Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Should government regulate the size of sugary drinks?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(83)

usedtolivethere

Mar-13-13 5:55 AM

How about this for a question.....Should ceilings be raised to accomodate tall people? This question is as well thought out as the LH's

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

getreal

Mar-13-13 7:24 AM

Ban sugery drink because they cause obesity, but don't ban alcohol as it causes many DWI's and death...WTF? Bloomberg and all the other politicians should waste more of the tax payers money on such idiotic things!!! If somone wants to be fat do they not have the right? whats next...McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, all bakeries, Dunkin Donuts......

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Mar-13-13 8:16 AM

Another good question would be 'are you getting sick of progressives trying to control what you drink, eat, say, do, or think about'?? What's next getreal?...Continued attempts to control every aspect of your life based on whatever progressives think is good for you on any given day.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Mar-13-13 9:54 AM

usedto - take a deep breath. getreal -" If somone wants to be fat do they not have the right?" I'm about 20 or so pounds overweight, and honestly there is something wrong about eating ice cream while watching "Biggest Loser" on TV. But what is amazing to me is that with the big health thing being around for at least 20 or so years, there are still so many people so morbidly obese. It is NOT the gov'ts job to control any food source and no fast food source is a cause of obesity. The question I ask is - how do you allow yourself to pack on so much weight and still see yourself as handsome or pretty?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Mar-13-13 10:07 AM

and yes they do have the right to be as fat as they want to be. Unfortunately, as much as it shouldn't, it does affect everyone with increased healthcare costs, and a bunch of inconviences in everyday life. I get tired of seeing fat people who can barely move with handicapped parking stickers complaining how thier knees hurt, they can't walk, they can't go up stairs, -- but don't consider losing a few lbs that will correct lots of problems. It's a sad state that we've come to, which is maybe why Nanny bloom and others feel the need to try to control your food intake. It is still wrong, and the answer is still NO

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Taxedtoomuch

Mar-13-13 11:38 AM

Government control is coming whether we want it or not. Hence the assault on the 2nd amendment. Once the people are no longer represented by the government but serve the government, more control will occur. Best to get involved in government and be one who controls than one who is controlled.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Mar-13-13 12:32 PM

This is America - "Land of the Free".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How I define my life and happiness is up to me, not the government. It is clear with all the attacks on our individual rights and liberties that our elected officials have failed American History and are clueless about what defines us as Americans. I loved the country just the way it was before liberals and Democrats stated ruining it.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Mar-13-13 12:37 PM

Yes, I think a limit on sugary drink sizes should be in place. I don't want my tax dollars going to some tubby who is more likely (already) to be sicker and sicker over their lifetimes AND be on Medicaid, which costs ME money.

And therein lies the typical 'Republican' hypocrisy: a desire to ban public-assistance recipients from buying 'bad' foods but no problem allowing those same recipients from buying fatty sodas which will get you sicker over time and lead to diabetes treatment on my dime.

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Mar-13-13 12:37 PM

I think a couple of people need to go back and read getreal's comments. Looks to me like he is in agreement with everyone else here.

I also want to know who the knuckleheads are that voted yes. Are they that insecure in themselves that they need the government dictating what they do???

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Mar-13-13 12:38 PM

Scarecrow57, I'm glad to see you evoking the Constitution of our great land.

Say, I'm curious what your take is on civil rights, gay marriage, and religious freedom.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Mar-13-13 12:47 PM

MrBoB51, I don't think this is a 'progressive' thing as much as it is a 'realistic' thing.

The fact of the matter is people like me are more likely to be healthier because we choose to eat healthier and excercise and rely less upon those sugary diabetes- and obesity-starting foods in our lives.

Not so much for poorer people who are less likely to be educated in a healthier diet and lifestyle, instead opting for those bad foods, which later statistics proove lead to diabetes and obesity. They're also more likely to be on public assistance, be it Medicaid or other, and so those bills, to the tune of several BILLION dollars a year, are paid by people like you and me.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Mar-13-13 1:20 PM

So RS??? Do you really think the only thing causing obesity is sugary drinks? The root cause of Obesity is diet AND Exercise. On the diet side this includes everything you eat and drink. Do you really believe people live on just sugary drinks????

Next. You may only buy 16 oz drinks, not 32. So you buy 2 16 oz drinks. What have you accomplished? More garbage for the landfill and more waste.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Mar-13-13 1:24 PM

For you RS. Civil rights - We are entitled to the same rights. There should be no such thing as special categories for minorities and women.

gay marriage - it is not up to the Government to endorse someones marriage. The only reason these people want the government to sanction this religious institution is for financial gain. In other words, a way to get out of paying taxes.

religious freedom - Everyone is free to practice the religion of their choice. I choose not to practice. So please, Atheist and Religious zealots alike, don't push your values on me.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Mar-13-13 1:31 PM

Any attempt at controlling any personal activity is without a doubt a progressive goal. I don't agree with the premise that gov't needs to control you individually. Individuals form alliances for mainly economic and defense reasons; not to be controlled. The problem as I see it is that progressives have been indoctrinated into believing they have some sort of intellectual superiority and those who question their methods and motives are.....fill in the blank with you're favorite progressive pejorative.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Mar-13-13 1:39 PM

Let me put it like this...progressives want to control what you eat or drink because they think it's bad for you; but they've given you the blessing to kill your offspring at will because that's also good for you. I cannot and will not subscribe to that hypocrisy therefore NO progressive has any credibility to me.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

revoltnow

Mar-13-13 1:57 PM

if the Gvt get's involved then everything that's BAD for us should be outlawed not regulated. stop hangin the carrot over this******head and i won't fallow it.. like the pack a day. the 4 coffee's by 1st break a day. let's not leave out the fast food in general. gooo for BROKE.... and stop usin the groath hormones and steroids/anti-biotics... ect,ect,ect.....

a smart man eat's/drinks in moderation and dies from the smoke blown up his assperator by his Dr's. fur sure.....

REGULATE THIS

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Mar-13-13 2:06 PM

No absolutely not and along the same line salt guns and many other common sense items! The left is off its rocker on these things completely!

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Stackrat

Mar-13-13 3:14 PM

So if I buy more drinks because I cant buy 1 large drink, who wins? The taxing agencys thats who. Welcome to NY, the "Vampire" state! Why dont they regulate how much money they can steal from the taxpayers?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Mar-13-13 3:36 PM

'The only reason these people want the government to sanction this ... institution is for financial gain. In other words, a way to get out of paying taxes. '

You mean treated equally, right?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Mar-13-13 4:52 PM

@ rs " You mean treated equally, right?"

Why not treat all people equally. Regardless of their lifestyle choices such as marriage, number of children etc.

So I ask. Why should a married person making $50K a year or more pay less than the single person making the same amount? They shouldn't. in fact, the married couple will use more services, they should therefore pay more, not less.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Mar-13-13 6:16 PM

Scarecrow - I think I see where you are coming from but I don't think you thought the deal through. A married couple (yeah, old style 1 he and 1 she)making $50K would have a dependant thet the single person doesn't have. But IF that couple pulled in $100K, their tax rate should be the same as the single earner making $50K.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Mar-13-13 7:22 PM

Scarecrow57, that's an argument for NO one to get married, gay, straight, or whatever.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Mar-13-13 7:45 PM

Scarecrow, swizzer wants all "married" couples to have the same benefits he/she, he/he,and she/she. And probably transgendered lesbians married to transvestites. - But what about me ?? I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Mar-13-13 9:13 PM

drugsrus, how is that a bad thing? You're not being very American right now.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Mar-13-13 9:40 PM

swizzer, I'm being very American, I'm just not being very "modernistic" American. "Those people" have always been part of our population. They were usually treated with respect as long as they acted repspectful. Nobody had "social problems" until the movement decided to be "in your face". This is probably the one thing that the founders didn't see coming. BUT in their defense, much of today's ills in this country have been caused by the politically correct, don't upset anybody crowd.I should not be hearing an option to continue my phone conversation in Spanish or any other language. This is the USA, we speak English, just like the Mexicans speak Spanish. BUT in Mexico if you can't or don't speak Spanish, they don't care and make no appeasments or apologies. We should be doing the same. Why are California driver lisence applications in 27 different languages???

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 83 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web