• 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!

Soda Is Target of New Assault

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.
 
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.

I don't like how this if framed as an overall health issue. I think it's less about caring about poor people's health and more about giving them an incentive to get off welfare. That's fine, but it should be presented honestly. I'm not wholely convinced that this will save money in health care overall.
 
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.

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
 
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?
 
We all die sometime. The question is, does the regular drinking of contaminated tap water make it more likely you will have health issues?

I'm more worried about dihydrogen monoxide killing me first. It's a key component of acid rain.
 
It's their decision unless it's soda? Soda isn't only thing that contributes to obesity.

I meant it's their decision whether they want to spend their food stamp allowance on generics, or spend a little more of it on name-brands. Neither of those is particularly more likely to cause obesity than the other.

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?

Meh, depends. I have no problem prohibiting people from buying things with their food stamps that clearly have no nutritional value, like soda. Since after all, the purpose of the food stamp program is to alleviate poverty by providing people with enough to eat. Soda doesn't really fit that goal, since it only provides "empty calories."

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.

I'm not so sure that's true, since in most cases people who eat unhealthily don't just suddenly keel over and die of a heart attack. Typically they have chronic health problems for years before that.
 
Last edited:
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.

You would win that bet... since you said 'or'...

But your original wager was:

I would wager than >99.5% of people in this country have access to "safe" tap water in their homes.

General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?

General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.

Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.

General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
 
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.
 
Those two statements are not incongruous. If something "meets or exceeds" a safety standard, then it is safe.

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.

Either way, the point is that ~100% of people in the US have access to safe drinking water, which is what I said.

And I showed you that you were wrong.

In fact, this has been a HOT issue lately.

Gasland_5Full.png


Ever See Flammable Tap Water?: Gasland Film Investigates Natural Gas Industry
 
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.

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.

And I showed you that you were wrong.

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.
 
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."

So now Government is good?

Isn't the best tool science, investigation, rigorous testing?


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.

Although I can read an article and think about it, keep it in mind while reading other articles, then make up my own mind, I am not an 'expert' in water.

The good news is, the people now in charge at the EPA, are experts and they care about this.

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.

EPA criticizes ADEM over standards



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.

I guess I instinctively ignored your source because I've beed down this road with you before. You get caught making a seriously false statement, then you scramble to justify it with any nonsense source you can find. But if you insists on shoving your one-page pamphlet on 3rd world countries in my face, I'll have to explain why it's not relevant or valid:

1990-2000? You showed a one-page Unicef pamphlet about drinking water in poor countries. Among the big pictures and charts in the pamplet, the U.S. is listed with other Industrialized countries as 100% drinkable. Whatever. No indication of their source or how the person designing this one page pamphlet came by this data... back in 2000.

Therefore, I'd say that you 'showed' nothing. Again.

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.

Of course, because everyone knows that water is naturally flammable.... Which reminds me of a humorous anecdote about a man smoking in the shower...

Don't worry, the EPA is on top of all of this...http://www.epa.gov/tribal/pdf/hydraulic-fracturing-fact-sheet.pdf

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.

EPA Office of Water Home | Water | US EPA

Check out the EPA site, and get up to speed on the facts about how many water issues we have in the U.S.:peace
 
I guess its fair enough
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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?

No, the Universal Price Code identifies each product individually. Even different sizes of the same product have their own unique UPC.
 
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.

No. It doesn't.
Next?
 
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

Why should they spend cash, when the government is perfectly willing to give them foodstamps to buy soft drinks with? We're already talking about a group of Americans that think they are owed something by society. They're not going to spend their hard earned money on a water filter pitcher. They're going to wait until someone gives them one. The general attitude being, "You want me to drink healthier? Then give me a water filter pitcher so I can; otherwise, shut-the-****-up!". That's the mentality you're dealing with.
 
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?
 
So, eating fried porkchops, with gravy made from the drippings, over rice for supper every night, isn't as bad as a few cokes?

People don't typically 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. ;)
 
Last edited:
No, the Universal Price Code identifies each product individually. Even different sizes of the same product have their own unique UPC.

What's going to happen when a checkout line is clogged up with a stamp collector; half of whom's purchase can't be bought with food stamps? The CSM is going to hit the override button on the register, that's what.
 
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.

And for every ounce of nutritional value it has, it clogs up an equal length of artery.

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. ;)

No, actually, I'm saying that if you don't like what they're buying, then trim their allowance back, or cut them off, all together.

It's the pinnacle of stupidity to say they can't buy a few soft drinks, but can eat all the greasy fried **** they want.
 
Back
Top Bottom