The NY soda law

[BeeR]

I'll re-ask the same question I asked to deathpig but to anyone who feels very strongly against this law. What is your stance on what we should do with people who can't afford healthcare for situations they brought upon themselves through bad habits like consuming way too much sugar. Let's keep in mind, that this is a major, major issue in this country. Perhaps not with the number of people who have this sort of issue and can't afford it (because I don't have data on that, specifically), but with the connection between sugar and bad health in general.

Unfortunately, unlike alcohol, it's very difficult to prove someone's health issues are directly related to too much (sugar, fast food, whatever). They can easily lie about what they eat.

 

Say, for instance, you've got someone who is getting subsidized medical benefits but just won't stop eating like an idiot? At what point to the rest of us have the right to say, "Hey a-hole, we're paying for this. Could you kindly meet us half-way on this, start eating right and get off your ass?"

 

"Yesterday" is the short answer, but it doesn't matter because of what I said above ie this is not like the alcohol/etc comparisons because you cannot realistically prove how bad their overall diet is, let alone that that was the cause of their health issues.

 

Do you let him die? Both diseases he has are absolutely his fault.

 

Pretty much answered your own question. We have a severe need to get back to accountability. Sadly, that's not the way we're trending.

 

 

I've just got an issue with everyone having the right to get themselves into trouble they can't afford to get out of and then turning to the rest of us to bail them out.

 

Welcome to America. We've been going down that road for decades, and not just in terms of health.

And this is really what it gets down to. Screw this self-entitled/having it both ways BS. If you want the "right" to be an irresponsible moron, you effectively waive your "right" to freebie (or even cheaper) health care. Again easier said than done of course but that is how it should go.

[detlef]

Unfortunately, unlike alcohol, it's very difficult to prove someone's health issues are directly related to too much (sugar, fast food, whatever). They can easily lie about what they eat.

 

 

"Yesterday" is the short answer, but it doesn't matter because of what I said above ie this is not like the alcohol/etc comparisons because you cannot realistically prove how bad their overall diet is, let alone that that was the cause of their health issues.

 

Pretty much answered your own question. We have a severe need to get back to accountability. Sadly, that's not the way we're trending.

 

 

Welcome to America. We've been going down that road for decades, and not just in terms of health.

And this is really what it gets down to. Screw this self-entitled/having it both ways BS. If you want the "right" to be an irresponsible moron, you effectively waive your "right" to freebie (or even cheaper) health care. Again easier said than done of course but that is how it should go.

 

1) I think it's easier than you're implying to draw an accurate line between diet and these health conditions.

2) We've been preventing people from dying regardless of their ability to pay for it for some time. When you talk about this "trend", are you talking about over the last few decades? centuries? millenia? Because this is not about Obamacare, we've had a safety net in place for quite a while.

3) So I have you on record, you say "let him die".

 

The difference between now and "the good old days" seems less about our society bailing people out and more about the number of people who need to be bailed out. So, your solution of "let them die", while effective on one hand, does not bring us back to a simpler time. Unless that simpler time is the old wild west. That issue remains that there's a ton of fat asses with increasing health issues and that number is only going to get worse as those young enough to not have thei consequences of their horrible diets come home to roost grow older and start having that happen. And, we've set a precedent her in the US that we don't want people dying in the streets, so at some point we step in and try to stop that from happening.

[detlef]

At any rate, could the answer to simply demonize sugar to the degree we have tobacco and booze? Sure, a cookie or a piece of cake every now and then are nothing to worry about (mind you, both of those also contain fat which makes them considerably more healthy than a soda) and neither is a soda. Then again, neither is a glass of wine or a beer. Because, even if the restrictions we place on booze and smokes are easy to get around, it still creates the mindset among everyone that they're "dangerous". As a result, neither is currently contributing to a borderline epidemic health crisis the way sugar is. It appears that, by and large, we've got the booze and smokes deal somewhat contained. Sure, some people still drink and smoke too much, but nobody pretends that they're harmless, nor do many get their dander up over the fact that we place controls on their use.

 

I think familiarity with sugar has caused us to laugh at the notion of comparing it to things like booze or tobacco, but the numbers don't lie. Yet, because it's everywhere, it's deemed harmless.

 

So, simply saying sugar is bad may not be enough. We may need to enact some controls, even random ones like we do with booze and smokes, to actually create a mindset among people. In other words, we can laugh at how random it is to pick 16oz and start with that, but it does create the conversation that is needed. I mean, stopping the sale of booze at 2am does not stop you from drinking all night, we used to leave the bar at last call, hit the liquor store next door and continue at someone's house 'til the sun came up. It does, however, remind you, on some level, that what you're doing is something that you shouldn't be doing as much as you do, which I would imagine, subliminally, is rather effective at curbing use.

 

Of course, it doesn't help that we spent decades blaming fat for making us fat when it was really sugar. That caused people to trade fat-laden foods for sugar-laden foods (even if the "sugar" came in the form of rice cakes and what not) and thinking they were doing the right thing.

 

Unfortunately, like so many other policies, they have to be enacted to protect us from the most stupid/unreasonable/bad among us. In this case, to save them from themselves and ultimately save us from having to eventually take care of them. If everyone was good, smart, and reasonable, we'd need a fraction of the laws we have.

[tonorator]

Unfortunately, like so many other policies, they have to be enacted to protect us from the most stupid/unreasonable/bad among us. In this case, to save them from themselves and ultimately save us from having to eventually take care of them. If everyone was good, smart, and reasonable, we'd need a fraction of the laws we have.

 

 

i hope you never hold any public office ... you don't create new laws and the associated government overhead and costs to try and subliminally impact the worst among us. i happen to love the first lady taking on obesity and doing all she can to help educate the country but leaping from that to laws that ban big cups of soda is stupid. you should see it as stupid and agree that we do not want our taxes going towards trying to create and enforce stupid laws like this. i'm fine with putting them towards education and awareness, but we don't need to start outlawing things in the hopes of it registering with the most stupid among us.

[detlef]

i hope you never hold any public office ... you don't create new laws and the associated government overhead and costs to try and subliminally impact the worst among us. i happen to love the first lady taking on obesity and doing all she can to help educate the country but leaping from that to laws that ban big cups of soda is stupid. you should see it as stupid and agree that we do not want our taxes going towards trying to create and enforce stupid laws like this. i'm fine with putting them towards education and awareness, but we don't need to start outlawing things in the hopes of it registering with the most stupid among us.

 

So, I'm trying to determine whether you're saying we should pretend that everyone is smart or that we should only enact laws to govern those who have enough sense that they don't need to be told what they should or shouldn't do. Are you truly arguing that laws are not put in place to control the worst among us?

 

I'm simply pointing out that somewhat random restrictions on things like booze and smokes has gone a long way to make them taboo in our minds which, one could argue, has gone a long way to curb their abuse. Having the first lady tell you that being fat is bad will likely not have that same effect.

[Ice1]

Bloomberg is simply standing in a long line of idiots.

 

Now get your fat self down to the grocery story and buy as much soda and cake as your heart desires. If you don't have time because of work then get your fat self up from the McDonald's table on your lunch break and give yourself a free refill. That will will show the idiots.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Ice1

[detlef]

Bloomberg is simply standing in a long line of idiots.

 

Now get your fat self down to the grocery story and buy as much soda and cake as your heart desires. If you don't have time because of work then get your fat self up from the McDonald's table on your lunch break and give yourself a free refill. That will will show the idiots.

 

And make sure you have enough booze on hand at home that you can keep drinking after 2am. And I'm pretty sure that being under 21 never completely stopped me from getting my hands on booze.

[Ice1]

And make sure you have enough booze on hand at home that you can keep drinking after 2am. And I'm pretty sure that being under 21 never completely stopped me from getting my hands on booze.

 

 

Are you somehow trying to compare alcohol to fountain soft drinks? Is Bloomberg going to next restrict the sale of all alcohol to 16 oz containers or go after Coke to limit volume to 16 oz bottles in all retail outlets? I know lets go after candy, and ice cream and how dare we allow restaurants to even sell dessert.

 

The guy is an idiot using his office to publicize his narrow view at the expense of business and individuals that may be thirsty. That is not only foolish but dangerous. The guy is an idiot and trying to justify the action as some big brother affirmation is sad in my view.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Ice1

[detlef]

Are you somehow trying to compare alcohol to fountain soft drinks? Is Bloomberg going to next restrict the sale of all alcohol to 16 oz containers or go after Coke to limit volume to 16 oz bottles in all retail outlets? I know lets go after candy, and ice cream and how dare we allow restaurants to even sell dessert.

 

The guy is an idiot using his office to publicize his narrow view at the expense of business and individuals that may be thirsty. That is not only foolish but dangerous. The guy is an idiot and trying to justify the action as some big brother affirmation is sad in my view.

 

For starters, no. I don't think that soft drinks pose the same societal danger as booze does. However, because they are seemingly seen as completey harmless has contributed to the mounting health crisis we face.

 

You will notice that the restriction being proposed on soft drinks is certainly less than that on booze, so I would argue that even Bloomberg does not see them as the same thing.

 

Now, just so I have this clear. Assuming that you guys have a plan other than stay out of everyone's way and then ultimately b!tch about the increased cost of health and the public tab that will be associated with a growing number of diabetic and obese people. Is it safe to say that this is the plan?

 

Launch a propoganda campaign against the soda companies who have been kicking our ass in terms of getting their point across as long as I can remember. I mean, let's be clear, I'm 43 and can't remember a time when people didn't know that soda was bad for you, so this is not news. Yet, during my life time, they've been gaining ground in the battle. Then, when we lose this battle and nothing changes, we can then go back to complaining about the soaring health care costs and public tab associated with the growing number of diabetic and obese people.

 

Seems reasonable.

[stevegrab]

So, I'm trying to determine whether you're saying we should pretend that everyone is smart or that we should only enact laws to govern those who have enough sense that they don't need to be told what they should or shouldn't do. Are you truly arguing that laws are not put in place to control the worst among us?

 

I'm simply pointing out that somewhat random restrictions on things like booze and smokes has gone a long way to make them taboo in our minds which, one could argue, has gone a long way to curb their abuse. Having the first lady tell you that being fat is bad will likely not have that same effect.

 

 

 

I'm trying to figure out what these random restrictions on booze and smokes are. Is there a limit to the amount of tobacco or alcohol one can buy in one purchase? I understand that alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed and regulated by the government, but that is very different from say "bars cannot serve a beer larger than 16oz".

 

You keep saying that sodas or sugar are seen as "completely harmless" by who? Idiots who drink 10-12 sodas a day? Do you really think that people don't know that too much sugar (and many other things including fat, alcohol, etc) are bad for you? Your own post #84 contradicts that, I quote

 

"For starters, no. I don't think that soft drinks pose the same societal danger as booze does. However, because they are seemingly seen as completey harmless has contributed to the mounting health crisis we face."

 

"I mean, let's be clear, I'm 43 and can't remember a time when people didn't know that soda was bad for you, so this is not news."

Edited June 6, 2012 by stevegrab

[detlef]

I'm trying to figure out what these random restrictions on booze and smokes are. Is there a limit to the amount of tobacco or alcohol one can buy in one purchase? I understand that alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed and regulated by the government, but that is very different from say "bars cannot serve a beer larger than 16oz".

 

You keep saying that sodas or sugar are seen as "completely harmless" by who? Idiots who drink 10-12 sodas a day? Do you really think that people don't know that too much sugar (and many other things including fat, alcohol, etc) are bad for you? Your own post #84 contradicts that, I quote

 

"For starters, no. I don't think that soft drinks pose the same societal danger as booze does. However, because they are seemingly seen as completey harmless has contributed to the mounting health crisis we face."

 

"I mean, let's be clear, I'm 43 and can't remember a time when people didn't know that soda was bad for you, so this is not news."

 

Well, age is a pretty random restriction. It's attached to the notion of maturity, but does something magically happen on your 21st birthday that makes you capable of understanding things you didn't a week earlier? The 2am deal is as well. For starters, it assumes everyone keeps the same schedule. What about people who work until late at night and, like the rest of us, find they can't go directly to bed right after work. 2am is their "happy hour".

 

And, like the 16 oz thing, neither age restrictions nor when you can sell something is, in and of itself, an assurance that you will limit consumption. Like the 16 oz limit, those restrictions can be gotten around relatively easily.

 

OK, perhaps not "perfectly harmless" but apparently harmless enough that they scoff at the notion that it should be treated anything remotely like other harmful substances that are controlled. And, this attitude has allowed it to contribute to what could end up being a far bigger public health issue than anyone seems prepared to recognize. So, yes, despite the fact basically everyone has been told since they were a kid that they shouldn't drink too much soda, that they're scoffing at the thought that abuse of the same could be literally killing people explains a serious disconnect that "education" doesn't seem to be addressing.

 

I would also imagine that it would be also harder to curb behavior of drinking too much soda for the following reasons:

 

There's an ace in the hole for booze because there is both immediate dangers of being impared (like driving drunk or alcohol poisoning) as well as long term risks. We don't need to sell people on the long term risks so much because the short term dangers are bad enough.

 

Smoking is also a vile and stinky habit, so there's that.

 

Soda is just about what will happen to you if you crush tons of it over the long haul. That, in and of itself, is not likely to deter as many.

[gbpfan1231]

Is the large tub of popcorn at the theater next?

[detlef]

Oh, and before anyone brings up the "what's next?" bit, think about how slow the evolution of restrictions has been on smokes and booze.

 

We've known for about 50-60 years that cigs will kill you. And in that time, we've put an age restriction and tax on them. Limiting where you could smoke didn't come along until some time after new evidence about 2nd hand smoke came up. There have been a few attempts to make it illegal in general, but by and large they fail.

 

Since we repealed prohibition almost 100 years ago, the only major changes to the restrictions placed on it is pushing the age out a couple of years and more strict guidelines for DUI. It hasn't slid down the "slippery slope" into more and more controls. In fact, if anything, states like NC are actually loosening up the controls. They raised the cap for beer ABV in 2005 and privatizing liquor is gaining more and more steam every year. 10 years ago it wasn't even a consideration.

 

So, the regulations of both of those substances hardly opened the flood gates on more and more controls. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if people were making these same types of arguments when people proposed controls on these. "What's next?" Apparently not much, it seems.

[caddyman]

Well, age is a pretty random restriction. It's attached to the notion of maturity, but does something magically happen on your 21st birthday that makes you capable of understanding things you didn't a week earlier? The 2am deal is as well. For starters, it assumes everyone keeps the same schedule. What about people who work until late at night and, like the rest of us, find they can't go directly to bed right after work. 2am is their "happy hour".

 

And, like the 16 oz thing, neither age restrictions nor when you can sell something is, in and of itself, an assurance that you will limit consumption. Like the 16 oz limit, those restrictions can be gotten around relatively easily.

 

OK, perhaps not "perfectly harmless" but apparently harmless enough that they scoff at the notion that it should be treated anything remotely like other harmful substances that are controlled. And, this attitude has allowed it to contribute to what could end up being a far bigger public health issue than anyone seems prepared to recognize. So, yes, despite the fact basically everyone has been told since they were a kid that they shouldn't drink too much soda, that they're scoffing at the thought that abuse of the same could be literally killing people explains a serious disconnect that "education" doesn't seem to be addressing.

 

I would also imagine that it would be also harder to curb behavior of drinking too much soda for the following reasons:

 

There's an ace in the hole for booze because there is both immediate dangers of being impared (like driving drunk or alcohol poisoning) as well as long term risks. We don't need to sell people on the long term risks so much because the short term dangers are bad enough.

 

Smoking is also a vile and stinky habit, so there's that.

 

Soda is just about what will happen to you if you crush tons of it over the long haul. That, in and of itself, is not likely to deter as many.

 

 

See below info from an article on Yahoo....my Pepsi buddy has been telling me that they are having serious issues with sales. They are feverishly working on drinks that are healthy. This decline was not due to a ban, it was mostly due to awareness. Same as smoking. Smoking was the norm 75 years ago. Now I know very few smokers. Again due to awareness. Let this take it's course...

 

Article...(not written by me!)

 

Soda sales have been declining for the past seven years, but the pace of the decline quickened in 2011 despite growth in the overall beverage market.

Americans continue to guzzle more bottled water, ready-to-drink tea and coffee, sports drinks and energy drinks, rather than sip on soda and fruit juices, according to beverage statistics released Tuesday.

The U.S. beverage market grew by 0.9 percent in 2011, according to preliminary data from Beverage Marketing, a research, consulting, and financial-services firm that tracks the beverage industry. Although this marked the second year of growth for the beverage industry, after two consecutive declines in 2008 and 2009, the pace of growth slowed from 2010.

Beverage Marketing said sales were hurt by higher prices, which made the drinks more difficult for struggling lower-income consumers to afford.

 

Beverage Digest, an industry newsletter that also issued industry sales data Tuesday, estimates carbonated soft drink prices were up about 3 percent last year, as companies passed on the higher cost of sweeteners, such as corn syrup and other raw materials, to consumers.

All of the big three beverage companies - Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO - News), PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP - News), and Dr Pepper Snapple (NYSE: DPS - News) - sold lower volumes in the U.S., as sales of leading brands such as Coke, Diet Coke, Pepsi-Cola, and Mt. Dew fell, according to Beverage Digest.

Both Coke and Pepsi saw their market shares shrink, while Dr Pepper's share was flat, the newsletter said. Sales of Dr Pepper's flagship brand rose 0.5 percent last year, a good showing, but not nearly as good as Fanta, the ninth largest soda brand, which saw sales volume climb 3 percent. Fanta's growth was enough to unseat Diet Dr Pepper from the top 10.

 

While Fanta's growth was impressive, the fastest-growing beverage brand was Dasani, a bottled water sold by Coca-Cola. Dasani's volume rose 11 percent, according to Beverage Digest. It was followed by Arizona iced tea, which grew 9.3 percent, and Pepsi's Gatorade, which rose 8 percent.

To put this in perspective, carbonated soft drink sales grew about 3 percent annually in the U.S. for much of the '90s. The category has been declining since 2005, however, as increasingly health-conscious consumers turn to other beverages perceived to be more healthful.

In the carbonated soft drink category, six of the top 10 brands lost volume, and only four grew. Overall, sales of carbonated soft drinks fell 1 percent in 2011, faster than the 0.5 percent decline in 2010, Beverage Digest said.

Beverage Digest includes fast-growing energy drinks within the category. Without energy drinks, sales of carbonated soft drinks would have fallen 1.5 percent.

Beverage Marketing estimates energy drink sales grew 14.4 percent by volume in 2011. This means it was the fastest-growing segment with the beverage industry. But it remains a relatively small share of the total beverage industry volume. In fact, only the read-to-drink coffee category is smaller, Beverage Marketing said.

 

Not surprisingly, no energy drink or ready-to-drink coffee brand ranks among the leading trademarks.

Sports drinks are another matter. Gatorade has been growing at a fast clip and topped the one-billion-gallon mark for the first time last year. Gatorade, coupled with G2 and other brand variations, is the fifth-largest beverage trademark, according to Beverage Marketing.

As for bottled water, its growth continues to accelerate. In 2008 and 2009, tough economic times led to a decline in bottled water sales, but the category recovered in 2010, and its growth rate accelerated in 2011. Bottled water sales volume was up 4.1 percent in 2011, faster than the 3.5 percent growth in 2010.

"The strong showing by high-end and functional products shows that consumers - at least the more affluent ones - are not concerned exclusively with economic consideration when making their beverage selections," said Michael C. Bellas, chairman and CEO of Beverage Marketing.

[detlef]

Beverage Marketing said sales were hurt by higher prices, which made the drinks more difficult for struggling lower-income consumers to afford.

 

 

 

So, higher prices combined with a sluggish economy led to sluggish sales? Astonishing, really. Edited June 6, 2012 by detlef

[caddyman]

So, higher prices combined with a sluggish economy led to sluggish sales? Astonishing, really.

 

 

This sentence below from the article kind of contradicts that...

 

Americans continue to guzzle more bottled water, ready-to-drink tea and coffee, sports drinks and energy drinks, rather than sip on soda and fruit juices, according to beverage statistics released Tuesday.

 

Tea, sport and energy drinks are way more expensive than soda.

[stevegrab]

Well, age is a pretty random restriction. It's attached to the notion of maturity, but does something magically happen on your 21st birthday that makes you capable of understanding things you didn't a week earlier? The 2am deal is as well. For starters, it assumes everyone keeps the same schedule. What about people who work until late at night and, like the rest of us, find they can't go directly to bed right after work. 2am is their "happy hour".

 

And, like the 16 oz thing, neither age restrictions nor when you can sell something is, in and of itself, an assurance that you will limit consumption. Like the 16 oz limit, those restrictions can be gotten around relatively easily.

 

OK, perhaps not "perfectly harmless" but apparently harmless enough that they scoff at the notion that it should be treated anything remotely like other harmful substances that are controlled. And, this attitude has allowed it to contribute to what could end up being a far bigger public health issue than anyone seems prepared to recognize. So, yes, despite the fact basically everyone has been told since they were a kid that they shouldn't drink too much soda, that they're scoffing at the thought that abuse of the same could be literally killing people explains a serious disconnect that "education" doesn't seem to be addressing.

 

I would also imagine that it would be also harder to curb behavior of drinking too much soda for the following reasons:

 

There's an ace in the hole for booze because there is both immediate dangers of being impared (like driving drunk or alcohol poisoning) as well as long term risks. We don't need to sell people on the long term risks so much because the short term dangers are bad enough.

 

Smoking is also a vile and stinky habit, so there's that.

 

Soda is just about what will happen to you if you crush tons of it over the long haul. That, in and of itself, is not likely to deter as many.

 

 

Yeah, but they are not going after all sources of sugar, just sodas. What about candy bars, cookies, ice cream, and every other product that contains sugar.

 

Sodas are no where near as inherently dangerous as tobacco or alcohol. It is the people who consume nothing but soda as a beverage, that is the problem. Limiting the size of the

 

I don't consider age restrictions to be random, but I do realize there is no magical thing that happens when you turn 21 (or 18, or 16, or 62, 65, etc).

 

Probably another agree to disagree moment, you think the law is a good idea and welcome it, but most of the rest of us see it as stupid. Would you think differently if this was happening locally and your restaurants needed to adapt to the laws?

[delusions of grandeur]

I'm not really sure the fixation on just sugar and soft drinks. Yes, those are issues, but it's corn syrup that's worse for you and what they're loaded with, and is something that appears in everything from soda to sports and energy drinks, to ketchup and a bunch of other things. I believe it can lead to a number of health problems just outside of sugar-related ones too.

 

Also, I have to wonder if the legislator realized how little soda you usually get in a 20 or 32 ounce drink. Most of the time it's filled with ice, and is it ends up not really even being much more than a can or 20 ounce bottle in 32 ounce big gulp.

 

But you are indeed seeing a boom in natural products as awareness of all the crap they load into our food and drinks becomes increasingly known. In that regard, I'm far more outraged over the potential for having to spend tax-payer money to enforce the stupid ban, than I am about the measure that is obviously far more educational than it is a deterrent.

[detlef]

This sentence below from the article kind of contradicts that...

 

Americans continue to guzzle more bottled water, ready-to-drink tea and coffee, sports drinks and energy drinks, rather than sip on soda and fruit juices, according to beverage statistics released Tuesday.

 

Tea, sport and energy drinks are way more expensive than soda.

 

Great, so you posted an article that contradicts itself in order to make a point?

 

How 'bout this point?

Same as smoking. Smoking was the norm 75 years ago. Now I know very few smokers. Again due to awareness. Let this take it's course...

 

 

 

So you're suggesting we take a free-market based "let it take its course" approach to sugar the same way we did with smokes?

 

So, your version of letting the market sort itself with regard to a product is; taxing the hell out of it, putting an age restriction on it, limiting how and where producers can market it, making them put signs on their packaging that says "this will kill you", and ultimately drastically limiting where you're even allowed to consume that product.

 

In light of all this, you see the decrease in smoking as an example of what happens when you just give people the facts and get out of the way? Let the market do its thing?

 

If that's the case, I'm surprised you have any issue at all with what they're doing to soda.

[detlef]

I'm not really sure the fixation on just sugar and soft drinks. Yes, those are issues, but it's corn syrup that's worse for you and what they're loaded with, and is something that appears in everything from soda to sports and energy drinks, to ketchup and a bunch of other things. I believe it can lead to a number of health problems just outside of sugar-related ones too.

 

Also, I have to wonder if the legislator realized how little soda you usually get in a 20 or 32 ounce drink. Most of the time it's filled with ice, and is it ends up not really even being much more than a can or 20 ounce bottle in 32 ounce big gulp.

 

But you are indeed seeing a boom in natural products as awareness of all the crap they load into our food and drinks becomes increasingly known. In that regard, I'm far more outraged over the potential for having to spend tax-payer money to enforce the stupid ban, than I am about the measure that is obviously far more educational than it is a deterrent.

 

I'm curious what the tax bill on enforcing this is.

[stevegrab]

I'm curious what the tax bill on enforcing this is.

 

 

More than zero.

[gbpfan1231]

Oh, and before anyone brings up the "what's next?" bit, think about how slow the evolution of restrictions has been on smokes and booze.

 

We've known for about 50-60 years that cigs will kill you. And in that time, we've put an age restriction and tax on them. Limiting where you could smoke didn't come along until some time after new evidence about 2nd hand smoke came up. There have been a few attempts to make it illegal in general, but by and large they fail.

 

Since we repealed prohibition almost 100 years ago, the only major changes to the restrictions placed on it is pushing the age out a couple of years and more strict guidelines for DUI. It hasn't slid down the "slippery slope" into more and more controls. In fact, if anything, states like NC are actually loosening up the controls. They raised the cap for beer ABV in 2005 and privatizing liquor is gaining more and more steam every year. 10 years ago it wasn't even a consideration.

 

So, the regulations of both of those substances hardly opened the flood gates on more and more controls. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if people were making these same types of arguments when people proposed controls on these. "What's next?" Apparently not much, it seems.

 

 

It is a lot eaier to compare a large soda to candy bars or large popcorn or all you eat fries etc etc than it is to compare things to cigarettes so to me saying what is next is very relevant.

[detlef]

It is a lot eaier to compare a large soda to candy bars or large popcorn or all you eat fries etc etc than it is to compare things to cigarettes so to me saying what is next is very relevant.

 

I was referring to "what is next" in terms of increasing controls on sodas. Worrying that today it's 16oz sodas, tomorrow there's an age limit, things like that.

 

For the record, I bet you would find that candy bars, in general, are not as bad for you as sodas. The nuts and other fats reduce the gylcemic index of the food, reducing the blood sugar spike that ends up starting the chain of events that makes sugary drinks really public enemy #1. So, I don't think it's entirely 100% random that sodas and not other foods that are less than optimal in terms of nutrition are singled out here.

 

That said, I've still recognized the random nature of the ban, so I don't care to argue that it isn't. Because I believe that it is intended to be a lightning rod to remind people that sodas are bad enough for you that someone would do this.

Edited June 6, 2012 by detlef

[BeeR]

1) I think it's easier than you're implying to draw an accurate line between diet and these health conditions.

 

I'm all ears..........

 

And even if you do that generally, good luck proving that for any given person to a point where you could make it stick legally.

 

When you talk about this "trend", are you talking about over the last few decades? centuries? millenia? Because this is not about Obamacare, we've had a safety net in place for quite a while.

When you say "quite a while," do you mean decades? centuries? millenia?

 

cmon - the silly "millenia" stuff and political baiting is something I'd expect from a lot of people here, but you're usually above that BS, or so I thought. Anyway I didn't have an exact time frame in mind, but "decades" is closest. The big kickoff was probably FDR and it's largely been downhill from there. Obviously you could debate the specifics, but that would also get into yet another huddler political cat fight. No thx.

 

3) So I have you on record, you say "let him die".

More or less. More like "let him lie in the bed he made." Not that I want him to die, but you have to draw the line somewhere and if you've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that his health issues are his fault and if he can't pay either........in fact I thought that was more or less where you were going w/this ie people can't or shouldn't have it both ways. Not meaning to put words in your mouth though. Anyway it's easy to come up with hypotheticals to make any viewpoint look bad/wrong and so it pretty pointless IMO. No solution will be a win for everyone.

 

The difference between now and "the good old days" seems less about our society bailing people out and more about the number of people who need to be bailed out.

I disagree. I don't mean I disagree that there are more people that need bailing out, but IMO it a large extent absolutely is about bailing people out who are too stupid/lazy/effed up/whatever and got themselves into the position of needing that bailing out...I think not just the number, but the % of people who fit that description has been on the climb for a long time (decades-ish, for the record).

 

So, your solution of "let them die", while effective on one hand, does not bring us back to a simpler time. Unless that simpler time is the old wild west.

Hyperbole and more semi-subtle baiting notwithstanding, yeah, it does. That said, I don't think simpler is necessarily better and it isn't about "simpler" anyway. It's about addressing the problem and drawing a line, and I think personal accountability, as much as can be reasonably proven, is that line. (PS for the record I think the soda law is dumb too. I do like the idea of heavier taxes on "bad diet stuff" though)

[BeeR]

(cont'd - apparently there's a limit on quotes)

 

 

 

That issue remains that there's a ton of fat asses with increasing health issues and that number is only going to get worse as those young enough to not have thei consequences of their horrible diets come home to roost grow older and start having that happen. And, we've set a precedent her in the US that we don't want people dying in the streets, so at some point we step in and try to stop that from happening.

But "stopping that from happening" sounds like "wet nurse a bunch of flaming losers and take on the burden of their stupidity in ways increasingly expensive and difficult." I'll pass. If it gets so bad they're dying in the streets, freakin die in the streets then. Again, no, I don't want that, but this thing of defending a person's "right" to totally screw up their health and then expect everyone else to pay for it, including those who actually took care of themselves, is IMO absurd and asinine. Accountability people. It's a wonderful motivator. Free rides, on the other hand, are not, to say the least.

 

ETA: comparisons to smoking and alcohol are dicey. Smoking is bad for you, period. Alcohol only is if taken in excessive amounts, and in fact in lower amounts is even good for you. Sugar seems kind of in between. Technically low amounts aren't bad either, but aren't "good" and that threshold is very low.

Edited June 6, 2012 by BeeR