Missippi Bans Soft Drinks Smaller Than 24 Ounces]
This isn’t just about the comfort of individual consumers, it’s about the welfare and overall happiness of entire communities. The fact that a resident of this state could consume less than the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar in one beverage is simply unacceptable, and it demands immediate action.I love The Onion.
And the soda manufacturers are dancing on the tables; cardiologists are preparing to buy that yacht they picked out in the wish book while scooter salesmen have a booth set up in front of the Walmart! Yeah Mississippi, fattest State in the Union. Nothin’ like a 64 oz. slurpy in one hand and an AK in th other! Oh, and did I mention that they’re number 50 in Edu? West Virginia thanks god for em.
Cap’t Jack
Well good for Mississippi. I don’t like government micromanagement anyway. (Of course, the right to be left alone which I cherish carries with it the twin obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of any decisions one makes, good or bad.)
Well good for Mississippi. I don’t like government micromanagement anyway. (Of course, the right to be left alone which I cherish carries with it the twin obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of any decisions one makes, good or bad.)That's the point EOC and although I see yours, we could extend the argument to include seat belts and motorcycle helmets. And while we're at it, now that statistics show more adults are texting while driving than teens why pass laws against my desire to communicate behind the wheel? How far do we extend personal freedoms when they impact other citizens? E.g. Sugary drinks increase obesity causing all manner of cardiac problems leading to an increase in health care. You'll make the responsible decision by taking good care of yourself but will your neighbors? Mississippi has the highest number of obese people in America and legislators have now passed a silly law to pump even more sugar into the maws of the overweight. Is this law protecting the personal freedom of their citizens or just a political stunt to garner votes in the next election? Either way the citizens of Mississippi won't benefit from this line in the sand. In the long run more will die by their own hand, clasped firmly around a 64 oz. Pepsi. Ironically it was invented in the South. Cap't Jack
Got to love The Onion! 
Well good for Mississippi. I don't like government micromanagement anyway. (Of course, the right to be left alone which I cherish carries with it the twin obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of any decisions one makes, good or bad.)I really dont understand opposition to the law at all. It doesnt even come close to infringing on anyone's rights. You can still drink a tub of Coke if you like, the law just prevents stores from making it too easy. The only restriction is that you have to purchase two cups of your favorite poison to get a mega drink instead of having it all in one large pail. My only problem with the law is that there were too many exceptions. Places like 7-Eleven and supermarkets could still sell large containers of sugary drinks and for some odd reason fruit juices were exempt even though they are nearly as bad. We lready restrict the consumption of other things that are harmful like heroin and cocaine. I dont really see why this is micromanagment and that isn't Gotta love the Onion though.
That’s the point EOC and although I see yours, we could extend the argument to include seat belts and motorcycle helmets.There's a huge difference here. With highway laws, including requirements for seatbelts, helmets, and bans or restrictions on texting or cellphone use, one is dealing with a publicly funded and state owned venue where the safety of OTHERS is at stake. Since there is no specific RIGHT to use the public highways, and the safety of others is at stake, the government has the right there to make the rules. In a personal matter such as soft drink bans, it's just the nanny state sticking it's nose into a personal matter where it has no business intruding. It's als oone I could bypass by buying extra sodas.
We lready restrict the consumption of other things that are harmful like heroin and cocaine.And the war on drugs is a failure so spectacular and expensive that even the National Review...which is no friend of the left....conceded that it was a waste of time and money. A point which the left itself has been making for years
:lol: “The Onion”.
Slightly off topic, but soda has got to be one of the most unhealthy snack products in the world. For some obese people, we’re talking thousands upon thousands of calories per day from soda - and that’s not their only source of daily calories!
There’s a huge difference here. With highway laws, including requirements for seatbelts, helmets, and bans or restrictions on texting or cellphone use, one is dealing with a publicly funded and state owned venue where the safety of OTHERS is at stake. Since there is no specific RIGHT to use the public highways, and the safety of others is at stake, the government has the right there to make the rules. In a personal matter such as soft drink bans, it’s just the nanny state sticking it’s nose into a personal matter where it has no business intruding. It’s als oone I could bypass by buying extra sodas.I used these as examples of the bans that the government had used previously as a method of prevention of harm to the general public and to prevent personal injury. When they were first passed motorcycle riders protested that it was an unwanted intervention in their private lives as did car owners, and you and I remember when cars had no seatbelts. the argument was: who are they to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt in my own car? And BTW, we're not talking about banning soft drinks; my point was to show the ridiculous backlash by the Mississippi legislature against Bloomberg's ban of big gulps and to point out the irony of literarily forcing their already morbidly obese citizens to drink even more sugar as a protest of nanny state state legislation. IMO the best way to slow the consumption of anything is to raise the price of the item, e.g. cigarettes, which as you recall used to be a personal matter. But you're right about about bypassing the laws. That's why we lost the drug war. Cap't Jack
“The Onion". Slightly off topic, but soda has got to be one of the most unhealthy snack products in the world. For some obese people, we’re talking thousands upon thousands of calories per day from soda - and that’s not their only source of daily calories!Check out the amount of sugar in the double gulp 64 ounzer! http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm Cap't Jack
.The war on drugs has failed because people are willing to kill and risk their freedom to get something they want badly enough and when demand is that high there will be a lot of money to make. Do you really think there is big business in smuggling 64 oz big gulps across the border? I hate to have to repeat myself but the law does not prevent anyone from drinking 32oz of soda if they so desire. It just prevents retailers from making the process exceptionally easy. People can still get refills or purchase two 16 oz cups. All the law does is put a small speed bump in the road. If you really want 32oz of coke you'll make the extra effort to buy two cups or go back for your refill. If you don't make the effort then maybe you really didn't want it. You certainly didn't need it. And if a few percent of people decide its not worth the effort there is a good chance that this restriction will lead to some measurable improvement in the health of the population. This is not an issue of freedom at all. You still have the freedom to do what you want. The issue here is whether we should allow retailers and manufacturers to entice people into doing something that is inherently damaging to the health of millions of Americans.We lready restrict the consumption of other things that are harmful like heroin and cocaine.And the war on drugs is a failure so spectacular and expensive that even the National Review...which is no friend of the left....conceded that it was a waste of time and money. A point which the left itself has been making for years
Do you really think there is big business in smuggling 64 oz big gulps across the border?There's big business in ANYTHING people are willing to pay big money for. In the case of sodas. there wouldn't be because it's too easy to make all of it yourself.
This is not an issue of freedom at all. You still have the freedom to do what you want. The issue here is whether we should allow retailers and manufacturers to entice people into doing something that is inherently damaging to the health of millions of Americans.Actually, it most definitely IS a matter of personal freedom and the responsibility which goes with it. It's not the place of the nanny state to dictate otherwise unless I present a threat to others. My own personal wellbeing, however compelling, is NOT a sufficient justification or warrant, and never will be.
Thats exactly my point. No one is prohibiting you from drinking 32 oz of soda if you want they are just making it slightly more difficult to mindlessly order that amount so your analogy to the war on drugs does not apply here. This will not fail because people are spending big money to circumvent the law or because people are willing to kill for their big gulp. The analogy that is most applicable here is the war on tobacco. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to smoke in public. You can still smoke but there are fewer and fewer places it is allowed. As a result smoking rates for adults have decreased in places where these laws have been enacted. The soda restriction will not stop all people from drinking soda but it will most certainly succeed in decreasing the amount of soda consumed by each person. You can argue about how well it will succeed but its hard to make an argument that it won't have any level of success at all.Do you really think there is big business in smuggling 64 oz big gulps across the border?There's big business in ANYTHING people are willing to pay big money for. In the case of sodas. there wouldn't be because it's too easy to make all of it yourself.
Look at it this way. If retailers decided not to carry 32oz cups anymore and you were forced by the manufacturers to be satisfied with a 16 oz drink or go back for refills would you call that an infringement of your personal freedom? Of course not. The retailers are free to do whatever they please. They don't offer gallon pails of soda in most places currently and no one is screaming about that. You don't have a right to be provided with whatever size container you desire. If it is infringing on anyone's rights it would be the rights of the retailer. Even so we have many precedents where the government uses its power to deny retailers the right to sell products that are considered unhealthy. This is in no way an infringement of the rights of the individual consumer.This is not an issue of freedom at all. You still have the freedom to do what you want. The issue here is whether we should allow retailers and manufacturers to entice people into doing something that is inherently damaging to the health of millions of Americans.Actually, it most definitely IS a matter of personal freedom and the responsibility which goes with it. It's not the place of the nanny state to dictate otherwise unless I present a threat to others. My own personal wellbeing, however compelling, is NOT a sufficient justification or warrant, and never will be.
Your well-being is indeed of concern to the larger community. If you sicken and need medical care you are using valuable resources that could go to someone who has not deliberately ruined his own health. When you are being treated, someone else may have to wait or receive no or inadequate health care. Medical care is a finite resource. Your health care is also not completely paid for by you but by the larger community. Your health does impact all of us, whether you like to admit it or not. You'd like to think of yourself as a completely independent entity. You are not--certainly not if you use shared medical resources. No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.Do you really think there is big business in smuggling 64 oz big gulps across the border?There's big business in ANYTHING people are willing to pay big money for. In the case of sodas. there wouldn't be because it's too easy to make all of it yourself.This is not an issue of freedom at all. You still have the freedom to do what you want. The issue here is whether we should allow retailers and manufacturers to entice people into doing something that is inherently damaging to the health of millions of Americans.Actually, it most definitely IS a matter of personal freedom and the responsibility which goes with it. It's not the place of the nanny state to dictate otherwise unless I present a threat to others. My own personal wellbeing, however compelling, is NOT a sufficient justification or warrant, and never will be.
Your well-being is indeed of concern to the larger community. If you sicken and need medical care you are using valuable resources that could go to someone who has not deliberately ruined his own health. When you are being treated, someone else may have to wait or receive no or inadequate health care. Medical care is a finite resource. Your health care is also not completely paid for by you but by the larger community. Your health does impact all of us, whether you like to admit it or not. You'd like to think of yourself as a completely independent entity. You are not--certainly not if you use shared medical resources. No man is an island, Entire of itself....Sorry, I just had to pipe in. This type of justification for intrusion is completely infuriating and often promoted in today's society. Whether or not you seek medical attention and whether or not you receive it is entirely between you and the other party willing to administer it. If you lead an obese unhealthy lifestyle, then it should be reflected in the type of health coverage you can afford. Hiding costs with single payer options, multiple levels of government lobbied regulation etc is the real cause of poor lifestyle choices. By your logic, morning callisthenics should be mandatory, as that would greatly increase the overall health of the population over soda bans. As well wine should be banned, and sex taxed as abstainers have fewer medical issues. You cannot force someone to adopt your health standards simply to increase *your own* perceived access to medical resources against both their and their medical practitioner's will. That's just immoral. -Rob
Your well-being is indeed of concern to the larger community. If you sicken and need medical care you are using valuable resources that could go to someone who has not deliberately ruined his own health. When you are being treated, someone else may have to wait or receive no or inadequate health care. Medical care is a finite resource. Your health care is also not completely paid for by you but by the larger community. Your health does impact all of us, whether you like to admit it or not. You'd like to think of yourself as a completely independent entity. You are not--certainly not if you use shared medical resources. No man is an island, Entire of itself....Sorry, I just had to pipe in. This type of justification for intrusion is completely infuriating and often promoted in today's society. Whether or not you seek medical attention and whether or not you receive it is entirely between you and the other party willing to administer it. Only if you are paying 100% for it. .Do you think you are? If you lead an obese unhealthy lifestyle, then it should be reflected in the type of health coverage you can afford. Hiding costs with single payer options, multiple levels of government lobbied regulation etc is the real cause of poor lifestyle choices. No it isn't. Poor lifestyle choices are caused 100% by the people making those choices. Unfortunately other people are paying for a big chunk of the expense related to those choices. By your logic, morning callisthenics should be mandatory, as that would greatly increase the overall health of the population over soda bans. As well wine should be banned, and sex taxed as abstainers have fewer medical issues. That's a point. Maybe people who drink Big Gulps and those who refuse to exercise should pay higher insurance premiums. Drinking wine moderately, however, has been shown to improve health, so maybe moderate wine drinkers should get a discount. Smokers already pay more, though not nearly enough to cover their increased health care costs. The pont is that your health impacts the broader community. You can't get away from that. If you are bent on slowly killing yourself you shouldn't expect your neighbors to pay for the consequences. You cannot force someone to adopt your health standards simply to increase *your own* perceived access to medical resources against both their and their medical practitioner's will. That's just immoral. -Rob No, it's community health and there is nothing immoral about it. Your bad health habits impact the whole community--that's what's immoral. If you don't like community-based health care, find a doctor who will treat you independently and pay the full cost of care 100% out of your own pocket, including the use of a hospital, nursing, drugs and emergency and ambulance service. Then you can go ahead and kill yourself and nobody will object. Otherwise you are asking other people to pay for the consquences of your indulgences.
Whether or not you seek medical attention and whether or not you receive it is entirely between you and the other party willing to administer it. Only if you are paying 100% for it. .Do you think you are?If you are not, therein lies the source of the problem.
If you lead an obese unhealthy lifestyle, then it should be reflected in the type of health coverage you can afford. Hiding costs with single payer options, multiple levels of government lobbied regulation etc is the real cause of poor lifestyle choices. No it isn't. Poor lifestyle choices are caused 100% by the people making those choices. Unfortunately other people are paying for a big chunk of the expense related to those choices.Again fix that problem, by redirecting responsibility back to its origin.
That's a point. Maybe people who drink Big Gulps and those who refuse to exercise should pay higher insurance premiums. Drinking wine moderately, however, has been shown to improve health, so maybe moderate wine drinkers should get a discount. Smokers already pay more, though not nearly enough to cover their increased health care costs.Again, these are all voluntary solutions. (Though health insurance providers are far from market driven).
The pont is that your health impacts the broader community. You can't get away from that. If you are bent on slowly killing yourself you shouldn't expect your neighbors to pay for the consequences.No disagreement here. Conversely, you should not expect your choices to be criminalized because others make poor choices with their own lives.
You cannot force someone to adopt your health standards simply to increase *your own* perceived access to medical resources against both their and their medical practitioner's will. That's just immoral. No, it's community health and there is nothing immoral about it. Your bad health habits impact the whole community--that's what's immoral. If you don't like community-based health care, find a doctor who will treat you independently and pay the full cost of care 100% out of your own pocket, including the use of a hospital, nursing, drugs and emergency and ambulance service. Then you can go ahead and kill yourself and nobody will object. Otherwise you are asking other people to pay for the consquences of your indulgences.Youre not talking about community health, youre talking about losing ownership of your own body. If you did pay 100% of your health insurance premiums, there would probably be no discussion. However, it seems you are proposing that the problems caused by centralized state planning of personal health services, should be centralized state planning of personal health choices. Does that sound about right to you?
Sorry, I just had to pipe in. This type of justification for intrusion is completely infuriating and often promoted in today's society. -RobAgreed. this is a slippery slope. We could use the same logic to outlaw sky diving, mountain climbing, bike riding, or for that matter, getting out of bed. To use this logic only when the behavior is one that we find unacceptable is dishonest since we don't use it to outlaw behavior which is just as risky but more socially accepted.
Whether or not you seek medical attention and whether or not you receive it is entirely between you and the other party willing to administer it. If you lead an obese unhealthy lifestyle, then it should be reflected in the type of health coverage you can afford. Hiding costs with single payer options, multiple levels of government lobbied regulation etc is the real cause of poor lifestyle choices. -RobI don't understand your logic here. Single payer options do not hide costs anymore than the current system. It does not matter who is the insurer is ( government or private). What matters is where you put the incentives. Any system regardless of how it is financed can be designed to have incentives to promote better health habits. If this is simply an attack on universal health care because it does not fit your political views I would suggest you do some research beyond the silliness seen on fox news ( I would be happy to provide you with links if you need them). Most countries with single payer systems are doing far better than us on most health measures and at half the cost.
Your well-being is indeed of concern to the larger community.Actually, it's none of your damned business.
If you sicken and need medical care you are using valuable resources that could go to someone who has not deliberately ruined his own health.Since I am responsible for providing for my own health care, this is likewise none of your damned business.
Thats exactly my point. No one is prohibiting you from drinking 32 oz of soda if you want they are just making it slightly more difficult to mindlessly order that amount so your analogy to the war on drugs does not apply here.Which aside from being very MUCH an intrusion on my personal freedom, it's also symbolism over substance. The very sort of waste of time and resources which actually breeds contempt for the law and not respect. Regarding my analogy about the War On Drugs, it's entirely apt and for reasons those here inclined towards statism will never understand: The market decided. The war on drugs failed precisely because there was and still is an overwhelming demand for the product and people were and still are willing to pay through the nose to get it. The market decided, not the micromanager in the legislature. Whether you like it or not, it will continue to decide. No amount of social manipulation will ever change that.
Regarding my analogy about the War On Drugs, it's entirely apt and for reasons those here inclined towards statism will never understand: The market decided. The war on drugs failed precisely because there was and still is an overwhelming demand for the product and people were and still are willing to pay through the nose to get it. The market decided, not the micromanager in the legislature. Whether you like it or not, it will continue to decide. No amount of social manipulation will ever change that.I agree that the market is what makes the war on drugs a failure. We were never arguing about that. What you don't seem to be getting is that the same model does not apply here because no one really cares about their 32oz soda as much as they say and as a result market forces will make this restriction very successful. Demand will drop and consumption will decrease because the cost in time or inconvenience will have increased and for some non-zero percentage of the population the cost of having their 32oz of coke will just not be worth it. I get it. You hate government but your devotion to a libertarian philosophy blinds you to alternative approaches to problems.