Author Topic: Banning drinks in New York  (Read 2784 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6537
Banning drinks in New York
« on: March 12, 2013, 07:39:41 AM »
 
  There has been an attempt to ban large sugary soft drinks in New York. The motive may be good as anyone that knows  anything about health knows that these drinks are not healthy.  Other than bringing more emphasis to health what possible good could it do? What would stop a guzzler from buying two smaller drinks or buying one in one restaurant and one in another ?

 If a line is drawn there what  about a hundred and more other unhealthy foods? What about fatty foods, meat, and alcohol? Then we have so called medicinal pot and recreational weed on one hand and banning non alcoholic drinks on the other. We are  living at a time of extremes. It is as though people are shooting from the hip rather than thinking things through.

The most troubling part of this is the unbalanced thinking involved. Not only is it hypocritical but the attitude that for the betterment of mankind select laws are enacted that will not work anyway reveals a condescending, misguided attitude. I don't drink soft drinks just as I do not own or have a gun. However, I am concerned about laws that are reactionary and ill thought through. This is the same dynamic  at work that will bring in the coming Sunday law. The idea that an attempt at forcing outward conformity will work and will bring peace, prosperity,  and good health is nonscense. This reminds me of the principle with pharmecutical treatments today. To deal harshly with the symptom ignoring the real problem only adds to the problem.
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6537
Re: Banning drinks in New York
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2013, 02:55:36 PM »
I'm interested in why they wish to ban sugary drinks and yet leave ice-cream and french fries alone. How about tobacco and alcohol ? And then there is red fatty meat such as hamburger. Ice cream ranks right at the top in terms destroying the body. Personally, I'm not against them banning all of them entirely. It does make one a little concerned though when one bad food is singled out while bad foods like cheese are either ignored or promoted. It also makes you wonder as well when they are trying to micro manage your plate how soon they will do the same with your religion.

I would rather see them approach this more from a health care stand point. If you do not smoke, drink, eat red meat, do drugs, etc.etc. why not give the person a substantial break on health insurance  and charge more to those who openly violate their bodies. If a person  is grossly overweight, in most cases they are being irresponsible with their lifestyle and it seems reasonable that they pay considerably more for health care and if they cannot afford it they ought suffer the consequences just like they do when they can no longer walk and must ride one of those carts around the store.

IMHO health care ought not be a right where the tax payer must fund irresponsible living. I'm not saying we should not help people but that ought to be a gift and not a right. In many cases people will not be responsible with their health unless they are made to be responsible. Take away the quick fixes, automatic free bypass surgeries, and a whole cabinet full of free drugs and more people would gravitate toward responsible living. Granted some would not.

Another great help that would be asking too much would be for our educational systems to stop allowing themselves to be bought by the pharmaceutical companies and meat and dairy people and then teaching the truth about health and diet. My concern about banning large soft drinks is the certainty that they will not be fair and consistent in other areas Why not ban all soft drinks then that are high sugar no matter the size. Why not ban milk ? Why not candy bars and greasy foods ?
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

JimB

  • Servant
  • Assistant Administrator
  • Posts: 7447
  • Pro 12:28 in the pathway thereof there is no death
Re: Banning drinks in New York
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2013, 03:06:11 PM »
You might be interested in this Health Hypocrisy also.
By communion with God in nature, the mind is uplifted, and the heart finds rest.  {DA 291.1}

Wally

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5644
  • Romans 8:35, 38, 39
Re: Banning drinks in New York
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2013, 03:59:21 PM »
I'm interested in why they wish to ban sugary drinks and yet leave ice-cream and french fries alone. How about tobacco and alcohol ? And then there is red fatty meat such as hamburger.

You've underscored the hypocrisy and inconsistency that prevails in this country when considering the subject of health.  Some places have banned trans fats, but they can spend their evenings in the pub and fry their livers and brains; while their destroying their lungs with tobacco.  It's no wonder the arguments against legalizing pot sound so weak to so many.

So they ban the large size sodas.  Big deal.  If I'm a soda addict, I'll buy 2 or 3 instead of 1.  How stupid does the mayor think people are?
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants:  we have done that which was our duty to do.  Luke 17:10

Larry Lyons

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Banning drinks in New York
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2013, 05:09:33 PM »
There seems to be a spirit of fascism in the air of the US. Bloomberg's attempt at micro-managing things which he can't really control may be a growing trend. Governing by decree expanded during the Bush regime and has grown exponentially under Obama, IMHO.

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6537
Re: Banning drinks in New York
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2013, 07:13:30 PM »
I listened to a talk show where a quest was in favor of the sugary drink ban in New York. The guest  said that this was not an attempt to force people but to bring an awareness to them that these drinks are health destroying. However, when the show's host said that those who would ban these drinks would then go a step further and tax soda shops out of existence. The smug quest replied, "maybe." The attitude of the quest was politely condescending with the attitude "well, its for their own good." The attitude is increasing that if in one's mind something will help someone then it is perfectly alright to force them to do it and then rather than call it force say it is just to "increase awareness."

I am of the opinion that the seat belt law is unconstitutional. While the seat belt certainly saves lives it ought not be forced upon the public. However, I would be in favor of insurance companies increasing medical insurance premiums on those who do not where a seat belt because that makes sense. How would the companies know? Perhaps those who choose to wear a seat belt would have a sticker in the window on each side of the car. If the police saw someone not wearing a seat belt with a sticker in window they would write them up and the insurance company would be informed.
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

Wally

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5644
  • Romans 8:35, 38, 39
Re: Banning drinks in New York
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2013, 02:58:02 AM »
Shades of 1984?
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants:  we have done that which was our duty to do.  Luke 17:10

Ed Sutton

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2216
    • Ed Sutton Blogger Profile
Re: Banning drinks in New York
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2013, 06:15:51 AM »
Voice of the dragon starting to renew his experiments to see what he can get away with using civil governments, to force consciences.

It is not the soda pop, it is the edict verses the conscience and the human will and choosing because you are forced. 

It is further peeling back the onion.  It is an further extending the principles at work with waco and ruby ridge, in a less innocuous setting, but coercion none the less.

Quote
  The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses—extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart. {CCh 314.4}

Again and again Christ had been asked to decide legal and political questions. But He refused to interfere in temporal matters. Christ stood in our world as the Head of the great spiritual kingdom that He came to our world to establish—the kingdom of righteousness. His teaching made plain the ennobling, sanctifying principles that govern this kingdom. He showed that justice and mercy and love are the controlling powers in Jehovah's kingdom.  {CCh 314.5}

The spies came to Him, and with apparent sincerity, as though desiring to know their duty, said, "Master, we know that Thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest Thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?" {CCh 315.1}

Christ's reply was no evasion, but a candid answer to the question. Holding in His hand the Roman coin, upon which were stamped the name and image of Caesar, He declared that since they were living under the protection of the Roman power, they should render to that power the support it claimed, so long as this did not conflict with a higher duty. {CCh 315.2}

When the Pharisees heard Christ's answer, "they marveled, and left Him, and went their way." He had rebuked their hypocrisy and presumption, and in doing this He had stated a great principle, a principle that clearly defines the limits of man's duty to the civil government and his duty to God. 568 {CCh 315.3}
 

Grateful for Psalms 32 and Titus 2:10 - The divinity of Christ is acknowledged in the unity of the children of God.  {11MR 266.2}