Thread: Another ban on Big Gulps!

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/22/2012 1:20 PM, W. Baker wrote:

> How do you feel about the State requirements to have automobile insurance?
>

The list goes on and on... mandatory education, surgeon general warnings
on cigarettes and alcohol with age restrictions on both, age
requirements for driving, compliance with TB treatment enforced, etc...

Susan

"W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:js29gs$3hf$[email protected]..
> Cheri <[email protected]> wrote:
> : "Alice Faber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]..
>
> : > Personally, I don't like outright banning of the big-gulp size.
> However,
> : > and this is a big however, I would like vendors to be required to sell
> a
> : > single serving (i.e., a soda can typically is labeled as having 2
> : > servings, so a single serving would be 8 oz) at a proportional price,
> so
> : > that there is no economic incentive for ordering a huge soda (or
> juice,
> : > or whatever).
>
> : It's not the banning of the Big Gulp that bothers me at all, I was never
> : much of a soda drinker even in the smallest size, now only ice water,
> but
> : it's just one more foot in the door with taking away personal choices
> IMO.
> : If they want to sell it in trash can sizes and people want to buy
> it...it's
> : not the governments business, and while we're at it, neither is their
> : interference in baseball! :-)
>
> : Cheri
>
> How do you feel about the State requirements to have automobile insurance?
>
> Wendy

There is a LAW against driving without insurance. There is no law against
buying a large sized soda...yet!

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/22/2012 7:16 PM, Cheri wrote:

> There is a LAW against driving without insurance.

Right, and Wendy asked how you feel about it. :-)

Susan

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/22/2012 7:16 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> There is a LAW against driving without insurance.
>
> Right, and Wendy asked how you feel about it. :-)
>
> Susan

When you're driving you are putting other lives/property damage at risk with
vehicle accidents etc., so I don't have a problem with it, though...the
couple of times I have been hit, the a-holes didn't have insurance. Oh, and
I'm also OK with laws against murder, burglary, arson, child abuse etc. They
should be as vigilant with that **** as they are about some ballplayer using
steroids or the size of a friggin soda cup. :-)

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/22/2012 8:24 PM, Cheri wrote:

> When you're driving you are putting other lives/property damage at risk
> with vehicle accidents etc., so I don't have a problem with it,
> though...the couple of times I have been hit, the a-holes didn't have
> insurance. Oh, and I'm also OK with laws against murder, burglary,
> arson, child abuse etc. They should be as vigilant with that **** as
> they are about some ballplayer using steroids or the size of a friggin
> soda cup. :-)

So you're for government interventions, just have a different
comfortable spot on that slippery slope. ;-)

Susan

Cheri <[email protected]> wrote:
: "W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:js29gs$3hf$[email protected]..
: > Cheri <[email protected]> wrote:
: > : "Alice Faber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : news:[email protected]..
: >
: > : > Personally, I don't like outright banning of the big-gulp size.
: > However,
: > : > and this is a big however, I would like vendors to be required to sell
: > a
: > : > single serving (i.e., a soda can typically is labeled as having 2
: > : > servings, so a single serving would be 8 oz) at a proportional price,
: > so
: > : > that there is no economic incentive for ordering a huge soda (or
: > juice,
: > : > or whatever).
: >
: > : It's not the banning of the Big Gulp that bothers me at all, I was never
: > : much of a soda drinker even in the smallest size, now only ice water,
: > but
: > : it's just one more foot in the door with taking away personal choices
: > IMO.
: > : If they want to sell it in trash can sizes and people want to buy
: > it...it's
: > : not the governments business, and while we're at it, neither is their
: > : interference in baseball! :-)
: >
: > : Cheri
: >
: > How do you feel about the State requirements to have automobile insurance?
: >
: > Wendy

: There is a LAW against driving without insurance. There is no law against
: buying a large sized soda...yet!

: Cheri

When we had only horses and buggies no one needed a driver's lisence.
When automobiles came in the government decided we needed lisences and
made a law that said(if you remember your book you got when first applying
for a learner's permit) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. to earn the
priviledge you have to pass a test and then continue to drive safely(not
too many tickets). What gave the government the right to pass that law?
We accepted it because it seemed clear that something was needed.

thisis where it starts, with someone getting a bright idea of how to save
the health of individuals and money (via the health care system) for the
citizens who have to pay the health care costs of the indigent.

Wendy

"Cheri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On 6/22/2012 7:16 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>> There is a LAW against driving without insurance.
>>
>> Right, and Wendy asked how you feel about it. :-)
>>
>> Susan
>
> When you're driving you are putting other lives/property damage at
> risk with vehicle accidents etc., so I don't have a problem with it,
> though...the couple of times I have been hit, the a-holes didn't have
> insurance. Oh, and I'm also OK with laws against murder, burglary,
> arson, child abuse etc. They should be as vigilant with that **** as
> they are about some ballplayer using steroids or the size of a friggin
> soda cup. :-)

I am not getting into the argument but I have never heard you swear,
lol.

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/22/2012 8:24 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> When you're driving you are putting other lives/property damage at
>> risk
>> with vehicle accidents etc., so I don't have a problem with it,
>> though...the couple of times I have been hit, the a-holes didn't have
>> insurance. Oh, and I'm also OK with laws against murder, burglary,
>> arson, child abuse etc. They should be as vigilant with that **** as
>> they are about some ballplayer using steroids or the size of a
>> friggin
>> soda cup. :-)
>
> So you're for government interventions, just have a different
> comfortable spot on that slippery slope. ;-)
>
> Susan

I think there are obvious things that should be against the law, other
things come under personal choice and peoples rights. So not on the same
slope at all IMO.

In article <js04p4$1fn$[email protected]>, "Julie Bove" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > On 6/21/2012 8:47 AM, Gary Owens wrote:
> >> For once I need to agree with Julie. Telling what we should eat is one
> >> thing, but a ban on a specific food is just not right. This is just
> >> another example of the direction this world is heading. Those of you who
> >> live in the affected areas should feel ashamed at having elected these
> >> idiots in the first place.
> >> I don't think anyone has ever looked to see what the actual $ cost of
> >> these stupid laws is. I'll bet the cost in lawyers to draw up a law like
> >> this is more than it will ever save in health costs. The people who buy
> >> a Big Glup will just do something else stupid.
> >
> > There's no ban on the "Big Glup" as a food. Just a particular cup size.
>
> Oh dur Susan! Big Gulp *is* the size.

it must hurt to be so wrong so often

Among 7-Eleven's offerings are private label products, including Slurpee, a
partially frozen soft drink introduced in 1967,[15] and the Big Gulp introduced
in 1980[15] that packaged soft drinks in large cups ranging in size from 20 to
64 U.S. fluid ounces (0.59 to 1.9 liters).
[edit] Other products

In addition to Slurpee and the Big Gulp, 7-Eleven would come to own or operate
several brands of food and concepts,

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/22/2012 7:16 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> There is a LAW against driving without insurance.
>
> Right, and Wendy asked how you feel about it. :-)
>
> Susan

Apples and oranges. Making a law for a safe way to drive a vehicle is
hardly telling us how/what to eat/drink.

"W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:js3av5$qab$[email protected]..
> When we had only horses and buggies no one needed a driver's lisence.
> When automobiles came in the government decided we needed lisences and
> made a law that said(if you remember your book you got when first applying
> for a learner's permit) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. to earn the
> priviledge you have to pass a test and then continue to drive safely(not
> too many tickets). What gave the government the right to pass that law?

What gave them the right to pass *any* law? But making laws about food and
drink (alcohol excepted) is wrong, IMO. Now I have no qualms with them
saying that the manufacturers have to list ingredients or allergens. But to
tell us what we can and can not buy? I'm not even sure I agree with the ban
in NY on trans-fats. People know what they are. If they choose to eat
them. Well... That's their choice.

Why is alcohol allowed? Isn't it a drug? Shouldn't it be treated as such?
I think so but I'm not in charge.

Heck at the rate they are going they are going to ban any food that has more
than a certain number of grams of sugar per serving. Next they might even
monitor our carb intake! And then what? Fried foods? Butter?

I can even understand it if they find something to be unsafe. I am thinking
of cocaine that used to be put in Coca Cola. Yes, it has its uses. But
shouldn't be available OTC. Or Sarsparilla or however you spell it. They
found that to be harmful.

But to say that you can buy a food or drink but you can only buy so much at
once? Beyond ridiculous. Ban the damned stuff or put a warming label on
it. But don't treat us like children.
> We accepted it because it seemed clear that something was needed.
>
> thisis where it starts, with someone getting a bright idea of how to save
> the health of individuals and money (via the health care system) for the
> citizens who have to pay the health care costs of the indigent.
>
> Wendy

That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda Stream.
Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.

"Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:js3gub$nfu$[email protected]..

> That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda
> Stream. Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
obesity. I'm sure it's all going to come down to more money the government
can squeeze out of people. High taxes on large sizes etc. Next *they* will
decide that ribeye steak/pork/lamb is bad for you, or whatever the
collective hysteria happens to be on a certain day, so you can only sell it
in 3-4 oz size and so on. Personally, most of us have paid taxes all of our
lives for the very expensive poor choices of others, and will continue to do
so, so the old "oh but it costs so much" doesn't fly at all with me.

Cheri

"Ozgirl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..

> I am not getting into the argument but I have never heard you swear, lol.

Sure you have, you just forgot. :-)

Cheri

"Cheri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:js3gub$nfu$[email protected]..
>
>> That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda
>> Stream. Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.
>
> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
> obesity. I'm sure it's all going to come down to more money the government
> can squeeze out of people. High taxes on large sizes etc. Next *they* will
> decide that ribeye steak/pork/lamb is bad for you, or whatever the
> collective hysteria happens to be on a certain day, so you can only sell
> it in 3-4 oz size and so on. Personally, most of us have paid taxes all of
> our lives for the very expensive poor choices of others, and will continue
> to do so, so the old "oh but it costs so much" doesn't fly at all with me.

Agreed.

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/23/2012 12:00 AM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

> it must hurt to be so wrong so often
>

Ignorance is bliss, so I'm sure you're wrong about that.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/23/2012 2:21 AM, Cheri wrote:

> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
> obesity.

There is absolutely no analogy between the two. It's just a size
regulation for sellers, not a limit on public or private use of soft drinks.

Susan

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 2:21 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
>> obesity.
>
> There is absolutely no analogy between the two. It's just a size
> regulation for sellers, not a limit on public or private use of soft
> drinks.

But currently most places offer a discount on a bigger size. We will no
longer get that so it does impact us.

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 2:21 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
>> obesity.
>
> There is absolutely no analogy between the two. It's just a size
> regulation for sellers, not a limit on public or private use of soft
> drinks.
>
> Susan



There is absolutely no reason for the government to be regulating the size
of soft drinks, period. You don't mind, and that's fine, but I do mind and
that's not going to change. :-)

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/23/2012 12:11 PM, Cheri wrote:

> There is absolutely no reason for the government to be regulating the
> size of soft drinks, period. You don't mind, and that's fine, but I do
> mind and that's not going to change. :-)

But there is a reason, health care costs that accrue to all of us.

We may disagree about what's a good reason and what isn't.

Susan