Jackass Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Excellent! So we are agreed, that the State has an interest in regulating the doses of all things that we ingest (since the State ultimately pays something for our health care, and everything we ingest is potentially fatal). I believe that we also agree that it is only the good health and viability of each person that is the goal of these regulation, and that the enjoyment of the individual has no bearing on how the State should regulate what we ingest (otherwise we could smoke or drink soda, just for the simple pleasure of it, even though those things are bad for us). And really, if the State is going to have an interest in regulating everything that we ingest, and since our own individual liberties and pleasures don't really matter, then the State should probably mandate that we no longer add any artifical flavors or colorings to our food and drink too. We could save a lot of money by not getting held up with worrying about people enjoying the taste or the look of the food we eat. Agreed. So anything enjoyable should be legal? That would get rid of most laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Excellent! So we are agreed, that the State has an interest in regulating the doses of all things that we ingest (since the State ultimately pays something for our health care, and everything we ingest is potentially fatal). I believe that we also agree that it is only the good health and viability of each person that is the goal of these regulation, and that the enjoyment of the individual has no bearing on how the State should regulate what we ingest (otherwise we could smoke or drink soda, just for the simple pleasure of it, even though those things are bad for us). And really, if the State is going to have an interest in regulating everything that we ingest, and since our own individual liberties and pleasures don't really matter, then the State should probably mandate that we no longer add any artifical flavors or colorings to our food and drink too. We could save a lot of money by not getting held up with worrying about people enjoying the taste or the look of the food we eat. Agreed. Where do you have a right to unconditionally put whatever you want into your body? You don't even have the right to get $hit faced drunk and walk home in Texas because that's public intox. Quit being such a drama queen. Where the heck have you been my whole life? With one exception every single time I've gone to jail it's been over me and the state differing about what I am allowed to put in my body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Where do you have a right to unconditionally put whatever you want into your body? You don't even have the right to get $hit faced drunk and walk home in Texas because that's public intox. Quit being such a drama queen. Where the heck have you been my whole life? With one exception every single time I've gone to jail it's been over me and the state differing about what I am allowed to put in my body. What are you talking about? I don't want to unconditionally put whatever I want into my body. I want the State to unconditionally regulate everything that is put into my body. They have an interest in doing so. My rights end where they affect yours, and clearly my poor judgment affects you in that you end up paying for my health care if I am not responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 So anything enjoyable should be legal? That would get rid of most laws. No brother. Pleasure has no bearing upon what the State regulates for our common good. Only good, clean, healthy living matters. If you end up being miserable that's your own problem. The State will take care of making sure that your viabilty is extended as long as possible. In the end you actually have more freedom, because it's one less thing you have to worry about. If I no longer need to worry about drinking too much soda, because the State protects me from myself, then I can spend my time worrying about other more important decisions, like whether to wear my light gray tunic, or my dark gray tunic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What are you talking about? I don't want to unconditionally put whatever I want into my body. I want the State to unconditionally regulate everything that is put into my body. They have an interest in doing so. My rights end where they affect yours, and clearly my poor judgment affects you in that you end up paying for my health care if I am not responsible. Exactly, you are a drama queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Exactly, you are a drama queen. But we finally agree. C'mon comrade, let's embrace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) But we finally agree. C'mon comrade, let's embrace! Really, I was just about ready to go to war over your right to drink as much soda as you want. I was going to do it for you since you can't get up off the couch. ETA: that's the figurative you, not the literal you. Nobody wants the thread locked. Edited June 18, 2012 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Really, I was just about ready to go to war over your right to drink as much soda as you want. I was going to do it for you since you can't get up off the couch. You know as well as I know, that I have no such right. I mean sure maybe as far as the Federal U.S. Constitution is concerned, but city governments can strip me of any and all of the rights not mentioned in the Federal Constitution as long as a majority of Council members agree. It's not really a right, unless it's spelled out somewhere at some level of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 You know as well as I know, that I have no such right. I mean sure maybe as far as the Federal U.S. Constitution is concerned, but city governments can strip me of any and all of the rights not mentioned in the Federal Constitution as long as a majority of Council members agree. It's not really a right, unless it's spelled out somewhere at some level of government. Where is soda mentioned in the bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Where is soda mentioned in the bible? Jerimah 2:22 (NIV) 22Although you wash yourself with soda and use an abundance of soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me,” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Jerimah 2:22 (NIV) 22Although you wash yourself with soda and use an abundance of soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me,” Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Excellent! So we are agreed, that the State has an interest in regulating the doses of all things that we ingest (since the State ultimately pays something for our health care, and everything we ingest is potentially fatal). I believe that we also agree that it is only the good health and viability of each person that is the goal of these regulation, and that the enjoyment of the individual has no bearing on how the State should regulate what we ingest (otherwise we could smoke or drink soda, just for the simple pleasure of it, even though those things are bad for us). And really, if the State is going to have an interest in regulating everything that we ingest, and since our own individual liberties and pleasures don't really matter, then the State should probably mandate that we no longer add any artifical flavors or colorings to our food and drink too. We could save a lot of money by not getting held up with worrying about people enjoying the taste or the look of the food we eat. Agreed. And we'd have an outright ban on tobacco products, and probably alcohol too. Three cheers for our government overlords and their goal to protect us from ourselves. (Oh and wait until you see the generic rubber coated vehicles they'll be allowing us to drive.) And of course some of us are being sarcastic now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 Detlef, We know you think soda is bad for you - if this same exact law was used to ban the large tub of popcorn at movie theaters would you be ok with that? I think I've made it rather clear that the specific choice of how to go after the sugar issue that Bloomberg has taken would not by my first choice. And now I've said it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) It honestly scares me to see that a few people are indifferent to this law or think it is one bit legit. The NY law doesn't seem to violate the supremacy clause in any shape or form. If the law is constitutional, why shouldn't I be indifferent to it? I'm definitely a big enough boy to realize that granting sovereign rights means states will use those in ways I may not necessarily agree with. I let you and Opie worry about things that don't matter (which apparently includes worrying about me not worrying) and I'll focus on important things. Edited June 18, 2012 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) I challenge you to find any legitimate study from any medical professionals that can prove sugar causes diabetes. I assure you will not because sugar ingestion does not cause this affliction. Will the Journal of the American Medical Association do? After adjustment for potential confounders, women consuming 1 or more sugar-sweetened soft drinks per day had a relative risk [RR] of type 2 diabetes of 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.36; P<.001 for trend) compared with those who consumed less than 1 of these beverages per month So, in other words, those who consumed one or more sugary drinks per day were almost twice as likely to develop adult onset diabetes as those who didn't. By the way, here's a little school in Mass discussing the same study... More from Harvard... In the Framingham Heart Study, men and women who had one or more soft drinks a day were 25 percent more likely to have developed trouble managing blood sugar and nearly 50 percent more likely to have developed metabolic syndrome. This is a constellation of factors—high blood pressure; high insulin levels; excess weight, especially around the abdomen; high levels of triglycerides; and low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol—that is one step short of full blown diabetes and boosts the odds of developing heart disease. (10) Edited June 18, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 The NY law doesn't seem to violate the supremacy clause in any shape or form. If the law is constitutional, why shouldn't I be indifferent to it? I'm definitely a big enough boy to realize that granting sovereign rights means states will use those in ways I may not necessarily agree with. I let you and Opie worry about things that don't matter (which apparently includes worrying about me not worrying) and I'll focus on important things. What scares me is that people don't think it matters? Creating useless laws for more govt intrusion does not matter? Does it not matter because you are not impacted by it? If a law this stupid was put in place by you for brewing home brews I am guessing you would now care - this seems to be the point that people don't care until it actually starts to impact them. The other scary thing is that this creates an incredible slippery slope - next it is the large popcorn - then it is the butter on corn at the local county fair then it is the ..... This law is beyond stupid and being indifferent about it is insane - just my opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I'm limited by state law on how much I can brew a year and home-brewing is still illegal in some states. Sorry, I'm indifferent to that too, so you'll also have to worry about me not worrying about that also. I don't buy the chicken little slippery slope bit. I'm fine with state rights as long as the laws they pass are constitutional. You aren't. Pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I'm limited by state law on how much I can brew a year and home-brewing is still illegal in some states. Sorry, I'm indifferent to that too, so you'll also have to worry about me not worrying about that also. I don't buy the chicken little slippery slope bit. I'm fine with state rights as long as the laws they pass are constitutional. You aren't. Pretty simple. trust me - you are one of the last people I would ever worry about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What scares me is that people don't think it matters? Creating useless laws for more govt intrusion does not matter? Does it not matter because you are not impacted by it? If a law this stupid was put in place by you for brewing home brews I am guessing you would now care - this seems to be the point that people don't care until it actually starts to impact them. The other scary thing is that this creates an incredible slippery slope - next it is the large popcorn - then it is the butter on corn at the local county fair then it is the ..... This law is beyond stupid and being indifferent about it is insane - just my opinion. The slippery slope argument is rubbish. Unless you advocate anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What scares me is that people don't think it matters? Creating useless laws for more govt intrusion does not matter? Does it not matter because you are not impacted by it? If a law this stupid was put in place by you for brewing home brews I am guessing you would now care - this seems to be the point that people don't care until it actually starts to impact them. The other scary thing is that this creates an incredible slippery slope - next it is the large popcorn - then it is the butter on corn at the local county fair then it is the ..... This law is beyond stupid and being indifferent about it is insane - just my opinion. I'm not exactly in favor of this soda ban. But if it passes constitutional muster that's the end of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Keep trying detlef. Making a leap that sugar caused weight gain therefore sugar causes diabetes is factually false. That is like stating we did study on big meat and potatoes eaters that got fat and then they got diabetes therefore meat and potatoes causes diabetes. That link is simply not substantiated. BTW that study was not done by the American Medical Association. This was done by a Nutritionist it seems. Simply read the word "Possibly" in the conclusion. "CONCLUSION: Higher consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with a greater magnitude of weight gain and an increased risk for development of type 2 diabetes in women, possibly by providing excessive calories and large amounts of rapidly absorbable sugars." _______________________ Edit to add: in a strange twist of irony I was reading up on detlef's big study post. The guy does in fact also say eating too much meat can lead to Diabetes.....Oh the horror! it seems everything causes diabetes. Edited June 19, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The slippery slope argument is rubbish. Unless you advocate anarchy. The "slippery slope" argument also ignores the fact that politicians don't typically get reelected when they piss voters off. This law (or others like it) are always subject to being overruled in the court of public opinion, which is a counterbalance to nonsensical (though legal) regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The "slippery slope" argument also ignores the fact that politicians don't typically get reelected when they piss voters off. This law (or others like it) are always subject to being overruled in the court of public opinion, which is a counterbalance to nonsensical (though legal) regulations. I guess I never thought about that way. So - it is not unconstitutional and not illegal and it can't be a slippery slope because politicians don't like to piss people off. This law is great and I support it 100% then!! I want govt to tell me exactly what my plate must weigh when I eat dinner tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Today they come for our extra large big gulps, tomorrow they come for our guns and our women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.