General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

205. My point was

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:38 PM

Mar 2013

we're in danger of moving away from the theory that the law is meant to deal only with specific, defined ofenses that do tangible ill. They idea that the law can regulate and punish when nothing bad has happened opens the door to all sorts abuses.

<insert Lord Acton quote here>

"Something bad COULD happen" is unworkable, ungovernable and decidedly undemocratic. Democracy is supposed to be "government of the people" not "those who declare themselves smarter than the people."

My intent is to confront those who claim to know better and test their claims and to turn their justifications back on them. It would absurd and dehumanizing to outlaw obesity, but that's the point. Yet, those who want to regulate think it becomes less absurd and less dehumanizing if more people are thrown in to the abyss. Apparently Hell is supposed to be more like Heaven so long as all your friends are there too. It's ridiculous on its face and I feel it endures only because it is not challenged on its own terms -- it's still Hell.

"I'm doing this because it's good for you," will be abused everytime.

"You live your life and I'll live mine but we'll stay good neighbors," seems unbreakable to me.

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