Nanny/Police State: NYC Ban On Large Sugared Drinks...

[Dr.Drock]

Statists are not limited to one party or the other.

I agree, but on this topic it seems only the democrats are delighted by having gov't regulated cup sizes (which would be fine if we're talking about breast implants).

I don't see where you see that because so far, just about every post from the left on this thread lately has thought Bloomberg's idea isn't a good one.

Some don't, some agree with it, look at ClosedCaption, Midcan and everyone pretending this issue is about whether or not soda is healthy.

 

[sfcalifornia]

It wasn't a suggestion, I was asking a if CC thought those were good ideas. I think they're awful ideas, if I want to eat/drink myself to death I should have that liberty.
You big gov't authoritarian types are hilarious. You think it's a joke that near harmless marijuana is illegal (which it is a joke) but then have nothing but blind faith in your holy all-knowing all-loving gov't in telling you what else to put in your body.

I couldn't tell you the last time I bought a large soda from a restaurant, but this is madness.

Don't misunderstand, I don't think they are good ideas either. I'm for government intervention where kids are concerned. Your two ideas are awful but so far, the only solution to America's obesity problem offered up from the conservative side is: I'll get fat if I want to, completely ignoring the cost to society.

Aye yi yi

I repeat again, those aren't my ideas.

Yes that is what I'm saying, I'll get fat if I want to, completely ignoring the cost to society. Just like you'll drive a car if you want to, ignoring the cost to society. You'll slow down traffic, may crash into someone and kill them, put pollution in the air, having you on the road makes us have to employ more gov't workers (troopers etc).

I mean how do you sleep at night? I advocate the passing of legislation that makes it so SFC isn't allowed to drive.

The tired car analogy again.......

Cars serve a purpose to society. Getting fat does not serve a purpose to society.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Don't misunderstand, I don't think they are good ideas either. I'm for government intervention where kids are concerned. Your two ideas are awful but so far, the only solution to America's obesity problem offered up from the conservative side is: I'll get fat if I want to, completely ignoring the cost to society.

Aye yi yi

I repeat again, those aren't my ideas.

Yes that is what I'm saying, I'll get fat if I want to, completely ignoring the cost to society. Just like you'll drive a car if you want to, ignoring the cost to society. You'll slow down traffic, may crash into someone and kill them, put pollution in the air, having you on the road makes us have to employ more gov't workers (troopers etc).

I mean how do you sleep at night? I advocate the passing of legislation that makes it so SFC isn't allowed to drive.

The tired car analogy again.......

Cars serve a purpose to society. Getting fat does not serve a purpose to society.

Fatty food does and so does getting fat. Look at all the people who have jobs thanks to americans desire for fatty foods and drinks.

Take another swing at it.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Why? Because parents are incapable of making choices for their children? We need a nanny state for that? You are certainly in the right city. Soviet LOLberal paradise up there in San Fran.

Makes you wonder what he advocates.

Rounding up all the fat children, taking them away from their parents and forcing them to do so many laps around the capital building to get in shape?

87% of food and beverage ads seens by children ages 6-11 on TV are for products high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium.

On a given day, 30-40% of children and adolescents consume fast food.

Older children and adolescents cosume more than 7.5 hours of media per day.

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why? Because parents are incapable of making choices for their children? We need a nanny state for that? You are certainly in the right city. Soviet LOLberal paradise up there in San Fran.

Makes you wonder what he advocates.

Rounding up all the fat children, taking them away from their parents and forcing them to do so many laps around the capital building to get in shape?

87% of food and beverage ads seens by children ages 6-11 on TV are for products high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium.

On a given day, 30-40% of children and adolescents consume fast food.

Older children and adolescents cosume more than 7.5 hours of media per day.

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

I agree kids watch too much tv and eat too much fast food. That's the parents fault, gov't doesn't make people good parents.

Not sure how me speaking out against gov't regulated cup sizes is evidence of me "ignoring the problem." Sounds like a blind, dumb ASSumption by you.

I support all these things, just don't support gov't forcing people to abide by these principles.

A new report released Monday, “Accelerat*ing Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation,” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health group of the National Academy of Sciences, outlines obesity prevention actions that they believe can accelerate societal-level prevention, including:

Integrating physical activity into people’s daily lives
Making healthy food and beverage options available everywhere
Transforming marketing and messages about nutrition and activity
Making schools a gateway to healthy weights
Galvanizing employers and health care professionals to support healthy lifestyles

I've already stated in this very thread that I find how seriously we americans take physical fitness and health to be an embarassment. But gov't can't force people to be healthy nor should they be trying to.

 

[dblack]

The unfortunate thing about these threads is that conservatives and libertarians use them to make the case that liberals are sinister control freaks pushing for a totalitarian state. That's simply not true and utterly unproductive politically.

Liberals support nanny-state policies because they want to help people, not because they harbor a malicious desire to control them. So when we oppose their plans, they assume it's because we don't want to help people - or worse, that we want them to suffer. Which is why we need to be clear, even if repetitive, on why we oppose these kinds of policies.

Most liberals have a solid, if somewhat conflicted, appreciation of individual rights. But I find that often they don't realize that these regulatory schemes are just as much of an imposition on individual consumers (if not more so) than they are on businesses or service providers. When we outlaw the sale of large sized beverages, we're telling consumers what they can and cannot buy.

When "we" tell insurance companies what kind of health care policies they can offer - we're telling customers what kind of policies they're allowed to purchase. And here's where the problem hides. If dominant companies in an industry can use their influence over regulation to control what their customers are allowed to buy - they can ensure that they come out ahead. They can ensure that the products they specialize in our favored by legislation, and the products of their competitors are outlawed. And that's what they do. This is the heart and soul of state insurance regulation and the pending ACA.

The missing piece in this argument is that while liberal supporters of the regulatory state don't have ulterior motives there are those who do (the armies of lobbyists who descend on DC). And they're always on the lookout for ways to use new regulatory powers to advance their agendas. The way to combat this isn't with a patchwork of campaign finance reform and a never-ending game of scrutinizing the activities of lobbyists. The way to combat it is to resist the urge to create these kinds of intrusive government powers in the first place.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We've had too many generations that have been indoctrinated into the LOLberal gubmint schools. Now we want govt. to step in and save us from ourselves because their gubmint provided education sucks balls. Americans are not the shiny example of liberty, freedom, innovation and genius we used to be.

Bunch of dumbed down LOLberal statist morons who think someone else can solve our every ailment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey dumbfuck, gay bathhouses closed down in San Fran in response to the AIDS crisis in the 80s.

Then opened right back up.

Point is, gyms are HUGE in most areas. 24 hour Fitness and LA Fitness are just as common as Taco Bell here in the normal world.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The unfortunate thing about these threads is that conservatives and libertarians use them to make the case that liberals are sinister control freaks pushing for a totalitarian state. That's simply not true and utterly unproductive politically.

Where did you get such a wacky idea?

Not true in WHAT alternate universe?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hey dumbfuck, gay bathhouses closed down in San Fran in response to the AIDS crisis in the 80s.

Then opened right back up.

Point is, gyms are HUGE in most areas. 24 hour Fitness and LA Fitness are just as common as Taco Bell here in the normal world.

But they aren't gov't run gyms, that's his problem with that.

 

[dblack]

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

Wanting to do something about a problem is a good thing. But the 'systems solution' is a fantasy because it assumes that government has power that it doesn't. Worse, it argues for power that government should never have.

This is a ubiquitous pattern in history, where well-meaning scientists and sociologists concoct solutions for our problems that can only be implemented by an all-powerful state. They're sound and rational for the most part. A great many of our problems could be solved if we simply gave government supreme power to dictate how we all live. Problems regarding religion, diet, drug-abuse, parental abuse, etc, etc, etc... would be relatively easy to solve by passing laws that strictly police our behavior in all these areas.

But giving government this much concentrated power, even if it's initially for a good cause, has historically been a disaster. A benevolent totalitarian regime is a good thing only as long as the benevolence holds out, and we've learned that can't be counted on.

 

[dblack]

The unfortunate thing about these threads is that conservatives and libertarians use them to make the case that liberals are sinister control freaks pushing for a totalitarian state. That's simply not true and utterly unproductive politically.

Where did you get such a wacky idea?

Not true in WHAT alternate universe?

The real world. Do you really have NO liberal friends?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Hey dumbfuck, gay bathhouses closed down in San Fran in response to the AIDS crisis in the 80s.

Then opened right back up.

Point is, gyms are HUGE in most areas. 24 hour Fitness and LA Fitness are just as common as Taco Bell here in the normal world.

Really? Which ones? Names please.

 

[Meister]

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

Wanting to do something about a problem is a good thing. But the 'systems solution' is a fantasy because it assumes that government has power that it doesn't. Worse, it argues for power that government should never have.

This is a ubiquitous pattern in history, where well-meaning scientists and sociologists concoct solutions for our problems that can only be implemented by an all-powerful state. They're sound and rational for the most part. A great many of our problems could be solved if we simply gave government supreme power to dictate how we all live. Problems regarding religion, diet, drug-abuse, parental abuse, etc, etc, etc... would be relatively easy to solve by passing laws that strictly police our behavior in all these areas.

But giving government this much concentrated power, even if it's initially for a good cause, has historically been a disaster. A benevolent totalitarian regime is a good thing only as long as the benevolence holds out, and we've learned that can't be counted on.

H. L. Mencken once remarked that “the urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

 

[sfcalifornia]

Makes you wonder what he advocates.

Rounding up all the fat children, taking them away from their parents and forcing them to do so many laps around the capital building to get in shape?

87% of food and beverage ads seens by children ages 6-11 on TV are for products high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium.

On a given day, 30-40% of children and adolescents consume fast food.

Older children and adolescents cosume more than 7.5 hours of media per day.

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

I agree kids watch too much tv and eat too much fast food. That's the parents fault, gov't doesn't make people good parents.

Not sure how me speaking out against gov't regulated cup sizes is evidence of me "ignoring the problem." Sounds like a blind, dumb ASSumption by you.

I support all these things, just don't support gov't forcing people to abide by these principles.

A new report released Monday, “Accelerat*ing Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation,” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health group of the National Academy of Sciences, outlines obesity prevention actions that they believe can accelerate societal-level prevention, including:

Integrating physical activity into people’s daily lives
Making healthy food and beverage options available everywhere
Transforming marketing and messages about nutrition and activity
Making schools a gateway to healthy weights
Galvanizing employers and health care professionals to support healthy lifestyles

I've already stated in this very thread that I find how seriously we americans take physical fitness and health to be an embarassment. But gov't can't force people to be healthy nor should they be trying to.

My interest in government involvement starts and stops with the fact that 87% of food ads targeted towards children ages 6-11 are for saturated fat, sugar and sodium. That's also why I am all for banning toys in McDonald's Crappy Meals and any other corporate marketing tool designed to get kids to consume more junk.

Other than than, the incentive to get adults to lose weight should hit them in their wallets and pocketbooks.

How's this for a solution:

For every pound overweight, you pay an incremental increase in your insurance premiums, offsetting the premium costs for those who keep their weight in check.

If your insurance premiums are subsidized by the government under the Healthcare Reform, then the additional cost added because of your weight is subtracted from the other welfare benefits you might receive from the government like Section 8 or foodstamps.

 

[BlindBoo]

The difference is that Sodas are empty calories with no nutritional value. Oh yeah, the money should be spent on excersize programs huh? You mean like the Lets Move campaign that Repubs scream is a govt over reach.

Like that?

Excessive calories all turn into fat. Yes if the Mayor wanst to do something, an advertizing campaign to encourage people to exersise would be better than ineffective rules like the Big Gulp ban.

I didnt say excessive calories...I said empty calories with no nutritional value. That is the reason Americans are fat.

Like I said Michelle Obama has the Let's Move Campagin and they even see that as a government overreach. There is no right answer to repubs except do nothing.

Regardless of nutritional value all excessive calories consumed become fat cells. I find partisan attacks on the First Lady and all her efforts to be disengenous.

 

[Dr.Drock]

87% of food and beverage ads seens by children ages 6-11 on TV are for products high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium.

On a given day, 30-40% of children and adolescents consume fast food.

Older children and adolescents cosume more than 7.5 hours of media per day.

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

I agree kids watch too much tv and eat too much fast food. That's the parents fault, gov't doesn't make people good parents.

Not sure how me speaking out against gov't regulated cup sizes is evidence of me "ignoring the problem." Sounds like a blind, dumb ASSumption by you.

I support all these things, just don't support gov't forcing people to abide by these principles.

A new report released Monday, “Accelerat*ing Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation,” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health group of the National Academy of Sciences, outlines obesity prevention actions that they believe can accelerate societal-level prevention, including:

Integrating physical activity into people’s daily lives
Making healthy food and beverage options available everywhere
Transforming marketing and messages about nutrition and activity
Making schools a gateway to healthy weights
Galvanizing employers and health care professionals to support healthy lifestyles

I've already stated in this very thread that I find how seriously we americans take physical fitness and health to be an embarassment. But gov't can't force people to be healthy nor should they be trying to.

My interest in government involvement starts and stops with the fact that 87% of food ads targeted towards children ages 6-11 are for saturated fat, sugar and sodium. That's also why I am all for banning toys in McDonald's Crappy Meals and any other corporate marketing tool designed to get kids to consume more junk.

Other than than, the incentive to get adults to lose weight should hit them in their wallets and pocketbooks.

How's this for a solution:

For every pound overweight, you pay an incremental increase in your insurance premiums, offsetting the premium costs for those who keep their weight in check.

If your insurance premiums are subsidized by the government under the Healthcare Reform, then the additional cost added because of your weight is subtracted from the other welfare benefits you might receive from the government like Section 8 or foodstamps.

Gov't already regulates all forms of media, so get gov't out of the media if you want major reform.

If you want private insurance companies rates to be based on someone or an entire family's health, that makes perfect sense.

What you're advocating for is exactly gov't controlling literally every single thing a person does throughout the day, it's like a clone of Stalin was implanted here in the U.S.

"If I eat this, will gov't tax me more?"

"My knee hurts, if I skip getting on the treadmill today will I get a fine?"

Under your plan people will be penalized for being injured or having a medical condition.

 

[dblack]

87% of food and beverage ads seens by children ages 6-11 on TV are for products high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium.

On a given day, 30-40% of children and adolescents consume fast food.

Older children and adolescents cosume more than 7.5 hours of media per day.

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

I agree kids watch too much tv and eat too much fast food. That's the parents fault, gov't doesn't make people good parents.

Not sure how me speaking out against gov't regulated cup sizes is evidence of me "ignoring the problem." Sounds like a blind, dumb ASSumption by you.

I support all these things, just don't support gov't forcing people to abide by these principles.

A new report released Monday, “Accelerat*ing Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation,” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health group of the National Academy of Sciences, outlines obesity prevention actions that they believe can accelerate societal-level prevention, including:

Integrating physical activity into people’s daily lives
Making healthy food and beverage options available everywhere
Transforming marketing and messages about nutrition and activity
Making schools a gateway to healthy weights
Galvanizing employers and health care professionals to support healthy lifestyles

I've already stated in this very thread that I find how seriously we americans take physical fitness and health to be an embarassment. But gov't can't force people to be healthy nor should they be trying to.

My interest in government involvement starts and stops with the fact that 87% of food ads targeted towards children ages 6-11 are for saturated fat, sugar and sodium. That's also why I am all for banning toys in McDonald's Crappy Meals and any other corporate marketing tool designed to get kids to consume more junk.

Other than than, the incentive to get adults to lose weight should hit them in their wallets and pocketbooks.

How's this for a solution:

For every pound overweight, you pay an incremental increase in your insurance premiums, offsetting the premium costs for those who keep their weight in check.

If your insurance premiums are subsidized by the government under the Healthcare Reform, then the additional cost added because of your weight is subtracted from the other welfare benefits you might receive from the government like Section 8 or foodstamps.

Hey sf... wondering if you'd answer my question from earlier:

Do you recognize any limits on government power to interfere in personal decisions? Where do you draw the line? Would you let them tell you who you can marry? How many kids you can have? What religion to follow? All of these issues have an impact on society and are arguably more consequential than what size sodas we drink. Should we pass similar laws protecting people from screwing up these decisions as well?

Are fatsos the only people you're after? Or would you be willing to use this kind of power on anyone else who steps out of line?

 

[The T]

A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Why don't you read this article and find out what I advocate instead of ignoring the problem and ridiculing those who want to do something about the problem that is needlessly bringing down our society.

Wanting to do something about a problem is a good thing. But the 'systems solution' is a fantasy because it assumes that government has power that it doesn't. Worse, it argues for power that government should never have.

This is a ubiquitous pattern in history, where well-meaning scientists and sociologists concoct solutions for our problems that can only be implemented by an all-powerful state. They're sound and rational for the most part. A great many of our problems could be solved if we simply gave government supreme power to dictate how we all live. Problems regarding religion, diet, drug-abuse, parental abuse, etc, etc, etc... would be relatively easy to solve by passing laws that strictly police our behavior in all these areas.

But giving government this much concentrated power, even if it's initially for a good cause, has historically been a disaster. A benevolent totalitarian regime is a good thing only as long as the benevolence holds out, and we've learned that can't be counted on.

H. L. Mencken once remarked that “the urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

True.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I agree kids watch too much tv and eat too much fast food. That's the parents fault, gov't doesn't make people good parents.

Not sure how me speaking out against gov't regulated cup sizes is evidence of me "ignoring the problem." Sounds like a blind, dumb ASSumption by you.

I support all these things, just don't support gov't forcing people to abide by these principles.

A new report released Monday, “Accelerat*ing Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation,” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health group of the National Academy of Sciences, outlines obesity prevention actions that they believe can accelerate societal-level prevention, including:

Integrating physical activity into people’s daily lives
Making healthy food and beverage options available everywhere
Transforming marketing and messages about nutrition and activity
Making schools a gateway to healthy weights
Galvanizing employers and health care professionals to support healthy lifestyles

I've already stated in this very thread that I find how seriously we americans take physical fitness and health to be an embarassment. But gov't can't force people to be healthy nor should they be trying to.

My interest in government involvement starts and stops with the fact that 87% of food ads targeted towards children ages 6-11 are for saturated fat, sugar and sodium. That's also why I am all for banning toys in McDonald's Crappy Meals and any other corporate marketing tool designed to get kids to consume more junk.

Other than than, the incentive to get adults to lose weight should hit them in their wallets and pocketbooks.

How's this for a solution:

For every pound overweight, you pay an incremental increase in your insurance premiums, offsetting the premium costs for those who keep their weight in check.

If your insurance premiums are subsidized by the government under the Healthcare Reform, then the additional cost added because of your weight is subtracted from the other welfare benefits you might receive from the government like Section 8 or foodstamps.

Gov't already regulates all forms of media, so get gov't out of the media if you want major reform.

If you want private insurance companies rates to be based on someone or an entire family's health, that makes perfect sense.

What you're advocating for is exactly gov't controlling literally every single thing a person does throughout the day, it's like a clone of Stalin was implanted here in the U.S.

"If I eat this, will gov't tax me more?"

"My knee hurts, if I skip getting on the treadmill today will I get a fine?"

Under your plan people will be penalized for being injured or having a medical condition.

Please explain how getting government out of regulating media is going to halt the corporate marketing tools designed to get children to eat more saturated fat, sugar and sodium. If government already regulates media, how is it then that 87% of ads today are targeted towards kids for that purpose? You think that percentage will decrease if government gets out?

Hurting your knee may prevent one from getting on the treadmill but it doesn't prevent one from consuming less calories.

And you're not paying attention. Under my plan, for those on subsidized healthcare, consuming more calories won't bring an additional tax, it will divert benefits from one program to another. Foodstamps and Section 8 payments are reduced to cover the increase in insurance premiums.