Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
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.

94. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:52 RollinThundr
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 15:45:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:57:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:47:

This, exactly this. Banning outright needs to be preserved for those few most destructive things like heroin. Most things should simply have the price adjusted based on some kind of measure of the damage they do to society. Rice, apples and broccoli: 0% tax. Jam and butter: 20% Twinkies, Coke, potato chips, and MJ: 50%. Etc. Obviously how much these %s should be is up for debate, but no one doubts that "foods" like potato chips and Coke are causing a nationwide health epidemic and need to be reigned in. I'd put in place an advertising restriction on these things too, like tobacco.

We'll never see this though, not with our current government completely in hock to corporations. Get corporate advertising out of politics, and you might see some good laws. And while I hate the current trend in journalism "both sides do it" false equivalency, in the case of being coopted by corporate money, both US parties are neck deep, so you'd never get anything like this passed.

Ban everything ban breathing while you're at it. Because people can't be personally responsible to not eat potato chips all day and get fat, tax chips 500%! that will teach em! Big Daddy Obama will tell you what to eat, when to sleep, when to rub one out. Jesus you guys are really something.

Please all of you liberals, move to the UK or China.

I say ban heroin, but don't ban chips and Coke, and you interpret that as me saying ban everything? Also, Obama wouldn't be responsible for passing laws encouraging or discouraging behavior. That would be the house, and last I checked it was in Republican control.

And yeah, I'd prefer a junk food tax. Obesity related diseases are now the number one killer and the number one healthcare cost in this country. It's been proven that they are addictive, just like tobacco. And just like tobacco, they need to have their advertising restricted, and their price adjusted through taxation. Not banned, but adjusted so that their consumption can be discouraged and their price can reflect their cost to society.

In Obama's case he'd just put in an executive order anyway. Lets have carbon taxes too, and a junk food tax, and a air breathing tax then we can spend all that money on more welfare for people who refuse to work like the rest of us. It'll be a grand social experiment!!! A utopia of perfect living! /sarcasm

Meanwhile back in reality, people will still get fat, smoke etc.
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.


Blue's News logo