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.
This is over the top. I was watching the stupid Mika Brazin something polish on MSNBC today and she was ranting about how this was needed to stop the manufactures of death from putting out addictive things.
Smoking bans in restaurant's where a smoker forces other non smoker customers to breath their crap is a good thing. You don't have the right to make me breath your crap. But you drinking a soda does nothing to me. I agree drinking sugar laden crap is bad for your health, but is not my job nor the governments to tell you you can't. Tax it? Sure fine, but don't tell people they can not have it or how much they can have.
Labels on food to tell you how much crap is in it or calorie counts fine good. Education on how to eat? Great idea, but don't tell me or some kid they can't have a cupcake. Try healthy foods for kids? Great idea, but do not make it illegal to have a twinkie on the shelf of the local walmart. Its state control gone wild.
Well it isn't a soda ban, its a restriction in tge size of soda you can buy at one time, in restaurants.
However, I am glad this has been overturned, because it was silly in my opinion. Doesn't mean the fights over yet, because of appeal. If this stands, what's to say they can't limit the size of your steak? Or how many beers you can order?
All kinds of ramifications if this kind of thing wins appeal.
What I actually find bothersome is how many people are actually OK with the government telling them they cant buy one big one, but 2 small ones if you want more. People are OK with the government telling them how to live.
I dont know enough about the ban but can I still get a 32 ounce cup for a diet cola? It's got no sugar and if 16 ounce or smaller is because of "sugary" drinks, then I feel a little discriminated against
There should be no soda ban until there's a cigarrette ban.
If you want to go off of statistics. And calculate every little risk the same way. And THEN legislate based off of it. Stay consistent.
I'm all for people's individual freedom. Even if its to choose to do something unhealthy.
Well that goes back to, why is marijuana illegal and alcohol is legal? THC has basically not have any physical addiction, and there are basically no medical detriment to its use. Even when smoked its less harmful then cigarettes.
Governments been playing favorites for centuries. Its not fair, it doesn't make sense I agree, but that's been happening ling before you and I had a say.
This is over the top. I was watching the stupid Mika Brazin something polish on MSNBC today and she was ranting about how this was needed to stop the manufactures of death from putting out addictive things.
Smoking bans in restaurant's where a smoker forces other non smoker customers to breath their crap is a good thing. You don't have the right to make me breath your crap. But you drinking a soda does nothing to me. I agree drinking sugar laden crap is bad for your health, but is not my job nor the governments to tell you you can't. Tax it? Sure fine, but don't tell people they can not have it or how much they can have.
Labels on food to tell you how much crap is in it or calorie counts fine good. Education on how to eat? Great idea, but don't tell me or some kid they can't have a cupcake. Try healthy foods for kids? Great idea, but do not make it illegal to have a twinkie on the shelf of the local walmart. Its state control gone wild.
Here is the thing, if you don't start recognizing the infringements you place on others, nobody will care about the infringements placed on you.
Nobody is "forcing" you to breathe smoke. You are free to be a patron to a business or not based on what the business chooses to allow. That means, if a business allows smoking, then you either "choose" to be around it or you "choose" not to by refusing to be a patron. You are not forced in anyway as it is completely your choice to partake in such an environment.
However, when you dictate to a business that they can not allow such because it bothers you, then you are "forcing" the business owner to operate in a fashion you decide, you remove their choice. This is the key point. Too often people forget that the business is owned by private individuals, that the business is private property and privately ran. It is not required to serve you and can refuse you at its discretion. So when you dictate to a business, you are dictating to an individual how and what they can do with their own private property.
So, if you can not respect that, then why should anyone respect your freedom to eat/drink as you choose? You do not respect the rights of others, so why should they respect yours? You are not special, but apparently you seem to think you are. That is, you think that you have the freedom to infringe on others, but believe others do not have the freedom to infringe on you. What you describe is a double standard and it is exactly the thing that has led to these encroaching laws.
You weren't there to stand up for the freedom of the businesses and yet now you expect people to stand up for your freedom concerning this?
Let me take the position of those who so fervently argued and demanded restrictions on business owners concerning smoking with the same basic logical premise that they often held.
1. I don't drink soda or sugary drinks/juices/etc, so therefore this type of law does not effect me and I am fully in support of it because of such.
2. There are too many fat people in society and those who become fat often infringe on my ability to move around them, sit in seats next to them, or deal with them due to the common side effects that come from such fat people.
3. Those fat people inundate the health care system, increases costs and take up valuable time from professionals due to their eating and drinking habits. Because we are now a healthcare system where I will be impacted by such, then those who do not eat/drink properly should have restrictions put on them to help limit that burden for those of us who do.
So, you see... you were not concerned about freedom and liberty when it was something you disliked or did not partake in, so why should others in this case be different?
You wanted an increased government that dictated the will of various busy bodies for the sake of their self interest, so now you will have to deal with the attitude that you showed others when they objected to their freedoms being infringed on.
Sorry, no sympathy here. Ban, regulate, dictate soda/candy/etc... as much as they can. Time to pay the piper, time to serve the system. You have no rights, no liberty, no freedom as it is entirely up to the powers that rule over you. Enjoy!
Good so now birthday parties at Chucky Cheese can still have a pitcher of soda for the entire table.
Or the more likely scenario,a pitcher for each person seated at the table.
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.
