***Yes ... Hence the felt and observed Social NEED to LIMIT the Power of "The MarketPlace" and its OverLords in our daily Lives and especially in the Lives of VULNERABLE Persons, e.g., Children and Young Adults ...

Jun 17, 2012 -- 2:11PM, farragut wrote:

Why do we speak of our elected reps as criminals, fools, or tools? Because the words of Lord Acton are as true today as they were then, ***"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It's like this:

"If you don't eat your Meat, you can't have any Pudding ... !!! How can you have any Pudding if you don't eat your Meat ... ???"

Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Roodog wrote:

Why not determine which foods are fattening or otherwise unhealthy and RATION them to the public and limit how much sugar ,meat etc. can be sold to your family.

Make the consumer choose between a Big Mac for himself or a pound of hamburger to feed his family.

In fact, ration all food to cut caloric intake by two thirds.

The Board of Health will need to be able to track every purchase you make.

Quit der b*tch*ng, ve know vaat iss goot for you!

Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:25PM, rabello wrote:

We already know that the hardliners on THIS thread simply do not "believe" the most recent studies that prove that, yes indeedy, processed sugar is bad for us and leads to all sorts of deblilitating illness, much like tobacco does.  Well, whatever...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!

WHICH hardliners on this thread have expressed disbelieve in the the most recent studies that prove that, yes indeedy, processed sugar is bad for us and leads to all sorts of deblilitating illness, much like tobacco does.  I've not heard one person deny that EXCESSIVE consumption of sugar leads to deblilitating illness, much like tobacco does.

The comparision between use of tobacco and the excessive consumption is an imperfect analogy, a red herring.   There is no way you can get a debilitating illness if I consume an excessive amount of processed OR UNPROCESSED sugar.  UNLIKE smoking tabacco in which there is a way you MIGHT get a debiliting illness. 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:25PM, rabello wrote:

 

Well, whatever...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!

Well you can't make them drink volunatarily.   So Daddy Sam must....encourage you to drink.  If the poor ignorant victims of the capitlitist greed for profits can't be encouraged then they should be forced. 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:25PM, rabello wrote:

It appears that the hardliners' solution, here, is NOT to enact some common sense public health programs to help protect people and help guide them into eating (in this case, drinking) better, the way people were guided into not smoking, and not put any restrictions whatsoever on profit-seeking capitalists whose only care is the bottom line -- carte blanche for them -- but to blame and punish those who, for whatever reason, mostly lacking resources and education, to make the same decisions we would, ourselves make, to "control" themselves -- and what a stereotype towards fat people THAT is based on!

I am continually amazed at how far away Americans have moved from The Golden Rule.

Regarding this specific ban.

"By now, you've probably heard about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial decision to ban the sale of large sodas in New York City restaurants, theaters, stadiums and street carts. Reactions to this announcement were widespread and ranged from favorable to -- well -- indignant. This proposed ban will outlaw the sale of sweetened drinks over 16 ounces that contain more than 50 calories."

For those hardliners who are in favor of Father Bloomberg's desire to enforce this ban I ask:

Why not have this issue put before a vote of the City Council?

If banning drinks that are more than 16 oz. is good then banning drinks of sugary death that are larger than 8 0z is TWICE AS GOOD.

If banning sugary death drinks that are more than 16 0z-50 calories from resturants, theaters, stadiums and street cars is good, then banning the sale of sugary death for all greedy capitalist businesses would BE BETTER.

And tell me why "profit-seeking capitalists whose only care is the bottom line -- carte blanche for them"  it isn't "sterotyping".

The reasons why I oppose this ban is because of the anti-democractic, authoritarian way it is being accomplished. 

I also think it lacks common sense. 

What is going to stop a person from buying two 16 oz. drinks of white poison instead from greedy capitialist if it is against the law to buy one 32 oz drink of processed sugar?

If I were a greedy capitalist of white death I would only make it appear that I am against the ban because I would make more of a profit from selling two 16 oz  pop than one 30 oz soda.

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. 

I don't think the decline in smoking can be attributed to just one thing.  I think it's a combination...it became more expensive due to taxes, it became less convenient due to restrictions on where a person can smoke, and it became less socially acceptable due to better education about how bad it is.  No one had to come in and say, we're not going to let stores sell cigarettes by the carton anymore.  People still have the same purchasing options that they ever had.