PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues CAMBRIDGE, MA CONSIDERS SODA BAN IN RESTAURANTS...


petegz28
06-19-2012, 09:45 AM
Policy Order Resolution

O-4
ORIGINAL ORDER
IN CITY COUNCIL

June 18, 2012

MAYOR DAVIS

WHEREAS: High intake of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages increases the risk of obesity and diabetes; and

WHEREAS:
New York City has a plan to limit the serving size of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages sold in restaurants; now therefore be it

ORDERED:
That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.



http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=35515

AndChiefs
06-19-2012, 09:47 AM
Don't worry. You can still get your fried chicken, french fries, and cheesecake.

For now.

petegz28
06-19-2012, 09:51 AM
Myth Buster Juice vs. Soda

<object width="429" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://vp.mgnetwork.net/viewer.swf?u=4666e8eeb875102faba2001ec92a4a0d&z=SLS&embed_player=1" ></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://vp.mgnetwork.net/viewer.swf?u=4666e8eeb875102faba2001ec92a4a0d&z=SLS&embed_player=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="429" height="295"></embed></object>

mikey23545
06-19-2012, 09:51 AM
Look, all the liberals I know have told me there is absolutely no such thing as a "slippery slope".

Bump
06-19-2012, 09:53 AM
thats gay

petegz28
06-19-2012, 09:54 AM
So essentially if Cambridge was to actually ban "sugary drinks" it would eliminate everything but un-sweetened tea, coffee and water. Milk has sugar in it. Juice has sugar in it. I guess diet soda would get a pass.

AndChiefs
06-19-2012, 09:56 AM
Myth Buster Juice vs. Soda

<object width="429" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://vp.mgnetwork.net/viewer.swf?u=4666e8eeb875102faba2001ec92a4a0d&z=SLS&embed_player=1" ></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://vp.mgnetwork.net/viewer.swf?u=4666e8eeb875102faba2001ec92a4a0d&z=SLS&embed_player=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="429" height="295"></embed></object>

I drink one (small) glass of juice in the morning for the nutrients involved in it. It's still better for you then soda.

headsnap
06-19-2012, 10:00 AM
sugar BAD... chemicals GOOD!!!

petegz28
06-19-2012, 10:00 AM
I drink one (small) glass of juice in the morning for the nutrients involved in it. It's still better for you then soda.

Oh on the contrary...


By Dr. Mercola


Half of the U.S. population over the age of 2 now consumes sugary drinks on a daily basis -- and this figure does not even include 100% fruit juices, flavored milk or sweetened teas, all of which are sugary too, which means the figure is actually even higher.

Many people mistakenly believe that as long as you are drinking fruit juice, it's healthy even though it's sweet, but this is a dangerous misconception that is fueling the rising rates of weight gain, obesity, fatty liver disease, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in the United States and other developed nations.

In fact, you are doing your body no favor whatsoever by swapping soda for fruit juice, and as a concise infographic posted by Discovery pointed out, oftentimes fruit drinks are actually worse for your health than soda.

Fruit Juice is NOT a Healthy Beverage


First off, most fruit drinks on the market should be more aptly named flavored sugar-water, because many contain next to no real juice.

If your fruit juice is actually labeled a "fruit drink," "fruit beverage," or "fruit cocktail," it's because it does not contain 100% juice.

In fact, according to the Discovery graphic, on average fruit drinks contain just 10% fruit juice!

And according to the Sugary Drink FACTS report, which was developed to scientifically measure food marketing to youth:


"Some fruit drink packages are covered with images of real fruit, even though these drinks may contain no more than 5 percent real fruit juice. The actual ingredients are water and high-fructose corn syrup, or in some cases "real sugar," such as cane sugar. Examples include: Kool-Aid Jammers, Hawaiian Punch, Capri Sun Orange, and Capri Sun Sunrise (which Capri Sun markets as a breakfast drink).

… Parents believe that full-sugar soda is not a healthy option for their children, but they are under the impression that fruit drinks are healthier. What parents don't realize is that ounce-for-ounce, the fruit drinks are just as high in calories and added sugar as soda."

This is not to say that 100% fruit juices are healthy, although it may provide a source of vitamins and other nutrients if it's freshly squeezed. The real issue here, whether we're talking about fruit juice, fruit drinks, soda or any other sugary beverage is the sugar, and especially the fructose!

One eight-ounce glass of orange juice has about eight full teaspoons of sugar, and at least 50 percent of that sugar is fructose. That's almost as much as a can of soda, which contains approximately 10 teaspoons of sugar. Fruit drinks, on the other hand, will likely contain high-fructose corn syrup, just as soda does. In fact, soda giants like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper are actually the parent companies to most sugary drinks on the market, and that includes fruit juices!

Whether it's Fruit Juice or Soda, the Health Damage from Fructose is the Same


Drinking just one eight-ounce glass of orange juice will wallop your system with 25 grams of fructose, which is more than you should have the entire day. Of course, many people, especially kids and teenagers, drink far more sugary fruit drinks in a day than that, and that's just what the beverage companies are banking on.

The problem is that fructose has been identified as one of the primary culprits in the meteoric rise of obesity and related health problems, and while the majority of the problem is caused by the large quantities of high fructose corn syrup added to so many processed foods and sweetened beverages, naturally occurring fructose in large amounts of fruit juice is also a problem.

Around 100 years ago the average American consumed a mere 15 grams of fructose a day, primarily in the form of whole fruit. One hundred years later, one-fourth of Americans are consuming more than 135 grams per day (that's over a quarter of a pound!), largely in the form of soda and other sweetened beverages.

Fructose at 15 grams a day is harmless (unless you suffer from high uric acid levels). However, at nearly 10 times that amount it becomes a major cause of obesity and nearly all chronic degenerative diseases.

The American Beverage Association and other front groups will try to persuade you that fructose in high fructose corn syrup is no worse for you than sugar, but this is not true. ABA also claims there is "no association between high fructose corn syrup and obesity," but a long lineup of scientific studies suggest otherwise.

For example:
•Dr. David Ludwig of Boston Children's Hospital did a study of the effects of sugar-sweetened drinks on obesity in children. He found that, for each additional serving of a sugar-sweetened drink, both body mass index and odds of obesity increased.
•The Fizzy Drink Study in Christchurch, England explored the effects on obesity when soda machines were removed from schools for one year. In the schools where the machines were removed, obesity stayed constant. In the schools where soda machines remained, obesity rates continued to rise. Remember, fruit drinks often contain the same amount (or more) of sugar and fructose as soda, so it stands to reason that reducing fruit drinks would result in similar trends.
•In a 2009 study, 16 volunteers were fed a controlled diet including high levels of fructose. Ten weeks later, the volunteers had produced new fat cells around their hearts, livers and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. A second group of volunteers who were fed a similar diet, but with glucose replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

Fructose Beats Up Your Liver Just Like Alcohol


Fructose is also a likely culprit behind the millions of U.S. children struggling with non-alcoholic liver disease, which is caused by a build-up of fat within liver cells. Fructose is very hard on your liver, in much the same way as drinking alcohol.

After eating fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver—ONLY your liver can break it down. This is much different than consuming glucose, in which your liver has to break down only 20 percent, and the remaining 80 percent is immediately metabolized and used by the rest of the cells in your body.

Fructose is also converted into fat that gets stored in your liver and other tissues as body fat. Part of what makes fructose so bad for your health is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar. Under normal circumstances, if you eat 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat. But if you eat the same amount of glucose, only 6 calories gets stored as fat.

Fruit Juice Increases Your Uric Acid Levels, Like Soda Does


Thankfully there is a simple inexpensive test you can use to see if you are consuming too much sugar or fruit.

As it turns out, elevated uric acid levels are a major component of several chronic diseases that have been linked to fructose consumption, such as diabetes and heart disease. Recent research indicates that fructose is the ONLY type of sugar that will raise your uric acid levels, which really strengthens the theory that excessive fructose consumption in sugary drinks is at the very heart of most, if not all, of these diseases.

In fact, it is the specific pathways used to metabolize fructose that generates the production of uric acid (fructose typically generates uric acid within minutes of ingestion). These pathways are entirely different from those used by glucose and other sugars.

I became fully aware of the dramatic and devastating impact fructose has on your uric acid levels when I interviewed Dr. Richard Johnson on this topic last year.

According to Dr. Johnson's research, uric acid appears to take on a lead role in creating health problems when it reaches levels in your body of 5.5 mg per dl or higher. At this level, uric acid is associated with an increased risk for developing high blood pressure, as well as diabetes, obesity and kidney disease.

He believes the ideal range for uric acid lies between 3 to 5.5 mg per dl, and getting your uric acid levels tested can further help you determine just how strict you need to be with limiting your fructose consumption.

On a final note, this is also the reason why drinking sugary drinks, including fruit juice, may significantly increase your risk of gout. In one study, published last year, women who drank 12 ounces or more of orange juice a day doubled their risk of gout, and those who drank just six ounces of juice per day increased their risk by 41 percent. A similar study on men was published in 2008. In that study, men who drank two or more sugary soft drinks a day had an 85 percent higher risk of gout than those who drank less than one a month.

Fruit juice and fructose-rich fruits such as oranges and apples also increased the risk.

Beware: Beverage Companies are Out for Your Kids


As a parent, it's important to talk to your kids not only about the health implications of drinking soda, but also those from drinking all sugary beverages such as fruit juice and fruit drinks. And let your older kids know that they are prime targets for sugary drink marketing tactics.

The Sugary Drink FACTS report revealed some shocking statistics as well as stealthy ways that beverage companies are trying to get your kids hooked on sugary drinks:
•Children's exposure to TV ads for sugary drinks from Coca-Cola and Dr Pepper Snapple Group nearly doubled from 2008 to 2010.
•MyCokeRewards.com was the most-visited sugary drink company website with 170,000 unique youth visitors per month (42,000 of whom were young children and 129,000 were teens); Capri Sun's website was the second-most viewed site, attracting 35,000 young children and 35,000 teens per month.
•Twenty-one sugary drink brands had YouTube channels in 2010 with more than 229 million views by June 2011, including 158 million views for the Red Bull channel alone.
•Coca-Cola was the most popular of all brands on Facebook, with more than 30 million fans; Red Bull and Monster ranked 5th and 15th, with more than 20 million and 11 million fans, respectively.

There's No Reason to Drink Sugary Fruit Beverages


Many people are now conscious of the health risks of drinking soda. I suggest you add fruit drinks and fruit juice to this category, as they are really one in the same. These types of sugary drinks are a primary source of excessive fructose. Instead, drink plenty of pure water as your primary beverage of choice.

As for fructose, I recommend you get serious about restricting your consumption of fructose to no more than 25 grams per day, with a maximum of 15 grams a day from fresh fruit (not fruit juice). If you're already overweight, or have diabetes, heart disease or cancer, then you're probably better off cutting that down to 10-15 grams per day, fruit included.

I do realize that reducing sugar/fructose in your diet can be tough for some people. After all, sugar is just as addictive as cocaine! But it is possible, and Dr. Johnson provides helpful guidelines for doing so in his book, The Sugar Fix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/06/fruit-drinks-sodas-evil-twin.aspx

AndChiefs
06-19-2012, 10:09 AM
Oh on the contrary...


By Dr. Mercola


Half of the U.S. population over the age of 2 now consumes sugary drinks on a daily basis -- and this figure does not even include 100% fruit juices, flavored milk or sweetened teas, all of which are sugary too, which means the figure is actually even higher.

Many people mistakenly believe that as long as you are drinking fruit juice, it's healthy even though it's sweet, but this is a dangerous misconception that is fueling the rising rates of weight gain, obesity, fatty liver disease, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in the United States and other developed nations.

In fact, you are doing your body no favor whatsoever by swapping soda for fruit juice, and as a concise infographic posted by Discovery pointed out, oftentimes fruit drinks are actually worse for your health than soda.

Fruit Juice is NOT a Healthy Beverage


First off, most fruit drinks on the market should be more aptly named flavored sugar-water, because many contain next to no real juice.

If your fruit juice is actually labeled a "fruit drink," "fruit beverage," or "fruit cocktail," it's because it does not contain 100% juice.

In fact, according to the Discovery graphic, on average fruit drinks contain just 10% fruit juice!

And according to the Sugary Drink FACTS report, which was developed to scientifically measure food marketing to youth:


"Some fruit drink packages are covered with images of real fruit, even though these drinks may contain no more than 5 percent real fruit juice. The actual ingredients are water and high-fructose corn syrup, or in some cases "real sugar," such as cane sugar. Examples include: Kool-Aid Jammers, Hawaiian Punch, Capri Sun Orange, and Capri Sun Sunrise (which Capri Sun markets as a breakfast drink).

… Parents believe that full-sugar soda is not a healthy option for their children, but they are under the impression that fruit drinks are healthier. What parents don't realize is that ounce-for-ounce, the fruit drinks are just as high in calories and added sugar as soda."

This is not to say that 100% fruit juices are healthy, although it may provide a source of vitamins and other nutrients if it's freshly squeezed. The real issue here, whether we're talking about fruit juice, fruit drinks, soda or any other sugary beverage is the sugar, and especially the fructose!

One eight-ounce glass of orange juice has about eight full teaspoons of sugar, and at least 50 percent of that sugar is fructose. That's almost as much as a can of soda, which contains approximately 10 teaspoons of sugar. Fruit drinks, on the other hand, will likely contain high-fructose corn syrup, just as soda does. In fact, soda giants like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper are actually the parent companies to most sugary drinks on the market, and that includes fruit juices!

Whether it's Fruit Juice or Soda, the Health Damage from Fructose is the Same


Drinking just one eight-ounce glass of orange juice will wallop your system with 25 grams of fructose, which is more than you should have the entire day. Of course, many people, especially kids and teenagers, drink far more sugary fruit drinks in a day than that, and that's just what the beverage companies are banking on.

The problem is that fructose has been identified as one of the primary culprits in the meteoric rise of obesity and related health problems, and while the majority of the problem is caused by the large quantities of high fructose corn syrup added to so many processed foods and sweetened beverages, naturally occurring fructose in large amounts of fruit juice is also a problem.

Around 100 years ago the average American consumed a mere 15 grams of fructose a day, primarily in the form of whole fruit. One hundred years later, one-fourth of Americans are consuming more than 135 grams per day (that's over a quarter of a pound!), largely in the form of soda and other sweetened beverages.

Fructose at 15 grams a day is harmless (unless you suffer from high uric acid levels). However, at nearly 10 times that amount it becomes a major cause of obesity and nearly all chronic degenerative diseases.

The American Beverage Association and other front groups will try to persuade you that fructose in high fructose corn syrup is no worse for you than sugar, but this is not true. ABA also claims there is "no association between high fructose corn syrup and obesity," but a long lineup of scientific studies suggest otherwise.

For example:
•Dr. David Ludwig of Boston Children's Hospital did a study of the effects of sugar-sweetened drinks on obesity in children. He found that, for each additional serving of a sugar-sweetened drink, both body mass index and odds of obesity increased.
•The Fizzy Drink Study in Christchurch, England explored the effects on obesity when soda machines were removed from schools for one year. In the schools where the machines were removed, obesity stayed constant. In the schools where soda machines remained, obesity rates continued to rise. Remember, fruit drinks often contain the same amount (or more) of sugar and fructose as soda, so it stands to reason that reducing fruit drinks would result in similar trends.
•In a 2009 study, 16 volunteers were fed a controlled diet including high levels of fructose. Ten weeks later, the volunteers had produced new fat cells around their hearts, livers and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. A second group of volunteers who were fed a similar diet, but with glucose replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

Fructose Beats Up Your Liver Just Like Alcohol


Fructose is also a likely culprit behind the millions of U.S. children struggling with non-alcoholic liver disease, which is caused by a build-up of fat within liver cells. Fructose is very hard on your liver, in much the same way as drinking alcohol.

After eating fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver—ONLY your liver can break it down. This is much different than consuming glucose, in which your liver has to break down only 20 percent, and the remaining 80 percent is immediately metabolized and used by the rest of the cells in your body.

Fructose is also converted into fat that gets stored in your liver and other tissues as body fat. Part of what makes fructose so bad for your health is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar. Under normal circumstances, if you eat 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat. But if you eat the same amount of glucose, only 6 calories gets stored as fat.

Fruit Juice Increases Your Uric Acid Levels, Like Soda Does


Thankfully there is a simple inexpensive test you can use to see if you are consuming too much sugar or fruit.

As it turns out, elevated uric acid levels are a major component of several chronic diseases that have been linked to fructose consumption, such as diabetes and heart disease. Recent research indicates that fructose is the ONLY type of sugar that will raise your uric acid levels, which really strengthens the theory that excessive fructose consumption in sugary drinks is at the very heart of most, if not all, of these diseases.

In fact, it is the specific pathways used to metabolize fructose that generates the production of uric acid (fructose typically generates uric acid within minutes of ingestion). These pathways are entirely different from those used by glucose and other sugars.

I became fully aware of the dramatic and devastating impact fructose has on your uric acid levels when I interviewed Dr. Richard Johnson on this topic last year.

According to Dr. Johnson's research, uric acid appears to take on a lead role in creating health problems when it reaches levels in your body of 5.5 mg per dl or higher. At this level, uric acid is associated with an increased risk for developing high blood pressure, as well as diabetes, obesity and kidney disease.

He believes the ideal range for uric acid lies between 3 to 5.5 mg per dl, and getting your uric acid levels tested can further help you determine just how strict you need to be with limiting your fructose consumption.

On a final note, this is also the reason why drinking sugary drinks, including fruit juice, may significantly increase your risk of gout. In one study, published last year, women who drank 12 ounces or more of orange juice a day doubled their risk of gout, and those who drank just six ounces of juice per day increased their risk by 41 percent. A similar study on men was published in 2008. In that study, men who drank two or more sugary soft drinks a day had an 85 percent higher risk of gout than those who drank less than one a month.

Fruit juice and fructose-rich fruits such as oranges and apples also increased the risk.

Beware: Beverage Companies are Out for Your Kids


As a parent, it's important to talk to your kids not only about the health implications of drinking soda, but also those from drinking all sugary beverages such as fruit juice and fruit drinks. And let your older kids know that they are prime targets for sugary drink marketing tactics.

The Sugary Drink FACTS report revealed some shocking statistics as well as stealthy ways that beverage companies are trying to get your kids hooked on sugary drinks:
•Children's exposure to TV ads for sugary drinks from Coca-Cola and Dr Pepper Snapple Group nearly doubled from 2008 to 2010.
•MyCokeRewards.com was the most-visited sugary drink company website with 170,000 unique youth visitors per month (42,000 of whom were young children and 129,000 were teens); Capri Sun's website was the second-most viewed site, attracting 35,000 young children and 35,000 teens per month.
•Twenty-one sugary drink brands had YouTube channels in 2010 with more than 229 million views by June 2011, including 158 million views for the Red Bull channel alone.
•Coca-Cola was the most popular of all brands on Facebook, with more than 30 million fans; Red Bull and Monster ranked 5th and 15th, with more than 20 million and 11 million fans, respectively.

There's No Reason to Drink Sugary Fruit Beverages


Many people are now conscious of the health risks of drinking soda. I suggest you add fruit drinks and fruit juice to this category, as they are really one in the same. These types of sugary drinks are a primary source of excessive fructose. Instead, drink plenty of pure water as your primary beverage of choice.

As for fructose, I recommend you get serious about restricting your consumption of fructose to no more than 25 grams per day, with a maximum of 15 grams a day from fresh fruit (not fruit juice). If you're already overweight, or have diabetes, heart disease or cancer, then you're probably better off cutting that down to 10-15 grams per day, fruit included.

I do realize that reducing sugar/fructose in your diet can be tough for some people. After all, sugar is just as addictive as cocaine! But it is possible, and Dr. Johnson provides helpful guidelines for doing so in his book, The Sugar Fix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/06/fruit-drinks-sodas-evil-twin.aspx

Anything I drink is 100% juice and is actually less than 8 oz...but I see your point.

RNR
06-19-2012, 10:10 AM
Those who proudly stood up for smoking bans, might start to see where this type of nanny state bullshit leads~

mlyonsd
06-19-2012, 10:11 AM
Those who proudly stood up for smoking bans, might start to see where this type of nanny state bullshit leads~Bingo.

AndChiefs
06-19-2012, 10:17 AM
Those who proudly stood up for smoking bans, might start to see where this type of nanny state bullshit leads~

The only ban on smoking I support is the one in my house.

Okay, also in my car. I'd prefer it at work but that really should be up to the employer.

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 10:17 AM
Meh. I consider myself fairly conservative and I don't have a big problem with these new pushes to limit consumption of high-caloric drinks and foods.

Obesity is absolutely an epidemic in this country and clearly many fat people are incapable of controlling what they put in their mouths.

RNR
06-19-2012, 10:27 AM
Meh. I consider myself fairly conservative and I don't have a big problem with these new pushes to limit consumption of high-caloric drinks and foods.

Obesity is absolutely an epidemic in this country and clearly many fat people are incapable of controlling what they put in their mouths.

LMAO yep this is the answer for sure! We need to be told what to eat and drink. Every single resturant or store should be controlled. Penalties should be harsh for those caught with soda or other unhealthy products. If we send a few to the joint for 10 years, the rest will fall in line~

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 10:30 AM
LMAO yep this is the answer for sure! We need to be told what to eat and drink. Every single resturant or store should be controlled. Penalties should be harsh for those caught with soda or other unhealthy products. If we send a few to the joint for 10 years, the rest will fall in line~

I don't think it is the answer, but it is better than the status quo.

What is your answer?

Bump
06-19-2012, 10:34 AM
the next step is to add a government agency in every city, sort of like the board of health that goes into restaurants to ensure they are not selling soda pop. Probably be like $50 billion a year.

RNR
06-19-2012, 10:37 AM
I don't think it is the answer, but it is better than the status quo.

What is your answer?

Less government in my life. Charge higher premiums, I would even agree to taxation on unhealthy products, if the money can be controlled to fight the health costs of obesity. I sure hell do not support this type of bullshit~

stevieray
06-19-2012, 10:39 AM
Smokers..check
Fat people...check
Seniors....
Christians....

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 10:41 AM
Less government in my life. Charge higher premiums, I would even agree to taxation on unhealthy products, if the money can be controlled to fight the health costs of obesity. I sure hell do not support this type of bullshit~

Yes, I realize this is the card-carrying response, but obesity is a financial drain on our country and some steps must be taken because people cannot control themselves.

Higher premiums and taxation on fatty foods should also be part of the solution - these don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone believes that obesity will become obsolete in Cambridge now after just banning soda in restaurants.

qabbaan
06-19-2012, 10:43 AM
captil lettars!

Bump
06-19-2012, 10:45 AM
isn't Boston one of the more fit cities in America? Why on earth would they start there? Bring down the pain in Kansas City, need to tax krispy kreme donuts to they are like $5 a piece and the dollar menu at mcdonalds needs to be the $10 menu. 80% beef needs to be like $20 per pound too. And no more bacon! just get rid of it altogether. The salt and fat = obese food.

|Zach|
06-19-2012, 10:45 AM
So the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation you say?

Brock
06-19-2012, 10:47 AM
isn't Boston one of the more fit cities in America? Why on earth would they start there? Bring down the pain in Kansas City, need to tax krispy kreme donuts to they are like $5 a piece and the dollar menu at mcdonalds needs to be the $10 menu. 80% beef needs to be like $20 per pound too. And no more bacon! just get rid of it altogether. The salt and fat = obese food.

Good grief, what an idiot.

|Zach|
06-19-2012, 10:48 AM
isn't Boston one of the more fit cities in America? Why on earth would they start there? Bring down the pain in Kansas City, need to tax krispy kreme donuts to they are like $5 a piece and the dollar menu at mcdonalds needs to be the $10 menu. 80% beef needs to be like $20 per pound too. And no more bacon! just get rid of it altogether. The salt and fat = obese food.

Your posts taken from different threads paint quite a picture.

RNR
06-19-2012, 10:57 AM
Yes, I realize this is the card-carrying response, but obesity is a financial drain on our country and some steps must be taken because people cannot control themselves.

Higher premiums and taxation on fatty foods should also be part of the solution - these don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone believes that obesity will become obsolete in Cambridge now after just banning soda in restaurants.

You are right, this is not enough! We need more bans. We need to be under control. Only approved products should be sold. We need to be told what to do, say or think. It is insane to allow people to keep thinking for themselves~

qabbaan
06-19-2012, 11:05 AM
Some people are going to end up wanting to ban all food except that baby food stuff they fed RoboCop

RNR
06-19-2012, 11:09 AM
Some people are going to end up wanting to ban all food except that baby food stuff they fed RoboCop

It is the only way to save ourselves~

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 11:22 AM
You are right, this is not enough! We need more bans. We need to be under control. Only approved products should be sold. We need to be told what to do, say or think. It is insane to allow people to keep thinking for themselves~

You said yourself that higher insurance premiums and fat taxes should be considered, so are you now arguing with yourself?

Amnorix
06-19-2012, 11:49 AM
Those who proudly stood up for smoking bans, might start to see where this type of nanny state bullshit leads~


There's a fundamental difference -- smoking affects other people. My wife is very sensitive to smoke, and the smell of smoke would make her avoid restaurants and the like to some extent back when smoking in restaurants was allowed, even if there were no-smoking areas (duh, smoke travels).

Thsi doesn't affect anyone else at the restaurant. It's a pretty absurd effort to regulate eating healthy. It's just stupid.

ChiefsCountry
06-19-2012, 11:49 AM
Coke and Pepsi must have some shitty lobbyists.

AndChiefs
06-19-2012, 11:51 AM
Coke and Pepsi must have some shitty lobbyists.

This is their wake-up call that they need to be doing some more bribing...I mean...lobbying.

Amnorix
06-19-2012, 11:51 AM
isn't Boston one of the more fit cities in America? Why on earth would they start there? Bring down the pain in Kansas City, need to tax krispy kreme donuts to they are like $5 a piece and the dollar menu at mcdonalds needs to be the $10 menu. 80% beef needs to be like $20 per pound too. And no more bacon! just get rid of it altogether. The salt and fat = obese food.


Boston isn't Cambridge any more than Oakland is San Francisco. Cambridge is the equivalent, roughly, of Berkeley or wherever -- very hip, modern, liberal, lots of college kids (both Harvard and MIT are in Cambridge) etc.

Dave Lane
06-19-2012, 11:54 AM
So essentially if Cambridge was to actually ban "sugary drinks" it would eliminate everything but un-sweetened tea, coffee and water. Milk has sugar in it. Juice has sugar in it. I guess diet soda would get a pass.

"limit the serving size of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages"

Pete with the usual fail. Personally I could care less. They want to kill themselves go for it.

Rain Man
06-19-2012, 11:55 AM
"limit the serving size of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages"


I'm fine with this as long as I continue to get free refills. A lot of waitresses can use the extra exercise to keep walking them over.

Rain Man
06-19-2012, 11:57 AM
It seems like instead of banning soda, they should have a scale in every restaurant. If you weigh in below the level of obesity, you get the soda. It's really no different than having the age calendar in liquor stores to figure out who gets beer.

Dave Lane
06-19-2012, 12:13 PM
It seems like instead of banning soda, they should have a scale in every restaurant. If you weigh in below the level of obesity, you get the soda. It's really no different than having the age calendar in liquor stores to figure out who gets beer.

Brilliant! Some might order diet soda so they can get more.

FishingRod
06-19-2012, 12:13 PM
So if something is dangerous to oneself and others and costs 10’s of thousands of lives every year, should it be banned?




Hint they go zoom zoom and beep beep.

vailpass
06-19-2012, 12:14 PM
Those who proudly stood up for smoking bans, might start to see where this type of nanny state bullshit leads~

X100

vailpass
06-19-2012, 12:15 PM
Yes, I realize this is the card-carrying response, but obesity is a financial drain on our country and some steps must be taken because people cannot control themselves.

Higher premiums and taxation on fatty foods should also be part of the solution - these don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone believes that obesity will become obsolete in Cambridge now after just banning soda in restaurants.

You aren't really a conservative. NTTAWWT, just pointing it out.

Discuss Thrower
06-19-2012, 12:18 PM
So if something is dangerous to oneself and others and costs 10’s of thousands of lives every year, should it be banned?




Hint they go zoom zoom and beep beep.

That and it also comes in numerous different formulas, brands, flavors and has already ben banned once before..

Setsuna
06-19-2012, 12:19 PM
Damn Democrats.

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 12:25 PM
You aren't really a conservative. NTTAWWT, just pointing it out.

Is there a guidebook you can provide to test myself for future reference? Don't want to step on any internet toes.

BigChiefFan
06-19-2012, 12:36 PM
I'm so sick of some telling others how to live. Government get the fuck out of my life, you parasitic leeches.Welcome to the nanny state.

RNR
06-19-2012, 12:40 PM
There's a fundamental difference -- smoking affects other people. My wife is very sensitive to smoke, and the smell of smoke would make her avoid restaurants and the like to some extent back when smoking in restaurants was allowed, even if there were no-smoking areas (duh, smoke travels).

Thsi doesn't affect anyone else at the restaurant. It's a pretty absurd effort to regulate eating healthy. It's just stupid.

It has been debated before. Your wife did have the right to not eat there. The nanny state has already begun~

mikey23545
06-19-2012, 12:42 PM
You are right, this is not enough! We need more bans. We need to be under control. Only approved products should be sold. We need to be told what to do, say or think. It is insane to allow people to keep thinking for themselves~


Damn it, can't you understand?...We must save people from themselves!

For example, if only there was some activity we could ban that would stop the terrible spread of STD's and AIDS...

Wait! I have it!!!!...

RNR
06-19-2012, 12:43 PM
You said yourself that higher insurance premiums and fat taxes should be considered, so are you now arguing with yourself?

:spock: I hope you are pretending to be that slow~

mikey23545
06-19-2012, 12:44 PM
By the way everyone, feel free to read the second line in my sig...

Saul Good
06-19-2012, 12:52 PM
It is the government's job to make sure we eat and drink the right things.

BCD
06-19-2012, 12:53 PM
Go ahead and order all the beer and alcoholic drinks you want.

No sugar in those.

Nope...

Setsuna
06-19-2012, 12:56 PM
Oh crap. If they can't sell soft drinks, then no mixed drinks? I need my rum and coke bro.

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 12:56 PM
:spock: I hope you are pretending to be that slow~

Less government in my life. Charge higher premiums, I would even agree to taxation on unhealthy products, if the money can be controlled to fight the health costs of obesity.

So you were just joking here?

Can't wait to see the cool emoticon in your next post.

Saulbadguy
06-19-2012, 12:58 PM
Smokers..check
Fat people...check
Seniors....
Christians....

Progress.

RNR
06-19-2012, 01:21 PM
So you were just joking here?

Can't wait to see the cool emoticon in your next post.

I am willing to compromise. If people choose to enjoy products that lead to health issues, increasing the cost in the form of taxes to offset the cost on our society, is something I may support. The post you quoted was clearly sarcastic. That is clearly to anyone less the very slow~

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 01:33 PM
I am willing to compromise. If people choose to enjoy products that lead to health issues, increasing the cost in the form of taxes to offset the cost on our society, is something I may support. The post you quoted was clearly sarcastic. That is clearly to anyone less the very slow~

Are you mentally retarded?

You would increase taxes on products that lead to health issues, but the post from you below was "clearly to anyone less the very slow" sarcastic?

Less government in my life. Charge higher premiums, I would even agree to taxation on unhealthy products, if the money can be controlled to fight the health costs of obesity.

vailpass
06-19-2012, 01:57 PM
Is there a guidebook you can provide to test myself for future reference? Don't want to step on any internet toes.

If someone says they want less government and your response is "well, that's the card-carrying response" there is a clue for you.

Saul Good
06-19-2012, 01:57 PM
I don't smoke. Hell, I fucking hate smoke. That said, I oppose smoking bans in private establishments for the same reason I oppose this measure despite the fact that I weigh 170 pounds and am in good shape; the government is supposed to work for the people, not run our lives.

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 02:02 PM
If someone says they want less government and your response is "well, that's the card-carrying response" there is a clue for you.

The "less government" mantra is what mindless retards have written on their hands to repeat over and over again in discussions. I am all for less government in general, but not in every single situation. I don't believe you can only be a conservative if you insist that any government intervention is inherently evil.

RNR
06-19-2012, 02:03 PM
Are you mentally retarded?

You would increase taxes on products that lead to health issues, but the post from you below was "clearly to anyone less the very slow" sarcastic?

You are a fucking dipshit. I have made it perfectly clear I am against bans. I agree there is a problem, and think something along the lines of a "sin" tax may be a solution. You remind me of Cosmo~

RNR
06-19-2012, 02:05 PM
If someone says they want less government and your response is "well, that's the card-carrying response" there is a clue for you.

This clown is an idiot~

eazyb81
06-19-2012, 02:06 PM
You are a ****ing dipshit. I have made it perfectly clear I am against bans. I agree there is a problem, and think something along the lines of a "sin" tax may be a solution. You remind me of Cosmo~

I am the dipshit because you don't even know what f#cking side of the argument you are on until your 10th post in the thread? Or is this another one of your "sarcastic" posts?

vailpass
06-19-2012, 02:07 PM
The "less government" mantra is what mindless retards have written on their hands to repeat over and over again in discussions. I am all for less government in general, but not in every single situation. I don't believe you can only be a conservative if you insist that any government intervention is inherently evil.

Sure. See you at the club. Probably not though.

jspchief
06-19-2012, 02:07 PM
Look, all the liberals I know have told me there is absolutely no such thing as a "slippery slope".If this soda thing takes hold, you may have more of a point. I imagine it's life expectancy is pretty low.

vailpass
06-19-2012, 02:09 PM
You are a ****ing dipshit. I have made it perfectly clear I am against bans. I agree there is a problem, and think something along the lines of a "sin" tax may be a solution. You remind me of Cosmo~

Dude, that's a bit harsh. He's taking a dissenting view, not acting like a whitey-hatin' partisan hack with a side dish of myopic liberal talking points.
:D

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 02:19 PM
Are you mentally retarded?



I've assumed he is. His posts on this thread seem to confirm it.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 02:24 PM
Dude, that's a bit harsh. He's taking a dissenting view, not acting like a whitey-hatin' partisan hack with a side dish of myopic liberal talking points.
:D

Yeah, you nailed it. What a moron. Honestly, you have to be 11 years old or have some kind of mental disability.

mikey23545
06-19-2012, 02:24 PM
If this soda thing takes hold, you may have more of a point. I imagine it's life expectancy is pretty low.


"By now, you've probably heard about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial decision to ban the sale of large sodas in New York City restaurants, theaters, stadiums and street carts. Reactions to this announcement were widespread and ranged from favorable to -- well -- indignant. This proposed ban will outlaw the sale of sweetened drinks over 16 ounces that contain more than 50 calories.

At Tuesday's meeting of the New York City Board of Health, who must approve these decisions, board members also indicated an interest in enforcing limits on other large, high-calorie foods like movie theater popcorn, coffee drinks and milkshakes. "The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," board member Bruce Vladeck proclaimed, and we can see his point."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/bloomberg-soda-ban-foods_n_1587931.html

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 02:25 PM
You are a ****ing dipshit. I have made it perfectly clear I am against bans. I agree there is a problem, and think something along the lines of a "sin" tax may be a solution. You remind me of Cosmo~

He is kind of exposing you as an idiot, just like I do.

Hydrae
06-19-2012, 02:36 PM
There's a fundamental difference -- smoking affects other people. My wife is very sensitive to smoke, and the smell of smoke would make her avoid restaurants and the like to some extent back when smoking in restaurants was allowed, even if there were no-smoking areas (duh, smoke travels).

Thsi doesn't affect anyone else at the restaurant. It's a pretty absurd effort to regulate eating healthy. It's just stupid.

But obesity is costing all of us more money in health care costs. Smoking only affects those who come in contact with it, this affects everyone!






[/sarcasm] (for clarity)

blaise
06-19-2012, 02:47 PM
I don't think it is the answer, but it is better than the status quo.

What is your answer?

Um, consume food and soda in moderation?

RNR
06-19-2012, 04:09 PM
I am the dipshit because you don't even know what f#cking side of the argument you are on until your 10th post in the thread? Or is this another one of your "sarcastic" posts?

Go back and start at the beginning, it is pretty clear I am against bans, but would support tax on unhealthy product. Willing to compromise, not just tow a company line for one party. You and cosmo should hang out lol~

RNR
06-19-2012, 04:10 PM
He is kind of exposing you as an idiot, just like I do.

ROFL

notorious
06-19-2012, 07:47 PM
If this is what they want at a LOCAL level, I'm am fine with it.

La literatura
06-19-2012, 07:48 PM
Smokers..check
Fat people...check
Seniors....
Christians....

Convincing chart.

|Zach|
06-19-2012, 09:53 PM
If this is what they want at a LOCAL level, I'm am fine with it.

Yea that is sort of funny...isn't this what a bunch of people want...the small government doing whatever the fuck they want?

stevieray
06-19-2012, 11:33 PM
Progress.you're free call it whatever you like, don't think the post was made in judgement, more in the context of observation.

..it HAS to go this way.
.

ClevelandBronco
06-20-2012, 12:01 AM
Those of you that thought that it was a good idea to allow government to ban tobacco in private establishments should feel free to just shut the fuck up about them banning soda.

chiefzilla1501
06-20-2012, 12:09 AM
Not a fan of the soda ban. Not a fan of this legislation.

But ridiculous to suggest that government shouldn't have any role in containing the obesity epidemic. They have a role in containing epidemics like SARS. Like Mad Cow Disease. Etc... The key being that when people are unhealthy, it affects every one of us in ways we don't even realize.

I'm all for tests on the local level to try new things that are going to drive overall health care costs down. For everybody. Even stupid ones like this.

mikey23545
06-20-2012, 05:25 AM
Yea that is sort of funny...isn't this what a bunch of people want...the small government doing whatever the **** they want?

Yes, quite right.

For example, I'm all in favor of the execution of officious little pricks, as long as it's on a local level, of course...

Amnorix
06-20-2012, 06:11 AM
It has been debated before. Your wife did have the right to not eat there. The nanny state has already begun~


Of course she had the right not to eat there. But the point is that some other diner's habits were negatively affecting her dining experience. Why should they get to poison the atmosphere for everyone else? There's no right to smoke in public venues.

The two situations have nothing to do with each other. Prohibiting smoking in public areas wasn't about making sure that SMOKERS stay healthy -- it was about keeping non-smokers (i.e. a MAJORITY of the population) from having to deal with their filthy disgusting fucking habit. Go smoke until your face falls off for all I care, but don't do it where I'm trying to enjoy a meal.

This is completely different.

Amnorix
06-20-2012, 06:13 AM
Not a fan of the soda ban. Not a fan of this legislation.

But ridiculous to suggest that government shouldn't have any role in containing the obesity epidemic. They have a role in containing epidemics like SARS. Like Mad Cow Disease. Etc... The key being that when people are unhealthy, it affects every one of us in ways we don't even realize.

I'm all for tests on the local level to try new things that are going to drive overall health care costs down. For everybody. Even stupid ones like this.


You're right, but you just can't micromanage people like this. What next? Ban all unhealthy foods from grocery stores? Chips, cakes, pies, all of it. Oh, and don't forget to remove the entire dessert menu from every restaurant. They have to go. Soda, out. Sugary fruit drinks, out.

Alcohol out.

EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT, IF YOU OVERDO IT, CAUSE LONG TERM BAD HEALTH EFFECTS WILL BE PROHIBITED!!


It's completely ridiculous.

patteeu
06-20-2012, 06:18 AM
Of course she had the right not to eat there. But the point is that some other diner's habits were negatively affecting her dining experience. Why should they get to poison the atmosphere for everyone else? There's no right to smoke in public venues.

The two situations have nothing to do with each other. Prohibiting smoking in public areas wasn't about making sure that SMOKERS stay healthy -- it was about keeping non-smokers (i.e. a MAJORITY of the population) from having to deal with their filthy disgusting ****ing habit. Go smoke until your face falls off for all I care, but don't do it where I'm trying to enjoy a meal.

This is completely different.

The restaurant owner should be able to decorate his establishment in any way he wants (even with art like Piss Christ that might offend his patrons). His lighting choices should be his own (even strobe lighting that might lead to epileptic seizures). He ought to be able to serve whatever food he wants (even peanuts and seafood that might lead to allergic reactions). He ought to be able to play whatever kind of music he wants (even Radiohead that might make his customers fall asleep and bump their heads on the tables).

If he wants smoky air, he ought to be able to have it. No one is forced to eat there. If you want to require a warning sign on the door to protect unsuspecting citizens, I'd be willing to accommodate your concern.

Dave Lane
06-20-2012, 06:36 AM
It has been debated before. Your wife did have the right to not eat there. The nanny state has already begun~

Do I need to call the wahmbulance for you?

Oh noes we can't get our 96 ounce big gulps what ever will we do?

RNR
06-20-2012, 06:38 AM
Do I need to call the wahmbulance for you?

Oh noes we can't get our 96 ounce big gulps what ever will we do?

You seem to be the type that needs a nanny state~

chiefzilla1501
06-20-2012, 06:49 AM
You're right, but you just can't micromanage people like this. What next? Ban all unhealthy foods from grocery stores? Chips, cakes, pies, all of it. Oh, and don't forget to remove the entire dessert menu from every restaurant. They have to go. Soda, out. Sugary fruit drinks, out.

Alcohol out.

EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT, IF YOU OVERDO IT, CAUSE LONG TERM BAD HEALTH EFFECTS WILL BE PROHIBITED!!


It's completely ridiculous.

I don't believe in banning anything. I do believe government should force manufacturers to be extremely transparent about crap we put in our bodies. And while I hate excessive regulation, I like being strict about not making false nutritional claims.

In other words... Government has often played the role in protecting consumers. In a very good way. That's really needed here.

RNR
06-20-2012, 07:06 AM
I don't believe in banning anything. I do believe government should force manufacturers to be extremely transparent about crap we put in our bodies. And while I hate excessive regulation, I like being strict about not making false nutritional claims.

In other words... Government has often played the role in protecting consumers. In a very good way. That's really needed here.

Rep~

Garcia Bronco
06-20-2012, 07:09 AM
pssss....Anyone know where a guy could score a Coke?

RNR
06-20-2012, 07:12 AM
pssss....Anyone know where a guy could score a Coke?

No, but I can hook you up with some black market Twinkies~

Garcia Bronco
06-20-2012, 07:16 AM
No, but I can hook you up with some black market Twinkies~

I need choco-diles...you know...the chocolate dipped twinkies.

RNR
06-20-2012, 07:20 AM
I need choco-diles...you know...the chocolate dipped twinkies.

Let me get with my connection. He had some off brand Cola last time we talked. You have to pay top dollar, if you want the good stuff~

Predarat
06-20-2012, 07:26 AM
What a nanny state some of this country has become. Hey gubbment please run my life for me.

ChiefsCountry
06-20-2012, 07:32 AM
If the people vote on it, I have no problem with it, the people have spoken more less. Its when the elected dumbasses try to push shit through when I get pissed.

Saul Good
06-20-2012, 08:05 AM
Let me get with my connection. He had some off brand Cola last time we talked. You have to pay top dollar, if you want the good stuff~

I don't trust your guy. I bought a coke from him, and he cut it with Tab.

Saul Good
06-20-2012, 08:07 AM
If the people vote on it, I have no problem with it, the people have spoken more less. Its when the elected dumbasses try to push shit through when I get pissed.

So a town with mostly whites can just vote that minorities can't go out in public?

|Zach|
06-20-2012, 08:59 AM
Yes, quite right.

For example, I'm all in favor of the execution of officious little pricks, as long as it's on a local level, of course...

You are always angry.

Best of luck with that.

|Zach|
06-20-2012, 09:01 AM
So do we get another thread when the Cambridge Public Health Department gives a recommendation?

Saul Good
06-20-2012, 09:18 AM
So do we get another thread when the Cambridge Public Health Department gives a recommendation?

I'm not trying to be a prick here, so I apologize if this comes across wrong. I'm genuinely curious.

Aren't you a fat guy? I've never met you nor seen your picture, but other posters have referenced your weight. How can you approve of measures that outlaw eating habits similar to yours? Would you support laws requiring people to run a mile a day?

ClevelandBronco
06-20-2012, 01:54 PM
Sugar free barbecue sauce and nothing but sugar free barbecue sauce on every table. Just a matter of time.

Of course you could always just eat your barbecue Texas dry, like God taught us.

RNR
06-20-2012, 04:19 PM
I don't trust your guy. I bought a coke from him, and he cut it with Tab.

Tab is not bad in a pinch, I almost got my ass kicked by a fat guy who thought he was getting Dr Pepper, but my guy gave him Mr Pibb :eek:

Rain Man
06-20-2012, 05:23 PM
If I wanted to open Rain Man's House of Serpents and Spearguns, should the market be able to decide, or should the government intervene? My plan would be to serve high-quality, tasty food, and I would release dozens of king cobras into the dining area every morning. Customers would be given spearguns at the entrance and might consider shooting any nearby cobras as they dine. Other diners will be expected to take note of imminent firings and dodge where applicable.

If you think the market should decide and that government shouldn't intervene in my business plan, then you are pure of heart.

If you think that perhaps the government should stop this business, then we agree that there's a line somewhere where government should step in. The question then becomes where the line is drawn. Is it drawn at things that hurt other diners in the short term such as speargunplay in the dining room? Is it drawn at things that hurt other diners in the long term such as smoking next to them? Is it drawn at things that hurt the diners themselves in the short term, such as the famous Botulism Burger at Rain Man's House of Serpents and Spearguns? Or is it drawn at things that hurt the diners themselves in the long term, such as high-sugar and hard to resist drinks and desserts?

chiefzilla1501
06-20-2012, 05:34 PM
If I wanted to open Rain Man's House of Serpents and Spearguns, should the market be able to decide, or should the government intervene? My plan would be to serve high-quality, tasty food, and I would release dozens of king cobras into the dining area every morning. Customers would be given guns at the entrance and might consider shooting any nearby cobras as they dine.

If you think the market should decide and that government shouldn't intervene in my business plan, then you are pure of heart.

If you think that perhaps the government should stop this business, then we agree that there's a line somewhere where government should step in. The question then becomes where the line is drawn. Is it drawn at things that hurt other diners in the short term such as speargunplay in the dining room? Is it drawn at things that hurt other diners in the long term such as smoking next to them? Is it drawn at things that hurt the diners themselves in the short term, such as the famous Botulism Burger at Rain Man's House of Serpents and Spearguns? Or is it drawn at things that hurt the diners themselves in the long term, such as high-sugar and hard to resist drinks and desserts?

Good post. There's a ton of this shit. Does a restaurant really have an obligation to keep a clean kitchen? To pass food safety inspections? Do restaurants really have a right to put up a volleyball court without a permit?
Should businesses go back to the way it was when they were putting sugar pills in bottles and calling it tylenol? Should we go back to the ridiculous days of only a few years ago when TV infomercials were allowed to make ridiculously unbackable claims about their products, which pretty much hurt the industry as a whole?

There are a million and a half good things government has done to regulate small businesses and restaurants. But also a million and a half things that were completely unnecessary. I think this soda ban is unnecessary, but am also amazed at how simplistic people have become that they start believing the government has no business telling people what to do.

mikey23545
06-20-2012, 05:43 PM
Good post. There's a ton of this shit. Does a restaurant really have an obligation to keep a clean kitchen? To pass food safety inspections? Do restaurants really have a right to put up a volleyball court without a permit?
Should businesses go back to the way it was when they were putting sugar pills in bottles and calling it tylenol? Should we go back to the ridiculous days of only a few years ago when TV infomercials were allowed to make ridiculously unbackable claims about their products, which pretty much hurt the industry as a whole?

There are a million and a half good things government has done to regulate small businesses and restaurants. But also a million and a half things that were completely unnecessary. I think this soda ban is unnecessary, but am also amazed at how simplistic people have become that they start believing the government has no business telling people what to do.


OMG, you are one of the stupidest fucking posters on this bulletin board.

You honestly can not tell the difference between fraud and free choice, you fucking rock ape?

You need to PM Amnorix or Jenson and see about suing the university you got your degree from.

I guess everything Milkman has ever said about you is spot on.

Rain Man
06-20-2012, 06:10 PM
Good post. There's a ton of this shit. Does a restaurant really have an obligation to keep a clean kitchen? To pass food safety inspections? Do restaurants really have a right to put up a volleyball court without a permit?
Should businesses go back to the way it was when they were putting sugar pills in bottles and calling it tylenol? Should we go back to the ridiculous days of only a few years ago when TV infomercials were allowed to make ridiculously unbackable claims about their products, which pretty much hurt the industry as a whole?

There are a million and a half good things government has done to regulate small businesses and restaurants. But also a million and a half things that were completely unnecessary. I think this soda ban is unnecessary, but am also amazed at how simplistic people have become that they start believing the government has no business telling people what to do.


I didn't even think about the whole back room inspection part.

I think there's some line where government intervention crosses from good to bad, but there are indeed interventions on both sides of that line.

The more I think about it, I wonder if the line should be drawn at risks where a first-time naive diner will have knowledge going in, versus risks where that diner won't know.

For example, it's hard to imagine that even the most libertarian among us would say that we don't want kitchen cleanliness and food safety inspections of restaurants. If the restaurant is leaving their mayonnaise out in the sun and cooking spoiled meat, that's very hard for me to figure out until it's too late. I want the food inspector enforcing that. A naive diner, or even an informed diner, can't make that judgment.

If a restaurant is allowing smoking, I guess I think it should be their own business. Anyone with a brain knows that smoking is unhealthy, and that secondhand smoke is unhealthy. So it seems like in that case the government should let the businesses allow smoking if they want, but they have to put up a warning sign about it so people who care about their health can pick a different restaurant.

With high-calorie foods, it could be the same thing. Maybe restaurants should be required to list the nutritional values and risks on the menu so diners can choose accordingly.

The weaknesses in this system are that there are always going to be people who will ignore warning signs and information, and if some uninsured lamebrain comes in and eats 25,000 Big Macs and then has a heart attack, society will still have to pay for that person's bad decisions. They're not just hurting themselves. Not sure what to do about that, and to some extent that's more of a health insurance issue than a restaurant issue.

And of course you're always going to have people with language barriers or literacy barriers or cognitive barriers, so how do you protect those people if they can't read or understand warnings?

|Zach|
06-20-2012, 06:43 PM
I'm not trying to be a prick here, so I apologize if this comes across wrong. I'm genuinely curious.

Aren't you a fat guy? I've never met you nor seen your picture, but other posters have referenced your weight. How can you approve of measures that outlaw eating habits similar to yours? Would you support laws requiring people to run a mile a day?

I am not a skinny man by any stretch but my size is often exaggerated on here. Aisde from that its not that I approve of them. I am mocking something that hasn't actually happened.

I don't see this as a viable thing that will actually happen. I do think the small government aspect of it is funny.

chiefzilla1501
06-20-2012, 07:01 PM
OMG, you are one of the stupidest ****ing posters on this bulletin board.

You honestly can not tell the difference between fraud and free choice, you ****ing rock ape?

You need to PM Amnorix or Jenson and see about suing the university you got your degree from.

I guess everything Milkman has ever said about you is spot on.

And you don't seem to understand that without some base level of regulation and government "telling businesses what to do", there is no standard for fraud. Years ago, there was nothing fraudulent about selling sugar pills and claiming they were tylenol, because it wasn't illegal. There's nothing ill-intentioned about claiming that 9 out of 10 people like your gum, but it's false advertising if it's not statistically valid. It wasn't illegal or fraudulent to sell shady subprime mortgages to uneducated homeowners. It's not fraudulent to claim your pill cures AIDS... even if there are only a few people who saw that result. The only reason these claims get called out for being false advertising is because there are strict regulations in place so that consumers know what they are consuming.

Giving businesses free choice shouldn't restrict consumers from making good choices. If a person chooses to buy a drug, they should have confidence that it does as advertised. Regulators tell them how to sanitize their kitchen. Make sure the meat is safe. Otherwise, I eat a burger, but if I knew how gross they handled it, I would not CHOOSE to eat it.

And you've twice brought up milkman, as if you're his spokesperson. milkman and I have a lot of really good debate and he calls me out on a lot of stuff. One of the reasons I enjoy debating with him. But if you want to use that as a convenient way to say you're wrong... me? I'll stick to the points.

chiefzilla1501
06-20-2012, 07:05 PM
I didn't even think about the whole back room inspection part.

I think there's some line where government intervention crosses from good to bad, but there are indeed interventions on both sides of that line.

The more I think about it, I wonder if the line should be drawn at risks where a first-time naive diner will have knowledge going in, versus risks where that diner won't know.

For example, it's hard to imagine that even the most libertarian among us would say that we don't want kitchen cleanliness and food safety inspections of restaurants. If the restaurant is leaving their mayonnaise out in the sun and cooking spoiled meat, that's very hard for me to figure out until it's too late. I want the food inspector enforcing that. A naive diner, or even an informed diner, can't make that judgment.

If a restaurant is allowing smoking, I guess I think it should be their own business. Anyone with a brain knows that smoking is unhealthy, and that secondhand smoke is unhealthy. So it seems like in that case the government should let the businesses allow smoking if they want, but they have to put up a warning sign about it so people who care about their health can pick a different restaurant.

With high-calorie foods, it could be the same thing. Maybe restaurants should be required to list the nutritional values and risks on the menu so diners can choose accordingly.

The weaknesses in this system are that there are always going to be people who will ignore warning signs and information, and if some uninsured lamebrain comes in and eats 25,000 Big Macs and then has a heart attack, so society will still have to pay for that person's bad decisions. They're not just hurting themselves. Not sure what to do about that, and to some extent that's more of a health insurance issue than a restaurant issue.

And of course you're always going to have people with language barriers or literacy barriers or cognitive barriers, so how do you protect those people if they can't read or understand warnings?

Absolutely. Libertarians have to understand that there are a lot of regulations in place to protect consumers. But I do agree with them that too much regulation makes it expensive to do business.

And I am fully with you that the solution is to increase transparency in labeling. I wouldn't be bothered by people eating a million big macs, if mcdonald's was forced to disclose just how bad for you it is. Big Macs aren't even the best example. A great example is Panera. There are lots of people who eat that because they think it's healthy, not realizing that some of the shit is worse for you than McDonald's.

I believe choice implies that a consumer knows exactly what they are getting into. If they know the health risks and eat it anyway, that's fine. I don't think it's acceptable to refuse to acknowledge that many people eat and drink certain things without realizing how bad for you it is.

|Zach|
06-20-2012, 07:09 PM
OMG, you are one of the stupidest ****ing posters on this bulletin board.

You honestly can not tell the difference between fraud and free choice, you ****ing rock ape?

You need to PM Amnorix or Jenson and see about suing the university you got your degree from.

I guess everything Milkman has ever said about you is spot on.

So angry.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 07:30 AM
The only ban on smoking I support is the one in my house.

Okay, also in my car. I'd prefer it at work but that really should be up to the employer.

I work in a building that is owned by someone other than the company I work for, the property owner has banned smoking in the building and has provided a smoking area - 100 yards from the building. According to their policy you cannot even smoke in your vehicle in the parking lot unless you've parked in the smoking area.

They say that's the price of doing business with them.

How many here might be IT types? Can you smoke in the server rooms? I've heard it said that the contamination from smoking causes failure on some printed circuit boards and the mega-function chips on them.

I puked the first (and last) time I smoked. Figured my body was trying to tell me something.

Rain Man
06-21-2012, 02:05 PM
Absolutely. Libertarians have to understand that there are a lot of regulations in place to protect consumers. But I do agree with them that too much regulation makes it expensive to do business.

And I am fully with you that the solution is to increase transparency in labeling. I wouldn't be bothered by people eating a million big macs, if mcdonald's was forced to disclose just how bad for you it is. Big Macs aren't even the best example. A great example is Panera. There are lots of people who eat that because they think it's healthy, not realizing that some of the shit is worse for you than McDonald's.

I believe choice implies that a consumer knows exactly what they are getting into. If they know the health risks and eat it anyway, that's fine. I don't think it's acceptable to refuse to acknowledge that many people eat and drink certain things without realizing how bad for you it is.


I remember the grave disappointment I felt when I learned that croissants and muffins are the food version of driving into a bridge abutment. If there was a loving god, he would have made those things healthy.

I wonder what type of difference it would make if all restaurants had to prominently display a grade for the nutritional value of the food they serve. It would have to be a weighted grade based on sales, so fast-food places couldn't bolster their grades by putting healthy foods on the menu that are seldom bought.

If it was really easy to interpret, I think it would have an impact. If I pulled up to a restaurant and saw their nutrition grade as a D+, it might not change my mind on site that day, but eventually if I kept seeing it I bet I'd steer myself more toward the A and B restaurants.

Ace Gunner
06-21-2012, 04:56 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x_BrKD3mgF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

chiefzilla1501
06-21-2012, 05:20 PM
I remember the grave disappointment I felt when I learned that croissants and muffins are the food version of driving into a bridge abutment. If there was a loving god, he would have made those things healthy.

I wonder what type of difference it would make if all restaurants had to prominently display a grade for the nutritional value of the food they serve. It would have to be a weighted grade based on sales, so fast-food places couldn't bolster their grades by putting healthy foods on the menu that are seldom bought.

If it was really easy to interpret, I think it would have an impact. If I pulled up to a restaurant and saw their nutrition grade as a D+, it might not change my mind on site that day, but eventually if I kept seeing it I bet I'd steer myself more toward the A and B restaurants.

Yup. The way I see it, you're not going to fix everybody. That shouldn't stop us from trying, but some people are just going to choose to eat unhealthy. That's fine. That's their choice. But I do think there is a pretty good chunk of the population who genuinely want to eat healthier. What I have a huge problem with is people who try to be healthy but are overwhelmed with misinformation. I'm not saying labeling would be easy, but yeah, it could be as simple as a grading system. It could be as simple as simplifying labeling. It's probably as simple as, at the very least, forcing all eating establishments to post information about sugar, fat, carbs, and sodium in a place where you have no choice but to see it. Or perhaps it's as easy as having a reward system where restaurants that have healthy meal options can have a "certified low carb" label... something like that. I'm just talking out loud, but there are a million and a half ways to do it.

But again, it goes back to the argument... that means you're forcing businesses to regulate what they do. That restricts their choice. I still want to hear others explain why restricting a business' choice is an issue, if that means it allows consumers to make better choices on what they buy.