NYC and political boss Bloomberg to even further control New Yorker's lives

[davjohns 1]

I think this is going swimmingly. My only complaint is that people can still make really poor diet choices in their homes and thwart all of this excellent legislation. Perhaps some kind of monitoring device in the home that is monitored by a government agency? We could call them...oh, I don't know....'Thought Police'? It makes perfect sense to me. Since the government is responsible for caring for our health, they need to keep an eye on our caloric intake, exercise, potential drug abuse, smoking, drinking and such. I think a monitor in each home is the only reasonable solution.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's going to be next! Say goodbye to 32oz Dos Equis at your favorite Mexican joint.

so far the proposals are only attacking soda under the wider umbrella of sugary drinks. This is really about the kids, who aren't (generally) drinking beer. But if you look at what happens whenever a beer tax is proposed and how quickly the legislators retreat, I don't think we need to worry any time soon.

Cambridge is already attacking the obvious 'flaw' in the NYC proposal - people will just go back for more. But a ban on free refills is easily sidetracked. SF banned toys in happy meals, so they sell them for a penny. Chicago bans the sale of foie gras, so the restaurant gives it away with a $20 toast purchase. If the proponents actually lock down the language, then they lost their ability to say 'it's no big deal, you can do X' lines that enable them to get in the first step.

[davjohns 1]

I had forgotten SF banned happy meal toys. Wow.

We've lost it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[GQ_jumper 4]

While I agree it may not be the best or smartest decision at least somebody is recognizing that something has to be done to keep us from running ourselves out of money to pay for medical conditions that could have been prevented. I'm sure this new bill will be overturned in the future as it well should be, but if it can illicit a drastic change in the meantime by making companies rethink the way they make their products then maybe the short-term ass-pain this causes will lead to a long-term improvement that actually makes sense. How about healthy alternatives instead of less of the same crap!

Too much money goes to preventable medical conditions that could be going to people who have conditions that they were born with. Why should my tax dollars have to pay for someone else's poor choices?

And for the record, I no longer acknowledge California as a state since they have banned happy meal toys. Don't f$uck with my toys!

Although since I was born there and its no longer a state would this make me an immigrant?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And for the record, I no longer acknowledge California as a state since they have banned happy meal toys. Don't f$uck with my toys!

That was only San Francisco and it was easily dodged.