Discussion: Bloomberg's Ban On Large Sugary Drinks

[Thought Crime]

The impression I get from that snip is ignore the unhealthy.

 

[justinlancaster]

lol never thought of it that way

All that being said sin tax or not, I don't think the Government should subsidize the Sugar Industrial Complex

100% agree with you there. I think the best thing the Government could do when it comes to obesity is start an awareness campaign and let people know why they are getting fat. There has been a a lot of information that has came out in the last 10 years or so on why we are getting fat. A good place to start is with Gary Taubes ( http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 )

I think that would be more effective than a ban on soda sizes or more sin taxes which are going to do relatively nothing to reduce the obesity rate.

 

[Thought Crime]

Government is just ban-happy. What you're saying is the better alternative.

 

[hippie_hunter]

100% agree with you there. I think the best thing the Government could do when it comes to obesity is start an awareness campaign and let people know why they are getting fat. There has been a a lot of information that has came out in the last 10 years or so on why we are getting fat. A good place to start is with Gary Taubes ( http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 )

I think that would be more effective than a ban on soda sizes or more sin taxes which are going to do relatively nothing to reduce the obesity rate.

It's common freaking sense on what makes people fat.

 

[justinlancaster]

It's common freaking sense on what makes people fat.

What makes people fat? Why do you think there is so many people that are obese still if they know what makes them fat?

 

[childeroland]

And it's the government's job to decide what our lifestyle should be, is it?

 

[redhawk23]

And it's the government's job to decide what our lifestyle should be, is it?

I don't know is it the government's job to pay your healthcare bills when you turn 64?

Is it the government's job to try and raise an army from an obese population?

 

[childeroland]

With my money that I put in for decades. And the armed forces seem to be doing fine. Unless China's looking at us and thinking, they're fat, let's get them.

 

[Destructus86]

Personally...I think harmful chemicals should be banned from all food and drink.

 

[enterthemadness]

Personally...I think harmful chemicals should be banned from all food and drink.

What's next? Gov't in the bedroom? Reality Tv gets banned for being--gasp--scripted at times?

Banning stuff, no matter how well it seems, is bad and makes people resort to getting their fix or wants somewhere else.

We don't need the Gov't, who can't even balance their checkbook, telling us what to do with our freedom of choice.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well within reason. There's a need for balance.

 

[Kelly]

What's next? Gov't in the bedroom? Reality Tv gets banned for being--gasp--scripted at times?

Banning stuff, no matter how well it seems, is bad and makes people resort to getting their fix or wants somewhere else.

We don't need the Gov't, who can't even balance their checkbook, telling us what to do with our freedom of choice.

Reality TV should be banned for being "stupid", who cares if its scripted....it should be banned for making us dumber.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Personally...I think harmful chemicals should be banned from all food and drink.

Define "harmful chemicals."

 

[Victarion]

Maybe I'm being a simplistic fool, but wouldn't it be fair to just put this on a ballot and let the people of NY vote if its something Bloomberg wants?

@Doc: I'd define harmful chemicals as the stuff restaurants et al use because they're cheap to use. HFCS and all that.

 

[Doctor Evo]

@Doc: I'd define harmful chemicals as the stuff restaurants et al use because they're cheap to use. HFCS and all that.

That seems to be a rather inadequate and imprecise definition, to be honest.

 

[Leenie]

Maybe I'm being a simplistic fool, but wouldn't it be fair to just put this on a ballot and let the people of NY vote if its something Bloomberg wants?

That's my stance on the issue: Put it on the ballot, and go with what the people vote for. Make the representatives be actual representatives as to what the people want?! Gasp! What a novel idea.

All in all, I can't decide whether Bloomberg is a power-hungry imbecile, a power-hungry psycho, or both. I can't stand the guy, personally.

 

[Destructus86]

Define "harmful chemicals."

Chemicals which have been proven from studies to show consistant harmful effects on the body.

Which is actually quite a few of the chemicals we eat everyday that the corrupt FDA approves...yet most other countries do not.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Chemicals which have been proven from studies to show consistant harmful effects on the body.

Which is actually quite a few of the chemicals we eat everyday that the corrupt FDA approves...yet most other countries do not.

That definition could apply to sucrose or salt, though. What do you mean by consistent?

 

[Kelly]

Maybe I'm being a simplistic fool, but wouldn't it be fair to just put this on a ballot and let the people of NY vote if its something Bloomberg wants?

@Doc: I'd define harmful chemicals as the stuff restaurants et al use because they're cheap to use. HFCS and all that.

A referendum is the proper way to do it....but Bloomberg knows that that would not pass. NYC may be (D) for the most part, but food and their choice of how they want to eat....is a whole different subject. lol

 

[Handsome Rob]

Nanny State Bloomberg just got his little hand slapped again . . .

Appeals Court Strikes Down NYC Soda Ban

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-strikes-down-nycs-155155388.html

And the city's law department is going to appeal it, again. Great use of taxpayer money, there. And yet another reason I'm glad I'm not a New Yorker! That fem-man Ted Mosby doesn't know what he's talking about!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Too bad public policy is rarely based on actual science (see Cannabis Prohibition).

They would ban soda, see people are still fat, then unban soda.

The end.

 

[Kelly]

Raises my Big Gulp Coke Zero, good job.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Too bad public policy is rarely based on actual science (see Cannabis Prohibition).

They would ban soda, see people are still fat, then unban soda.

The end.

While I agree with your first sentence, I imagine control-freak progressives like Bloomberg would instead look for more food/drink types to ban.

If a control-freak progressive puts something into law and it doesn't get the results he wants, he doesn't see that it may be because the law is bad. Instead, the law just doesn't go far enough, thus justifying the need for laws that are more expansive in nature . . . and thus more restrictive on the citizenry.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not just progressives.

How many ”small government” conservatives support the Drug War or War on Terror despite evidence that decriminalization lowers hard drug use (see Portugal) or that the chances of someone getting killed by a terrorist are minuscule.

Also the trickle down effect does not boost economies.

 

[Kelly]

It's not just progressives.

How many ”small government” conservatives support the Drug War or War on Terror despite evidence that decriminalization lowers hard drug use (see Portugal) or that the chances of someone getting killed by a terrorist are minuscule.

Also the trickle down effect does not boost economies.

Not this one....

Now, mind you....I do believe that we need be aware that there are terrorists still out there, just because we killed Bin Laden doesn't mean that has changed, or even decreased all that much. BUT, I believe using our military, special ops, etc resources is a better use of our $$$$ in the war on terror. Listening to my phone calls aren't going to really get you anywhere....