toldailytopic: Liberals want to outlaw large soft drinks and other large sugary drink

[This Charming Manc]

OK. Ask the question a different way.

"Should businesses be able to market foods and drinks, in a way that they know causes health problems for its customers for the pursuit of profit, without any regulations from appropriate government agencies?"

Asked like that the concept of the law doesn't seem as unreasonable does it ?

 

[rexlunae]

toldailytopic: Liberals want to outlaw large soft drinks and other large sugary drinks, thoughts?

Ridiculous. It's not really a liberal issue particularly, though.

 

[Rusha]

OK. Ask the question a different way.

"Should businesses be able to market foods and drinks, in a way that they know causes health problems for its customers for the pursuit of profit, without any regulations from appropriate government agencies?"

Asked like that the concept of the law doesn't seem as unreasonable does it ?

Yes ... they should. Consumers KNOW that certain types of foods and beverages can increase health risks when abused.

I don't want the government telling me what I can ingest in my body (in regards to food and beverage).

 

[Lighthouse]

Why is a war on recreational drug abuse acceptable, while a war on recreational food abuse is absurd? Why is it OK to ban cigarettes for children, but not OK to ban giant doses of sugar water for them? Why is it OK for the government to tell us who we can and can't have sex with, but not OK for the government to tell us what we can and can't eat?

I think the laughing and finger-pointing can go in pretty much any direction related to pretty much any issue. And yet we still need laws, and government to establish and enforce them. Because the truth is we are not capable as a society of monitoring our own behavior wisely, otherwise.

I would bet marijuana is much safer than soda. It is kinda funny to hear people complain about pop when you know full well they want all drugs illegal, gay marriage be be banned, etc.

Yeah, because soft drinks are a moral issue.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes ... they should. Consumers KNOW that certain types of foods and beverages can increase health risks when abused.

I don't want the government telling me what I can ingest in my body (in regards to food and beverage).

This ^

 

[Nick M]

There's no evidence that the act of drinking soda in ANY amount causes or even contributes to obesity.

Actually, carbohydrates is the only thing that causes weight gain. Sugar in the blood cause the pancreas to release insulin. That carries it to the cells. Protein nor fat is converted into fat. There is a reason "carbo loading" for a marathon is used.

Now, there can be other problems in the body, where a person needs to consume far less carbohydrates than somebody else. That is why Dr Atkins had his induction phase. 20 net carbs a day. Weight will go down. Yeah, some people can consume much more. AFter the weight goal is reached, carbs are to be added in to stop ketosis. That is the equilibrium part. But instead of coke or pepsi, eat an apple or strawberries. And don't worry about the bacon.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Let's just hope that the left wing loon is being consistent and not accepting advertising money too.

 

[zoo22]

I think banning big-burp-double-gulps is silly. No, I think it's beyond silly and is very wrong. Also silly.

If someone wants to sell or buy/drink (literally) a cup of sugar, okay. As disgusting as that might be.

I'm curious whether anyone sees it as legislation restricting greed and gluttony? Or even, where do greed and gluttony play a role in this?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'm curious whether anyone sees it as legislation restricting greed and gluttony?

The asinine arses that legislate these type of laws don't publically acknowledge God and sin. If they did, they'd speak out and legislate against other sinful acts such as abortion and homosexuality.

This is yet another case of a nanny state being involved in things that government was never meant to be involved in.

 

[heli]

Big lesson in how to make the Law an object of derision. I dont know how the Irish Gov got away with banning smoking in pubs and restaurants. Now, I like so many am delighted with the cleaner air, but that trade was economically hammered. Banning pollution is acceptable, banning people from self harm is being a nanny ninny.

 

[PureX]

I think banning big-burp-double-gulps is silly. No, I think it's beyond silly and is very wrong. Also silly.

If someone wants to sell or buy/drink (literally) a cup of sugar, okay. As disgusting as that might be.

I'm curious whether anyone sees it as legislation restricting greed and gluttony? Or even, where do greed and gluttony play a role in this?

Well, greed is the reason that huge corporations want to sell mass quantities of sugar water to our children even though we all know it's bad for them. And it's hard to blame a child for "gluttony" when all children like sweets and have not yet learned the necessity or ability of self-discipline.

And then there's just plain stupidity. There's the stupidity of the parents who let their kids drink massive quantities of something they know isn't good for them. There's the stupidity of 'the public' who think it's outrageous to try and keep kids from ingesting massive amounts of liquid sugar and yet think it's perfectly normal and sensible to try and keep kids from ingesting alcohol and nicotine. And there's the stupidity of the government who thinks that the solution to corporate greed and the damage it's doing to our children can only be addressed by restricting the children, rather than the behavior of the corporations.

But as we can see from this thread, stupidity abounds, and thoughtless "knee-jerk" reactions are about all we can expect from anyone, anymore.

 

[bybee]

Well, greed is the reason that huge corporations want to sell mass quantities of sugar water to our children even though we all know it's bad for them. And it's hard to blame a child for "gluttony" when all children like sweets and have not yet learned the necessity or ability of self-discipline.

And then there's just plain stupidity. There's the stupidity of the parents who let their kids drink massive quantities of something they know isn't good for them. There's the stupidity of 'the public' who think it's outrageous to try and keep kids from ingesting massive amounts of liquid sugar and yet think it's perfectly normal and sensible to try and keep kids from ingesting alcohol and nicotine. And there's the stupidity of the government who thinks that the solution to corporate greed and the damage it's doing to our children can only be addressed by restricting the children, rather than the behavior of the corporations.

But as we can see from this thread, stupidity abounds, and thoughtless "knee-jerk" reactions are about all we can expect from anyone, anymore.

My expectations are quite different from yours.

 

[PureX]

My expectations are quite different from yours.

Well, we're at post #52 and so far I've read maybe 4 posts that expressed anything other than stupid "knee-jerk" outrage or were just another excuse to blame "liberals", which has nothing whatever to do with anything, as Mayor Bloomberg is a republican-turned-independant and is detested by most of the "liberals" I know that live in New York. What reason would there be to expect anything else, at this point?

 

[Charity]

Law has no Tact....

Lightly measuring two chinaman for a western 32", four chinaman as a 34"...six chinaman make a 36"....one bus of Chinaman to four buses for westerners...who can we blame...SODA POP!!

 

[Caino]

Law has no Tact....

Lightly measuring two chinaman for a western 32", four chinaman as a 34"...six chinaman make a 36"....one bus of Chinaman to four buses for westerners...who can we blame...SODA POP!!

:first::up:

 

[Charity]

Caino

Caino

I could go for one of those giant turkey legs they have in disneyLand!
American food is wonderful! :first: I'll be happy to have a water with that thanks!

 

[Delmar]

Well, we're at post #52 and so far I've read maybe 4 posts that expressed anything other than stupid "knee-jerk" outrage or were just another excuse to blame "liberals", which has nothing whatever to do with anything, as Mayor Bloomberg is a republican-turned-independant and is detested by most of the "liberals" I know that live in New York. What reason would there be to expect anything else, at this point?

He was a liberal Republican, what's your point?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He was a liberal Republican, what's your point?

New York's Mayor Bloomberg is More Liberal Than Romney and Obama
http://www.policymic.com/articles/7...han-romney-and-obama&referral=latest_comments

Now that's liberal.

 

[anna]

Why not outlaw supersized clothing. That way anybody over a certain size would not be able to go out and get more food!

that would be cruel. Not every obese person is obese due to irresponsibility on their part. Some of us are obese because of other health factors and because of the lies of Big Pharma

 

[annabenedetti]

Hi anna, I like your name.

And I'm sorry you beat me to it. I remember being disappointed it was already taken when I joined TOL in 2009. :chuckle: