Skip to comments.Liberty from big soda (NY liberal nanny statism)
Posted on 03/10/2013 1:00:22 PM PDT by lowbridge
Barring any late legal surprises, Mayor Bloomberg's 16-ounce cap on sugary sodas goes into effect on Tuesday, March 12. After that, restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and food carts will not be permitted to sell extra-large portions of sugar-packed drinks.
Stay calm. This does not signal the end of democracy in America. This is not the nanny state gone out of control.
If we want Americans to be healthy, we are going to have to take actions like this - and many more - and do so soon
So-called "nanny-state" measures - like bans on driving while drunk, smoking in public places and, now, selling absurdly large sugary drinks - help to level the playing field. Such measures are about giving everyone an equal opportunity to live a safer and healthier life.
At the moment, it is up to you to make healthier choices, but that's not easy in the face of relentless soda marketing. Governments have a responsibility to provide healthier environments for their citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
I’m a yankee but some times I just don’t understand yankees.
Ridiculous....This is not government business.
Huge difference between driving drunk and drinking a bunch of soda, soda doesn’t impair your ability to drive.
Apologetic Nanny State article is obvious.....
I’ve always been impressed that Bloomie understands NYers aren’t capable of making reasonable food choices. But I’m distressed that he feels they should be able to vote in federal elections.
Translation: Minorities are like children and must be protected from themselves.
“If we want Americans to be healthy...”
And, therein lies the fallacious foundation of this overreach by government. It is NOT THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT whether I want to be healthy.
Of course, the response from the left is that my health determines my health care costs, which affect everyone else.
I call BS on that one, too. The cost of healthcare in the US did not start its meteoric rise until the feds got their tentacles in the industry back in the 1950’s. I was there.
I remember going to the doctor’s office for his afternoon office hours. Sit in the waiting room with the others on queue. The doctor called us in, one after the other, took our two dollars, and did his work. We left with meds, instructions for care and appointment for follow-up visit (if necessary).
Then...the feds got involved... That spelled the advent of defensive medicine, over testing, and double digit price increases year after year. The deeper the feds got their teeth into the industry, the worse it got. And, we see no end in sight.
“Governments have a responsibility to provide healthier environments for their citizens.”
Uh...no, they don’t.
Does Bloomberg really have the power to proclaim the foolish things he does?
Marion Nestle is every bit the wannabe fascist tyrant that Hitler (actually) was and that Obama strives to be. The left in this country is truly unhinged in their deisre to subjugate and enslave their neighbors.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
- C. S. Lewis
So this woman is also an expert on pet nutrition? I remember seeing a film about what dogs really want to eat, which the stomach and entrails of another aninmal if I remember right.
I chuckle at the current pet food ads that assure us our dogs are starving for veggies, grains and blueberries.
Did she put Bloomie up to this or vice versa?
I had to laugh at "big soda."
This protest is designed to be printed up and passed around your precinct and your friends and neighbors as a (index sized) palmcard. On the face (REVERSE SIDE)or below the slogan you can put the name of the candidate you favor and the election dates...EXCELLENT FOR SLIPPING UNDER WINDSHIELD WIPERS ON CARS PARKED IN KEY PARKING LOTS CHURCHES, RALLY SITES....
DEMO-COMS AND RINO CRYERS
GOD DENIERS AND PREDACIOUS LIARS
ARE REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH INCITERS/
FIRST YOUR MONEY THEN YOUR GUNS
ISSUING DECREES OF MANY COME
DEMAND SURRENDERING CHOICES ONE BY ONE
INTO REGIMENTATION YOU MUST RUN
AND NOW THEIR ROBOT YOUVE BECOME
Its time to get government out of Our faces
Our religions and and Our pocketbooks
So banning certain expressions and ideas is NOT an attack on Free Speech.
Banning guns is NOT an attack on right to bear arms.
And banning soda enhances our freedoms?
On some planet I guess this makes sense....
Maybe it will turn out to be like underage beer purchase.
Person goes to store and buys 1 12-oz cola. Loiters in parking lot and waits for someone going toward the store and gives them, like $5, to buy another 12-oz cola to give to the first person.
Worked with underage beer procurement!
Now the guy has 24-oz of cola! HA!
Heh heh heh, I love you guys.
Great. So give me a 20-ounce option and let me choose not to buy it.
Bans on driving while incapacitated aren't nannystatism. These acts cause real torts, but surprisingly many drunks make it home night after night accident free. They're only discovered during police sobriety check points. This proves that at the times where there is no check point in place that number of intoxicated drivers are passing through unnoticed.
So that nanny-statism isn't really that effective in the first place and we know the source is liquor stores and bars which generate too much revenue to be directly targeted. Government loves sin taxes and we know how prohibition turned out.
The second point she makes in her straw man argument is even sillier since second hand smoke isn't the killer the left claimed it to be. She's using the epitomy of liberal logic - false facts coupled with loose correlations amounting to the phrase, "I'm an elite and I'm here to help [control your life]."
The focus must be on definitions. Make the government define “healthy”. They can’t because nobody is certain what that is. My friend works out everyday, runs marathons and just had a heart attack.
Was he healthy? Is he now?
If the world of medicine isn’t certain what healthy is how can politicians know?
Medicine right now can define sick and they get that wrong often enought. There exists no definition for healthy.
When a definition doesn’t exist they flock to that because their entire agenda is undefined unless you understand that the goal is power.
Oh lord, that is funny. Thanks.
We're all on O'Bozo's Bitter Clinger Drone List already so we might as well have a little fun while we can.