"Ozgirl" > wrote:
> "Susan" > wrote in message
> > On 6/23/2012 12:11 PM, Cheri wrote:
> >
> >> There is absolutely no reason for the government to be regulating the
> >> size of soft drinks, period. You don't mind, and that's fine, but I
> >> do
> >> mind and that's not going to change. :-)
> >
> > But there is a reason, health care costs that accrue to all of us.
> >
> > We may disagree about what's a good reason and what isn't.

> How does regulating a size cut health care costs? Or putting high taxes
> on cigarettes and alcohol? People will still drink and smoke the same
> amounts regardless of personal cost or difficulty in obtaining a
> product. I know, I wasn't going to get into this argument. There is no
> realistic way at this point in time to cut universal health costs by
> putting regulations on things that make us obese or prone to ailments
> and illnesses brought on by use of illegal drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or
> food/drink/ prescription drug intake. Its just something we have to suck
> up, watching our tax dollars get used for things we may not partake of.
> Other than health there are many tax payer provided stuff that I have no
> or little interest in. I don't as a rule use public transport, the next
> tax payer does. I don't do government supported theatre or art
> galleries, the next person does. I use public libraries, my neighbour
> might not. And so it goes on.

In general, I disapprove of laws regulating what adults do to themselves.
Examples would include seat-belt, helmet, drug and sex laws.

--
Nick, KI6VAV. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their
families: https://semperfifund.org https://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/
http://www.specialops.org/ http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/ ~Semper Fi~
http://www.woundedwarriors.ca/ http://www.legacy.com.au/ ~Semper Fi~