Conservatives and the big gulp ban

(for the record I think the proposed ban is a waste of taxpayer money and legislative time as well as a good example of what governments shouldn't be doing. And I'm a proud liberal.)

The predictable consensus here amongst conservatives seems to be that this ban reeks of "nanny statism" etc., and is used as an example of how mentally retarded liberals like to run things by removing personal responsibility from the equation.

How is this ban any different from the current ban on many recreational drugs? Is it inconsistent to favor the drug war while condemning the soda ban?

 

Do you oppose the FDA regulating the quality of our food and prescription drugs? How are recreational drugs any different?

 

I'm talking about a ban here. I would oppose the FDA banning sodas.

 

I'd say the main difference is that soda and narcotics, while sharing some similarities, are quite different... additionally, soda isn't illicit.

It's not a very good comparison.

 

Wait. Soda would become illicit the minute it became completely illegal. Illicit is just a legal term.

 

But control is a natural progression for a government that tries to control such things as the economy and education and what government takes power over seas and what country develops WMD's etc. At some point I guess you are likely to protest. So what took you so long?

Then again, maybe you need to look at this from the perspective of our collective good like a good liberal should. After all, soda is bad for us.

 

Correct. You asked how this ban is different than the ban on 'recreational drugs'.

Sure, most soda contains an addictive stimulant, and over consumption of soda can lead to a host of health problems. The difference though, is that nobody (okay, maybe a few nutters) is going to commit crime to obtain soda, or will have a fatal overdose of soda, or abuse their spouse or children while on a soda binge, or allow their life to spiral out of control due to an unshakable soda addiction. Soda isn't even comparable to alcohol in this context.

It's a silly ban, coming from a very silly man.

 

......

 

Looks like you found one of the few nutters. According to the article, all he did was ask for water, but filled the cup with soda instead.

 

You're kind of splitting hairs here. The FDA's job is to ensure the safety of products for human consumption. I still don't see how recreational drugs are any different.

 

I'm not protesting. I think America is broken beyond repair; protesting won't do any good.

I was just asking a question.

 

What is your argument, that conservatives want soda's legal, but heroin banned and liberals want sodas banned and heroin legal?

Also, why do liberals hate unpasteurized milk so much?

 

Well, I think the FDA does a good job determining the efficacy of various new drugs. But I don't recognize the government's right to tell citizens what they can and can't ingest, regardless of how good or bad those things are for them.

 

Essentially, yes. Why is limiting access to soda any different than limiting access to heroin?

Don't have an answer to your milk question. I like unpasteurized milk.

 

Forgive them for they do not know that highest levels of our corporate-banker-owned gov't are highly involved in the drug trade and have been for centuries, going back to the Crown and China.

Afghanistan poppy production has hit the roof since our invasion. They simply cannot accept the fact that our leaders are corrupt beyond belief. They believe that all of the money spent on the "drug war" is actually fighting the endless flow of drugs into the nation. Not even close. Just find recent mainstream articles about who laundered all of the drug money. Just look at Iran-Contra, CIA planes full of drugs, Bill Clinton's Arkansas airport. Red-nose Bill knows what's up.

Running untraceable guns to the drug cartels was everything but a "sting" operation.

 

The man doing it, isn't a Conservative, he is a neo-con. Which makes him a liberal. No real conservative brings on the nanny state, besides it seems its all a misdirection for the masses.

Do you understand double teaming, or the Hegelian dialectic?

The Mayor of NY is a lefty...didn't you know that?

 

Yes, he is saying that the lefty of NY attacked soda, but that is no different than conservatives attacking drugs.

As if Obama has not sent his Gestapo into Cali to raid legal shops countless times. Pothead Barack works for the laundering banks and is loyal to his drug monopolists. Legal drugs would be too cheap and not under the control of the banks through their Feds.

There is no conservative or liberal, there are the corrupt traitors and a couple of patriots.

 

Are you seriously comparing heroin to soda? I hope that's a joke.

 

Over all a very nice statement. Can you say special interests as well, yes you can , yes we can

 

Well obviously I can't speak for everyone on the right, but if you want to legalize heroin as a recreational drug, I'm open to discussing it, but before we take that step, are we comfortable with not wasting government funds on rehab for the addicts?

 

That's my point, though. You're kind of contradicting yourself here. The FDA's whole purpose is to filter out what is harmful so that people do not consume it. That's why grocery chain Food Lion got into legal trouble for modifying the expiration dates on their meat. Because rancid meat can make people sick. So what is the difference between preventing the distribution of contaminated food or potentially harmful prescription drugs and preventing the distribution of potentially harmful recreational drugs? Seems like the same thing to me.

 

Soda is bad, or at least cola is bad. It has a super strong Phosphoric acid!

I've heard your bones shrink when you drink Cola. Your body practically cannibalises your own bones to throw something at it to neutralize the acid.

I approve of your wanting this bone thinner. Don't forget to put some calcium into your diet later though.

 

people don't burgle houses and stick up folk to buy a soda.

 

The FDA's job isn't really there to filter out what's harmful. It's to make sure that everyone knows what they're eating.

Mercury is poisonous. Ingesting it will do all kinds of bad things to you and then it'll kill you. But you're still allowed to buy it. The FDA just forces you (if you're selling it) to label it as what it is.

Requiring any mind-altering substance to be labeled as such, along with any other serious health considerations, makes perfect sense. But banning the ingestion of those substances doesn't. That's a parent's job, not a government's.

The "Big Gulp Ban" sounds like yet another attempt by the government to micro-manage peoples' lives. Bloomberg's a nut. Maybe he knows it'll never fly and he's just trying to get some attention, or something.

 

Only because soda is legal and easy to acquire.