Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shinra]

What the fuck, New England?

First they came for the Super Sized Drinks and Fries, and I said nothing because I was only eating from the dollar menus at the time
Then they came for the Soda Vending Machines in Schools, and I said nothing because I wasn't in school anymore
Then they came for the large soda and free refills and restaraunts, and nobody was left to speak for me!!!!!!!!!!

resend to 20 of your friends or obama will take away your rights to be fat


In all seriousness though, this 'save you from yourself' bullshit is exactly what makes new england liberals look so bad. We're just feeding ammunition to the conservatives at this point.

[JDigital]

I hear California's talking about banning soft drinks above 500ml.

[Shinra]

This is the dystopia we are working towards.

[Mongrel]

I am seeing a lot more people start to argue for restrictions more like tobacco or driver's licenses on fast food.

Now that's probably impractical and opens several entirely different cans of worms, but I can understand where it comes from.

We've had twenty years to try and start to do something about obesity and have entirely failed to do anything with any impact at all. Addressing the broad root causes has proved paralysingly impossible so it's inevitable that somebody somewhere is going to try and start to pass straight-up anti-calorie legislation.

_{EDIT: Italics run amok!}

[Thad]

There are behavioral arguments for it.  Reduce the size of a beverage from 32 oz to 16 and most customers will just buy a single 16-oz beverage rather than two.  Unless there are free refills.

Which is not to say I'm for it.  I think it's a pretty terrible idea.  But I understand the underlying arguments.

[Brentai]

Well, if you begin with the premise that sodas and trans fats have much the same properties as cigarettes (addictive, linked directly to health issues, bankrolling major corporations with the country's worst interests in mind), then it's hard to argue against the regulation of one without implying the deregulation of another.  The only out you have there is that nobody's ever gotten sick from secondhand Coke.

[Thad]

But that's not an asterisk, it's a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

That and I don't know of any chemical dependence on trans fats or high fructose corn syrup -- if it exists I can pretty much guarantee it's less severe than nicotine.

(Actually I'm pretty okay with the trans fat ban.)

[Mongrel]

I think seatbelt laws may be a more apt comparison here.

[Bal]

Seatbelt laws help people not become second hand murderers in otherwise survivable accidents.

[Disposable Ninja]

There are behavioral arguments for it.  Reduce the size of a beverage from 32 oz to 16 and most customers will just buy a single 16-oz beverage rather than two.  Unless there are free refills.

That's arguable, I'd say. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up, but speaking as major soda-fiend myself, it's a lot easier to drink a lot of soda in small quantities than it is to drink a lot of soda in large quantities. Something about large glasses or jugs makes you nurse the contents longer than you would a small glass.

[Classic]

Eh, equally anecdotal, but I'd say that there's a larger cultural precedent for eating everything on your plate. Which is why a smaller (but still sizable) drink portion might make a great deal more sense. Anyway, a pint of soda is a lot if it's not swimming in ice.


EDIT:

Seatbelt laws help people not become second hand murderers in otherwise survivable accidents.

I am not sure what this is meant to mean.

[Brentai]

Same reason you're required to carry insurance.  Even if at fault, another person should not be meant to pay for your personal lack of prudence.

Which is one of the main arguments for enforcing a cutdown on soda intake: if you want to lower government spending and healthcare costs, try lowering the amount the government NEEDS to spend on healthcare.  The financial impact of diabetes and hyperobesity on the healthcare system is well-documented and very painful, so it's a forward thinking idea budgetwise.

Otoh you may say that the reason you pay taxes is so the government DOES leave you alone about this shit, and then the liberals ask how abortions are any different, and blah blah blah blah blah blah this gay earth.

[Bal]

It was a further play on Brent's "Second hand Coke" analogy. Seat belt laws might be for your benefit, but they are equally for the benefit of anyone who might be involved in an accident with you. It also regards the food thing in that, while the taxpayer might be the victim in this scenario well down the line, it is much less direct than with seat belts and cigarettes. I feel like it's going too far, but honestly I couldn't tell you why. Something should be done to help fast food stuffing walking health risks who really can't stop themselves. One of my best friends is intractably, morbidly obese, and I've seen him stop at fast food joints for three combo meals after work, but I don't reach over and smack it out of his hand. He's a grown man. I don't feel comfortable telling him what he should do and, like smokers, it isn't like the warning labels, or warning words, were a surprise.

I feel like the freedom to suffer the consequences, in so far as you are not harming someone else, is something to investigate, and where that line is drawn is integral.

[Mongrel]

The problem is that nothing we are doing is working and the problem is only getting worse. That's not me justifying the situation, just me explaining how we've come to this pass.

People are flailing around in desperation. Whether or not you agree in principle, restricting access may simply be the only half-workable option in practice. Maybe.

Personally, I think some jurisdiction should try it just to see what happens.

There are behavioral arguments for it.  Reduce the size of a beverage from 32 oz to 16 and most customers will just buy a single 16-oz beverage rather than two.  Unless there are free refills.

That's arguable, I'd say. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up, but speaking as major soda-fiend myself, it's a lot easier to drink a lot of soda in small quantities than it is to drink a lot of soda in large quantities. Something about large glasses or jugs makes you nurse the contents longer than you would a small glass.

I actually find the opposite to be true for me. I pour small quantities in a nice glass and it lasts longer.

[Caithness]

I feel like the freedom to suffer the consequences, in so far as you are not harming someone else, is something to investigate, and where that line is drawn is integral.

That's fine in theory, but almost every single thing you can do affects other people. If the benefits outweigh the costs, I have no problems with laws that restrict our freedom to harm ourselves.

[Bal]

Well, the problem is intrinsic. People like to eat, by and large, and given more food they will eat more food. When that manifests as an eating disorder it is by far the most difficult addiction to treat (which I know a little bit about because my grandfather used to run one of the best addiction treatment centers in the country). The main reason being that, unlike other addictions, you can't quit doing it entirely. Every day is a struggle, not to not eat, but to eat just enough. It's like if alcoholics had to force themselves to actually be social drinkers.

I feel like the freedom to suffer the consequences, in so far as you are not harming someone else, is something to investigate, and where that line is drawn is integral.

That's fine in theory, but almost every single thing you can do affects other people. If the benefits outweigh the costs, I have no problems with laws that restrict our freedom to harm ourselves.

Well, people are still allowed to smoke, just mostly away from other people. There isn't even any limit on how much you can do it, or how much you can buy at a time. If your goal is never to hurt anyone even indirectly by your actions then you are essentially paralyzed. Where you draw the line is the essential point, and I don't think metaphorically smacking the Coke out of fatty's hand is actually going to stop anyone.

[Brentai]

I'm probably confusing everybody by playing advocate for both sides here, so let me get to the bottom line:

America has always been the "Land of Freedom, until you prove that you cannot handle Freedom."  Yes, it's stupid and un-American that we're even talking about this.  It's also stupid and un-American that we need to talk about this.  Nobody seems to be dissenting that without some manner of change like this, a lot of people are going to die(abeetus), and that's pretty much where we're at - the yelling-fire-in-a-movie-theater conundrum.

So yeah, we're losing a (relatively minor) civil liberty, but don't blame the lawmakers for it.

[Bal]

That only applies if we agree that the law is a necessary one. If it isn't, then lawmakers are being heavy handed and are precisely the ones to blame. In either case, I'm inclined to think it's a totally pointless, barely workable law that will do nothing to prevent the consumers from just going home and drinking ten cans of what they were only allowed to get half of normal at the McBurger in a Box.

[Classic]

I feel like the freedom to suffer the consequences, in so far as you are not harming someone else, is something to investigate, and where that line is drawn is integral.

I take it you don't have any problems with criminalizing suicide? That's pretty clearly on the "OK to legislate against" line?

[Bal]

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you take that as a statement against the freedom to suffer the consequences, or are you arguing that suicide is so harmful, presumably to the loved ones of the deceased, that it ought to be criminal in my not at all defined in the statement opinion. Even if I didn't make it clear in that post, I think I've made it pretty clear in this and other discussions that I'm wholly in favor of your right to do practically anything you want to yourself.