• 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

Kal'Stang said:
Actually the biggest contributor to obesity is inactivity. I have suggested before that one rule of getting foodstamps is to look for a job for those that don't have one..this would help fight obesity.
Click to expand...

Definitely, everyone should be active...but again, you have the problem of mission creep. Regulating people's activity to fight obesity is much farther outside the scope of the food stamp program than regulating what foods they can buy.

Kal'Stang said:
Foodstamps was brought into play to avoid people starving to death. Not to avoid malnutrition as you are using the term.
Click to expand...

They're essentially the same thing...starving to death is just a more severe form of malnutrition. Soda doesn't accomplish the goal of preventing starvation/malnutrition. It provides empty calories, not nutrients. People need nutrients to avoid starvation, not just calories.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Definitely, everyone should be active...but again, you have the problem of mission creep. Regulating people's activity to fight obesity is much farther outside the scope of the food stamp program than regulating what foods they can buy.
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like you wouldn't mind if the government stepped in and regulated people enough to keep them physically healthy. That's not the case is it? I'll admit I might be reading too much into it..but that is how it sounds...

Kandahar said:
They're essentially the same thing...starving to death is just a more severe form of malnutrition. Soda doesn't accomplish the goal of preventing starvation/malnutrition. It provides empty calories, not nutrients. People need nutrients to avoid starvation, not just calories.
Click to expand...

Being "essentially the same thing" is not the same as "being the same thing". What you are doing is expanding on their powers to something which it was never intended to be. Much like how the government has expanded on their powers beyond that which they were intended to have. Where does it stop? Once you start letting people control everything about your lives you are no longer free.
 
mertex said:
I think it is a good idea. If people can't be responsible for their own health, then if the government is going to supply them with food stamps it should have jurisdiction over what is a good idea and what is not. Instead of buying sodas they need to be buying milk or juice.

Those of us who are paying for our own stuff can buy sodas and gain weight or be unhealthy, if that is what we want. It is our own dime!
Click to expand...

The government should have no buisness in telling a person what they can and cannot eat. That leads to the realm of tyranny.
 
Kal'Stang said:
This sounds to me like you wouldn't mind if the government stepped in and regulated people enough to keep them physically healthy. That's not the case is it? I'll admit I might be reading too much into it..but that is how it sounds...
Click to expand...
If the government was paying for our food, I guess they would have the right, but they don't.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The government should have no buisness in telling a person what they can and cannot eat. That leads to the realm of tyranny.
Click to expand...


If they are paying for it, they have every right.

They don't tell me what to eat because they don't pay for my food.
That is why they are not allowed to buy cigarettes, either. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
This sounds to me like you wouldn't mind if the government stepped in and regulated people enough to keep them physically healthy. That's not the case is it? I'll admit I might be reading too much into it..but that is how it sounds...
Click to expand...

Not really. I doubt the government would be able to effectively do such a thing. I'm not opposed to nudging people toward exercise through incentives, if it's effective. Other countries (I think Japan or South Korea) have been experimenting with public health programs to provide incentives for people to exercise, but I'm not sure if they've actually accomplished their goal.

But in any case, such a thing is far outside the scope of the food stamp program.

Kal'Stang said:
Being "essentially the same thing" is not the same as "being the same thing". What you are doing is expanding on their powers to something which it was never intended to be.
Click to expand...

OK, let's use your definition if you like: The goal of the food stamp program is to prevent people from starving to death. People starve to death due to lack of nutrients. Soda provides no nutrients, and therefore it's outside the scope of the program and should not be funded by the program.

Kal'Stang said:
Much like how the government has expanded on their powers beyond that which they were intended to have. Where does it stop? Once you start letting people control everything about your lives you are no longer free.
Click to expand...

They're free to buy soda with their own money. But they shouldn't expect the taxpayers to pay for it, when there are other people in poverty who could actually use that taxpayer money for something worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Because 1: it is no longer yours. You pay the government to provide certain services. Like road care, fire departments, police departments, protection from invasion and many many other services. Since this is a large country with millions of people with millions of things to do and many more millions of things that are needed there are bound to be things which you do not like. Get over it. A tax is a part of your bills. Unless the money is in your hands or invested into something that you personally have invested in then the money is no longer yours. Facts of life.

2: As I have already stated you do have some say as to what taxes go towards, at the polling station. Beyond that you have none. This to is a fact of life. Unless of course there is some type of service that millions of people don't know about that tracks thier money specifically that you know about? Then you might have a case..
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that politicians are tax payer funded employees and tax payer dollars does not stop being tax payer dollars just because the government takes it from you.



And if a friends asks for some money for food because they need it and you give it to them do you tell them what they can/cannot buy with it? Or do you just let them buy what they want?
Click to expand...

IF a friend asks me if they can borrow money for food then that is what they better spend that money on because next time I will not help them out.


Why? Because they're "treats" or "not nutritional"? Do they not deserve something good in their life also? Or are they too poor to deserve anything good?
Click to expand...

No one deserves to have someone else buy them cookies, candy, energy drinks, and other things.
Again, do you do the same with a friend when they ask for money for some food?
Click to expand...

A friend and complete stranger on foodstamps are two different things.

And when you limit what type of food that they can have based off of "nutritional values" then you are expecting them to live by your standards of life. Which means you are telling them how to live their life
Click to expand...

Telling someone what they can and can not use MY MONEY for is not telling them how to live their lives. Why do you fail to understand the fact that foodstamps are not a gift, they are a helping hand.
 
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

– Thomas Jefferson
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

– Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're repying to, but is anyone really doing this? I mean, a health issue, and marking something as it is, a health risk, is not the same as deciding what foods to eat or medicine to take, . . . is it?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

– Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

"If the government gives you the means by which to eat, should it not stop you from wasting its money (time and time again you claim to be your money)"

Jetboogieman
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you're repying to, but is anyone really doing this? I mean, a health issue, and marking something as it is, a health risk, is not the same as deciding what foods to eat or medicine to take, . . . is it?
Click to expand...




Uhm, If I want to cook frites in trans fat, salt em and have a soda, in bloombergs world, I'm a criminal. The fact that he starts out with the whole food stamps thing is irrellevant when he supports a tax on soda, has banned trans fat, and is on the attack against salt.

Freedom, some has it..... Some wants it.
 
Jetboogieman said:
"If the government gives you the means by which to eat, should it not stop you from wasting its money (time and time again you claim to be your money)"

Jetboogieman
Click to expand...



I think we should end food stamps all together. Government cheese and spam lines would be motivation to get the bums back to work. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Uhm, If I want to cook frites in trans fat, salt em and have a soda, in bloombergs world, I'm a criminal. The fact that he starts out with the whole food stamps thing is irrellevant when he supports a tax on soda, has banned trans fat, and is on the attack against salt.

Freedom, some has it..... Some wants it.
Click to expand...

No, I think that is your misreading. It's a health issue. Nothing more.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I think that is your misreading. It's a health issue. Nothing more.
Click to expand...




If it was a health issue, Soda would be about 2nd or third on the list.


No proccessed foods,
No "corn syrup" period.
No hot dogs, hamburgers,


It's a bull**** attempt at incrementalism that NYC is famous for...
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
If it was a health issue, Soda would be about 2nd or third on the list.


No proccessed foods,
No "corn syrup" period.
No hot dogs, hamburgers,


It's a bull**** attempt at incrementalism that NYC is famous for...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

Amazingly, Americans (and people in other countries) actually drink a product that can rightfully be called Osteoporosis In a Can. And, it gets worse from there. Read on

Soft drinks: Unsafe beverages

James A Howenstine M.D.
A Physician's Guide to Natural Health Products That Work

"In an interesting experiment the sugar from one soft drink was able to damage the white blood cells' ability to ingest and kill gonococcal bacteria for seven hours."

"Soft drinks also contain large quantities of phosphorus, which when excreted pulls calcium out of the bones. Heavy users of soft drinks will have osteoporosis along with their damaged arteries."

James Duke PhD
The Green Pharmacy : The Ultimate Compendium Of Natural Remedies From The World's Foremost Authority On Healing Herbs

"And watch out for cola soft drinks, which are very high in bone-dissolving phosphorus."

The health effects of drinking soda - quotes from the experts

Soft Drink Health Risks - CBS News Video

Reuters) - Sodas -- even diet ones -- may be linked with increased risk factors for heart disease and diabetes, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

No safe haven: Diet sodas linked with health risks | Reuters
 
please link to difinitive studies that coke is " Osteoporosis In a Can".


silly hysterics don't help the debate.


Soda is nasty for you, as is many things processed. acting like it's drinking battery acid is hyperbole at its finest.
 
The health factor is irrelevant. The simple fact is that people on charity will have limited choices. People on charity that is designed to give them food so they do not starve do not require soda or other junk food since that food is not going to nourish them. The charitable money should not be wasted in such a way. Less that's spent on that crap, more can be given to others. And, the people giving the charity have every right and obligation to see that the money they offer is spent in a responsible manner. And if it's not, it's the right of the entity offering the charity to stop giving it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
please link to difinitive studies that coke is " Osteoporosis In a Can".


silly hysterics don't help the debate.


Soda is nasty for you, as is many things processed. acting like it's drinking battery acid is hyperbole at its finest.
Click to expand...

Denial isn't just a river. The CBS piece cited a study of health concerns. That should be enough to prove my point. However:

Teenagers who drink a lot of soda have now been documented as being more prone to bone fractures and osteoporosis than those who do not drink much soda pop.

A questionnaire was given to 460 girls in the 9th and 10th grades, asking them about their diet and exercise habits, along with any history of fractures. The study results showed that girls who drank soft drinks were more than three times more likely to have a bone fracture. And physically active girls who drank Cola were nearly five times more likely to have had a bone fracture.

Studies have linked mineral loss before to Cola consumption, but finally some one thought to check out teenager's consumption and how it might affect them. The conclusion was that drinking soda pop causes osteoporosis in teenagers.

Osteoporosis In Teenagers Due To Drinking Soda Pop

A study published in the October 2006 issue of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that colas, but not most other non-caffeinated carbonated drinks, are linked to bone loss. Additional research would be needed to confirm the findings of this study.

Can Drinking Soda Cause Osteoporosis?

Results of a study of 76 girls and 51 boys (14.3 yr and 14.6 yr) showed a strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in girls, suggesting that the high consumption of carbonated beverages are of great public health significance for girls and women because of their proneness to osteoporosis in later life.

Soda Consumption and Osteoporosis Association in Women
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think we should end food stamps all together. Government cheese and spam lines would be motivation to get the bums back to work. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If the food were actually healthy (government cheese and spam certainly do not fit well into this category), then maybe. But, by not providing a means to obtain food that is actually going to provide a healthy mix of nutrients, the government really wouldn't be helping the problem a whole lot.

I am for more restrictions on foodstamps qualified purchases, similar to those in the WIC program but with more options, but limiting people to only a few foods is not healthy for them either. And not everyone on foodstamps is out of work, they simply can't afford food due to their cost of living despite having an income.
 
apdst said:
Soda waters have been under assault for years. This is just a change in tactics.
Click to expand...

Yep - when soda is banned from being sold to the mass market, home soda kits will make a comeback. Maybe we should stock up on Take-A-Boost! now and cellar it for when the food nazi's arrive and proclaim "Vee vill conviskate allis of zee soda pops frum der cubbords, mit zee guns if necessary!"

Rootbeer kits and cream soda kits will be big on zee black market!! :lol:
 
Nudging the electorate notwithstanding, food stamps should have bars to them. I say they should only ever be used to purchase discount food, like the no name brands at Wal Mart, and many other grocers. I also think that welfare checks should be handled by the government in direct pays to gas and electric, and rent. What's left is sent to the welfare reipient.

What's wrong with that?

Tim-
 
can one buy potato chips, cheetos, microwave burritos, etc on ny food stamps?

why yes, yes they can...


Eligible Food Items


heck you can even buy redbull...


would soda bans attach to sugar free items?


See this is a bull**** law designed to get it into peoples minds that soda is ok to be banned. its incrementalism.


If you want to restrict food stamp folks, and Im fine with that, it needs to be across the board, not a gateway into my non food stamp using life/.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
can one buy potato chips, cheetos, microwave burritos, etc on ny food stamps?

why yes, yes they can...


Eligible Food Items


heck you can even buy redbull...


would soda bans attach to sugar free items?


See this is a bull**** law designed to get it into peoples minds that soda is ok to be banned. its incrementalism.


If you want to restrict food stamp folks, and Im fine with that, it needs to be across the board, not a gateway into my non food stamp using life/.
Click to expand...

You're making a huge leap here. No one has jumped into your non-food stamp life. And if they do begin to treat soda like tobbacco, you would still be free to harm yourself as much as you like. People still smoke, oddly. But health concersn are, . . . well. . . a concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom