Jun 15, 2012 -- 8:18PM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Has high taxes reduced tobacco use?

Nope.

EDUCATION has reduced tobacco use.

education certainly has done quite a bit.  When people started to quit smoking and shared how much better they feel that was a good example for other people. 

I think too smoking is one of those things that if you are in the room with a smoker, you are in effect smoking yourself.  So really it was nonsmokers demanding freedom from smoke that helped quite a bit.  Now we live in a virtually smoke free world and smokers are concerned about their cigaretes bothering others.  It took awhile but really in retrospect it really didn't take very long.  The first nonsmoking restaurant section I can remember was  the year 1985.  It was unheard of at that time and many restaraunts did not have a nonsmoking section.  About 10 years latter there was very little public smoking going on.  Now you just can't smoke inside buildings period. 

But drinking a soda does not effect the person next to you.  There is no big outrage that peopel are bothering you with their soda drinking and you need to be free from people drinking their sodas.  No other people's soda drinking making you smell like soda or too much soda in a room making it hard to breathe. 

So no, I don't see soda going the way of tobacco - not going to happen. 

It is funny, the progressive charge is to legalize currently illegal drugs (which I agree with) but it is sort of strange to want to legalize illegal drugs but stiffle and put regulations on freaking soda.   I think soda drinkers have a  reputation of being much more productive members of society than your typicall pot smoker. 

Jun 15, 2012 -- 8:54PM, teilhard wrote:

BANNING Smoking in Public Places -- Bars, Cafes, Parks, Schools, etc. -- and in The Workplace, has ALSO encouraged Quitting and DISCOURAGED Starting ...

Jun 15, 2012 -- 8:37PM, Erey wrote:

Jun 15, 2012 -- 8:18PM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Has high taxes reduced tobacco use?

Nope.

EDUCATION has reduced tobacco use.

education certainly has done quite a bit.  When people started to quit smoking and shared how much better they feel that was a good example for other people. 

I think too smoking is one of those things that if you are in the room with a smoker, you are in effect smoking yourself.  So really it was nonsmokers demanding freedom from smoke that helped quite a bit.  Now we live in a virtually smoke free world and smokers are concerned about their cigaretes bothering others.  It took awhile but really in retrospect it really didn't take very long.  The first nonsmoking restaurant section I can remember was  the year 1985.  It was unheard of at that time and many restaraunts did not have a nonsmoking section.  About 10 years latter there was very little public smoking going on.  Now you just can't smoke inside buildings period. 

But drinking a soda does not effect the person next to you.  There is no big outrage that peopel are bothering you with their soda drinking and you need to be free from people drinking their sodas.  No other people's soda drinking making you smell like soda or too much soda in a room making it hard to breathe. 

So no, I don't see soda going the way of tobacco - not going to happen. 

 

It is funny, the progressive charge is to legalize currently illegal drugs (which I agree with) but it is sort of strange to want to legalize illegal drugs but stiffle and put regulations on freaking soda.   I think soda drinkers have a  reputation of being much more productive members of society than your typicall pot smoker. 

So it is official, you are seriously talking about banning sodas?  You really feel that the state has the right to ban sodas in the public space?  Really?

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:52PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Jun 15, 2012 -- 8:37PM, Erey wrote:

... drinking a soda does not effect the person next to you.

Actually, this is not true, as research has shown.

People tend to eat and drink like the others at their table do.

It's a mimetic game. Cheers!

  Ok so you also are for banning sodas and making harsh laws as to what foods and drinks people can consume in public?  Really? 

You think seeing throw back a few donuts is going to overwhelm you and thrust you into a 2,000 calorie binge? I don't like the direction this is going.

You know at the begining of this thread there were all these admonishments that people against the soda ban were overreacting.  That there was no real efforts to control people or limit or interfere in food choices.  All would go on as before and people would not miss a few ounces of soda choice.

Now we get fed this sermon on how sugar is public enemy #1 and we need to abolish it in public places just like we did tobacco.

This is why we can't and should not tolerate these kinds of slippery slope intrusive nanny state rules because sanctimonious elitists just really want to at the end of the day control the minor issues of other people's lives.  It is not just a few ounces of soda it is a coercion to force people to limit thier sugar.

I

Prediction:

The NEXT Hot (excuse me, COLD !!!) "Soft Drink" Promotion-Product will be a "Kind" of Sugar-Flavor "Espresso," served in a single "Shot" of concentrated Flavor-Syrup-(Caffeine) ... (We already have obscene little over-priced Bottles of "Energy-Boost" Crap, so the "Soda-Espresso" Idea is already well on its Way ...)

The Dispensing Machine will also make some funny squishy-Spurt Noises, adding to the Experience ...

Jun 16, 2012 -- 1:28PM, Stardove wrote:

IMO.... the ban of larger size soda drinks will never happen... there is nothing to keep a person from purchasing 2, 3, 4, etc. 16 oz. drinks all at the same time.  So a ban would in affect do no good. 

The sellers of larger drinks would profit from selling more smaller drinks which cost more, if multiples are sold.  Of course, then the cup industry would profit from more cups being used. 

Then the land fills would be over flowing in cups. 

If we think about it maybe this ban is really about profits for companies and not what is good for a person or the environment due to more trash being produced.

Jun 16, 2012 -- 1:28PM, Stardove wrote:

IMO.... the ban of larger size soda drinks will never happen... there is nothing to keep a person from purchasing 2, 3, 4, etc. 16 oz. drinks all at the same time.  So a ban would in affect do no good. 

The sellers of larger drinks would profit from selling more smaller drinks which cost more, if multiples are sold.  Of course, then the cup industry would profit from more cups being used. 

Then the land fills would be over flowing in cups. 

If we think about it maybe this ban is really about profits for companies and not what is good for a person or the environment due to more trash being produced.

You mean Bloomberg may have created legislation that will make the evil, immoral, profit seekers more money? Now why would a politician do something like that and make it look like he's doing something for the 'public good'?