Ban Sugary Drinks but Legalize Pot?

[yidnar]

if they are banning large sodas because of the problems caused by obesity legalizing pot sounds a little hypocritical to me ...[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=panIPL_6itY]Road Trip: I got the munchies! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[editec]

New York City appeals ?soda ban? ruling

Am I the only person who questions this push to ban sugary drinks while there is a movement to legalize pot?

The Mayor argues it is to "encourage" people to make the conscious choice of sugar intake.
Well what about drinking and smoking, then?
???

What should we do, have a third level of laws (such as "health and safety" ordinances)
to "discourage" abusive or addictive excesses that is bad for one's health and "encourage" counseling and rehab (without micromanaging or punishing through civil/criminal laws).

And let everyone opt in and make their own localized decisions as to what they want or don't want; so if you are for pot but against soft drinks, you can vote for that per district?
Am I the only one having trouble wrapping my mind around this
???

No, you are not the only person who thinks this is nuts.

And if you think most liberals agree with this invasion of our rights, you are drinking the propagandists' koolaide.

Here's a thought..start looking for allies instead of enemeies.

Real conservatives and real liberals are NOT as far apart on many issues as our MSM's left or right propagandists would have us believe.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sugar is a lot more dangerous than cannabis; it actually has detrimental health effects.

Whether either one deserves legislation are separate questions, but as a comparison between the two, there isn't one. In other words if you took these two substances (cannabis and sugar) and decided that one of them would be subject to some kind of government restriction in the public interest, then all the science would point you to sugar.

i will agree there.....Diabetes is starting to run rampant.....many kids start off the day having a bowl of sugar....some have a little cereal thrown in.....

 

[yidnar]

nothing like a joint and 20 white castle mini burgers for the waist line.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

Giving your kids McDonalds should be a crime.

 

[yidnar]

Giving your kids McDonalds should be a crime.

however giving me McDonalds is an act of kindness !! especially when i have the munchies !!

 

[Sallow]

New York City appeals ?soda ban? ruling

Am I the only person who questions this push to ban sugary drinks while there is a movement to legalize pot?

The Mayor argues it is to "encourage" people to make the conscious choice of sugar intake.
Well what about drinking and smoking, then?
???

What should we do, have a third level of laws (such as "health and safety" ordinances)
to "discourage" abusive or addictive excesses that is bad for one's health and "encourage" counseling and rehab (without micromanaging or punishing through civil/criminal laws).

And let everyone opt in and make their own localized decisions as to what they want or don't want; so if you are for pot but against soft drinks, you can vote for that per district?
Am I the only one having trouble wrapping my mind around this
???

What ban?

 

[freedombecki]

Am I the only person who questions this push to ban sugary drinks while there is a movement to legalize pot?

....When sugary drinks pretty-obviously make you stupid as shit??​

​

Science is not your strong suit, is it, sweetie. Sugar is the only food the brain accepts.

You should take a course in nutritional science sometime.

 

[emilynghiem]

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

I understand too much sugar and other poor habits can lead to developing Diabetes II.
Is this what you mean as being more deadly than the paranoia and addiction
that are part of the risks of Marijuana use? From what I understand, the scientific research even showed the THC affected the DNA and future generations.

Sugar is a lot more dangerous than cannabis; it actually has detrimental health effects.

Whether either one deserves legislation are separate questions, but as a comparison between the two, there isn't one. In other words if you took these two substances (cannabis and sugar) and decided that one of them would be subject to some kind of government restriction in the public interest, then all the science would point you to sugar.

Natural sugars are necessary and you can't live without them.
I think you can live without pot. In fact, be better off.

As for the pain relieving effects of marijuana for medical purposes,
spiritual healing which is 100% natural and nonaddictive has been
used to CURE the CAUSES of diseases such as cancer, diabetes,
even schizophrenia and milder cases of pedophilia that are otherwise
considered incureable using conventional medicine that only PLACATES symptoms.

I would promote FREE/nonaddictive spiritual healing which has zero negative side
effects, and works WITH traditional medicine science and psychiatric therapy and
does not require rejection of these treatments, to see if that eliminates the need
for chemotherapy or other methods that introduce additional costs and risks to the patient.

if the pot-legalization supporters are so concerned about busting the monopoly on
big pharm/medicine and going NATURAL then where's the push to research spiritual healing as a free and affective, NONADDICTIVE, alternative shown to CURE disease
instead of just manage or placate the symptoms?

 

[emilynghiem]

It begins. With socialized medicine, your personal health concerns and choices become a matter of public interest. The stupidest animal in creation is the American public. It won't be long until you'll hear bitching about how old people put tremendous strain on the system.

No death panels, though. No, sir. That could never happen here.

RE: govt death panels

Terri Schiavo's case already showed that people were willing to cross the line of so-called "separation of church and state" and authorize a judge to end someone's life based on the word-of-mouth testimony of an ex-husband with a clear conflict of interest and WITHOUT any written proof or directive that the patient approved or disapproved of his guardianship decisions. The anti-prolife politics is what killed this case; totally apart from any concept of women's rights to choose and not be property of their "legal husbands" (in this case, he was already living and starting a family with another woman, a clear conflict of interest as her guardian; while her other family and parents had petitioned to have her care transferred to them.) The govt basically endorsed a decision to interpret her medical records to "determine if she was worth keeping on life support" excluding her family's beliefs in a decision that equally affected them.

One good result of this case is it raised awareness of the need to sign directives in writing and inform family members. We have yet to address the issue of judges and lawyers not having more say in custody/estate matters than the family members personally affected. The issue of judicial and legal abuse is still too rampant and unchecked.

And now with this federal health care mandate, the issues of prochoice and prolife are being challenged again, so maybe we will finally get it that govt cannot regulate these things without causing these conflicts to keep arising over and over. Duh! These are personal decisions and people need to localize the decisionmaking to protect their rights to due process, equal representation and protection, and religious freedom or free choice.

Quit giving authority over to govt and then complaining afterward it is being abused!!!
What a concept, This is already in the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws including the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment. Just need to enforce these consistently, instead of compromising for politics and then complaining after the fact when govt goes too far!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The government shouldn't be banning either one. We're all adults who can make these decisions for ourselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

We should all be for adult freedom.

Sure, are you also for adult responsibility for paying for the consequences of
the choices you make with that freedom, instead of dumping the costs on other taxpayers?

I notice both the prochoice and prolife advocates,
the advocates for and against guns or gun control,
the people for or against the death penalty, or certain
measures regarding immigration policy and amnesty
are ALL basically arguing the same principles that they
DO NOT want to keep paying for the policies of other people
or groups they DON'T agree to fund!

It's great to have freedom, so how do we make sure that
people pay for their own policies and costs associated or incurred by that?

 

[Pogo]

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

I understand too much sugar and other poor habits can lead to developing Diabetes II.
Is this what you mean as being more deadly than the paranoia and addiction
that are part of the risks of Marijuana use? From what I understand, the scientific research even showed the THC affected the DNA and future generations.

Sugar is a lot more dangerous than cannabis; it actually has detrimental health effects.

Whether either one deserves legislation are separate questions, but as a comparison between the two, there isn't one. In other words if you took these two substances (cannabis and sugar) and decided that one of them would be subject to some kind of government restriction in the public interest, then all the science would point you to sugar.

Natural sugars are necessary and you can't live without them.
I think you can live without pot. In fact, be better off.

As for the pain relieving effects of marijuana for medical purposes,
spiritual healing which is 100% natural and nonaddictive has been
used to CURE the CAUSES of diseases such as cancer, diabetes,
even schizophrenia and milder cases of pedophilia that are otherwise
considered incureable using conventional medicine that only PLACATES symptoms.

I would promote FREE/nonaddictive spiritual healing which has zero negative side
effects, and works WITH traditional medicine science and psychiatric therapy and
does not require rejection of these treatments, to see if that eliminates the need
for chemotherapy or other methods that introduce additional costs and risks to the patient.

if the pot-legalization supporters are so concerned about busting the monopoly on
big pharm/medicine and going NATURAL then where's the push to research spiritual healing as a free and affective, NONADDICTIVE, alternative shown to CURE disease
instead of just manage or placate the symptoms?

Oh no, I'm dead serious. Yes, diabetes and obesity are two of the "beneits" (<<there is the sarcasm) of the Sugar Society (and let's stop right here the obfuscation some are bringing in conflating the refined sugar polluting our food sources with the natural glucose that fuels our brains (apparently more efficiently in some than in others)- some of us have experience with diabetes or hypoglycemia and know better). The insistent infusion of sugar (refined sugar, fructose, dextrose, everythingose) in the most unlikely of foods (pasta sauce? salad dressing? really?) just to make a buck is having obvious detrimental effects on our population.

On the other hand I don't know where you've derived your misconceptions of cannabis but they've been debunked for seventy years. There's no such thing as cannabis "addiction" and there's no such thing as DNA damage. That one's a head-scratcher... waaay back in the memory banks I do remember some fearmonger types claiming LSD (completely unrelated here) would "cause chromosome damage", which led to a myth about "birth defects". This became a real concern in the ignorance of the time, never mind the fact that what they were originally referring to was breakage of blood chromosomes --unrelated to DNA-- which was something that also came with watching TV or taking aspirin. I have to wonder if this bizarre idea of "DNA damage" dates from this farce of the 1960s?

This is how ignorance is born. There's no evidence whatsoever of health risks from cannabis. It's an herb that humans have used for ten thousand years. So be skeptical of your sources. Refined sugar, on the other hand, has a long litany of offences, the aforementioned diabetes and obesity, both of which are killers (and we haven't even mentioned tooth decay) and this is a product of, or at least concurrent with, the Industrial Revolution; it wasn't a problem until we invented it. And it's starkly disingenuous to pretend that refined sugars of food industries and the natural body sugars of Nature are the same thing.

Personally I have a bag of white sugar in the house for one reason and one reason only: to make nectar to feed hummingbirds. They can handle it. And I make sure I've got some natural flower sources growing so it's not their only food source.

 

[emilynghiem]

Soda is worse than marijuana. Countless studies prove that.

Really?

I know people who recognize that their marijuana use impaired their judgment;
and one artist gave it up after it caused her to lose a major project because
she was high and wasn't focused. I have friends who did not improve from their constant paranoia and negative attitudes until after they quit pot, where there are studies cited as it causing longterm paranoia and personality changes that soda does NOT cause. I understand there is research that the chemicals can even affect the person's DNA which I don't think you can say for soda.

I've never known someone's judgment and personality to be affected that way by soda.
But I have many friends whose relationships have been severely impaired by pot smoking.

And given the poor judgment shown by Amanda Knox and her boyfriend who had been smoking pot, do you think the same mess would have happened if they had been drinking soda?

P.S. Again if anyone else out there can please enlighten and help me in my struggle to understand this weird justification that sugar is more deleterious to one's health than pot,
PLEASE help me get this.

Am I not smoking the same crack that these other people are on?
Is it the sugar in my soda I am drinking?

If I started smoking pot, where I can't work a regular job anymore if I can't pass a drug test, would that help me to empathize with people who blame the govt for their problems?

Can anyone help me out here, please? I still don't get this, please
explain how sugar is more dangerous than pot or if these people
are just joking with me or what!

 

[JWBooth]

Nobody said this shit had to make sense.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Am I the only person who questions this push to ban sugary drinks while there is a movement to legalize pot?

....When sugary drinks pretty-obviously make you stupid as shit??​

​

Science is not your strong suit, is it, sweetie. Sugar is the only food the brain accepts.

You should take a course in nutritional science sometime.

So what does THAT mean?

Everyone goes out and eats and drinks loads of sugar because it's good for the brain?

That's a nutritional fail in the biggest sense.

It's true every bite of food you eat whether it be protein, complex carb or fat is converted by the body into a form of sugar so your body can use it for fuel. Sugar is fuel in it's purest form but plain old sugar is AN EMPTY CALORIE, meaning there is no other nutritional value to sugar at all and it requires no digestion at all. If you don't work off that sugar through exercise, that sugar is stored by the body for future use in the form of fat. Plain sugar has NO vitamins, NO minerals and has been proven to increase all sorts of health problems and accelerate the aging process.

 

[emilynghiem]

There's no such thing as cannabis "addiction"

OK

1. I AGREE with you we should stick to NATURAL sugars and there is something really unnatural and bad about the PROCESSED sugars (especially the artificial sweeteners) that messes up people's diets, body chemistry, and metabolism. Agree with you there.
But the solution is to revert back to natural sugars which is a consumer and business issue,
not necessarily an issue for govt to regulate.

My friends pushing for all natural sustainable goods pointed out that in some countries, like Denmark I think, the consumers will only buy natural not bleached paper which isn't even sold in stores because they won't buy it. So we need to be that aware and localized if you are going to solve the real problem with people's health and planetary health, instead of depending and waiting on gov to regulate everything which causes the backlash of corporations fighting to deregulate, cheat and bypass whatever laws are passed anyway (such as with dolphin-safe labels that led to cheating because it wasn't even enforceable). Where social and market changes occur because people become educated and make informed choices directly, that level of decisionmaking and influence on consumer and commercial choices CANNOT be manipulated as with govt and politics; so I prefer that level of influencing change which is more direct and lasting, and gives control back to the people of our own policies instead of manipulation of govt or media by corporate or party politics. Are we closer to an understanding on this point? Thanks!

2. As for the addiction, I have friends who have experienced and admit their addictions.
For a couple of friends, who were and are still not Christian, it was very difficult to give up dependence on smoking or addiction that covered up their root problems; but after they went through the spiritual healing prayer to remove the roots of unforgiven issues in their past, then they eventually learned to manage their addictions and gradually wean off them.

So I disagree with you on this.
people in general who use alcohol or pot or other chemicals that alter their brain chemistry in order to "medicate" themselves run into similar problems of distracting themselves from dealing with the root causes in the minds that would have to change INTERNALLY, and also add a level of PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL dependence on the chemical usage.

You can get someone off unnatural sugars by switching to other drinks with natural or lower sugars. But getting someone off pot is not so easy. Again I would cite my friends' own testimonies of their personality and relationship disorders and addictions related to the pot-smoking that were not able to be resolved until after they committed to quit the pot.

Sorry but I have never found that soda impairs people's judgments and brains the same way pot does. The issues around pot addiction are hard to deny when I have friends who will testify how much it affected them adversely; and it cannot be compared with sugar addiction.

If I had to think of some disorder related to eating addictions that would be dangerous, clearly more so than pot, I would bring up phobia-related addictions that cost people their lives such as bulimia and anorexia, where the abuse/control issues that these people have, which is expressed as unstoppable "phobia" about gaining weight or getting fat, is on the same spiritual level of addictions of people abusing drugs to cover up their problems or manipulate their impulses. So that is not directly sugar related but it is the addictive disorder driving it that is the root of the danger. With the people who abuse pot or alcohol to manipulate their brain chemistry or moods, they also have underlying issues that are the real problem; and the alcohol/marijuana makes it worse by adding another level of psychological and physical dependency on top of the issues they already weren't resolving.

Sorry but I have too many friends who suffered this to deny there is addiction involved and made worse by adding the chemical manipulation on top which they also get addicted to.

 

[NoNukes]

New York City appeals ?soda ban? ruling

Am I the only person who questions this push to ban sugary drinks while there is a movement to legalize pot?

The Mayor argues it is to "encourage" people to make the conscious choice of sugar intake.
Well what about drinking and smoking, then?
???

What should we do, have a third level of laws (such as "health and safety" ordinances)
to "discourage" abusive or addictive excesses that is bad for one's health and "encourage" counseling and rehab (without micromanaging or punishing through civil/criminal laws).

And let everyone opt in and make their own localized decisions as to what they want or don't want; so if you are for pot but against soft drinks, you can vote for that per district?
Am I the only one having trouble wrapping my mind around this
???

What ban on sugary drinks?

 

[emilynghiem]

Nobody said this shit had to make sense.

By the Code of Ethics for Govt Service ethics-commission.net
govt employees are supposed to "seek to employ more
efficient means of accomplishing tasks"

passing poorly thought out or written laws that result in added conflict or complications, and cost resources to fix after the fact, are NOT the most efficient use of our legislative system.

lawmakers should represent the public interest by mediating and resolving conflicts in advance, testing out policies to make sure they work without introducing costly complications or glitches or loopholes, before passing laws that otherwise entangle resources and distract from solving the problems they were intended to address, such as with health care.

We can do better than this! Can we really afford to waste resources
that could be invested directly into reforms and solutions that work?

 

[emilynghiem]

While the soda ban is stupid, you point is off base. The ban is on large size soda, not all soda. There is no ban on soda, they are just banning the sale of big sodas. That doesn't mean you can't buy as many little sodas as you want or go back for as many refills as you want.

Thanks for clarifying!
I still think this is silly.

Maybe the point is to force people to get exercise by
getting up to refill a smaller cup???

If we have to pass laws/ordinances for that,
this country is in "worse shape" than I thought!

In more ways than one! Thanks!