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.
just to clarify, the vote by the Board of Health took place just this past week, Thursday. The previous threads were about Bloomberg's proposal, and I didn't see any threads about the vote.
It's striking that not even lefty posters here seem to be enamoured of the ban, yet the board voted 8-0 for it, with one abstaining because it didn't go far enough (perhaps too many loopholes, as HappyTexan points out).
It shows that these public health people have a much different way of seeing the world than most people. I think that for these people, it probably makes perfect sense to apply the 'war on drugs' model to other behavior that impacts health. "Armstrong's law" says that a libertarian's reductio ad absurdum is a bureaucrat regulator's logical consequence, to be implemented ASAP.
Simple reason is, we don't live in some theoretical free society where what you do doesn't impact what I do: we have a redistributional welfare state, and when some person I don't know poisons themselves with massive quantities of high-calorie-zero-other-nutrition high-fructose corn syrup, I'm forced to pick up the medical bill.
Edit: to address the post above me, I live near NYC and most people I know and have discussed the issue with regardless of political persuasion support it - maybe this is one of those cases where opinion on an issue breaks down more strongly on geographic lines than it does on partisan ones.
Simple reason is, we don't live in some theoretical free society where what you do doesn't impact what I do: we have a redistributional welfare state, and when some person I don't know poisons themselves with massive quantities of high-calorie-zero-other-nutrition high-fructose corn syrup, I'm forced to pick up the medical bill.
Edit: to address the post above me, I live near NYC and most people I know and have discussed the issue with regardless of political persuasion support it - maybe this is one of those cases where opinion on an issue breaks down more strongly on geographic lines than it does on partisan ones.
you are only convincing yourself that you are a libertarian, not anyone else.
there are plenty of thin healthy people drinking big gulp sodas-- you know the kind of people who do actual hard labor and get really really thirsty.
i guess that the bureaucrats sitting on their sedentary butts making up the rules must know best, though.
Because sometimes this stuff is contagious. Before ya know it Michelle "The Food Nazi" Obama will start pushing it nationwide.
Well, if it's contagious, perhaps it's not all that stupid.
Moreover, if it IS contagious, then why pick on New York if you're basically admitting that your own legislators are likely to be just as stupid. I mean, if the elected officials in your area are somehow smarter (because the electorate would be smarter), then you have nothing to worry about.
The fact that you're worrying means that you guys are no better then.
That's the whole point. It is not just about New York. These kinds of over-reaches spread like wild fire. Ultimately it is not about soda.
It is about government empowerment and individual disempowerment. About the nanny state and the government deciding what is best for us, because we obviously are not capable of making that decision for ourselves. About opening a door for more legislation when "the next bad thing on the list" also needs to go (the slippery slope argument). About the continual dissolution of capitalism (they wouldn't sell Supersized anything unless people actually bought it and it actually made money for the business that was selling it). And finally it is yet one more test by the government as to what "we the people" will unquestioningly put up with and what we will not put up with. How far can the government reach? When has it over-reached? They want to find out.
Then why aren't all of you on the anti-side of this issue screaming about restrictions on the sale of Alcohol during certain hours and the existence of dry counties?
It's madness to restrict soda size, but completely ok to restrict me from being able to buy alcohol in my own county?
All of this whining has to do with New York being perceived as liberal, and nothing more. Most dry counties are overwhelmingly in conservative areas, so you guys don't scream bloody murder about the idiocy of that.
you are only convincing yourself that you are a libertarian, not anyone else.
there are plenty of thin healthy people drinking big gulp sodas-- you know the kind of people who do actual hard labor and get really really thirsty.
i guess that the bureaucrats sitting on their sedentary butts making up the rules must know best, though.
Look, the ideal solution of letting people do whatever they want with their bodies and then bearing the consequences themselves isn't politically possible. We are stuck between two inferior choices: let people do whatever they want and then have taxpayers pick up the tab, or discourage self-destructive behavior. If you want to think I'm No True Libertarian or whatever for being willing to compromise and take the better of bad options then you have the right to your opinion but I certainly don't agree with it.
As an aside, back when I used to do a a lot of exercise or physical labor, I kept well hydrated with a beverage that both quenches thirst and isn't laden with added sugars; water is a spectacular thing.
Then why aren't all of you on the anti-side of this issue screaming about restrictions on the sale of Alcohol during certain hours and the existence of dry counties?
It's madness to restrict soda size, but completely ok to restrict me from being able to buy alcohol in my own county?
All of this whining has to do with New York being perceived as liberal, and nothing more. Most dry counties are overwhelmingly in conservative areas, so you guys don't scream bloody murder about the idiocy of that.
100% agree, if the soda ban was about drinks that contained 1% alcohol, many of the freedom loving anti-big gubiment nanny state libertarians criticizing this ban would be backing it up 100%.
Simple reason is, we don't live in some theoretical free society where what you do doesn't impact what I do: we have a redistributional welfare state, and when some person I don't know poisons themselves with massive quantities of high-calorie-zero-other-nutrition high-fructose corn syrup, I'm forced to pick up the medical bill.
I do think this is a fair & reasonable argument. If we are bound and determined to have taxpayer-funded health care, which I think we are, then we pretty much have to have the nanny state to go with it. I have made this same argument with the war on drugs. I'm ok with legalization, but not if I have to pick up the tab for the druggie's rehab, hep c, aids, etc.
The principle also applies with immigration. If a bunch of Somalis wish to come here and live, fine. But not if 90% of them go on food stamps.
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.
I mean, if the elected officials in your area are somehow smarter (because the electorate would be smarter), then you have nothing to worry about.
