NYC Soda Ban... banned!

Oh you can legally ruin your body with a wide variety of foods and drinks in the long term. In context, my post was speaking about the immediate effects of heroine. The addiction, the lack of knowledge about what else is mixed in with it (the purity of the drug), withdrawal, risk of OD'ing, respiratory and cardiac problems etc.

You literally can ruin your body with a combo #4 though, don't get me wrong. I just don't equate drug use with overeating. I do think both should be legal though.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Oh you can legally ruin your body with a wide variety of foods and drinks in the long term. In context, my post was speaking about the immediate effects of heroine. The addiction, the lack of knowledge about what else is mixed in with it (the purity of the drug), withdrawal, risk of OD'ing, respiratory and cardiac problems etc.

You literally can ruin your body with a combo #4 though, don't get me wrong. I just don't equate drug use with overeating. I do think both should be legal though.[/QUOTE]

How far do you push this logic though...freedom from when? 18? 21? 12? freedom to marry crocodiles?
 
[quote name='granturismo']How far do you push this logic though...freedom from when? 18? 21? 12? freedom to marry crocodiles?[/QUOTE]

18, or out of high school whichever comes first. Lower the drinking age to 18 as well. And if you feel you have a connection with the crocodile and it is able to verbally consent to marriage (or using sign language), legally sign and print its name and you have the necessary witness' go for it.
 
[quote name='granturismo']How far do you push this logic though...freedom from when? 18? 21? 12? freedom to marry crocodiles?[/QUOTE]

That would be awesome!

"Man marries crocodile, gets eaten at the altar." :lol:
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']
You can indulge in your habit. As long as you legally obtain the funds to support it, legally purchase it, and indulge in your own home I'm perfectly fine with your habit. .[/QUOTE]

I wish I had your faith in people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And why not. Is soda "nutrition"?[/QUOTE]


The ingredients of soda are not set in stone, though, so I'm not really looking at it from the nutrition angle, more of the immediate side effects angle.

I suppose heroin could be made legal, if it isn't a dangerous drug by default. Regulation could enforce a standard of purity.

However, lobbying and other nonsense would bog down the legalization and regulation processes, and I'm sure some group of people would suffer the consequences of "big pharma" evil.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I wish I had your faith in people.[/QUOTE]

I view it no differently than alcohol. It impairs your ability to act and react, yet we have no problem having different standards for consumption. Law enforcement can enforce current public intoxication laws, and the same goes for reckless driving/driving while impaired etc. I have little faith in people.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Oh you can legally ruin your body with a wide variety of foods and drinks in the long term. In context, my post was speaking about the immediate effects of heroine. The addiction, the lack of knowledge about what else is mixed in with it (the purity of the drug), withdrawal, risk of OD'ing, respiratory and cardiac problems etc.

You literally can ruin your body with a combo #4 though, don't get me wrong. I just don't equate drug use with overeating. I do think both should be legal though.[/QUOTE]

I think that's the distinction I find frustrating (in general, not from you). Slow poisons are permissible, fast poisons not so much.

Take this response, for instance:
[quote name='ID2006']The ingredients of soda are not set in stone, though, so I'm not really looking at it from the nutrition angle, more of the immediate side effects angle.[/quote]

ID openly admits that his/her distinction is "immediate" side effects.

I'm really enjoying the Moss book, and since you're a health dude, I think you'd find it similarly fascinating. The chapter on Coke is amazing and revealing; they're not an "evil" company, but it shows that profit-driven interests tend to ignore and disregard externalities of what they do. Soda is clearly correlated with rising obesity, but I think most people would readily admit that it's one piece of a more complex puzzle (which leads to the argument that this legislation is "half-baked," and makes it not entirely untrue to say as much).

[quote name='ID2006']I suppose heroin could be made legal, if it isn't a dangerous drug by default. Regulation could enforce a standard of purity.

However, lobbying and other nonsense would bog down the legalization and regulation processes, and I'm sure some group of people would suffer the consequences of "big pharma" evil.[/QUOTE]

So you're afraid to stand up to big business and their enhanced access to (and therefore influence of) our government? That's what I'm reading this as saying. I've long known folks on the right capitulate to our plutocrat overlords, but rarely have I seen someone willfully embrace that mindset. It more often comes in the form of cognitive dissonance or willful avoidance. So...congrats?
 
Seriously? Arguing and cursing are disrupting the forum? Is it really necessary to delete posts?

Also Myke, one could argue that a monthly combo meal will do nothing to your health whereas a monthly heroin combo might kill you.

I think the ban is a waste of time/money/energy/political capital. A tax would be too regressive. The situation is a sticky one indeed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yep.[/QUOTE]
I could've sworn that this is the book that talks about OJ being produced by what's basically a chemical company for almost every single OJ brand out there and that the byproduct of their processing of oranges is a flavorless orange colored liquid that has artificial flavoring added back in.

I'm assuming this from your question about OJ in another post.

[quote name='willardhaven']Seriously? Arguing and cursing are disrupting the forum? Is it really necessary to delete posts?[/quote]
Personally, I prefer to see a history of people being assholes and judge for myself, but I'm a race-baiting statist so what the hell do I know.:rofl:

Also Myke, one could argue that a monthly combo meal will do nothing to your health whereas a monthly heroin combo might kill you.

I think the ban is a waste of time/money/energy/political capital. A tax would be too regressive. The situation is a sticky one indeed.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's a waste of time and a tax would be bad because it doesn't really change the culture of it. It's an addictive substance that isn't quite as effective as heroin, but it's entire purpose is meant to give you a buzz through complex chemical reactions as well as through social conditioning. It's really quite insidious if you think about how we're conditioned to desire it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']ID openly admits that his/her distinction is "immediate" side effects.[/QUOTE]

I thought it might be too easy to overdose on something like heroin. That's what I'm referring to.

Are you supportive of the ban? Why?

Almost everything you can possibly eat could be considered a slow poison. You could overeat some vegetables and contract different health problems. I'm sure the issue is primarily moderation. You also ignored the part where I mentioned that the ingredients matter.

[quote name='mykevermin']So you're afraid to stand up to big business and their enhanced access to (and therefore influence of) our government? That's what I'm reading this as saying. I've long known folks on the right capitulate to our plutocrat overlords, but rarely have I seen someone willfully embrace that mindset. It more often comes in the form of cognitive dissonance or willful avoidance. So...congrats?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you're talking about. Stand up how? I'm acknowledging that they have a lot of control and influence at the moment. I was talking about unwitting civilians not knowing what chemicals they're letting into their body. This reaction of yours is weird and unexpected. Definitely not what I meant.

I've heard of that book, too. But I have a lot of other books I've been trying to get through.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Are you supportive of the ban? Why?[/quote]

I'm supportive of reducing portions, yes. Obesity and diabetes have risen sharply in the past 3 decades, clearly linked to (a) increasing soda consumption (today, the average American consumes 54 gallons of soda per year, averaging *over* a gallon per week) and (b) increasing costs of health care due to the medicines/screens/etc. that people now have in order to combat the effects of obesity and diabetes.

Freedom isn't free. In fact, your health insurance is accommodating other people's "poor decisions," because so many of us are obese and suffer from processed food consumption related health problems.

I'd also recommend the book "Mindless Eating" by Charles (?) Wansinck. It is an amazing exercise into the psychology of hunger, what we consume and how we consume. Studies show that, among other things, plate size (not portion size) can influence how full we feel after eating.

Soda is amazing because the body/mind don't register the caloric intake (i.e., if you eat X calories on average per day, studies show that, after giving a person a set amount of soda to consume, they'll still eat X calories on top of the soda, leading to considerable weight gain. keep that in the context of growing soda portion size and the increased use of consumer-refillable fountains at shops and restaurants, and you see where this causes a problem).

Will it stop health problems? No. But it will certainly reduce obesity and diabetes, though it will take time to do so.

You could overeat some vegetables and contract different health problems.
Click to expand...

Give me an example, please, of this happening.

[quote name='willardhaven']Also Myke, one could argue that a monthly combo meal will do nothing to your health whereas a monthly heroin combo might kill you.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Fast poisons are indeed faster than slow ones. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm supportive of reducing portions, yes. Obesity and diabetes have risen sharply in the past 3 decades, clearly linked to (a) increasing soda consumption (today, the average American consumes 54 gallons of soda per year, averaging *over* a gallon per week) and (b) increasing costs of health care due to the medicines/screens/etc. that people now have in order to combat the effects of obesity and diabetes.
[/QUOTE]

What about the average american leading a less active lifestyle in regards to physical activity? Children?

I don't think the foods are that much unhealthier today then ten years ago (processed sugar isn't a new fad); in fact most restaurants and fast food chains dish out SMALLER portions today then they did ten years ago (at a higher cost to boot).

But I bet today you have a higher incidence of children (well their parents) excusing them from gym class; opting to play madden instead of pop warner; hanging out at the mall instead of the YMCA; etc etc etc.
 
30 years, not 10. Focus on the proper timeframe and the cultural shifts around that.

Food isn't much more unhealthy than it was last week, either. But compared to 1980, it's a whole other story. Dig?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Give me an example, please, of this happening.[/QUOTE]

Soy (cancer). Brazil nuts (radium). Almonds (magnesium). Fish (mercury). Plums (sorbitol).

There are tons more.
 
There are various reasons for obesity i don't think citing others while trying to tackle one makes a real point. No doubt exercise and sports etc are important also. Too many kids are driven everywhere, sit on video games, opt out of activities while stuffing their face. But you can try to solve both .......

The soda element is more complex than a lot of people realize. Drinking soda makes people want to eat more & in particular junk. Drinking normal water or something studies show people eat healthier as well.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

Freedom isn't free. In fact, your health insurance is accommodating other people's "poor decisions," because so many of us are obese and suffer from processed food consumption related health problems.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by accommodating?

Soda is amazing because the body/mind don't register the caloric intake (i.e., if you eat X calories on average per day, studies show that, after giving a person a set amount of soda to consume, they'll still eat X calories on top of the soda, leading to considerable weight gain. keep that in the context of growing soda portion size and the increased use of consumer-refillable fountains at shops and restaurants, and you see where this causes a problem).
Click to expand...
I feel that way with a lot of treats. That doesn't mean I'll consume an entire box of cookies. I just think it's a bad way to go about this. It doesn't affect the source of these problems, which is the manipulation of chemicals in consumables, and the marketing of these products to the poor and uninformed.


Give me an example, please, of this happening.
Click to expand...
I know it exists in other ways, but here are just a few examples that google brought up. Obviously, it is dependent on the person's body as to whether they're susceptible or the amount required.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/473440-side-effects-of-vegetables/
 
[quote name='ID2006']What do you mean by accommodating?[/quote]

Your insurance covers obese people, and therefore covers the extra medical treatment they require. The externalities of a food-abusive lifestyle. It's insurance, this isn't a hard concept. People in the same insurance pool share the available funds. Healthy people's premiums are lower, sure, but they still pay for the exams, medicines, treatments and procedures of people who are sick - which includes the (far greater) portion of the population who are obese or diabetic due to their diet.

No man is an island - that's all I'm saying. Your insurance premium is, however, helping pay for medicine for someone the size of an island.

I feel that way with a lot of treats. That doesn't mean I'll consume an entire box of cookies. I just think it's a bad way to go about this. It doesn't affect the source of these problems, which is the manipulation of chemicals in consumables, and the marketing of these products to the poor and uninformed.
Click to expand...

What do you think we should do, then, as a response?

I know it exists in other ways, but here are just a few examples that google brought up. Obviously, it is dependent on the person's body as to whether they're susceptible or the amount required.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/473440-side-effects-of-vegetables/
Click to expand...

"Bad Breadth." Pass.

elessar123, if you can prove that "Fish" is a vegetable, I'll buy you a copy of Bioshock Infinite.
 
nuts are legumes which could pass as fruit/vegetables and they account for many deaths every year. They are also very healthy if you're not allergic.

Should we ban... oh wait nevermind. Already gone down that road.
 
What do you think we should do, then, as a response?
Click to expand...
If the problem is the chemicals, then they should figure out what to do about them. A silly portion limit isn't going to stop people from buying a bunch of soda from the grocery store, where they probably get a lot. It's easy to circumvent anything like this.

Maybe they should work on the ingredients so that companies can't put certain things in their products.


"Bad Breadth." Pass.
Click to expand...
There's more than that listed there.
 
[quote name='ID2006']If the problem is the chemicals, then they should figure out what to do about them. A silly portion limit isn't going to stop people from buying a bunch of soda from the grocery store, where they probably get a lot. It's easy to circumvent anything like this.

Maybe they should work on the ingredients so that companies can't put certain things in their products.[/QUOTE]

I'd recommend Moss' book, then. Companies did (and probably do) work on ingredients, but to dissatisfactory results each time. Clean up the food, and it isn't as tasty or good looking. So that's the conundrum: sell the bad food, or risk sales and market healthy food. The story of Kellogg's cereal brand (and how furious James Kellogg was when he discovered his brother added sugar to the cereal for the sanitarium members!) is absolutely fascinating. CW Post and James Kellogg's vision for what cereal was supposed to be is 180º removed from what cereal is today.

And the portion argument you're making is demonstrably erroneous. People are satisfied by visual portions - that is, a person accustomed to finishing a 32oz. soda every day is not going to feel equally satisfied if they have to change to buying two 16oz. sodas. In fact, research shows they're going to feel more than full, possibly even bloated - i.e., their behavior will be to consume less (and that means less coke sold, oh dear).
 
Hey why we're at it why don't we just ban the color yellow and red from any food related advertising---after all it has been proven that those colors induce hunger.

Buh bye McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, In & Out, etc. etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd recommend Moss' book, then. Companies did (and probably do) work on ingredients, but to dissatisfactory results each time. Clean up the food, and it isn't as tasty or good looking. So that's the conundrum: sell the bad food, or risk sales and market healthy food. The story of Kellogg's cereal brand (and how furious James Kellogg was when he discovered his brother added sugar to the cereal for the sanitarium members!) is absolutely fascinating. CW Post and James Kellogg's vision for what cereal was supposed to be is 180º removed from what cereal is today.[/QUOTE]

I remember part of the Kellogg's story from a documentary, actually.

It still sounds like what you're saying is they're just taking advantage of the poor and low income families. Food and drink don't need that stuff to taste good, but the price goes up. Anyway, if it hurts sales, that's too bad. The wellbeing of the average citizen has to come into play at some point. But I still would like to be able to grab a large drink once every month or two.

And the portion argument you're making is demonstrably erroneous. People are satisfied by visual portions - that is, a person accustomed to finishing a 32oz. soda every day is not going to feel equally satisfied if they have to change to buying two 16oz. sodas. In fact, research shows they're going to feel more than full, possibly even bloated - i.e., their behavior will be to consume less (and that means less coke sold, oh dear).
Click to expand...
If you say so. Plenty of people will drink more than one can of soda (or beer), though. I suppose your source is the book?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Hey why we're at it why don't we just ban the color yellow and red from any food related advertising---after all it has been proven that those colors induce hunger.

Buh bye McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, In & Out, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]


Have you ever had In & Out, it's pretty damn good, would hate to see that go.

The argument your convening makes a point mykevermin but at the same time it's really one sided. One thing we can all agree on is that most carbonated soft drinks are just a bunch of empty calories but why stop just there. It's over a one sided argument of healthcare vs. an arbitrary argument over personal choice. Should people start getting charged more for driving more on the roadway than others or having more kids bleeding the school system than people who don't or even having people take care of their family members that are sent to prison?

If it were up to me, they would need to overhaul the whole food industry, starting from what they sell at the super markets to what we eat at restaurants. All this could happen but at what cost, we would see industries vanish and I could safely assume drive up the cost of food.
 
How come no one is angry when they ban the sale of alcohol at certain period of the night?

How come no one is angry when they force certain businesses ( BARS ) to close at certain times of the night

How come no one is angry when they are force to keep the noise in their OWN home down?

How come no one is angry when they ban you from having certain pets or animals in your own property

In some states you aren't even allow to legally raise animals or have gardens in your backyards.. How you going to eat HEALTHY if they force you to buy from corporate producers

Where are all my FREEDOM riders there? But limiting the size of my soda, its WAR..

I truly swear some of you people are only freedom lovers when you want to love it...
 
^ Because it's easier to shoot down proposed laws (i.e. Soda Ban) then it is to get current ones, that are already being enforced (every single one you mentioned) repealed.
 
I think a lot of the examples Finger_Shocker sites are along the lines of "My right to swing my arm ends where your face begins". It's very easy to see where things like having exotic animals or being noisy or serving alcohol all times of the night will impact other people.

I just think it's harder for people to apply the same line of thinking to the obesity problem in the country. The result of someone being obese is a few levels detached and not as immediate or singular of a problem.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']How come no one is angry when they ban the sale of alcohol at certain period of the night?

How come no one is angry when they force certain businesses ( BARS ) to close at certain times of the night

How come no one is angry when they are force to keep the noise in their OWN home down?

How come no one is angry when they ban you from having certain pets or animals in your own property

In some states you aren't even allow to legally raise animals or have gardens in your backyards.. How you going to eat HEALTHY if they force you to buy from corporate producers

Where are all my FREEDOM riders there? But limiting the size of my soda, its WAR..

I truly swear some of you people are only freedom lovers when you want to love it...[/QUOTE]

I'm opposed to all of them. I'm also opposed to the war on drugs and wars overseas.

People laugh when I tell them I'm a libertarian. Then when their freedoms get trampled I just chuckle and say "told ya so".
 
[quote name='Calipso']I'm opposed to all of them. I'm also opposed to the war on drugs and wars overseas.

People laugh when I tell them I'm a libertarian. Then when their freedoms get trampled I just chuckle and say "told ya so".[/QUOTE]

So basically you're an advocate of anarchy, or do you trust people to just get on with everyone doing whatever they feel like?

Can you imagine a society with teens on every drug going, guns readily avaliable, gambling addicts looking for ways to feed their habit, music blaring from every house? How naive are you people.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Hey why we're at it why don't we just ban the color yellow and red from any food related advertising---after all it has been proven that those colors induce hunger.

Buh bye McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, In & Out, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

That's stretching an exaggeration even, but even still. 20 years ago cigarettes were advertised everywhere and cool and fashionable, now they cannot be advertised full stop. And most people agree with this for various reasons. Once information is more transparent and people understand, soda and what not mcdonalds much better, they maybe not allowed to advertise also. And again i'd go along with that.

Obesity is no joke, there are too many fat kids. So instead of people getting on their high horse about nonsensical freedoms actually understand something has to be implemented somewhere to get the ball rolling. And if you have no solutions how can you shoot down attempted ones?

At the very least soda companies will be more mindful and mcdonalds will begin to offer healthier versions of what they sell.
 
[quote name='granturismo']That's stretching an exaggeration even, but even still. 20 years ago cigarettes were advertised everywhere and cool and fashionable, now they cannot be advertised full stop. And most people agree with this for various reasons. Once information is more transparent and people understand, soda and what not mcdonalds much better, they maybe not allowed to advertise also. And again i'd go along with that.

Obesity is no joke, there are too many fat kids. So instead of people getting on their high horse about nonsensical freedoms actually understand something has to be implemented somewhere to get the ball rolling. And if you have no solutions how can you shoot down attempted ones?

At the very least soda companies will be more mindful and mcdonalds will begin to offer healthier versions of what they sell.[/QUOTE]

It's not an exaggeration that yellow and red induce hunger and thirst. It is a fact and the reason why those colors are so prevalent in everything from the flagship colors of most fast food restaurants to subliminally used in alcohol advertisements. But I suppose the less you know the less you need to care.

We are always looking for the band-aid in this country (quick-fix) and let's be honest; it is much easier to ban large sized soda's then it is to force kids to go outside and fucking exercise.

This isn't going to stop people from buying 2 liter sodas. Making gallons of kool-aid using sugar/water mix or other unhealthy eating habits.

I mean beer has a ridiculous amount of empty calories and poses numerous other health related risks and I don't see anyone lobbying to stop selling colt 45's at the corner stores.

And honestly most juices aren't any healthier then soda so what exactly did the legislature accomplish by banning soda from vending machines and replacing it with sugary juices?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
elessar123, if you can prove that "Fish" is a vegetable, I'll buy you a copy of Bioshock Infinite.[/QUOTE]

Ahaha, sorry. I was just trying to list "healthy" foods that have known bad effects in excess.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Ahaha, sorry. I was just trying to list "healthy" foods that have known bad effects in excess.[/QUOTE]

SEAFOOD is HEALTHY, but I wonder which political side is known to allow polluters to have free reign cause its BUSINESS FREEDOM, to have basically poisoned and polluted most of the worlds oceans..:roll:

Bad affect caused because BIG POLLUTERS were allowed to destroy our waters all in the name of BUSINESS freedom
 
I thought it was kinda absurd how in more trouble for selling a 17 oz. soda then 25 grams of weed.

You shouldn't get in trouble for having/selling either one.
 
[quote name='ID2006']If you say so. Plenty of people will drink more than one can of soda (or beer), though. I suppose your source is the book?[/QUOTE]

Not Moss' book, that's more history/journalism.

Brian (not Chris, like I said earlier) Wansink's "Mindless Eating" is an excellent source that performs research that thoroughly debunks the idea that our cravings are based on hunger, and that we eat a set amount until we're full (i.e., that we'd only eat X ounces of food with no respect to the dimensions of the package it is presented on/in).

http://www.amazon.com/Mindless-Eati...id=1363212935&sr=8-1&keywords=mindless+eating
 
I think if they just tax the shit out of these sugary food, it would do a far better service then trying to ban something.

Considering HFCS is man-made and contain mercury in small quantity due to the manufacturing process. Cause corporate america is known to care about its consumer health

Also not to mention your TAXES subsidizes all these corn farmers who continue to pump out so much corn that it has basically turn into cattle feed for humans, almost everything we consume have traces of corn in it. Not to mention all the corn we produced are also part of Monsanto GMO crops.

We used to use real sugar from countries like Mexico and Haiti who traded with us, until we basically killed their economy because we started using GMO and TAX subsidized corn.

Real sugar have far less negative impact then HFCS
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']I think if they just tax the shit out of these sugary food, it would do a far better service then trying to ban something.[/quote]

As willardhaven points out, a tax is regressive. It's a step in the direction of the consumption tax that right-wing nutters seem to favor.

Higher taxation also doesn't really reduce behavior. It has led to a decline, for instance, in smoking - but not a substantial margin. I'll have to double check the data on that, though.

Ending the corn subsidy is a fucking phenomenal idea, though.
 
[quote name='granturismo']So basically you're an advocate of anarchy, or do you trust people to just get on with everyone doing whatever they feel like?

Can you imagine a society with teens on every drug going, guns readily avaliable, gambling addicts looking for ways to feed their habit, music blaring from every house? How naive are you people.[/QUOTE]

Anarchy in your view.

People should be held accountable for their actions. If they don't hurt other people in the process of living their lives, so be it. I don't see how that is being naive.

How do you live with your bleeding heart?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

ID openly admits that his/her distinction is "immediate" side effects.

I'm really enjoying the Moss book, and since you're a health dude, I think you'd find it similarly fascinating. The chapter on Coke is amazing and revealing; they're not an "evil" company, but it shows that profit-driven interests tend to ignore and disregard externalities of what they do. Soda is clearly correlated with rising obesity, but I think most people would readily admit that it's one piece of a more complex puzzle (which leads to the argument that this legislation is "half-baked," and makes it not entirely untrue to say as much).


[/QUOTE]

The problem is that the slow poisons are not poisons in moderate portions. Herion as the example is not "ok" in moderate portions.

Now you may not believe it but Pepsi came out with a Pepsi Next with half of the sugar. From what I hear it isn't doing too hot. The consumer decided this, not Pepsi. There are also number of varieties out there of diet soda that people can drink, granted they probably aren't good for you in excess either.

The point is that there are options out there for people. If they choose to indulge in excess then that is their choice. Almost anything you enjoy in excess will have negative results. Even vitamins.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The problem is that the slow poisons are not poisons in moderate portions. Herion as the example is not "ok" in moderate portions.

Now you may not believe it but Pepsi came out with a Pepsi Next with half of the sugar. From what I hear it isn't doing too hot. The consumer decided this, not Pepsi. There are also number of varieties out there of diet soda that people can drink, granted they probably aren't good for you in excess either.

The point is that there are options out there for people. If they choose to indulge in excess then that is their choice. Almost anything you enjoy in excess will have negative results. Even vitamins.[/QUOTE]

Even water.

I agree with you 100% though. People are genetically disposed to doing things that are harmful. I remember their was a show on TV that was about crazy ticks that people had; like someone that enjoyed eating laundry detergent and another that enjoyed eating cat liter.

I mean look at cats (and other small mammals). They'll lick up antifreeze (because it's sweet) despite it being horrifically toxic.
 
[quote name='Calipso']Anarchy in your view.

People should be held accountable for their actions. If they don't hurt other people in the process of living their lives, so be it. I don't see how that is being naive.

How do you live with your bleeding heart?[/QUOTE]

I would like to see you define "hurt" in a meaningful way.

Think about the medical costs of obesity next time you look at the cost of (a) your health insurance premiums or (b) the cost of actual medical treatment you receive during your next doctor visit.

Insurance companies have to balance the cost of high risk insured on the backs of low risk insured. I.e., you're being held accountable for their poor life decisions. Ergo, hurt, financially speaking.

Does this kind of "hurt" matter to you? Why or why not?
 
[quote name='Calipso']Anarchy in your view.

People should be held accountable for their actions. If they don't hurt other people in the process of living their lives, so be it. I don't see how that is being naive.

How do you live with your bleeding heart?[/QUOTE]

Anarchy by the definition. You seem oblivious to reality based on some flawed belief that has no basis and never has done. It's quite strange to me.

''People should be held accountable for their actions'' Right. But companies not held accountable? People manipulating others is ok? They should not be accountable. It's just such a flawed way of thinking.

Do you even understand drugs, not hurting others? Drugs are responsible for so much crime. You don't think obesity is an issue? It's just their fault their deal oh well? That's it. Wash your hands with it. What about the kids obese at 8 and 9, is it their fault? Do you understand upbringing, psychology? Where does reality come in to this naive outlook? It simply doesn't. If everyone was free to do anything have access to anything and people would all be friendly, and pleasant, then sure.....This wouldn't be the case though............would it.

Let me just highlight what you said

''If they don't hurt other people in the process of living their lives''

All of these bans or potential bans are to prevent people from hurting other people...all of them.
 
[quote name='granturismo']Drugs are responsible for so much crime.[/QUOTE]

A lot of that crime stems from drugs being illegal in the first place...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A lot of that crime stems from drugs being illegal in the first place...[/QUOTE]

Yeah i could understand that for cannabis but for everything else it's totally different

They have chemicals that make them addictive, people addicted to drugs that cannot afford it will fin ways to get the money a lot of the time through crime.

Then there's those drugs that effects are paranoia..and too much energy and what not that leads to violence a lot of the time. That drug that was making people strip naked it made them feel too hot, then you had that guy eating a homeless mans face due to some drug he was on. There's good reasons for things to be banned.

There are millions addicted to drugs even though they're often illegal, if they're legal you will have maybe 40 more mill people addicted to dangerous drugs, which make them unstable/violent/paranoid....is that really going to turn out well? Come on man.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Were you talking about alcoholics in the last paragraph?[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you're making a Prohibition analogy there, but as a society, if we're going to legalize things and regulate it, it becomes even more imperative that we provide accessible treatment for addictions. With all the bitching about "MAH TAXES!!!," it's painfully obvious that most people aren't even interested in discussing the unintended consequences of legalization muchless those drug corporations that will end up marketing it in any way they can.
 
I was poking around on online to see if the gov't had ever established sizes for other harmful things. Turns out there is a minimum size for a pack of cigarettes. (probably having to do with taxes)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top