Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

NYC Soda Ban... banned!


  • Please log in to reply
251 replies to this topic

#31 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:10 AM

I think the person had a right to say Fuck you to them.

The only thing is, Clak made the "**** you" comment before ego said anything negative about his uncle. Ego's comment was a direct reply to Clak's initial hostile comment.

bobbeh strikes again![...]
I missed all the action cause I'm busy with FF13-2. Fun game!


DD won't see this, as he has me on ignore - but someone should give DD some direction here. It was not I who reported any posts. DD can thank Myke and Clak, as they both said they were reporting posts. Feel free to tell DD that he should actually know what he's talking about before he makes comments.

"I AM GOING TO RUN & GET A MOD BECAUSE I AM AN ATTENTION WHORE." = Bob.


Not at all what happened. So much for your "accuracy".

I think banning gambling is also a good idea. By definition of odds and how they work, people are prone to addiction and always more likely to lose, it's just a cash cow that milks people. Poker is acceptable as it's usually people vs peope and skill is involved, and lottery is not usually going to make someone go bankrupt, but slots, casino type, and sports betting isn't good at all.


People get addicted to the lottery. I've seen it and there's a reason why various states have their versions of the "Play Responsibly" campaign. Most lottery tickets even have phone numbers listed for people who feel they need help.

And yes, I favor legalizing cocaine.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#32 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:00 PM

I know a few people that spend $100 of a near minimum wage paycheck a week on scratch tickets and lottery tickets.

You can't protect people from themselves.


I am sure there's a few but it's a lot more rare. I've worked in a casino. The mentality from the top is to get people hooked. It's even encouraged to let people win or try to give something at first just to create that buzz to make them want to feel it again, because after that they'll always be searching or that buzz and trying to recreate that big win and will lose so much more.

It's all one big manipulative cycle of deceit under the guise of just a good time. And so often people lose so much from it, including relationships etc etc. It's not the people doing it who are uneducated or misinformed they are just victims of the game of the cycle, the people defending the casino's right to do it under ''freedom of choice'' to me are the fools. As they simply don't understand how things work properly.

We are humans not robots, humans have weaknesses and some people try to exploit those, stopping them people from doing so is not wrong.

#33 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:12 PM

People get addicted to the lottery. I've seen it and there's a reason why various states have their versions of the "Play Responsibly" campaign. Most lottery tickets even have phone numbers listed for people who feel they need help.

And yes, I favor legalizing cocaine.


Like i said above, there's probably a few but in terms of numbers a lot less and usually less extreme than other gambling most of the time. But the fact that people do get addicted to something they're so unlikely to win should really be an indicator to you how many get addicted to other stuff where they win more often even if less cash.... Blackjack you win constantly but not much so you have to gamble more, and if you're down take big risks and all it takes is 1 moment of madness and you can be screwed for months or years.

You can write a book on safe gambling, once you're there doing it for awhile you cannot control what takes over 95% of the time, it is extremely difficult for some people to walk away. Is where i disagree on the word choice, some people want to walk away they hate it, but they keep doing it, that's an addiction. And that's why these laws need to be there. It's why banning it is a good idea.

Do you also agree with those payday loans? where you can get 200 bux and end up paying 700 bux and if not on time suddenly 2,000 bux. They are designed to target people struggling, who if they need a loan for 200 bux, will inevitably struggle to pay it back...then get huge debts due to a silly loan. You can say it's their choice, but they're encouraged, advertised to do so, they need it, it's simple to not quite understand what you're getting yourself into.

Your logic is just a scammers dream. Freedom of choice has limitations, take it too far and it's simply dangerous and irresponsible viewpoint.

#34 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:19 PM

By your logic why not legalize cocaine if it's all about choice?


winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm curious why those who decry Bloomberg for reducing soda portion sizes (can we stop calling something that isn't a "ban" a "ban"? thanks.) feel about actual products being banned, like narcotics.

Why can't I legally indulge in my heroin habit? It's just personal responsibility, right?
Posted Image

#35 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:46 PM

It is a ban. It specifically bans cup and serving sizes over a certain limit from being sold.

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. As of right now you can't legally ruin your body, but I wouldn't mind if you legally could do it. I also then would support your health insurance drug testing you and dropping you if you fail the test so the costs wouldn't be passed on to the rest of us.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#36 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:10 PM

winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm curious why those who decry Bloomberg for reducing soda portion sizes (can we stop calling something that isn't a "ban" a "ban"? thanks.) feel about actual products being banned, like narcotics.

Why can't I legally indulge in my heroin habit? It's just personal responsibility, right?


The soda ban was just an arbitrary and half-baked law to begin with. I also wouldn't compare it to heroin.

You don't want people having grenades — does that mean you ban sticks and stones as well?

#37 guinaevere

guinaevere

    plays well with others

  • Super Moderators

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:12 PM

At least the temp bans were more "even-handed" this time, but it's still lop-sided.

Don't speak when you don't know the details. One instigated, and one retaliated. They both were silenced, but for different terms.



And if you all keep bringing up their discussion, we're gonna wind up right back there. Drop it and get back to passive-aggressively hating each over soda and personal liberties. Seriously guys.
gwensigol8.png

#38 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:51 PM

The soda ban was just an arbitrary and half-baked law to begin with. I also wouldn't compare it to heroin.

You don't want people having grenades — does that mean you ban sticks and stones as well?


It's a freedom of choice comparison, why the argument has no basis when you factor in a trillion other elements.

Banning soda seems extreme but the idea behind it is logical and i support. Obesity is a huge issue and soda is in part responsible for this...So we either let 7 yr olds continue to weigh 150 pounds or begin to take measures to combat it.

#39 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:57 PM

As of right now you can't legally ruin your body.


I can't do it with a syringe, no, but I can do it with a supersized Combo #4.

What's the difference?

I also wouldn't compare it to heroin.


And why not. Is soda "nutrition"?
Posted Image

#40 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:22 PM

winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm curious why those who decry Bloomberg for reducing soda portion sizes (can we stop calling something that isn't a "ban" a "ban"? thanks.) feel about actual products being banned, like narcotics.

Why can't I legally indulge in my heroin habit? It's just personal responsibility, right?


Legalize the heroin. Might as well... people in my neck of the woods get just as fucked up off of methadone (legal).

Edited by GBAstar, 13 March 2013 - 03:13 PM.


#41 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

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.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#42 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:38 PM

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.


How far do you push this logic though...freedom from when? 18? 21? 12? freedom to marry crocodiles?

#43 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:56 PM

How far do you push this logic though...freedom from when? 18? 21? 12? freedom to marry crocodiles?


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.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#44 KillerRamen

KillerRamen

    OMG Lilac PSP!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:09 PM

How far do you push this logic though...freedom from when? 18? 21? 12? freedom to marry crocodiles?


That would be awesome!

"Man marries crocodile, gets eaten at the altar." :lol:
Posted Image

#45 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:12 PM

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. .


I wish I had your faith in people.

#46 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:18 PM

And why not. Is soda "nutrition"?



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.

#47 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:27 PM

I wish I had your faith in people.


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.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#48 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:31 PM

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.


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:

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.


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).

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.


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?
Posted Image

#49 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:44 PM

Are you referring to Salt Sugar Fat by Moss? If so, I'll certainly pick it up.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#50 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:51 PM

Yep.
Posted Image

#51 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 04:07 PM

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.

PaulManda.png


#52 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 04:38 PM

Yep.

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.

Seriously? Arguing and cursing are disrupting the forum? Is it really necessary to delete posts?

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.

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.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#53 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:12 PM

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


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.

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?


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.

#54 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:09 PM

Are you supportive of the ban? Why?


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.


Give me an example, please, of this happening.

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


Absolutely. Fast poisons are indeed faster than slow ones. ;)
Posted Image

#55 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:23 PM

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.


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.

#56 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:29 PM

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?
Posted Image

#57 KillerRamen

KillerRamen

    OMG Lilac PSP!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:29 PM

I don't know about overeating vegetables, but they can make you sick and they're the leading cause of food-borne illness.

http://well.blogs.ny...me-from-greens/
Posted Image

#58 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:29 PM

Give me an example, please, of this happening.


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

There are tons more.

#59 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:31 PM

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.

#60 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:32 PM

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.


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).

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.

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.livestron...-of-vegetables/