Jun 14, 2012 -- 3:41PM, rabello wrote:

Jun 14, 2012 -- 2:27PM, Cesmom wrote:

What I'm offended by is the fact that the mayor of NYC would find it necessary to eliminate an already existing size choice for consumers, rather than expecting consumers to exercise their own self-control.  I'm offended by the fact that he's basically acting like he believes the typical American consumer is a child who needs to be protected from their own choices.  How dare he act like consumers are incapable of making the right choice if presented with the option of making the wrong one?  It's arrogant, and it's not going to fix the problem anyway.  

Well, that doesn't exactly answer the questions, but from your answers, I surmise that you think it's perfectly A-OK to sell unnecessarily huge drinks with free refills to ALL CUSTOMERS even though that much pop or juice drink or punch or flavored water is not healthy, that predatory capitalistic practices are more important than protecting the health of the public, and that government has no business trying to protect the health and well-being of ALL its citizens, just the rights of those consumers who can afford to pig out.

We will have to agree to disagree.  I personally don't care to live in a culture as priviledged as this one with a bunch of overweight kids sitting all day in the hosptial ER because they have diabetic coma or foot injuries that could lead to amputation, or overweight adults on dialysis because they have diabetic-related kidney failure, simply because the society they live in CHOOSES to do nothing but shop and consume.

I certainly hope that you support using the taxpayer dime to pay for such treatments for those who have no insurance (please don't tell me about the red herring that conservatives call "free clinics' and "avenues" the poor "have" to "suck on" the gubmint "teet").   Most consevatives do not agree with public health programs and would rather sit from their booth at Hooters, slurping their oversized drink pointing a finger of blame at the fattie standing outside holding out a cup in his hands to patrons.   It's attitudes like that that offend me.  We'll have to agree to disagree.   We've had these discussions before, regarding the homeless, the unemployed, the so-called "welfare queens".  I can say the consevative love for social darwinism turns me off.

Personally, I don't think abstract ideology should ever trump the lives of people.  And I think sometimes people have to just step up to the plate and stop feeling sorry for themselves (they want to take away my coke!!! waaa wwaa) or the betterment of the society they live in, whether it be drugs, unhealthy food and drink, supersized portions in a world where children die of starvation every single day, drugs, seat belts, alcohol, etc.   That what it is to live in a "community" instead of the "frontier"

As a moderate, slightly libertarian-leaning, independent, I always get a chuckle out of how many heartless conservatives assume that I'm a bleeding heart liberal and how many bleeding heart liberals assume that I'm a heartless conservative.

I never once said that we should do nothing as a society to encourage people to make healthier choices.  I absolutely think we should encourage healthier choices.  You and I simply disagree on the method in which that should be done.

I don't give 2 cents about Coke.  I only care that we all be given the right to make our own purchasing decisions, and if a consumer finds it more convenient to buy in larger quantities, they should have the right to do so.  It's not at all unusual for me to share a drink with my husband or one of my kids.  It's cheaper than buying 2 separate drinks.  I should have that option.  It is pointless and intrusive for that option to be removed from the menu.  

You can't force people to make the correct choice, but you can certainly educate them to ensure that they are making an informed choice.  That is where the focus should lie when it comes to battling obesity and diabetes.

Indeed, we will do far better by investing in the education of the American people than we ever will in spending to control and care for them.

Jun 14, 2012 -- 3:59PM, Cesmom wrote:

You can't force people to make the correct choice, but you can certainly educate them to ensure that they are making an informed choice.  That is where the focus should lie when it comes to battling obesity and diabetes.

That, obviously, isn't working; doesn't work when you are talking about a huge number of individuals across an entire society.  Cities like NYC are strapped for money, partly because of Republican policies that seek to starve gubmint to make it fail, and an unhealthy population costs that society even more money.  To condemn every public health measure that scientists and authorities propose the way it is done on this board is to be a penny-wise and a pound-foolish.  And, again, nothing, here, is being "banned".

I think businesses that sell things to human beings that can be harmed have moral responsibilites.  And I think those who want to rely on some amorphous idea like "educate the masses" without saying how to "educate the masses" are morally bound to support and even work for universal health care for those who are harmed by the lack of moral obligation of sellers.

And prohibition worked  so well on  alcohol; it created a new class of rich criminals and created jobs for distribution like the outlawing of  certain drugs. [long pause]                And taxes works so well with tobacco .

Sorry for the long pause , I had to go to the kitchen and get a 32 ounce cup of ice and 10 ounces of tea( no sugar).

The American “pursuit of happiness” includes the right to kill ourselves with saturated fat, sugar, cancer causing chemical treated tobacco and mind altering drugs.   

Has high taxes reduced tobacco use?

Nope.

EDUCATION has reduced tobacco use.