Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks [View all]4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)31. Aha! We've accounted for that
Most Americans are receiving such a poor education that they won't be able to do that simple addition problem.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I guess you could make a public health argument here. Would you be against banning
CTyankee
May 2012
#28
All the better. Pretty high is good. More tax revenue for the state and for those of us who
CTyankee
May 2012
#36
but here's the thing about your argument: it can be argued that we are all forced to pay higher
CTyankee
May 2012
#38
We have very high taxes on alcohol in CT. It doesn't bother me as a wine drinker.
CTyankee
May 2012
#48
I think requiring smaller sizes (at comparable prices per ounce/ml) is a better way to go
Blasphemer
May 2012
#13
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
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
Okay, but NYC residents are relatively slim compared to some places in the US.
Quantess
Jun 2012
#101
Very well put, jump! I hadn't teased this thing out like you have brilliantly done here.
CTyankee
Jun 2012
#106
I understand your underlying argument, but excessive sugar is a detriment to public health.
CTyankee
May 2012
#51
I put toxic in a larger context. It is part of an overall problem and that is that overconsumption
CTyankee
May 2012
#56
If we didn't have such a corrupt political system, unwilling to do what should be done, I would
CTyankee
May 2012
#62
I don't see that quote as you do. "doing something" is not solving, magically or otherwise.
CTyankee
May 2012
#64
Well, Jeff, I'm just sayin' that IMHO this guy is a really smart, tough guy and he's made
CTyankee
May 2012
#66
Hey, Jeff you are welcome to try to work with all the parties involved in the NYC schools!
CTyankee
Jun 2012
#87
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
You can have as many ounces of sugar free cancer causing chemical concoctions you like
CBGLuthier
May 2012
#61
I went to McD's for some students & asked for a small ice tea for myself ---it came quart size
wordpix
Jun 2012
#72
I don't think the proposal would be expected to get everyone to do the same thing every day.
randome
Jun 2012
#82
I'd be for warning labels. But I don't think we should be infringing on personal liberties.
harun
Jun 2012
#85
The artificial sweeteners are awful and a real problem as they get people used to super sweet
CTyankee
Jun 2012
#88
Oh, dear, I am sorry christx30! I was being facetious and trying to lighten up, that's all.
CTyankee
Jun 2012
#93
well, Bloomberg is really just banning the oversized servings of soda. You will still be able to
CTyankee
Jun 2012
#105
"The ban would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores."
mikeytherat
Jun 2012
#119