Posted on 07/25/2012 8:54:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The pro is that people really would be healthier if they didn't drink sugary drinks or didn't drink them to excess - assuming they don't just substitute something else unhealthy for their Big Gulp. The Nanny State activists do have that one point in their favor. The con is that IT’S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FLIPPIN BUSINESS! The con argument wins overwhelmingly.
Watch this change into a “tax law”....just like cigarettes.....say 5 cents per ounce.
Just trying to be humorous, MM.
The very thought of even having this conversation should scare the hell out of people.
When you have a government telling people what you can eat, drink, smoke, etc. You have tyranny. PERIOD!
IF the people of New York had any balls they would have Bloomberg strung up by his balls. But hey, they get what they deserve if they do nothing.
Excellent quote. Thank you!
Dittos to Gabz’s comments, but I would like to add that in reality they are gutless little tyrants that have no core values. They are to weak to face the logical progression of their celebrated policies and that is proven by the fact that by supporting the nanny state, they are admitting that they are to weak to run their own lives.
I consider them great potential fertilizer for the tree of liberty....
Oh I know, sorry if I came off as attacking you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.