Quantcast
Opinion

In our view: Soft drink fizzle

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    March 16, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    per Lds lib above...

    Does it mean, though, Prof Beck has had a really bad case of laryngitis??

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 15, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    Quoting Michael Savage?

    hehe, giggle giggle, snicker snicker...

    OK RedShirt, that explains it.
    That actually explains it, ...a LOT!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 14, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    To "mark" thanks for proving their point.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    "ask any committed liberal and they will tell you that the government always knows what is best for you."- patriot

    Hey, I took your challenge, and they did not tell me that at all. What's up with that? Are you just making stuff up? Gee, and to think I trusted you.

    How about those RedShirt? Really? Michael Weiner and Alan Bates? Weiner and Bates?! Really?

    I'll stick with Emerson.

    "Tell me where I have been inconsistant in the postings here."

    Uh. . . I'm kinda dumbfounded. Clearly you didn't understand the quotes I provided. I didn't think they were obscure. You see the point they were making. . . Ahhhh. . . you know what? . . . Never mind.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 14, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    To "mark" How about this:

    "Liberalism is a mental disorder" - Dr. Michael Savage

    "Those with liberal mental disorder are willing to trade their potential for success through education, hard work and respect for others for government subsidies funded through redistribution of wealth which normally accrues to those who earn their money through hard work." - Dr. Alan Bates, MD

    Tell me where I have been inconsistant in the postings here.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 13, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    ask any committed liberal and they will tell you that the government always knows what is best for you. You just aren't smart enough to take care of yourself - only BIG BROTHER can make those decisions for you. Yes yes liberals are all about 'choice' so long as your choice agrees with their choice... One of the foundational pillars of liberalism is hypocrisy. Some things never change.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    "I have shown no inconsistancies. You are full of inconsistancies. "- RedShirt

    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do."- Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative."- Oscar Wilde

    "If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing."- Miguel de Unamuno

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 13, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil"read the comments. It was a liberal vs. conservative issue long before I commented.

    As for Bloomberg, he is part of the liberal elite. While not looking to free load off the system, he is using the system to further his personal adgenda of increased control. Afterall, he knows better than you do how you should live your life.

    He is a progressive. Yes is was once a Republican, but not all Republicans are conservative, just like not all Democrats are socialists. yes there is the spectrum, but there is a point where you go from conservative to democrat. Just like numbers, there are infinite negative numbers, infinate positive ones, and inbetween you have nothing.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 13, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    Redshirt...

    How in the world did this become a liberal versus conservative issue. Isn't Utah, a conservative state, trying to tell people they cant even see alcohal in a reataurant less it tempt them just too much? I don't get it...

    Oh wait... your branding Bloomberg a liberal... right? He is yet another one of those free loaders looking for everything free...? But waite, he is one of the most wealthy people in the country.

    This is a great example how people do not fit nicely into one box, or the other. Utah conservatives think they have the right to tell you that you can't "see" wine or beer... but you can pack your loaded revolver or ak-47 on the kiddies field trip to the zoo. And whle on the way to the zoo... don't smoke in your car, that is far too dangerous...

    There is irony enough to go around for all. And no, people are not just a or b... but fall between a and z.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 13, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    To "Tyler D" you are correct in that you do not have to buy your health insurance through your company. It may cost more, or it may cost less depending on your age, health, and if you have dependants.

    I have shown no inconsistancies. You are full of inconsistancies. You complain about having to pay for the mistakes of others when it comes to their health, but have no problems paying for people's mistakes with respect to money.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Forget banning the large drinks, if you think they help cause health problems that lead to higher health costs then sin tax them.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 13, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    @Redshirt – “Your freedoms have not been infringed on in any way. Even in you example of insurance rates rising, you still have the freedom to change insurance policies.”

    I do?

    So if I have a large group policy through work, you’re saying I am “free” to decline that policy and go get a much more expensive policy (this is a fact) in the individual insurance market? Sorry, but your “Sophie’s Choice” example is hardly indicative of freedom.

    But you’re right… perhaps we both have shown inconsistencies in our political views as freedom for you does not seem to apply to things like gay marriage. Putting aside all the gobbledygook about the “institution of marriage” or “tradition,” how does it affect you?

    As far as entitlements, if I vote for the program I don’t see it as an infringement on my liberty. And the same goes for anyone else if the majority of citizens in a democracy votes for it as well, provided it is not clearly unconstitutional (e.g., Social Security passes this test).

    Reached my comment limit…

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 13, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    By reading the comments --

    It appears Mike Richards and RedShirt are now all FOR allowing gay marriage, smoking pot, and drinking as much soda as we want.

    We wouldn't want the government telling us what we can or can't do now, would we?

    Selective reasoning is not reasoning at all.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 13, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    To "Tyler D" you keep dancing around my question, why won't you answer it?

    Could it be that if sat next to you drinking 2 gallons of Coke every day that my indulgence will do nothing to you? Since I am not doing anything to you, other than maybe annoying you with an occasional burp, what does it matter?

    Your freedoms have not been infringed on in any way. Even in you example of insurance rates rising, you still have the freedom to change insurance policies.

    You have shown in the past that you believe many liberal philosophies, yet you now have a problem with the government confiscating money from you because of somebody else's bad decisions? Do you also have a problem with welfare and entitlement programs? For the most part they are confiscating your money to pay for the mistakes of others.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 13, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 – “To "Tyler D" you have wandered off the reservation. If I drink 2 gallons of Coke every day while sitting next to you (regardless of insurance status), how does that effect you?”

    First, please review the proper use of the words “effect” and “affect.”

    Not sure what you’re missing in my example and am unsure how I could have made it more clear. So for you, only immediate and direct effects matter? The fact that the government will someday confiscate the fruits of my labors to help mitigate the effects on someone else’s body of drinking 2 gallons of Coke per day, has no relevance for you?

    I think you might be asked at your next Tea Party rally to turn in your “redshirt” card.

    @Mike Richards – “We, the people, hold all rights. The government has no authority to pretend that they have authority to parcel out rights.”

    Thanks for confirming what I said (and predicted) in my first comment.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 13, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    To "ECR" I hate to break this to you, but Bloomberg is a progressive, which is a form of liberalism. Like all liberals, he believes that the government is the solution for our problems.

    To "Tyler D" you have wandered off the reservation. If I drink 2 gallons of Coke every day while sitting next to you (regardless of insurance status), how does that effect you?

    To "Truthseeker" that is a great argument for getting rid of Medicare that I have heard in a long time. Wouldn't it be better for the nation if we told people that when they make bad decisions they will have to pay the consequence for it, rather than telling them that the government will protect them from the consequences?

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    March 12, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    BMI is not an objective measure of health. It is a height:weight ratio, nothing more. It does not take into account the size of bone structure, percent body fat, or percent muscle mass.

    I know someone who is very fit, who hikes Mt. Olympus, jogs miles a week, does sprints, and who is classified as obese by their BMI. Yet there are a whole lot of people of the same age range who have BMI's in the healthy range, but couldn't make it halfway up Olympus.

    BMI numbers are concrete, but the interpretation is totally subjective.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    March 12, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    to Hemlock...

    BMI is very subjective. It all depends on what an individual subjects their body to.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2013 7:27 p.m.

    Hank Pym,
    One's BMI is not subjective. Obesity and its consequences are not a moral issue.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2013 6:31 p.m.

    at Mike R almost above this post...

    A few salient thoughts... 1) an ounce prevention is worth a pond of cure & 2) Thou shalt not...

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 12, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    Re:Redshirt

    If you are drinking 2 gallons of Coke a day and, as a result, obese and diabetic and on Medicare it affects taxpayers. You do care about taxpayers supporting supporting those who don't take responsibility for their bad choices don't you?

    That said, it would be nice if the fast food industry would take the lead on this issue and devise a way to encourage people to make healthier choices--such as reducing cup size or offer more calorie-free choices? U.S. fast food establishments outside the U.S. have smaller portions for their drinks.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 12, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    What's with the people that want to punish others before a crime is committed? Would they like to have their driver's license revoked because their "profile" showed a good possibility that they might cause a crash sometime in the future? Would they like to have their speech limited because they might someday say something that bothered someone else?

    We have laws to punished those who have been tried and found guilty of committing a crime. When the government gets in the businees of punishing us because there is a chance that something that we might do might be harmful to ourselves or to others, then government has crossed a line that must never be crossed.

    We are agents unto ourselves. AFTER we cause harm, we can (and should) be punished.

    Allowing the government to force us to be good is something that no America should allow. We, the people, hold all rights. The government has no authority to pretend that they have authority to parcel out rights.

    If passing a law prevented crime, then let the President sign a law prohibiting harming the President - and then let him fire all of those who protect him.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 12, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    "There are no natural second hand effects of obesity."

    Nor are there second hand effects of gay marriage

    Or

    Shopping on Sunday

    Or

    Golf courses and swimming pools being open on Sunday

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    March 12, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    Alcohol and other mind altering substances need to regulated because the users of such things have an impact on society directly caused by the use of said substance. They lose their judgement and drive, or steal to pay for the addiction, become abusive, etc.

    The public's interest in obesity is because of choices we have made to assume liabilities from it. We would need no restrictions on the size of soft drinks if the government (the public) was not paying for anyone's healthcare and if we had no regulations requiring businesses (airlines, etc) to have seats big enough to accommodate people over the largest healthy size. These are man made reasons to regulate another person's fat content. Obesity does not impair driving, and is not contagious. There are no natural second hand effects of obesity.

    The public should give back all the consequences to individuals who choose to be obese. It is an incentive to eat properly, if people know they are responsible for their own life, medical care, etc. and we, the public, wouldn't feel any need to regulate the size of soft drink cups.

    It's called personal responsibility, AKA liberty.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 12, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 – “If I 2 gallons of Coke every day, does that effect anybody around me?... Those are more destructive to people than obesity.”

    Unless an obese person has a fatal heart attack or gets hit by a bus, their actions will almost certainly affect the rest of us. Since obesity is the #1 cause of health problems, they will likely incur medical costs far in excess of any premiums (or taxes) they will pay… which means WE will pay for their actions.

    Now before you shout “Obamacare” realize that the president who signed into law the mandate that society must provide care regardless of ability to pay was in fact St. Reagan.

    If the government is going to force the rest of us to pay for healthcare, then as far as I’m concerned Bloomberg didn’t go far enough. We should ban all sorts of junk that passes for “food” (including quantities sold) until we either repeal the Reagan mandate or individuals post large bonds to cover all future medical expenses.

    Or does freedom to you just mean “do what I want to, irresponsibly?”

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 12, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    ECR 12:45 "Mayor David Bloomberg is not ..."

    His name is Micheal, not David. Pay attention ECR!

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    March 12, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    Just stop subsidizing inedible feed corn that gets turned into sugar. If welfare queen farmers insist on the handouts, subsidize broccoli and carrots.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 12, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    Red

    I believe that the large drink law was also stupid and an overreach. I guess I am not the

    ILK you are referring to.

    It is very refreshing to be a moderate. One can criticize the stupid laws put forth by both the left and the right.

    And, to be sure, they both do.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 12, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" you say that marijuana is safer than cigaretts or alcohol, but that itself says that marijuana is dangerous.

    You point out that your ilk has banned things related to smoking and drinking, but you have not outlawed smoking and drinking. Since you admit they are bad, why has your ilk continued to allow them to harm US Citizens?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 12, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    To "Open Minded Mormon" if the purpose of government is to defend and protect its citizens, then why does your ilk support legalized Marijuana?

    11:27 a.m. March 12, 2013

    ============

    Because, marijuana is safer than cigarettes or alcohol.

    Remember that old ultra-con battle cry? -- "liberals" have no problem with Government action.

    We "liberals" banned cigarette advertisements, and indoor smoking [remember, that whole Government taking away FREEDOM thing?]

    We "liberals" banned alcohol comsumption to pregnant women - much to the corringe of the pro-Freedom at all costs factions.

    We "liberals" have already passed laws banning cigarettes in vehicles with children laws - [Utah is still playing the 20 year behiond catch-up on that one].

    For the record - as a whatever floats your boat "liberal",
    I think banning softdrink sizes is a stupid idea.

    But, if I were a $27 Billion businessman turned mayor of New York City, charging $1.89 per 12 ounce softdrink seems like a "Captialist" idea and thing to promote the business bottom line.

    FYI - banning "cotton mouth" quenching "munchie sized" drinks will reduce marijuana use in and of itself ;-)

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 12, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Just a couple of thoughts for Redshirt1701 - Mayor David Bloomberg is not a liberal. He was a Republican and is now an Independent. Ron Paul, a Libertarian who still wears the Republican ID Patch, and was a candidate for President, suggested that heroin should be legalized. But as your letter seems to point out, government intervention is opposed by whoever's issues are being impacted. Both Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and almost everyone in between, supports government intervention in our lives when it serves our interests. But when it doesn't, or when it works against our interests, we are strongly opposed to it. We could all use a 32 oz. glass of humility and come to terms with that fact.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    March 12, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    Ilk is a funny word...

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    March 12, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    re: AggieScientist 5:48 a.m. March 12

    Agreed. Morality is subjective & this is what happens when anyone (Bloomberg, the Utah legislature, etc,... ) start legislating morality.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 12, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    Aren't the liberals the ones who keep telling us that a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases. Why the hypocrisy. If a woman wants to put 32 oz of soft drinks into her body every day they have a problem with that?

    To "JoeBlow" it isn't about degrees of the issues. If I 2 gallons of Coke every day, does that effect anybody around me? Now if I smoke cigaretts or drugs around you all day, will you be effected?

    To "Open Minded Mormon" if the purpose of government is to defend and protect its citizens, then why does your ilk support legalized Marijuana? Why is it that your ilk is not enacting laws to make cigaretts and alchohol illegal? Those are more destructive to people than obesity.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 12, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Get over these Anti-government rants and raves already.

    The FDA (Food and Drug Admististration - a big bad Government entity) decides and dictates what is/is not appropriate and allowed each and everyday.

    For me personally? --
    I LIKE having the Government over-seeing the shoddy, anything for a buck, who cares if it kills you - midset of greedy businessmen.

    The role of Governemnt is to defend and PROTECT it's citizens.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 12, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    The object goal of the business of farming, food processing, distribution and sale of food is business profits. The most dependable way to increase profits in any business is to increase the demand for the product. In the food business, improving the taste and suppressing the “full” response may be used.

    Fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. So food producers use sugar to make people fat.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 12, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    "Apparently, the only thing condescending, intrusive and entirely ineffective is the paper's editorial board's opinion of its readers memory from one day to the next."

    Couldn't agree more.

    Any law I like is good and protects us from ourselves....

    except any law I don't like, and therefor is an intrusion and unconstitutional.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    March 12, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    A recurring theme in these comments is for the right-wingers to almost never discuss the issue at hand. Instead what we usually get are these grand pontifications full of words like “liberty” and “rights” and “tyranny” etc, etc, etc…

    It all reminds me of the centuries long (and now completely lost) battle between the Catholic Church and science. Whenever a scientific discovery was made that appeared to threaten the orthodoxy, it was attacked in precisely the same manner – substitute liberty, rights, and tyranny with scripture, church doctrine, and the state of our souls.

    So here’s some advice – argue the merits of the issue without reference to “scripture” (or any other abstract buzz word). Not doing so just demonstrates the weakness of your own position.

    Or keep doing what you’re doing and end up being about as relevant as the Catholic Church is today regarding discussion on science (in your case, politics).

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    DesNews, 3/11/13: "Legislators should not be embarrassed by innovative state policies that place a minor burden on purveyors while protecting vulnerable populations from exploitation. We trust the Utah Senate understands the importance of this vital public health concern and will act appropriately to preserve, and perhaps expand, Utah's sensible restrictions on the display and dispensing of intoxicating beverages in restaurants."

    DesNews, 3/12/13: "He might have added, 'condescending, intrusive and entirely ineffective.'"

    In both cases, the editorial board opined on government intervention in the free market regarding sales of lawful beverages with the intent of restricting consumption. In both cases the laws were flawed in being inconsistently applied (not all restaurants have to have a Zion Curtain, not all vendors must limit soda size) and without documented effect.

    Apparently, the only thing condescending, intrusive and entirely ineffective is the paper's editorial board's opinion of its readers memory from one day to the next.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 12, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    "They seem to think that being elected means that they become our "mamas" and our "papas". They seem to think that they have the right to force us to do right."

    But Mike. Isn't all really a matter of degrees or issues?

    Do you think alcohol and drugs should be unregulated? Do you think the govt should get out of the gay marriage issue? How about prostitution and pornography?

    My experience is that people want govt out of our lives unless we like what they are regulating.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 12, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    The government already has solved many of our health problems, by mandating that certain foods be fortified with vitamins and minerals.

    Also by helping to educate people of the dangers of cigarette smoking.

    This is why people in general are living longer lives.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 12, 2013 6:58 a.m.

    Some elected officials seem to think that "rights" are bestowed on the people by the government. They seem to think that being elected means that they become our "mamas" and our "papas". They seem to think that they have the right to force us to do right.

    That plan was soundly defeated long before they were elected. Even though the concept of Kings having all authority and all power is part of human history, that concept does not belong in any government office in America. Here, the people have all rights and the government is limited to doing only what the people allow it to do - everything else is to be left to the people.

    Determining what we eat and what we drink is not a duty that we have authorized the government to handle. What happened in New York was a warning that if we are not vigilant, elected officials will seize power and authority and then rule and reign as though they had the right to tell us what is right and what is wrong - with force.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    "Arbitrary and capricious." That is how most people describe the "Zion Curtain" that the Deseret News was defending just yesterday.

    While I'm glad this soda law failed, this is more of the pot/kettle/black from the Deseret News. Of course, its also because you can be guaranteed that the Deseret News would shut down over night if their tea/coffee/alchohol/nicotine-abstaining workforce couldn't plow through a gallon of soda in the morning.

    They'd have to go back to being an afternoon edition, at the very least.

    Everybody loves their own vices.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 12, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    I think Mayor Bloomberg has done his part in bringing the issue to the attention of the general public. Certainly others have been working hard to do the same. But it seems to me that the judge did the right thing in striking down the law. People should be able, and willing, to make those choices on their own without coersion from the government. But hopefully Mayor Bloombergs's campiagn will make us all more aware of the dangers that exist in what some manufacturer's are passing off as "food."

    Likewise, I think the legislation currently under consideration in the Mississippi Legislature is just as wrong headed. That legislature wants to pass a law prohibiting a requirement to print nutritional values of products sold in grocery stores or restaurants, such as what Mayor Bloomberg required of New York City restaurants. In my opinion that law would be equally as harmful as the law just struck down in New York. If local municipalities want to make it a requirements to print nutritional information on the food sold in their communities, they should have the right to do that without "the government" telling them they can't. It works both ways.

  • AggieScientist Logan, UT
    March 12, 2013 5:48 a.m.

    Yesterday, the Deseret News Editorial Board recommended that the state micro-manage how restaurants can display liquor. Today, they editorialize against New York City's ban on extra-large sugar drinks. Can the Editorial Board decide if they do or do not support the Nanny State?