The Student Room Group

New York bans the sale or large sugary drinks

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by Kolya
People don't seem to make fully make decisions themselves. If you give people a choice of "small, medium or large" against "medium, large or extra large" then in the long run people will drink less soda. It's a psychological trick. We aren't choosing as freely as we'd like to think.


Hasn't the choice gone from "Small, medium, large and super" to "Small, medium and large"? It isn't a shift in size like you say, it's a restriction of choice.
Original post by Nick100
I want those things legalized; making them illegal has resulted in nothing but an increase in crime, millions of people being imprisoned, a war in Mexico, and countless deaths all because some do-gooders just can't mind their own ****ing business. The war on drugs has caused destruction all across the globe from Juarez to Afghanistan. Opium profits even contribute to the Taliban war effort - if that stuff could be grown freely in NATO controlled areas they would be in a lot more trouble than they are now. And this is what you want to compare this law to?



Are you going to imprison people for selling a large soda? Are you going to fine them and take away the products of their labour? This isn't moral, this doesn't demonstrate empathy; it's a bunch of busybody bureaucrat bastards interfering in other people's lives because they have utter contempt for the citizenry. Are they going to personally wipe out asses next? Force us to eat our vegetables? I hope whoever came up with this law dies of heat disease.



WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN??!!1 This isn't banning the sale of large drinks to children (and it would still be ridiculous if it did) - this is banning it for adults who you are treating as children.



Again you demonstrate that this law is entirely based on contempt for the citizenry. The people behind it should not be in office; adults can look after themselves and don't need to be babied. If they're "weak" then that's they're problem - not yours.



It doesn't matter; the law is still pathetic. It lets the government punish someone for selling a large drink, and it was created by people who apparently hate New Yorkers.



And this contemptuous attitude annoys everyone.


Firstly you citing the perils of a war on drugs does not indicate that the opposite, I e a legalisation of drugs is the right approach, if anything there would be more deaths as a direct result of the drugs as opposed to the indirect deaths associated with territorial disputes and the like. What the money that focuses on the war on drugs would better be spent on is a look at what preventative measures can be taken to prevent people using drugs in the first place and then the criminal market wouldn't exist for it and would just be a non issue as they wouldn't be able to force people to take drugs. The economic situations of impoverished areas, bad education, absent fathers and all of these possible reasons need to be addressed and just legalising it as a cure for the crime associated with it is frankly a RIDICULOUS SUGGESTION. Tell me, is your concern with the crime stats themself or what they represent? Because what they represent are deaths associated with the gang rivalries. If however drugs were legalised, the death rate in general relating to drugs would rise as more people would start using them as the natural business philosophies of most, I e sell what can make a profit, will apply and there will be plenty of companies trying to flog it, just like they sell cigarette and like cigarettes people will begin to freely use it to either look cool, to be like their friends or Simply because they can now try it and the effect will be catastrophic and you want it legalised? You're a complete clown.

Products of their labour? It's ONE SIZED DRINK THAT THEY CAN'T SELL, it's hardly taking away any business' primary source of income and in fact if businesses were smart and had any sense, they would find ways to negate the adverse financial impact that losing the right to sell these drinks has caused them by either increasing prices of other products or using the extra capital that they now have which previously would have gone on the extra sized drinks to find a way to innovate and make a profit some other way. OR, they could just stop being greedy bastards and accept that they'll make a few less millions each year, boo hoo. It demonstrates empathy as the Government are fully aware that people have innate psychological tendencies that they have no control over and in fact businesses capitalise on that, with a full understanding that people won't be able to resist buying a super large drink if its just a fraction more expensive than a small sized drink. Therefore, intervening and helping prevent the manifestation of the natural flaws of many people is morally correct and neccesary in fact. It's not even about weakness, it's about the marketing ploys and natural reactions to certain things that people have no control over and the proof of this will come when people do not buy two regular sized drinks to compensate for the lesser amount of sugar they can now have in a single cup. Simple as, don't try and refute this because its simply true, don't try and be smart.

It's preventing it for children IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY BECOME ADULTS. Learn to make simple inferences, it will make what seems to be a hard time you have debating at a decent level just a little bit easier. If a law is enacted now, it might cause contempt by the people who are directly affected by it at present but ultimately they will die and a new generation will be the beneficiaries of a law that was enacted long before they were born. It's like saying that any regulations that were made in 1850 which were good for society as a whole were bad as they annoyed the people at the time, but if said law hadn't been implemented, us humans now would still be suffering from the consequences of it. Either way, people now will not significantly be opposed to this as like I said, they drink these drinks simply because they are available at a price that retailers know they can't resist at a subconscious level so it's a non issue now anyway.

It's not about contempt for the citizenry, stop sounding like a posh **** for one moment and understand that people can't help but exhibit tendencies that are innate to them, it's not a conscious thing. Do you understand this? The field of psychology is clearly alien to you so stop commenting on things that are intrinsically related to it, it's embarrassing. If they're weak it's their problem? God, you sound like such a **** its unreal. That's like saying that we should never seek to help people Simply because they are weak. If someone responds badly to abuse athat others can handle, if she's considered weak should we just leave her be and let her deal with it or should we try to help her? Just stop talking, it seems like a good idea to me.

No what's pathetic is everything that you have wrote when you clearly have a huge misunderstanding of why this law is being enacted.
Original post by MrCarmady
this sounds exactly like what a wannabe intellectual would say :rolleyes:
so, is it too early to call troll? or is he genuinely ramping up the antagonism in the face of incontrovertible facts? (the war on drugs has failed FACT, decriminalisation results in decreased crime FACT, the law is invasive and absurd FACT)
can't wait for the refutations!
PS. with all of the above said, i would definitely be in favour of a fast food tax - it's one thing to have people foot the bill for their eventual medical treatment, it's another to attempt to force them to live healthier in the first place


Nahhh mate. The war on drugs hasn't succeeded but the solution is not legalisation of drugs, this would exacerbate the death toll relates to drugs by a long margin. Preventative measures, increased security presence at harbours, increased awareness campaigns about measures people can take to get off the drugs, all of these things are much better solutions that legalising drugs, that just ends the crime associated with it, which could also be prevented to a degree if either the drugs weren't easily available or If there were more economic opportunities for people involved in the sale of drugs.

The second thing is not a fact at all as illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin haven't been decriminalised and these are clearly what most major drug gangs feud about and sell for the highest amount. So basically you can't possibly know this so stop speaking out of your ass.

It's not invasive, you're just too stupid it seems to understand why it's neccesary and too against the Governemnt to accept anything that they do. Read the post I just wrote to Nick, it might help you make sense of it all a little better.

Ok I'll say this once. It's not forcing ANYBODY to eat healthier, it's making it easier for them to make a healthier choice, that is all. If they still really want all that sugar they can still get it, stop being ridiculous.
Reply 63
How large is 16 oz in US fizzy drink terms?

Is that a supersized drink?
Reply 64
illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin haven't been decriminalised

do me a favour, before your puny brain even makes your fingers type up this nonsense, do some research into the effects of Portugal's drug policy. The proclamation of increased drug use as a result of legalisation is a scare tactic, pure and simple.
preventative measures, increased security presence at harbours, increased awareness campaigns about measures people can take to get off the drugs,
i don't see why the third can't be combined with legalisation - there's anti-drinking and anti-smoking ads out there to help people make a healthier choice as you say. the first is incredibly vague, the second is just a suggestion of more investment into the war on drugs which would clearly not solve the problems we're talking about. the sooner the social stigma and the legal risk of talking about drug use is removed, the sooner can addicts get safe, cheap treatment, the sooner can the forbidden fruit become much less cool (legalising drugs would make them cooler? what planet are you living on?), and the sooner can the tax money be reinvested into the NHS and help people who actually need it instead of going to criminals. Advocating legalisation is a far cry from advocating drug use. It may be a libertarian argument, but it's a completely reasonable one.
Original post by theonefrombrum
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9542445/New-York-bans-large-sugary-drinks.html

What are your thoughts on this? Personally I think it's a good idea as I don't think that people would generally compensate for not having large drinks by buying two regular sized ones (which would cost more than the large one on its own did, it always is) and so they might just settle with what they can buy and hopefully lose some weight.

Some are opposing it on the grounds that it restricts 'New Yorkers' freedom to choose' but in my opinion that's silly as that's like saying that we should legalise cocaine because by not doing so we are restricting people's freedom to choose and it is essentially the same thing.


Well, I actually think the government should legalise it amongst other things. Take the example of a girl in the news a couple of months ago; she was at a houseparty and took 2 e pills. When it started to become apparent that she'd reacted badly to it, she refused to have an ambulance called for her for fear of getting in trouble and died. Now let me tell you how if e was legal, how it could have saved her life:

a) Most obviously she wouldn't have been scared of getting in trouble with the law and perhaps not as scared as getting in trouble with her parents and therefore would probably have let an ambulance be called for her.

b) The pills could have been under strict government legislations to ensure good quality, making certain that it wasn't cut with any potentially more harmful substances.

c) The pills could have had an age limit put on their purchase (she and her friends were all around 15).

d) A ridiculously high tax on them could have rendered them too pricey for her and her friends to buy anyway.

e) As a not so much of a taboo topic, she could have been educated about safe use of the drug in school the same way we are alcohol. If anything, it's discouraged, but at least people are a little more educated about it.

I'm sure there's much I haven't thought of on the spot and I realise that there are counterarguments for what I've said. I also realise that I've diverged from the topic at hand. Sorry.
Reply 66
Original post by Evangelica
Well, I actually think the government should legalise it amongst other things. Take the example of a girl in the news a couple of months ago; she was at a houseparty and took 2 e pills. When it started to become apparent that she'd reacted badly to it, she refused to have an ambulance called for her for fear of getting in trouble and died. Now let me tell you how if e was legal, how it could have saved her life:

a) Most obviously she wouldn't have been scared of getting in trouble with the law and perhaps not as scared as getting in trouble with her parents and therefore would probably have let an ambulance be called for her.

b) The pills could have been under strict government legislations to ensure good quality, making certain that it wasn't cut with any potentially more harmful substances.

c) The pills could have had an age limit put on their purchase (she and her friends were all around 15).

d) A ridiculously high tax on them could have rendered them too pricey for her and her friends to buy anyway.

e) As a not so much of a taboo topic, she could have been educated about safe use of the drug in school the same way we are alcohol. If anything, it's discouraged, but at least people are a little more educated about it.

I'm sure there's much I haven't thought of on the spot and I realise that there are counterarguments for what I've said. I also realise that I've diverged from the topic at hand. Sorry.


great post, ran out of rep :frown:
and yeah, this is getting off-topic in a way, but i think it's part of a wider issue, so i would appreciate it if the mods kept this thread as it is
Original post by MrCarmady
do me a favour, before your puny brain even makes your fingers type up this nonsense, do some research into the effects of Portugal's drug policy. The proclamation of increased drug use as a result of legalisation is a scare tactic, pure and simple.
i don't see why the third can't be combined with legalisation - there's anti-drinking and anti-smoking ads out there to help people make a healthier choice as you say. the first is incredibly vague, the second is just a suggestion of more investment into the war on drugs which would clearly not solve the problems we're talking about. the sooner the social stigma and the legal risk of talking about drug use is removed, the sooner can addicts get safe, cheap treatment, the sooner can the forbidden fruit become much less cool (legalising drugs would make them cooler? what planet are you living on?), and the sooner can the tax money be reinvested into the NHS and help people who actually need it instead of going to criminals. Advocating legalisation is a far cry from advocating drug use. It may be a libertarian argument, but it's a completely reasonable one.


Hahahahahaha. You're such an idiot that it defies belief and actually saddens me. Portugal have not legalised the usage of drugs at all, you're purely overlooking what they have done to try and discredit my points. Firstly, the drugs that are sold which addicts can have on them if its less than a 10 day supply are still being sold by drug dealers and there's still a huge stigma attached to that for the average person which would naturally diminish if drugs were truly legalised and allowed to be sold in stores just like cigarettes and alcohol. All it would take is one person 'willing it give it a go' to then become addicted and this cycle will become perpetuated. Why do you think that people start smoking? Listen, they have hardly been made legal so you can't say that there won't be increased usage based on what Portugal has done as they haven't really done too much so stop being obtuse. It's not a scare tactic, like alcohol and cigarettes people will naturally feel less opposed to trying something and subsequently becoming addicted to it if its legalised. What we know it wont do is decrease drug usage and also its going to set a bad precedent for the kids of the future who will be less accepting of any claims that these drugs are bad for them if they are made legal, purely because of that fact. If they're so bad, why are they legal then? Is what a lot of them will say, especially the poorer ones with nothing to do and they'll probably try them out, like people try out cigarettes and try out alcohol and drugs supposedly give you a better feeling than either of those things.

It's vague because I assumed that virtue of your ardent advocating on this issue you at least has a small understanding of the antecedents in someone's life which can cause them to be more inclined to illegally take drugs. The economic idiosyncrasies of their areas, which can often differ substantially from the wider economy as a whole and mostly do, a lack of role models, bad education, all of these things need to be addressed and solved and that's where the money should be going, not on ****ing legalising drugs. I never said that legalising drugs would make them cool, the subjective opinion of them being cool will come virtue of them being used by other people who are seen as cool, just like for many smoking is cool as is getting pissed on a Saturday night.

Tax money? Do you realise that millions of new people would have to become addicted to drugs in order for the Government to bring in more money in drug tax than they currently do in seizing cash that drug gangs have made? Unless the drug problem perpetuates itself into an epidemic, which isn't totally impossible, the Government will be making less money than they currently do with regards to illegal drugs so again, stop speaking about things that you are not fully understanding of.

It's not just libertarian, it's an argument I would have thought would only have been posited by a drunk Nigerian man in Leicster square on a Friday night who has lost his wife because she decided that she hates him and who also suffers from schizophrenia. It's not credible, it WOULD increase usage and its completely indicative of a lack of will or Governmental ability to deal with this issue in a different way. In fact, you have contradicted yourself as you are defending drugs based in waht I said about how ridiculous it would be to legalise them in name of giving people freedom of choice and yet if you want that, you don't really care that people could choose to take them, which is morally horrible on your behalf. Just stop man, just stop.
Original post by Evangelica
Well, I actually think the government should legalise it amongst other things. Take the example of a girl in the news a couple of months ago; she was at a houseparty and took 2 e pills. When it started to become apparent that she'd reacted badly to it, she refused to have an ambulance called for her for fear of getting in trouble and died. Now let me tell you how if e was legal, how it could have saved her life:

a) Most obviously she wouldn't have been scared of getting in trouble with the law and perhaps not as scared as getting in trouble with her parents and therefore would probably have let an ambulance be called for her.

b) The pills could have been under strict government legislations to ensure good quality, making certain that it wasn't cut with any potentially more harmful substances.

c) The pills could have had an age limit put on their purchase (she and her friends were all around 15).

d) A ridiculously high tax on them could have rendered them too pricey for her and her friends to buy anyway.

e) As a not so much of a taboo topic, she could have been educated about safe use of the drug in school the same way we are alcohol. If anything, it's discouraged, but at least people are a little more educated about it.

I'm sure there's much I haven't thought of on the spot and I realise that there are counterarguments for what I've said. I also realise that I've diverged from the topic at hand. Sorry.


Silly example for a few reasons. Firstly, most people in her position would not give a damn about being scared of getting caught, they would simply want to get help. Same as when people have caused a house fire through smoking a cigarette or get insanely pissed. Also you contradict your later point as you say that there could be an age limit put on their purchase and if this was the case that girl would still have felt fear about getting caught as she had done something illegal.

The second is an ok point but the negatives that arise from bad drugs will far be exceeded by the negatives associated with drugs in general being legalised so you have to look at the bigger picture.

I mentioned the age thing.

Actually If there was a huge tax put on them and they became really expensive then they would still be sold illegally by criminals looking to pander to customerss who want the drugs at a cheaper price, which they can clearly offer because they do right now. So that's a bit of a non argument right there. Also, she didn't actually buy the drugs and direct purchase of drugs isn't how she got them anyway.
Reply 69
Original post by MrCarmady
well, even though you ARE straw-manning


Urm... the OP doesn't even have an arguer to argue with when he posted the post; he's just letting us know what he thinks... so the above is wrong.

Ironically, you're doing a straw-man fallacy with the above.
Reply 70
Original post by Hopple
Hasn't the choice gone from "Small, medium, large and super" to "Small, medium and large"? It isn't a shift in size like you say, it's a restriction of choice.
I was responding to a poster who asked why people aren't being allowed to make their own decision. My point was that people aren't perfect decision making machines - they're affected by how the choices are presented. Someone who goes for medium out of small/medium/large is more likely to 'upgrade' to large if instead their offered the choice of medium/large/super. That makes no sense if they are just deciding what soda to drink, but it happens.

In the case of the NY law, people aren't being told how much soda they can drink. There's simply a small change in how they can have their soda packaged. This comes down to the inconvenience of carrying two 16oz cups instead of one 32oz cup. My choice is 'restricted' in the same way if I want 100oz of soda - not by the government but by soda manufacturers.

Frankly, people who hyperbolically lament that inconvenience need to get a sense of perspective.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 71
Original post by theonefrombrum
Hahahahahaha. You're such an idiot that it defies belief and actually saddens me. Portugal have not legalised the usage of drugs at all, you're purely overlooking what they have done to try and discredit my points. Firstly, the drugs that are sold which addicts can have on them if its less than a 10 day supply are still being sold by drug dealers and there's still a huge stigma attached to that for the average person which would naturally diminish if drugs were truly legalised and allowed to be sold in stores just like cigarettes and alcohol. All it would take is one person 'willing it give it a go' to then become addicted and this cycle will become perpetuated. Why do you think that people start smoking? Listen, they have hardly been made legal so you can't say that there won't be increased usage based on what Portugal has done as they haven't really done too much so stop being obtuse. It's not a scare tactic, like alcohol and cigarettes people will naturally feel less opposed to trying something and subsequently becoming addicted to it if its legalised. What we know it wont do is decrease drug usage and also its going to set a bad precedent for the kids of the future who will be less accepting of any claims that these drugs are bad for them if they are made legal, purely because of that fact. If they're so bad, why are they legal then? Is what a lot of them will say, especially the poorer ones with nothing to do and they'll probably try them out, like people try out cigarettes and try out alcohol and drugs supposedly give you a better feeling than either of those things.

It's vague because I assumed that virtue of your ardent advocating on this issue you at least has a small understanding of the antecedents in someone's life which can cause them to be more inclined to illegally take drugs. The economic idiosyncrasies of their areas, which can often differ substantially from the wider economy as a whole and mostly do, a lack of role models, bad education, all of these things need to be addressed and solved and that's where the money should be going, not on ****ing legalising drugs. I never said that legalising drugs would make them cool, the subjective opinion of them being cool will come virtue of them being used by other people who are seen as cool, just like for many smoking is cool as is getting pissed on a Saturday night.

Tax money? Do you realise that millions of new people would have to become addicted to drugs in order for the Government to bring in more money in drug tax than they currently do in seizing cash that drug gangs have made? Unless the drug problem perpetuates itself into an epidemic, which isn't totally impossible, the Government will be making less money than they currently do with regards to illegal drugs so again, stop speaking about things that you are not fully understanding of.

It's not just libertarian, it's an argument I would have thought would only have been posited by a drunk Nigerian man in Leicster square on a Friday night who has lost his wife because she decided that she hates him and who also suffers from schizophrenia. It's not credible, it WOULD increase usage and its completely indicative of a lack of will or Governmental ability to deal with this issue in a different way. In fact, you have contradicted yourself as you are defending drugs based in waht I said about how ridiculous it would be to legalise them in name of giving people freedom of choice and yet if you want that, you don't really care that people could choose to take them, which is morally horrible on your behalf. Just stop man, just stop.


i must be an idiot if i'm still having this argument, but fine, i'll indulge your nonsense for a while longer. portugal hasn't legalised drugs but it has decriminalised them, and both drug use and crime have since decreased. whether decriminalisation or legalisation are the better option is up for debate, but one of those is desperately needed at all costs.
an important false dichotomy is that of referring to drugs as something separate from cigarettes and alcohol, which i wouldn't expect from someone who started this debate with a comparison between sugar and cocaine. nicotine and alcohol ARE drugs, they're both legal, heavily taxed, quality controlled, and carry a certain stigma with it. incidentally, both alcohol and tobacco producers have been heavily lobbying against looser drug laws, because that would cut into their profits.
i would argue that all cannabis (which is proven safer than alcohol and nicotine) being a class B drug does (besides overloading the justice system with unnecessary cases) is decrease the respect people have for the legal system. it doesn't at all curb the use of the drug. in fact, it's a fact that marijuana consumption amongst teens in the US exceeds the consumption of cigarettes, and it is equally proven that it is easier for a US teenager to score weed than buy a beer (which proves your response to Evangelica's point about age wrong)
do you honestly believe that confiscated cash even funds the part of the budget of the police force and the legal system which goes towards unnecessary drug cases, let alone exceeds the tax revenue the government would have if drugs became legal?
" The economic idiosyncrasies of their areas, which can often differ substantially from the wider economy as a whole and mostly do, a lack of role models, bad education, all of these things need to be addressed and solved and that's where the money should be going, not on ****ing legalising drugs." - again, false dichotomy - obviously drug use can be curbed with proper education policies and more balanced mental health support systems, etc., but in the medium to long run, no money will go on legalising drugs, quite the opposite.
finally, moving away from practicalities and into the moral debate, why is it morally horrible to believe that people should have control over their own bodies? if they harm themselves given the freedom to do so, they are merely exercising their free will. it may backfire and result in health issues, but so do cigarettes, lack of exercise, etc. do you want a police state forcing people to live healthy? how is that not morally reprehensible?
Original post by kka25
Urm... the OP doesn't even have an arguer to argue with when he posted the post; he's just letting us know what he thinks... so the above is wrong.

Ironically, you're doing a straw-man fallacy with the above.

if i were to start a post saying abortion is wrong and if you agree with it being legal, then you might as well legalise killing live infants, then even if i didn't have an arguer at that point, it would still be straw-manning. and you can let people know what you think while at the same time spouting fallacies. so yeah, very brave of you to defend him, but you're wrong.

PS. "Actually If there was a huge tax put on them and they became really expensive then they would still be sold illegally by criminals looking to pander to customerss who want the drugs at a cheaper price, which they can clearly offer because they do right now. So that's a bit of a non argument right there. Also, she didn't actually buy the drugs and direct purchase of drugs isn't how she got them anyway."
yeah, like the increased tax on cigarettes and alcohol resulted in a huge amount of moonshine and homegrown tobacco going around. oh wait...
and even if she hadn't bought drugs, if they had been legal, they could've been more difficult to acquire for the party by whoever did.
Reply 72
Plenty more junk food where that came from in the US.
Reply 73
Original post by MrCarmady


if i were to start a post saying abortion is wrong and if you agree with it being legal, then you might as well legalise killing live infants, then even if i didn't have an arguer at that point, it would still be straw-manning. and you can let people know what you think while at the same time spouting fallacies. so yeah, very brave of you to defend him, but you're wrong.


Your assumption is pretty wild. You don't know the meaning of Straw-man fallacy. The very idea that you're making the above is a Straw-man itself.

Owh, I'm not defending anyone, I was just pointing out what you're doing at that time. Nice of you to make a red-herring fallacy.
Original post by theonefrombrum
Silly example for a few reasons. Firstly, most people in her position would not give a damn about being scared of getting caught, they would simply want to get help. Same as when people have caused a house fire through smoking a cigarette or get insanely pissed. Also you contradict your later point as you say that there could be an age limit put on their purchase and if this was the case that girl would still have felt fear about getting caught as she had done something illegal.

The second is an ok point but the negatives that arise from bad drugs will far be exceeded by the negatives associated with drugs in general being legalised so you have to look at the bigger picture.

I mentioned the age thing.

Actually If there was a huge tax put on them and they became really expensive then they would still be sold illegally by criminals looking to pander to customerss who want the drugs at a cheaper price, which they can clearly offer because they do right now. So that's a bit of a non argument right there. Also, she didn't actually buy the drugs and direct purchase of drugs isn't how she got them anyway.


The scenarios you described with alcohol and cigarettes are just embarrassing, not illegal so it's hardly the same thing. In my experience, there's not as much of a stigma doing something under-age (sex and alcohol) as much as there is doing something illegal regardless of age - illegal AND under-age in this case. The point of the age limit is mostly to make it clear at what age a drug isn't going to affect development, which is important, and although I don't think it will deter everyone, the educating aspect of it is important. Pregnant teens still seek help, and drunk youngsters often get picked up by a parent or older sibling - I can't think of anyone who's gotten too high and had family called.

The negatives / positives point is subjective.

You do have a valid idea about illegal underselling which I considered before I posted. Nevertheless, in the same way most people don't opt to drink moonshine or shoe polish melted through burnt toast despite the heavy tax on alcohol, I don't think most people would opt for dodgy produce when quality is available. I'm not talking about charging £120 for a gram of MD :colonhash:, but the controlled production and increased quality of drugs would inevitably increase how much it costs to make them. Perhaps you're right though, in which case the government should match the price of dealers. If it cost you £40 for a gram of cocaine before, and you're being offered quality government approved coke for the same price, I know which I'd go for. If your dealer dropped the price to £30, you'd be sceptical and it would not exactly be costing you more than before to go with the 'safe' coke.

The girl not buying her own e is irrelevant - all the same things discussed apply to her friends.
Why not just ban unlimited refills in restaurents then or all you can eat buffets?
Bonkers.

Everyone knows restaurents make their money from drinks!
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 76
Original post by Kolya
I was responding to a poster who asked why people aren't being allowed to make their own decision. My point was that people aren't perfect decision making machines - they're affected by how the choices are presented. Someone who goes for medium out of small/medium/large is more likely to 'upgrade' to large if instead their offered the choice of medium/large/super. That makes no sense if they are just deciding what soda to drink, but it happens.

In the case of the NY law, people aren't being told how much soda they can drink. There's simply a small change in how they can have their soda packaged. This comes down to the inconvenience of carrying two 16oz cups instead of one 32oz cup. My choice is 'restricted' in the same way if I want 100oz of soda - not by the government but by soda manufacturers.

Frankly, people who hyperbolically lament that inconvenience need to get a sense of perspective.


A size upgrade is effectively an impulse buy, comparable to a supermarket cashier asking you to add a chocolate bar to your purchase (doesn't happen so often here, but given that this story is from the USA) and typically will be a less unhealthy increase in your calorific intake. Going further, any advert for anything unhealthy will increase the number of people choosing to buy it, so why not go after them as well?

The restaurant/food outlet is willing to offer a certain range and people buy from that range, why should the government get involved? And if it does get involved, it should get involved consistently and ban stuff like any food item that has that many (still arbitrarily decided though) calories. Similarly, what about cigarettes?
What about families that buy a large drink and share it out? :tongue:

This to me looks like a subtle way to increase profits for certain interests. :holmes:

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 11 years ago)
Just walk into a grocery and pick up a 20 oz bottle. Done.
Reply 79
Original post by MrCarmady
this sounds exactly like what a wannabe intellectual would say :rolleyes:
so, is it too early to call troll? or is he genuinely ramping up the antagonism in the face of incontrovertible facts? (the war on drugs has failed FACT, decriminalisation results in decreased crime FACT, the law is invasive and absurd FACT)
can't wait for the refutations!
PS. with all of the above said, i would definitely be in favour of a fast food tax - it's one thing to have people foot the bill for their eventual medical treatment, it's another to attempt to force them to live healthier in the first place


A fast food tax in America shouldn't be necessary because their healthcare system is private. In the UK; I think that a better system would be to adjust national insurance rates for people more likely to have health problems (as this is how insurance is supposed to work anyway). Such a system would avoid punishing people who consume fast food, alcohol, etc, in moderation (although administration costs might make it impractical).

Quick Reply

Latest