News, Boston Bans Soda From City Property. (buying, to live)

[Cantabridgienne]

This is borderline absurd. Great, Menino gets another feather in his proverbial cap by not allowing adults to buy a Coke from the City Hall vending machine. How's the school lunch program in Boston public schools?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

That is where your wrong. Eventually it will affect you when they start to ban things you enjoy or like. Right now it might be something you don't care about, but eventually your rights will be infringed upon.

No "thing" is being banned at all. That "on city property" phrase is critical to this legislation. I LOVE soda. I do. I probably drink it way too much (I'm not a big coffee drinker so I substitute soda). I just don't think it's a big deal that you can't buy it on city property now. As I said in my first post, I don't support the law; I'm just not outraged by it. I can still get my soda anywhere else as can any citizen.

If they ban soda from being sold anywhere within city limits, then I'll be upset. They're simply saying you can't sell it on city property. Again, I think the intended impact (healthier citizens) will be negligible at best; but I don't think it's as bad as others do as I can still get my soda just about anywhere (like everyone else can).

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Or ban vehicles as they are one of the largest killers.

Last I heard, Cars and Beer weren't sold on city property already? Again, nothing's being banned. They're just saying you can't buy it on city property.

[Brendan M]

I think this law should make the city of Boston a little bit healthier, since at least some people will now have to walk a further distance to get a soda, which means they will get a little more exercise. This kind of reminds me of a law San Francisco was proposing about five months ago, which would have banned fast food restaurants from including toys with high-calorie kids meals, but was vetoed by their Mayor, Gavin Newsom. Even though I drink soda sometimes, if I were to move to Boston tomorrow, this law wouldn't bother me. This would probably never happen, but I wouldn't mind if Albuquerque passed a law like this one. I think it sounds like essentially a good law.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by Brendan M

I think this law should make the city of Boston a little bit healthier, since at least some people will now have to walk a further distance to get a soda, which means they will get a little more exercise. This kind of reminds me of a law San Francisco was proposing about five months ago, which would have banned fast food restaurants from including toys with high-calorie kids meals, but was vetoed by their Mayor, Gavin Newsom. Even though I drink soda sometimes, if I were to move to Boston tomorrow, this law wouldn't bother me. This would probably never happen, but I wouldn't mind if Albuquerque passed a law like this one. I think it sounds like essentially a good law.

Maybe you don't care, but their are others out there and like do what they want and don't need people telling them what they consider "healthy" or "good for you". I really enjoy when some of these liberals bash christians for spreading their beliefs, but they have no problems telling everyone else how to live.

I understand this is just on city property, but when people start to play dictator it always leads to tyranny.

[CaseyB]

Bring it from home, it's cheaper.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Maybe you don't care, but their are others out there and like do what they want and don't need people telling them what they consider "healthy" or "good for you". I really enjoy when some of these liberals bash christians for spreading their beliefs, but they have no problems telling everyone else how to live.

I understand this is just on city property, but when people start to play dictator it always leads to tyranny.

I think you're overreacting a little bit. I don't like being told how to live either, but no one is telling you how to live! If you drink and buy soda, this shouldn't change things one bit for you (I do and it won't). I'm not a devout Christian by any means, but I do agree on the hypocrisy point. There's little difference between judging someone for not being religious and judging someone who likes fast food. If you believe in "live and let live," It's always good to practice what you preach and I know many ultra-liberals who are just as bad as the hyper religious conservatives in many ways. That said, Tyranny? Dictatorship? Really?

For the record, I despise Mumbles. I can't stand his back-pocket deals with developers that fail (see: Columbus Center, Filene's). I can't stand promises that he can't keep (see: bike sharing system). I can't stand his grudges against people who CAN build and bring more jobs to the city (see: Don Choifaro and the Aquarium Garage). The soda on city properties legislation? Just a drop in the bucket, IMHO as the worst thing that will come of it is the negligible drop in vendor sales on city property. Nothing compared to hundreds of millions (billions?) he's squandered elsewhere.

[calvinbama]

Your headline is misleading. I see no problem with banning the SALE of soda on city property. When I was a city employee in Oklahoma I brought in a mtn dew every morning to help get me going. When I saw the headline I thought about this and pictured a serious civil rights violation by Boston. It is perfectly within their power to ban the sale of sugary drinks

[tmac9wr]

I love how our fat ass Mayor is preaching about ways to get healthy. Menino should practice not falling down before teaching us about physical fitness.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

I love how our fat ass Mayor is preaching about ways to get healthy. Menino should practice not falling down before teaching us about physical fitness.

+1

Amen.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I think you're overreacting a little bit. I don't like being told how to live either, but no one is telling you how to live! If you drink and buy soda, this shouldn't change things one bit for you (I do and it won't). I'm not a devout Christian by any means, but I do agree on the hypocrisy point. There's little difference between judging someone for not being religious and judging someone who likes fast food. If you believe in "live and let live," It's always good to practice what you preach and I know many ultra-liberals who are just as bad as the hyper religious conservatives in many ways. That said, Tyranny? Dictatorship? Really?

For the record, I despise Mumbles. I can't stand his back-pocket deals with developers that fail (see: Columbus Center, Filene's). I can't stand promises that he can't keep (see: bike sharing system). I can't stand his grudges against people who CAN build and bring more jobs to the city (see: Don Choifaro and the Aquarium Garage). The soda on city properties legislation? Just a drop in the bucket, IMHO as the worst thing that will come of it is the negligible drop in vendor sales on city property. Nothing compared to hundreds of millions (billions?) he's squandered elsewhere.

I agree its a small thing which kinda makes it even worse. Boston has bigger issues to deal with, and they are worried about telling people they can't get soda anymore on city property. I'm just tired of people acting like they always know best for others. It makes you wonder though, what else is next?

What they should ban on city property is our idiotic politicians. That would help more.