• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Soda Is Target of New Assault

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
New City Move Against Soda - WSJ.com (The link title is different than the article title)

Bloomberg forever.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson have asked the federal government to bar New York City food-stamp recipients from using the benefit to buy sugary drinks, an effort to determine if the move would decrease obesity and diabetes problems. The request, sent late Wednesday to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could affect an estimated 1.7 million city residents who receive food stamps. As much as $135 million in federal nutrition benefits is used to buy sugar-sweetened drinks, the mayor's office said.

...

Nearly 40% of city public-school students in kindergarten through eighth grade are overweight or obese, and the numbers are higher for Hispanic children. Poorer children—the primary beneficiaries of the federal food-stamp program—are more likely to be overweight, and the link between obesity and socioeconomic status has become stronger in the past two decades, the mayor's office said. A child who consumes one sugary drink a day has a 60% higher risk of obesity than those who do not, the mayor's office said.

...

Health officials have said they want to continue to press the idea because nearly 60% of New York City adults are overweight or obese, and obesity-related diseases cost the state an estimated $8 billion a year.

This topic spurred some outrage when it was discussed as a hypothetical. I'm hoping they get approved so that they can test this out.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,927
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Soda waters have been under assault for years. This is just a change in tactics.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Makes sense to me. If the government is going to be paying for someone's meals via food stamps, they shouldn't pay for crap with no nutritional value that's just going to cost even more later on, in terms of health care.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's about time. Hopefully they'll do it at the state levels in all states. 135 million dollars a year in NYC alone is wasted on soft drinks? Jesus ****ing christ that's insane. That's 135 million dollars in NYC that could be put to better use.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
16,142
Reaction score
6,311
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I seriously doubt this will have any measurable impact on "obesity and diabetes problems." The crap is dirt cheap, so if people want it, they're going to have it.

I view this as mostly symbolic. I believe it's been shown time and time again that food stamps fail on many levels, trying to encourage people to eat certain things just being one.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
New City Move Against Soda - WSJ.com (The link title is different than the article title)

Bloomberg forever.



This topic spurred some outrage when it was discussed as a hypothetical. I'm hoping they get approved so that they can test this out.


Just like the smoking ban, the trans fat ban, people were like "yeah right" and called us all sorts of consiracy nuts....


I tell you salt is next.


Bloomberg is a tyrant.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Just like the smoking ban, the trans fat ban, people were like "yeah right" and called us all sorts of consiracy nuts....


I tell you salt is next.


Bloomberg is a tyrant.

This is just banning it from being purchased using foodstamps.

I guess, it's entirely possible that they add an extra tax or try to ban it from public consumption.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is just banning it from being purchased using foodstamps.

I guess, it's entirely possible that they add an extra tax or try to ban it from public consumption.



they are already talking about a soda tax in ny, this is a stepping stone.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,116
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Rev said:
they are already talking about a soda tax in ny, this is a stepping stone.

I only consider it mildly related.

If it's about sin taxes in a microcosm, it's the government telling me how to use my money. If it's welfare/food stamps, it's the government telling you how to use my money.

Government has no business telling me how I use my money. They have all the business telling someone else how to use my money. I don't work to subsidize another's bad behavior.

If I see NYC become San Francisco-esque where they try to create the San Angeles portrayed in Demolition Man, then I'll stand up.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I only consider it mildly related.


I live here. It's completley related.


If it's about sin taxes in a microcosm, it's the government telling me how to use my money. If it's welfare/food stamps, it's the government telling you how to use my money.


This is true however, this is NY, it's wouldn't be the first time.


Government has no business telling me how I use my money. They have all the business telling someone else how to use my money. I don't work to subsidize another's bad behavior.

If I see NYC become San Francisco-esque where they try to create the San Angeles portrayed in Demolition Man, then I'll stand up.


Trans fat ban. :shrug:
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rev, I hear ya. And if they were working to prevent EVERYONE from buying soda, I would be loading a shotgun and heading to the governor's door. ;)

But, I have absolutely no issue at all with any organization telling recipients of their charity how they can and cannot spend the money they receive from them. They don't let food stamp recipients by alcohol or cigs either, and I gather you would agree with that as well. This is just pushing the line back even further, and it's something that should have been done a long time ago.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
55,370
Reaction score
22,643
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm all for this. I say we go a step further and make an entire industry out of fat people. We simply cut them up and sell the meat at incredibly low prices. It's a win-win situation for everyone. Except fat people.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,927
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Makes sense to me. If the government is going to be paying for someone's meals via food stamps, they shouldn't pay for crap with no nutritional value that's just going to cost even more later on, in terms of health care.

So, while we're worried about people buying sody-pops with their welfare money, people are taking cruises with welfare money and it's all good.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's my conflict in this...

I actually like this in a very narrow sense. The government is giving you the publics money because, supposedly, you're greatly in need. If you're in such great need that you need money taken from people who are actually working for it and given to you then you should be using it on ESSENTIAL things. In regards to food, ESSENTIAL things are things that are nutritious and help out your body. This is something Soda isn't really. Soda is the food equivilent of a DVD. Yeah, DVD's are handy because they help you pass the time by watching something entertaining...but they're not ESSENTIAL.

More to the point, Food Stamps really aren't YOUR money, its the peoples money controlled by the government that they're vesting into your control. As such, the government has a legitimate say or interest in what that money is spent to purchase.

On the flip side, this is one of the reasons I am firmly against a single payer health care system or any form of increased government interaction with health care. It opens up more and more of our lives into being in the "government interest". When suddenly its not my money paying for Health Care but the government using the peoples money to do it then my body, my choice, is removed to a degree. This concerns me greatly.

It also concerns me a bit in a broader view acknowledging the slippery slope, as it can be a stepping stone to getting people used to the idea of Soda or some other type of "unhealthy" food being banned in a small degree to then expand upon said ban to a larger degree.

So in a very, very narrow sense I fully support and even like this action. However it gives further reenforcement to my desire to fervently oppose and fight universal health care and makes me curious to see if the slide down the slippery slope will commence or not.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's my conflict in this...

I actually like this in a very narrow sense. The government is giving you the publics money because, supposedly, you're greatly in need. If you're in such great need that you need money taken from people who are actually working for it and given to you then you should be using it on ESSENTIAL things. In regards to food, ESSENTIAL things are things that are nutritious and help out your body. This is something Soda isn't really. Soda is the food equivilent of a DVD. Yeah, DVD's are handy because they help you pass the time by watching something entertaining...but they're not ESSENTIAL.

More to the point, Food Stamps really aren't YOUR money, its the peoples money controlled by the government that they're vesting into your control. As such, the government has a legitimate say or interest in what that money is spent to purchase.

On the flip side, this is one of the reasons I am firmly against a single payer health care system or any form of increased government interaction with health care. It opens up more and more of our lives into being in the "government interest". When suddenly its not my money paying for Health Care but the government using the peoples money to do it then my body, my choice, is removed to a degree. This concerns me greatly.

It also concerns me a bit in a broader view acknowledging the slippery slope, as it can be a stepping stone to getting people used to the idea of Soda or some other type of "unhealthy" food being banned in a small degree to then expand upon said ban to a larger degree.

So in a very, very narrow sense I fully support and even like this action. However it gives further reenforcement to my desire to fervently oppose and fight universal health care and makes me curious to see if the slide down the slippery slope will commence or not.

That is 100% my reason for being against UHC. When the government has a vested financial interest in your health, they have the right to impose rules on you with regard to your health.

As for the slippery slope regarding banning things, I don't really agree since food stamp recipients can't buy alcohol either and we don't see calls to ban that. (well, not since prohibition didn't go over so well, anyway ;) )
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Rev, I hear ya. And if they were working to prevent EVERYONE from buying soda, I would be loading a shotgun and heading to the governor's door. ;)

But, I have absolutely no issue at all with any organization telling recipients of their charity how they can and cannot spend the money they receive from them. They don't let food stamp recipients by alcohol or cigs either, and I gather you would agree with that as well. This is just pushing the line back even further, and it's something that should have been done a long time ago.



Riv, they are working on it this is ny and the tryant bloomberg we are talking about.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Government money should not be used to buy junk food. Also, there needs to be more regulations in general. I don't like government intrusion where it's not necessary, but look at the facts... there is an obesity epidemic. If it were a viral epidemic, there would be all sorts of mandatory procedures put into place to try and stop it; but because it's obesity, something gradual and not instantly life threatening, people are against certain controls.

Stopping the sugary products is only one side of the problem. Obesity represents malnourishment. The body is lacking essential nutrients and so it goes into survival mode, which involves hording calories. Too many people are eating high calorie, nutrient poor foods.

The use of high fructose corn syrup in virtually everything seriously needs regulation. The sugar industry has had way too much of an influence on government policy and now we are seeing serious health effects.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Riv, they are working on it this is ny and the tryant bloomberg we are talking about.

But that is a separate issue. THIS move is the right one. What you're talking about is not. The two issues - while maybe motivated for the same reasons and by the same people - are not the same.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,927
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Government money should not be used to buy junk food. Also, there needs to be more regulations in general. I don't like government intrusion where it's not necessary, but look at the facts... there is an obesity epidemic. If it were a viral epidemic, there would be all sorts of mandatory procedures put into place to try and stop it; but because it's obesity, something gradual and not instantly life threatening, people are against certain controls.

Stopping the sugary products is only one side of the problem. Obesity represents malnourishment. The body is lacking essential nutrients and so it goes into survival mode, which involves hording calories. Too many people are eating high calorie, nutrient poor foods.

The use of high fructose corn syrup in virtually everything seriously needs regulation. The sugar industry has had way too much of an influence on government policy and now we are seeing serious health effects.

While you're at it, why not make it illegal for stamp collectors to eat fried food.

I have a better idea. Cut the benefits. That way they can't afford to buy cokes, because there's nothing left over after buying food and **** paper.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So, while we're worried about people buying sody-pops with their welfare money, people are taking cruises with welfare money and it's all good.

Huh? Cruises? If that is actually a problem anywhere other than in your imagination, then of course it should be banned as well. But maybe you can post something on the subject of THIS thread. :2wave:
 
Last edited:

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Makes sense to me. If the government is going to be paying for someone's meals via food stamps, they shouldn't pay for crap with no nutritional value that's just going to cost even more later on, in terms of health care.

Crap is cheaper. Just saying . . . .
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Crap is cheaper. Just saying . . . .

Not THAT much cheaper. You can get healthy food for almost the same price as unhealthy food. And the unhealthy stuff is a lot more expensive once you factor in the diabetes and heart attack.

This is especially true in the case of soda, where the most obvious healthy substitute - water - is virtually free.
 
Top Bottom