• 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

Yeah, it's a conspiracy by "Big Soda" :cuckoo:



Umm, smoking has gone down.



Smoking went down.... to a point. There are still LOTS of people who smoke. Many have gone to roll-your-own, or cigars or pipes which are not as heavily taxed yet. Those who were going to quit over price mostly already have. Those who remain aren't likely to quit, but simply engage in tax-avoidance behaviors like rolling your own cigs at 1/3rd the price. Tax that and they'll find another way around it.

I've noticed a lot more young people smoking in recent years than was the case about a decade ago... wonder if it has anything to do with the societal demonization of tobacco, leading it to be one of those "alluring taboo" items. :shrug:


Bottom line... it isn't government's business to make healthy decisions FOR me. If it were, they'd send me a menu every week and tell me that was what I had to eat. You want that?
 
Yeah, sin tax...like here with smoking... it's a total cash cow.



If they taxed a can of beer at the same rate they tax a pack of cigs, the rednecks would be hanging Congressmen from lampposts by the Statehouse. That's why they don't do it....
 
Since you mark yourself as Libertarian-Left, let me ask you this. How do you justify this legislation as a libertarian?

Don't trust the lean. I change it from week to week because I'm actually a neo-anti-federalist (my own designation). I support the dual federalism that was extant at the time the country was founded up until the civil war. I feel that it's extremely unfortunate that this style of government was destroyed by being usurped by people who wished to enslave their fellow man, and later by people who wished to subjugate others based on race because with regard to non-human rights issues, it equates to a much happier populace as a whole.

As I have noted repeatedly, though, I think this law is extremely stupid and I would not wish to see it enacted in Chicago where I live.

Would you be more for a "sin tax"?

I don't really care what New York does. I'd rather not see either in Chicago, but my guess is that they go the route of the tax here, since they love gouging people for money that they can waste/pocket.
 
So let's review Bloomberg the statist tyrant king douche....



NY Mayor Bloomberg Follows Soda Ban With…National Donut Day? | Mediaite



Chocolate coconut donut

550 calories....

Donuts | Dunkin' Donuts



32 oz. (double the moron's soda limit)


330 calories....


Calories in McDonald's Beverages - Coke - Large 32 oz cup - Nutrition Facts & Other Nutritional Information | LIVESTRONG.COM



So you statist asshole, you want to explain why you aren't a totalitarian hypocrite?





And so, the next time I am at Yankees stadium, I can buy a 32 oz beer (2 beer limit per transaction, for a total of 64 oz), But I am limited to one 16 oz of soda? Good thing I take the ****ing train from irvington, NY.... /facepalm



Bloomberg defends supporting Donut Day while banning sugary drinks* - NY Daily News




Worth Repeating.......
 
If they taxed a can of beer at the same rate they tax a pack of cigs, the rednecks would be hanging Congressmen from lampposts by the Statehouse. That's why they don't do it....




It's funny, NY has some of the highest taxes on tobacco, and admits they would suffer if people actually stopped smoking....


True story, there is a bill before the NJ legislature wanting to fine you and I up to a grand if we don't seatbelt our dogs and cats....


New Jersey Consolidated Cruelty Statutes

Seat-belt your dog or face $1000 fine : News : NorthwestOhio.com
 
True story, there is a bill before the NJ legislature wanting to fine you and I up to a grand if we don't seatbelt our dogs and cats....

In my opinion, that's a far dumber law than this one, and that's saying a lot. And I actually do use a doggy seat belt for my dog.

If NJ passes it, though, more power to them.
 
In my opinion, that's a far dumber law than this one, and that's saying a lot. And I actually do use a doggy seat belt for my dog.

If NJ passes it, though, more power to them.




What would it take for Tucker case to take up arms? Soda? Dog restraints? Smoking? Where does tucker case think the state has no business in the lives of individuals such as in these cases? :lol:



Seriously it's absurd, it's not the business of the governments to limit my purchase of a legal product, it wasn't when they banned transfats, nor would it be with salt, nor is it with soda (which I don't drink)... It's the ultimate statists wet dream, if you follow the history of this douchebag, you can see he is nothing more than a tyrant king.


a pox upon his house.
 
What would it take for Tucker case to take up arms? Soda? Dog restraints? Smoking? Where does tucker case think the state has no business in the lives of individuals such as in these cases? :lol:

Make any of those things federal laws and I get pissed. I get pissed when the federal government usurps the power of State and local rights for pretty much any non-human rights issue (basic civil rights).

Also, I get pissed off when **** like that passes here in Chicago and Illinois, but that's because the idiots around me keep voting for assholes.
 
Make any of those things federal laws and I get pissed. I get pissed when the federal government usurps the power of State and local rights for pretty much any non-human rights issue (basic civil rights).

Also, I get pissed off when **** like that passes here in Chicago and Illinois
, but that's because the idiots around me keep voting for assholes.

Why would it upset you if people in Chicago enacted a similar soda law? Do Chicagoans not also have a right to enact local morality-based laws via voting?
 
Those are good points, but if you consider the amount of risk that being overweight (wrt diseases like diabetes and heart disease) represents:

1) It is not possible to put a cost on it because medical science isn't clear about it
2) The price would rise enough to have much of an impact
3) It would require weighing people on a regular basis, which would raise the cost for everyone
4) Some many of us are overweight (not me) that the main result would be for most people to pay more (meaning, it wouldn't raise the price much because so many would be splitting the costs of those diseases)

The impact of obesity are well-established.

Which is It? Well Established or Not clear?

4 posts apart. sheez dude lay off the sauce.
 
Last edited:
Why would it upset you if people in Chicago enacted a similar soda law?

Because I live in Chicago.

Do Chicagoans not also have a right to enact local morality-based laws via voting?

Of course we do. That's why I would be upset. I'd hope that those around me wouldn't support such stupid legislation by voting for assholes, but they do time and time again, and I get over it.
 
Because I live in Chicago.

But you don't drink 32oz sodas, do you?

(ie, the same law in Chicago wouldn't affect you personally any more than the law in New York does)


Of course we do. That's why I would be upset. I'd hope that those around me wouldn't support such stupid legislation by voting for assholes, but they do time and time again, and I get over it.

You're not upset the people in New York support such stupidity?
 
Haven't read through the 49 pages of this thread but Stephen Colbert made the funniest assessment of this... talking about how insane it would be to substitute having two smaller drinks instead because he wouldn't know where to insert the second straw.
 
Make any of those things federal laws and I get pissed. I get pissed when the federal government usurps the power of State and local rights for pretty much any non-human rights issue (basic civil rights).

Also, I get pissed off when **** like that passes here in Chicago and Illinois, but that's because the idiots around me keep voting for assholes.

Here's the depressing thing:

No matter who you vote for some stupid crap will get passed.
 
But you don't drink 32oz sodas, do you?


Actually, I drink a ****-ton of pop every day. It would affect me more than most people. I'd adapt.


You're not upset the people in New York support such stupidity?

Of course not. Why would I be upset about the way they vote.?
 
Americans do eat too much and drink too much sugary crap, but don't know if it is the government's job to change that.

This will be as effective as Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign.
 
Americans do eat too much and drink too much sugary crap, but don't know if it is the government's job to change that.

This will be as effective as Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign.




Bloomberg is far more dangerous to the American people than soda.


And just say no was more succsessful than you think. I read an article in harpers years ago that talked about how it actually made an impact.
 
Actually, I drink a ****-ton of pop every day. It would affect me more than most people. I'd adapt.

MORE than most people? Either you're in violation of the law or you're not. Either you buy 16oz+ sodas or you don't.

Of course not. Why would I be upset about the way they vote.?

Presumably for the same reason you'd be upset with Chicagoans voting that way.

And don't pretend the reason is because it affects you personally. You already stated that you'd be upset if Chicagoans enacted a doggy seat belt law as in New Jersey - even though you already voluntarily comply.

The fact is your problem with stupid laws that don't affect you in Chicago and your indifference to stupid laws that don't affect you in New York or New Jersey is inconsistent.
 
The govt makes personal decisions all the time for us, and that's a good thing. For example, govt has decided that you do not have the freedom to rape people.

Most of us realize that this is A Good Thing...libertarians, not so much

Raping people takes away the freedom of the victim. Big, big difference. Government is there to ensure the liberty of all of us, not just the strongest.
 
Bloomberg is far more dangerous to the American people than soda.

So are Obama and Romney. Personally I'd vote for Bloomberg before I voted for either of those two. Alas, I don't have that choice...
 
MORE than most people?

YEs. If I currently drink more pops over 16 ounces, and such a law was passed, I would have ot do more to change my behavior than most. Ergo, I would be affected more.

Either you're in violation of the law or you're not.

What the hell are you talking about? You can't really be in violation of this law unless you sell pop over 16 oz.

Either you buy 16oz+ sodas or you don't.

I buy 3 one liter bottles of pop every morning (I only drink one liter at a time, so I keep the other two one-liter bottles in the fridge). That's a much higher rate than most people. I buy more pop in these serving sizes than other people, more often than other people do.

I had no idea the concept of "more" was so complex.



Presumably for the same reason you'd be upset with Chicagoans voting that way.

If I live in Chicago, I wouldn't be living in New York.

And don't pretend the reason is because it affects you personally.

You don't think that the way those around you vote has an affect you personally? Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Do you think that laws passed in China would affect you perosnally if you lived in Georgia?

You already stated that you'd be upset if Chicagoans enacted a doggy seat belt law as in New Jersey - even though you already voluntarily comply.

Yes, because I'd be pissed off that those around me voted in people who passed such laws because there are so many things I consider to be far more important for my local legislators to be working on.

fact is your problem with stupid laws that don't affect you in Chicago and your indifference to stupid laws that don't affect you in New York or New Jersey is inconsistent.

It's only inconsistent if one absolutely rejects all reason and common sense.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom