yo mama Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 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. Maybe you wouldn't be so senstitve about this subject if you just lost some weight, fatass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Maybe you wouldn't be so senstitve about this subject if you just lost some weight, fatass. Nope - don't even drink much soda - I just think the law is beyond idiotic. A better law would be to eliminate lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 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. Why would you care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingfootball Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think that it's funny that the government is concerned about soda pop and cigarettes, but doesnt give a rats butt that I have to put 1/3 of my monthly salary in my gas tank just to get to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Nope - don't even drink much soda - I just think the law is beyond idiotic. A better law would be to eliminate lawyers. wouldn't you need a lawyer for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 wouldn't you need a lawyer for that? Probably 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 19, 2012 Author 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." _______________________ "Possibly" was not used to imply that high consumption of soda "possibly" could cause diabetes. No, they showed a higher instance. "Possibly" was used to speculate why, not if, the consumption of sodas lead to diabetes. Sorry dude, a study published by Harvard is good enough for me. You know what? Screw Harvard. Maybe you're a Yale guy Also, I went back and looked and couldn't find the meat-diabetes bit. Could you point that out? Oh, and JAMA is cited in the title of that study. Edited June 19, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think that it's funny that the government is concerned about soda pop and cigarettes, but doesnt give a rats butt that I have to put 1/3 of my monthly salary in my gas tank just to get to work. Yep, instead of pretending soda is bad for you, the gov't should do a better job pretending that there's a never ending amount of fossil fuels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingfootball Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Yep, instead of pretending soda is bad for you, the gov't should do a better job pretending that there's a never ending amount of fossil fuels. Or maybe they should just stop pretending they are serving the American people. Do you really think that the government trying to control peoples vices is going to stop someone from doing what they want to do? Sorry man, I have not walked a mile in your shoes but there are alot bigger problems in my world than what size of soda I can buy. IMHO this is just stupid crap to deflect Americans attention from real issues and seeing that the politicians are raping us. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Or maybe they should just stop pretending they are serving the American people. Do you really think that the government trying to control peoples vices is going to stop someone from doing what they want to do? Sorry man, I have not walked a mile in your shoes but there are alot bigger problems in my world than what size of soda I can buy. IMHO this is just stupid crap to deflect Americans attention from real issues and seeing that the politicians are raping us. Exactly! But have you not been reading - you don't have the right to be unhealthy and sugar is bad so that makes it totally fine for the govt to regulate soda intake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Oh, and JAMA is cited in the title of that study. As in "JAMA. Ma's so fat, her blood type is "mountain dew". (but there isno causal link between mountain dew and fatass-ness of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by gbpfan1231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Here you go. Another abstract from Schulze. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14576980 BTW, information on him is rather guarded it seems but it could also be this guy, Not sure but........ https://www.herbdoc....N4AodDDvq2g&c=1 Maybe he will give you a discount. Edited June 19, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by gbpfan1231 Ahh the dreaded ignore thing again - I thought most people were adults on this site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Exactly! But have you not been reading - you don't have the right to be unhealthy and sugar is bad so that makes it totally fine for the govt to regulate soda intake. What is really funny is the very arbitrary limits, the restrictions which are easily circumvented (free refills, especially in self serve), and the fact that I can still buy 2 liter bottles, full cases of 12oz cans and many other large volumes of soda and consume as much as I want. If they truly want to control it then ration it like things were during the war. You want to buy a soda, show me your ration card first so I can verify you haven't already consumed your monthly limit. Edited June 19, 2012 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I used to think that was tin-foil hat thinking, but The People might eventually demand that, just as The People demanded that the govt protect us better at the cost of liberties and freedoms. The People think that internet spying, drones, and other evasive activities are a good thing. You keep repeating the same things over and over despite the fact they aren't true. You do not have a right to be unhealthy. I will call you Dorothy from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You keep repeating the same things over and over despite the fact they aren't true. You do not have a right to be unhealthy. I will call you Dorothy from now on. 1) If it is true that nobody has a right to be unhealthy, is it then also true that everyone is mandated to be healthy? 2) please define healthy and unhealthy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 1) If it is true that nobody has a right to be unhealthy, is it then also true that everyone is mandated to be healthy? 2) please define healthy and unhealthy? 1. No. You don't have a right to choose to be unhealthy, you can naturally be unhealthy. 2. Whining about not getting enough soda despite it not being banned. What natural law gives you the right to be as unhealthy as possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The Bloomberg administration has successfully fought off legal challenges to past health initiatives, including a ban on smoking inside bars and a requirement that chain restaurants print calorie counts on their menus. It has said it is confident the sugar drink proposal would withstand legal scrutiny. That may not keep the industry from taking their shot in court. It is too early to tell what specific legal claims industry groups might pursue, but attorneys who work with the food and beverage industries as well as experts in public health law said their best bet in challenging the proposal would be a federal lawsuit claiming a violation of the United States Constitution. Possible claims include arguing that the law does not have a rational basis or that it violates the Constitution's commerce clause. Under a rational basis claim, courts can strike down as unconstitutional legislation that is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In this case, the city has a valid interest in protecting public health, experts on both sides said. But the city would have to demonstrate that the ban would lower consumption of soft drinks, and that doing so would reduce obesity among New York residents, thereby improving public health. Some industry lawyers said the fact that the law would permit certain businesses to sell large drinks -- grocery stores, for instance -- and would not restrict free refills or multiple purchases undermines the city's argument that the ban would lower consumption. "When you can carry two 16-ounce cups, the burden is on them to show that they're accomplishing this objective," said Marc Scheineson, a former Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner who heads the food and drug practice for Washington-based law firm Alston & Bird. NANNY STATE? The beverage industry -- which previously clashed with Bloomberg over the city's aggressive anti-soda advertising campaign -- argues that targeting sugary soft drinks, rather than high-fat foods or other items, does nothing to combat obesity. But courts tend to be extremely deferential to the judgments of legislative bodies and agencies, said John Humbach, a law professor at Pace University. And Harvard professor Mello said the association between sugary soft drinks and obesity is clear and the ban would likely be seen as a reasonable way of driving down consumption. Another option for the beverage and restaurant industries is to claim that the city's move violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has interpreted that clause to mean that states are prohibited from taking actions that harm interstate commerce. Lawyers for the beverage industry could argue that the ban will harm large producers that ship soda syrup or cups across state lines into New York, experts on both sides said. At the same time, the Constitution grants states, and by extension municipalities, enormous power to regulate public health and safety. A court would balance the potential negative impact on interstate commerce against the city's authority to regulate public health - a contest that the city would probably win, said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in public health. "To me, the states have sovereign power to regulate for the public's health, and this is a classic public health intervention," he said. Looks like we will have to wait and see what happens as there will likely be legal challenges. I'll utlmately be fine with any decision, because unlike some here, I will respect the Constituational process whether or not I personally agree with the final outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 don't we have a right to minimal govt interference? If that's true, are you willing to make cigarettes, alcohol, and all junk food illegal? It's not really a matter of a right to be unhealthy, it's a matter of excessive legislation. If it matters, I drink almost no soda nor do I live in NY. No, we have the rights spelled out for us in the Constitution. Teh legislation is only excessive if it is infringing on some right you have; otherwise, I see it as standard governance. It is regulation, not a ban. Do you support 8 year olds buying booze and smokes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 And around in circles we continue to go. It will be interesting to see how NYC defends the law. Proving that it will reduce consumption, and that will directly impact obesity or other health issues. I was flipping through a magazine earlier and saw this ad, thought it might be interesting to some. (Although I recognize it for what it really is, an industry trying to get good PR by telling the public they care so much about us. In reality they care only or primarily about profit, and have simply created more beverages and different sizes to continue to sell us more junk.) http://www.deliveringchoices.org/ BTW I too don't drink much soda. If I don't eat out, I probably drink less than one a week. When I eat out I'm more inclined to get a soda, but have been drinking more lemonade and water (which I drink with most meals at home or work). I also do not live in NYC, and haven't been there since childhood vacation. So this law won't impact me, but concerns me that we allow government to impose such limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 don't we have a right to minimal govt interference? If that's true, are you willing to make cigarettes, alcohol, and all junk food illegal? It's not really a matter of a right to be unhealthy, it's a matter of excessive legislation. If it matters, I drink almost no soda nor do I live in NY. No. And that's why you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) And around in circles we continue to go. It will be interesting to see how NYC defends the law. Proving that it will reduce consumption, and that will directly impact obesity or other health issues. Wrong. Step 1: does the government have a legitimate interest in combating obesity? Yes, of course it does because obseity has a massive impact on government's spending on medical care (among other things). Step 2: is this regulation rationally realted to achieving that legitimate interest? Yes, it is. But the test is not that the government must "prove it will directly impact" anything. Moreover, issues of health and safety are traditionally delegated to state and local governments. If this were a federal law your objections *might* have some weight (though I doubt it due to the breadth of the federal commerce clause powers). Edited June 19, 2012 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 No, we have the rights spelled out for us in the Constitution. Teh legislation is only excessive if it is infringing on some right you have; otherwise, I see it as standard governance. It is regulation, not a ban. Do you support 8 year olds buying booze and smokes? So you are OK with govt putting restrictions on everything you may eat or drink? You would be fine with govt telling you how many of this or that you are allowed to buy at a grocery store? If the argument works for soda then it could be used to for popcorn with butter it could be used for Peanut M&M's - bacon it could go on and on. That is the whole point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 so then you're in favor of making alcohol and cigarettes illegal? That's an irrelevant nonsequitor. Please do not try to drag me into a labryinth of hypotheticals. 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.