Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LiberalLovinLug

(14,154 posts)
33. Difference between banning and curbing
Sun Oct 14, 2012, 04:05 PM
Oct 2012

Government DO restrict smoking inside public buildings where I live anyways. As well as public buses. But its not illegal and banned everywhere. But the reason is that its a public health issue because of secondary smoke.

Reducing the size of poison pop a kid can buy at any one time is not an outright ban. Its just a way to extend the boys life. So it will be years later than it would have been when he'll be so obese that your tax dollars will have to pay for him to be transported to a hospital to undergo emergency surgery.

Also this action is a good way to create awareness of our sugar addiction even if it goes down.

This shit gives Dems a bad name banned from Kos Oct 2012 #1
an what does this have to do with democrats? bloomberg is not a democrat nt msongs Oct 2012 #5
Has nothing to do with Dems glacierbay Oct 2012 #6
Weellll.... markpkessinger Oct 2012 #7
You nailed it. glacierbay Oct 2012 #9
Most people associate him with the GOP LTR Oct 2012 #28
He acts like one 90% of the time Ter Oct 2012 #16
"Extreme-left legislation"? Scootaloo Oct 2012 #27
Is it moderate or extreme right? Ter Oct 2012 #29
I think you need to learn what "extreme left" means Scootaloo Oct 2012 #34
It's not right, moderate, or libertarian Ter Oct 2012 #36
you have no clue what you are talking about erodriguez Oct 2012 #31
bloomberg ran on the gop line. I never voted for him because he thinks he is the boss. hrmjustin Oct 2012 #26
This is stupid legislation tarheelsunc Oct 2012 #2
Good glacierbay Oct 2012 #3
They should simply impose a tax on sugary soft drinks, period. JDPriestly Oct 2012 #11
I could support a tax on sugerary soft drinks. glacierbay Oct 2012 #12
Why don't they just use cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup? bhikkhu Oct 2012 #4
Agreed... markpkessinger Oct 2012 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #10
Which legislation? sl8 Oct 2012 #13
Diet or other non-sugary drinks are exempted bhikkhu Oct 2012 #14
Nonsense dkhbrit Oct 2012 #15
Quit trying to "Corn Troll" the situation. They_Live Oct 2012 #17
Well, there's the Princeton study, bhikkhu Oct 2012 #19
WRT the Clinical Epigenetics study ... sl8 Oct 2012 #20
You can click on the "Full Text PDF" link on the upper right bhikkhu Oct 2012 #22
Doh! Thanks. sl8 Oct 2012 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author sl8 Oct 2012 #23
And the May 2012 Duke study, linking liver disease to HFCS bhikkhu Oct 2012 #21
Its a public health issue LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #18
There are lots of things christx30 Oct 2012 #32
Difference between banning and curbing LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #33
The problem with that is christx30 Oct 2012 #35
"Big Soda" rears it's ugly head Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #25
I like Bloomberg but people should drink what they want Pokoyo Oct 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Soda Industry Sues to Sto...»Reply #33