I propose a constitutional amendment giving us the right to cram our piehole with anything and as much as we want.

not to mention many "preservers of civil liberties" may oppose the seatbelt law so at least they're being consistent.

Also if soda really was that bad for you, Bucky would be dead right now. Dude drinks like a thousand mountain dews a week.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:i am nervous though when you start legislating behavior to protect health.

Seatbelts, DUIs, speed limits, cell phones while driving, motorcycle helmets... all statutory methods of protecting the health of citizens. And while three of those examples protect third parties from harm, two of them only impact the person whose behavior is being modified.

I'm not sure how relevant legally or policy wise the distinction is, but the seat belt and motorcycle (and bicycle) helmet laws are things where the user only has to fuck up once to potentially die.

If you're getting a hot dog from a street cart and grab a 20 oz Coke with it, you're not putting your short term health at risk unless you have some other medical condition already in place.

applying a chronological "term" as a judgement criterion is just as irrelevant

law mostly sucks at that sort of thing, & if anything gets worse rather than better (see abortion statutes)

Monkeyboy wrote:false dichotomy alert.

Who proposed a dichotomy? I just said life is easier if you trust in government to make beneficent decisions for you. Is it not?

TenuredVulture wrote:I propose a constitutional amendment giving us the right to cram our piehole with anything and as much as we want.

These rights are under the penumbra (umbra umbra eh eh, under my penumbra).

Here's the thing--as a parent, I wish Arkansas had a bicycle helmet law. It would mean that Lil' Vulture wouldn't look like a dork when she rode her bicycle because everyone would be wearing one. People mock "think of the children" for good reason, but in this case, where there's no good reason for not wearing a helmet I think the balance is reasonable. It's possible that the soda ban can be seen in a similar way--I mean, mostly kids drink soda, so really this law has more to do with giving parents a useful tool than it is about restricting liberty.

If I rode a bike, I would probably wear a helmet, but I would hate it so much

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:i am nervous though when you start legislating behavior to protect health.

Seatbelts, DUIs, speed limits, cell phones while driving, motorcycle helmets... all statutory methods of protecting the health of citizens. And while three of those examples protect third parties from harm, two of them only impact the person whose behavior is being modified.

I can't wait for us to legislate mandatory exercise (100 minutes/week in approved conditions) to cut down on collective healthcare costs. I already exercise, so it's nbd, but it means all the fatties get slowly turned into hotties. Boom, win.

Youseff wrote:Just read that it's only in movie theaters, food-carts & restaurants.

Lets also stop pretending we're talking about real food here. Sugary soda drinks have very little in common with actual food or beverages. It's edible and consumable, I suppose, but it shouldn't be referred to colloquially or for legislative purposes as food.

I don't think anyone is arguing that soda is good for you, but there are plenty of things that we eat and drink that are of limited nutritional value (or worse).

Tomorrow Bloomberg introduces a plan to require all restaurants and bars to limit alcohol sales to items that are 12 ozs or less. Says studies have shown patrons would consume, on average, 8 fewer ounces of beer over the course of an evening if their beverages were 12 ozs instead of in pint glasses or pounders. The change would save the city millions in annual health care costs down the line because of the reduction in obesity and other alcohol related illnesses. Also the change is expected to lead to a decrease in DUIs, violent crime and petty offenses.

You can make arguments for government taking away lots of things that aren't good for people's health. And obviously plenty of things already are illegal or regulated for the sake of personal and societal health. But I think when you cross the line into regulating stuff that isn't addictive and doesn't cause you to become violent or unable to operate a motor vehicle or some other issue that puts others at risk, that's going too far. If there's already some analogous law in place for some other item in a different jurisdiction, I'd oppose that too. The government already restricting personal choice in other areas doesn't seem to be much of an argument for them doing it here too.

The second paragraph should have been a separate post, I started rambling there

its a fine line

don't you take my pints and pounders

although there is a side benefit that drinking in NYC will somehow become even more expensive

jerseyhoya wrote:
But I think when you cross the line into regulating stuff that isn't addictive and doesn't cause you to become violent or unable to operate a motor vehicle or some other issue that puts others at risk, that's going too far. If there's already some analogous law in place for some other item in a different jurisdiction, I'd oppose that too. The government already restricting personal choice in other areas doesn't seem to be much of an argument for them doing it here too.

There is no "line" to cross; while often used, that's an unwieldy, inapt metaphor for legislation generally and the purposes of legislation specifically.

At least one political subdivision has laws on its books barring spitting on the sidewalk; on depositing chewed gum on public walkways; etc.

It's a variant of what Churchill is reputed to have said about democracy; laws are the worst way to beneficently alter human behavior except for practically every other way.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:Just read that it's only in movie theaters, food-carts & restaurants.

Lets also stop pretending we're talking about real food here. Sugary soda drinks have very little in common with actual food or beverages. It's edible and consumable, I suppose, but it shouldn't be referred to colloquially or for legislative purposes as food.

I don't think anyone is arguing that soda is good for you, but there are plenty of things that we eat and drink that are of limited nutritional value (or worse).

Tomorrow Bloomberg introduces a plan to require all restaurants and bars to limit alcohol sales to items that are 12 ozs or less. Says studies have shown patrons would consume, on average, 8 fewer ounces of beer over the course of an evening if their beverages were 12 ozs instead of in pint glasses or pounders. The change would save the city millions in annual health care costs down the line because of the reduction in obesity and other alcohol related illnesses. Also the change is expected to lead to a decrease in DUIs, violent crime and petty offenses.

You can make arguments for government taking away lots of things that aren't good for people's health. And obviously plenty of things already are illegal or regulated for the sake of personal and societal health. But I think when you cross the line into regulating stuff that isn't addictive and doesn't cause you to become violent or unable to operate a motor vehicle or some other issue that puts others at risk, that's going too far. If there's already some analogous law in place for some other item in a different jurisdiction, I'd oppose that too. The government already restricting personal choice in other areas doesn't seem to be much of an argument for them doing it here too.

The second paragraph should have been a separate post, I started rambling there

then as a populous you do something to get your politicians to change that law. I think most people are OK with this one.

This is precious.

The liberals on this board (and those off it) are perfectly fine legislating restrictions on soda intake, cigarettes, bicycle helmets, speed limits, seat belts, etc, because they assert that society is better off without these behaviors (drinking large sodas, smoking, riding without a helmet, etc). That is the only standard! And yet, if conservatives try to pass laws that meet that standard ("It will make society better off"), the standard is not enough to justify taking away that choice. Everyone agrees that abortions are bad, so let's ban them. Ohhhh no, we can't do that; this is infringing upon the woman's right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, including stopping the tiny heart beating inside her. But preventing her from putting 20oz of soda in her body, well, no, we liberals can prevent her from doing that. She doesnt control that choice. I don't understand how so many of you can vehemently defend freedom to abort fetuses but not freedom to eat whatever you want.

It makes me sad, more than anything else. That's why I posted my modified quote, that it's silly to defend a government seizing choice from you just because you agree with that choice. In my opinion, it's better to defend freedom whenever it is threatened.

the people who don't think abortions are that bad are afraid to say so

i don't think abortions are bad.

coworker's wife just got knocked up and she was on the pill. i think they should abort that baby.

i don't think sodas are bad. i do think if they can get rid of the things that encourage diabetes out of them then sodas rule.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:the people who don't think abortions are that bad are afraid to say so

That's a really good point.

John Edwards jury hung on 5 of 6 counts. Waiting for the verdict on count 3 (Edwards accepted illegal and excessive contributions).

Prosecution wants the judge to send the jury back for further deliberations on the other 5 counts, defense moving for a mistrial. Judge is currently considering.