Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

46. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 18:13 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 17:10:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

He probably thinks the smoking bans are too far.

Bloomberg's soda ban is often brought up. As if, you know, everyone didn't endlessly mock it. Jon Stewart, someone often hailed as a top liberal talking head, endlessly mocked it.

And it does lead to a social good. People are too fat and too likely to get type 2 diabetes. Their insistence upon drinking buckets of liquid sugar and calories is an enormous part of this. So you can see that connection.
It was just the wrong way to make it.

But, of course, some people think that it isn't the government's job to make sure that what companies offer us is good for us. We should judge. If we want to survive solely on Twinkies we should be allowed to eat solely Twinkies, even if it means there will be a strain on society the taxpayer has to bear. Whatever, I see that argument somewhat, the issue comes from when there aren't many alternatives. Most products in the supermarket have excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and chemicals. It would be nice if the government stepped in and regulated that. Clearly the American consumer isn't very good at doing so on an individual level. Banning certain ingredients would be nice. Hell, there are some things banned in the EU as being carcinogenics that the US still allows.

This, though, will somehow be seen as me saying Bloomberg was anything other than a fool.

If someone wants to eat nothing but twinkies, it's their own fault if they end up 300lbs. I don't need, nor want the government to tell me what I can and can't eat or how to live my life thanks. You may think it's a good idea because "hey people will lose weight!" but do we really want to open that door to government running our lives for us? Or is that something you really want Beamer? Someone to tell you what to do?

And for the record, and being a smoker, I think it's ridiculous, cigarette companies are barely allowed to advertise these days, but that doesn't stop the government from taxing the fuck outta cigarettes.
 
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo