Am I the only one that thought the whole pink slime thing was a little over the top? Sure maybe treating it with ammonia isn't the best for PR, some process it with citric acid instead. But all it is, is lean meat separated from fat trimmings in a centrifuge. The rest of the hubbub was just the labeling. At least it isn't non meat byproduct added, like say, up to 15% of your chicken that is injected with brine to plump it up. Again, aside from the ammonia, meat paste added to ground beef to make it cheaper for me? Im in. Ground beef is made up of all the shit that isn't good enough to be used in traditional meat cuts. I just never saw the big deal. People don't bat an eye at what ever the fuck hot dogs are made out of.
I'm generally opposed to government interference with essentially trivial issues like this. There are much more important things it should be focused on. Stop making bullshit attempts to give the impression something useful is being done, how about actually bringing about a change? Educate people. Provide home ec in schools (I believe there should be a class right through school called 'life skills' that teaches basic but important things like budgeting, healthy eating and the like, though that's a topic for another day). Most importantly make sure people can access decent food. I recently spent a week living in Englewood on Chicago's Southside. It's fairly poor and welfare dependent, has low education levels and has a complete lack of fresh food. I tried to buy ingredients for pasta and came back with tinned tomato paste and tinned beans from a shitty 'grocery' store. I did pass many a liquor store and fast food joint on my quest, though. I shudder to think what people who live there their entire lives eat. Perhaps a system where food stamps can only be redeemed at certain shops that don't sell garbage is in order. I realise that this is at odds with my opposition to government meddling, but I feel that if the man providing the cash for 'free' then he has a right to dictate what it is spent on. Also, fuck subsidies. Aside from extreme cases where subsidies are required to get businesses back up after natural disasters or the like they just serve to keep no longer profitable ventures wheezing along. Use those resources - both the cash and the labor force - on something more useful. Natural selection is a bitch, but in the long term it's for the best.
Re-reading, that was a condescending way to phrase this. What I mean is that most non-Americans and many Americans see government as a force to steer society in a favorable direction through education and regulation. A lot of us just want them to stay out of that stuff and for better or worse want them to not have any say in what we eat, what drugs we take etc. The information on how to be healthy is there on the internet and in books for anyone who wants to view it, there's a lot of opposing views but I doubt anyone guzzling down a 40+ ounce soda thinks it's a good dietary decision.
I think America could take a tip or two from (I can't believe I'm saying this) The Chinese on how to deal with fuckers that spike food with substances that are bad for you. I'm referring to an incident in China a little while ago where some corporate execs were spiking a children's brand of milk with fucking melamine. For those unfamiliar, melamine is a resin used in plastic. It's poison. However, put into children's milk, it boosts the protein levels during testing, hence REALLY boosting their sales. Well, they were pinched for the crime. Since they're rich corporate executives a slap on the wrist is all they should get since they're rich, right? Wrong. China put them the fuck to DEATH. I like that. Imagine how much healthier people might be eating over here if the government could say "If that isn't real food you're serving to those people-- but a toxic substitute to make it look healthy-- you go to the fucking gas chamber". A guy can dream.
I've noticed that a central piece of rhetoric that tends to pop up in these kinds of discussions is some variant or another on the notion of "the freer the market, the freer the people", which I think might be worth looking at. First, there's the complaint that government legislation of the markets is an immoral violation of the consumer's right to choose. Which is really kind of silly under closer scrutiny; if the government's choice to legislate that certain products can't be sold (or to increase their price via taxation) is some sort of moral wrong, then it ought to be an equivalent moral wrongdoing for a company to end production of any item that they previously produced. Either way, the effect to the consumer is the same; reduction of choice. The only sense in which government is infringing upon any freedoms here is to restrict the freedom of *companies* to provide certain services. It's then not terribly clear to me that companies have the some moral standing as people, or that government has the same obligation toward companies, as it does to its populace. In fact, I think it would be pretty tenuous to claim this to be the case. Second, and more pervasive, seems to be the notion that a free market will necessarily (or at least, on average), converge to some sort of optimal equilibrium. Which is problematic, given that markets are complex systems, and market failures exist. In fact, the argument seems to go something like this: Markets act as some sort of backdrop or environment for economic entities to compete. Subject to market forces, economic entites must evolve, such that they may maximize their economic fitness, subject to the market demands (ie: what people want), since these demands are an aggregate expression of "what people want", the environment according to which these economic entities must evolve is fundamentally democratic. Government legislating the economy introduces undemocratic selection pressures, which is bad, and will tend the system away from a democratic and "fair" state. As I see it, there are a few fundamental problems with this position. First: evolution sucks at producing optimal solutions, and it can get stuck. This can be due to several phenomena, such as the fitness landscape being unfortunately shaped (think of this as a plane with hills and valleys, you're a ball, trying to get to the bottom of the lowest valley, and evolution tells you that when two people fight, the one that is more fit ie: is in the lowest valley, wins. Selection pressures can push you up a hill, unfortunately, they can also push you down, so often, you'll get stuck in a valley that's not the lowest, because you can't get enough energy to roll up the hill, to get to the next, lower valley), and lock-in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-in_(decision-making)), as well as a host of other issues. The question then becomes; why, if the system is in some sort of sub-optimal equilibrium, ought not the government give it a shove, if it's likely to get it into a state that is ultimately better (if this is the case)? Second, note that a democracy isn't just a tyranny of the majority, which is what market forces sans government interference amounts to. Given that we we accept abridgements of our rights in other areas, why would the economy be sacrosanct? Also, are the qualities selected for by market forces the same qualities as we would like for our society to have? That doesn't seem at all clear to me. tl;dr: Maybe government interference in the marketplace isn't some sort of hellacious evil? Maybe?
Governments should regulate the safety of products being put out on the market (don't support companies that are making arsenic-flavored pop). People should regulate how they consume that product. I agree with whoever said the government should be working on not releasing horrible things to the public, rather than dealing with paltry problems like soda sizes. But bans are never a good thing, and anyone who believes in freedom of choice should agree with that. A ban might sound wonderful in theory, but allowing the government to ban one thing gives them the precedent to ban more, and we all know what happens when someone in a position of power gets all ban-happy.
Though I am generally in favor of less bans and less government regulation and control, there are specific circumstances that it is either outright needed or could be argued. This, however, is not one of those cases. I am not in favor of vice taxes. If it is legal, it is legal. Don't try to extract more money from people for indulging in vices under the guise of modifying purchasing behavior (and lets be honest, if you want your 20oz of coke, it is going to cost you more than before with this new law). Similar to Frank, this rule wouldn't really affect me since I try to avoid as much soda as possible. I will occasionally have one, maybe a few times a year, and I try to eyeball it out to 12oz or less, the size of a can. Then I follow up with water. It doesn't matter how big the cup is, either. But, if I wanted to fill er up 10 times to the brim with soda, that's my business. Don't treat me like a child and try to control my portions for me.
I know you get most of your news from MSNBC based on much of what you post on these subjects. China is a clusterfuck of epic proportions when it comes to government regulation. Take a tip from China? You must be high. The government over there basically looks the other way as long as big money is flowing in and has to make extreme examples when something like the baby's milk creates a public outcry*. The amount of shit they let industry do to the environment and people's health, since they've had double digit growth for the past decade, would make the dumbest Fox News simpleton cry and beg for Green Peace intervention. I'm just talking about under reported shit that happens in China. On the subject we're talking about given a few years as larger segments of the population gain access to modern conveniences, China's obesity problems, smoking related health issues, etc will dwarf anything we've seen here. All the basic individual liberty issues we debate here will get axed trying to prevent the huge healthcare cost without a second thought. Fuck Shanghai was trying to institute a one dog per family law when I left because pets were becoming too much of a nuisance in the city. I mean I guess it's better than a few years ago when owning dogs banned outright. But fuck it the government gave some rich greedy fucks what they deserved right? Also, there is a good chance you'd be executed for the weed you grow and smoke, you know if we took a tip from China. *see also the sewage being reconstituted into cooking oil outcry.
Not only that, but China also executes its own citizens for crimes like simple theft and tax fraud. So a poor person stealing a bicycle? He's killed. Cheat on your taxes a bit? Death. Is that what Crown Royal wants? He has written a lot of stupid shit about politics/social issues before, but idolizing the legal system of an insanely corrupt communist police state might be a new low. Here's a sobering set of facts; "China executes more people than the rest of the world combined. According to Amnesty International of the 2,400 execution performed in 2008, 1,700 were in China. Hong-Kong-based activist group Dui Hua estimates that 5,000 executions were carried in China in 2009, down from 7,000 in 2007 and 10,000 a year in the 1990s. As many as 6,000 people put to death in 2010. By comparison, according to Amnesty, the country with the next-highest recorded rate of executions in 2010 was Iran, with 252, followed by North Korea with 60, Yemen with 53 and the United States with 46." North Korea has a population of about 25 million and had 60 executions. China has a population of about 1.34 billion and 6,000 executions. That means that per capita, China has TWICE as many executions as one of the most brutal dictatorships of modern times. Let that sink in. Oh, but that's not even the best part. From the same link; "According to Amnesty International there are 68 crimes punishable by death in China, or about a forth of all criminal offenses in China, are punishable by death, up from 32 in 1980. Among those that face the death penalty are pimps, embezzlers, livestock rustlers, tax receipts forgers, drunk drivers, credit card thieves, bicycle thieves, bribe takers, arsonists, drug dealers, spies, thieves, prostitutes, cultural relic traders, dike saboteurs and organizers of secret religious groups. In recent years, the group, says people in China has been put to death for tax fraud, stealing VAT receipts, damaging electric power facilities, selling counterfeit medicine, embezzlement, accepting bribes and drug offenses." Yeah, the US obviously needs to take a hint from a mass-murdering police state...
Wonder what you get in china for punching a miniature poodle in the head. Apart from an erection. Kidding, the erection would come from the tiger penis soup.
Focus: It's a silly law that would have little effect once implemented. I believe that the controversy surrounding it is doing more to help curb soda consumption than actually limiting cup size ever would (and that's still not doing much). So as a rational person you do you a) spend more money or b) drink less beer? People sort of have this bad habit of making dumb-ass decisions when they are extremely intoxicated. And it is easier for a bartender to see how intoxicated you are drink by drink rather than by pitcher by pitcher. That's probably the reason behind the law. And before you get all "it's my right to be as drunk as I want" on me, I agree. You should be able to do that. In your own home. In public it becomes a whole different ballgame as you have a higher chance of fucking up my life. To be clear, this soda law isn't a ploy to get you to spend more money. It is a ploy to get you to drink less soda by making you spend more money to drink more soda. There is a difference. Yes, fuck the government. Entirely. Those silly things like police, soldiers, firefighters, the roads you drive on, the professionals who educate our young people, the people who look after abused kids, those are all absolutely contemptible. Fuck it all. How does it force you to buy two sodas? It's not a law that says that all individuals must purchase two sodas, three pretzels, and a t-shirt with the face of Dear Leader on it whenever you eat out. There is a world of difference between forcing you to buy something and punishing economically for buying more. Aren't people buying that much soda already? I don't think it would increase obesity. And I'd argue that any extra cost to taxpayers would be extremely negligible. Venues that would sell such drinks are already regularly inspected. Having that person check for this requirement would be easy. And I'm not sure how broad you meant your TL;DR to be, but governments can and do legislate problems away. The success rate may not be great, but the free market isn't much better (if at all). You advocate for the government's ability to ban things in your first paragraph and then advocate against it in the second. How does that make sense? The proper response to a society that you believe is hindered by too many regulations is not to take the position that all regulations are unequivocally bad. I mean we can all agree that murder should be banned, as well as child abuse, and driving on the left side of the road as well all drive on the right, on and on we go with all sorts of things that are regulations/laws/bans whatever that make our lives better. Freedom of choice is great, but the state has to have the power to regulate against choices that are of a compelling interest. Obesity just doesn't seem to make the grade as a compelling enough interest.
So I only read the first page because I'm on my cell phone and in Mexico (so I'm not super up-to-date on news at home), but have the people arguing to 'let the fatties get diabetes and be happy because it's their free choice' not considered that this law was aimed to look out for kids? Specifically, the children of those fat and happy diabetics who have never been exposed to healthy dietary practices and, even had they been, are just children with very very little say over what they consume anyway? Forreal guys? Seems like limiting the access of children to MASSIVE SODAS, when many of them are literally not in a position to even know that MASSIVE SODAS are bad for them, is totally reasonable. Do we really want the government to just let irresponsible parents slowly kill their children? Isn't that why we have an obesity epidemic in the first place? How else do we fight that if the parents are too lazy or ignorant to?
Okay, change "forcing" to "economically incentivizing". The end result is the same. Just as much soda gets consumed, but the consumers lose money, and more cash winds up in the government's pockets. So you would rather the government raise children instead of their parents? Really? Also, on the pantheon of poor food choices that make a kid fatter than he/should be, drinking a tiny bit less soda is really low. And that's before we consider that they can just buy a second cup...
All this is assuming that the soda machine are behind the counter and inaccessible, which oftentimes, they are not. Is it just where I'm from? A huge chunk of eateries (I want to say majority, even) have the drink dispensers set up for self serve. I always get a small drink because refills are free, so why spend the extra buck? I've also brought my empty cup and asked for a refill if it is behind the counter and they'll do it for free. The only notable place that you have to pay for refills is the movie theater, and usually if you buy the biggest cup you get a 1 free refill anyway (and usually you'd have to leave the movie halfway to get it so it's a pain in the ass and probably not going to happen). I don't see how passing this law would be anything other than a headache when stores have to order different sized cups and possibly change out holder sizes.
I DON'T watch MSNBC (ever), because like every other American news network, it's shit. And taking a tip from China? Yes, I'm right. Take A tip from China. I didn't take ALL tips from China because it's a country run by oppressive sacks of shit that should be ground up into shark chum. I've made that point on here at least a dozen times in the past. But executing people who are intentionally putting toxic substances into food for the sake of a dollar? There's nothing wrong with that. Fuck them. They're poisoning people and getting rich off of it.
How do you not? Awwsnap's sentiment is "these parents are making decisions for their children I don't agree with, let's step in and stop them from making these decisions." Is that not in effect heading down the path of the government raising children? You're taking away a pretty basic choice from parents by telling them they're not smart enough to decide how big their kid's soda is. As has been stated over and over on this thread, this law in a vacuum is really no big deal, a minor inconvenience for some at it's biggest. The issue a lot of us have is that it's steering us down a path of less and less freedom, if someone tried to pass this in the 80's people would have flipped their fucking shit but with all the insidious freedom limiting regulations that have made their way into our lives over the years it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. And over the years when soda sales are limited like Claritin-D and we have red meat ration cards (well, they'd probably be electronic) people will wonder how we got there and the answer is it starts with laws like this.