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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
15. Well then
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 12:11 PM
Feb 2013

I'd appreciate if you could point out where I used any name calling. Perhaps you're referring to my use of the word stupid, to refer to what I believe is a stupid policy.

I also did not say that this would not have an effect. I said that it would be negligent. Which this is.

Access to any food and water should be a human right - with the number of people starving in this world, it's absurd that we're suggesting throwing out food that is "bad for you", it's better than none at all. The implication of this sort of legislation is that we lack the intellect or the reasoning ability to choose for ourselves. So, instead, our governments will begin taking steps to ensure that they can choose for us.

I don't care for fast food - and I could do without soda. The issue isn't (for me) whether or not this will improve public health, it is what the unintended consequences (though, perhaps, intentional on the part of some) of this legislation will be - here or elsewhere.

Recommendations

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

Excellent idea! onwardsand upwards Feb 2013 #1
It's the logical progression from the way cigarettes are treated magellan Feb 2013 #2
Not Fizzy Lifting Drinks, I hope! Orrex Feb 2013 #3
We need to taz something that is really deadly whistler162 Feb 2013 #4
/dopeslap keroro gunsou Feb 2013 #5
Doctors in the UK call for these health issues to be addressed. USA Dr.s say, bring $ and insurance. Sunlei Feb 2013 #6
"USA Dr's say bring $ and insurance or drop dead plump people" T_i_B Feb 2013 #8
difference is the UK has healthcare for ALL, USA citizens have to pay or crawl to emergency to die Sunlei Feb 2013 #12
That's exactly what the UK government is trying to dismantle T_i_B Feb 2013 #20
The UK has the USA as an example of private healthcare fraud/costs,they won't ruin ruin their system Sunlei Feb 2013 #25
Uh, yay for The Nanny State? davidthegnome Feb 2013 #7
The state DOES have the power to legislate such things here Prophet 451 Feb 2013 #10
USA neighborhoods can regulate and fine for, grass height, no cars on sunday,no alcohol, lots more.. Sunlei Feb 2013 #26
Why assume that things will be taken to extremes? People are generally well-intentioned bhikkhu Feb 2013 #11
Because in the vast majority of cases they are. davidthegnome Feb 2013 #14
It's doctors who want this, not politicians, or corporations muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #16
Doctors don't pass legislation davidthegnome Feb 2013 #17
So it's the doctors you are attacking muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #18
"Obesity in Young Is Seen as Falling in Several (U.S.) Cities" KurtNYC Feb 2013 #13
Well then davidthegnome Feb 2013 #15
Misleading headline. "Fizzy drinks" are not being banned. mainer Feb 2013 #9
"Fizzy drinks" in the UK HoneychildMooseMoss Feb 2013 #19
mainer is right about the headline T_i_B Feb 2013 #23
I'd be OK with banning junk food ads ONLY from kids' TV programs. alp227 Feb 2013 #21
For clarity dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #22
As a person that has struggled with weight their whole life... EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #24
Great idea! Wellness rules. graham4anything Feb 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Tax fizzy drinks and ban ...»Reply #15