snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:25 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Did the city ever give a rationale for excluding juice from the ban?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12 March 2013, 11:26 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,267
Default

I never heard if the ban was definitive on, say, sugar-free soda (like my personal favorite - Coke Zero), or not. What about iced tea - you'd be no closer to solving an obesity problem by serving it unsweetened, as long as you provide unlimited free sugar for it. (Which is exactly how iced tea is served in a large part of the US, right?)

This was going to be a practical nightmare, despite having good intentions. If they want to make a concession about protecting those who are not "free to decide their fate", the limit could apply to those under 18. Mandatory bicycle helmet laws - for non-adults - fare well in terms of support - why not make the limit related to age, just as we restrict alcohol and tobacco to adults?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12 March 2013, 11:41 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,647
Icon97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan The Man View Post
As Ryda said, I think children fall into a different class.
Why?

You said: "I don't believe the government should be in the business of mandating what people do when the thing being mandated does not impact the rights of others." How does allowing a particular child to do something that is harmful to himself impact the rights of others?

And what about adults, who presumably aren't a different class? Are you opposed to the existence of OSHA? Adults should be allowed to work in unsafe conditions if they so choose, shouldn't they?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 13 March 2013, 01:20 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,194
Default

All I'll say is, any law intended to protect health by banning or reducing consumption of products that aren't just plain poisonous seems pretty absurd in a country where cigarettes can still be sold.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 13 March 2013, 01:22 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan The Man View Post
Quote:
It's fine to talk about personal freedom and responsibility, but the unavoidable fact is that we all pay the price for the public health consequences of obesity--even those of us who manage to stay thin.
That point is, at the very least, debatable. And certainly not a fact.
Link.
That article only discusses the healthcare costs. There are other economic costs associated with lost productivity as well as personal and intangible costs associated with compromised health and early death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
Obesity does not cause illness. Some diseases may correlate to obesity, and an extreme level of obesity will cause issues. But obesity that isn't in the extreme range does not cause disease. Period.
I realize it's bad form to ask for a cite when someone disagrees with an argument you've made without citing sources yourself, but this statement is so contrary to what I understand to be the consensus among the experts that I'd really like to know where you got this information.

Quote:
Nor does the occasional purchase of a large soda, which may even be intended to be shared amongst two or more people, cause obesity or illness.
I realize some people are healthy despite being technically overweight, especially when you go by BMI instead of body fat percentage, and I realize that an occasional splurge won't kill a diet. But we're not talking about banning soda only for fat people or even limiting anyone's total intake. We're talking about a measure that would have made it slightly less convenient to drink an entire day's worth of calories in one sitting. The intrusion on personal freedom is so minimal that I have a hard time understanding the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 13 March 2013, 01:33 AM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
That article only discusses the healthcare costs. There are other economic costs associated with lost productivity as well as personal and intangible costs associated with compromised health and early death.
Lost productivity would be a cost borne by the obese person, no? Unless we're going to start arguing that people owe society a certain number of years of labor, which seems a stretch. But assuming you meant something else, I'm not sure how lost productivity counts as an economic cost to society.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 13 March 2013, 02:29 AM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
The intrusion on personal freedom is so minimal that I have a hard time understanding the problem.
Imagine,if you will, that every day when I pass you by and give you a little swat to the back of your head. A little annoyance but you shrug it off. The only problem is I keep doing it and with more intensity every few days. Before you know it my smacking you is becoming a problem to your over all well being. The real problem is I do it all the time and there is very little to stop me because you didn't do it from the get go.

That is how these minimal intrusive laws are.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 13 March 2013, 03:08 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,822
Default

A swat to the back of the head is battery. Having to buy two sodas instead of one when you want to drink a frankly unhealthy quantity isn't even in the same ballpark.

ETA: Perhaps you should read up on this: Slippery Slope Fallacy
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 13 March 2013, 03:41 AM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
A swat to the back of the head is battery. Having to buy two sodas instead of one when you want to drink a frankly unhealthy quantity isn't even in the same ballpark.
I guess you missed my analogy. I will admit not a very good one but the point was made which I am sure you got.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 13 March 2013, 10:38 AM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebobo View Post
I guess you missed my analogy. I will admit not a very good one but the point was made which I am sure you got.
I think that most of us got your analogy. Esprise Me, myself & probably several others, just thought that it was complete nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 13 March 2013, 03:41 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
I realize it's bad form to ask for a cite when someone disagrees with an argument you've made without citing sources yourself, but this statement is so contrary to what I understand to be the consensus among the experts that I'd really like to know where you got this information.
A quickie that summarizes my statement:

http://www.knackonline.org/oped/obesity-issues.php
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 13 March 2013, 06:51 PM
RocMills RocMills is offline
 
Join Date: 29 October 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
A quickie that summarizes my statement:

http://www.knackonline.org/oped/obesity-issues.php
Bravo, Ryda! An excellent example of things I have been trying to explain to my family for quite a while now. Thank you ever so much for that link.

Cause-to-affect is not necessarily the same as effect-to-cause.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge again forces ‘idiot’ sign on defendant snopes Moot Court 2 08 March 2013 07:56 AM
Federal judge strikes down Idaho ban on late-term abortions snopes Moot Court 0 07 March 2013 03:24 AM
Sugary drinks 'worsen vomit bug' snopes Medical 8 06 October 2009 05:11 PM
Retired judge endorses Obama? snopes Politics 5 10 August 2008 01:03 AM
Foot size equals penis size. Myth or reality? snopes NFBSK 36 20 December 2007 02:21 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.