Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?
Are you really that @#%^ing dense?
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
It establishes the precedent that it's perfectly OK for the government to regulate personal choices (and business service offerings) based strictly on an indirect link to government subsidies. It doesn't matter whether it's soda, candy, red meat, geneticly modified corn, etc. The government has no business regulating anybody's eating habits until such time as that person comes to collect on government health benefits. Blanket legislation prohibiting personal choice is not the answer.
Milk has to be homogenized, cigarettes are taxed, dope is banned. One city disallowing extra large cups for soda consumption is extremely trivial in both it's direct impact and indirectly as symbolic of governments reach or over-reach as it might be.
It does give gbaji a good example of 'big government' though.
If I was a citizen of NYC I could probably get a bit worked up about the extra monies that will have to be spent to enforce this law. That's as far as my outrage would go.
So you really don't see the difference in prohibiting the sale of 20oz soft drinks vs taxing products that affect the environment and health quality of everyone around them when consumed? You really don't understand the need to pasturize (not homogenize, btw) milk before shipping it to the customer, regardless of regulation?
I'm not in the mood to argue with a brick wall today, sorry.