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

[ShawnD1]

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

Anyone who can explain to the guy who needs one, big soda versus amusement park?

How so? Mayonnaise and butter are a hell of a lot higher in calories than coke is. Maybe we should shut down Costco and kill all of the employees so they stop selling bulk mayonnaise and trying to kill us.

 

[xj0hnx]

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

Anyone who can explain to the guy who needs one, big soda versus amusement park?

99% of what liberals say here is wrong or lies, the other 1% no one can remember.

 

[cybrsage]

As a future health provider, I support this.

As an American, I hate this.

I think that's how most people feel about this issue.

Yeah, I support what their intention is (I assume it is to make healthier Americans), but decry the method they are using to get there. Education (aka indoctrination of the young children) is the only effective method.

 

[cybrsage]

Incidentally, if the government can prohibit me from buying large cups of soda to protect me from myself, why shouldn't it also ban any or all of the following?

- Alcohol.
- Fried foods.
- Riding lawn mowers (encourages laziness)
- Mountain-climbing (dangerous!)
- Waterskiing
- Surfing
- Motorcycles
- Living in big cities (pollution, traffic accidents)
- Chainsaws (people get hurt)
- Amusement parks (dangerous and unnecessary)

I know I am not him (and happily so), but here is what I think about the list:

Many of them are high tax items (either directly such as alcohol or indirectly such as mountain climbing and motorcycles via gas tax or hotel taxes). Fried foods will be next on the chopping block in everywhere but the South. The South surely will rise again if you take away their fried foods.

 

[irishScott]

You've posted idiocy, not even worth a response, and responded like a child. Go away.

He spelled it out for you and you didn't like it.

Craig, I made a succinct, casual, very basic two-sentence point that everyone here seems to have understood. You have spent over a page of text (literally) failing to refute it. And you still maintain that you're in the right here. Your arrogance and/or weakness of your ego is astounding. I know some psychology majors who would be very interested in you.

 

[SagaLore]

It's so nice to see that the authoritarian/fascist meme is still alive and living here in the States.

What does that have to do with what I posted? Please explain how that relates to my opinion of the issue.

 

[monovillage]

What does that have to do with what I posted? Please explain how that relates to my opinion of the issue.

You are right, I should have pointed out craig's posts and not yours, you have a pretty reasonable response.

 

[dmcowen674]

99% of what liberals say here is wrong or lies, the other 1% no one can remember.

Saying that over and over will not make it true.

History always has the details and the truth and it is the Republicans 99% wrong and lies.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Craig234
What part of 'go away' do you not understand?

The "you're not in charge here and I'm not going anywhere" part.

On that point I would have to agree.

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

 

[ShawnD1]

He spelled it out for you and you didn't like it.

Craig, I made a succinct, casual, very basic two-sentence point that everyone here seems to have understood. You have spent over a page of text (literally) failing to refute it. And you still maintain that you're in the right here. Your arrogance and/or weakness of your ego is astounding. I know some psychology majors who would be very interested in you.

It seems probable that he's just trolling. Regardless of how extreme or weird a left wing policy is, he always agrees with it.

 

[Hugo Drax]

NYC is preparing a Department of Soft Drink Enforcement (DSDE)
They will be inspecting restaurants to insure compliance with the law and doing random spot checks for violators of the law, ie individuals carrying any contraband non compliant softdrink and offenders will get fined 25 dollars on the first offense (multiple violations will result in a 1000 dollar fine and community hours).

 

[cybrsage]

History always has the details and the truth and it is the Republicans 99% wrong and lies.

Saying that over and over will not make it true.




Come on, you know you set yourself up for it.

 

[shortylickens]

NYC is preparing a Department of Soft Drink Enforcement (DSDE)
They will be inspecting restaurants to insure compliance with the law and doing random spot checks for violators of the law, ie individuals carrying any contraband non compliant softdrink and offenders will get fined 25 dollars on the first offense (multiple violations will result in a 1000 dollar fine and community hours).

 

[ShawnD1]

V for Very Large soft drink please

 

[woolfe9999]

Can we compare limiting sugary drinks to requiring vaginal probes for abortion? Both are aimed at discouraging a personal behavior. In that way, both are distinguishable from a regulation on say, the financial sector, which is aimed at protecting the public from bad economic consequences.

The means chosen are entirely different of course. One aims to discourage a personal behavior by making it more expensive. The other by humiliating the individual. One isn't misogynistic while the other, IMO, is.

Is this like stealing 50 cents versus stealing $5000 or are these qualitatively different things? Does it really matter? The fact is, this is a sensationalistic analogy, no matter its abstract merit. One can agree with one and not the other, and have very legitimate reasons for making the distinction.

The trouble with this regulation is that it aims to restrict personal choices, however minimally, and as such it better be justified by a reasonably compelling end goal. This will accomplish virtually nothing. If it reduces soda consumption by 2% in NYC that's exceeding my expectations. The problem, then, is that if you want to accomplish more you have to increase the degree of coercion being applied. Which is precisely why it is better for the government to just stay out of trying to mold these kinds of personal choices. It doesn't work without going to extremes, so it's best not to do it all, to err on the side of allowing the individual to make the choice.

Nonetheless, it's still a far cry from vaginal probes.

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

But you can purchase all the rum and coke you can drink.

Ban large latte's while you are at it.

So how much sugar is in a case of beer?

 

[ShawnD1]

Can we compare

No you can't have a logical discussion with an extreme left or right winger. Asking for logical consistency is too much.

marijuana into body = my body my choice
sugar = NO YOU CANNOT

A winger like Craig champions this stupid sugar law but probably opposes "blue laws" where you're not allowed to serve alcohol at random times.


No insults or personal attacks in P&N.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Ninjahedge]

Shawn,

I am no in favor of the regulation, but your comparison is flawed in one key element. Pot smoking really does not harm the individual as much as over-consumption of sugar does.

Now, if you were to make pot legal and DORITOS illegal... well then, that is an entirely different matter (altogether!)

 

[ShawnD1]

Pot smoking really does not harm the individual as much as over-consumption of sugar does.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070212184119.htm

Tetrault and colleagues systematically reviewed articles from 1966 through 2005 identified from the MEDLINE, PsychINFO and EMBASE databases that evaluated the effect of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications. Of the 34 articles that met selection criteria, 12 were classified as challenge studies because they examined the link between short-term marijuana use and airway response. Eleven of the 12 studies found an association between short-term marijuana use and relaxation and opening of the air passages.
The study's physiologic data failed to show an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction (emphysema). However, all 14 studies that assessed long-term marijuana smoking and respiratory complications noted an association with increased respiratory symptoms, suggesting obstructive lung disease.

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

Large prevalence studies have identified that respiratory effects most commonly manifest as coughing on most days, wheezing apart from colds, exercise-induced shortness of breath, nocturnal wakening with chest tightness, and early morning sputum production.13,14 A small body of research attempted to compare the effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke by dose. Despite the resulting equally harmful effects, a much smaller daily amount of marijuana was smoked compared to tobacco (one joint approximated 2.5–5 cigarettes).3 Further, the harmful effects of smoking marijuana and tobacco appear to be additive.

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.

 

[werepossum]

Can we compare limiting sugary drinks to requiring vaginal probes for abortion? Both are aimed at discouraging a personal behavior. In that way, both are distinguishable from a regulation on say, the financial sector, which is aimed at protecting the public from bad economic consequences.

The means chosen are entirely different of course. One aims to discourage a personal behavior by making it more expensive. The other by humiliating the individual. One isn't misogynistic while the other, IMO, is.

Is this like stealing 50 cents versus stealing $5000 or are these qualitatively different things? Does it really matter? The fact is, this is a sensationalistic analogy, no matter its abstract merit. One can agree with one and not the other, and have very legitimate reasons for making the distinction.

The trouble with this regulation is that it aims to restrict personal choices, however minimally, and as such it better be justified by a reasonably compelling end goal. This will accomplish virtually nothing. If it reduces soda consumption by 2% in NYC that's exceeding my expectations. The problem, then, is that if you want to accomplish more you have to increase the degree of coercion being applied. Which is precisely why it is better for the government to just stay out of trying to mold these kinds of personal choices. It doesn't work without going to extremes, so it's best not to do it all, to err on the side of allowing the individual to make the choice.

Nonetheless, it's still a far cry from vaginal probes.

- wolf

Sure we can compare them. It'll be fun.

I would make one point though. I'm not in favor of requiring an ultrasound before an abortion - although considering the intrusiveness of an abortion, objecting to the ultrasound as intrusive seems a bit misplaced - but it is worth pointing out that drinking too large a soft drink very seldom results in a unique human being killed. At the very least, the person choosing to drink the very large soft drink over and over again may die a few years earlier. Sometimes choice kills you, and sometimes it kills someone else.

Again, I am neither anti-abortion (before viability outside the womb) nor in favor of mandatory ultrasounds before an abortion, but government action to discourage you from killing your baby seems to me to be less misplaced than government action to prevent you from drinking a soft drink it judges too large.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sure we can compare them. It'll be fun.

I would make one point though. I'm not in favor of requiring an ultrasound before an abortion - although considering the intrusiveness of an abortion, objecting to the ultrasound as intrusive seems a bit misplaced - but it is worth pointing out that drinking too large a soft drink very seldom results in a unique human being killed. At the very least, the person choosing to drink the very large soft drink over and over again may die a few years earlier. Sometimes choice kills you, and sometimes it kills someone else.

Again, I am neither anti-abortion (before viability outside the womb) nor in favor of mandatory ultrasounds before an abortion, but government action to discourage you from killing your baby seems to me to be less misplaced than government action to prevent you from drinking a soft drink it judges too large.

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.

 

[monovillage]

Shawn has it right, both in terms of smoking pot vs. soft drinks limits and subject Wolfe brought up about abortion restrictions.

 

[werepossum]

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's certainly true, depending on one's priorities and beliefs. Although ideally one would support neither.

I will say one thing for Bloomberg's fascism though; it is rather disconcerting to order a medium and it arrives as 42 oz and won't fit in the drink holder!

 

[Nintendesert]

Well now we have studies showing excessive exercise hurts the heart, is NYC going to regulate how far people run in Central Park now? For all the reasons defending the sugar drink size ban can be applied here too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-dangerous-long-term-harm-say-scientists.html

 

[Craig234]

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.