| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9113 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Müs [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 1839.story I can't believe they actually went through with it. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
Why Mus? It's been ten years in the making since the big attack on tobacco. First they came for the smokers but I wasnt a smoker. Then they came for the fat people... My guess is mandatory excercise is next or football. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
I suppose it's too much to hope for that this idiocy drives people out of NYC and Chicago and thereby weakens their political power. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
so as of this act... New York officially joins my list of places that can lick a sweaty, unwashed, summertime-humidity-in-the-south, diseased taint |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
darksiege wrote: so as of this act... New York officially joins my list of places that can lick a sweaty unwashed summertime humidity in the south diseased taint A what? |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
I think this is a good thing. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: darksiege wrote: so as of this act... New York officially joins my list of places that can lick a sweaty unwashed summertime humidity in the south diseased taint A what? Some people lose their marbles when they get angry. DS loses his commas. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: darksiege wrote: so as of this act... New York officially joins my list of places that can lick a sweaty unwashed summertime humidity in the south diseased taint A what? Let me see if I can possibly string it together in a somewhat less confusing manner.... New York has joined the illustrious ranks of those places that needs to lick a sweaty, diseased and unwashed taint that is heavily modified by a good summertime humidity in a southern climate region (96+% humidity). |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
Oh, ok. taint was the noun. I thought your sentence got abruptly chopped off because you got distracted and hit submit or something and "taint" was referring to something else that was tainted. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
Diamondeye wrote: Oh, ok. taint was the noun. I thought your sentence got abruptly chopped off because you got distracted and hit submit or something and "taint" was referring to something else that was tainted. yes sir, apologies. I am really tired right now. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
Lenas wrote: I think this is a good thing. DS's taint? |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maybe I was right all along! |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would thank you kindly to remember that my taintal region is not part of this discussion.... |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
darksiege wrote: I would thank you kindly to remember that my taintal region is not part of this discussion.... Yeah, we don't have the bandwidth to discuss a region of that magnitude. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What's stopping customers from buying two 16oz drinks? If you're going to ban 32oz beverages for the people's own good, you have to stop them from buying that quantity of soda entirely. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: What's stopping customers from buying two 16oz drinks? If you're going to ban 32oz beverages for the people's own good, you have to stop them from buying that quantity of soda entirely. This is a grave concern. Clearly, we need to track daily drink purchases through a centrallized database. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: What's stopping customers from buying two 16oz drinks? If you're going to ban 32oz beverages for the people's own good, you have to stop them from buying that quantity of soda entirely. Nothing, but you know that. This is for people literally too stupid to know how unhealthy large drinks like that are; the people that order them every day for lunch and then complain when they're fat and diabetic. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
Why can't that be on them? |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
Who will just go refill more often, or order another drink. It's not like they won't notice they're drinking half as much. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
The majority of fast food is taken to go, so no refills there. The net result is people that upgrade to a "large for only 30 cents more!" are drinking half as many calories as they would otherwise. Rorinthas wrote: Why can't that be on them? It can be, and it is. Maybe people will start buying multiple drinks. I find it hard to get upset about something that will help people more than hurt them, though. In all honestly, 32-64oz drinks should have never been allowed in the first place. They're part of the reason that the USA is (disgustingly) two-thirds overweight. |
|
| Author: | Nitefox [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
Lenas wrote: It can be, and it is. Maybe people will start buying multiple drinks. I find it hard to get upset about something that will help people more than hurt them, though. In all honestly, 32-64oz drinks should have never been allowed in the first place. They're part of the reason that the USA is (disgustingly) two-thirds overweight. And? |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So Lenas, Are you in favor of banning Alcohol for people who are too stupid to not drink and drive, or people who are too stupid to know it's ruining their liver and their relationships? Are you in favor of banning cigarettes for people who are too stupid to know that smoking causes cancer? There is absolutely no difference. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
There is a difference. Soda isn't being banned, just a particular size of consumption and only when sold in places also serving food. You're all smart enough to recognize that this is not anywhere near a ban on soda. It's frustrating that I'm even getting questioned about banning alcohol or cigarettes, because it's not the same **** thing. BARS ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO NOT SERVE YOU ALCOHOL IF YOU'VE HAD TOO MUCH. Who determines what too much is? Oh, right, the gov't. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
I don't smoke, yet I sigh and shake my head every time one of those heavy-handed "Stop smoking, losers!" ads comes on the television or radio. If people want to legitmately stop, sure, help them get the information and assistance they need. For the ones that don't? STFU. I made the switch to diet cola over a year ago. And I still feel the same way about this law as I do the methods in place to "force" people to stop smoking. If people want to be "unhealthy" (and I'm using quotes here because even what constitutes as a healthy person is still a grey area), then it is their freedom and choice to do so. But I suppose this really has absolutely nothing AT ALL to do with wanting people to get healthier. It's all about looking good on a political stage. And when people limit freedoms just to make themselves look good, then everybody loses. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 32oz? ++Ungood. ++Illegal. |
I predict that this will have exactly zero impact on obesity in NY. But even if I'm wrong, I'd rather deal with an obesity "epidemic" than a nanny state. By the way, when did we stop having problems and start having epidemics? I'm guessing it was around the same time that we started declaring war on social issues. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|