- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
He shouldn't have just banned 32oz drinks. How does one expect that to make any difference when people can use free refills or buy two 16oz drinks?
Instead of only partially fixing the problem he should build on this law.
He shouldn't have just banned 32oz drinks. How does one expect that to make any difference when people can use free refills or buy two 16oz drinks?
Instead of only partially fixing the problem he should build on this law.
Perhaps he could legalize pot, and then send the pot cops to make sure people don't consume too many calories.
Pot, after all, has no calories at all.
Since the first two times I explained it haven't sunk in, I'll explain it a third time in the hope that "Third times a chime"
Many of these restaurants bundle 32oz drinks in a meal that is discounted. With this ban, people will no longer be able to get the 32oz drink at the discounted price. If they want 32oz's of drink, they will have to buy an additional 16oz drink at the full price. While some people may do this, common sense suggests that some won't. This means that less of these sugary beverages will be consumed.
That's the difference
Perhaps he could legalize pot, and then send the pot cops to make sure people don't consume too many calories.
Pot, after all, has no calories at all.
He shouldn't have just banned 32oz drinks. How does one expect that to make any difference when people can use free refills or buy two 16oz drinks?
Instead of only partially fixing the problem he should build on this law.
Also of note, the states, typically blue ones that love all the sin taxes such as NY are among the states which are broke. They thought they were clever and could bring in huge revenue but ended up hurting themselves twice. So few smoke the taxed cigs plus the loss of revenue from convenient stores that make less money due to the loss of sale of cigs which were once one of their biggest selling items. The higher NY taxes its people, the less money it has.Smoking went down.... to a point. There are still LOTS of people who smoke. Many have gone to roll-your-own, or cigars or pipes which are not as heavily taxed yet. Those who were going to quit over price mostly already have. Those who remain aren't likely to quit, but simply engage in tax-avoidance behaviors like rolling your own cigs at 1/3rd the price. Tax that and they'll find another way around it.
I've noticed a lot more young people smoking in recent years than was the case about a decade ago... wonder if it has anything to do with the societal demonization of tobacco, leading it to be one of those "alluring taboo" items. :shrug:
Bottom line... it isn't government's business to make healthy decisions FOR me. If it were, they'd send me a menu every week and tell me that was what I had to eat. You want that?
Also of note, the states, typically blue ones that love all the sin taxes such as NY are among the states which are broke. They thought they were clever and could bring in huge revenue but ended up hurting themselves twice. So few smoke the taxed cigs plus the loss of revenue from convenient stores that make less money due to the loss of sale of cigs which were once one of their biggest selling items. The higher NY taxes its people, the less money it has.
Which brings up a point I'm sure the nannies in NY haven't considered. By asserting that government has the right to ban what they consider self-destructive behavior, it opens the door for insurance companies to do the same. New form letter: "We're sorry Mr Johnson, but we are declining to cover your recent bypass operation. It has come to our attention that you regularly consume Ring Dings as a dessert and we have determined these are bad for your heart and that you contributed significantly to your heart problem by your eating habits. [see Section 400c of your policy fine print clause]".
Nothing is being banned
Why don't read the article and learn the facts?
The post applies either way. The local government is asserting legal interest in the eating habits of it's residents. Not much of a stretch for the insurance companies to emulate that behavior.
Acid erosion can take decades to manifest and is different than run of the mill cavities.
It's possible that you have some oddly base chemistry in your mouth, but I wouldn't bet your purty smile on it
The strength of the enamel affects development of both. If I weaken my enamel enough via erosion, cavities will be a sign of that and it would also indicate that I would need to stop drinking pop. I have a built in erosion detector because of that.
I brush multiple times a day (at least twice, but usually three times) using baking soda toothpaste, so there is likely to be a cancellation effect.
I'm not worried about it all that much. If it happens, sucks to be me.
I think we need the government to step in and take responsibility for your teeth.
/sarcasm
(1) Why do you think he knows what is better for you than you do? (2) If this keeps up we won't have any personal choice left.
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?