's powers, I'm not really sure what the argument is.

This is why we have such a strong difference on many things. You generally argue that unless it's prohibited government has the rights. I maintain that the government is secondary it is granted and then it is morally obligated to use the minimum exercise of power at need. Your argument comes down to no restrictions except in rare cases. Thats a great deal of power you wish us to cede.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I actually see it the other direction. The gov can mandate tests to see if your baby is not genetically good enough to be born...then use the risk of birth to force an abortion.

Isnt this the argument advanced for banning incestuous marriage. Except then its only that it might lead to genetically inferior offspring.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,175
136
This is why we have such a strong difference on many things. You generally argue that unless it's prohibited government has the rights. I maintain that the government is secondary it is granted and then it is morally obligated to use the minimum exercise of power at need. Your argument comes down to no restrictions except in rare cases. Thats a great deal of power you wish us to cede.

Government is granted powers (which are generally broad) as well as having specific things denied to it, usually in the form of rights or powers retained by other governing authorities or the people. I'm not arguing for no restrictions or for you to cede any power, only recognize reality as it has existed for centuries now. A vague feeling that this 'isn't right' is not a basis for governance. If you believe Bloomberg is acting outside of the scope of mayoral powers, please tell me exactly what statutes, charters, or what state/federal laws or constitutional provisions he is violating. If you can't think of any then you simply don't have an argument from a powers of government perspective.

Just so you know there are many, many things that government has the power to do in this world that would be stupid for it to do. That's why we have elections for the most part.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Then stop complaining when Republicans decide to ban abortions. Don't like it? That's what elections are for. I don't see a right to abortions in the Constitution.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,175
136
Then stop complaining when Republicans decide to ban abortions. Don't like it? That's what elections are for. I don't see a right to abortions in the Constitution.

Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and last time I checked they were the authority on that.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Government is granted powers (which are generally broad) as well as having specific things denied to it, usually in the form of rights or powers retained by other governing authorities or the people. I'm not arguing for no restrictions or for you to cede any power, only recognize reality as it has existed for centuries now. A vague feeling that this 'isn't right' is not a basis for governance. If you believe Bloomberg is acting outside of the scope of mayoral powers, please tell me exactly what statutes, charters, or what state/federal laws or constitutional provisions he is violating. If you can't think of any then you simply don't have an argument from a powers of government perspective.

Just so you know there are many, many things that government has the power to do in this world that would be stupid for it to do. That's why we have elections for the most part.

And what basis does Bloomberg have that its right to limit beverage size?

outside of a feeling that it isn't right to drink a large soda?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Then stop complaining when Republicans decide to ban abortions. Don't like it? That's what elections are for. I don't see a right to abortions in the Constitution.

The Constitution is not specifically designed to delineate rights. It lists some, but that doesn't mean that anything not specifically listed is not a right.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,175
136
And what basis does Bloomberg have that its right to limit beverage size?

outside of a feeling that it isn't right to drink a large soda?

Are you asking on what basis does the mayor of a city have the power to regulate commerce in the interests of public health? It's his submission to the health board, and if it approves it then it's really hard to believe any court would overturn it.

States and municipalities have the right to set standards for the products sold within their borders. While I think this rule is a bad idea, it certainly has a rational basis.