Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

NY Soda ProhibitionFollow

#27 Sep 14 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
Yes, enlighten me.

It establishes the precedent that it's perfectly OK for the government to regulate personal choices (and business service offerings) based strictly on an indirect link to government subsidies. It doesn't matter whether it's soda, candy, red meat, geneticly modified corn, etc. The government has no business regulating anybody's eating habits until such time as that person comes to collect on government health benefits. Blanket legislation prohibiting personal choice is not the answer.
The government regulates personal choice all the time if it's beneficial to the constituency as a whole to modify a behavior.

Milk has to be homogenized, cigarettes are taxed, dope is banned. One city disallowing extra large cups for soda consumption is extremely trivial in both it's direct impact and indirectly as symbolic of governments reach or over-reach as it might be.

It does give gbaji a good example of 'big government' though.

If I was a citizen of NYC I could probably get a bit worked up about the extra monies that will have to be spent to enforce this law. That's as far as my outrage would go.


So you really don't see the difference in prohibiting the sale of 20oz soft drinks vs taxing products that affect the environment and health quality of everyone around them when consumed? You really don't understand the need to pasturize (not homogenize, btw) milk before shipping it to the customer, regardless of regulation?

I'm not in the mood to argue with a brick wall today, sorry.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#28 Sep 14 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
So you really don't see the difference in prohibiting the sale of 20oz soft drinks vs taxing products that affect the environment and health quality of everyone around them when consumed?

Realistically, tobacco isn't taxed because it affects the environment or health quality of anyone, it's taxed because people will buy tobacco regardless so it's an easy revenue creator. If the government* was deeply concerned with your health issues from smoking or being near smoke, they'd make tobacco illegal.

How about just slapping a $3 tax on soft drinks over 20 oz or whatever the limit is.

*In a general sense. I don't doubt that it's frustrating to work in the FDA or NIH when it comes to tobacco
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 14 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
Yes, enlighten me.

It establishes the precedent that it's perfectly OK for the government to regulate personal choices (and business service offerings) based strictly on an indirect link to government subsidies. It doesn't matter whether it's soda, candy, red meat, geneticly modified corn, etc. The government has no business regulating anybody's eating habits until such time as that person comes to collect on government health benefits. Blanket legislation prohibiting personal choice is not the answer.
The government regulates personal choice all the time if it's beneficial to the constituency as a whole to modify a behavior.

Milk has to be homogenized, cigarettes are taxed, dope is banned. One city disallowing extra large cups for soda consumption is extremely trivial in both it's direct impact and indirectly as symbolic of governments reach or over-reach as it might be.

It does give gbaji a good example of 'big government' though.

If I was a citizen of NYC I could probably get a bit worked up about the extra monies that will have to be spent to enforce this law. That's as far as my outrage would go.


So you really don't see the difference in prohibiting the sale of 20oz soft drinks vs taxing products that affect the environment and health quality of everyone around them when consumed? You really don't understand the need to pasturize (not homogenize, btw) milk before shipping it to the customer, regardless of regulation?

I'm not in the mood to argue with a brick wall today, sorry.
You know some may say the need to limit soda cup size is every bit as important as the need to pasturize milk - I know plenty of folks that go to the underground non-pasturized milk places to get the milk they want. So, it's a judgement call. The health officials of new york city - a whole board full of them saw the need to do this.

I'm sorry that my inability to agree with you 100% on this little issue leaves you feeling like your arguing with a brick wall. Don't bother responding to me next time.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#30 Sep 14 2012 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
****
7,861 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Hi, you must be new here.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#31Deadgye, Posted: Sep 14 2012 at 9:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Your argument is stupid and you should feel stupid. I don't really need to add anything else. I've put as much work into my argument as you have yours.
#32 Sep 14 2012 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Quote:
I'm sorry that my inability to agree with you 100% on this little issue leaves you feeling like your arguing with a brick wall. Don't bother responding to me next time.

Your argument is stupid and you should feel stupid. I don't really need to add anything else. I've put as much work into my argument as you have yours.

Next your going to defend a ban on selling candy packages that weighs over 4oz.
Is this your other account. I wasn't arguing with you was I?

My argument was that it's a trivial law.

Brownduck claims that it's setting precedent for the government to be able to limit personal choice.

I countered that this isn't setting a precedent because the government has limited choice previously (the precedent has already been set).

You call my argument stupid.

I agree it's a stupid argument.

Did you know that Texas limits the size of beer containers?

Did you know that Maine limits the size of lobsters you can eat?

Did you know that there is a county in California that doesn't allow stuffed animals with boobies?


Edited, Sep 14th 2012 5:19pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Sep 14 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
I've never really seen a restaurant, street cart or movie theater that sold more than 4 oz packages of candy, but admittedly I've never really looked that thoroughly either.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Sep 14 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I've never really seen a restaurant, street cart or movie theater that sold more than 4 oz packages of candy, but admittedly I've never really looked that thoroughly either.

But still, as a people we want to know that we have the freedoms to have our chocolates in super large individual server size containers. It's important.

Can you imagine the hardship it would cause if we had to get two 2-oz servings of chocolate (not to mention the environmental degradation that would follow)?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#35 Sep 14 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
It's still totally assinine. Should we also regulate sugar such that it can only be sold in single packets too?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#36 Sep 14 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
Is this your other account.

Yes. I have two accounts that have over 20k posts each. I'm secretly biding my time until my third account gets over 20k so I can combine their post counts and usurp Joph.

Quote:
I wasn't arguing with you was I?

Welcome to the internet and forums in general, where anyone can respond to you and call you out on your stupidity.

Quote:
Can you imagine the hardship it would cause if we had to get two 2-oz servings of chocolate (not to mention the environmental degradation that would follow)?

Enjoy the future you're defending. I know you can't wait until the salt ban.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 11:36am by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#37 Sep 14 2012 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Deadgye wrote:

Enjoy the future you're defending. I know you can't wait until the salt ban.

Did that really happen?


To clarify, I didn't defend the law. I said it was trivial. My opinion has not been changed.

Tell me what would be the negative side effects of this soda cup law? No one in this thread has presented an argument to persuade me that this law is harmful in any way.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 5:44pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#38 Sep 14 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
It's not an overreach, it's just a law. There's a public health issue: to wit obesity. Many, many studies show soda consumption correlates strongly with obesity. A law is passed intending to limit soda consumption, specifically, soda consumption in a situation where the drinker really isn't as aware of how much they are consuming. If you think this law is stupid, that's fine. That doesn't make it overreaching. I too, find it stupid, this is a separate argument. Overreaching implies that government should be able to pass no laws with the intent of improving public health. If this law overreach then laws against selling cigarettes to minors overreach. Seat belt laws overreach. Limiting Sudafed sales overreaches. You get the idea, all the way down the slippery slope to "Why do you want to give heroin to infants?" You can't buy 2500mg Ibuprofen in single pills over the counter, either. Why is there a maximum OTC dosage? Because people will invariably take more if each dose is larger. The same applies here. Is that bad law? Should I be able to buy any dosage of any OTC medication I want? I mean I can just take 10, right?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#39 Sep 14 2012 at 9:54 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If this law overreach then laws against selling cigarettes to minors overreach. Seat belt laws overreach. Limiting Sudafed sales overreaches.


I think the distinction most people (and the government, in most cases) is whether a substance or activity poses an inherent danger. Tobacco (and all the chemicals that come with) pose a legitimate danger to your health, as do OTC medicines (when misused). Personally, I think seatbelt laws are an overreach, but the precedent was set long ago and there's no hope of changing it now.

Sugar in whatever form is not inherently dangerous. Over consumption is. I get that the whole purpose of the law is to prevent this over-consumption, but I disagree that the authority to regulate consumption belongs to the government.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#40 Sep 14 2012 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Sugar in whatever form is not inherently dangerous. Over consumption is


Right, just like OTC drugs?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#41 Sep 14 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Sugar in whatever form is not inherently dangerous. Over consumption is


Also it's soda, generally, not just sugared soda in both the studies and the law.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Sep 14 2012 at 10:12 AM Rating: Default
******
21,720 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Sugar in whatever form is not inherently dangerous. Over consumption is


Right, just like OTC drugs?

One of these has a more immediate and definite negative result. Yes?

Quote:
Also it's soda, generally, not just sugared soda in both the studies and the law.


Right, right. Something about the whole empty calories creating more hunger, etc. Overconsumption of sugar free drinks alone does not cause obesity though. Perhaps they should legislate that anyone drinking soda with a meal may have no more than 8oz of food with their meal and must wait at least 6 hours before ingesting anything else?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#43 Sep 14 2012 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, you have to wait a half hour before swimming.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Sep 14 2012 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts


One of these has a more immediate and definite negative result. Yes?


Context dependent, but arguably, no. Crystal Meth made from cold medicine is probably worse for society than fat people, liver damage (or stomach or whatever) from overuse of painkillers probably isn't. Being obese is pretty shockingly bad for you, to the point that there have been some interesting papers about if it's actually preferable for smokers to continue smoking for the appetite suppression effects. I read eery paper that says maybe I should keep smoking.


Right, right. Something about the whole empty calories creating more hunger, etc. Overconsumption of sugar free drinks alone does not cause obesity though. Perhaps they should legislate that anyone drinking soda with a meal may have no more than 8oz of food with their meal and must wait at least 6 hours before ingesting anything else?


Cumbersome to enforce.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Sep 14 2012 at 10:23 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
What I want to know is, what the **** Kelvy's been smoking. I don't think *I've* ever been as incoherent as the OP.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#46 Sep 14 2012 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

What I want to know is, what the **** Kelvy's been smoking.


I haven't kept up, but Nexa informs me that it's the sweet sweet love of Christ, his lord and savior. Genuinely, it seems.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Sep 14 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
Debalic wrote:
What I want to know is, what the **** Kelvy's been smoking. I don't think *I've* ever been as incoherent as the OP.
I'm betting it is puberty. So desperately trying to prove how different he is, by doing the same thing every other kid who is desperate to prove how different they are. Such a magical time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#48 Sep 14 2012 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I'm usually against these types of laws, but now I've become kind of "meh" about it. We've all shown that we don't know how to act, so government has to step in sometimes and do it for us. Yes, freedom, personal responsibility, liberty, blah, blah, all that too. But Smash said what I was thinking. If they could tell me I can't smoke in a restaurant anymore and I have to wear a seat belt, then they can tell the rabid soda drinkers out there that they need to slow it down.
#49 Sep 14 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
I dont live in NYC, but this law would affect me greatly if it passed here. Granted I'm very healthy right now (+ to my Dr for that, and my pills), but I weight a whopping 125 pounds...and probably drink around a dozen or so cans of soda a day... for the empty calories. I eat fatty foods, and don't exercise as often as I should (bulking up that is)... so me or anyone in this situation would be GREATLY affected by this type of law. Basically I think its pure nonsense to regulate what we can or cannot consume.

Not everyone is obese, not everyone over indulges in things like tobacco, alcohol, etc. There are some that do, and it's a slippery slope to try to regulate some and not others..but its common sense. I guess thats just the way I see it though... excuse me I need another soda now.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#50 Sep 14 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
Dyadem, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
I eat fatty foods, and don't exercise as often as I should (bulking up that is)... so me or anyone in this situation would be GREATLY affected by this type of law.
How, by making you get up and get/ask for a refill a little sooner? You're getting a smaller cup, and you're not going to lose all your intake progress by getting up twice instead of once. The only real place this is going to affect anyone is in theaters.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#51 Sep 14 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
I'm not arguing it can't be made law, I'm arguing it shouldn't be.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (43)