- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,788
- Reaction score
- 53,557
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I draw the line at purple drink.
:lol:
Racist.
(ten characters)
I draw the line at purple drink.
:lol:
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean, at face value it makes sense, but it's the precedent that bothers me. Ok, so soda is unhealthy. So are frozen dinners or a diet consisting of too much pasta. What about diet soda? That doesn't have all that sugar in it. Sugary cereals? Vitamin water? Fair bit of sugar in that. Tea? Tea has almost no nutritional value! How about a bag of sugar for baking? That's just empty calories!
How far do you want this to go?
I agree that it gets harder to draw lines if we go beyond this, but the ban on sugared soda should be easy to administer and will allow the city to see if it has any effects on overall health.
If they purchased those items with food stamps, then yes, they are. Food stamps are good for food items only. Unprepared food, at that. You can't buy boiled crawfish with food stamps, but you can buy live crawfish and boil them yourself. I think buying high end food items should be illegal, too.
You must have missed the quotation marks. It's not like there are 42 states warning people to not drink tap water because they will die.
We all die sometime. The question is, does the regular drinking of contaminated tap water make it more likely you will have health issues?
It's their decision unless it's soda? Soda isn't only thing that contributes to obesity.
independent_thinker2002 said:Should we limit them to only being able to purchase mustard as a condiment since ketchup is full of sugar and mayonaise is full of fat? Where does it end?
independent_thinker2002 said:A person who dies of heart failure at 50 is cheaper in the long run than a person who dies at 80 of cancer.
Trace amounts of chemicals for which the gov has not yet developed standards does not prove that the water in question is unsafe.
Again, I would wager that >99.5% of Americans have access to tap water that meets or exceeds all water safety regulations.
I would wager than >99.5% of people in this country have access to "safe" tap water in their homes.
You would win that bet... since you said 'or'...
But your original wager was
Those two statements are not incongruous. If something "meets or exceeds" a safety standard, then it is safe.
Either way, the point is that ~100% of people in the US have access to safe drinking water, which is what I said.
Not true at all.
If the standard is lax or insufficient, then 'meeting' that standard does not make something 'safe'. There is, I guess, an illusion of safety when we hear about standards, FDA, OSHA, etc.
And I showed you that you were wrong.
In fact, this has been a HOT issue lately.
Ever See Flammable Tap Water?: Gasland Film Investigates Natural Gas Industry
If the government says that it meets all environmental standards, then that's the best tool we have for determining whether or not the water is "safe."
I don't care if you think the standards should be higher, because you're not an expert on this, nor are you tasked with developing said standards.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has threatened to take over enforcing part of the Clean Water Act if the Alabama Department of Environmental Management doesn't hold cities to higher standards for keeping waterways clean.
The warning from the EPA, which specifically applies to storm sewer pollution control in small cities, is one of several steps the agency has taken recently focusing on Alabama's program for protecting water quality.
The EPA has issued a series of audits critical of how local governments, under ADEM's watch, have been carrying out their obligations to control sediment and other pollutants that run into creeks and streams during rain storms. Sedimentation, caused by muddy runoff and by the rush of water flowing off paved surfaces, is considered a principal source of harm to rivers such as the Cahaba. It makes the river inhospitable to aquatic life, makes it harder to treat for drinking water and increases the potential for flooding as the river channel fills in.
No, you absolutely did not. You misinterpreted an article and then ignored the UN link I provided which showed that 100% of people in the US have access to safe drinking water.
For the last time, anecdotal evidence of individual people experiencing water safety issues =/= proof that a non-trivial portion of the country does not have access to safe drinking water.
EPA to Hold Listening Sessions on Potential Revisions to Water Quality Standards Regulation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold two public listening sessions on potential changes to the water quality standards regulation before proposing a national rule. The current regulation, which has been in place since 1983, governs how states and authorized tribes adopt standards needed under the Clean Water Act to protect the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Potential revisions include strengthening protection for water bodies with water quality that already exceeds or meet the interim goals of the Clean Water Act; ensuring that standards reflect a continued commitment to these goals wherever attainable; improving transparency of regulatory decisions; and strengthening federal oversight.
Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?
Unless you set up a store that only sells generic items to stamp collectors, that will never work, because the checkout line at Wal-Mart isn't going to segregate generic/name brand items that pruchased with food stamps.
If you're going to do that, you might as well set up monthly rations for welfare recipients.
Meh, I don't think it's really necessary. As I understand it, the food stamp program gives people X dollars to spend on food items. If they want to spend a little more of their allowance on the name-brand product, I think that's fine...it's their decision and really doesn't harm the state at all. I'm more concerned about people buying things on the government's dime they shouldn't be buying at all...like soda.
22 years ago when I was a check out clerk the computer system did this by UPC. You couldn't pay for alcohol or pet food with food stamps back then even. They could do this easily now by UPC code.
But, the UPC code only designated, "grocery", from, "non-grocery". Right?
A food item is a food item. That would mean that the store would have to totally change it's system. Who's going to pay for that?
You must really freak out when someone buys flour, crisco, chicken and pork chops for frying. The obesity factor of all that beats the hell out of a few cokes.
Well, I wasn't talking about them buying that stuff with food stamps, only that they buy that stuff. Which means there's no reason they can't buy a $15 Brita Water Filter Pitcher and have good water to drink for free as opposed to wasting money on soda
No. It doesn't.
Next?
So, eating fried porkchops, with gravy made from the drippings, over rice for supper every night, isn't as bad as a few cokes?
No, the Universal Price Code identifies each product individually. Even different sizes of the same product have their own unique UPC.
People don't do those things as much as they drink coke. And in any case, pork chops, gravy, and rice have at least SOME nutritional value. Coke does not.
What exactly are you arguing? That people should be able to spend their food stamps on whatever the hell they want? Dream on, Karl Marx.