23

votes

Anyone else terrified our freedom of choice is about to be taken away?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created June 01, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Granted this article is about soda, but are you also terrified our freedom to choose what goes in our mouths is about to be taken away?

Next steps will be the fat tax or a ban on fattening foods! We'll be forced to eat low-fat/fat-free, chemical ridden food-like items. HOLY CRAP!

http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_20758456/large-soda-ban-sought-at-nyc-eateries

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/news/economy/health_care_reform_obesity/index.htm

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on June 06, 2012
at 12:06 PM

Nice treatment in the NYT today http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html?hpw

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 04:53 AM

So go get yourself some pepsi throwback and consume it guilt-free. Don't call it a cheat, because that's missing the point.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 04:53 AM

Karen: I think you're missing the point. We're basically all hedonists. Why do (most) people try to be healthy? Because they derive pleasure from feeling good and looking good. Why do (most) people drink soda? Because it tastes good. I think in some cases, the deprivation from not being able to enjoy soda can be more detrimental than actually consuming soda. For a healthy person (read: majority of paleo-hackers), I see no reason why soda should be avoided religiously. What's the point of good health if you don't take advantage of it?

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on June 04, 2012
at 02:30 AM

Yeah, and look how effective the war on those illegal drugs has been...oh wait...

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:07 PM

uh oh folks. we got a badass over here. lol.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 03, 2012
at 04:55 PM

Heroin and methamphetamine offer the benefit of pleasure to their users.

A7768b6c6be7f5d6acc76e5efa66464c

on June 03, 2012
at 04:47 PM

Good point @dante. I didn't mean to ignore pleasure when I argued no benefit. Pleasure might be the only reason to consume these things.

C2ad96801ec1e22d2bf62475b6e52751

(1416)

on June 03, 2012
at 03:04 PM

For someone interested in "intellectual flaws," you sure put up one hell of a false choice there.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:43 AM

Stupid people should be free to make stupid decisions. Why does the government want to save stupid people anyway?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:39 AM

I am liking the idea of an underground ranch. lol

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:38 AM

S l o w l y . . .

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 03, 2012
at 06:55 AM

Soda and tobacco also offer the benefit of pleasure for their users.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 03, 2012
at 06:47 AM

Soda and tobacco offer the benefits of short-term satisfaction for their users. I don't think this is something to be overlooked

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 03, 2012
at 06:46 AM

I think most people will agree that subsidies suck, HFCS sucks, buckets of soda suck, and smoking a pack a day sucks. But moderation doesn't matter? The Kitavans smoke in moderation and are in excellent health. And for someone eating a nutrient-replete diet, I doubt that some soda here and there will have any negative effects.

782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

(5231)

on June 02, 2012
at 10:47 PM

down voted really? with no explanation?

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 02, 2012
at 09:45 PM

Just wanted to let you know this is a politics free zone.

A4587cfef29863db612c43f89c202cc1

(2053)

on June 02, 2012
at 02:43 PM

Do you know how to boil frogs?

A4216f1b1e1f5ab3815bd91700905081

(1646)

on June 02, 2012
at 06:31 AM

Huge difference between regulating and controlling. Eliminating food subsidies would go a long way towards moving back to regulating...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 02, 2012
at 06:11 AM

The original comment seems to be a idealistic promotion of a more social democratic model of governance, as opposed to market based 'neoliebral' model where there is an illusion of govert regulation. Does anyone actually think it is government, rather than the market, that has the most influence generally in contempoary society? Arguably effective'regulation' doesn't really exist anyway. So many government and corpoarte figures have been in the 'revolving door' for a long time... Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to worry about regulation 'taking away our freedom' etc...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 02, 2012
at 06:05 AM

If govt doesn't have some role in regulating, the market would then decide what is avaiable in terms of food. And markets are based on profits. What foods make the most profit? Maybe 'choice' is an illusion anyway....

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5

on June 02, 2012
at 05:00 AM

Sugar isn't the reason your healthcare costs are rising. That would be socialized medicine. Socialism has a way of increasing prices.

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on June 02, 2012
at 01:54 AM

I would insist that soda is almost entirely harmless for most, and probably therapeutic for some.

Bb2adc4df725b56e99e0652c0feb4640

(254)

on June 02, 2012
at 12:40 AM

@Mark: Every movement has to begin somewhere. Maybe we need to partly undo US gov intervention, and this seems like a reasonable, popular place to start.

Cccb899526fb5908f64176e0a74ed2d9

(2801)

on June 02, 2012
at 12:40 AM

Syracuse represent!

Aa69579f867333b08158c70e25f7daf1

(1826)

on June 01, 2012
at 11:57 PM

Hah! This got some people really riled up. :-) I just don't buy into this "government is the boogeyman" OR "government can solve all the problems" nonsense. It's somewhere in the middle. We take the good with the bad. Let's be realistic: it's never going to be ILLEGAL to talk about paleo; anyone who believes that is a paranoid conspiracy theorist; while I find their points of view amusing, it's nonsense. Sure, some paleo food might be taxed more someday because of a flawed food pyramid. But if you can't buy a 3 liter soda for a dollar anymore, I think that's a win for America. Period.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 01, 2012
at 11:53 PM

Jizz in my pants!

5662d1262516ccbd70249e7aeaf58901

(681)

on June 01, 2012
at 11:00 PM

ed, you are absolutely right. If we the people are not wise enough to make good decisions for ourselves, why would we expect our rulers -- who are also people -- to make better decisions? The evidence suggests that they will make poor decisions. Not only are they human and fallible, but are corruptible. Once we cede power to them, we lose the ability to make our own decisions. Beware creeping totalitarianism.

Dc57235f3b5eb859e3d2b50b42f43cc3

(0)

on June 01, 2012
at 10:09 PM

Just makes me think of Joe Rogan. He's always on about how the world is so absurd that this whole existence thing must be fiction.

474ae29b80569199c6589e879e6cd7d1

on June 01, 2012
at 09:30 PM

I wouldn't even call that intervention. I'd call that appropriate non-manipulation.

5e63e3fa78e998736106a4a5b9aef58c

on June 01, 2012
at 08:43 PM

If there is going to be government intervention to curtail soda/sugar consumption, it has to come in the form of ending subsidies to corn growers. As long as corn is subsidized, HFCS will remain incredibly cheap to produce, and thus soda will remain incredibly cheap to consume. Imposing easily-evaded bans, or charging sin taxes--while the federal government is still making that flood of cheap soda possible--really isn't going to solve anything.

5e63e3fa78e998736106a4a5b9aef58c

on June 01, 2012
at 08:35 PM

If a NYC soda addict can't buy a super-sized soda served in a cup, they'll just buy a 2-litre bottle from a bodega or drugstore. And if restaurant owners aren't allowed to sell soda in >16oz sizes, they'll still find ways around it. Offering free refills is one. Charging a flat price to customers who bring their own cup (and ignoring the size of the cup) is another. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. So a large-soda ban is just going to be a completely ineffective waste of legislation. Junkies will still get their fix, dealers will still make money off them.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:34 PM

@Ruth: I'd bet that the vast majority of Americans think that soft-drinks are harmless..."in moderation". If you go to the Coca-Cola Beverage Institute website, they'll tell you that the only thing bad about their product is that overconsumption might cause cavities. (These are the same people who offer continuing education classes to Registered Dietitians, by the way.)

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:19 PM

Keep "bath salt" legal! "Bath salts" don't eat people. People eat people.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:17 PM

@tdgor LOL it was in response to a comment about 'raids on farms' by armed federal agents. Just pointing out that almost anyone from child to adult can use a firearm.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:16 PM

@tdgor It is one thing to question a specific law, it's purpose, and/or it's effectiveness. The rhetoric on this board (not from you) questions the governments right to intervene at all. Reminds me of a South Park episode, "They took are jobs!" Ignoring over 200 years of US government intervention into its citizens lives. These same individuals would probably be more than happy to have the government ban abortion and gay marriage. All the while preaching personal freedoms and less government intrusion.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:53 PM

@Mark: "FYI, if you have ever been in combat, a 14-year old can use an assault rifle just as well as an adult." Say what now? What does that have to do with Lucky Charms?

11b7b7ba720a5cd43c74a0ef99a16adb

(3448)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:52 PM

"The intellectual flaw of any argument in favor of regulation is the implicit belief that the goverment is going to regulate in the manner that you approve of." - Bingo! The money quote from this entire argument.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:52 PM

@Mark: "We should continue as a whole to do nothing" [/sarcasm font]. You are setting up a straw man here. Being skeptical about the utility and wisdom of the soda tax here is not the same thing as saying that we are "doing nothing."

11b7b7ba720a5cd43c74a0ef99a16adb

(3448)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:47 PM

-1 If govt. nutrition experts could force us to eat their way, the majority of our diet would consist of grain and soybean based products. Meat would be a rarity. Heck, advocating the paleo diet would be a crime. Giving away freedom to the govt for some greater good never results in the greater good you had hoped for, but does always result in the loss of freedom. The reason there is an "obesity epidemic" is because the govt has been pushing a nutrition model (the food pyramid) that INCREASES obesity. This is not a group that should be dictating how other eat.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:09 PM

Anyone that thinks we live in a "free country" is a brainwashed idiot.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:08 PM

Yes. I live in a constant state of fear. I am terrified of everything. I am a chihuahua that pees on the carpet when someone knocks on the door. GAAAAAH! Run for your lives!!!

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:55 PM

Yes, yes. The evils of the elected officials who run our Republic. I up voted because I'm tired of the internet heroes and conspiracy advocates claiming doom and gloom when the government so much as enforces a parking ticket. FYI, if you have ever been in combat, a 14-year old can use an assault rifle just as well as an adult.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:49 PM

I think it is presumptive/arrogant to assume the your personal priorities and societies priorities are one and the same. Who else will represent society's, as a whole, interests? How about in a republic, with a popularly elected legislative branch, we allow elected officials to determine societies priorities. If you are unhappy with their priorities, feel free to run for office yourself. If you are unhappy with the system, start a popular movement and change it. If you are just an internet hero, keep blogging about it and see where that gets you.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:46 PM

Subsidies are what got us into this mess in the first place, arguably (Corn and Soy prices so low that HFCS and Soy is in practically every American processed food today). That logic sounds like "two wrongs to make a right".

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:43 PM

You are assuming it's proper to allow Government to assume the role of society. Granted, in the US, we are somewhat secluded from societal life compared to the rest of the world (Rugged Individualism and whatnot) but I still don't think any politician at any level has my personal priorities at heart when passing legislation.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:35 PM

Just expanding on karlub's point. In the history of different tyrannical "regimes", changes were most often gradual and consisted of small, unrelated items eventually getting rolled into more, and more far-reaching implications. Soda today, perhaps Saturated fat tomorrow? And Health/Doctor Orgs the world over will congratulate them... ten years later, they've banned a whole new group of foods or products determined to be "unhealthy" when they realize nothing changed health-wise. While not on the Gulag level *yet*, personal choice restrictions are cumulative, like it or not.

F5a8a14fc6a4d33c2563d0dd3066698a

(714)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:32 PM

Downvoted not out of malice, but because I become godsmacked any time someone wants to give more power to the entity that came up with the Food Pyramid, the American battery of agricultural subsidies, and passel of agribusiness kickbacks. To say nothing of armed FDA raids on farms where a 14 year-old may be driving a tractor.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:15 PM

You are right. We should continue as a whole to do nothing as a large portion of the country suffers from obesity, type II diabetes, and bogs the healthcare system down; increasing costs for all users. As far as the government determining what is good or not good for it's citizens, that precedent was set a long time ago. You are required to wear a seat belt, you have to carry car insurance, you cannot own military grade explosives, you cannot have/distribute illegal drugs, foods must meet certain quality standards, and the list goes on and on and on.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on June 01, 2012
at 06:12 PM

Don't worry your freedom will be taken not long after though. ;-)

F5a8a14fc6a4d33c2563d0dd3066698a

(714)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:06 PM

"What do you do when the public is already informed and still making unhealthy decisions?" Who gets to decide what is unhealthy? What precedent does this set? The government has helped us get into this mess using this exact logic.

76c885d7d27e6c83542ea493ca866dcd

(2178)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:53 PM

oh i'm not saying it's a good idea, and probably anything is better than regulation. just a comment that people's knowledge that soda is bad for them doesn't stop them from drinking it. that's all.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:25 PM

It's not the be all end all. There will be those that choose to follow a particular vice, whatever it maybe. With cigarettes, there was a direct link between the growing public knowledge of the health risks and less use over the years. Very little if any regulation lowered cigarette use. Obesity on the other hand, it has been common knowledge since antiquity that eating too much or too unhealthy will cause weight gain. What do you do when the public is already informed and still making unhealthy decisions?

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:16 PM

Taxing cigarettes and alcohol hasn't made people stop smoking or drinking. Fewer people smoke nowadays--there has been a cultural change. Query how much of that was truly government-mandated and how much the government was following a cultural shift.

8634d4988ced45a68e2a79e69cc01835

(1617)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:10 PM

Nanny State! It's for your own good. Do not be alarmed. Look away. Nothing to see here.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:06 PM

I recognize and support decriminalization of drugs. I believe it is a social and not a criminal problem. Plus imagine the taxes and no illegal activity surrounding the traffic of drugs! You are correct! I had forgotten that. That is why employers put in job descriptions that you must be able to stand for an hour and lift over your head 20+ pounds! I believe the state can effectively regulate not the consumer but the point of sale. Limitations to portion sizes, outlawing the use of corn syrup, and taxing unhealthy foods at a higher rate would have the desired effect.

F5a8a14fc6a4d33c2563d0dd3066698a

(714)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:56 PM

But the State is partly responsible for the very obesity epidemic it is purporting to fix, through agricultural subsidies, favorable regulation for agribusiness, and the promotion of the SAD. By what measure do you imagine that *any* coercion by the State in this regard will turn out any differently?

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:55 PM

(1) decriminalization of drug use is an idea with wide support among law enforcement. (2) Morbid obesity is already recognized as a disability under the ADA.

F5a8a14fc6a4d33c2563d0dd3066698a

(714)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:54 PM

The default status of human relations is tyranny, Gurlz. Of *course* tyranny is always around the corner. For those of us born in 20th century America this can be easy to forget. Is this an example? Obviously it is. Is it the end of the world? No. But it still is what it is. Especially when you consider the fact that these are the same people who have given us the SAD.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:37 PM

The program is now called "SNAP." SNAP benefits are very low. I can forgive someone who is very hungry for wanting to purchase as many calories per dollar with his/her SNAP EBT, in order to stave off hunger. Did you know that you are not allowed to purchase vitamins with SNAP benefits? It's true.

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:33 PM

I understand the lack of choices. I just feel that if the government is going to be giving you something you should be limited in what that something is.

474ae29b80569199c6589e879e6cd7d1

on June 01, 2012
at 04:28 PM

I agree with you on most aspects. At risk of veering political, I'd argue that most people are on food stamps merely out of desperation. That being said, I agree that if the gov't is giving you something, it has the right to mandate what. I'm fascinated by single-issue advocacy by no sense of a bigger picture. That being said, I support environmental reg's, so I'm guilty, too.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:28 PM

Downvoted for overbroad assumptions about an entire culture and lack of understanding of the lack of choices available to the poor. Ever tried buying fresh vegetables in Harlem?

4b5be253ac1981c690689cab7e4bf06d

(3043)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:25 PM

Actually, Big Gulps are fine as they are served at a convenience store, rather than a place regulated by the NYC health department. So, 64 oz big gulp, fine. 44 oz McDonalds coke, not fine. (Also, dairy products are excluded, so a 350 calorie 32 oz coke is not okay, but a 1000 calorie 32 oz milkshake is perfectly fine.)

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:25 PM

Alternatively, if people receive food stamps I feel that they should be limited in what they can or can't buy. Let them buy basic staples...milk, bread, rice, beans, eggs, etc. No soda, no candy, no sugar. If you make it hard for them, they won't want to stay on food stamps.

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:23 PM

Yes Ed! People aren't looking at the bigger picture. They only see this one issue of soda. Yeah, it sounds good on paper. But when you look at the ramifications of government control of your food consumption, you realize that this is no bueno.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:19 PM

@Ruth: Even if everyone agreed that soda was harmful, it doesn't necessarily follow that there should be a law against it, and you can make good arguments on either side. Some will say that individual freedom is paramount, and that people have a right to hurt themselves as long as they don't hurt anyone else. It's the "hurt anyone else" part that leaves room for debate. Most people think they are harmed if they have to pay for someone else's bad decisions. My feeling is that even if this is a good law, it paves the way for a lot of potentially bad laws, a "fat-tax being the most obvious.

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:18 PM

Two percent tax is still more than zero percent tax, which is what I want to pay. Another thing that has been a bust is in NYC with all the mandatory calorie counts at the restaurants. It didn't stop people from eating what they wanted, so what did they decide to do? Implement sin taxes! It doesn't stop them from trying, they only try to control MORE. It's a bad slope to be on when you want and encourage the state to decide what you eat. Are you not confident in your decision to decide what is best for YOU and your family that you think the government should choose for you?

F8751f994225ccdf23cc3b7c99ee3e9b

(230)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:02 PM

I am liking the idea of an underground herb garden!

76c885d7d27e6c83542ea493ca866dcd

(2178)

on June 01, 2012
at 03:45 PM

Does anyone think soda is actually good for them, though?

474ae29b80569199c6589e879e6cd7d1

on June 01, 2012
at 03:17 PM

Go Brooke! If there was a mandated system, it would likely be the current food pyramid. It's entirely possible that the system would be set up that you would pay an additional amount for NOT eating the mandated level of grains. It would be on the basis that by ignoring healthy grains, you are a greater burden on society and should pay accordingly.

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 03:12 PM

But the issue won't stop with soda. Once we start taking away freedom to choose what to ingest there is just a slippery slope into tax everything that's deemed bad. Fat is considered bad and I don't want to be taxed for eating healthy. Sure, it seems nice to punish those who make bad choices. But in the end, you'll be punishing yourself for allowing the government to dictate your life.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on June 01, 2012
at 03:12 PM

The Danish fat tax - all 2% of it - has by the government's own admission been a total bust. It's raised far less revenue than anticipated. I doubt other countries will repeat the experience.

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on June 01, 2012
at 03:08 PM

Sugary drinks are probably as harmful as cigarettes, which are heavily taxed. Certainly, eyes could be trained on foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol. What's more alarming to me is the prospect of compulsory medication. There are advocates for mandatory statins. Hopefully, future nutrition research will demonstrate that's unnecessary.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on June 01, 2012
at 03:08 PM

The error of thought here is that sugar guzzlers hurt no one else. Their diabetes is set to consume nearly 20% of our GDP in health costs by 2025. They are also guzzling your tax dollars with every Big Gulp. This clearly harms you directly - you'll pay more tax.

A1081af52b61372dbb3ed572d88968f4

(425)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:58 PM

DK - be careful what you wish for. Amen to sister Ruth :-)

76c885d7d27e6c83542ea493ca866dcd

(2178)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:52 PM

Freedom isn't just the right to make good (or healthy or smart) choices. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, do to your body what you want! Part of the problem is that we are subjected to this system requiring us to pay for others' healthcare. That needs to go too.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:48 PM

OMG. Stock up on the suet!

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:46 PM

Just think of the joy of hanging out together with other paleo peeps in the fat speakeasies. I'll have another shot of coconut oil please.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on June 01, 2012
at 02:29 PM

No we are not on the road to serfdom. Please calm down. This may surprise you but tyranny is not around every corner. ;) Bloomberg is a fiscally oriented conservative, so don't freak out. And by the way beer in NYC has been regulated by size for decades, which has hardly reduced the population to slaves.

  • 8838443ac82e9f98e4ae9daf80d50eb5

    asked by

    (896)
  • Views
    2.8K
  • Last Activity
    1262D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

25 Answers

best answer

3
0382fa263de4c83328dc34a56e25437f

on June 01, 2012
at 07:27 PM

Along similar lines, I just found this: http://ij.org/north-carolina-free-speech-release-5-30-2012.

Which may be in another thread somewhere but I didn't see it today.

best answer

4
90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5

on June 02, 2012
at 04:55 AM

I want to see more threads like this - Food Politics are very relevant to our way of living. And I enjoy reading the debates.

Personally, I believe government needs to stay the hell out of peoples' diets and let them choose what to eat. And stop subsidizing everything. If you own your body, then you get to choose what you put in it.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 02, 2012
at 06:05 AM

If govt doesn't have some role in regulating, the market would then decide what is avaiable in terms of food. And markets are based on profits. What foods make the most profit? Maybe 'choice' is an illusion anyway....

A4216f1b1e1f5ab3815bd91700905081

(1646)

on June 02, 2012
at 06:31 AM

Huge difference between regulating and controlling. Eliminating food subsidies would go a long way towards moving back to regulating...

24
F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:35 PM

"Terrified" is too strong a word, but there's no doubt that bad precedents are being set.

Education is better than regulation.

76c885d7d27e6c83542ea493ca866dcd

(2178)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:53 PM

oh i'm not saying it's a good idea, and probably anything is better than regulation. just a comment that people's knowledge that soda is bad for them doesn't stop them from drinking it. that's all.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:09 PM

Anyone that thinks we live in a "free country" is a brainwashed idiot.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:19 PM

@Ruth: Even if everyone agreed that soda was harmful, it doesn't necessarily follow that there should be a law against it, and you can make good arguments on either side. Some will say that individual freedom is paramount, and that people have a right to hurt themselves as long as they don't hurt anyone else. It's the "hurt anyone else" part that leaves room for debate. Most people think they are harmed if they have to pay for someone else's bad decisions. My feeling is that even if this is a good law, it paves the way for a lot of potentially bad laws, a "fat-tax being the most obvious.

76c885d7d27e6c83542ea493ca866dcd

(2178)

on June 01, 2012
at 03:45 PM

Does anyone think soda is actually good for them, though?

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on June 02, 2012
at 01:54 AM

I would insist that soda is almost entirely harmless for most, and probably therapeutic for some.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:34 PM

@Ruth: I'd bet that the vast majority of Americans think that soft-drinks are harmless..."in moderation". If you go to the Coca-Cola Beverage Institute website, they'll tell you that the only thing bad about their product is that overconsumption might cause cavities. (These are the same people who offer continuing education classes to Registered Dietitians, by the way.)

11
11b7b7ba720a5cd43c74a0ef99a16adb

(3448)

on June 01, 2012
at 09:27 PM

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2012/06/national_donut_day_mayor_bloomberg_soda_ban_nyc_daily_buzz.html

Thursday: Mayor Bloomberg announces plans to ban large sugary drinks.

Friday: Mayor Bloomberg signs a proclamation honoring National Donut Day.

This is starting to look like a SNL skit.

Cccb899526fb5908f64176e0a74ed2d9

(2801)

on June 02, 2012
at 12:40 AM

Syracuse represent!

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 01, 2012
at 11:53 PM

Jizz in my pants!

Dc57235f3b5eb859e3d2b50b42f43cc3

(0)

on June 01, 2012
at 10:09 PM

Just makes me think of Joe Rogan. He's always on about how the world is so absurd that this whole existence thing must be fiction.

10
A7768b6c6be7f5d6acc76e5efa66464c

on June 01, 2012
at 11:45 PM

The "Slippery Slope" is a Fallacy

Or...it might be. People have raised the specter of the "slippery slope" a few times, and I find the argument tempting. But on the other hand, I also know that this argument is often fallacious. Because something might follow does not mean it will, and one has to consider so many other factors to predict where the slope leads. It seems to me we cannot identify a slippery slope until we are at the bottom of it, looking back.

Agricultural Subsidies: the Real Slippery Slope?

Might we argue the real slippery slope to worry about here was providing agricultural subsidies? From that, everything that's wrong followed: cheap processed foods; sugars in everything; corn and soy in everything; CAFO meats; sodas served in buckets because it costs nothing to make it (the bucket costs more). Can wee draw a line straight from agricultural subsidies to the obesity/diabetes/heart disease epidemic? I find it sad that my tax dollars subsidize farmers not to protect them and the agrarian American way of life, but to ensure my access to $1 buckets of soda.

Soda = Tobacco

People understandably worry that regulation of soda will naturally lead to more (and undesirable) regulation of other foods. I don't consider soda "food," so I prefer a different argument. Supposing we compare sugary sodas to tobacco, instead.

Studies demonstrate, and we as a society have more or less agreed, that tobacco harms people, and offers no benefit beyond profit for its producers/retailers. This also describes soda. Moderation doesn't matter: some smoking is bad; more smoking is worse. Same for soda. Smoking costs society, in terms of health care; soda too.

It seems to me the heavy regulation of tobacco has had some positive effects, and has not (apparently) prevented manufacturers and retailers from continuing to profit, nor does it prevent people from smoking if they want to. It just ties the impact of this behavior more closely to its cost, and asks the user to bear some of that cost.

Of course, this particular soda regulation doesn't really even do that, because it doesn't impose any costs, just an inconvenience. It's relatively toothless, and if this is the power of the government nanny-state, I'm not too scared. Not yet, anyhow.

Perversely, the power of the food mega-corporations will likely prevent the type of slippery slope regulation some of us fear. After all, meat, egg and dairy producers (particularly the evil ones!) have plenty of political clout too. The companies making the refined, processed crap also make the oils they fry it in. None of them will want meaningful regulation, so likely none will occur.

I am very cynical and pragmatic about all this. As long as abundant subsidized commodities and cheap energy prop up this system, not much will change. When the time arrives that it costs too much to process, package, and ship stuff across the country and around the world, other options will become more attractive.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 03, 2012
at 06:55 AM

Soda and tobacco also offer the benefit of pleasure for their users.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 03, 2012
at 06:46 AM

I think most people will agree that subsidies suck, HFCS sucks, buckets of soda suck, and smoking a pack a day sucks. But moderation doesn't matter? The Kitavans smoke in moderation and are in excellent health. And for someone eating a nutrient-replete diet, I doubt that some soda here and there will have any negative effects.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 03, 2012
at 04:55 PM

Heroin and methamphetamine offer the benefit of pleasure to their users.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 04:53 AM

So go get yourself some pepsi throwback and consume it guilt-free. Don't call it a cheat, because that's missing the point.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 03, 2012
at 06:47 AM

Soda and tobacco offer the benefits of short-term satisfaction for their users. I don't think this is something to be overlooked

A7768b6c6be7f5d6acc76e5efa66464c

on June 03, 2012
at 04:47 PM

Good point @dante. I didn't mean to ignore pleasure when I argued no benefit. Pleasure might be the only reason to consume these things.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on June 04, 2012
at 02:30 AM

Yeah, and look how effective the war on those illegal drugs has been...oh wait...

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 04:53 AM

Karen: I think you're missing the point. We're basically all hedonists. Why do (most) people try to be healthy? Because they derive pleasure from feeling good and looking good. Why do (most) people drink soda? Because it tastes good. I think in some cases, the deprivation from not being able to enjoy soda can be more detrimental than actually consuming soda. For a healthy person (read: majority of paleo-hackers), I see no reason why soda should be avoided religiously. What's the point of good health if you don't take advantage of it?

10
Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:37 PM

It is very scary but I'm not sure that our freedom to choose will be taken away in just a few months. However, once you start banning things and creating "sin" taxes where do you stop? I definitely think that soon we will start to see more taxes on more and more "bad" foods. Denmark has a fat tax that they implemented just last year. The government should not be able to tell ordinary citizens what they can and can't eat.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on June 01, 2012
at 06:12 PM

Don't worry your freedom will be taken not long after though. ;-)

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:18 PM

Two percent tax is still more than zero percent tax, which is what I want to pay. Another thing that has been a bust is in NYC with all the mandatory calorie counts at the restaurants. It didn't stop people from eating what they wanted, so what did they decide to do? Implement sin taxes! It doesn't stop them from trying, they only try to control MORE. It's a bad slope to be on when you want and encourage the state to decide what you eat. Are you not confident in your decision to decide what is best for YOU and your family that you think the government should choose for you?

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on June 01, 2012
at 03:12 PM

The Danish fat tax - all 2% of it - has by the government's own admission been a total bust. It's raised far less revenue than anticipated. I doubt other countries will repeat the experience.

8
1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 01, 2012
at 03:06 PM

They're not banning soda altogether, just sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (ie a Big Gulp from 7/11). People can still buy 2-liters at the grocery store.

Everybody just simma down now!

4b5be253ac1981c690689cab7e4bf06d

(3043)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:25 PM

Actually, Big Gulps are fine as they are served at a convenience store, rather than a place regulated by the NYC health department. So, 64 oz big gulp, fine. 44 oz McDonalds coke, not fine. (Also, dairy products are excluded, so a 350 calorie 32 oz coke is not okay, but a 1000 calorie 32 oz milkshake is perfectly fine.)

6
F9638b939a6f85d67f60065677193cad

(4266)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:14 PM

So they ban the cups but not the drink inside and we're supposed to be running scared? If I owned a restaurant I would advertise "bring your own cup, any size same price" and enjoy the money saved on cups I no longer have to purchase and dispose of as well as all the new customers I'd get.

5
76c885d7d27e6c83542ea493ca866dcd

(2178)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:34 PM

YES. Time to head for the hills.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:48 PM

OMG. Stock up on the suet!

4
7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

on June 01, 2012
at 04:52 PM

Companies run the world not governments, as long as things are profitable they will not be taken away regardless of how healthy or not they are perceived to be

Also the term fatty foods usually refers to fast foot etc, not butter, unprocessed meat and eggs which is where the majority of fat comes from on a diet like this

3
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:33 PM

What do you mean 'about'? What is it about soda that gets you to sit up and take notice? This is why they went for the whole 'keep and bear arms' thing first- you don't have the ability to stop these creeps from doing whatever it is they want.

No ability=no freedom

I've actually thought about piping sunlight via fiber optic cables underground in order to have a hidden farm. Of course the first time I thought of that was back in the day when I had a different herb in mind... Now I wonder how viable raising cattle underground would be. If they don't know what you have, the likelihood that they'll take it goes down considerably.

F8751f994225ccdf23cc3b7c99ee3e9b

(230)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:02 PM

I am liking the idea of an underground herb garden!

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:39 AM

I am liking the idea of an underground ranch. lol

2
Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on June 03, 2012
at 01:14 PM

I don't think legislation like this has any chance of actually passing. People will freak out like we're doing here. What it will do is raise awareness. "What, soda's bad for you? Really?" That's worth all the tempest in the teapot, IMO

2
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:51 AM

The government need to be seen to be doing something!

Oh I can see the obesity epidemic reversing, the moment this ban comes in. ;) lol

2
Aa69579f867333b08158c70e25f7daf1

(1826)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:03 PM

You know, if the extra funds went to something like a universal healthcare system where everyone had access to basic preventative care, I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for my fat and meat. If it went to subsidize other agreed-on healthy items, like fruits and vegetables, it would likely be a wash anyways, because my overall bill would be the same.

Basically, if we can make it economically unattractive for people to buy processed crap, high sugary sodas, etc. - I don't mind if my butter and red meat goes along with whatever taxes are involved. I'd rather lose that tiny battle and hopefully win a bigger war - like reasonable access to healthcare, making fresh vegetables and fruits financially accessible, etc.

In Denmark, stores aren't allowed to sell Lucky Charms. There's too much sugar; the government prohibits it. I think this is WONDERFUL. Granted, some full fat items are taxed at a higher rate. I'm okay with tradeoffs like that, given that the payoff is that people can't just go out and buy Lucky Charms...

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:17 PM

@tdgor LOL it was in response to a comment about 'raids on farms' by armed federal agents. Just pointing out that almost anyone from child to adult can use a firearm.

11b7b7ba720a5cd43c74a0ef99a16adb

(3448)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:47 PM

-1 If govt. nutrition experts could force us to eat their way, the majority of our diet would consist of grain and soybean based products. Meat would be a rarity. Heck, advocating the paleo diet would be a crime. Giving away freedom to the govt for some greater good never results in the greater good you had hoped for, but does always result in the loss of freedom. The reason there is an "obesity epidemic" is because the govt has been pushing a nutrition model (the food pyramid) that INCREASES obesity. This is not a group that should be dictating how other eat.

Aa69579f867333b08158c70e25f7daf1

(1826)

on June 01, 2012
at 11:57 PM

Hah! This got some people really riled up. :-) I just don't buy into this "government is the boogeyman" OR "government can solve all the problems" nonsense. It's somewhere in the middle. We take the good with the bad. Let's be realistic: it's never going to be ILLEGAL to talk about paleo; anyone who believes that is a paranoid conspiracy theorist; while I find their points of view amusing, it's nonsense. Sure, some paleo food might be taxed more someday because of a flawed food pyramid. But if you can't buy a 3 liter soda for a dollar anymore, I think that's a win for America. Period.

F5a8a14fc6a4d33c2563d0dd3066698a

(714)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:32 PM

Downvoted not out of malice, but because I become godsmacked any time someone wants to give more power to the entity that came up with the Food Pyramid, the American battery of agricultural subsidies, and passel of agribusiness kickbacks. To say nothing of armed FDA raids on farms where a 14 year-old may be driving a tractor.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 02, 2012
at 06:11 AM

The original comment seems to be a idealistic promotion of a more social democratic model of governance, as opposed to market based 'neoliebral' model where there is an illusion of govert regulation. Does anyone actually think it is government, rather than the market, that has the most influence generally in contempoary society? Arguably effective'regulation' doesn't really exist anyway. So many government and corpoarte figures have been in the 'revolving door' for a long time... Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to worry about regulation 'taking away our freedom' etc...

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:53 PM

@Mark: "FYI, if you have ever been in combat, a 14-year old can use an assault rifle just as well as an adult." Say what now? What does that have to do with Lucky Charms?

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:46 PM

Subsidies are what got us into this mess in the first place, arguably (Corn and Soy prices so low that HFCS and Soy is in practically every American processed food today). That logic sounds like "two wrongs to make a right".

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:55 PM

Yes, yes. The evils of the elected officials who run our Republic. I up voted because I'm tired of the internet heroes and conspiracy advocates claiming doom and gloom when the government so much as enforces a parking ticket. FYI, if you have ever been in combat, a 14-year old can use an assault rifle just as well as an adult.

2
58d456f4c4d551a697e65ada8c32ad4f

on June 01, 2012
at 04:59 PM

Oh drats. No more super sized soda at McDonald's either, what should we do?! RELAX. And have you been to NYC? Can't get your soda fix at a restaurant? Pop into any other little ma and pop type store and buy your self a 2 liter of whatever for half the price the restaurant wanted to charge you for a glass of the same stuff.

2
F694fc245d03b64d6936ddb29f4c9306

(2613)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:34 PM

Nope. I do what I want!

1
3eea146670a575107d0f9cdcbd368f3b

on June 03, 2012
at 04:23 PM

Just a little more info for those that don't live in NYC.

there are some ridiculous loopholes in Bloombergs proposed ban. Most notably, 7-11 is EXEMPT from the ban. Because its somehow considered a "grocery establishment" which is exempt from the ban and can sell large sodas. So yes, the "big gulp ban" doesnt actually ban the big gulp Yet they're still targeting bodegas, I'm not sure how 7-11 isn't anything but a cleaner polished bodega.

Also this doesn't stop people from just buying 2 sodas, or going to places with unlimited refills. Or just going to a grocery store. Or just buying alcohol instead.

I'm all for making people healthy, but this ban is hilariously bad.

0
Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:08 PM

For many, making something that people desire illegal only raises their desire more.

Can you imagine a black market for..... soda? haha

0
6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 02, 2012
at 09:54 PM

Um no....who is defending the bucket of corn syrup as a way of life except the beverage council and the people who make those creepy "corn sugar" ads? HFCS is at the root of as much liver damage and heart disease as alcohol, so why not regulate it in the same way? Anything to slow down the GM corn industry and atrozine releases into our environment will certainly fall on the right side of history. This is not about civil liberties, it is about regulating a substance known to do substantial harm. Were we any less free when coca-cola came only in 7 oz. bottles?

I like to think adults can think for themselves, but after hearing so many, "What am I supposed to drink if I can't get a big soda?" interviews this week I'm thinking at the very least we need a "Thirsty? Drink some effin' water!!!" campaign.

0
782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

on June 02, 2012
at 09:02 PM

I think it's just a tempest in a teapot. Stuff gets regulated all the time. There are taxes on all kinds of things, like cigarettes for example. There are limits on how much of a substance one can buy, like pseudoenephrine.

Unfortunately, I don't think this will make much of a difference in people's eating habits unless this policy, or tax, is bound to other efforts such as education. Or the ADA and the USDA changes their food recommendations. Or the gov't stops subsidizing corn, etc.

782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

(5231)

on June 02, 2012
at 10:47 PM

down voted really? with no explanation?

0
81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:47 PM

Using the argument that personal freedom is paramount to other concerns then any government regulation on individual behavior is without merit. Restrictions/taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, laws against illegal drugs, ect...should be stricken down in favor of individual freedoms.

If people have shown an inability to self control harmful behaviors, is it not society's responsibility to step in? We have an obesity epidemic which has astronomical societal costs as well as personal costs to the individual. Imagine what will happen if they classify obesity as a disability under the ADA?

Notice the law does not prevent one from buying more than one soda if they so choose. It will simply cost the consumer more. Freedom of choice is not taken away.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:16 PM

@tdgor It is one thing to question a specific law, it's purpose, and/or it's effectiveness. The rhetoric on this board (not from you) questions the governments right to intervene at all. Reminds me of a South Park episode, "They took are jobs!" Ignoring over 200 years of US government intervention into its citizens lives. These same individuals would probably be more than happy to have the government ban abortion and gay marriage. All the while preaching personal freedoms and less government intrusion.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:55 PM

(1) decriminalization of drug use is an idea with wide support among law enforcement. (2) Morbid obesity is already recognized as a disability under the ADA.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:49 PM

I think it is presumptive/arrogant to assume the your personal priorities and societies priorities are one and the same. Who else will represent society's, as a whole, interests? How about in a republic, with a popularly elected legislative branch, we allow elected officials to determine societies priorities. If you are unhappy with their priorities, feel free to run for office yourself. If you are unhappy with the system, start a popular movement and change it. If you are just an internet hero, keep blogging about it and see where that gets you.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:43 PM

You are assuming it's proper to allow Government to assume the role of society. Granted, in the US, we are somewhat secluded from societal life compared to the rest of the world (Rugged Individualism and whatnot) but I still don't think any politician at any level has my personal priorities at heart when passing legislation.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:25 PM

It's not the be all end all. There will be those that choose to follow a particular vice, whatever it maybe. With cigarettes, there was a direct link between the growing public knowledge of the health risks and less use over the years. Very little if any regulation lowered cigarette use. Obesity on the other hand, it has been common knowledge since antiquity that eating too much or too unhealthy will cause weight gain. What do you do when the public is already informed and still making unhealthy decisions?

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:06 PM

I recognize and support decriminalization of drugs. I believe it is a social and not a criminal problem. Plus imagine the taxes and no illegal activity surrounding the traffic of drugs! You are correct! I had forgotten that. That is why employers put in job descriptions that you must be able to stand for an hour and lift over your head 20+ pounds! I believe the state can effectively regulate not the consumer but the point of sale. Limitations to portion sizes, outlawing the use of corn syrup, and taxing unhealthy foods at a higher rate would have the desired effect.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:15 PM

You are right. We should continue as a whole to do nothing as a large portion of the country suffers from obesity, type II diabetes, and bogs the healthcare system down; increasing costs for all users. As far as the government determining what is good or not good for it's citizens, that precedent was set a long time ago. You are required to wear a seat belt, you have to carry car insurance, you cannot own military grade explosives, you cannot have/distribute illegal drugs, foods must meet certain quality standards, and the list goes on and on and on.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 05:16 PM

Taxing cigarettes and alcohol hasn't made people stop smoking or drinking. Fewer people smoke nowadays--there has been a cultural change. Query how much of that was truly government-mandated and how much the government was following a cultural shift.

F5a8a14fc6a4d33c2563d0dd3066698a

(714)

on June 01, 2012
at 06:06 PM

"What do you do when the public is already informed and still making unhealthy decisions?" Who gets to decide what is unhealthy? What precedent does this set? The government has helped us get into this mess using this exact logic.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 01, 2012
at 08:19 PM

Keep "bath salt" legal! "Bath salts" don't eat people. People eat people.

F5a8a14fc6a4d33c2563d0dd3066698a

(714)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:56 PM

But the State is partly responsible for the very obesity epidemic it is purporting to fix, through agricultural subsidies, favorable regulation for agribusiness, and the promotion of the SAD. By what measure do you imagine that *any* coercion by the State in this regard will turn out any differently?

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 07:52 PM

@Mark: "We should continue as a whole to do nothing" [/sarcasm font]. You are setting up a straw man here. Being skeptical about the utility and wisdom of the soda tax here is not the same thing as saying that we are "doing nothing."

Bb2adc4df725b56e99e0652c0feb4640

(254)

on June 02, 2012
at 12:40 AM

@Mark: Every movement has to begin somewhere. Maybe we need to partly undo US gov intervention, and this seems like a reasonable, popular place to start.

0
877ded1787562057ee2e1a4548b6050a

on June 01, 2012
at 03:43 PM

I eat what I want and do what I want.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:07 PM

uh oh folks. we got a badass over here. lol.

-1
980a08fc871f83f803191278d1a8c3c3

(531)

on June 02, 2012
at 06:44 AM

I smell a lot of Ron Paul people ITT...... And I like it.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 02, 2012
at 09:45 PM

Just wanted to let you know this is a politics free zone.

-2
531b053b68e92ac509fc1544f88dc103

(1205)

on September 07, 2013
at 12:44 AM

I fully support it. The general American population is fat and stubborn. Education is a nice gesture, but it won't stop stupid people from making stupid choices and draining medicaid and medicare for which we all have to pay for through taxes and higher insurance premiums. Why should I be financially penalized so these sheeple can destroy their bodies? They don't even know how to make their own choices, let alone make good ones. Their "choices" are based on the pretty colors and advertising on pop bottles.

If they can't think for themselves, let someone with a bit of sense think for them.

I don't think the law goes far enough. If they can't drink a big coke, they'll gulp down a giant orange juice with even more sugar.

They should tax drink companies for every gram of sugar they dump into their trashy crap products.

474ae29b80569199c6589e879e6cd7d1

on June 01, 2012
at 03:17 PM

Go Brooke! If there was a mandated system, it would likely be the current food pyramid. It's entirely possible that the system would be set up that you would pay an additional amount for NOT eating the mandated level of grains. It would be on the basis that by ignoring healthy grains, you are a greater burden on society and should pay accordingly.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on June 01, 2012
at 03:08 PM

The error of thought here is that sugar guzzlers hurt no one else. Their diabetes is set to consume nearly 20% of our GDP in health costs by 2025. They are also guzzling your tax dollars with every Big Gulp. This clearly harms you directly - you'll pay more tax.

474ae29b80569199c6589e879e6cd7d1

on June 01, 2012
at 04:28 PM

I agree with you on most aspects. At risk of veering political, I'd argue that most people are on food stamps merely out of desperation. That being said, I agree that if the gov't is giving you something, it has the right to mandate what. I'm fascinated by single-issue advocacy by no sense of a bigger picture. That being said, I support environmental reg's, so I'm guilty, too.

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5

on June 02, 2012
at 05:00 AM

Sugar isn't the reason your healthcare costs are rising. That would be socialized medicine. Socialism has a way of increasing prices.

A1081af52b61372dbb3ed572d88968f4

(425)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:58 PM

DK - be careful what you wish for. Amen to sister Ruth :-)

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:23 PM

Yes Ed! People aren't looking at the bigger picture. They only see this one issue of soda. Yeah, it sounds good on paper. But when you look at the ramifications of government control of your food consumption, you realize that this is no bueno.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:28 PM

Downvoted for overbroad assumptions about an entire culture and lack of understanding of the lack of choices available to the poor. Ever tried buying fresh vegetables in Harlem?

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:37 PM

The program is now called "SNAP." SNAP benefits are very low. I can forgive someone who is very hungry for wanting to purchase as many calories per dollar with his/her SNAP EBT, in order to stave off hunger. Did you know that you are not allowed to purchase vitamins with SNAP benefits? It's true.

5e63e3fa78e998736106a4a5b9aef58c

on June 01, 2012
at 08:35 PM

If a NYC soda addict can't buy a super-sized soda served in a cup, they'll just buy a 2-litre bottle from a bodega or drugstore. And if restaurant owners aren't allowed to sell soda in >16oz sizes, they'll still find ways around it. Offering free refills is one. Charging a flat price to customers who bring their own cup (and ignoring the size of the cup) is another. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. So a large-soda ban is just going to be a completely ineffective waste of legislation. Junkies will still get their fix, dealers will still make money off them.

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 03:12 PM

But the issue won't stop with soda. Once we start taking away freedom to choose what to ingest there is just a slippery slope into tax everything that's deemed bad. Fat is considered bad and I don't want to be taxed for eating healthy. Sure, it seems nice to punish those who make bad choices. But in the end, you'll be punishing yourself for allowing the government to dictate your life.

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on June 01, 2012
at 03:08 PM

Sugary drinks are probably as harmful as cigarettes, which are heavily taxed. Certainly, eyes could be trained on foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol. What's more alarming to me is the prospect of compulsory medication. There are advocates for mandatory statins. Hopefully, future nutrition research will demonstrate that's unnecessary.

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:25 PM

Alternatively, if people receive food stamps I feel that they should be limited in what they can or can't buy. Let them buy basic staples...milk, bread, rice, beans, eggs, etc. No soda, no candy, no sugar. If you make it hard for them, they won't want to stay on food stamps.

76c885d7d27e6c83542ea493ca866dcd

(2178)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:52 PM

Freedom isn't just the right to make good (or healthy or smart) choices. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, do to your body what you want! Part of the problem is that we are subjected to this system requiring us to pay for others' healthcare. That needs to go too.

Cc49234f065a33c763ab09fa234d08eb

(292)

on June 01, 2012
at 04:33 PM

I understand the lack of choices. I just feel that if the government is going to be giving you something you should be limited in what that something is.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:43 AM

Stupid people should be free to make stupid decisions. Why does the government want to save stupid people anyway?

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!