Its a far cry from the 16oz limit, and its not uncommon to share sizes like that amongst a family.
Printable View
Its a far cry from the 16oz limit, and its not uncommon to share sizes like that amongst a family.
That really wasn't the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I was worried you wouldn't recongize that obesity is a problem that the US may have to address in similiar manners that they addressed previous health concerns in, while acknowledging something this simplistic as splitting a super big gulp into two cups isn't the answer.
Yes, freedom can be dangerous. The question has never been can people who are given the option make a bad choice, the question is is it the role of government to decide what size beverage you can buy and consume. Should you be allowed to make a choice, even if it conceivably could be a bad one, or should you only be allowed to make government approved choices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
We also have an STD epidemic in this country. Should the government also be mandating what sex acts can be performed, by which groups, and with X, Y, or Z contraceptives?
At some level, nearly everything is a government approved choice, the question is how far should the public be allowed to go before that reach that point. Something thats as weak as this, where you would buy 2 cups instead of one doesn't seem like the best avenue to be traveling down, but who knows, the entire country may have benefitted from san fran's happy meal ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
and the government doesn't have to ban something to take a stance against it. proper education and testing have shown to do wonders with STD infection rates, but we all know how much idiocy is behind abstinence only education. And there are states that put limits on certain groups with infections. Porn stars regularly get tested and a positive result can shut down entire regions. Not to mention that courts have ruled against those that infect others without disclosure.
Because, given a non governmental solution, people would be pro-obesity and pro-STDs? Why not just regulate all restaurant foods, (or foods sold in the grocery for that matter) to make sure that only healthy, low sugar, low sodium goods are sold? I mean, there's an obesity epidemic in this country...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
This is, I suppose, the meat of my point: If you could ensure people lived a long, healthy life, but were not free to make their own choices in any meaningful way, would you do it? What is more important to you, health or individual freedom?
I like to strive for a balance, unlike the extreme examples you favor jumping to.
I don't have worldwide numbers to compare to, our fattest state in 95 was thinner than our thinnest state currently. I'm not going to automatically blame people for making themselves fat, but there are a lot of choices out there that people don't understand, either through habit, ignorance, or how ingredients are disguised. Then there is the huge price difference between 2000 healthy calories and 2000 junkfood calories.
It's not a question of balance, it's a strictly a question of principle. If you think it's your right to determine what you eat, among other choices that impact your life, then you are responsible for your own well being. If you believe it is up to the government to determine what food you should or shouldn't eat, you believe it is someone elses responsibility. After that you are only argument is degree. And if history is any indicator, enforcing the standards that one only thinks fair and reasonable today can quickly change into standards that seem absurd and overbearing tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't believe you can - or even if it was possible, should - regulate an individuals food and health choices any more than you should regulate how or who they have sex with.
I think Lolli did a pretty good job of debunking this last time around, but rice, beans, and other nutritious and energy dense foods are abundant and inexpensive, especially if you are buying in bulk. Is it easier to find calorie dense junkfood? Absolutely. Is it impossible to find and prepare something that is relatively healthy and inexpensive? Absolutely not.Quote:
The government already regulates our food, we already have foods that are banned or restricted; raw milk, absinthe, ackee, mangosteen, sassafras oil, puffer fish, etc. Hell, we even regulate what we can call our food, as seen with the recent HFCS ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
So its not a question of if or how, its a gauge of how far.
She responded to my exact meal options, now if you or her want to read the research on the topic that been done since then that shows the difference I poorly tried to convey, well, its already up there for you.Quote:
I think Lolli did a pretty good job of debunking this last time around
You realize that is essentially a restatement of what I've been saying, right? You seem to mistakenly be under the impression I am arguing for the status quo, which is true in this specific instance, (arguing against a needlessly restrictive health law) but not in general, (giving the government any say in what foods we do or don't consume).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
By research do you mean the NYT article you linked to? The one that said people will follow the path of least resistance, especially if that path also happens to be delicious? It's not news that cheap, highly caloric junk food is out there, or that it is a big seller, both with those who can afford better and those who can't. That does not mean that other, cost effective and healthier alternatives do not exist.Quote:
She responded to my exact meal options, now if you or her want to read the research on the topic that been done since then that shows the difference I poorly tried to convey, well, its already up there for you.
Nanny Bloomberg :p Interesting it has to be approved by health dept. officials that he appointed. It's a silly proposal, since folks can just buy two cups or more, with free refills. Or walk into a 7-11 and buy a 2 liter bottle of soda.
People tend to be lazy and seek short term gratification. But that's their choice, you can ask someone to change but *making* them change is tyranny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Riiight. So where do you place the Insurance Industry in this tyranny of choice or change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Law is a game of words that reflects ideology of politicians. People took the risk of electing them and people took the risk of embracing democracy, and embracing its rule of law, where not everyone will be happy. Absolute freedom would be absolute anarchy where everyone may take your freedom away. Government is nobody, government is a chair where someone sits, someone from a political party. What must keep you upset is not government itself, but law. Right?
Don't you hate it when the slope gets ever more slippery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambridge City Government
Their city public health department is an arm of the MASS State Board of Health, and any "recommendation" they'd give would likely be consistent with their state health policy statements --- not necessarily what should be "legislated" or "banned" by legislators. Both cities will probably get carefully worded statements from their public health agencies, agreeing that obesity/diabetes is a public health concern, and high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages contributes to those medical conditions. Wow, stop the presses. My guess is they'd also suggest a public education 'campaign' that could reach ALL consumers, not limited to place-of-purchase vendors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Cambridge, MASS has a lot of highly educated tax payers. They should be asking WTF their city council members are doing by putting a NYC proposal on their agenda. If they don't, THAT is where the slippery slope begins. IMO.
And the war on choice boldly marches on!Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I can't help but wonder what your outrage would look like if this was the paternalistic misogynists in the GOP banning what perfectly legal substances a woman could or couldn't put in her body, instead of legislation crafted at the behest of caring and reasoned Democrats.
What's really happened is that they've voted in favour of asking their health department to investigate the pros and cons of banning certain serving sizes of sodas and other drinks with HFCS much like the NY "ban". I suppose an alternative might be to restrict the sale of such beverages to specially licensed trained medical personnel.
Why not just skip the intermediate step and ban fat people? Maybe you can put them into some sort of camp, where they can engage in activities consistent with the national interest!
Maybe you could point out in the resolution where they mentioned serving sizes or HFCS. I see "sugar-sweetened" and "ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That would just be cruel and heartless and I'm not sure what kind of a weirdo would equate oppressing a particular composition of inanimate substances with interring thinking feeling human beings in a Nazi-style camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The wording of the resolution definitely qualifies it for the slippery slope accusation but news articles that refer to what the Mayor said she had in mind suggest that what she's asking for a recommendation on is indeed more or less identical to the idea from NYC. An outright ban would be impossible to implement, whereas a request for a thorough evaluation of the pros and cons of banning some serving sizes may perhaps go through. Unless the mayor and the council members are all insane I imagine they were aiming for the latter rather than the former, even if the text of the resolution says something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Remind me why the government should have the right to tell people to stop doing things that hurt no one but themselves? Why not ban mountain climbing? Car racing? How about the sale of sugar?
I like how the sane and reasonable interpretation is still placing a limit on what perfectly legal substances can be purchased and sold to consenting adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
No the sane and reasonable interpretation amounts to asking for a recommendation based on an investigation by their health department, we're not at the banning stage in Cambridge. As for "consenting adults", think of the children :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I have no idea, that may be a good subject for discussion. Mountain climbing is a tiny non-problem, but car-racing is certainly already restricted wrt who can do it, where they can do it, when they can do it, etc. Or haven't you heard of driver's licenses and speed-limits? As for the sale of sugar, I have nfi, but sugar goes into far more besides giant servings of soda. But who knows, maybe a tax on HFCS is around the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The government only has a right to tell people to stop doing things that "hurt no-one but themselves" because they've been invested with that power by society as a whole. Why would anyone do that? Putting aside the fact that a person who consumes more public healthcare is in fact "harming" others besides themselves, most people seem to appreciate--on some level--the advantages of serving permits, regulations on narcotic medication (size of individual doses, type of packaging and number of doses in a package), some sort of age limit on cigarettes and alcohol, etc. I gather Enoch doesn't approve of such things, and perhaps you don't either, but many more do approve and so governments retain their power to impose such restrictions.
That being said, on the one hand this may be seen as oppressing people who aren't hurting anyone but themselves; on the other hand this may be seen as a restriction on the harm a business can do to people. Of course then you get into the whole matter of consenting adults etc and never mind the children.
Many people like not having an unrestricted choice in some matters, didn't you know that? It makes life easier in many ways. It helps them buy better and more satisfying gadgets. It helps them save a little more for their retirement. It helps them stay in school for a while. It even helps them keep their unhealthy and frustrating habits in check. I have met fat people who hate not being able to control their excessive sugar and fat intake and would prefer it if they simply did not have the "choice" of eating large quantities of garbage (placed in quotes because let's face it the issues of free will and choice aren't simple black-and-white ones to people who aren't Lewk). I haven't seen any studies on the matter but I imagine there are a few more such people out there. Just my gut feeling.
Bans such as this would be particularly oppressive to people who aren't fat and who like soda. For people who are fat they may actually be liberating in a way. Of course we could just cut out the intermediate steps and inter thin soda-lovers in camps where they can blah blah but that would be unnecessarily cruel.
And here we have the real reason for government-provided healthcare: it makes every single thing a person does within the interest of society! Hurting yourself is now equivalent to hurting society, and every single one of your rights can now be taken away in the public good.
Of course in the US most people don't have public healthcare (it's mainly the poor and the elderly that do). So remind me on what grounds the government should be telling someone with private insurance what they can and cannot eat?
That's a fair criticism, I suppose. Let me restate:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I like how the sane and reasonable interpretation is still investigating placing a limit on what perfectly legal substances can be purchased and sold to consenting adults.
I think Loki addressed this fairly well in his post, but I'd like to expand a bit more on it. How do you gauge which actions, and which freedoms should or should not be restricted? Is it the somewhat nebulous cost to society? The concrete costs of medical bills and insurance rates? What metrics do you use to limit an individuals right to choose? If you are for limiting the amount of sugar or salt intake they can consume because of fears of the long term health ramifications and the burden on society, is it such a stretch to extend those same risk factors to things like pregnancies?Quote:
The government only has a right to tell people to stop doing things that "hurt no-one but themselves" because they've been invested with that power by society as a whole. Why would anyone do that? Putting aside the fact that a person who consumes more public healthcare is in fact "harming" others besides themselves, most people seem to appreciate--on some level--the advantages of serving permits, regulations on narcotic medication (size of individual doses, type of packaging and number of doses in a package), some sort of age limit on cigarettes and alcohol, etc. I gather Enoch doesn't approve of such things, and perhaps you don't either, but many more do approve and so governments retain their power to impose such restrictions.
Pregnancies are expensive, dangerous, and their ultimate fruit forms the very real danger of an excessively large population, which can certainly bring its share of added burdens and costs to the welfare state.
Would it make societal sense to limit, perhaps forcibly, the number and types of pregnancies that occur within that system? Some women clearly are more prone to high risk pregnancies, should they be allowed to conceive?
What makes one fundamental freedom different from another?
If freedom is too much to bear join the military or go to prison. Don't limit, or seek to limit the most basic and fundamental freedoms of those who are more than capable of exercising self control and willpower to cater to those who are not.Quote:
Many people like not having an unrestricted choice in some matters, didn't you know that? It makes life easier in many ways. It helps them buy better and more satisfying gadgets. It helps them save a little more for their retirement. It helps them stay in school for a while. It even helps them keep their unhealthy and frustrating habits in check. I have met fat people who hate not being able to control their excessive sugar and fat intake and would prefer it if they simply did not have the "choice" of eating large quantities of garbage (placed in quotes because let's face it the issues of free will and choice aren't simple black-and-white ones to people who aren't Lewk). I haven't seen any studies on the matter but I imagine there are a few more such people out there. Just my gut feeling.
No, bans like this are oppressive period. I do not enjoy or regularly consume sugary drinks, nor am I overweight, and I still find these restrictions overbearing and wrong. One does not have to be directly impacted to realize the tyrannical and heavy-handed nature of these laws.Quote:
Bans such as this would be particularly oppressive to people who aren't fat and who like soda. For people who are fat they may actually be liberating in a way. Of course we could just cut out the intermediate steps and inter thin soda-lovers in camps where they can blah blah but that would be unnecessarily cruel.
You say it like it's something weird when there is nothing new or weird about regulating the sale of food and drink at restaurants, bars etc. The problem isn't with reason or sanity; it's a philosophical problem. I don't know how you feel about alcohol-serving permits for example but they're certainly not weird or unreasonable in today's world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Very, very very carefully of course! It's not something that should be done lightly.Quote:
I think Loki addressed this fairly well in his post, but I'd like to expand a bit more on it. How do you gauge which actions, and which freedoms should or should not be restricted?
I'm glad you've at least come to appreciate the very real risks of pregnancy :pQuote:
Is it the somewhat nebulous cost to society? The concrete costs of medical bills and insurance rates? What metrics do you use to limit an individuals right to choose? If you are for limiting the amount of sugar or salt intake they can consume because of fears of the long term health ramifications and the burden on society, is it such a stretch to extend those same risk factors to things like pregnancies?
Pregnancies are expensive, dangerous, and their ultimate fruit forms the very real danger of an excessively large population, which can certainly bring its share of added burdens and costs to the welfare state.
Would it make societal sense to limit, perhaps forcibly, the number and types of pregnancies that occur within that system? Some women clearly are more prone to high risk pregnancies, should they be allowed to conceive?
I dunno what Nessie might say but for my part I don't think I could justify banning some people from having children, certainly not in any way that would be acceptable by most people's values. Every approach to such a ban would entail either cruelty and injustice or the violation of a person. Before you point out the problems with letting pregnancy be a "special case", I'd like to ask you what you think should be done in cases where a mother's behaviour seriously harms the health of a fetus that has passed the age limit for regular abortion.
Pregnancy is tricky. That's one reason why I strongly endorse the provision of a good social system--funded by stolen money of course--that can 1. ensure to some extent the safety and well-being of these parents and their children and 2. try to inform and educate and minimise both the occurrence of these problems as well as their negative consequences. It's not only kinder and more defensible--to those who don't value property rights above all else that is :)--but can also result in net gains for society as a whole. I don't know how widespread obesity benefits society however.
Another aspect of this is how we treat licensed medical professionals. Wrt ethics I find it far more acceptable to regulate the actions of healthcare workers. Should they be allowed to conduct medical procedures such as abortions etc. under unsafe conditions? Should they offer IVF to everyone and implant far too many embryos, with no regard for risks?
You keep bringing up abortion in these discussions, but have you investigated the analogy? These are the important issues: a fetus before a certain gestational age has no legal rights that trump a woman's rights over her body; we generally have no right to jail or otherwise punish a woman for getting an abortion, and we don't; if there is no access to safe abortions then women will have unsafe abortions; the provision of abortion services is fairly well regulated.
There is clearly no conflict between soda's rights and a fat person's rights. No-one but Loki is suggesting we jail fat people. I can't imagine there will be a huge safety issue where people will seek out illicit mob-operated establishments that serve large servings of dangerous illegal soda (if they crave soda that much they can just buy it at the store); it's not booze after all. The approach here is to regulate the providers to help reduce harm. I know you're opposed to this approach but you live in a society where people mostly appreciate the regulation of those who provide various goods and services. I reckon they may get upset when it's about soda but the principle is the same as it is for booze, milk and healthcare.
The most important reasons for claiming a difference seem to have to do with the perception of a problem, the magnitude of that problem, the specific consequences of restriction vs. non-restriction and of course political and practical feasibility. I recognise that some people take a more black/white either/or approach.Quote:
What makes one fundamental freedom different from another?
Tough talk but kinda not very constructive or compassionate. Do businesses exist in society? Do they benefit greatly from society? Do they have any responsibilities towards the society from which they so greatly benefit?Quote:
If freedom is too much to bear join the military or go to prison. Don't limit, or seek to limit the most basic and fundamental freedoms of those who are more than capable of exercising self control and willpower to cater to those who are not.
I was merely poking fun of Loki's "lock up the fatties" argument. In truth bans like this primarily oppress the providers and even then not very much.Quote:
No, bans like this are oppressive period. I do not enjoy or regularly consume sugary drinks, nor am I overweight, and I still find these restrictions overbearing and wrong. One does not have to be directly impacted to realize the tyrannical and heavy-handed nature of these laws.
For the record I'm not exactly a staunch supporter of soda-size regulation
I like a more neutral example. With all the obvious risks of STDs, not to mention stress placed on the health and social care systems by unwanted pregnancies, condoms and maybe a few other things are legally required for all intercourse. If people want to have children they can arrange for in vitro fertilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
How would you go about making that work and how much would it cost? I eagerly await suggestions and numbers.