The Nanny State - We'll tell you what you can drink

[BG42EDGE]

How on earth did English literature ever convey irony or sarcasm for the last several centuries without the "smiley face"? I have no doubt that everyone intelligent enough to post here is intelligent enough to detect manifest sarcasm or flippancy if they really try. No ethnicity was mentioned and the putative genocide was motivated by the putative silliness of those to be cleansed. It may not be Swift, but Hitler it ain't.
No smiley face needed.

No, you can't protect him with that one........he's not just "unswift." There's more to it than that. Large cities are almost invariably quite diverse and heavily populated with people of color. Rural areas.......not so diverse--not at all.

But I'll give you a break.......just take away the word "ethnic."

You still have a problem explaining how one would "depopulate" those "silly" city people who disagree with the poster.

I still take it as an "Oops, I'll pretend it was a joke."

[Trent Rock]

The law will have no effect on obesity rates in NY
All it will do increase is Big Gulp sales at 7-11
And 2 liter bottle sales at the supermarket
It will HURT sales/revenue at restaurants
People will sneak in small bottles of Coke and fill up their glasses in the bathroom
There will be street level dealers popping up on every corner==>
"What you need? I got 1 liter bottle of Dr. Pepper ate Sprite at my boy's house"...lol

If Obamacare passes
This will be the norm
Since Joe Citizen will suddenly be concerned with what his neighbor EATS and DRINKS on "his dime"
Mark my words
The Obesity CRISIS will begin shortly.....

[BG42EDGE]

On the other hand, if the publicity has caused some people to think twice about their dietary habits......that's a plus.

[timcsaw]

What's this in your backpack Sir?
Lighter, spoon, syringes, and a bag of white powder!

Oh... Wait... What's THIS?

White Castle wrappers!?!?

DOWN ON THE GROUND DIRT BAG!!!

[BG42EDGE]

If Obamacare passes......

It did.

Since Joe Citizen will suddenly be concerned with what his neighbor EATS and DRINKS.....

Joe should always have been concerned, just like he should have been concerned about the neighbor that rides a motorcycle without a helmet (and gets hurt on our dime) and the one who fails to buy health insurance and then gets sick (on our dime) and the one that fails to buy car insurance and gets in an accident (on our dime) and the one who blows his cigarette smoke around for the rest of us to die from (on our dime).

Oh yeah.......that last character (or the ones who chew tobacco) will probably die of cancer........on our dime. We really need to nail those folks down too.

[SavageSmurf]

That's really irrelevant. If he's constantly sipping Pepsi.......that could be a little relevant, but the crux of the issue is that the drinks he is trying to ban are harmful and contribute to substantial costs for the rest of us.

His physical condition or habits really have no impact on the truth of that fact.......it is a fact no matter what.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I welcome opinions that contradict my own; I think it helps us think outside the box a bit. If what I said offended you, I apologize; that was not my intention. However, the issue of soft drinks being banned is a result of the epidemic of obesity in our country, and a city official's misguided attempt of rectification. Obesity is an issue of fitness. The point I was making is that a good leader leads by example. It's true Bloomberg is not obese, but he is hardly a pillar of athleticism. Rather than ridicule others for their faults, he could show them the way, and pursue a healthy lifestyle for himself; maybe even offer programs that can help people who want to maintain a healthier lifestyle. Objectively speaking, banning soft drinks, or any other high calorie/oligo-nutrient food source is not a solution, but merely creates an additional problem.

[BG42EDGE]

Objectively speaking, it IS a solution for those who take it seriously and strive to achieve a healthier lifestyle.

A good leader gets things done that will help people.

So I see nothing wrong with Bloomberg's leadership.

[Triton]

Oh, come on......what silliness.

The government has to step in at some point to save the rest of us from the antics of idiots.

You mean like the ones running the government?

[Triton]

Objectively speaking, it IS a solution for those who take it seriously and strive to achieve a healthier lifestyle.

A good leader gets things done that will help people.

So I see nothing wrong with Bloomberg's leadership.

Why am I not surprised. Things like individual liberty apparently don't really mean all that much in your little world. In any event this "solution" doesn't really solve anything does it.

[Triton]

Incandescent light bulbs are inefficient and waste vast amounts of electricity. You can get the same brightness for about 1/3 the power with CFLs. Why do you want to waste 66% more electricity for no gain? Why do you want to use wasteful 1800s technology?

If they are so great why are you afraid to let the market place decide to use them rather then forcing it via government mandate? What are you afraid of?

The 5 gallon toilet was replaced by the 3.5 gallon and later the 1.6 gallon toilet. Why do you need to use 5 gallons of water to flush urine? The restriction saves 3.4 gallons per flush. You might not have stopped to think about what an impact saving 3.4 gallons per flush has on the entire country. If the average household flushes the toilet only 7 times a day, that's 23.8 gallons saved every day per household. Multiply that by let's say 90 million households. 2,142,000,000 gallons saved every day from that restriction.

Again, if this is really something people care about why must you force it via government mandate?

These types of advancements in technology may be confusing to older generations but they make sense and have a positive impact on the country by reducing the amount of resources that get wasted every day for no reason.

Darn those old fogies and their quaint beliefs in individual freedoms!

The world's population has increased exponentially in the last century. Wasting water, electricity, gas, and other resources for no reason gains us nothing. I cannot fathom why you want to waste for no reason other than you feel entitled to do so. I imagine this is the mentality of the older generations who got to waste as much as they wanted, pollute the environment with leaded gasoline, destroy the ozone with CFCs, and waste water, gasoline, and mass amounts of electricity on inefficient devices.

I'm curious what sort of light bulbs do you suppose they are using in India or China?

Healthcare costs in the US are astronomical.

To whom? Why do you care what I'm paying for healthcare?

If they cannot stop themselves from consuming trash then maybe it's best that the government mandate it for them.

After all the government knows best right? Why should people have fancy dinners at restaurants? After all if they want to be healthy and save money on healthcare shouldn't they be eating government issue tofu and gruel? Why do they have individual homes? It would be much more efficient if everyone was put in government approved apartment complexes. Why should they raise their children? After all many of them do a terrible job of it. Much better to have them raised by the government don't you think? Why should they have cars? Let's make them ride bicycles everywhere. Fancy clothes? Nah, shapeless grey coveralls are much more efficient. While we are at it we had better put cameras in all those government issue apartments just to keep watch and make sure they are doing the best thing for the population. I think we need a spokesman too... something powerful and reassuring. Big Uncle or Big Cousin or something like that...

Then you won't have to pay for their healthcare.

Why are we paying for their healthcare now?

Preventive medicine is the way to decrease healthcare costs.

Actually no it isn't. Various studies have shown that applying preventative medicine to everyone costs more than just working on those that are sick.

[Trent Rock]

It did.



Joe should always have been concerned, just like he should have been concerned about the neighbor that rides a motorcycle without a helmet (and gets hurt on our dime) and the one who fails to buy health insurance and then gets sick (on our dime) and the one that fails to buy car insurance and gets in an accident (on our dime) and the one who blows his cigarette smoke around for the rest of us to die from (on our dime).

Oh yeah.......that last character (or the ones who chew tobacco) will probably die of cancer........on our dime. We really need to nail those folks down too.

I pay for my own healthcare
Why do you care if I am fat, smoke weed and cigarettes, and drink Jim Beam? and drink Dr. Pepper?
A helmet is not required in Colorado...btw

The soldier in Afghanistan is on "your dime"
Should they be forbidden from drinking 20oz. Mr. Pibb botles at the base cafeteria?

I should have worded it:
If Obamacare gets implemented, my bad...

[eyeeatingfish]

I agree that people make bad decisions, that doesn't mean that decisions government dreams up will be any better... after all they are people too.

It is of course not a perfect system but sometimes having an outside view that removes the drama and emotion provides for a better outcome. We try to stop people from committing suicide but why? We are just human too so why interfere? We assume, and I think are correct in doing so, that we know better what is best for them and therefore we try to stop people from committing suicide.

[eyeeatingfish]

The government has to step in at some point to save the rest of us from the antics of idiots.

There are laws against cell phone use while driving. You are required to wear a helmet if you choose to ride a motorcycle. You must have car insurance. You can't smoke in restaurants or public buildings.

Face reality and quit yer complaining. When a law protects you from bearing the cost of someone else's stupidity.......it's a good law.

You are confusing two separate types of regulation.

Helmet laws do not protect people from other people's idiocy. If you choose not to wear a helmet and suffer a head injury that is your own choice affecting you. This is entirely different than a law which regulates ones behavior to protect the rest of the public. If you want to drive without a seatbelt or without a helmet I think it should be allowed.

A law against speeding is a law that aims to protect the public and is reasonable.

Sometimes the government should step in to protect us from idiots, but the law should not, in most cases, protect idiots from themselves.

[timcsaw]

You are confusing two separate types of regulation.

Helmet laws do not protect people from other people's idiocy. If you choose not to wear a helmet and suffer a head injury that is your own choice affecting you. This is entirely different than a law which regulates ones behavior to protect the rest of the public. If you want to drive without a seatbelt or without a helmet I think it should be allowed.

A law against speeding is a law that aims to protect the public and is reasonable.

Sometimes the government should step in to protect us from idiots, but the law should not, in most cases, protect idiots from themselves.

Well put EEF. We have no helmet laws where I live either... when I see a biker without one I think he's risking too much, but it's his brain, not mine.

I've been to two motorcycle accidents. In the first, the rider without the helmet fared worse than the rider who was wearing a helmet in the second accident... without being too graphic, the first rider's identity was difficult to determine because his helmet-less decapitated head took quite a beating... in the second instance, the helmeted riders decapitated head was intact and his identity was easy to determine. YEY! THANK YOU HELMETS!!!!

Sounds like we should just ban motorcycle riding altogether then the helmet/no helmet issue wouldn't be an issue at all... You know, to "help" the individual safety of our citizens...

ON EDIT: Yesterday morning WE paid for Search and Rescue crews to find and save 3 "idiots" who became lost while hiking near Little Haystack Mtn.They struck out without ANY proper preparation or gear to handle the hike and possible changes in weather. HOW DARE THEY!?!?!?! Maybe we need to pass some restrictive laws so that WE don't have to keep paying for these "idiots"?

I also recall a recent story about an old woman who went tandem sky diving and almost slipped out of the harness and fell to her death (or worse! She might have lived and we'd have had to pay her medical)! Ban sky diving I say! And car racing? COME ON! DANGER!, DANGER! I'm NOT gonna' be happy paying for THEIR injuries! Fatty foods? Why should I pay for big fatty's ER visit for a heart attack? BAN THE FAT! (I could go on for pages and pages... all for the children of course).

[timcsaw]

Gentlemen, please take a breath for a second.
Hogfeet made a somewhat provocative comment about "trolling", but he does that from time to time when he shouldn't. I thought BG42EDGE's comment to that point were just fine, but he overreacted a bit ( rose to the bait is more like it) and then timcsaw tried to straighten it out because I wasn't around to do it and got irritated, which is the lot in life of anybody who tries to moderate you trouble makers
The comment about thinning out most of the population didn't advocate ethnic cleansing because it was simply a bad joke that should have been left alone to die of embarrassment.
If you don't lose your patience goods points and perspectives are being made, flashes of light amidst the heat.
Calm down and play nicer please or this thread will be closed, and I'd rather not end such a fascinating subject of such global import.

Up here in the Socialist Nanny Republic Of Toronto we conduct city wide IQ tests, the bottom 1% form City Council and our esteemed imbeciles on Council have been passing idiotic bylaws like banning soft drinks, nuclear weapons and common sense from our fair City. far be it from me to criticize elected imbeciles or their laws. I leave that to you gentlemen, provided you all follow the rules and make your points without declaring a jihad on each other.

Gentle nudge and calming words appreciated... I'll give BG42EDGE another opportunity...

[Bufford]

What a person wants to do should be up to them to choose. If they want to take risks with their life be it over eating, riding without a helmet, then fine good for them. The world would be a much better place to live if we just minded our own business instead of butting into others for what they choose to do. The arguement that unhealthy lifestyles cost the taxpayer does not hold up very well. Those who die early from obesity,smoking, accidents or whatever will be less of a financial burden to the health system, and social security. Those who live longer will draw more from the system.

As for finding solutions to problems, we must look further. Banning certain foods in the school lunchroom won't do much for childhood obesity, but making them walk to school like we did not so long a go instead of bussing would certainly help. As for adults, we need to make those decisions ourselves and keep the government out of it so that they can do the job they are supposed to do, which is provide services to society instead of policing their every move.

[timcsaw]

What a person wants to do should be up to them to choose. If they want to take risks with their life be it over eating, riding without a helmet, then fine good for them. The world would be a much better place to live if we just minded our own business instead of butting into others for what they choose to do. The arguement that unhealthy lifestyles cost the taxpayer does not hold up very well. Those who die early from obesity,smoking, accidents or whatever will be less of a financial burden to the health system, and social security. Those who live longer will draw more from the system.

As for finding solutions to problems, we must look further. Banning certain foods in the school lunchroom won't do much for childhood obesity, but making them walk to school like we did not so long a go instead of bussing would certainly help. As for adults, we need to make those decisions ourselves and keep the government out of it so that they can do the job they are supposed to do, which is provide services to society instead of policing their every move.

Darwin's rule/award ... RULES!!!

See http://www.darwinawards.com/

[BG42EDGE]

You are confusing two separate types of regulation.

Helmet laws do not protect people from other people's idiocy. If you choose not to wear a helmet and suffer a head injury that is your own choice affecting you. This is entirely different than a law which regulates ones behavior to protect the rest of the public. If you want to drive without a seatbelt or without a helmet I think it should be allowed.

A law against speeding is a law that aims to protect the public and is reasonable.

Sometimes the government should step in to protect us from idiots, but the law should not, in most cases, protect idiots from themselves.

Wrong.

Helmet laws protect ME from idiots who fail to buy health insurance and then get hurt and go to the emergency room on "my dime."

Helmet laws protect ME from idiots who leave their small brains on the pavement and end up drooling in a nursing home where "my dime" pays for their lifetime care.

[BG42EDGE]

What a person wants to do should be up to them to choose. If they want to take risks with their life be it over eating, riding without a helmet, then fine good for them.

Wrong.

Not when "my dime" is required to pay for their stupidity.

[Bufford]

Wrong.

Not when "my dime" is required to pay for their stupidity.

Not quite, "your dime" will have to be used to fund the legal system, and law enforcement to follow you and to make sure you are complying with all the rules as well as everyone else.
Perhaps "that dime" would be better spent on preventing hard criminal intents such as those breaking into private property or violent crime, than to enforce helmet laws or from preventing me from hurting myself. Just my two cents.