ban "sweet" drinks in city buildings

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/09/2 ... buildings/

wow seriously? Liberals are now just as crazy and just as interested in legislating morality as conservatives.

[Sarvis]

I don't see anything about "Liberals" in that article. Moreover, if this was a private corporation banning soft drinks in it's properties you'd be touting private property rights.

[Pril]

I don't see anything about "Liberals" in that article. Moreover, if this was a private corporation banning soft drinks in it's properties you'd be touting private property rights.

Well the mayor is a democrat so yes "Liberals" Moreever if a private corporation wants to ban soft drinks in its properties they are a PRIVATE CORPORATION not a public entity.

[Sarvis]

Where does the article say the mayor is proposing this legislation?

So if a building is "public" the entity in charge of the building has no control over what goes on inside of it?

[Pril]

If it is a government building then the government says what happens inside of it. It's not like government buildings are owned by private companies. Boston has long been run by democrats. I'm not saying that that is good or bad but when your party is in power then your party is the one that approves legislation and your party is responsible for what is happening within your dominion.



SIDE NOTE: This does not apply to Obama since everything that happens with the US is still Bushs fault.

[Sarvis]

If it is a government building then the government says what happens inside of it.

Yep, and that's what they're talking about.

SIDE NOTE: This does not apply to Obama since everything that happens with the US is still Bushs fault.

Boston is within the US. :P

Seriously, there are probably a couple republicans in the government so to just assume Democrats are sponsoring this legislation is intellectually dishonest. (I think I want to use a different word there, but only got a few hours sleep last night and can't remember it... but "intellectually dishonest" is pretty close to what I mean anyway.)

Maybe the few Republicans in Boston are trying to get this passed. For that matter, maybe the few Republicans in Boston came up with this plan knowing everyone outside of the state would assume it was Democrats and blame Teh Evul Libruls.

[Pril]

[Sarvis]

Nah, some of the non-Republicans are just commie bastards! ;)

[teflor the ranger]

What does the sweet drink ban have to do with morals?

[Ragorn]

It's issues like this that will give Republican candidates serious trouble in November. I imagine most citizens will pause to vote for any Republican who doesn't distance himself far, far away from the party center over this issue.

[kiryan]

thats awesome pril. Can we get some lasers on it.

I'm calling it morality. Its moral according to their world view which is no one should do anything thats unhealthy for them. We should be forced to exercise, eat healthy, recycle etc... Is it all that much different than teen sex, pregnancy, divorce, etc being bad for you from a Christian pov? Both sides engage in legislating morality, only liberals try to claim otherwise.

[Ragorn]

No, in fact, they're exactly the same. But rather than putting calorie counts on food packages, I think we should teach Food Abstinence-Only education in schools.

STARVE OR GTFO

[teflor the ranger]

thats awesome pril. Can we get some lasers on it.

I'm calling it morality. Its moral according to their world view which is no one should do anything thats unhealthy for them. We should be forced to exercise, eat healthy, recycle etc... Is it all that much different than teen sex, pregnancy, divorce, etc being bad for you from a Christian pov? Both sides engage in legislating morality, only liberals try to claim otherwise.

That might have been the case if they were banning sugary drinks period or restricting them from doing business normally.

As for how public buildings conduct their business, the client - in this case - government administration must pick and choose who and what kind of business it does as well.

I don't see this as an overreaching of government power. I mean, banning abortions inside city hall might be a good idea too.

[kiryan]

I hope that was sarcastic.

Its just the next step towards banning soda. Its incrementalism just like with Tobacco. I read an article the other day that links obesity with a certain strain of the common cold virus. Maybe we should ban sick people from public buildings in the interests of public health and obesity? Actually, that is a good idea if we can ever get the government out of our lives enough that we didn't need to go there.

[Sarvis]

Maybe we should ban sick people from public buildings

Frankly, yes... we should. And from coming to work sick, and spreading their germs around to everyone in the office to create that cycle of cold virus that keeps everyone sick for months.

Not legislations fault people are to self-entitled to think of others and stay home for a day when they're sick.

[kiryan]

can we fine them or ask them to pay a special tax when they come in to do whatever it is that government has required them to come in for?

can we take blood tests and make sure they're getting enough chicken noodle soup too? maybe we chould just install a pantry sensor and check their credit card receipts to make sure they went to the doctor too when they were sick?

get the f*k out of my business

[Ragorn]

can we fine them or ask them to pay a special tax when they come in to do whatever it is that government has required them to come in for?

can we take blood tests and make sure they're getting enough chicken noodle soup too? maybe we chould just install a pantry sensor and check their credit card receipts to make sure they went to the doctor too when they were sick?

get the f*k out of my business

Actually, I think we should cut taxes, eliminate science funding, and stop researching cures for diseases completely. Then the invisible hand of the market could be left to act, and the ones who don't take personal responsibility for finding their own medicinal herbs and tinctures could be removed from the gene pool.

Wait... wait. No, we can't do that. That sounds too much like evolution, which is basically witchcraft.

I know! Faith-based medicine! We'll convert all of our hospitals into churches... then nobody would ever get sick because the healing hand of The Lord would keep everybody healthy!

[Sarvis]

pantry sensor

I missed the 'r' the first time I read that...

get the f*k out of my business

Then stop making it mine by spreading your problems out among the general population. Bring your germs into my vicinity, and it's suddenly my business.

[teflor the ranger]

Sorry Kiryan, you lost me. I support a ban of smoking in publicly owned buildings.

I also have nothing against government not selling soda in publicly owned buildings, just the same way I don't support ammunition, gasoline, or stink bombs being sold in publicly owned buildings (or for that matter, short-shorts for dudes).

Some increments aren't wrong. And I'd worry about soda being banned about as much as I worry about cigarettes being banned (hint: they're still everywhere).

[kiryan]

Hmm... Teflor I read the article as banning the sugary drinks, not banning the sale of sugary drinks. I don't care if they stop selling sugary drinks in public buildings, but banning people from drinking them is something entirely different. I reread the article it doesn't specifically mention banning sales, nor does it specifically mention banning posession.

In related news, Florida wants to ban chocolate milk in schools. seriously, you guys just think its ok to ban all this shit? Soda will be the next tobacoo if activists have their way.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/09/2 ... k-schools/

[teflor the ranger]

Sorry, I should have posted the link I read, I tend not to rely on one source before I start posting here.

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=514337

It's a controversial move that has some soda lovers fizzing. City leaders in Boston are considering banning the sale of sodas at city hall and all city-owned buildings.

Boston health officials were quick to clarify that you can still drink soda at city buildings. "There's no talk of a ban of sugar-sweetened beverages in any municipal building," said Barbara Ferrer, Boston Public Health Commissioner. "It's just a question of what gets sold in our municipal buildings in our vending machines."

Really, it's just shitty journalism on the part of both Fox News and the Boston Herald.

I would be vehemently against a ban on the consumption or possession of sweet drinks in public buildings. Unless there was some proof that it was causing unusually high janitorial or maintenance costs.

[kiryan]

Yea I had a reading fail on that, I thought it said they were banning consuming soda.

[teflor the ranger]

No, I think you read it just fine. The article you posted was just missing a lot of information.

[Sarvis]

Yea I had a reading fail on that, I thought it said they were banning consuming soda.

The very first sentence of the article:

"Boston, the city that has already banned smoking in bars and trans-fats in restaurants, now wants to keep sugary drinks out of city-owned buildings."

I'm not going to claim I read the entirety of every article I post, but I always read the entire first sentence!

[teflor the ranger]

Yea I had a reading fail on that, I thought it said they were banning consuming soda.

The very first sentence of the article:

"Boston, the city that has already banned smoking in bars and trans-fats in restaurants, now wants to keep sugary drinks out of city-owned buildings."

I'm not going to claim I read the entirety of every article I post, but I always read the entire first sentence!

not even close, moronic fail by Sarvis.