bushwacked Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So you are OK with govt putting restrictions on everything you may eat or drink? In general no, but I'm also okay with state's doing these things on their own as lawfully granted. Why do you and Opie hate our Constitution and state's rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 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? That is the whole point. You mean like they have done for my 41 years of existence for say Josh Gordon, alcohol, penicillin, prositiution, cigarettes and steroids? Why is a DUI illegal even if you don't hit anyone? I'm not getting your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So you are OK with govt putting restrictions on everything you may eat or drink? You mean like the Food and Drug Administration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 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). Evidently you didn't read post #298 in this thread http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/topic/379370-the-ny-soda-law/page__st__275#entry3680145 or do not believe it, it states "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." There's also the whole "rational basis" argument. (Seems pretty irrational to many, but you never know how the law sees it.) I'm not saying its a slam dunk and the law will be tossed out, but it also isn't certain to hold up to a chanllenge in court. I really don't understand why so many are defending this (anybody really) and acting as if it is perfectly ok for the government to impose more limits on what the citizens can do. I guess its the new way of things in this country, soon we'll all be ordering food from a pre-approved government menu based on our current health status. Hope you enjoy it, and I'm long gone before we get to that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You mean like they have done for my 41 years of existence for say Josh Gordon, alcohol, penicillin, prositiution, cigarettes and steroids? Why is a DUI illegal even if you don't hit anyone? I'm not getting your point. I think you guys do get my point..... It is pretty simple - my point is that this law is stupid that is it! I am not saying it is unconstitutional or that they may not have the right to create a law like this. I AM JUST SAYING IT IS BEYOND STUPID. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) There are a ton of other stupid laws out there you better start worrying about. Life is short and you may not have time to worry enough about all of them if you don't broaden your worry horizon. Worrying about every law, you think is stupid, in other states and municpalities; in addition to worrying about everyone who doesn't worry about it as much as you do; is a colossal waste of time and energy. But have fun worrying about the slippery slope, the sky falling,and inevitable end of your freedumb that will cascade from the fact you can't buy a 20 oz soda in New York. Edited June 19, 2012 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 There are a ton of other stupid laws out there you better start worrying about. Life is short and you may not have time to worry enough about all of them if you don't broaden your worry horizon. Worrying about every law, you think is stupid, in other states and municpalities; in addition to worrying about everyone who doesn't worry about it as much as you do; is a colossal waste of time and energy. But have fun worrying about the slippery slope, the sky falling,and inevitable end of your freedumb that will cascade from the fact you can't buy a 20 oz soda in New York. And how much energy did you spend discussing the WI governor situation. Life is short and maybe you should not spend so much energy discussing elections for governors in other states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 There are a ton of other stupid laws out there you better start worrying about. Life is short and you may not have time to worry enough about all of them if you don't broaden your worry horizon. Worrying about every law, you think is stupid, in other states and municpalities; in addition to worrying about everyone who doesn't worry about it as much as you do; is a colossal waste of time and energy. But have fun worrying about the slippery slope, the sky falling,and inevitable end of your freedumb that will cascade from the fact you can't buy a 20 oz soda in New York. Why are you posting in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Why are you posting in this thread? You are very distraught and specifically mentioned my indifference to the law causing some of that stress. I'm only trying to help you out here by alleviating some of the emotional hardship I caused by not having the same perspective as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You are very distraught and specifically mentioned my indifference to the law causing some of that stress. I'm only trying to help you out here by alleviating some of the emotional hardship I caused by not having the same perspective as you. and I am mainly posting just to keep my name at the top of the daily posting list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Add Cambridge, MA to the list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Add Cambridge, MA to the list? Link did not work - is that because I don't live in MA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Link did not work - is that because I don't live in MA? I checked again, it worked for me. Try this link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I checked again, it worked for me. Try this link It was a joke based on Bushy saying I should not have an opinion if I don't live in NY - obviously not a good joke but chalk up another post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Evidently you didn't read post #298 in this thread http://forums.thehud...75#entry3680145 or do not believe it, it states "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." There's also the whole "rational basis" argument. (Seems pretty irrational to many, but you never know how the law sees it.) I'm not saying its a slam dunk and the law will be tossed out, but it also isn't certain to hold up to a chanllenge in court. I did see post #298. However, I'm licensesd to practice law in two states. So I trust my understanding of the law quite a bit more than a random article that was copied and pasted into post #298. I also trust that you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about when it comes to constituational standards of review. Under rational basis review, assuming the government's interest is legitimate, the law will be upheld as long as it is not "purely arbitrary." Lindsley v. Natual Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911). I will happily stack 100+ years of US Supreme Court case law against post #298 any day of the week. I trust that we're done here. Edited June 20, 2012 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I will happily stack 100+ years of US Supreme Court case law against post #298 any day of the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 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 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) I did see post #298. However, I'm licensesd to practice law in two states. So I trust my understanding of the law quite a bit more than a random article that was copied and pasted into post #298. I also trust that you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about when it comes to constituational standards of review. Under rational basis review, assuming the government's interest is legitimate, the law will be upheld as long as it is not "purely arbitrary." Lindsley v. Natual Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911). I will happily stack 100+ years of US Supreme Court case law against post #298 any day of the week. I trust that we're done here. No telling how this will ultimately come down if challenged but to your point. "Purely Arbitrary" is a case I would think a smart lawyer could make. A 16oz decision alone seems quite arbitrary at first glance. Selecting a single product type seems purely arbitrary. I didn't bother to read post 298 but local governments do have a wide range of power. However, taking on billion dollar conglomerates just to push an agenda may not be a wise use of government funds in the event they decide to fight back. It could be an interesting fight and no doubt it will be an expensive one. I am looking forward to talking with my sister in law who was a big time litigator for years in the corporate world and now works for the Attorney General in Texas. I imagine she will have an interesting opinion on this topic. Just curious, what type of law do you practice? Edited June 20, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Just curious, what type of law do you practice? Tax attorney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 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. So, you meant to say "processed meat". Thanks for sort of clearing that up. At any rate, this is the last post I'm going to make here because chights about to get real in my world and I'm going to have to actually focus on things outside the huddle for a stretch. Well, they tell me there's a world outside of this place, and I guess I'm going to find out for myself. At any rate, we could go 'round and 'round here but let me clear one thing up. This whole tangent was started by you saying "the link between sugar intake and developing diabetes is a myth". A "myth". Like random rednecks and hikers see some big furry creature and the myth of bigfoot is born. That Scots see strange shapes in the misty waters of a lake and now there's a monster. A "myth". Let's examine the "myth". 1) Before you do study 1, it makes sense. For however long there have been humans, the metabolic process involved mining whole food sources for proteins, fats, fiber, vitamins, and, yes the precious glucose that you speak so glowingly of. Now, within the last 50 or so years, we've changed that and changed it radically. Now, we have a habit of introducing highly concentrated doses of pure sugar, all at once. Combine that with the fact that we've learned that our body has a tendency to break down when systems are abused. If we roll right out of bed and immediately do heavy dead lifts and run suicides, it's not likely to end well. This is the metabolic equivalent. Everything is all peaceful in insulin land, and, all of a sudden, we're doing heavy dead lifts and suicides. So, we're not trying to prove something unbeliveable. We're not trying to prove that drinking 32 oz a day of spring water causes heart disease. 2) There are non-studies that go some way to confirm this. 100 years ago, we didn't consume much sugar and nobody had diabetes. Now we consume a ton more and a bunch of us do. Sure, there could be other factors, but it's a rather glaring correlation. 3) Then there are actual studies, even if they have limitations. You've got the nurses whrere those who consume soda regularly were nearly 2x as likely to develop type 2 than those who didn't. Again, who knows what other things they might have been doing differently, but there it is. There's the other study I showed that illustrated an increased likelihood of developing type 2 precursors among the same sort of sample set. Then there's the rats and HFCS and their increase in factors that we associate with diabetes, but what the hell, they're rats. And those are just the ones I found quickly. 4) Of course, the 100%, slam dunk, guilty in a court of law study that you want will likely never happen. For one simple reason. Given the very rational hypothesis, who the hell is going to sign up for it? For starters, you'd need to start with healhty subjects, right? So, you'd need to convince healthy people of the following. "Hey, we're about certain that consuming a ton of sodas is going to give you what has been shown to be a very bad and potentially lethal disease. But the only way we can make sure is to feed all of you the same diet and put on the same activityplan, but feed some of you tons of soda. Then, when half of you develop this horrible disease at a higher rate than the others, we'll know for sure." "Um, can I be part of the control group?" In fact, would it even be ethical to conduct such a study? So, there's your "myth". Something that makes perfect sense and where we have an increasing number of studies that, while not perfect, are certainly circling the "truth" like so many sharks. And you're the dude floating in the water surrounded by those sharks saying "until one of you bites me, I don't believe you exist." Edited June 20, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Add Cambridge, MA to the list? The mayor of Cambridge was "inspired" by the NYC law. Wonderful, now this silly/stupid law is going to inspire others to follow suit, so they can be as forward thinking at those in NYC. Well at least this politician is looking at some other more reasonable alternatives (which the businesses could decide to do or not). "Davis also said regulation might not be necessary to prevent the sale of large-sized sugary beverages in Cambridge. She said city officials could pitch a voluntary compliance agreement to vendors or create an incentive program to encourage cooperation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I did see post #298. However, I'm licensesd to practice law in two states. So I trust my understanding of the law quite a bit more than a random article that was copied and pasted into post #298. I also trust that you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about when it comes to constituational standards of review. Under rational basis review, assuming the government's interest is legitimate, the law will be upheld as long as it is not "purely arbitrary." Lindsley v. Natual Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911). I will happily stack 100+ years of US Supreme Court case law against post #298 any day of the week. I trust that we're done here. You'd be wrong, whether you believe they have a case or not, how many states you practice law in doesn't hold a lot of weight. This case will be decided in court. NYC will spend a lot of money (waste in my eyes) defending this nonsense. The giant American Beverage Association will spend tons to fight it (protecting their profits) in a calculated risk. In the end who wins, well the lawyers of course because they'll get paid regardless of which side wins. Tax attorney A tax attorney? Ok you've got more understanding and experience with the law than I do, but this case is hardly your specialty. Ice1, will be interesting to hear what your SIL says, she sounds like this is something in her area, from both sides (corporate litigation and government). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 No telling how this will ultimately come down if challenged... Yes, there is. As the US Supreme Court said back in 1993, "A statute is presumed constitutional" and "a classification 'must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.'" Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). To my knowledge, no purely ecocnomic law has ever been overturned under rational basis review. The only laws that I'm aware that have failed rational basis are those that discriminated against the mentally challenged, homosexuals, and another law that sought to ban all catholic schools. Limiting soda sizes isn't anything like those cases, and the Supreme Court has said time and time again that it will not second guess the wisdom of purely economic regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Ice1, will be interesting to hear what your SIL says, she sounds like this is something in her area, from both sides (corporate litigation and government). Greg Abbott is a crook. 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.