Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

NYC Ban on Large Sugar Laden Drinks Struck Down by Court


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#31 MrsCanuck

MrsCanuck

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,629 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:57 PM

I don't even understand how half of the stuff offered by "food" companies gets approved by the government. I also don't understand why people choose to ignore the fact that they are essentially poisoning themselves.

It seems like Bloomberg has been taking an extremely proactive approach in NYC to try and change things and make his city better. Hopefully he'll be able to get something accomplished. The US has got to have the most stubborn population on the face of the earth.

Edited by MrsCanuck, 13 March 2013 - 11:57 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#32 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,626 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 05:33 AM

I don't even understand how half of the stuff offered by "food" companies gets approved by the government. I also don't understand why people choose to ignore the fact that they are essentially poisoning themselves.

It seems like Bloomberg has been taking an extremely proactive approach in NYC to try and change things and make his city better. Hopefully he'll be able to get something accomplished. The US has got to have the most stubborn population on the face of the earth.

Some, like me, see it was utterly stupid.

First off, there's a blatant bias as to what they're going after.

Secondly, in New York and even here in Canada, you can flout your liver drinking yourself silly, no problem, but somehow there's an issue with buying products like soda from certain vendors because of the issue with sugar and diabetes, or hypertension? Really?

This is a politically motivated issue with certain companies, selective outrage, and excessive government influence of both individuals and the economy. Some of us see this for what it is, and it's little to do with concern for health.

Simply put, I hope this appeal fails, leave people alone to "poison" themselves. If it were merely a measure to protect children who aren't yet capable of making intelligent choices for themselves, I can understand, but this law is for adults. It makes no sense that we have respect for an individual's right to their own body when determining whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, whether or not to fill themselves full of booze, or drugs, but don't dare fill yourself full of sugar? Bull.

People knowingly walk into fast food restaurants knowing they are eating quite unhealthy food. Let them drink (or in your term, "poison themselves" with) their 64oz of carbonated sugar water if they so see fit. I think adults have earned the right to make that decision for themselves. Or, if you are going to say that they can't, then be consistent and take away these other freedoms. But I know this is simply an anti-globalist/anti-capitalist backlash on a specific industry much the same way with cigarettes. So, simply dismiss the appeal, give it the finger, and tell these people trying to ban soda, and sugary products to go find another rope to piss up.

Edited by Aleksandr Pistoletov, 14 March 2013 - 05:43 AM.

  • 0

#33 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,159 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:17 AM

Some, like me, see it was utterly stupid.

First off, there's a blatant bias as to what they're going after.

Secondly, in New York and even here in Canada, you can flout your liver drinking yourself silly, no problem, but somehow there's an issue with buying products like soda from certain vendors because of the issue with sugar and diabetes, or hypertension? Really?

This is a politically motivated issue with certain companies, selective outrage, and excessive government influence of both individuals and the economy. Some of us see this for what it is, and it's little to do with concern for health.

Simply put, I hope this appeal fails, leave people alone to "poison" themselves. If it were merely a measure to protect children who aren't yet capable of making intelligent choices for themselves, I can understand, but this law is for adults. It makes no sense that we have respect for an individual's right to their own body when determining whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, whether or not to fill themselves full of booze, or drugs, but don't dare fill yourself full of sugar? Bull.

People knowingly walk into fast food restaurants knowing they are eating quite unhealthy food. Let them drink (or in your term, "poison themselves" with) their 64oz of carbonated sugar water if they so see fit. I think adults have earned the right to make that decision for themselves. Or, if you are going to say that they can't, then be consistent and take away these other freedoms. But I know this is simply an anti-globalist/anti-capitalist backlash on a specific industry much the same way with cigarettes. So, simply dismiss the appeal, give it the finger, and tell these people trying to ban soda, and sugary products to go find another rope to piss up.


except we're on the hook for medical costs for people who treat their bodies like waste disposal sites.
  • 0

#34 wizeman

wizeman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM

A large Coke at McDonalds is 26 oz. and you have unlimited refills. Each large Coke would be 320 calories.


Can we still get free refills on coke at Denny's ?
  • 0

#35 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:52 AM

Some, like me, see it was utterly stupid.

First off, there's a blatant bias as to what they're going after.

Secondly, in New York and even here in Canada, you can flout your liver drinking yourself silly, no problem, but somehow there's an issue with buying products like soda from certain vendors because of the issue with sugar and diabetes, or hypertension? Really?

This is a politically motivated issue with certain companies, selective outrage, and excessive government influence of both individuals and the economy. Some of us see this for what it is, and it's little to do with concern for health.

Simply put, I hope this appeal fails, leave people alone to "poison" themselves. If it were merely a measure to protect children who aren't yet capable of making intelligent choices for themselves, I can understand, but this law is for adults. It makes no sense that we have respect for an individual's right to their own body when determining whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, whether or not to fill themselves full of booze, or drugs, but don't dare fill yourself full of sugar? Bull.

People knowingly walk into fast food restaurants knowing they are eating quite unhealthy food. Let them drink (or in your term, "poison themselves" with) their 64oz of carbonated sugar water if they so see fit. I think adults have earned the right to make that decision for themselves. Or, if you are going to say that they can't, then be consistent and take away these other freedoms. But I know this is simply an anti-globalist/anti-capitalist backlash on a specific industry much the same way with cigarettes. So, simply dismiss the appeal, give it the finger, and tell these people trying to ban soda, and sugary products to go find another rope to piss up.


Which is why we should tax it. Just like alcohol.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#36 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,412 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:45 AM

except we're on the hook for medical costs for people who treat their bodies like waste disposal sites.


Everyone dies of something. Are you able to show a person who has diabetes and a heart attack at 65 costs any more than a person who dies of liver cancer at 90?

My guess is probably not. The longer you live past retirement, the more money you are costing (not just health care) vs earning. Ideally, from a purely economic point of view, people would drop dead the day they retire. I can't imagine living to be 90 reduces health care costs in any way.

From a purely anecdotal experience, I had one grandfather who died instantly of a heart attack at age 72. He was overweight but rarely visited the doctor. He cost the health care system next to nothing. I had another grandfather who lived to 99. He was extremely fit and thin. In the last 5-10 years, his health deteriorated in every way. He had issues with his eyes, bladder, skin, etc... In the end, he had several different types of cancer, and the doctors just stopped treating him. He was perfectly healthy in every way until the last few years of his life. He didn't have any genetic or health problems, he just got old...really really old.

Taxing calories doesn't make any sense either. For some people a high calorie diet is healhy. Everyone has individual needs when it comes to calorie consumption. It's not universally bad for you, like smoking.
  • 2

#37 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,412 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:49 AM

To add to this:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask136

And if we live long enough, we'll probably all get cancer. Nice to end on a rosy note, huh?


  • 0

#38 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:02 PM

Everyone dies of something. Are you able to show a person who has diabetes and a heart attack at 65 costs any more than a person who dies of liver cancer at 90?

My guess is probably not. The longer you live past retirement, the more money you are costing (not just health care) vs earning. Ideally, from a purely economic point of view, people would drop dead the day they retire. I can't imagine living to be 90 reduces health care costs in any way.

From a purely anecdotal experience, I had one grandfather who died instantly of a heart attack at age 72. He was overweight but rarely visited the doctor. He cost the health care system next to nothing. I had another grandfather who lived to 99. He was extremely fit and thin. In the last 5-10 years, his health deteriorated in every way. He had issues with his eyes, bladder, skin, etc... In the end, he had several different types of cancer, and the doctors just stopped treating him. He was perfectly healthy in every way until the last few years of his life. He didn't have any genetic or health problems, he just got old...really really old.

Taxing calories doesn't make any sense either. For some people a high calorie diet is healhy. Everyone has individual needs when it comes to calorie consumption. It's not universally bad for you, like smoking.


You can get calories other, healthier places than HFCS FWIW.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#39 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,626 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:32 PM

except we're on the hook for medical costs for people who treat their bodies like waste disposal sites.

Life sucks doesn't it?
  • 0

#40 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,689 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:32 PM

I don't even understand how half of the stuff offered by "food" companies gets approved by the government. I also don't understand why people choose to ignore the fact that they are essentially poisoning themselves.

It seems like Bloomberg has been taking an extremely proactive approach in NYC to try and change things and make his city better. Hopefully he'll be able to get something accomplished. The US has got to have the most stubborn population on the face of the earth.


It's called personal choice. Personally I don't want the government controlling my diet, even though I try to eat healthy and stay in shape. If people want to poison themselves, let them, it's unjust for one man to tell millions what they can eat. Telling people what they can put in their own body is what parents should do to their kids, not what a politician should be doing to adults. I'd rather be "stubborn" than have strangers controlling every part of my daily life.

Edited by etsen3, 14 March 2013 - 12:36 PM.

  • 1

#41 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

It's called personal choice. Personally I don't want the government controlling my diet, even though I try to eat healthy and stay in shape. If people want to poison themselves, let them, it's unjust for one man to tell millions what they can eat. Telling people what they can put in their own body is what parents should do to their kids, not what a politician should be doing to adults. I'd rather be "stubborn" than have strangers controlling every part of my daily life.


It's actually not really personal choice. It's by and large marketing, collusion and ignorance.

I generally agree that people should by and large be free to choose what they eat (and reap the consequences good or bad and pay moderately higher tax on products proven to have negative societal impacts/costs).

THAT isn't actually the main problem however. The problem is the corporate/government corruption that allows dubious at best chemicals, products and processes in to food production in the first place (which I believe is more what that MrsCanuck was eluding to).
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#42 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,626 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:47 PM

It's actually not really personal choice. It's by and large marketing, collusion and ignorance.

I generally agree that people should by and large be free to choose what they eat (and reap the consequences good or bad and pay moderately higher tax on products proven to have negative societal impacts/costs).

THAT isn't actually the main problem however. The problem is the corporate/government corruption that allows dubious at best chemicals, products and processes in to food production in the first place (which I believe is more what that MrsCanuck was eluding to).

People can choose to buy from the produce section, they choose to walk into McDiabetes and get a soda instead, or buy 2L or 18 or 24 cases of soda. Marketing, collusion, conspiracy, or otherwise, it's a conscious choice government has no business deciding in for individuals. NYC and mayor Doucheberg are way out of line.

Edited by Aleksandr Pistoletov, 14 March 2013 - 12:50 PM.

  • 0

#43 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:02 PM

People can choose to buy from the produce section, they choose to walk into McDiabetes and get a soda instead, or buy 2L or 18 or 24 cases of soda. Marketing, collusion, conspiracy, or otherwise, it's a conscious choice government has no business deciding in for individuals. NYC and mayor Doucheberg are way out of line.


Even the produce section isn't safe from pesticides, GMO's etc.

As I said, they're going about the right thing, the wrong way. The problem isn't about outlawing products it the food system that's the problem.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#44 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,741 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:04 PM

except we're on the hook for medical costs for people who treat their bodies like waste disposal sites.


Ban smokes, ban alcohol, ban pop, ban sugar, ban salt, ban China.
  • 0

#45 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:06 PM

Ban smokes, ban alcohol, ban pop, ban sugar, ban salt, ban China.


Nope, just tax them
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#46 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,741 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:12 PM

Nope, just tax them


So what constitutes junk food or junk drinks then?
  • 0

#47 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:55 PM

So what constitutes junk food or junk drinks then?


You really need to ask that?
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#48 DDuncan

DDuncan

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 13

Posted 14 March 2013 - 05:14 PM

Booya!!. Suck it Bloomberg. Although New Yorkers deserve what this guy does to them since they keep electing him.
  • 0

#49 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,741 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 14 March 2013 - 06:24 PM

You really need to ask that?


A guy like Bloomberg has troubles with that.

500mL Coca-Cola (210 cal) is banned, but a 591mL Starbucks Venti signature hot chocolate with whipped cream and whole milk (520 cal) is ok? In a comparison to the bottles of Sbux frapps that are 280mL, that's 180 cal.

Here's the sugar breakdown:

500mL Coca-Cola - 54g sugar (source: http://www.livestron...sic/coke-500ml/)
Starbucks drink - 75g sugar (source: http://eatthis.mensh...int-list/184612)
Mocha Frappuccino® chilled coffee drink (still allowed under Bloomberg's new law) - 31g sugar (source: http://frappuccino.c...led-frappuccino)

Edited by Common sense, 14 March 2013 - 06:26 PM.

  • 0

#50 Gustavo Fring

Gustavo Fring

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 06:31 PM

Can we still get free refills on coke at Denny's ?


Yes you most definitely can. Not just coke, but root beer, iced tea and a variety of fountain drinks.

I hope this answer helps out a lot.
  • 0
Posted Image

#51 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:11 AM

A guy like Bloomberg has troubles with that.

500mL Coca-Cola (210 cal) is banned, but a 591mL Starbucks Venti signature hot chocolate with whipped cream and whole milk (520 cal) is ok? In a comparison to the bottles of Sbux frapps that are 280mL, that's 180 cal.

Here's the sugar breakdown:

500mL Coca-Cola - 54g sugar (source: http://www.livestron...sic/coke-500ml/)
Starbucks drink - 75g sugar (source: http://eatthis.mensh...int-list/184612)
Mocha Frappuccino® chilled coffee drink (still allowed under Bloomberg's new law) - 31g sugar (source: http://frappuccino.c...led-frappuccino)


Seems to me it would be pretty common sense to simply tax the sugar...
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#52 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,741 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 15 March 2013 - 08:15 PM

Seems to me it would be pretty common sense to simply tax the sugar...


that would only work if the items were prepackaged bottles/cans like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, or the Sbux Frappucinos. For drinks that a barista makes, it gets much more complicated.
  • 0

#53 SNACanuck

SNACanuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 09

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:50 PM

Who cares if someone wants to pound down a large coke? They can still get unlimited refills. Secondly, it'll start with a large coke ban leading into something else like a large coffee ban due to caffiene. That'll lead into a your too fat to ride on the bus/transit ban. Then it'll be you can't read a Maxim magazine because it's insensitive and degrading to women ban... you get my drift...
  • 0

Cheers, SNACanuck

 

 


#54 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 March 2013 - 02:05 PM

Who cares if someone wants to pound down a large coke? They can still get unlimited refills. Secondly, it'll start with a large coke ban leading into something else like a large coffee ban due to caffiene. That'll lead into a your too fat to ride on the bus/transit ban. Then it'll be you can't read a Maxim magazine because it's insensitive and degrading to women ban... you get my drift...

No problem, people should feel free to do so.

Posted Image

Of course we all have to pay for the health related problems.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#55 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 17 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

the bottle of ranch being opened in that photo is the thing that always makes my face cringe
  • 0

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#56 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 March 2013 - 02:31 PM

the bottle of ranch being opened in that photo is the thing that always makes my face cringe

It is probably low calorie Ranch dressing, amirite???
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#57 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,371 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 17 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

Seems to me it would be pretty common sense to simply tax the sugar...


Someone in England had the same idea a few hundred years ago but only with tea. How did that work out?

Posted Image
  • 0

#58 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:10 PM

No problem, people should feel free to do so.

Posted Image

Of course we all have to pay for the health related problems.


following that reasoning.. can we also ban bikes, roller blades, playing outside, playing hockey, playing football, playing baseball, playing basketball, soccer, running, walking, cars, alcohol, red meat, fish, pork, wheat, peanuts, strawberries, powered equipment, electricity, camping, shoveling, gardening, lawn mowing, landscaping... and any other activity/food/drink that could result in people going to the hospital (or seeing a doctor) for various reasons?

after all... we all have to pay for health related problems.

(yes I clearly am taking this reasoning to the extreme)
  • 0

#59 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:30 AM

following that reasoning.. can we also ban bikes, roller blades, playing outside, playing hockey, playing football, playing baseball, playing basketball, soccer, running, walking, cars, alcohol, red meat, fish, pork, wheat, peanuts, strawberries, powered equipment, electricity, camping, shoveling, gardening, lawn mowing, landscaping... and any other activity/food/drink that could result in people going to the hospital (or seeing a doctor) for various reasons?

after all... we all have to pay for health related problems.

(yes I clearly am taking this reasoning to the extreme)

We already legislate for safety in such things. Bike helmets, cyclists subject to rules of the road, etc.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#60 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

We already legislate for safety in such things. Bike helmets, cyclists subject to rules of the road, etc.


keep going.. that's 1 thing out of hundreds of things
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.