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.
the role of government should be to regulate caloric intake?
You must long for the days of Stalin and Mao
It clearly states that it is not prohibiting anyone from getting another drink or refill. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that or do you just enjoy putting forth strawmen?
If a kid knows that he is getting the largest soda in the joint, there is the strong possiblity that he will walk away from his meal satisfied that he drank the largest soda...DUH!
Why? Its been long accepted that higher taxes are the governments only real legal option to curb undesired behavior. Like smoking.
Loo, I don't like taxes more then the next person, but raising taxes on sugared drinks is a hell of a lot more preferrable (and effective) to cut the consumption of these drinks, then an outright ban, or a ban in certain size offerings. Maybe if it cost 2 dollars to buy a large drink, instead of an extra 10 cents, people will think before ordering the large.
But there is no tax. There is a ban and no soda larger than 16oz can be sold.
"Regulating consumption" and taxing consumption are two different things.
Marijuana is crinimalized- "illegal" and in states where it has become less so, they have penalties of marijuana tax stamps too.
So which do you want - make drinking soda
illegal, or tax it's consumption, regardless of what that consumption is....
While it is true, folks on Medicare cost an enormous amount of money, but
that was exactly why we enacted it in the first place. The demographic is
one that has the most in health care expense, especially
during the last 6 months of their life.
It's a given; when you get old - over 65, you get sick and die.
I'm not saying that there are not old folks that are fat, but that's
chronic.
Obesity among young people is, I believe the issue they are trying to
address. Grandma isn't getting the "Big Gulp" at the ball game but her
daughter and grandson are....
Juvenile Diabetes Type II is skyrocketing.
With more and more folks having children they can't afford, going on
welfare, not working, and with no concern for personal responsibility..
You do know cost of medicaid WILL exceed that of Medicare.
I understand your argument, but medicaid costs are high as well, which is a direct result of obesity in some cases. Its whats used to insure some children. No one wants kids to go without healthcare or health insurance because their parents can't afford it. So regulating the consumption of these drinks makes sense.
To regulate consumption, the best way, IMO, is to raise taxes. Not outright bans, or limitations on the amount you can buy. People will just buy two drinks, instead of one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
So, what's the reasoning behind to regulate e cigarettes which has no tobacco
or tar in them. Simply intaking nicotine is no different than intaking caffeine.
The FDA states Smokeless cigarettes should be regulated like any other cigarettes and probably taxed.
I have no idea, talk to the FDA, they've been banning and regulating all kinds of things that don't need it. This goes on and on through various administrations.
Here is part of their decision (I don't agree with these) from the FDA's website
e-cigarettes can increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead kids to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death
the products may contain ingredients that are known to be toxic to humans
because clinical studies about the safety and efficacy of these products for their intended use have not been submitted to FDA, consumers currently have no way of knowing 1) whether e-cigarettes are safe for their intended use, or 2) about what types or concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals or what dose of nicotine they are inhaling when they use these products.
I need to know the other "ingredients" to know if they are toxic and in what amounts. I'll have to research that some.
Seems like the main motivation is because it could lead to conventional smoking. Hell thats like saying that drinking milk could lead to drinking alcohol. Same ridiculous argument made against marijuana, for example. I disagree with that decision, but as I said, common sense hasn't always played into FDA decisions.
But there is no tax. There is a ban and no soda larger than 16oz can be sold.
I know, what I'm saying is that the best way to do what Bloomberg is trying to do, is to tax, not ban anything.
I disagree with the banning or restriction of amounts. No one is restricting the amount you can consume, just the amount you can buy at one time. I think thats silly.
And couple with that the fact that convience stores, etc are exempt from this ruling, it really makes no sense. Political theater.
For the benefit of the people that are having a $hit hemmorage over nothing...
Some of us can see the big picture, if you don't feel competent enough to make these decisions on your own I guess that's your problem.
Quote:
If a kid goes into a fast food joint and orders a large soda and instead of 32oz. he is served 28oz. (just my examples for arguments sake) he will most likely be satisfied with the one he was served and will in turn be saving caloric intake. Nowhere does it state that he cannot get a refill...in fact, on the contrary. So, you posters biting you nails with frantic anticipation over the worry that your consumption of sugary empty calorie carbonated garbage, might be infringed upon, really need to get a life and a get a grip.
In other words what you're arguing is that it's just another pointless liberal regulation for the sake of regulating something.
I know, what I'm saying is that the best way to do what Bloomberg is trying to do, is to tax, not ban anything.
I disagree with the banning or restriction of amounts. No one is restricting the amount you can consume, just the amount you can buy at one time. I think thats silly.
And couple with that the fact that convience stores, etc are exempt from this ruling, it really makes no sense. Political theater.
Actually, I think that there is a psycholigical factor behind this proposal. Very often is recommended to dieters that they eat their meals off of smaller plates so that the illusion exists that they are eating more food. This appears to be the same concept. Give kids the largest cup in the place and there is a good chance that they will be satisfied with the size and amount of beverage they consumed.
I think control freak eltists like Bloomberg should be on camera 24/7 for taxpayers to monitor his every activity.
he seems like a great candidate to have a RFID chip surgically inserted under his scalp..
to hell with making students cary these rfid chip cards.. politicians are the ones that should have em
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.
