aGENT Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 except we're on the hook for medical costs for people who treat their bodies like waste disposal sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Ban smokes, ban alcohol, ban pop, ban sugar, ban salt, ban China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Nope, just tax them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 So what constitutes junk food or junk drinks then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDuncan Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Booya!!. Suck it Bloomberg. Although New Yorkers deserve what this guy does to them since they keep electing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 You really need to ask that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustavo Fring Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Can we still get free refills on coke at Denny's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Seems to me it would be pretty common sense to simply tax the sugar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACanuck Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 the bottle of ranch being opened in that photo is the thing that always makes my face cringe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 the bottle of ranch being opened in that photo is the thing that always makes my face cringe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Seems to me it would be pretty common sense to simply tax the sugar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 No problem, people should feel free to do so. Of course we all have to pay for the health related problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 We already legislate for safety in such things. Bike helmets, cyclists subject to rules of the road, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.