What do you all think of this? Ban on coke.

Smoking bans are just as bad. It's not the government functionaries job to tell mutually consenting adults what they can do with their bodies or private property. A restaurant is private property. The own should be able to set the conditions of what is happening on that property as long as the people consent to be there under those conditions. If you don't like the conditions...don't be there. Let the free market determine which conditions are profitable enough to maintain.

Yes and if you have to "ban " it allow places to allow its patrons to do what they wish and not hold these places to different tax liabilites and opperating codes.

Government functionaries prohibiting food items is stupid. That is NOT their job. As citizens and voters we need to remind them of that. Vote them ALL out.

I agree the goverment should have no say on what I decide to put into my body, its mine and they are just trying to take all of our freedoms away one by one. Granted I dont drink pop and I despise it but If you want to drink a 44oz coke you should be able to.

Nor should the government be subsidizing corn, wheat or any other type of food... just sayin.

Yes let farmers farm... its what they do, let them do it

I think that as people that are trying to lose weight we all know Coke isn't good for us! I don't think that the government should have a say in any personal decision whether drinking a coke or smoking cigarettes. That is not their job and we are slowly losing or freedom when we let them put laws and bans on things. Even higher taxes is wrong. People know what can kill them and people know what is wrong so let them make their own choices.

I agree that you can't tell someone "not" to smoke.. and I think people have the right to smoke in their homes and vehicles, but I do whole-heartedly agree with laws that keep people from smoking in resturaunts, at doorways, etc. Second hand smoke is disgusting and harmful.. However, I've never been bothered by a second hand coke. :happy:

Personally, on the tobacco/smoking end of it, I think resturants should be able to allow smokers... however, they must have a state of the art air filtration system and they must have signage that states smoking is (dis)allowed... It's a private business and it should be able to operate how it wishes.

Smoking bans are just as bad. It's not the government functionaries job to tell mutually consenting adults what they can do with their bodies or private property. A restaurant is private property. The own should be able to set the conditions of what is happening on that property as long as the people consent to be there under those conditions. If you don't like the conditions...don't be there. Let the free market determine which conditions are profitable enough to maintain.

This is all true. I used to own a restaurant and it was nonsmoking because I knew my customers wouldn't like it.

I was a smoker at the time as well.

Smoking bans are just as bad. It's not the government functionaries job to tell mutually consenting adults what they can do with their bodies or private property. A restaurant is private property. The own should be able to set the conditions of what is happening on that property as long as the people consent to be there under those conditions. If you don't like the conditions...don't be there. Let the free market determine which conditions are profitable enough to maintain.

This is all true. I used to own a restaurant and it was nonsmoking because I knew my customers wouldn't like it.

I was a smoker at the time as well.

Exactly...the free market will win out. If enough people want a smoke free dining facility then the free market will provide one. In places where there aren't smoking bans there are still smoke free restaurants. Smoking bans are simply folks enforcing their views on others use of their private property.

Smoking bans are just as bad. It's not the government functionaries job to tell mutually consenting adults what they can do with their bodies or private property. A restaurant is private property. The own should be able to set the conditions of what is happening on that property as long as the people consent to be there under those conditions. If you don't like the conditions...don't be there. Let the free market determine which conditions are profitable enough to maintain.

I do agree that the government should not put laws on a person's body-including what we eat, drink...but smoking in a public place (such as a mall, bar or restaurant) can effect other people's general health. Secondhand smoke can cause people to get asthma, empesyma or worse...

It might be a public place but it's still private property and the government's job isn't to regulate the activities of consenting adults on private property. If you are worried about second hand smoke...don't go there. Punish them by with holding YOUR dollars but don't enforce your views on others.

And for the record...I don't smoke, have never smoked, and generally don't go to dining places that allow smoking in the area where I will be eating.

I think this soft drink limitation on quantity is awlful! Many times, if my husband and I go out to the movies or to grab a quick bite at a fast food restaurant, we order one large drink and share. It's cheaper and easier. I'm very glad I don't live in New York!

I think that as people that are trying to lose weight we all know Coke isn't good for us! I don't think that the government should have a say in any personal decision whether drinking a coke or smoking cigarettes. That is not their job and we are slowly losing or freedom when we let them put laws and bans on things. Even higher taxes is wrong. People know what can kill them and people know what is wrong so let them make their own choices.

I agree that you can't tell someone "not" to smoke.. and I think people have the right to smoke in their homes and vehicles, but I do whole-heartedly agree with laws that keep people from smoking in resturaunts, at doorways, etc. Second hand smoke is disgusting and harmful.. However, I've never been bothered by a second hand coke. :happy:

Personally, on the tobacco/smoking end of it, I think resturants should be able to allow smokers... however, they must have a state of the art air filtration system and they must have signage that states smoking is (dis)allowed... It's a private business and it should be able to operate how it wishes.

That's true. Its the business's choice, and if I don't like it, I don't have to eat there.

We have a play here in town that was technically a pub, but operated as a resturaunt during the day. However it always reeked of smoke. It didn't last long.

It is called "soft tyranny" . Next month it will be something else . Our personal freedoms are slowly being eroded under the guise of helping us.
If it was only soda that made a person fat I would be skinny cause I don't do soda. It is lack of self control on my part no one else's fault but mine.

Definitely don't agree with banning anything. It will only lead to more trouble.

Strongly believe in a junk food tax though, I think that would at least deter some people from opting for a sugary soft drink as opposed to a now cheaper, healthier option.

Definitely don't agree with banning anything. It will only lead to more trouble.

Strongly believe in a junk food tax though, I think that would at least deter some people from opting for a sugary soft drink as opposed to a now cheaper, healthier option.

The function of property confiscation through taxation is not to control personal behavior. The sole purpose of taxation is to raise the funds necessary to the essential functions of the government and those essential functions are actually quite minimal. Any other form of taxation is wrong.