• 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

Cephus said:
Yet one more reason to stay out of that craphole called the Big Apple.
Click to expand...

They have to change the name to Apple, because nothing big is allowed anymore. :lol:
 
Bleumange said:
Excessive soft drink consumption in a country with one of the highest obesity statistics in the universe can objectively be seen as a bad thing.
Would you react the same way to an indoor smoking ban?
Click to expand...

Smoking causes harm to people that aren't smoking, big difference.
 
muciti said:
How can you support one type of suppression of a product but not another?
Click to expand...

Should we start producing mustard gas again?
 
Bleumange said:
Excessive soft drink consumption in a country with one of the highest obesity statistics in the universe can objectively be seen as a bad thing.
Would you react the same way to an indoor smoking ban?
Click to expand...
Yes, most would also laugh at such a ban on indoor smoking:

"You can smoke cigarettes that are four inches in length or less - any cigarette longer than that promotes cancer and is strictly prohibited. We're not going to stop you from smoking a second or third cigarette, but those, too, have to be four inches in length or less. You may purchase a pack of individually rolled cigarettes, but bulk "roll your own" tobacco is now prohibited when sold in any quantity above what would fill a four inch cigarette..."
 
in the food stamp thread i was absolutely opposed to allowing food stamp recipients to use taxpayer funds to purchase such junk foods

but i find it a true nanny state which would prevent individuals from buying junk food with their own money

and i notice bloomberg did not seek to have high fat/high cholesterol steaks off the menu
cheesy, caloric pizzas are still to be sold
as are mixed drinks, wine and beer

why is he so selective regarding the prohibition of foods that are not good for you to consume
 
Excon said:
This is so stupid.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores. ​
Click to expand...
Haha didn't catch that the first time:
  • Sugary soda: BAD
  • Unsweetened 51% Dairy-based Lattes: BAD
  • Sugary, 90% Dairy-based Milkshakes: NO PROBLEMO!
 
Bleumange said:
Excessive soft drink consumption in a country with one of the highest obesity statistics in the universe can objectively be seen as a bad thing.
Would you react the same way to an indoor smoking ban?
Click to expand...


Hell yes. Indoor smoking bans are bull**** as well.
 
justabubba said:
why is he so selective regarding the prohibition of foods that are not good for you to consume
Click to expand...
Because there's really no way to define "junk food" - so they just come up with a random list of items that look/sound dangerous. It's the same sort of thinking that brought us the "assault weapons ban."
 
Phoenix said:
Hell yes. Indoor smoking bans are bull**** as well.
Click to expand...

Not really, second hand smoke causes harm to others. You have a right to **** up your own body, but please do not **** up mine.
 
Taylor said:
Haha didn't catch that the first time:
  • Sugary soda: BAD
  • Unsweetened 51% Dairy-based Lattes: BAD
  • Sugary, 90% Dairy-based Milkshakes: NO PROBLEMO!
Click to expand...


But it's not bad if sold in grocery or convenience stores.
 
So I can buy a Big Gulp tub of soda in a 7-11 but not in a movie theater?
I can get a massive (Venti) dose of caffeine (which lowers blood sugar and makes you hungry) as long as I don't put sugar in it?
I can purchase 2 16 oz soda at the movies but not one 16 oz.?

Pure stupidity.
 
Looks like I'll have to buy multiple smaller sized sodas instead of one bigger one.
 
Your Star said:
Not really, second hand smoke causes harm to others. You have a right to **** up your own body, but please do not **** up mine.
Click to expand...

Don't go in the restaurant where I am smoking, your body will be fine.
 
Phoenix said:
Don't go in the restaurant where I am smoking, your body will be fine.
Click to expand...

no, your right to do something stops when it intrudes on my rights
your lighting up in a public space while others object to being subjected to second hand smoke steps on the others' rights not to be intruded upon
 
Phoenix said:
Don't go in the restaurant where I am smoking, your body will be fine.
Click to expand...
No one would argue the government banning whatever it wants to in it's own buildings, when they start banning things for any reason on private property we have a major problem. People make the faulty assumption that just because a business is open to the public that the public somehow has an interest in what legal behaviors it should and shouldn't be allowed to engage in. It's garbage and more nanny state tactics that will eventually encroach upon something the advocates enjoy. I don't think people really understand what they are setting up.
 
justabubba said:
no, your right to do something stops when it intrudes on my rights
your lighting up in a public space while others object to being subjected to second hand smoke steps on the others' rights not to be intruded upon
Click to expand...




Or you could just ****ing move. My fine cigar I enjoy in a park, does not impede on anyones right anymore than ones body odor would. Be thankful we live in a free country, though through your far left ilk, like bloomberg, seems like that freedom is constantly under attack.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Or you could just ****ing move. My fine cigar I enjoy in a park, does not impede on anyones right anymore than ones body odor would. Be thankful we live in a free country, though through your far left ilk, like bloomberg, seems like that freedom is constantly under attack.
Click to expand...

excellent comparison----- your cigar and offensive body odor. :roll:
 
Bloomberg is a huge jack ass....He thinks himself a little dictator. It is dangerous liberals like this that are the problem with this country today.


j-mac
 
justabubba said:
no, your right to do something stops when it intrudes on my rights
your lighting up in a public space while others object to being subjected to second hand smoke steps on the others' rights not to be intruded upon
Click to expand...

The only person that has a right to be in the restaurant is the owner. If he allows smoking, his choice. Don't come on his property if that offends you or is otherwise unacceptable to your personal tastes.
 
j-mac said:
Bloomberg is a huge jack ass....He thinks himself a little dictator. It is dangerous liberals like this that are the problem with this country today.

j-mac
Click to expand...

let us know when he tries to ban SSM, civil unions, or abortion rights.
 
I think it should be legal to shoot totalitarian assholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom