General Discussion

CTyankee

(68,152 posts)

38. Is someone advocating that?

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:40 PM

Feb 2013

Bogey men abound...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

243 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Instead of regulating everyone's sugar intake [View all] Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 OP

You never hear of somebody doing 44 ounces of Dr. Pepper and taking a family out in an intersection. Archaic Feb 2013 #1

was getting people to quit smoking silly? HAHAHA lung cancer is so funny. HAHAHA KittyWampus Feb 2013 #4

I'm not a cigarette smoker (or soda drinker, for that matter) Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #10

Cigarette taxes directly affect the number of smokers Tempest Mar 2013 #226

As do theft and black market sales. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #230

Smokers produced carcinogens for everybody near by. Archaic Feb 2013 #21

so do people who drive gas vehicles. nt Viva_La_Revolution Feb 2013 #60

That's super. But we're talking about regulation of sugar. Archaic Feb 2013 #83

bad = bad. Why draw a false distinction? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #89

Ok, then I think we're in agreement. Archaic Feb 2013 #95

Are age restrictons on alcohol & tobacco. TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #113

That is certainly true. Archaic Feb 2013 #123

I don't believe it's overshooting the mark at all. TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #129

In Europe, standard soda served in restaurants is 8 ounces. mainer Mar 2013 #204

Apparently, to some of the health freaks, the Twinkie Defense was valid. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #120

I don't understand the vitriol. Archaic Feb 2013 #124

A 44oz fountain drink, once the cup is filled with ice, contains about 16oz of soda Major Nikon Mar 2013 #209

You're absolutely right Warpy Feb 2013 #126

Thank you!! OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #145

No, but... Chan790 Mar 2013 #151

you make more sense than the proponents of the soda bill. congrats on your wit loli phabay Feb 2013 #2

HAHAHA people having diabetes because of their diet is so funny. HAHAHAHAHA KittyWampus Feb 2013 #6

why not make it the law then that everyone only gets food allotted to them as prescribed loli phabay Feb 2013 #12

And a good hour of aerobics everyday as mandated by law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #26

we could have a siren go off and everyone has to assume the position and then begin loli phabay Feb 2013 #54

It could be just like in 1984 Art_from_Ark Feb 2013 #108

When I was stationed in Turkey, in the late 1960s MineralMan Mar 2013 #142

wonderful idea! but first, raise the minimum wage, give women equal pay... Javaman Mar 2013 #203

I just had a vision of Richard Simmons chasing people around the parking lot with a cattle prod Major Nikon Mar 2013 #219

Who is 'regulating everyone's sugar intake'? randome Feb 2013 #3

There was an OP that called sugar a poison on the level of tobacco today in GD Fumesucker Feb 2013 #7

That came from an opinion piece in the New York times. yellerpup Feb 2013 #128

Are you saying the soda regulations Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #8

The ban on super-sizes is designed to send a message. randome Feb 2013 #49

There's also a message to "mind your own business" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #72

And when they become our financial burden through ill health? TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #118

"fat arse spills over"? That's pretty harsh. I'm trying to make a point but you're going too far. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #137

Oh my gosh OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #153

The new law in NYC does not regulate anybody's sugar intake. surrealAmerican Feb 2013 #78

Per the OP, why regulate for people who do not have a problem? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #149

Vendors should never be put in the position to assess which customers may have a problem. surrealAmerican Mar 2013 #156

Blanket encroachments into dictating what people can or cannot do also guarantees abuse Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #169

This is not Prohibition. surrealAmerican Mar 2013 #171

So it is about power and not about any tangible benefit Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #173

You are basing your argument on ... surrealAmerican Mar 2013 #213

It's still not your place to say nor use the power of law to say it Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #216

Because it's not the government's business to decide who has a problem. randome Mar 2013 #157

The government does a pretty good job deciding who has and has not been guilty of DUI Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #168

this is about raising awareness and changing behaviors society-wide. Just like cigarettes. KittyWampus Feb 2013 #5

So target the obese. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #9

It's about diabetes as well. And getting to the point of full blown obesity and diabetes takes time KittyWampus Feb 2013 #13

So penalize those who contract diabetes from poor diet. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #17

And we should penalize people with lung cancer from smoking�. KittyWampus Feb 2013 #22

Why don't pro-soda regulators demand limits on the quantity Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #24

I would be most supportive of regulating the industries putting this crap in our stores. KittyWampus Feb 2013 #28

As much as people want to pretend otherwise Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #56

How would you ID those who get type II diabetes from poor diet and differentiate them HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #42

So throw all the diabetics into 1 lump groupig. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #47

And doctor dealing with diabetics discusses diet. And it's about prevention not targeting those who KittyWampus Feb 2013 #48

So deal with those who have the problem and leave those who don't alone. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #66

"Doctors dealing with diabetics discuss diet" kdmorris Mar 2013 #163

My brother-in-law "reversed" his OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #175

I think it's a matter of terminology kdmorris Mar 2013 #190

Yeah I can't OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #233

I have Type II diabetes but it is not because of my diet. RebelOne Feb 2013 #99

I have t2 that the VA considers probably related to Agent Orange exposure HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #112

Type 2 Diabetic here, too kdmorris Mar 2013 #161

Diabetes is not CAUSED by "years of crappy diets" kdmorris Mar 2013 #154

Or you can be genetically predisposed to type 2, eat crappy, and predictably get type 2 diabetes bhikkhu Mar 2013 #179

That is true kdmorris Mar 2013 #194

Do you honestly think the obese aren't already targeted? wickerwoman Feb 2013 #14

Apparently their a big enough problem (no pun intended) Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #19

"Target the obese" - like, shoot them on sight? scarletwoman Feb 2013 #18

If what you say is true than how does regulating soda make a difference? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #20

Science shows you can prevent or help prevent obesity and diabetes by regulating ones diet. KittyWampus Feb 2013 #30

So the same would hold true for alcohol, red meat and feng shui. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #44

It sends a message. randome Feb 2013 #51

What message is that? That as soon as someone pretends to have a Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #58

How is anyone invading your life? randome Mar 2013 #159

So someone else gets to decide whether or not they are intruding into someone's life. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #164

I truly do not get your point. randome Mar 2013 #170

I'm not saying they aren't. I'm saying, as soon you're done tilting windmills they Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #172

Does everyone live under a rock OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #160

Let's do this (and smokers warned people about the whole 'obesity is next' thing) The Straight Story Feb 2013 #101

Consuming sugar isn't a "bad baheavior". wickerwoman Feb 2013 #11

The soda regulations don't specify selling to children Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #15

there is a public health interest in simply regulating against larger servings of sugar. CTyankee Feb 2013 #16

Post #11 says the obese are not a public issue Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #23

I don't think she said exactly that. Anyway, obesity is a legitimate public health issue. CTyankee Feb 2013 #29

"regulating serving sizes doesn't stigmatize anybody" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #32

Do you think everyone thinks that way? CTyankee Feb 2013 #37

But your preference is not the basis of law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #43

well, the argument could be made that you do bear the cost of obesity because of the CTyankee Feb 2013 #53

Why pay? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #62

So buying two smaller cups of soda thucythucy Feb 2013 #75

Suppose someone decides to flaunt the ban Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #80

You mean if a business owner decides to go thucythucy Feb 2013 #88

Is law a matter of brute force or a protector of personal freedom? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #91

You mean like this? CTyankee Feb 2013 #103

I think the problem OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #180

Oh, I don't know. You could probably say the same thing about drunk driving. At one time CTyankee Mar 2013 #214

I only think OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #234

You are totally ignoring the input people are giving you. Your defensiveness is noted. Please try to KittyWampus Feb 2013 #31

I can't be defensive because I'm not a part of any of the effected groups. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #34

You are the one who is trying to make this about obese individuals when it's about food KittyWampus Feb 2013 #35

The pro-soda regulators make it about obesity -- or so they say. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #39

Obesity & Diabetes= process of BECOMING. An obese or diabetic person has already become. KittyWampus Feb 2013 #50

Science also proves power is always abused when powerholders treat people as subjects Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #93

I think you should reexamine your notions about science. nt Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #107

I think people should reexamine their notions about government n/t Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #138

It isn't the food. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #136

Again - food doesn't CAUSE Type 2 Diabetes kdmorris Mar 2013 #155

The jury is leaning toward "yes, it does" on, and there's no denying the correlation between the two bhikkhu Mar 2013 #185

As you stated in your other post... a large segment of the population is genetic predisposed kdmorris Mar 2013 #196

No, wickerwoman Feb 2013 #130

we have plenty of alcohol regulations Enrique Feb 2013 #25

Any regulations on quantity sold? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #27

Bartenders can't serve alcohol to people already drunk. And they must intervene if a visibly drunk KittyWampus Feb 2013 #33

So why not say you can't sell soda to the visibly obese? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #36

Is someone advocating that? CTyankee Feb 2013 #38

I'll advocate it. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #40

Please read Bittman's op-ed and get back to us... CTyankee Feb 2013 #46

Why? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #63

Oh, I dunno. In the interest of more information perhaps? CTyankee Feb 2013 #100

+1 lunasun Mar 2013 #132

" Beer containers may not exceed 25.4 ounces (0.75 l)" Enrique Feb 2013 #41

As noted upthread by another poster -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #45

No one's regulating quantity of soda mainer Feb 2013 #117

How many people become mentally and physically impaired by a 44 oz soda? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #141

How hard is it to buy two drinks instead of one? mainer Mar 2013 #197

How hard is it to not pass absurd, pointless laws that only make government more invasive? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #201

Then make government totally noninvasive and ban government-funded healthcare mainer Mar 2013 #202

You're really comparing a highway and firefighters to regulations on soda? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #206

You're the one who wants government out of your life. mainer Mar 2013 #208

So what your saying is if someone says Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #210

I propose that the government spend 1 billion dollars a year hiring ad agencies Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #52

Sounds good. Don't know if you are be facetious. I suggested limiting ads to children KittyWampus Feb 2013 #55

I'm not being facetious at all. I really think that a well-funded, well-produced Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #57

On being a good neighbor: Peter cotton Feb 2013 #59

All Libertarians insist that the political spectrum is one-dimensional. Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #109

Not all obesity is predicated on soda pop. LanternWaste Feb 2013 #61

That doesn't answer the question. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #65

It certainly does answer the questions. Simply an answer you do not like. LanternWaste Feb 2013 #69

The point of the OP is Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #77

We are in a war against the pancreas and I say we should not stop until every one of us grantcart Feb 2013 #64

The war is over -- if you want. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #67

As a Type 2 Diabetic I am something of a non combatant having stablized through diet and grantcart Feb 2013 #74

If "X = cost = public interest" then reinstate Prohibition Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #76

Your logician skills are lacking. grantcart Mar 2013 #133

You're the only one setting up a strawman argument. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #139

No, you pretty much have Strawman all over the thread DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2013 #144

As the point of the OP is to challenge people's decree I would like to know Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #147

Strawman #1 Someone wants to "regulate intake of sugar" grantcart Mar 2013 #222

Now you're just being disingenuous Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #223

You just don't get it grantcart Mar 2013 #224

I'm not saying it is akin to Prohibition Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #229

the bill for treating diabetes related diseases is going to absolutely overwhelm and lunasun Mar 2013 #238

We should just develop a more efficient insulin delivery system Major Nikon Mar 2013 #200

exactly. Then we can start adding sugar to formula to speed the process. grantcart Mar 2013 #220

I can't imagine raw insulin tasting very good Major Nikon Mar 2013 #221

Insulin administered causes weight gain lunasun Mar 2013 #239

No - you do like we did with Smoking Taverner Feb 2013 #68

Honest question -- dos this mean you're in favor of the PR campaign Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #71

No I think the regulations are not a good idea - but that's irrelevant Taverner Mar 2013 #131

Instead of facing corporations KT2000 Feb 2013 #70

If "X = cost = public interest" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #73

don't understand - KT2000 Feb 2013 #85

We could also bequeath personal responibility and personal freedom Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #92

Certainly there is a component KT2000 Feb 2013 #127

Encouraging a good diet and healthy habits is a matter of freedom Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #140

Yes, why don't we lock up all those fat pigs and force them. Then when we complete southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #79

. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #82

Thank you. Sometimes I think the country is spinning out of control. Instead of us southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #87

Tax all diabetics! WinkyDink Feb 2013 #81

I'm trying to discern the point of taxing/regulating those NOT responsible for something Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #86

Why is this post being repeated over and over? nt ladjf Feb 2013 #84

Because the cheering for invasive regulations is being repeated over and over. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #90

I think Bloomberg's approach is reasonable bhikkhu Feb 2013 #94

Single parenthood is "highly implicated" in poor education, crime, poverty, etc. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #97

You can't fix everything, but some small things can be done bhikkhu Feb 2013 #111

I'm not convinced it's reasonable Major Nikon Feb 2013 #104

There are plenty of slippery slopes the FDA is on bhikkhu Feb 2013 #114

Nice graph, but it doesn't tell the whole story Art_from_Ark Mar 2013 #135

High fructose corn syrup was introduced into soda starting in the 70's bhikkhu Mar 2013 #167

HFCS is undoubtedly bad Art_from_Ark Mar 2013 #240

How do your Libertarian rules fit in with Health Insurers having rights not to cover risky people lunasun Mar 2013 #162

I'm not sure what you think one has to do with the other Major Nikon Mar 2013 #165

Yes The higher co$t affects the entire group as more are diseased by diabetes lunasun Mar 2013 #174

If that's the case I find your response a bit dichotomic Major Nikon Mar 2013 #182

Sorry you had said "I have a libertarian stance on the subject" lunasun Mar 2013 #236

Not much similarity to cigarettes really Major Nikon Mar 2013 #237

Absolutism is for libertarians bhikkhu Mar 2013 #177

"regulations, within reason" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #183

Such as food handling certification bhikkhu Mar 2013 #186

So what are your thoughts on all the posters up and down the thread Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #192

I think it will have a difference by clarifying the choices bhikkhu Mar 2013 #235

I have no problem with regulation Major Nikon Mar 2013 #189

They want the infringement and admit it is meaningless. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #207

I don't even see it as a powergrab Major Nikon Mar 2013 #211

I'd feel more confortable if they were less emotionally invested Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #212

Because we MUST do something! Major Nikon Mar 2013 #215

I swear I've even heard a few veiled, "Won't someone think of the children!" references. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #217

The intent is exactly the same Major Nikon Mar 2013 #218

So do I. Chan790 Mar 2013 #146

Vote with your dollar. Someone will always be happy to oblige you. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #150

'regulating everyone's sugar intake'... Whisp Feb 2013 #96

Are you saying the soda regulations Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #98

as I and many others don't drink soda, no, it doesn't regulate everyone's sugar intake. Whisp Feb 2013 #102

Also, grocery stores aren't limiting soda sales mainer Mar 2013 #158

Maybe we should get our noses out of people's affairs and cease and desist with legislation TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #105

If someone demands the freedom to eat himself sick... mainer Feb 2013 #121

Then don't demand they pay for yours. Everyone for themselves or take the ups and downs and accept TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #134

Are you opposed to seat belts? mainer Mar 2013 #148

No, I think they should be required equipment to make sure a good choice is available TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #166

By your logic, we should get rid of safety equipment on lawnmowers DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2013 #106

The same logic says you can't regulate assault weapons unless you regulate knives too. bhikkhu Feb 2013 #115

I never drink sugary soda Silver Swan Feb 2013 #110

"Eliminationist" is a bit overwrought. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #152

Outlaw asshole billionaires. nt rrneck Feb 2013 #116

How about, instead of outlawing bad health habits, we just don't pay for your diabetes care? mainer Feb 2013 #119

The world is full of wannabee hall moniters dedicated to running everyone elses lives. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #122

I have actually seen more than 1 poster call people "too stupid" to make good decisions. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #143

Geez, this is enough to make me miss the daily gun threads! Bake Feb 2013 #125

Obesity = bad behavior? Duer 157099 Mar 2013 #176

Yet there are those who claim selling a 44 oz soda to someone who isn't obese Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #178

I get your point Duer 157099 Mar 2013 #184

Ah, but that speaks to my point even more firmly. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #188

Well ok Duer 157099 Mar 2013 #193

My point was Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #205

Perhaps a look at a report by DemocracyNow! this morning might shed some light KansDem Mar 2013 #181

Please, show us on this doll, where the bad corporation touched you Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #187

Corporations have been peddling crap for decades... KansDem Mar 2013 #195

No one forces you to patronize a corporation. Advertising is not law. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #199

They peddle exactly what the consumer wants Major Nikon Mar 2013 #225

thanks for posting. Hadn't seen that bit. The OP'er isn't responding to logic or science though KittyWampus Mar 2013 #191

That's hardly a new eeeeevil corporate thing, they've just industrialized it sir pball Mar 2013 #198

Every adult, every day makes a decision on whether or not they are going to put crap in their bodies Major Nikon Mar 2013 #228

Granted, we have more choices now... KansDem Mar 2013 #231

I'm talking about more basic choices Major Nikon Mar 2013 #232

Funny thing, it's actually a lot easier to be informed about corporate factory food sir pball Mar 2013 #242

I make most of my food myself Major Nikon Mar 2013 #243

do gooder baloney datasuspect Mar 2013 #227

Firstly... LeftishBrit Mar 2013 #241