Quote:

---

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been on a years-long crusade against obesity, or at least against the cultural and commercial forces that promote it. In his latest step, he's proposing to ban the sale of super-sized sugary drinks by restaurants, cinemas, street vendors and stadium concessionaires. The move exemplifies the tension between individual liberty and societal responsibility that's particularly acute in the field of public health. Americans cherish their freedom to live as they choose, without "nanny state" dictates from the government. But because they're not willing to deny medical care to people who urgently need it, society has to pick up the tab for those who make heedless choices. Striking the right balance between the two will be one of the central challenges for government in the coming decades, as rising healthcare costs put an increasing strain on federal, state and local budgets.

Almost everything government does restricts the freedom of the governed in some way. Spending programs have to be paid for with taxes that leave people less money to use as they see fit. Laws limit what people can do without risking fines, lawsuits or incarceration. People tend to accept these limits without complaint when there's a clear connection to public safety and civil order, or a clear benefit from the spending that's proportionate to the cost.

The support weakens when the connection to public safety isn't so clear or the benefits are more abstract. For example, seat belt laws are widely supported: There's no question that they save lives and reduce the severity of injuries. But when the federal government lowered the speed limit on all interstate highways to 55 miles per hour in 1974, numerous states rebelled, insisting that there was no public safety reason for such a low limit in rural areas.

Similarly, the public accepts some governmental intrusion into what people eat and drink. There is an assortment of restrictions on alcoholic beverages, including a minimum drinking age, drunk-driving laws and regulations governing when and where liquor may be advertised. There are food safety standards and nutritional mandates on school lunch programs. Manufacturers have to list the ingredients, calorie and fat content of packaged foods, and local governments are increasingly demanding the same kinds of disclosures from restaurants.

But telling the average person that he has to eat X or cannot eat Y goes a step further. It intrudes on personal decisions that consumers make with their own dollars that affect just their own bodies. That's what makes even a relatively tame proposal such as Bloomberg's big-cup ban so controversial. Bloomberg's plan, which is pending before the city's Board of Health, would outlaw the sale of sweetened drinks larger than 16 ounces. But somewhat arbitrarily, it wouldn't apply to groceries or convenience stores, to calorie-laden lattes or fruit juices, or even to restaurants that offered two 16-ounce sodas for the price of one.

The mayor's initiative also rests on a shaky scientific foundation. Researchers have found that people who regularly drink soda are more likely to be overweight, and that those who increase their soda intake have a greater chance of becoming obese and diabetic. But there's little data to support the idea that a ban on large cups and bottles of sugary beverages would make a real difference in obesity, especially a ban as porous as the one Bloomberg has proposed.

With no precedents to show the effectiveness of Bloomberg's approach, a better way to balance the competing interests of public health and personal choice would be to require more effective disclosure about the calories in soda and a more aggressive effort to educate the public about the associated risks and costs. There are nearly 400 calories in 32 ounces of Coca-Cola Classic, which is almost as much as aMcDonald's quarter-pound hamburger. Raising awareness about calorie counts may also encourage restaurants to compete to offer the healthiest goods, not just the biggest portions.

Considering that 36% of the U.S. population is obese, far too many Americans aren't connecting the dots between weight and chronic disease, particularly diabetes and heart disease. And that's not just a personal health issue. Studies have shown that preventable diseases linked to behavioral choices are responsible for about half the premature deaths in the U.S. annually, and for much of the demand for costly medical care. At least some of those costs are borne directly by Medicare, Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded public programs, and indirectly by healthy people who carry private insurance.

The larger and more difficult question for the public is where to draw the line between an appropriate government effort to improve public health and an inappropriate interference with individual autonomy. If the only consideration were reducing how much taxpayers had to spend on healthcare, then Bloomberg's next logical step would be to require restaurants to serve vegetables with every food order, or to require every New Yorker to join a health club, or to ban ice cream.

He's not about to do that, though, because Bloomberg is a canny politician. Ultimately, society will decide what limits to place on individuals in the name of public health, and officials who go further than their constituents are ready to go will be tossed out at the next election. New Yorkers have given Bloomberg a lot of leeway on health issues so far, which suggests his views reflect their concerns about diet and obesity. Others who follow his lead may not find their constituents to be so tolerant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant?

---

Quote:

---

Horse?

---

Quote:

---

I'm conflicted. Sure, obesity is an issue. But aren't we free to choose our own food?

---

Quote:

---

Are we? Are we really?

---

Quote:

---

Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant? Horse?

---

Quote:

---

If I want to kill myself with sugary drinks, isn't that my business?

---

Quote:

---

What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thoughts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

I'm conflicted. Sure, obesity is an issue. But aren't we free to choose our own food?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Are we? Are we really?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant? Horse?

---

Yes. And if not, let's fix that straight away.

Quote:

---

If I want to kill myself with sugary drinks, isn't that my business?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself?

---

This is an interesting and insightful question.

My feeling is Yes. You can off yourself however you choose. Your life belongs to you.

--Anthony

---

Just don't take anyone else with you...

---

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Penguin:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself?

---

This is an interesting and insightful question.

My feeling is Yes. You can off yourself however you choose. Your life belongs to you.

--Anthony

---

Just don't take anyone else with you...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

But aren't we free to choose our own food?

---

Quote:

---

The fact that it is being discussed out here on the rim suggests to me that the campaign is working.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

The fact that it is being discussed out here on the rim suggests to me that the campaign is working.

---

How is it 'working' already ? I mean, of course, folks are talking about this, because it's a stupid, over bearing, nanny state act by Bloomberg, but exactly how is it achieving its goal ? Who has lost an ounce of weight because of this ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
*growls*

I Repeat.

ARE. YOU. WILLING. TO. KILL. SOMEONE. OVER. THIS. ?


Don't play coy, don't pretend I didn't say it - IF you want a law, a regulation, THEN you are authorizing Agents of The State to enforce it, with whatever force it takes.

Doesn't matter than your finger, personally, will not be on the trigger, the moment you say "Yes", then you have issued your express consent to enforce compliance, up to and including lethal force.
Cause, yanno, that's what laws are.

No excuses.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

The fact that it is being discussed out here on the rim suggests to me that the campaign is working.

---

How is it 'working' already ? I mean, of course, folks are talking about this, because it's a stupid, over bearing, nanny state act by Bloomberg, but exactly how is it achieving its goal ? Who has lost an ounce of weight because of this ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

But aren't we free to choose our own food?

---

No, you are not.

And make no mistake, nothing is being taken from you. You're simply being forced, by the govt, to understand what's good for you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this.

---

Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.


You mean St. Ronald was wrong?


ETA: Looks like Bloomberg's not a Republican this year after all. Now he's an "independent". Allegedly.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this.

---

Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.


You mean St. Ronald was wrong?


ETA: Looks like Bloomberg's not a Republican this year after all. Now he's an "independent". Allegedly.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

---

I just checked Wikipedia, Mickey is now an "Independent".....and a douche.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this.

---

Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.


You mean St. Ronald was wrong?


ETA: Looks like Bloomberg's not a Republican this year after all. Now he's an "independent". Allegedly.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

---

I just checked Wikipedia, Mickey is now an "Independent".....and a douche.

---

Yeah, I get that. You righties never have been fond of the independents, have you?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:


I bet all the Cannibals we've been reading about lately are "Independents", just a bunch of gay juckie flesh eatting Zombie Independents.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Seems the Zit is none too fond of Browncoats...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

The fact that it is being discussed out here on the rim suggests to me that the campaign is working.

---

How is it 'working' already ? I mean, of course, folks are talking about this, because it's a stupid, over bearing, nanny state act by Bloomberg, but exactly how is it achieving its goal ? Who has lost an ounce of weight because of this ?

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/09/weight-loss-success
-kim-konkel_n_1316533.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WULFENSTAR:
Why am I not surprised at the usual suspects defending this?

I'm continually disapointed by these people here who claim to have watched Firefly defending the works of the purple-bellies.

Drinking a 300 ounce Coke as I write this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-ed-soda-ban-bloomberg-20120601,0,3737
836.story




Thoughts?

I'm conflicted. Sure, obesity is an issue. But aren't we free to choose our own food?

Are we? Are we really? Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant? Horse?

If I want to kill myself with sugary drinks, isn't that my business?

What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself?


I'm glad Bloomberg is concerned, but I'm not sure I want him THIS concerned!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

My solution - if you market and sell unhealthy products then part of your profit needs to go to health care costs. Why should tax payers be responsible?

---

Quote:

---

As long as what is being sold is legal, let the free market decide what products get bought and sold.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thoughts?

---

No.

All Laws are, ultimately, backed by lethal force.
I've pointed it out, actually went and described in detail how a parking ticket could lead to death.
Eric Peters does it here in regards to seat belt laws.
http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/05/23/a-small-thing-can-lead-to-big-tr
ouble/

Even the smallest, tiniest, nitpick of an ordinance - eventually defiance WILL lead to a man with a gun in your face, and defying THAT will get you dead, especially if you show any hint of being able to successfully do so, since that would bring into question the unbridled power of the Almighty State.

So...

Are you willing to KILL someone, are you willing to see someone dead, for enjoying a double big gulp ?

If the answer to that question is no, then you've utterly no right, ryhme or reason to support such an idea.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Then why market your products at all ? You're saying it's ok for them to sell their goods and make a little profit, but not a lot ? Who decides how much is too much ? And as long as they're selling drinks that have sugar in them, and not rat poison, advertised as sugar, why punish them at all ?

Tax payers shouldn't be any more responsible for hc costs than those selling the goods, imo. As long as what is being sold is legal, let the free market decide what products get bought and s

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The tobacco companies colluded to hide the facts, and try to tell us something counter to what we already knew.... prolonged use of tobacco leads to cancer. ( The terms 'cancer sticks' and 'coffin nails' go back to the 1800's. )

That's not what we have here. No one is claiming that sugary sodas are 'healthy'.

---

Quote:

---

But if you want to continue to be as a hapless member of a focus group, and let others decide for you how to live your life, go right ahead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
You should know that no one is defending this Rappy.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Tobacco companies, for many years at least, never marketed tobacco as being healthy either

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Maybe not on THIS particular issue, but some sure do seem to want to make a bogie man out of 'marketing', and the evils of trying to reach customers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Tobacco companies, for many years at least, never marketed tobacco as being healthy either

---

Maybe not 'healthy', bu the implication is clear enough....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Maybe not on THIS particular issue, but some sure do seem to want to make a bogie man out of 'marketing', and the evils of trying to reach customers.

---

Quote:

---

Harper's Weekly 04/11/1896


COFFIN NAILS.

MILLIONS OF MEN ARE DRIVING THEM HOME DAILY.
A CHAPTER FULL OF WARNING TO THOSE WHO
WOULD AVOID MENTAL AND MORAL DECAY.

An English Courtier said during Walter Raleigh's im-
prisonment that he deserved freedom, for he had done
more for mankind in introducing tobacco in Europe than
had Columbus by the discovery of the new world.

Amid luxury, folly, and vice, the pleasure of the hour
was enhanced and an affliction entailed on mankind that is
now being realized, 400 years later, and all the mischief
turned loose upon the world by that impish Pandora's Box
—Tobacco—is coming home keenly to this generation.

The alarming growth of the cigarette habit in the United
States is a sad commentary on our condition from an eco-
nomical, as well as an ethical, standpoint.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I love it when people debate little Rappy with facts. It’s fun to watch his brain blow up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
THANKS for the laugh!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Harper's Weekly 04/11/1896


COFFIN NAILS.

MILLIONS OF MEN ARE DRIVING THEM HOME DAILY.
A CHAPTER FULL OF WARNING TO THOSE WHO
WOULD AVOID MENTAL AND MORAL DECAY.

An English Courtier said during Walter Raleigh's im-
prisonment that he deserved freedom, for he had done
more for mankind in introducing tobacco in Europe than
had Columbus by the discovery of the new world.

Amid luxury, folly, and vice, the pleasure of the hour
was enhanced and an affliction entailed on mankind that is
now being realized, 400 years later, and all the mischief
turned loose upon the world by that impish Pandora's Box
—Tobacco—is coming home keenly to this generation.

The alarming growth of the cigarette habit in the United
States is a sad commentary on our condition from an eco-
nomical, as well as an ethical, standpoint.

---

---

Quote:

---

I mean, it's almost like living the saga of Battlestar Galactica, minus the Cylons and world ending wars. We keep living the same story, over and over, and act as if this has never happened before.

---