Reply With Quote
that nazi should be imprisoned for trying to undermine the concept of free will, now i don't even drink cokes but if i did i'd carry around a 2 gallon bucket and slurp it through a water hose tbh bloomberg
This reminds me of a news story a few years back that kids were drinking hand sanitizer to get drunk. I mean come on...Does any of your friends have an older brother?
that nazi should be imprisoned for trying to undermine the concept of free will, now i don't even drink cokes but if i did i'd carry around a 2 gallon bucket and slurp it through a water hose tbh bloomberg
Fair enough.
Unfortunately, the 'grown up look' isn't working and hasn't worked in a long time, in the meantime, obesity-related illnesses (diabetes being one that keeps on growing and requires constant treatment as it's chronic) and deaths keep on rising. And the cost of treating those people keeps growing as well, much faster than the inflation rate. Again, I don't think there's a silver bullet solution here, nor I necessarily agree the ban is the be-all, cure-all solution. From strictly a cost-reduction angle, it needs to be addressed, IMO.
Then when does the slippery slope stop? Would you be ok with the govt only allowing you a regulated amount of time on the tv and internet? I think if you are going to tell anyone that they can get medical coverage no matter what they do to their body, you're going to get this kind of thing.
It made me laugh today thinking about the stereotypical pot head. If they legalized weed and criminalized sin foods. How he/she couldn't get to the promise land. So close...So close.
Well, you don't get diabetes from watching TV or being on the interwebs. I don't really see a slippery slope there. Just like with abusing alcohol, abusing sugar intake has a direct impact on type II diabetes diagnosis.
And frankly, this is a fairly new development. The use of HFCS as the main sweetner exploded in the early 80s.
It made me laugh today thinking about the stereotypical pot head. If they legalized weed and criminalized sin foods. How he/she couldn't get to the promise land. So close...So close.
Why do people think this authoritarian at ude to protect us from ourselves if acceptable?
^ capt straw to the rescue
Mr. Big government El I know-it-all to the rescue.
You do it to me all the time. Why not return the favor?
LOL...
Seriously?
Your forget how you paraphrase my words to mean what you want them to mean?
No, you changed my words enough for them to be changed in meaning, and you do that all the time.
Stop with the cop-outs, and man up to your actions.
I take that means no link? That's what I thought.
lol...WC is your boutons.
Yes, that is clear. I call you on it over and over in threads, and you act as if I am wrong.
pretty muchlol...WC is your boutons.
No, that's me.See?
that's awesome trolling, tbh
http://www.cato.org/blog/send-napole...+at+Liberty%29Welcome news from New York: a unanimous four-judge appeals court has confirmed a trial court order striking down the New York Department of Health’s attempt to ban large soda portions. The decision is here, Newsday coverage here, and our earlier coverage here.
The appeals court ruled that in enacting the ban the NYC department of health had overstepped its legally granted powers. As I observed in this Commentary article in March, New York has its own distinctive body of law by which courts step in to prevent administrative agencies from claiming quasi-legislative powers not clearly delegated to them, the rules laid out in a 1987 case called Boreali v. Axelrod. The appeals court agreed with trial court judge Milton Tingling that Boreali was directly controlling, and that the department had clearly overstepped Boreali’s ban on essentially legislative action by an administrative agency. (Why, you ask, don’t federal courts apply as tough a standard to keep administrative agencies in Washington, D.C. from arrogating to themselves essentially legislative functions? Good question…)
Although the appeals court did not reach the issue of whether the Bloomberg rules were “arbitrary and capricious,” and although neither it nor Judge Tingling reached the underlying issues of individual consumer choice that are at stake, this was far more than just a “win on a technicality.” The rule that government agencies cannot overstep their lawfully granted powers is a vital one in protecting the liberty of the citizen. On this issue, and not this alone, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has acted more as a Napoleon issuing peremptory dictates than as an elected executive carrying out the will of legislators on the City Council and in Albany.
cato!
appeals court upheld the order striking down the ban. the CATO posting includes links to the decision and the Newsday coverage, for those inclined to read.
lol thinkprogress
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
