Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree with it, but it is on a city level, and can't cities ban whatever it is they want?
Its more of a show, IMO, because convience stores can still sale the 44 oz big gulps, and countless other exemptions.
The government doesn't need to tell people what they can, and what amount, they can put in their bodies. I understand the problem with sodas, and obesity, and our rising healthcare costs. But those problems shouldn't be addressed by banning things, it should be addressed through medical care and taxes.
Michelle Obama would be proud of him, using his office to fight the war on obesity.
The people don't know any better and can't decide what is good for them or not so laws need to be put in place for them to follow.
I disagree with it, but it is on a city level, and can't cities ban whatever it is they want?
Its more of a show, IMO, because convience stores can still sale the 44 oz big gulps, and countless other exemptions.
The government doesn't need to tell people what they can, and what amount, they can put in their bodies. I understand the problem with sodas, and obesity, and our rising healthcare costs. But those problems shouldn't be addressed by banning things, it should be addressed through medical care and taxes.
Strong argument for individuals being responsible for their own health care expenses and/or allowing insurance co's to discriminate.
The state has no busiuness controlling what we put into our bodies.
Strong argument for individuals being responsible for their own health care expenses and/or allowing insurance co's to discriminate.
The state has no busiuness controlling what we put into our bodies.
Neither should doctors and insurance companies. They're in business to treat what ails us and to share the cost of doing so, not regulating our lives.
If we surrender our right to make decisions for ourselves, to anyone, we're no longer free in any sense of the word, but slaves to a bureaucracy. It matters now whether that bureaucracy is private or governmental. The outcome is the same.
Strong argument for individuals being responsible for their own health care expenses and/or allowing insurance co's to discriminate. The state has no busiuness controlling what we put into our bodies.
Yet they push forward laws to do just that and not many are objecting.
When there is no one to stop them, they will just take on more authority.
Must be nice to sit at a desk and decide what your constituents can and cannot do in their personal lives.
Wouldn't this be anti-environment? Now you have people buying two medium sodas instead of one large, and throwing away two cups instead of one. Back to square one, Bloomberg.
bloomie may be in cahoots with the cup manufacturing conglomerates..
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Hey! When they started in on smokers and most of y'all supported that, we tried to warn you this is where it would lead. But, nobody wanted to listen because, after all, it was just about those nasty smokers and their disgusting habit.
Now that's about you nasty fatties and YOUR lack of self-control, it's a whole 'nuther issue, ain't it?
All I can say is...learn to love it because it WILL get worse.
not me. and i don't smoke. but you are correct that this was pretty predictable.
Strong argument for individuals being responsible for their own health care expenses and/or allowing insurance co's to discriminate.
The state has no busiuness controlling what we put into our bodies.
I agree that the state shouldn't be mandating our consumption. However, with the reality that Americans, by an overwhelming majority, support medicare and medicaid, something must be done.
Personally I feel the best way to regulate any consumption in a free market is to tax it. We have high cigarette taxes because of their I'll effects, I see nothing wrong with doing the same with soda.
I agree that the state shouldn't be mandating our consumption. However, with the reality that Americans, by an overwhelming majority, support medicare and medicaid, something must be done.
Personally I feel the best way to regulate any consumption in a free market is to tax it. We have high cigarette taxes because of their I'll effects, I see nothing wrong with doing the same with soda.
And, those high cigarette taxes have resulted in about half of smokers quitting in the past couple of decades. How much has that affected what you pay for healthcare or for insurance?
Not at all, right? In fact, the increase in healthcare costs outstrips inflation in the economy as a whole and so do insurance premiums. You'd think that with that many smokers quitting, your costs should have gone down. But, they haven't.
So...why would you think increasing taxes on "unhealthy" food would turn out any differently?
I find it interesting that some of the same people that think this action by Bloomberg is okay are the some of the same ones that think legalizing drugs is fine too. Just a bit of an ironic position to take.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
