Yeah, it's a conspiracy by "Big Soda" :cuckoo:
Umm, smoking has gone down.
Yeah, sin tax...like here with smoking... it's a total cash cow.
Since you mark yourself as Libertarian-Left, let me ask you this. How do you justify this legislation as a libertarian?
Would you be more for a "sin tax"?
So let's review Bloomberg the statist tyrant king douche....
NY Mayor Bloomberg Follows Soda Ban With…National Donut Day? | Mediaite
Chocolate coconut donut
550 calories....
Donuts | Dunkin' Donuts
32 oz. (double the moron's soda limit)
330 calories....
Calories in McDonald's Beverages - Coke - Large 32 oz cup - Nutrition Facts & Other Nutritional Information | LIVESTRONG.COM
So you statist asshole, you want to explain why you aren't a totalitarian hypocrite?
And so, the next time I am at Yankees stadium, I can buy a 32 oz beer (2 beer limit per transaction, for a total of 64 oz), But I am limited to one 16 oz of soda? Good thing I take the ****ing train from irvington, NY.... /facepalm
Bloomberg defends supporting Donut Day while banning sugary drinks* - NY Daily News
If they taxed a can of beer at the same rate they tax a pack of cigs, the rednecks would be hanging Congressmen from lampposts by the Statehouse. That's why they don't do it....
True story, there is a bill before the NJ legislature wanting to fine you and I up to a grand if we don't seatbelt our dogs and cats....
Yet one more reason to stay out of that craphole called the Big Apple.
In my opinion, that's a far dumber law than this one, and that's saying a lot. And I actually do use a doggy seat belt for my dog.
If NJ passes it, though, more power to them.
What would it take for Tucker case to take up arms? Soda? Dog restraints? Smoking? Where does tucker case think the state has no business in the lives of individuals such as in these cases? :lol:
Make any of those things federal laws and I get pissed. I get pissed when the federal government usurps the power of State and local rights for pretty much any non-human rights issue (basic civil rights).
Also, I get pissed off when **** like that passes here in Chicago and Illinois, but that's because the idiots around me keep voting for assholes.
Those are good points, but if you consider the amount of risk that being overweight (wrt diseases like diabetes and heart disease) represents:
1) It is not possible to put a cost on it because medical science isn't clear about it
2) The price would rise enough to have much of an impact
3) It would require weighing people on a regular basis, which would raise the cost for everyone
4) Some many of us are overweight (not me) that the main result would be for most people to pay more (meaning, it wouldn't raise the price much because so many would be splitting the costs of those diseases)
The impact of obesity are well-established.
Why would it upset you if people in Chicago enacted a similar soda law?
Do Chicagoans not also have a right to enact local morality-based laws via voting?
Because I live in Chicago.
Of course we do. That's why I would be upset. I'd hope that those around me wouldn't support such stupid legislation by voting for assholes, but they do time and time again, and I get over it.
Make any of those things federal laws and I get pissed. I get pissed when the federal government usurps the power of State and local rights for pretty much any non-human rights issue (basic civil rights).
Also, I get pissed off when **** like that passes here in Chicago and Illinois, but that's because the idiots around me keep voting for assholes.
But you don't drink 32oz sodas, do you?
You're not upset the people in New York support such stupidity?
Americans do eat too much and drink too much sugary crap, but don't know if it is the government's job to change that.
This will be as effective as Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign.
Actually, I drink a ****-ton of pop every day. It would affect me more than most people. I'd adapt.
Of course not. Why would I be upset about the way they vote.?
The govt makes personal decisions all the time for us, and that's a good thing. For example, govt has decided that you do not have the freedom to rape people.
Most of us realize that this is A Good Thing...libertarians, not so much
Bloomberg is far more dangerous to the American people than soda.
MORE than most people?
Either you're in violation of the law or you're not.
Either you buy 16oz+ sodas or you don't.
Presumably for the same reason you'd be upset with Chicagoans voting that way.
And don't pretend the reason is because it affects you personally.
You already stated that you'd be upset if Chicagoans enacted a doggy seat belt law as in New Jersey - even though you already voluntarily comply.
fact is your problem with stupid laws that don't affect you in Chicago and your indifference to stupid laws that don't affect you in New York or New Jersey is inconsistent.
So are Obama and Romney. Personally I'd vote for Bloomberg before I voted for either of those two. Alas, I don't have that choice...
Actually, I drink a ****-ton of pop every day. It would affect me more than most people. I'd adapt.
You are right that is a **** ton of soda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?