Published: Tuesday, Oct. 2 2012 8:00 a.m. MDT
Michael, I'm sorry for all the effort you put into this article because all
I can remember is the last hypnotic paragraph. I don't want my brain to
shrink and I don't want to live life unrefreshed. But since I'm not
very concerned about that Pepsi guy's bank account I'm on my way to
get some Coke Zero.
The bottom line of all this is what and how much I drink or eat is not
government business. Government has stuck its nose into way too many personal
choices and are continually limiting or eliminating our personal choices.
Government needs to get out of our personal lives.To make this
point, may I point out that in 1773 the citizens of Boston got irritated about
taxing their tea and so they dumped it into Boston Harbor waters. And that was
just for taxing it. Government today are telling us what we can and cannot
drink and if we can, how much. What do you think the Boston Tea Party would do
today if they were told they couldn't have their tea at all? Government,
get out of our personal lives!
I really liked the advice of only getting to have a soda after pounding a glass
of water. I think I'll incorporate that into my life and see how it goes.
I'm a sucker for the Diet Dr. Pepper!
Yes soda is bad for you but it is our right to drink it. If the government can
ban soda what can't they ban? This is only the beginning. We are losing
more freedoms everyday.
No one can tell any of us what we can eat or drink
The high fructose (corn syrup)content of most sodas is known to have many
negative effects on your health. Just do an internet search and the results
should convince you to drink water. Sodas should be removed from schools and a
warning label required on every container. No the government should not ban
sodas but educate the public so they can make educated choices.
per timpClimberAgreed. However, HFCS is in practically
everything (not just soda). I avoid products where it is near the top of the
ingredient list (exception is Dr Pepper).
How is there not more outrage over this? This is one of the most egregious
abuses of power we have seen towards taking away individual freedoms. Unlike the
Patriot Act and similar measures--which are dangerous on an abstract level--
this is a way of government directly telling the people that they own us and
will limit the decisions we can make. If this is considered a legitimate power
of government, what isn't?
"The government that governs best, governs least"--Thomas JeffersonIt's too bad we're moving rapidly away from the principles
that made this country great and made it thrive. Now we have Nanny Boomberg or
someone else monitoring our every move and dictating what we can and can't
do according their perception of what we should or shouldn't do. I spent
over a quarter-century working with every level of government in the U. S., and
I can tell you emphatically that the government way is almost always the worst
and most expensive way. Since government is a monopoly and has no competition,
everything is basically based on pure politics. If we don't wake up,
we're never going to see a country as prosperous or great as this country
And while we're talking about an endless array of hoaxes perpetrated on the
American people by those controlling government, let's talk about the
industrial byproduct sodium fluoride now mandated in most of our drinking water.
There are now volumes of evidence that this is more destructive than
productive, but because big money lobbyists are involved, it goes on and on--a
toxic, corrosive substance put in your drinking water so you can water your
lawns, wash your dishes and clothes, shower, and do everything else with lots of
stuff that's supposed to increase dental health. The water treatment
people I've talked to tell me that for what it costs, little pink calcium
fluoride tablets could be provided to the entire population several times over.
What's next? Even if it were beneficial, what if some lobby hooked up with
cardiologists and convinced politicians that statin drugs are universally
beneficial--do they go in the water supply next? Think about the absurdity of
what we're putting up with on a daily basis.
Only the naive should be fooled by the suggestion of this article's
headline, suggesting that this soda ban will save an individual $1000 each year.
A New Yorker who is looking for a drink to quench a thirst, may not be able to
buy a large soda, but they can still go to the corner Starbucks and get a XL
double expresso. And yes, if they want it can be loaded with sugar.Did the person save any money. No, they probably spend more. Are they any
healthier? None at all.A healthy diet should be a choice, not a
Oh, shut up. If you quit paying taxes, you'll save a lot more than $1,000.
As I write this from my federal prison cell, I think of all the thousands of
dollars I've saved by not paying taxes.
It's great to tout the virtues of not drinking soda, and who wouldn't
want to save $1k doing it? But I'm known as the biggest soda drinker in my
family and work circles, and I only spend about $300 per year. This guy is
either a very extreme case, an exaggerater, or bought his soda in the most
expensive way he could find.PS I'm starting to cut back, for
those worried about my personal well-being...but please don't pass laws
trying to force me.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments