Recently there was a ban of the sugar laden drinks in California.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119679293.html
The “movement” is spreading over the country.
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/7966-soda-isnt-enough-nyc-looks-to-ban-popcorn-milkshakes-too/
Not that I disagree with you on this particular article but do you get all your news from obviously right-wing oriented websites? You should look up “Attitude polarization” or “law of group polarization” sometime, it explains a lot that goes on in this forum.
The fact that New York is trying to ban the sale of sodas over 15 oz. is ridiculous. Just another example of the growing government.
CS
I believe in freedom sufiandy, so did our Founding Fathers. I do not have to get my news from even a single “right-wing oriented website” to know that our government should never tread on personal freedom. Get over yourself.
You might try pulling your head out of that dark hole to realize people should never receive a second chance when they act like adults and partake in the activities of an adult. Next you will tell me that drinking should be allowed at eighteen or maybe even sixteen.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Not that I disagree with you on this particular article but do you get all your news from obviously right-wing oriented websites? You should look up “Attitude polarization” or “law of group polarization” sometime, it explains a lot that goes on in this forum.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Next you will tell me that drinking should be allowed at eighteen
[/quote]
Don’t countries other than the US allow this?
I mean, are the drinking realted issues in Canada that much worse? In a statistically significant way?
As to the soda issue:
It is fucking retarded. The government has no place to dictate personal responsibility.
The soda issue is silly, people will just buy 2 16oz sodas, ta da problem solved. As to drinking at 18, we have boys register with Selective Service at 18, I had a number of 18 year olds in basic training with me, I would think that if we find 18 to be a suitable age to fire rifles, throw grenades and detonate bombs for their country, as well as vote and be tried and sentenced as an adult for their crimes, they should at least be able to have a fucking beer afterwards.
This bans large sodas at most places but some places are exempt. Also it doesn’t stop refills. If people want more soda they’re going to drink more soda. Legislation doesn’t magically change that. Bloomberg is just trying to look like he’s doing something good.
Edit: I reread my post and it sounds like I am in favor of the ban. I am not. I think people should be responsible for their own decisions and the effects that they have on their health.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Next you will tell me that drinking should be allowed at eighteen
[/quote]
Don’t countries other than the US allow this?
I mean, are the drinking realted issues in Canada that much worse? In a statistically significant way?[/quote]
Impaired driving rates are much worse in the United States. See page 10
One thing to note is that in mych of the country, alcohol is sold solely through a crown corporation. Crown corps do a better job preventing the sale of alcohol to minors.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As to the soda issue:
It is fucking retarded. The government has no place to dictate personal responsibility.
[/quote]
Then you’re against the legalization of narcotics?
therajraj,
Do you mean that they other way around?
I posted this in the other thread, but it is relevant here.
We all know that sugar directly relates to obesity correct?
We put a sin tax on tobacco…here in Utah a can of Skoal is almost $7…why not do that for sugared drinks over 32oz?
American health insurance cannot handle the influx of fatties…so it really is ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.
Nobody blinks an eye when we tax the shit out of tobacco…because it causes cancer, people can still smoke but they have to pay extra to do it.
High Fructose Corn Syrup leads to diabetes and obesity…why not make it harder to suck that shit down???
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
therajraj,
Do you mean that they other way around?[/quote]
Yes, that’s correct, my mistake.
Point is, narcotics are also a matter of personal responsibility.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I posted this in the other thread, but it is relevant here.
We all know that sugar directly relates to obesity correct?
We put a sin tax on tobacco…here in Utah a can of Skoal is almost $7…why not do that for sugared drinks over 32oz?
American health insurance cannot handle the influx of fatties…so it really is ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.
Nobody blinks an eye when we tax the shit out of tobacco…because it causes cancer, people can still smoke but they have to pay extra to do it.
High Fructose Corn Syrup leads to diabetes and obesity…why not make it harder to suck that shit down???[/quote]
Because you eat for sustenance, and tobacco you don’t.
I think that’s why people are in an uproar over the food taxes but have no problem with tobacco tax.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As to the soda issue:
It is fucking retarded. The government has no place to dictate personal responsibility.
[/quote]
Then you’re for the legalization of narcotics?[/quote]
Ideologically? yes.
Realistically? no.
The split is because so many people are idiots, complete and total morons to the utmost degree.
Too many people can’t take care fo themselves, so “I” am forced to take of them for them. Like the drug laws.
But in either case, I think drug use by people on government assistance should void their assistance. Which means piss test them, on the regular.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As to the soda issue:
It is fucking retarded. The government has no place to dictate personal responsibility.
[/quote]
Then you’re for the legalization of narcotics?[/quote]
Ideologically? yes.
Realistically? no.
The split is because so many people are idiots, complete and total morons to the utmost degree.
Too many people can’t take care fo themselves, so “I” am forced to take of them for them. Like the drug laws.
But in either case, I think drug use by people on government assistance should void their assistance. Which means piss test them, on the regular. [/quote]
Portugal legalized all drugs and pretty much nothing happened. The number of teen addicts went down (or something to that nature) and total number of users stayed the same. Don’t quote me on that; I’m too lazy to look it up.
CS
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As to the soda issue:
It is fucking retarded. The government has no place to dictate personal responsibility.
[/quote]
Then you’re for the legalization of narcotics?[/quote]
Ideologically? yes.
Realistically? no.
The split is because so many people are idiots, complete and total morons to the utmost degree.
Too many people can’t take care fo themselves, so “I” am forced to take of them for them. Like the drug laws.
But in either case, I think drug use by people on government assistance should void their assistance. Which means piss test them, on the regular. [/quote]
Portugal legalized all drugs and pretty much nothing happened. The number of teen addicts went down (or something to that nature) and total number of users stayed the same. Don’t quote me on that; I’m too lazy to look it up.
CS[/quote]
Different cultures though.
I don’t know about you, but when I’m hanging out with my daughter and watching hours and hours of Pawn Stars reruns while she naps, by the time I see the 16th McDonalds comercial, I actually start to get hungry.
Imagine an add for Crack after each Chevy Silverado ad?
“Buy one rock, get the second 10% off at Joe’s Corner Crack Store”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As to the soda issue:
It is fucking retarded. The government has no place to dictate personal responsibility.
[/quote]
Then you’re for the legalization of narcotics?[/quote]
Ideologically? yes.
Realistically? no.
The split is because so many people are idiots, complete and total morons to the utmost degree.
Too many people can’t take care fo themselves, so “I” am forced to take of them for them. Like the drug laws.
But in either case, I think drug use by people on government assistance should void their assistance. Which means piss test them, on the regular. [/quote]
Portugal legalized all drugs and pretty much nothing happened. The number of teen addicts went down (or something to that nature) and total number of users stayed the same. Don’t quote me on that; I’m too lazy to look it up.
CS[/quote]
Different cultures though.
I don’t know about you, but when I’m hanging out with my daughter and watching hours and hours of Pawn Stars reruns while she naps, by the time I see the 16th McDonalds comercial, I actually start to get hungry.
Imagine an add for Crack after each Chevy Silverado ad?
“Buy one rock, get the second 10% off at Joe’s Corner Crack Store”[/quote]
You took that completely out of context.
CS
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
You took that completely out of context.
CS[/quote]
Probably.
I just think people would jump on the chance to turn a profit on the misfortune of others. Oh wait, I know they would.
Walmart would have whole isles of bails of square grouper.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
You took that completely out of context.
CS[/quote]
Probably.
I just think people would jump on the chance to turn a profit on the misfortune of others. Oh wait, I know they would.
Walmart would have whole isles of bails of square grouper.[/quote]
Yes, they would. Not saying they wouldn’t. But you have to understand that it wouldn’t turn into a commercial business where there’s as many crack stores as there are Starbucks. It’s just not logical.
CS