NYC Soda Ban... banned!

[quote name='usickenme']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)[/QUOTE]

Peculiar. When I was a bartender the corner market next to the bar sold "loosies." (Granted, they also sold kits for crackheads, so they weren't particularly ethical to begin with.) I knew it wasn't legal - what is the minimum pack size? 20? (That's the only denomination I ever recall seeing them in, unless you include Black and Mild type cigars/cigarillos in the same legal category.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Peculiar. When I was a bartender the corner market next to the bar sold "loosies." (Granted, they also sold kits for crackheads, so they weren't particularly ethical to begin with.) I knew it wasn't legal - what is the minimum pack size? 20? (That's the only denomination I ever recall seeing them in, unless you include Black and Mild type cigars/cigarillos in the same legal category.)[/QUOTE]

Yeah. I'm not a corner kid but I did spend most of my time in college with a group of kids who were while I was living in New Britain CT, and my girlfriend grew up in the poorest part of Waterbury (perhaps the poorest city in Connecticut). It is very common to be able to buy single cigarettes or cigars from most corner stores---not to mention alcohol on Sundays or after 7PM (it might be 9PM now) regardless if you are 21.

As long as you look like you belong in those stores they will sell you anything. Odd enough I had a store owner refuse to sell me alcohol with my Maine State ID last time I was down visiting... and I was 27 and speak conversational Spanish (he was hispanic).

Guess I just didn't look the part
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']If people knew how much their tax money is subsidizing and funding the fatties health issue brought upon by their decision, people would be happier with the ban..

[/QUOTE]

Not just healthcare for fatties but the farm subsidies and such that make corn syrup way cheaper than cane sugar
 
For the record, ego started that crap, not me. Though not getting to defend yourself until after your punishment doesn't allow for much discussion about it.
 
"For the record..." ego made a post directed at no one in particular. Clak made a post about a personal (i.e.: anecdotal) story and ended it with a direct attack on ego. Ego responded in kind and Clak and Myke reported him for it.
 
Ignore 'em clakosaurus....

or is your ignore list full?

Can you read this? I doubt it. I'm going to guess you can only see about 5 unquoted posts in this whole thread.
 
[quote name='GUNNM']let fat people be fat
fuck em[/QUOTE]

If you can provide a way that they don't affect my insurance bills, fine. Until then, it's not just their right to be fat.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Can we vote ban Clak?[/QUOTE]
How about we vote to ban YOU.:roll:

If you don't like what he says, either put him on ignore or just plain ignore him if you're unwilling to engage him. For a libertarian, I'd expect better than putting it to a vote if you can't control yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't imagine who "gets off" on members getting banned.

[quote name='dohdough']I think I'm going to make a memorial thread for all the CAGs banned this year...hahaha[/QUOTE]
 
Клерикализм же это желание профессиональных верующих священников навязывать обществу свою систему ценностей и себя как верховных судей по всем вопросам от морали до науки и искусства. Каждый живёт, как может. интимные знакомства секс киев
 
Касьянов этого не понимает, потому, что так же далек от народа, как когдато декабристы. Франко, потери голубой дивизии составили 12737 человек, из них убитыми 6286. знакомства каменск шахтинский
 
Просто я специалист и получаю достойную зарплату и своим умом способен обеспечить и воспитать своих детей. А у нас растёт число мужчин, не желающих быть рабами самовлюблённых стерв. секс знакомства в анапе
 
Надо потратиться только один раз. Вот такой комментарий я хочу оставить к этой статье. г смоленск знакомства
 
Конечно, это, как говорится, идеальная конструкция, и в природе такого не бывает. Но как бы то ни было, обратно время не повернуть. порно пары ж знакомство
 
В общепринятом смысле закон может быть аморальным или антигуманным, но никак не может быть нелигитимным, если он принят в соответствии с имеющейся процедурой. Я не борюсь с ветряными мельницами. сайт знакомства без секса
 
Статья именно и создавалась как плевок оскорбительностью тона. Что называется ссы в глаза всё божия роса. юлдаш татарские знакомства
 
Наши органы чувств формируются в экологических нишах, в которых развивался наш вид. Аж на задания такого посылать както неудобно. секс знакомства павловский посад
 
Кроме последнего предложения. Третьего не дано. харьков знакомства секс
 
Кто виноват в том, что данные по этому вопросу фальсифицированы, и на учете числится всего 1012 тысяч? А вообще догматизм не лучший способ ведения полемики. братск знакомства
 
Если ее копию, выполненную в определенном масштабе, наложить на карту, то кокарда треуголки точно укажет место клада. Вовторых, длаже не находясь у власти, своими акциями протеста партия принесла громадную пользу. знакомства только для секса фото
 
Когда полстраны все еще рать на дырку ходит? Живут себе поселенцы и живут, пока мирно, плодятся, их становится все больше. новосибирск сайт знакомств секс
 
Again people are missing the social cost of fat.

There is evidence that excess weight have a negative affect on public transportation, cost of living space, and being in social settings.

I know it is bad, but basically imagine if sidewalks all around america, is basically being shared by elephants, public transportation is carrying elephants, machinery is being made to handle excess capacity, vehicles are made to carry excess sizes. equipment are made to accommodate excess sizes.

There is a huge social cost involve, unless you live on your own and not in a society, I do not see any benefit that would allow a gov't to let people turn that huge. The social cost is enormous ( no pun intended )
 
[quote name='dohdough']How about we vote to ban YOU.:roll:

If you don't like what he says, either put him on ignore or just plain ignore him if you're unwilling to engage him. For a libertarian, I'd expect better than putting it to a vote if you can't control yourself.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Again people are missing the social cost of fat.

There is evidence that excess weight have a negative affect on public transportation, cost of living space, and being in social settings.

I know it is bad, but basically imagine if sidewalks all around america, is basically being shared by elephants, public transportation is carrying elephants, machinery is being made to handle excess capacity, vehicles are made to carry excess sizes. equipment are made to accommodate excess sizes.

There is a huge social cost involve, unless you live on your own and not in a society, I do not see any benefit that would allow a gov't to let people turn that huge. The social cost is enormous ( no pun intended )[/QUOTE]

Why are so many of you trying to make the argument about cost of things? I will straight out say it, most of you are being discriminative against "the fatties." Should you be told how much you can drive because of the toll it takes on the road or the emissions your releasing into the atmosphere? Should you be limited on how many kids you can have because your using going to use more social services than others?
 
[quote name='skiizim']Why are so many of you trying to make the argument about cost of things? I will straight out say it, most of you are being discriminative against "the fatties." Should you be told how much you can drive because of the toll it takes on the road or the emissions your releasing into the atmosphere? Should you be limited on how many kids you can have because your using going to use more social services than others?[/QUOTE]

They're just not sensible comparisons.
Again, obesity is a big problem, and how many people WANT to be fat? Do they say 'im eating to be fat' 'i want to be fat' Not many certainly.

Fact is being fat is NOT a crime. But obesity IS a problem. And people are tackling the problem, so whats the problem? :)
 
[quote name='dohdough']How about we vote to ban YOU.:roll:

If you don't like what he says, either put him on ignore or just plain ignore him if you're unwilling to engage him. For a libertarian, I'd expect better than putting it to a vote if you can't control yourself.
 
[quote name='granturismo']If you attack somebody then run to the mods when they attack you back, i think a little ban would be fitting. Clak likes to be confrontational yet is very sensitive. Either man up or stop picking fights.[/QUOTE]
:rofl:

Obviously, you must not have been lurking vs. very much before you registered on CAG. I think you have Clak mixed up with someone else. I can say with reasonable certainty that the "libs" on vs. are Very hands-off when it comes to reporting questionable posts...I even extend that to most of the "cons," but there is one user that almost seems to have an unhealthy compulsion to be a confrontational passive aggressive troll in almost every post that whines to the mods the second he gets blowback for it. Everyone that's been on vs. for a while knows who it is...and it ain't Clak.
 
[quote name='skiizim']Why are so many of you trying to make the argument about cost of things?[/QUOTE]

They're called "externalities," and they're part of a rudimentary understanding of economics.
 
[quote name='dohdough']:rofl:

Obviously, you must not have been lurking vs. very much before you registered on CAG. I think you have Clak mixed up with someone else. I can say with reasonable certainty that the "libs" on vs. are Very hands-off when it comes to reporting questionable posts...I even extend that to most of the "cons," but there is one user that almost seems to have an unhealthy compulsion to be a confrontational passive aggressive troll in almost every post that whines to the mods the second he gets blowback for it. Everyone that's been on vs. for a while knows who it is...and it ain't Clak.[/QUOTE]

The best part is, DD refuses to recognize the fact that Clak and Myke were responsible for the recent "whining to the mods". Even better, Myke makes a post right after DD and doesn't bother to make an effort to correct him.

Stay classy, indeed.
 
Taking steps to ban things that could potentially lead to obesity, with the goal of curbing obesity and the health care burden it creates, is about as sensible and realistic as taking steps to ban things that lead to people being stupid... and uneducated... with the goal of making them smarter so they can contributed more in taxes paid then hand outs received.

Banning large sodas will not have any direct impact (measurable) on making people more healthy---with the goal of lowering the taxpayer burden (since that seems to be where people are taking this discussion).

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/16/living/less-educated-hurt-most-by-waiting-to-marry-study-says/

I mean afterall whom do you think is a bigger burden on society?

Those that are obese or those that are uneducated?

Those who are fat and unhealthy or those that have kids they can't support?


The article above makes it sound like if people were more educated they would stop popping out kids they couldn't support. I think that is a more pressing issue.


“Progressives stress the economics, conservatives stress the culture,” said Wilcox. “We say both matter. They both are undercutting the viability of marriage for young adults today.”

Discuss
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Banning large sodas will not have any direct impact (measurable) on making people more healthy---with the goal of lowering the taxpayer burden (since that seems to be where people are taking this discussion).[/quote]

Someone isn't up to speed on the social psychological research that shows a very clear link between portion sizes provided and consumption habits.

Get yourself familiar with Brian Wasink's research before making claims that are demonstrably untrue.

http://www.mindlesseating.org/index.php
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Someone isn't up to speed on the social psychological research that shows a very clear link between portion sizes provided and consumption habits.

Get yourself familiar with Brian Wasink's research before making claims that are demonstrably untrue.

http://www.mindlesseating.org/index.php[/QUOTE]

Then if it is harmful why not outright ban soda? Or artificial sweetners? Why say "it's bad for you" "you shouldn't drink it" and then make it illegal to sell a 64 oz mega gulp cup but completely fine to sell 12packs of 12oz cans (more liquid quantity)?

If you want to tackle obesity instead of banning foods and regulating what someone can or can't eat why not create incentives...

such as a tax break if your BMI (or whatever standard is choosen) falls into an acceptable class.

Or make gym memberships tax deductible, or give credits to those that are healthy. Not on their health care costs but on their actual taxes....

you know if it is such a huge burden to the taxpayer and all that.

An idiot would have to read your study to agree with you. I certainly know soda is unhealthy. I don't have to be the guy on a message board that says "look at me... look at me... I read a case study!"

But only a douche supports banning something like large portion sodas.

You want me to go regurgitating studies that show negative reinforcements (i.e. Soda Bans) don't change behavior?

I will if you'd like


Edit:

And if you'd like I could also find information that fucks up your train of thought as in their has been no significant decrease in obesity rates since the removal of the "Super Size" and "King Size" on American's two largest fast food chains (McDonald's/Burger King).

But that doesn't exactly fit with your logic does it?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']You want me to go regurgitating studies that show negative reinforcements (i.e. Soda Bans) don't change behavior?

I will if you'd like[/QUOTE]

I would like, since I'm not particularly convinced by you (a) not reading any prior research and (b) responding with an apoplectic rant-n-rave.

This is the sort of nonsense we have to deal with in terms of policy discussions. I put up research, you get an attitude and respond with your gut feelings. This is why we can't have nice things.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Taking steps to ban things that could potentially lead to obesity, with the goal of curbing obesity and the health care burden it creates, is about as sensible and realistic as taking steps to ban things that lead to people being stupid... and uneducated... with the goal of making them smarter so they can contributed more in taxes paid then hand outs received.

Banning large sodas will not have any direct impact (measurable) on making people more healthy---with the goal of lowering the taxpayer burden (since that seems to be where people are taking this discussion).

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/16/living/less-educated-hurt-most-by-waiting-to-marry-study-says/

I mean afterall whom do you think is a bigger burden on society?

Those that are obese or those that are uneducated?

Those who are fat and unhealthy or those that have kids they can't support?


The article above makes it sound like if people were more educated they would stop popping out kids they couldn't support. I think that is a more pressing issue.


“Progressives stress the economics, conservatives stress the culture,” said Wilcox. “We say both matter. They both are undercutting the viability of marriage for young adults today.”

Discuss[/QUOTE]

There's no correlation between the two. Two separate issues that are dealt with a lot differently for various reasons.

Money is always thrown at education and it's law everybody has to be schooled, educated and steps are taken to improve education....

So now steps are being taken to prevent obesity...

So really im lost to your argument.

I think a bunch of research and fruitless studies are not really needed. It's abundantly clear there's a whole scale issue, and it's simply getting worse year upon year.

A soda ban may or may not work, i guess if it happens we'll find out. But im pretty sure it'd certainly reduce obesity in projected forecasts.

Mcdonalds etc etc, are another issue. Now we're focusing on soda. After that they may look at other things.

We can talk all we like about people's CHOICE, but the simple fact is, if im thirsty and walking by a store, im more likely to pick up a soda than a water if it's there. If it's not then im not. Right? We don't need no pointless study by some university with nothing better to do to acknowledge this.
 
Huh? Who is banning soda? They are just not allowing any sizes of X to be sold... I can still buy soda, so who the fark is banning soda.. Crack, cocaine, pot, heroin now that is what is actually a BAN, size limitation is not a ban.

I don't see people complaining of Pseudo/ephedrine bans, heck once you were able to buy that OTC now you are FORCED to get a note before being allowed to buy, and you are also LIMITED to how much you can buy..

Imagine that...
 
This is what I'm hinting at.

Are they trying to outlaw large portion sodas because a large amount of soda is unhealthy or soda in general is unhealthy? Is it okay to have 8 x 8oz bottles in an afternoon but not one 64oz mug?

Are they removing soda from vending machines in schools (and hypocritically replacing it with sugar water [i.e. gatorade]) because soda is unhealthy during school hours or just plain unhealthy?

If your platform is "we're doing it because its unhealthy" then ban it... don't limit it. If your platform is "we don't think people are responsible enough to decide on their own"... then just come out and say so.


Do you think people respond better to bans or incentives?

Morgan Spurlock made that documentary almost 10 years ago. We still have larger then average portion sizes (compared to other countries) but their has been a decease in portion sizes in that 10 year period. Has it had any effect on obesity rates? Or are people just ordering MOAR? Or like Obama does it need more time to have an impact...... the ole' wait and see approach?

I know no one is banning soda but it is painfully idiotic (maybe more so that you're not picking up on it) that you think "hooray we had an impact" because you make it illegal to sell enormous size cups but it's okay to buy a case of soda cans.

How about instead of regulating (negative reinforcement) we create incentives to be healthy... because obviously the incentive of "you'll live longer" isn't resonating with people.

We can't I claim my gym membership fees on my taxes?

Why can't I get a credit because my BMI or BF % is in the healthy range?

Why can't I get a tax credit because I don't go to the emergency room, or see my doctor outside my yearly physical?

Instead we create credit and programs so people who are fat can ride fucking scooters all day. Get their groceries delivered.

Makes sense right?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I would like, since I'm not particularly convinced by you (a) not reading any prior research and (b) responding with an apoplectic rant-n-rave.

This is the sort of nonsense we have to deal with in terms of policy discussions. I put up research, you get an attitude and respond with your gut feelings. This is why we can't have nice things.[/QUOTE]

Kind of like the gun debate? :rofl:

Those darn scary black automatic military assault weapons.

The real problem is that we are becoming more accepting of the government being involved with our every day lives because "they have an interest". I can only imagine how that quote will be used 100 years from now.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']This is what I'm hinting at.

Are they trying to outlaw large portion sodas because a large amount of soda is unhealthy or soda in general is unhealthy? Is it okay to have 8 x 8oz bottles in an afternoon but not one 64oz mug?[/quote]

The fallacy is that you seem to think a person who is sated by 64oz. of soda won't be satisfied with 16oz. of soda. The research shows this is not the case at all. The idea that someone will buy 4x16oz cups because they used to drink 64oz is completely and totally erroneous, and the kind of thing that someone who hasn't read the research would say.

Or someone who continues to ramble and rant and rave instead of confront research. It's easier to blurt out your opinion than confront discomforting facts that do not jive with your world view, particularly when they're grounded in empirical science, yes? Scared to read something that doesn't conform to our worldview, are we?

(still waiting for the research you promised you'd dig up, friend.)

Morgan Spurlock made that documentary almost 10 years ago. We still have larger then average portion sizes (compared to other countries) but their has been a decease in portion sizes in that 10 year period. Has it had any effect on obesity rates? Or are people just ordering MOAR? Or like Obama does it need more time to have an impact...... the ole' wait and see approach?
Click to expand...

Or perhaps there is a ceiling. This evidence of your is rather trite. Or perhaps McDonald's portions provide plenty of calories, saturated fat, and sodium such that the differential between "supersize" and what they sell now is rather minimal to begin with. Do you have data on this, or are you just blowing smoke with no evidence?

How about instead of regulating (negative reinforcement) we create incentives to be healthy... because obviously the incentive of "you'll live longer" isn't resonating with people.

We can't I claim my gym membership fees on my taxes?

Why can't I get a credit because my BMI or BF % is in the healthy range?

Why can't I get a tax credit because I don't go to the emergency room, or see my doctor outside my yearly physical?

Instead we create credit and programs so people who are fat can ride fucking scooters all day. Get their groceries delivered.

Makes sense right?
Click to expand...

Because the USDA is an industry agency, not a consumer agency. Consumer agencies are a thing of the past in the modern plutocracy.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Kind of like the gun debate? :rofl:

Those darn scary black automatic military assault weapons.

The real problem is that we are becoming more accepting of the government being involved with our every day lives because "they have an interest". I can only imagine how that quote will be used 100 years from now.[/QUOTE]

So your solution is?

Allow more crazed gun massacres? And just accept it's gonna happen now and then? Even though it's beginning to happen more frequently?

Let 1 in 4 kids get obese 1 in 3 1 in 2?

Where do you contemplate something has to be done?
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Huh? Who is banning soda? They are just not allowing any sizes of X to be sold... I can still buy soda, so who the fark is banning soda.. Crack, cocaine, pot, heroin now that is what is actually a BAN, size limitation is not a ban.

I don't see people complaining of Pseudo/ephedrine bans, heck once you were able to buy that OTC now you are FORCED to get a note before being allowed to buy, and you are also LIMITED to how much you can buy..

Imagine that...[/QUOTE]

I am proposing we ban soda
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The fallacy is that you seem to think a person who is sated by 64oz. of soda won't be satisfied with 16oz. of soda. The research shows this is not the case at all. The idea that someone will buy 4x16oz cups because they used to drink 64oz is completely and totally erroneous, and the kind of thing that someone who hasn't read the research would say.

[/QUOTE]

King Size and Super Size no longer exist. Would you say people eat less at McDonald's or moar?

Come on we know what your research says...

but what is the answer? Do people now consume less or more? Are they consuming fewer calories or more calories? Has reducing portion sizes at McDonald's or Burger King done anything to make us healthier?

I"m going to guess you can't admit you're wrong.
 
Ah, the old "I don't actually have any research like I said I had, so I'm going to resort to the socratic method as a deflection" charade.

Poor showing, my friend. Talk is cheap, science is rad. Too bad, so sad.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ah, the old "I don't actually have any research like I said I had, so I'm going to resort to the socratic method as a deflection" charade.

Poor showing, my friend. Talk is cheap, science is rad. Too bad, so sad.[/QUOTE]

Portion control is like sticking a band aid on a deep wound for people who are already obese. I'm all for a healthier life but I don't think baby stepping it is the way to go.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What do you recommend, then?[/QUOTE]

What I would want is far from possible, I understand this is a step in the right direction but they really are just singling out one industry. I'm only against it because it goes beyond personal choice, if it were up to me I would ban all junk food.
 
[quote name='skiizim'] I'm only against it because it goes beyond personal choice, if it were up to me I would ban all advertising of junk food.[/QUOTE]
fix.t.d;)
 
How do you define junk food?

Singling out one industry is tough - it's not fair, but a step in the right direction. More food industries need to be held accountable for how they produce. It's not a matter of identifying them as "evil companies," but their products have detrimental health effects on people that are scientifically demonstrated. The "evil" part, if it has to exist, is the targeted marketing that seeks to increase consumption (and thus purchases).

Maybe ban McDonald's ads the way cigarette ads are banned? Reducing our concepts of "normal" size drinks is a step in the right direction, but it is a very incomplete step.
 
Chips, Candy, Soda, Cookies, stuff along those lines. Fast food marketing against kids is great, my daughter doesn't even call McDonald's by it's name, she calls it Happy Meals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top