Ban Sugary Drinks but Legalize Pot?

[ClosedCaption]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

 

[dblack]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

I'm hoping that someone has said it but, MYOB is sound advice for a free society.

 

[Pogo]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

I'm hoping that someone has said it but, MYOB is sound advice for a free society.

We said that. We just used more words. Prolly from too much sugar.

 

[BlindBoo]

Banning either one is dumb, and anti-free enterprize.

 

[FA_Q2]

yea but sadly our Govt aint doing shit about it.....and 90% of the food companies aint doing shit about it......and this sugar fix is getting out of control.....there is some form of sugar added to just about everything.....

Good. I don’t want either to do shit about it. You know who I want to fix it – ME!

If you have a problem with sugary items, try not purchasing them. I know that such a concept is very tough but there is an entire section at the market devoted to fresh produce. It has zero added sugars and is actually really quite easy to prepare. Remove from fridge – eat.

It is not difficult. The government is not going to fix this no matter how many regulations that are passed. If people want sugar, they are going to pour it on themselves or eat a candy bar. It is up to us to make decisions that affect our lives and the choices are out there, even if you refuse to see them.

I believe this is all part of some grater illness that we are facing as a people. The illness of someone else. Too much sugar in the shit we eat, someone else will fix that. The evil food corporations should be taking care of my eating habits for me, making sure that the food I buy is healthy. If not, the government should intercede on my behalf forcing them to do it. That is nuts, We are smart individuals and we can make those decisions ourselves. We, as a whole, need to stop looking to others to save us from ourselves.

i thought i was talking about little kids....not me.....maybe you read it wrong.......little kids will eat any sweet put in front of them......if you want to see a generation of diabetics or near diabetics who will also have other problems because of that then i don't know what to tell you.....a Healthy Country is sure stronger than a sick one....

Kids are a shield. Parents have utter control over what their kids eat and it is not because kids want more sugar that they are getting too much of it. It is because most parents don’t want to bother with feeding their children and turn to prepackaged crap.

This stuff is not selling because people want things without sugar. It is selling because they are serving exactly what people want. We don’t need government to step in and be our ‘daddy,’ telling those evil companies to stop providing what we demand. We need to stop purchasing it.

The ‘for the kids’ argument is moot. They have parents and they are the ones that make those decitions for them.

If you really want the government involved, it’s not through BS regulation and control that change is made. That does nothing. Regulating the size of a drink or the amount of sugar in my food is an utterly meaningless task. If I am too damn lazy to change those habits myself, I will gravitate to another product that is worse for me and my children (like fast food) and end up worse off than before. EDUCATION is the only real place government has in something like this. I would not object to things like that where the government beats it into our heads how bad a high sugar diet is. To piggy back off that as well, it is something that I do have to give the First Lady credit for, the government is attempting to make changes where they should in education and government provided meals like school lunches. There, the government not only has the right to press regulation but the responsibility as well. They are providing those lunches after all though school lunches should be done by the state and local authorities/regulations.

 

[emilynghiem]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

Really? Where are you getting this?
Do you mind if I post a poll and
ask how many people find
sugar more dangerous than weed?
Like if you were going to go into major
heart or brain surgery, would it bother you
more if the doctors had sugar, caffeine,
chocolate or weed in their system? Really?
if so I will post a poll and see how many ppl really think this way?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

Who are you to tell me what to drink or smoke?

 

[Katzndogz]

When was the last time someone had a large pepsi then was too high to drive and got into an accident?

 

[Pogo]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

Really? Where are you getting this?
Do you mind if I post a poll and
ask how many people find
sugar more dangerous than weed?
Like if you were going to go into major
heart or brain surgery, would it bother you
more if the doctors had sugar, caffeine,
chocolate or weed in their system? Really?
if so I will post a poll and see how many ppl really think this way?

Good idea. Let me know when you do that. Not sure if you can append a poll to a thread that already exists but you could always just start a new thread.

As for the comparison, we did that a while back. The sugar effect is actually quantifiable.
I've had weed and I've had hypoglycemia. Only the latter ever affected my behaviour adversely. And it was very real.

 

[Pogo]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

Who are you to tell me what to drink or smoke?

Whoa, what a leap. What are you, a flea? Where do you see anything in the phrase "A is worse than B" that "tells you what to drink or smoke"?

Holy smoke.

 

[Pogo]

Good. I don’t want either to do shit about it. You know who I want to fix it – ME!

If you have a problem with sugary items, try not purchasing them. I know that such a concept is very tough but there is an entire section at the market devoted to fresh produce. It has zero added sugars and is actually really quite easy to prepare. Remove from fridge – eat.

It is not difficult. The government is not going to fix this no matter how many regulations that are passed. If people want sugar, they are going to pour it on themselves or eat a candy bar. It is up to us to make decisions that affect our lives and the choices are out there, even if you refuse to see them.

I believe this is all part of some grater illness that we are facing as a people. The illness of someone else. Too much sugar in the shit we eat, someone else will fix that. The evil food corporations should be taking care of my eating habits for me, making sure that the food I buy is healthy. If not, the government should intercede on my behalf forcing them to do it. That is nuts, We are smart individuals and we can make those decisions ourselves. We, as a whole, need to stop looking to others to save us from ourselves.

i thought i was talking about little kids....not me.....maybe you read it wrong.......little kids will eat any sweet put in front of them......if you want to see a generation of diabetics or near diabetics who will also have other problems because of that then i don't know what to tell you.....a Healthy Country is sure stronger than a sick one....

Kids are a shield. Parents have utter control over what their kids eat and it is not because kids want more sugar that they are getting too much of it. It is because most parents don’t want to bother with feeding their children and turn to prepackaged crap.

This stuff is not selling because people want things without sugar. It is selling because they are serving exactly what people want. We don’t need government to step in and be our ‘daddy,’ telling those evil companies to stop providing what we demand. We need to stop purchasing it.

The ‘for the kids’ argument is moot. They have parents and they are the ones that make those decitions for them.

If you really want the government involved, it’s not through BS regulation and control that change is made. That does nothing. Regulating the size of a drink or the amount of sugar in my food is an utterly meaningless task. If I am too damn lazy to change those habits myself, I will gravitate to another product that is worse for me and my children (like fast food) and end up worse off than before. EDUCATION is the only real place government has in something like this. I would not object to things like that where the government beats it into our heads how bad a high sugar diet is. To piggy back off that as well, it is something that I do have to give the First Lady credit for, the government is attempting to make changes where they should in education and government provided meals like school lunches. There, the government not only has the right to press regulation but the responsibility as well. They are providing those lunches after all though school lunches should be done by the state and local authorities/regulations.

I'll agree with the two ends of your as-usual thoughtful post and disagree vehemently with the middle part in bold.

Consumers do not lead manufacturing; it's the other way around. And that "we're only giving the public what it wants" song and dance is the biggest farce in commerce. It's like the creation of SUVs... I just can't remember the public outcry of demonstrators in Detroit demanding that cars grow to ginormous inverted bathtubs. No, industry comes up with this crap in the quest for profits, and it doesn't care what the ramifications on public safety are. As we've already noted in this thread, desiring foods with less sugar is all well and good but rotsa ruck actually finding any to buy. The stupormarket shelf is full of poison.

I do agree that public awareness is the direct effective approach and that government mandates address the symptom rather than the disease. But once the public is aware, and yet still has no access to real nutrition --- what do you do then?

And please, no more telling me to go start my own freaking food conglomerate. Be serious.

 

[FA_Q2]

I hope someone else said it but

Sugary drinks are worse than Weed.

Really? Where are you getting this?
Do you mind if I post a poll and
ask how many people find
sugar more dangerous than weed?
Like if you were going to go into major
heart or brain surgery, would it bother you
more if the doctors had sugar, caffeine,
chocolate or weed in their system? Really?
if so I will post a poll and see how many ppl really think this way?

Good idea. Let me know when you do that. Not sure if you can append a poll to a thread that already exists but you could always just start a new thread.

As for the comparison, we did that a while back. The sugar effect is actually quantifiable.
I've had weed and I've had hypoglycemia. Only the latter ever affected my behaviour adversely. And it was very real.

Massive, continuous overuse of sugar caused that along with other bad eating habits.

I doubt that you used weed as much as sugar.

Here is a thought exercise – you are stranded on a desert island with a metric ton of fresh water and another ton of sugary soda or weed. Which one are you going to survive on longer?

Sugar is NOT bad for you. Excessive sugar is. If you smoked weed like a freight train, you would see real health effects even if it just came from inhaling smoke into your lungs. If you have ever known real potheads – the types that hot boxed their rooms 24/7, you would not think so little of its effects.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You people want to take away my personal freedoms. All you can do is insult and spin as your case is for more state control.

 

[Expat]

I don't think sugary drinks or pot should be banned. You couldn't pay me to drink that crap, but I don't see a need to ban them. It's a shame that one way or another, we're all going to pay for the choices people make, but I have no wish to see them banned.

 

[Pogo]

Really? Where are you getting this?
Do you mind if I post a poll and
ask how many people find
sugar more dangerous than weed?
Like if you were going to go into major
heart or brain surgery, would it bother you
more if the doctors had sugar, caffeine,
chocolate or weed in their system? Really?
if so I will post a poll and see how many ppl really think this way?

Good idea. Let me know when you do that. Not sure if you can append a poll to a thread that already exists but you could always just start a new thread.

As for the comparison, we did that a while back. The sugar effect is actually quantifiable.
I've had weed and I've had hypoglycemia. Only the latter ever affected my behaviour adversely. And it was very real.

Massive, continuous overuse of sugar caused that along with other bad eating habits.

Absolute total fucking complete-crock BULLSHIT. You don't have the foggiest idea of my eating habits or my physiology and you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to play doctor out your ass.

For the record I've never even liked sweets or chocolate. I had that condition for some thirty years before it was diagnosed. So cram your armchair Marcus Welby crap back up your ass where you got took it from.

​

Try addressing my actual points instead of dumping a load of dietary ass-umptions on which you are obviously profoundly ignant.

 

[MondoBongo]

Sugary drinks should not be banned. However, medicaid should not cover HoverRounds for fat asses and Type II diabetics either. Problem solved.

 

[FA_Q2]

i thought i was talking about little kids....not me.....maybe you read it wrong.......little kids will eat any sweet put in front of them......if you want to see a generation of diabetics or near diabetics who will also have other problems because of that then i don't know what to tell you.....a Healthy Country is sure stronger than a sick one....

Kids are a shield. Parents have utter control over what their kids eat and it is not because kids want more sugar that they are getting too much of it. It is because most parents don’t want to bother with feeding their children and turn to prepackaged crap.

This stuff is not selling because people want things without sugar. It is selling because they are serving exactly what people want. We don’t need government to step in and be our ‘daddy,’ telling those evil companies to stop providing what we demand. We need to stop purchasing it.

The ‘for the kids’ argument is moot. They have parents and they are the ones that make those decitions for them.

If you really want the government involved, it’s not through BS regulation and control that change is made. That does nothing. Regulating the size of a drink or the amount of sugar in my food is an utterly meaningless task. If I am too damn lazy to change those habits myself, I will gravitate to another product that is worse for me and my children (like fast food) and end up worse off than before. EDUCATION is the only real place government has in something like this. I would not object to things like that where the government beats it into our heads how bad a high sugar diet is. To piggy back off that as well, it is something that I do have to give the First Lady credit for, the government is attempting to make changes where they should in education and government provided meals like school lunches. There, the government not only has the right to press regulation but the responsibility as well. They are providing those lunches after all though school lunches should be done by the state and local authorities/regulations.

I'll agree with the two ends of your as-usual thoughtful post and disagree vehemently with the middle part in bold.

Consumers do not lead manufacturing; it's the other way around. And that "we're only giving the public what it wants" song and dance is the biggest farce in commerce. It's like the creation of SUVs... I just can't remember the public outcry of demonstrators in Detroit demanding that cars grow to ginormous inverted bathtubs. No, industry comes up with this crap in the quest for profits, and it doesn't care what the ramifications on public safety are. As we've already noted in this thread, desiring foods with less sugar is all well and good but rotsa ruck actually finding any to buy. The stupormarket shelf is full of poison.

I do agree that public awareness is the direct effective approach and that government mandates address the symptom rather than the disease. But once the public is aware, and yet still has no access to real nutrition --- what do you do then?

And please, no more telling me to go start my own freaking food conglomerate. Be serious.

DISCLAIMER: all right, after typing this I realize that I used the term ‘you’ a LOT. Don’t misconstrue that as personal. I am referring to people in general and I am too lazy atm to go back and reword everything


LOL, start your own fucking food conglomerate dammit
That got me rolling.

Anyway, the reality is that the choses ARE there. There is an entire fresh produce section that you can purchase food from. As a matter of fact, you don’t have to buy anything else at ALL. Nothing. My uncle lives this way (though he even refuses to buy the produce at stores – he goes to the farms themselves) and another person I work with actually did start his food conglomerate (well, small garden but let’s not parse words here, lol). In the end, it’s all the same. You have options but even you are not seeing them because it really is not what you want. You want things in a box, that can be microwaved, that you can pop into your mouth readymade, things that take no effort but still taste good and are also cheap. We all want that crap and it is sugar with processed corn that makes it all. We don’t even realize that these things are what we want but it is evident in the way people make purchases.

I am surprised that you have issue with the middle statement because this is really elementary stuff. Companies that do not cater to the demands of customers go out of business. That is a simple fact. IF, we really wanted healthy options then we would have them. Companies would fill that vacuum because they would totally undercut the competition. It would bring them MASSIVE profits. The ONLY way that your idea of no options because the manufacturers are not giving them works is if they are ALL IN CAHOOTS, scheming and plotting for… for… well we don’t know because there is profit in just making the things that we want. There is less profit in making things that we don’t want and companies, if anything, can be counted on to sniff out every red cent they can.

Further, your claim that people did not march on Detroit to get SUV’s is absolutely, unequivocally false. People did indeed do that to detrain but they did not use signs – they used something far more influential – DOLLARS. I remember when compact cars were the big thing. What happened to them is simple – people started buying the bigger cars over the smaller ones. Slowly but surely, small cars lost their profit margins and then they lost their market share. That was not a decision that was forced on us – it was one that was made by consumers in their purchase decisions. Now, smaller cars are hard to find. They are there also though. You can still make the unpopular decision just as you can still eat without ever consuming one single ounce of processed sugar. It will just cost more for you to make that decision though because you have lost some of the economy of scale.

Want to have another example: healthy choices at fast food ‘restaurants.’ Specifically McDonalds. A few years ago, people were kicking and screaming that McDonalds was a terrible place because they did not provide ‘healthy’ options. They had LAWS written against them and lawsuits filed because they were DENYING us access to healthy food. This is all false of course, you could simply not eat there but we Americans like demanding things so we did. Now McDonalds offers apples with their happy meals (and at most places it is standard, you have to request the fries) and fruit options and salads and had other healthy options. Most of them are gone today but some are still there.

Walk into a McDonalds and watch the counter. See how many people actually buy that ‘healthy’ option.

The reality is that almost no one does. We all said that is what we wanted but it was a lie. A lie fabricated because we wanted to blame McDonalds for our piss poor decisions. We wanted to believe that someone else is responsible for our weight, someone else for our eating habits. Truth be told though, it is not McDonalds that stops us eating fruit and veggies all day. It is not the supermarket. All the options are there. I can easily find enough fruit and vegetables that have never been processed or even organic products without any difficulty at all. The problem is that people don’t want that. You even went as far as to say that they were not available when we all know that there IS a section of the market devoted to just that and even entire stores that are devoted to organics.

I will restate: people want fast, easy, good tasting products in flashy boxes that can be prepared with little to no effort. THAT is called sugar.

 

[FA_Q2]

Good idea. Let me know when you do that. Not sure if you can append a poll to a thread that already exists but you could always just start a new thread.

As for the comparison, we did that a while back. The sugar effect is actually quantifiable.
I've had weed and I've had hypoglycemia. Only the latter ever affected my behaviour adversely. And it was very real.

Massive, continuous overuse of sugar caused that along with other bad eating habits.

Absolute total fucking complete-crock BULLSHIT. You don't have the foggiest idea of my eating habits or my physiology and you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to play doctor out your ass.

For the record I've never even liked sweets or chocolate. I had that condition for some thirty years before it was diagnosed. So cram your armchair Marcus Welby crap back up your ass where you got took it from.

​

Try addressing my actual points instead of dumping a load of dietary ass-umptions on which you are obviously profoundly ignant.

Wow, calm down. Didn’t mean that as personal.

Let’s start again – if it is not bad eating habits then I would ASSUME (as long as you don’t shoot me) that it is something that unique to your body (not JUST you but you get the idea) but not general to most people. IOW, allergic reactions can kill you if you are allergic to nuts, that does not make nuts worse than pot.

 

[Pogo]

Kids are a shield. Parents have utter control over what their kids eat and it is not because kids want more sugar that they are getting too much of it. It is because most parents don’t want to bother with feeding their children and turn to prepackaged crap.

This stuff is not selling because people want things without sugar. It is selling because they are serving exactly what people want. We don’t need government to step in and be our ‘daddy,’ telling those evil companies to stop providing what we demand. We need to stop purchasing it.

The ‘for the kids’ argument is moot. They have parents and they are the ones that make those decitions for them.

If you really want the government involved, it’s not through BS regulation and control that change is made. That does nothing. Regulating the size of a drink or the amount of sugar in my food is an utterly meaningless task. If I am too damn lazy to change those habits myself, I will gravitate to another product that is worse for me and my children (like fast food) and end up worse off than before. EDUCATION is the only real place government has in something like this. I would not object to things like that where the government beats it into our heads how bad a high sugar diet is. To piggy back off that as well, it is something that I do have to give the First Lady credit for, the government is attempting to make changes where they should in education and government provided meals like school lunches. There, the government not only has the right to press regulation but the responsibility as well. They are providing those lunches after all though school lunches should be done by the state and local authorities/regulations.

I'll agree with the two ends of your as-usual thoughtful post and disagree vehemently with the middle part in bold.

Consumers do not lead manufacturing; it's the other way around. And that "we're only giving the public what it wants" song and dance is the biggest farce in commerce. It's like the creation of SUVs... I just can't remember the public outcry of demonstrators in Detroit demanding that cars grow to ginormous inverted bathtubs. No, industry comes up with this crap in the quest for profits, and it doesn't care what the ramifications on public safety are. As we've already noted in this thread, desiring foods with less sugar is all well and good but rotsa ruck actually finding any to buy. The stupormarket shelf is full of poison.

I do agree that public awareness is the direct effective approach and that government mandates address the symptom rather than the disease. But once the public is aware, and yet still has no access to real nutrition --- what do you do then?

And please, no more telling me to go start my own freaking food conglomerate. Be serious.

DISCLAIMER: all right, after typing this I realize that I used the term ‘you’ a LOT. Don’t misconstrue that as personal. I am referring to people in general and I am too lazy atm to go back and reword everything

Bullshit again. Your statement was direct: "Massive, continuous overuse of sugar caused that", referring immediately to my hypoglycemia, a statement you have no basis for making whatsoever, and which is massive, continuous use of absolute bullshit. Man up and take responsibility for that. I'm not even bothering to read any further until you take that back and own it.

 

[FA_Q2]

First off, the above has nothing to do with the other post at all. I hadn’t even connected that you wrote them both until after the responses.

Second, I already have with the above post (directly above yours). I DID NOT MEAN IT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK. I don’t know how else to address this. You are blowing it out of proportion and this is ruining further discussion. I own ALL statements I make and I ALSO reserve the right to say that I misspoke or put something in a way that I really did not mean. This is that case. Leave it already; I have already acknowledged that I know nothing of YOUR PERSONAL situation.


The statement was poorly worded, not meant to be an attack and retracted. What else do you want me to say. I could delete it but that would make this whole distraction look rather wonky….


AND to reiterate, the quoted section has NOTHING to do with the post you are upset about. It is ONLY subject to the post that it was in.