Latest Breaking News

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)

34. Hollywood turning on it reduced the incidence of smoking

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:59 AM

May 2012

kids, the ones you have to hook to replace dying customers, don't care about cancer. You may as well talk to them about the sun exploding in however many billion years.

They care if it's cool or not.

Once hollywood decided to turn smokers from the cool guys, the heros and the like in to the villians smoking went on the decline.

Europeans are just as aware of the health effects as we are. As are the Japanese. Why are rates so much higher there? It hasn't been vilified in the popular culture.

/btw many european nations put horrific warning pictures on their cigarettes. Hasn't helped.

//

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks [View all] alp227 May 2012 OP

I am with both of those solutions..... PDJane May 2012 #1

You might be with them but the question is are the courts? cstanleytech May 2012 #3

Obviously, I didn't express myself clearly enough. PDJane May 2012 #52

OMG! I agree with all that, but think of the JOBS lost by doing so... freshwest May 2012 #57

Bike lanes and free physical fitness options have increased in NYC jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #97

I hate to use the term nanny state. MrSlayer May 2012 #2

Right, what happens when the public confuses correlation with causation evirus May 2012 #19

Buy your Jolt in New Jersey... jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #107

It's because we refuse to pay for health education. sofa king Jun 2012 #111

Craziness pmorlan1 Jun 2012 #116

You're not going to stop obesity by baby sitting people, Ninjaneer May 2012 #4

Is it really about helping people? Seriously? Safetykitten May 2012 #5

The label Control Freak Riftaxe May 2012 #6

So ... what's to stop people from buying TWO 16oz bottles of soda? BattyDem May 2012 #7

that would increase the tax income on soft drinks may3rd May 2012 #17

So once again ... BattyDem May 2012 #44

Pretty much.... the government is here to help may3rd Jun 2012 #98

Obesity ? dipsydoodle May 2012 #8

In what world is 16 ounces a medium coffee?! That's insane!! harmonicon May 2012 #9

At Starbucks a medium is 16 ounces, large is 20 ounces oberliner May 2012 #10

Since when? (I'm seriously asking) harmonicon May 2012 #12

I think its always been 12, 16, 20 oberliner May 2012 #14

Starbucks isn't actually coffee. boppers Jun 2012 #92

Nanny state nonsense leftynyc May 2012 #11

Agreed oberliner May 2012 #15

LOL - you know what would cure leftynyc May 2012 #20

Point taken oberliner May 2012 #39

I guess you could make a public health argument here. Would you be against banning CTyankee May 2012 #28

I'm not sure that higher taxes on sodas would work. randome May 2012 #29

All the better. Pretty high is good. More tax revenue for the state and for those of us who CTyankee May 2012 #36

There are very few things that wont kill leftynyc May 2012 #35

but here's the thing about your argument: it can be argued that we are all forced to pay higher CTyankee May 2012 #38

It's not like people don't know leftynyc May 2012 #47

We have very high taxes on alcohol in CT. It doesn't bother me as a wine drinker. CTyankee May 2012 #48

Just as I wont drive leftynyc May 2012 #50

I like the welcome sign may3rd Jun 2012 #99

On the bike helmets requirement... jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #109

I think requiring smaller sizes (at comparable prices per ounce/ml) is a better way to go Blasphemer May 2012 #13

So you ask for less ice. Problem solved. randome May 2012 #16

“Tip if you want to lose weight: don’t eat food that comes in a bucket” Nihil May 2012 #18

orr is handed to your through your car window may3rd May 2012 #21

Sounds like a mean, old Socialist or communist! dmosh42 May 2012 #22

Good. nt onehandle May 2012 #23

LOL! Really stupid - lynne May 2012 #24

People will be less likely to buy 2 drinks. randome May 2012 #25

Let's Do Nothing Okay? otohara May 2012 #27

We could mandate every unhealthy food item list all the horrible things it may do to you 4th law of robotics May 2012 #32

The taxes and public service commercials have greatly reduced the incidence of smoking. randome May 2012 #33

Hollywood turning on it reduced the incidence of smoking 4th law of robotics May 2012 #34

I think Hollywood simply followed the tide of societal opinion. randome May 2012 #42

People will buy two just to prove a point - lynne May 2012 #69

Aha! We've accounted for that 4th law of robotics May 2012 #31

I'm really not sure if this is going to work. What I saw work in my lifetime was increasing the CTyankee May 2012 #26

Let's hope no one figures out they have two hands 4th law of robotics May 2012 #30

It's ok ... Nihil May 2012 #37

Can they ban those stupid big sunglasses women keep wearing.. snooper2 May 2012 #40

In NYC where there are not very many obese people. Why bother? Quantess May 2012 #41

Half of NYers are overweight or obese, according to the article (nt) jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #96

Okay, but NYC residents are relatively slim compared to some places in the US. Quantess Jun 2012 #101

I think NY's innovations will impact other areas jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #103

Very well put, jump! I hadn't teased this thing out like you have brilliantly done here. CTyankee Jun 2012 #106

Thank you jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #110

Sorry, I am pro choice. Pat Riot May 2012 #43

I'm pro-choice but I don't see the analogy... CTyankee May 2012 #45

telling people what to do with their bodies Pat Riot May 2012 #46

I understand your underlying argument, but excessive sugar is a detriment to public health. CTyankee May 2012 #51

First, they're not toxic. jeff47 May 2012 #55

I put toxic in a larger context. It is part of an overall problem and that is that overconsumption CTyankee May 2012 #56

They aren't getting obese on sugared drinks either. jeff47 May 2012 #58

If we didn't have such a corrupt political system, unwilling to do what should be done, I would CTyankee May 2012 #62

No, actually he is saying this plan will fix it. jeff47 May 2012 #63

I don't see that quote as you do. "doing something" is not solving, magically or otherwise. CTyankee May 2012 #64

So you're saying he's not qualified to be mayor, then? (nt) jeff47 May 2012 #65

Well, Jeff, I'm just sayin' that IMHO this guy is a really smart, tough guy and he's made CTyankee May 2012 #66

We've already played this out before jeff47 Jun 2012 #73

Hey, Jeff you are welcome to try to work with all the parties involved in the NYC schools! CTyankee Jun 2012 #87

You DO see people getting obese on fruit juice. Pat Riot Jun 2012 #76

I've worked in public schools HockeyMom Jun 2012 #79

Um, yeah, that's fucked up. randome Jun 2012 #80

I've gotten into arguments over this HockeyMom Jun 2012 #84

+1 4th law of robotics May 2012 #59

Bloomberg is a fool...Won't help a bit.. Stuart G May 2012 #49

useless, stupid law... Scout May 2012 #53

Slippery Slope RitchieRich May 2012 #54

Just one more law and we'll finally be free! 4th law of robotics May 2012 #60

Bloomberg should learn from the Prohibition Laws HockeyMom May 2012 #67

I have no doubt in a year or so once this has been shown to be a failure 4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #71

perfectly said n/t Psephos Jun 2012 #83

You can have as many ounces of sugar free cancer causing chemical concoctions you like CBGLuthier May 2012 #61

Merely being bad for you is not a high enough bar for banning something SpartanDem May 2012 #68

Sorry Bloomberg this is not consitutional Wabbajack_ Jun 2012 #70

I went to McD's for some students & asked for a small ice tea for myself ---it came quart size wordpix Jun 2012 #72

Some of the posts on this thread are eerily familiar. randome Jun 2012 #74

Light bulbs and junk food are NOT comparable. alp227 Jun 2012 #75

In theory, I agree that educational efforts would be a good idea. randome Jun 2012 #77

People will just buy more of the smaller ones. JNelson6563 Jun 2012 #78

Unlimited Re-Fills HockeyMom Jun 2012 #81

I don't think the proposal would be expected to get everyone to do the same thing every day. randome Jun 2012 #82

No, unlimited refills aren't banned jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #108

That is why I ask for a Kiddie Size Drink, HockeyMom Jun 2012 #115

I'd be for warning labels. But I don't think we should be infringing on personal liberties. harun Jun 2012 #85

I agree there HockeyMom Jun 2012 #86

The artificial sweeteners are awful and a real problem as they get people used to super sweet CTyankee Jun 2012 #88

Let's just ban christx30 Jun 2012 #89

You are right. Banning sugary drinks will destroy civil liberties! CTyankee Jun 2012 #90

But where does it end? christx30 Jun 2012 #91

Oh, dear, I am sorry christx30! I was being facetious and trying to lighten up, that's all. CTyankee Jun 2012 #93

I didn't take it as a personal insult. christx30 Jun 2012 #104

well, Bloomberg is really just banning the oversized servings of soda. You will still be able to CTyankee Jun 2012 #105

Not only is it unconstitutional... Ter Jun 2012 #94

You must obey the law . They will be watching... may3rd Jun 2012 #100

I like what Bloomberg is doing in this area... jumptheshadow Jun 2012 #95

Fruit juices should be banned, too. Nevernose Jun 2012 #102

Ummm.... ti66er8pooh Jun 2012 #112

The Thirst Mutilator! progressoid Jun 2012 #120

A Large, should not equal a gallon... and-justice-for-all Jun 2012 #113

Diet soda's too? Greybnk48 Jun 2012 #114

Genious! Incitatus Jun 2012 #117

Another useless, crazy distraction. southerncrone Jun 2012 #118

"The ban would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores." mikeytherat Jun 2012 #119