Bloomberg's Soda Bill Passes page 5

[FlyingPig]

Yeah. I hear a lot of you Europeans fall hook, line, and sinker for the whole "government takes perfect care of us" bit. It's likely all you've ever known since birth.

Yawn, I have no intention of debating some anarcho-capitalist who tells me to have dignity without knowing anything about my social background and who thinks he lives in a country that is a hybrid between socialism and fascism. You clearly have no idea about European history in the 1930s or else you wouldn't trivialise terms like this.

I don't support the monarchy, by the way, and think it is a relict from feudalism that should be abolished. (though yes, I did look up the topless pictures of the princess today, as everybody did)

Anyway, this is all way off topic, bad mistake to pop my head in here...

[oxide]

It's too bad that NYC didn't spend more money on studies actually proving that sugar causes diabetes, instead of on lobbying and publicity. Then they could put up all kinds of warnings and regulate and tax the living phuk out of soda just like they do for cigarettes.

As for "freedom," over 14 million people receive diabetes treatment through Medicare and Medicaid,* i.e., My. Tax. Dollars. Without going into a health care debate, I think that gives us at least a little input into what people can eat. And it's not like they are banning soda altogether. It's just a little extra effort.

Topless pix of princess...whatever, she probably looks better in clothes than not clothed. Not much to look at.


--------------
Medicaid and Medicare Coverage for Diabetes - American Diabetes Association

[JoanieL]

Then I want input into letting young men ride motorcycles. Surely these humans tax the medical care budget when they slam their bikes into something and break their bodies/heads. And children with all their vaccinations and creepy kid diseases, allergies, etc. And alcohol poisoning is up in the college set because of binge drinking. And might as well throw all of us old folks off the bridge because we cost also.

My point being that while obesity is probably killing more people than any other one factor, restricting soda legally probably cost more to implement than any positives it will ever generate and is stupidly ineffective. All one has to do is look at the results for just say no to drugs and how effective that is.

Teaching people why they shouldn't drink soda (in the form of PSAs for example), and then letting the market take care of itself is right and appropriate. Letting scummy politicians and people who get their health info from Oprah decide what I should be allowed to put in my body is evil through and through.

I probably haven't drunk soda in more than two or three years, but if you don't stick up for freedoms for the people with whom you disagree, you have nothing to piss and moan about when they restrict your steak. And if you don't stick up for small freedoms, then just grab your ankles, because you are the government's bitch.

[Rojo]

I'd imagine a big reason for that topic not coming up here would be that this is a... food forum?

Yes but I must have missed the stop-and-frisk thread in Odds and Ends. The point being that the little government types only get up in arms about stupid stuff that effects some corporate profits.

Now why is that? Mmmmmmmm.

[j3nn]

Yes but I must have missed the stop-and-frisk thread in Odds and Ends. The point being that the little government types only get up in arms about stupid stuff that effects some corporate profits.

Now why is that? Mmmmmmmm.

Which part of these forums close off-topic threads don't you understand? We have had several non-nutrition political discussions and they usually ended in the thread being closed due to being OFF TOPIC because a handful of users whined that they didn't want politics in their health forums and blah blah. They do not realize the relation of politics (and freedom) to our general health and well-being. If you truly believe that our concerns are only focused around corporations, profits, and soda, you do not understand the cause for liberty whatsoever. All lost liberties are tragic. But some subjects clearly aren't welcome in all mediums. Not our fault. Also not our web site. Mark Sisson can regulate whatever he wants. It's his and we respect that.

[DamienMaddox]

I don't support the monarchy, by the way, and think it is a relict from feudalism

so how are democracy and republics not relics?

[Saoirse]

6. let's not forget that we've already banned transfats in NYC (I thought that was going too far and hitting too close to home, since some people were talking about banning SATURATED fats) and required calorie counts on menus... and none of that's really helped. I'd rather have my freedom of choice.

the irony of the trans-fat ban is that pastry chefs had to change their recipes because cream and butter contain small amounts of naturally occurring trans-fats (conjugated linoleic acid; CLA which is widely known to be beneficial)

[DamienMaddox]

Yes but I must have missed the stop-and-frisk thread in Odds and Ends. The point being that the little government types only get up in arms about stupid stuff that effects some corporate profits.

Now why is that? Mmmmmmmm.

if I posted on this forum as often as I posted on others, I would have been in that thread.

I could care less about corporate profits, the concept of corporations is ridiculous. It's an imaginary entity, no different from government, and only exists where government exists. I would love to see both done away with.

If you want to run a business, run a business. Focus on running the business, not the paper work. That doesn't help anybody.

Since you piqued my curiosity, were you in favor or against the stop and frisk policy? We haven't talked much but I'm sure you can guess my stance on it.

[Rojo]

Since you piqued my curiosity, were you in favor or against the stop and frisk policy? We haven't talked much but I'm sure you can guess my stance on it.

Of course I'm against it. That's a REAL government trespass. Super Big Gulps? Not so much. We regulate drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc....

In our current Patriot Act/drone/SuperMaxPrison environment I find tin-hatted Bravehearts yelling about the right to poison themselves with Mountain Dew more than a little silly.

[DamienMaddox]

Of course I'm against it. That's a REAL government trespass.

Good. We agree on that.

Super Big Gulps? Not so much. We regulate drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc....

In our current Patriot Act/drone/SuperMaxPrison environment I find tin-hatted Bravehearts yelling about the right to poison themselves with Mountain Dew more than a little silly.

Lets add a little perspective on this. The people who whine the loudest about this, are the same people who probably already thought that police were allowed to stop and frisk you. The same people who think "I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to worry about!".

Whether it is silly or not, something like this is actually waking up some of those people who would otherwise believe the police have every right to search your pockets, your car, perhaps even your house. They grew up thinking those are only issues that criminals have to worry about.

Then this happens, and it gets them thinking and looking into whether or not banning soda's is even constitutional (IMO the constitution is a joke, but I digress) and this at least gets them riled enough to actually look at what "rights" that piece of paper supposedly protects for them.

It's a small step, but for some of those people, it will lead them on a deeper path to understanding what freedom really is.

Instead of complaining that people are making a fuss over this when we have bigger fish to fry, chime in and say "yeah, and you know what else? This time last year police weren't even allowed to stop and frisk you, and police are allowed to legally lie to you, and you don't actually have to let a police officer search your car or house, you can tell them you don't consent to it".

Minds are open and receptive that haven't been. Instead of fighting it we need to show these people reality while their eyes are open, because many will close their eyes again shortly, unless they realize there is more to see.