Sugary Drink Ban

timberowl
timberowl Posts: 331 Member
in Chit-Chat
What do you think about the sugary drink ban that was proposed in NY earlier this year?

Many people say it falls under "nanny state", but, does providing medical aid via tax dollars to these obese, diabetic people that result from excessive consumption of these beverages not fall under "mommy state"?

Thoughts?

Replies

  • VeganSurfer
    VeganSurfer Posts: 383 Member
    I'm not from America but I agree with this. I wish there was a ban on sugary drinks in the UK...I don't drink them personally but the strain that obese, diabetic people put on the NHS is incredible.
  • ItsCasey
    ItsCasey Posts: 4,021 Member
    I think the better solution would be to stop using taxpayer dollars to take care of people who can take care of themselves but refuse to do so. There is absolutely no incentive to monitor your own health when you know someone else will be forced to foot the bill for your medical catastrophes later. This type of policy is the antithesis of what America is supposed to be. But if New Yorkers are going to continue to vote for Mayor McFascist, they deserve what they get.
  • Aross83
    Aross83 Posts: 936 Member
    I dont agree with it at all.. the only reason they want to do this is because they know people will just buy more than one soda..
    This is America... If people want to drink sugar laced soda they should be able to do so.. plenty of people drink soda and have no weight problem whatso ever..
    Bloomberg also wanted it to be law that mothers had to breast feed and could not feed them formula unless they were unable to breast feed.. who the hell is he to even impose something like that.. crazy if you ask me.
    now NY wants to raise the Smoking age to 21... WTF so you can fight for your country.. hold and gun and kill people.. you can vote.. but hell cant smoke a dang cigarette...
  • timberowl
    timberowl Posts: 331 Member
    now NY wants to raise the Smoking age to 21... WTF so you can fight for your country.. hold and gun and kill people.. you can vote.. but hell cant smoke a dang cigarette...

    I agree. The same can be said of drinking. When I was active, we had so many soldiers get busted down to E-1 for drinking underage, when they just got back from 15 months in Iraq.
  • jdad1
    jdad1 Posts: 1,899 Member
    it did not stick so it does not matter.
  • M______
    M______ Posts: 288 Member
    There is absolutely no incentive to monitor your own health when you know someone else will be forced to foot the bill for your medical catastrophes later.

    What a ludicrous statement!
  • drefaw
    drefaw Posts: 739
    I think the better solution would be to stop using taxpayer dollars to take care of people who can take care of themselves but refuse to do so. There is absolutely no incentive to monitor your own health when you know someone else will be forced to foot the bill for your medical catastrophes later. This type of policy is the antithesis of what America is supposed to be. But if New Yorkers are going to continue to vote for Mayor McFascist, they deserve what they get.

    ^^ THIS ^^
  • drefaw
    drefaw Posts: 739
    There is absolutely no incentive to monitor your own health when you know someone else will be forced to foot the bill for your medical catastrophes later.

    What a ludicrous statement!

    You really think so?? I see this kind of mentality almost on a daily basis around S.E. TN .... I guess maybe if you actually had a basis for your opinion, you would know better .....
  • jdad1
    jdad1 Posts: 1,899 Member
    I think the better solution would be to stop using taxpayer dollars to take care of people who can take care of themselves but refuse to do so. There is absolutely no incentive to monitor your own health when you know someone else will be forced to foot the bill for your medical catastrophes later. This type of policy is the antithesis of what America is supposed to be. But if New Yorkers are going to continue to vote for Mayor McFascist, they deserve what they get.

    ^^ THIS ^^


    People do need help as we all know. I think a good solution would be requiring everyone on state and/or federal assistence to meet a minimul amoun of community service hours. At least requiring some form of effort to keep thier hand outs and hopefully getting some people to decide that they can work and should do so.

    My 2 cents.
  • M______
    M______ Posts: 288 Member
    For a basis, how about I'm from the UK. Every last bit of health care here is free. No money, no insurance needed. Free. The US has far more problems with obesity than here. I think you should look for a different answer!
  • Railr0aderTony
    Railr0aderTony Posts: 6,803 Member
    I think the better solution would be to stop using taxpayer dollars to take care of people who can take care of themselves but refuse to do so. There is absolutely no incentive to monitor your own health when you know someone else will be forced to foot the bill for your medical catastrophes later. This type of policy is the antithesis of what America is supposed to be. But if New Yorkers are going to continue to vote for Mayor McFascist, they deserve what they get.


    :drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :love: :love: 150% correct^^^^^^^^^^
  • timberowl
    timberowl Posts: 331 Member
    There is absolutely no incentive to monitor your own health when you know someone else will be forced to foot the bill for your medical catastrophes later.

    What a ludicrous statement!

    Agreed. "no incentive"??? How about, I don't know, BEING HEALTHY? Feeling good? Being able to see your toes, and other appendages? Being found sexually attractive? Being able to make it around an amusement park without a Rascal? Not having people snickering behind your back?
  • twelfty
    twelfty Posts: 576 Member
    (from the UK) banning something is a bit much... selling sugary drinks isn't the problem, i enjoy coke every now and then and i'm no way near fat, the problem is the people who think it's ok to drink a bucket full of it, i'll duck down after writting this lol but anyone who is making themselves fat by doing such things should be billed for the resulting medical issues arising from it, i'm a smoker, if i were to get lung cancer, it's my choice to smoke i wouldn't like it but i'd accept liability for causing it and any resulting bills, and infact do as the duty on cigarettes here is more than the cigarettes are worth themselves because they want the funding back for paying for the strain on the NHS (i doubt it actually goes into it directly but i know i'm paying twice what i was 10 years ago)

    back to america a proposed ban on sugary drinks is nannying, not mention you'd have coca cola to contend with and having seen some of the documentaries of their "input" into the fda as well as mcdonalds etc do you really think it would ever pass?

    i'm not fully clued up on americas health care system but as i understand you all have health insurance? it's not compulsary but it's a given you're supposed to have it? why not make a law that if you're X amount overweight you're required to pay Y amount more than the average joe and they're by law required to have it, it might not be a massive thing but if you had to pay that extra every month out of your pay cheque you'd be more inclined to lose weight and save the money if you needed it

    the trouble i've always seen is "the land of the free" means you get the good and bad sides to it. not everything is rosey and that's why some people need a swift kick up the *kitten* to get them to sort themselves out and telling them they're going to die doesn't really do anything until it's too late, people don't respond to warnings, they respond to action, hit someone for their money and they soon want to do something about it ( or most do) and that is what's happened here with smoking, the ban did absolutely nothing here at all, but when those cigarettes went over £7 per pack some over £8 roughly $11.50 for 20 cigarettes! i noticed the number of smokers dwindling like there was a tomorrow!! lol
  • timberowl
    timberowl Posts: 331 Member


    People do need help as we all know. I think a good solution would be requiring everyone on state and/or federal assistence to meet a minimul amoun of community service hours. At least requiring some form of effort to keep thier hand outs and hopefully getting some people to decide that they can work and should do so.

    My 2 cents.

    I think it's definitely a good start. The argument would be "but if I'm doing community service, I won't have time to job hunt!" But, guess what. I work 2 full time jobs in addition to the Army reserves. They can stick it in their juice box and suck it.

    How about adding this: Those wanting govt assistance with healthcare (obamacare, medicaid, etc), should have to do pt tests! They're living on govt dollars like those in the military, let them be held to the same standards (not as high as military pt stadards but "basic healthy" standards, like running a mile in 15 minutes).
  • M______
    M______ Posts: 288 Member
    Nothing against the banning of certain foods as long as there is good reason. Fizzy drinks should indeed 'do one' with their list of ingredients. I just find some peoples remarks in here quite offensive. Remarks showing a real lack of empathy towards others which is something I really dislike.

    @Timberowl - I'm glad somebody locked on to the meaning of my first post :)
  • timberowl
    timberowl Posts: 331 Member

    i'm not fully clued up on americas health care system but as i understand you all have health insurance? it's not compulsary but it's a given you're supposed to have it? why not make a law that if you're X amount overweight you're required to pay Y amount more than the average joe and they're by law required to have it, it might not be a massive thing but if you had to pay that extra every month out of your pay cheque you'd be more inclined to lose weight and save the money if you needed it

    Some companies have already started doing this. In most cases, the employer has a "group" health insurance plan, and each person pays the exact same amount (depending which option you choose) regardless of their health or fitness level. Sometimes, your health can even prevent you from being hired (not legally, but all they have to do is say you werent' the best candidate. For example, my boyfriend had cancer and had a hard time finding employment because the employers didn't want their premiums going up).

    However, I heard about a grocery store chain that is giving financial incentives for employees losing weight and getting/staying in shape. Every time they go for a check up and have either lost weight or are deemed "healthy" they get x number of dollars docked off their monthly premiums. It's like a $50 bonus for staying in shape, and they've had employees lose dozens or even hundreds of pounds.
  • LilynEdensmom
    LilynEdensmom Posts: 612 Member
    Me being totally anti-big government period, I don't agree with the ban mostly b/c it isn't the gov't business if I buy 2 16 oz cokes or 1 32 oz coke and drink it while eating a super-size fry. I view the ban and the proposed smoking thing as a slippery slope to more gov't control and that is just a big fat (pardon the pun) no for me.

Categories