• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

Because of this new thing called the 21st amendment. You may have heard of it, it ended prohibition.

So why ban certain food products? If Prohibition didn't work for alcohol what in the hell makes you think this will work also?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html



So now I'm not allowed to buy a big coke at the movies if I want one? What's next, my quarter pounded with cheese will be reduced to a sixteenth pounder?

Here's your nanny state liberals love so much. "Gimme money, gimme healthcare, gimme all day to sit on my butt, and if I get fat eating value meals, it's the government's fault."

Sad. Pathetic. Is this really what we want government doing?

I wonder if that anti-American douchebag knows that a lot of natural fruit juices contain more calories and just as much sugar as sodas?
 
I am sure it has already been said but this is the dumbest idea ever! NY should get rid of their nanny state mayor as he came after the smokers and now the soda addicts: you are next! If you live in NY? Watch ya back for this joker.
 
The main problem with this rule is that it's not equally applied. They aren't banning the sale of soda 16+oz throughout the city they are picking and choosing who wins and loses. That's a problem.
I have a problem with King er uh Mayor Bloomberg and his personally appointed "court of advisers" er uh Board of health dictating er uh mandating rules to the people. No representation of the people at all. I don't suppose supporters of the ban have a problem with that as long as they get their way.
 
The main problem with this rule is that it's not equally applied. They aren't banning the sale of soda 16+oz throughout the city they are picking and choosing who wins and loses. That's a problem.
I have a problem with King er uh Mayor Bloomberg and his personally appointed "court of advisers" er uh Board of health dictating er uh mandating rules to the people. No representation of the people at all. I don't suppose supporters of the ban have a problem with that as long as they get their way.

This. The supporters will not care til it is personal to them and if they allow this to happen? Trust me there will come a time when it will become an issue in their own personal lives.
 
This. The supporters will not care til it is personal to them and if they allow this to happen? Trust me there will come a time when it will become an issue in their own personal lives.

First they came for the pot smokers, and I did nothing.

Then they came for the tobacco smokers, and I did nothing.

Then they came for the trans-fat eaters, and I did nothing.

Then they came for the soda drinkers, and I did nothing.
 
A business doesn't have the right to sell products of their choosing? A person doesn't have the right to buy products of their choosing?

What if the town mandated everyone wear pink. Then the people would not have the right to choose what they wore. In this case by removing an object from the shelves, people are losing the right to buy that item. When did a big gulp become a controlled substance?

No, and no.

Try selling or buying an ICBM and when you get thrown in jail, make sure you whine about how your rights are being violated
 
If it's that simple to get around the ban, what's the point of the ban in the first place? Why is your state government wasting time and effort trying to pass laws that are entirely impotent?

Don't they have anything better to do?


While it is simple to get around the ban, it's not as if people are clamoring for super-sized drinks. The reason why so many people buy them is because their packaged as a meal. People save money on their meal which comes with these large drinks, so they buy the mean, and drink what they paid for.

Common sense suggests that if these super-sized drinks are no longer available, and the discounted meals comes with only a 16-oz drink, few people will buy an additional 16oz drink at the full price.
 
Last edited:
No, and no.

Try selling or buying an ICBM and when you get thrown in jail, make sure you whine about how your rights are being violated

:roll:

Except the argument was not in referrence to that, but consumer grade products, etc.
 
Doesn't prevent NY City from banning it.

Because of this new thing called the 21st amendment. You may have heard of it, it ended prohibition.

I want my sugar and my guns. Why not ban alcohol which causes liver disease. What happened to freedom in this country? :peace

well, it should, seeing how it's the Constitution of the United States.

Actually, no, it shouldn't.

What the Twenty-First Amendment primarily does is to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment. This doesn't mean that the federal government cannot ban alcohol, just that the one ban that was put into place by the Eighteenth Amendment is no longer in effect. It also certainly does nothing to prevent states or lower governments from banning or restricting alcohol; and in fact, it strengthens their power to do so.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
 
Actually, no, it shouldn't.

What the Twenty-First Amendment primarily does is to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment. This doesn't mean that the federal government cannot ban alcohol, just that the one ban that was put into place by the Eighteenth Amendment is no longer in effect. It also certainly does nothing to prevent states or lower governments from banning or restricting alcohol; and in fact, it strengthens their power to do so.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Which sucks because I can't buy alcohol on Sunday where I live, and that is just as stupid as this proposed ban.
 
ICBM's are not "consumer grade" merely because the state has the right to regulate the marketplace.

Not being able to have an ICBM is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Imagine how cool it would be at neighborhood BBQs. Look what I have in my back yard!
 
Not being able to have an ICBM is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Imagine how cool it would be at neighborhood BBQs. Look what I have in my back yard!


Oh come on....:roll: Let me see the first politician that has ran, or is running on the pro ICBM ownership platform? Talk about a straw argument fail.....

Look, the real question here is who in the hell is Bloomberg to decide for people what their purchasing choices of legally sold items are? Here is what the crux of the argument should be...

Bloomberg said:
We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup...

NYC Mayor Bloomberg On Soda Ban: ‘We’re Simply Forcing You To Understand’ What’s Better For You | Mediaite

Now Ditto, maybe you prefer to live in a place where dumb asses like Michael Bloomberg "force" you to do things, I don't. And having known you for quite a while now, at least virtually online, I don't really think you do either.

j-mac
 
Oh come on....:roll: Let me see the first politician that has ran, or is running on the pro ICBM ownership platform? Talk about a straw argument fail.....

Look, the real question here is who in the hell is Bloomberg to decide for people what their purchasing choices of legally sold items are? Here is what the crux of the argument should be...



Now Ditto, maybe you prefer to live in a place where dumb asses like Michael Bloomberg "force" you to do things, I don't. And having known you for quite a while now, at least virtually online, I don't really think you do either.

j-mac

If you read the rest of my posts, then you know I don't like the idea of government trying to force us to do things. The banning of large sodas is a bad idea.

I just had to take a little stab at the idea that the Second Amendment only refers to guns. It was a pretty good joke, too, don't you think?
 
Not being able to have an ICBM is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Imagine how cool it would be at neighborhood BBQs. Look what I have in my back yard!

Is that an ICBM? or are you just happy to see me? :mrgreen:
 
If you read the rest of my posts, then you know I don't like the idea of government trying to force us to do things. The banning of large sodas is a bad idea.

I just had to take a little stab at the idea that the Second Amendment only refers to guns. It was a pretty good joke, too, don't you think?


Well, yeah little rascal...I knew that, that is why I ended the post to you with what I did, I know that deep down you are more a moderate live and let live kind of person...

peace.

j-mac
 
First they came for the pot smokers, and I did nothing.

Then they came for the tobacco smokers, and I did nothing.

Then they came for the trans-fat eaters, and I did nothing.

Then they came for the soda drinkers, and I did nothing.

Because of this new thing called the 21st amendment. You may have heard of it, it ended prohibition.

Well they need to end the prohibition of weed. As a nurse it is need more than alcohol.
 
Back
Top Bottom