This was just on the news tonight. Now in Cambridge MA. What is with this?
Too much like big brother to me and I don't like it. I don't even like
sugary or in the case of this country high fructose corn syrupy drinks to
begin with. Heck, I'm not even that big on juice because I don't think it's
all that healthy. Eat the whole fruit or veg! But I don't like this at
all.

What's next? Limiting the size of our pizza? No! You can't have a large.
You can only have the personal size and I am counting everyone in your
party! Limiting the amount of candy we can buy? Doing away with bulk
foods? Where does it end?

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
> This was just on the news tonight. Now in Cambridge MA. What is with
> this? Too much like big brother to me and I don't like it. I don't even
> like sugary or in the case of this country high fructose corn syrupy
> drinks to begin with. Heck, I'm not even that big on juice because I
> don't think it's all that healthy. Eat the whole fruit or veg! But I
> don't like this at all.
>
> What's next? Limiting the size of our pizza? No! You can't have a
> large. You can only have the personal size and I am counting everyone in
> your party! Limiting the amount of candy we can buy? Doing away with
> bulk foods? Where does it end?

I don't like it either.

Cheri

In article >, "Julie Bove" >
wrote:

> This was just on the news tonight. Now in Cambridge MA. What is with this?
> Too much like big brother to me and I don't like it. I don't even like
> sugary or in the case of this country high fructose corn syrupy drinks to
> begin with. Heck, I'm not even that big on juice because I don't think it's
> all that healthy. Eat the whole fruit or veg! But I don't like this at
> all.
>
> What's next? Limiting the size of our pizza? No! You can't have a large.
> You can only have the personal size and I am counting everyone in your
> party! Limiting the amount of candy we can buy? Doing away with bulk
> foods? Where does it end?

As you don't express any reason why this bothers you, you know something like
freedom of choice or the right of everyone to die of diabetes or obesity, one
has to presume that this is yet another of your meaningless rants.

"Alice Faber" > wrote in message
...

> Personally, I don't like outright banning of the big-gulp size. However,
> and this is a big however, I would like vendors to be required to sell a
> single serving (i.e., a soda can typically is labeled as having 2
> servings, so a single serving would be 8 oz) at a proportional price, so
> that there is no economic incentive for ordering a huge soda (or juice,
> or whatever).

It's not the banning of the Big Gulp that bothers me at all, I was never
much of a soda drinker even in the smallest size, now only ice water, but
it's just one more foot in the door with taking away personal choices IMO.
If they want to sell it in trash can sizes and people want to buy it...it's
not the governments business, and while we're at it, neither is their
interference in baseball! :-)

Cheri

"Susan" > wrote in message
...

> But clearly, we have different views of the appropriate role of
> regulators. ;-)
>
> Susan

Yes, I think we do. :-)

In article >,
"Cheri" > wrote:

> "Susan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > But clearly, we have different views of the appropriate role of
> > regulators. ;-)
> >
> > Susan
>
> Yes, I think we do. :-)

Well, we do. But because of diabetes, we've had to learn to look at
labels and assess serving sizes. From an economic point of view, if 10
oz costs $0.95 and 20 oz costs $1.10, any rational actor is going to
reflexively choose the 20 oz size.

--
"Isn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read and then attack
what it didn't say?"--WG, where else but Usenet

Cheri > wrote:
: "Alice Faber" > wrote in message
: ...

: > Personally, I don't like outright banning of the big-gulp size. However,
: > and this is a big however, I would like vendors to be required to sell a
: > single serving (i.e., a soda can typically is labeled as having 2
: > servings, so a single serving would be 8 oz) at a proportional price, so
: > that there is no economic incentive for ordering a huge soda (or juice,
: > or whatever).

: It's not the banning of the Big Gulp that bothers me at all, I was never
: much of a soda drinker even in the smallest size, now only ice water, but
: it's just one more foot in the door with taking away personal choices IMO.
: If they want to sell it in trash can sizes and people want to buy it...it's
: not the governments business, and while we're at it, neither is their
: interference in baseball! :-)

: Cheri

How do you feel about the State requirements to have automobile insurance?

Wendy

"W. Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Cheri > wrote:
> : "Alice Faber" > wrote in message
> : ...
>
> : > Personally, I don't like outright banning of the big-gulp size.
> However,
> : > and this is a big however, I would like vendors to be required to sell
> a
> : > single serving (i.e., a soda can typically is labeled as having 2
> : > servings, so a single serving would be 8 oz) at a proportional price,
> so
> : > that there is no economic incentive for ordering a huge soda (or
> juice,
> : > or whatever).
>
> : It's not the banning of the Big Gulp that bothers me at all, I was never
> : much of a soda drinker even in the smallest size, now only ice water,
> but
> : it's just one more foot in the door with taking away personal choices
> IMO.
> : If they want to sell it in trash can sizes and people want to buy
> it...it's
> : not the governments business, and while we're at it, neither is their
> : interference in baseball! :-)
>
> : Cheri
>
> How do you feel about the State requirements to have automobile insurance?
>
> Wendy

There is a LAW against driving without insurance. There is no law against
buying a large sized soda...yet!

Cheri

Cheri > wrote:
: "W. Baker" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Cheri > wrote:
: > : "Alice Faber" > wrote in message
: > : ...
: >
: > : > Personally, I don't like outright banning of the big-gulp size.
: > However,
: > : > and this is a big however, I would like vendors to be required to sell
: > a
: > : > single serving (i.e., a soda can typically is labeled as having 2
: > : > servings, so a single serving would be 8 oz) at a proportional price,
: > so
: > : > that there is no economic incentive for ordering a huge soda (or
: > juice,
: > : > or whatever).
: >
: > : It's not the banning of the Big Gulp that bothers me at all, I was never
: > : much of a soda drinker even in the smallest size, now only ice water,
: > but
: > : it's just one more foot in the door with taking away personal choices
: > IMO.
: > : If they want to sell it in trash can sizes and people want to buy
: > it...it's
: > : not the governments business, and while we're at it, neither is their
: > : interference in baseball! :-)
: >
: > : Cheri
: >
: > How do you feel about the State requirements to have automobile insurance?
: >
: > Wendy

: There is a LAW against driving without insurance. There is no law against
: buying a large sized soda...yet!

: Cheri

When we had only horses and buggies no one needed a driver's lisence.
When automobiles came in the government decided we needed lisences and
made a law that said(if you remember your book you got when first applying
for a learner's permit) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. to earn the
priviledge you have to pass a test and then continue to drive safely(not
too many tickets). What gave the government the right to pass that law?
We accepted it because it seemed clear that something was needed.

thisis where it starts, with someone getting a bright idea of how to save
the health of individuals and money (via the health care system) for the
citizens who have to pay the health care costs of the indigent.

Wendy

"W. Baker" > wrote in message
...
> When we had only horses and buggies no one needed a driver's lisence.
> When automobiles came in the government decided we needed lisences and
> made a law that said(if you remember your book you got when first applying
> for a learner's permit) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. to earn the
> priviledge you have to pass a test and then continue to drive safely(not
> too many tickets). What gave the government the right to pass that law?

What gave them the right to pass *any* law? But making laws about food and
drink (alcohol excepted) is wrong, IMO. Now I have no qualms with them
saying that the manufacturers have to list ingredients or allergens. But to
tell us what we can and can not buy? I'm not even sure I agree with the ban
in NY on trans-fats. People know what they are. If they choose to eat
them. Well... That's their choice.

Why is alcohol allowed? Isn't it a drug? Shouldn't it be treated as such?
I think so but I'm not in charge.

Heck at the rate they are going they are going to ban any food that has more
than a certain number of grams of sugar per serving. Next they might even
monitor our carb intake! And then what? Fried foods? Butter?

I can even understand it if they find something to be unsafe. I am thinking
of cocaine that used to be put in Coca Cola. Yes, it has its uses. But
shouldn't be available OTC. Or Sarsparilla or however you spell it. They
found that to be harmful.

But to say that you can buy a food or drink but you can only buy so much at
once? Beyond ridiculous. Ban the damned stuff or put a warming label on
it. But don't treat us like children.
> We accepted it because it seemed clear that something was needed.
>
> thisis where it starts, with someone getting a bright idea of how to save
> the health of individuals and money (via the health care system) for the
> citizens who have to pay the health care costs of the indigent.
>
> Wendy

That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda Stream.
Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...

> That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda
> Stream. Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
obesity. I'm sure it's all going to come down to more money the government
can squeeze out of people. High taxes on large sizes etc. Next *they* will
decide that ribeye steak/pork/lamb is bad for you, or whatever the
collective hysteria happens to be on a certain day, so you can only sell it
in 3-4 oz size and so on. Personally, most of us have paid taxes all of our
lives for the very expensive poor choices of others, and will continue to do
so, so the old "oh but it costs so much" doesn't fly at all with me.

Cheri

"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...

> I am not getting into the argument but I have never heard you swear, lol.

Sure you have, you just forgot. :-)

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda
>> Stream. Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.
>
> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
> obesity. I'm sure it's all going to come down to more money the government
> can squeeze out of people. High taxes on large sizes etc. Next *they* will
> decide that ribeye steak/pork/lamb is bad for you, or whatever the
> collective hysteria happens to be on a certain day, so you can only sell
> it in 3-4 oz size and so on. Personally, most of us have paid taxes all of
> our lives for the very expensive poor choices of others, and will continue
> to do so, so the old "oh but it costs so much" doesn't fly at all with me.

Agreed.

Julie Bove > wrote:

: "W. Baker" > wrote in message
: ...
: > When we had only horses and buggies no one needed a driver's lisence.
: > When automobiles came in the government decided we needed lisences and
: > made a law that said(if you remember your book you got when first applying
: > for a learner's permit) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. to earn the
: > priviledge you have to pass a test and then continue to drive safely(not
: > too many tickets). What gave the government the right to pass that law?

: What gave them the right to pass *any* law? But making laws about food and
: drink (alcohol excepted) is wrong, IMO. Now I have no qualms with them
: saying that the manufacturers have to list ingredients or allergens. But to
: tell us what we can and can not buy? I'm not even sure I agree with the ban
: in NY on trans-fats. People know what they are. If they choose to eat
: them. Well... That's their choice.

: Why is alcohol allowed? Isn't it a drug? Shouldn't it be treated as such?
: I think so but I'm not in charge.

: Heck at the rate they are going they are going to ban any food that has more
: than a certain number of grams of sugar per serving. Next they might even
: monitor our carb intake! And then what? Fried foods? Butter?

: I can even understand it if they find something to be unsafe. I am thinking
: of cocaine that used to be put in Coca Cola. Yes, it has its uses. But
: shouldn't be available OTC. Or Sarsparilla or however you spell it. They
: found that to be harmful.

: But to say that you can buy a food or drink but you can only buy so much at
: once? Beyond ridiculous. Ban the damned stuff or put a warming label on
: it. But don't treat us like children.
: > We accepted it because it seemed clear that something was needed.
: >
: > thisis where it starts, with someone getting a bright idea of how to save
: > the health of individuals and money (via the health care system) for the
: > citizens who have to pay the health care costs of the indigent.
: >
: > Wendy

: That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda Stream.
: Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.


But a lot of children are drinking large amounts of the stuff or eating
those huge buckets of glopped up popcorn at teh movies.

If you want you can buy a cold 2 liter bottle of soda and drink it down,
but not at a fod stand in a big bucket with a straw to just gulp down.

Wendy

"Susan" > wrote in message
...

> Cheri, I don't think folks do know what a normal serving size is any more.
> Conditioning and desensitization are really well documented phenomena.
>
> Susan

I certainly think you're right in some instances. I think it was Wendy who
pointed out that manufacturers are pretty crafty with their nutrition
labels. Hamburger Helper comes to mind in times past with the "serves 4-6"
on the package, small candy bars listing calorie counts for half a bar and
on and on. I'm sure it's confusing. I was fooled for a minute not long ago
with the 100 calorie pita pockets, but I really believe in the end that
people decide for themselves what a "normal" serving is supposed to be, and
I just don't think the packaging will make a difference.

Cheri

In article >, "Julie Bove" >
wrote:

> What gave them the right to pass *any* law? But making laws about food and
> drink (alcohol excepted) is wrong, IMO. Now I have no qualms with them
> saying that the manufacturers have to list ingredients or allergens. But to
> tell us what we can and can not buy? I'm not even sure I agree with the ban
> in NY on trans-fats. People know what they are. If they choose to eat
> them. Well... That's their choice.
>
> Why is alcohol allowed? Isn't it a drug? Shouldn't it be treated as such?
> I think so but I'm not in charge.
>
> Heck at the rate they are going they are going to ban any food that has more
> than a certain number of grams of sugar per serving. Next they might even
> monitor our carb intake! And then what? Fried foods? Butter?
>
> I can even understand it if they find something to be unsafe. I am thinking
> of cocaine that used to be put in Coca Cola.

exactly what was unsafe about the cocaine in Coca Cola and who determined that
it wasn't safe?

Cough syrup often has more alcohol than beer, should we ban cough syrup?


Yes, it has its uses. But
> shouldn't be available OTC. Or Sarsparilla or however you spell it. They
> found that to be harmful.

Maybe I have

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Ozgirl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I am not getting into the argument but I have never heard you swear,
>> lol.
>
> Sure you have, you just forgot. :-)
>
> Cheri

"Susan" > wrote in message
...

> Cheri, I think there are a lot of folks who just think it's normal because
> they see it all around them and aren't making informed decisions.
>
> Kind of like the folks who were very unsophisticated about banking and
> loans and figured if a bank would give them a mortgage, it must be true
> that they could afford it.
>
> You and I and some others reading here know how to do the math, others
> rely on professionals and advertising too much. Not everyone can make
> sense of stuff, not everyone has our depth of interest combined with
> ability when it comes to foods and labels.
>
> Susan



I know in my day, yes a long time ago, the portion sizes were small compared
to now. If you got a burger it was about the size of a McDonalds regular
hamburger these days, not very big at all, and I don't ever remember an *all
you can eat" buffet, or Super Size anything. I'm certainly not opposed to
regulations on posting the calorie, fat, carb count of fast foods...even a
huge printed calorie count right down the side of a Big Gulp. ;-) That's as
far as I can go though.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Susan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Cheri, I think there are a lot of folks who just think it's normal
>> because they see it all around them and aren't making informed decisions.
>>
>> Kind of like the folks who were very unsophisticated about banking and
>> loans and figured if a bank would give them a mortgage, it must be true
>> that they could afford it.
>>
>> You and I and some others reading here know how to do the math, others
>> rely on professionals and advertising too much. Not everyone can make
>> sense of stuff, not everyone has our depth of interest combined with
>> ability when it comes to foods and labels.
>>
>> Susan
>
>
>
> I know in my day, yes a long time ago, the portion sizes were small
> compared to now. If you got a burger it was about the size of a McDonalds
> regular hamburger these days, not very big at all, and I don't ever
> remember an *all you can eat" buffet, or Super Size anything. I'm
> certainly not opposed to regulations on posting the calorie, fat, carb
> count of fast foods...even a huge printed calorie count right down the
> side of a Big Gulp. ;-) That's as far as I can go though.

When I was a kid we could eat at McDonalds for less than a dollar apiece.
We each got a hamburger or cheeseburger. Mine was a double burger. We each
got a drink. We split a package of fries which were in those days the size
that would be called "regular" now. No doubt that my dad likely went back
if we were actually eating there. He always does this when we have fast
food. The portion is never enough and he gets perhaps another sandwich,
more fries and a dessert. He has always been overweight and I do mean since
birth with the exception of a few months where he lost weight on Weight
Watchers and managed to keep it off. It went back on rapidly.

I do remember plenty of All You Can Eat buffets. A favorite one was the
Jolly Jester. It had animated characters to amuse the children. We went
there once with the neighbors. We were told we could take as much as we
wanted but we had to eat it all. Well let me tell you, those kids could
eat! I already knew they could because the girl once invited me to a
slumber party. She ate a whole large sized bag of Fritos off of the kitchen
floor like a dog. She was dared to do it. Then in the morning the mom put
out Poptarts in several different flavors. Told us we could eat as much as
we wanted. She ate two whole boxes! They also had a candy dish that the
mom would put those Wintergreen or Peppermint Lozenges in. Within minutes
they would be gone. Anyway... At the buffet I think those kids went
through the line three times, each time heaping their plates. And they
weren't taking salad. By the time they finished that last plate, they were
kind of green. They were large sized plates too. Not the kind like you get
now at a buffet. We also had a buffet called The Royal Fork. They're still
around. Just not around here.

"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~

"W. Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>
> : "W. Baker" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > When we had only horses and buggies no one needed a driver's lisence.
> : > When automobiles came in the government decided we needed lisences and
> : > made a law that said(if you remember your book you got when first
> applying
> : > for a learner's permit) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. to earn
> the
> : > priviledge you have to pass a test and then continue to drive
> safely(not
> : > too many tickets). What gave the government the right to pass that
> law?
>
> : What gave them the right to pass *any* law? But making laws about food
> and
> : drink (alcohol excepted) is wrong, IMO. Now I have no qualms with them
> : saying that the manufacturers have to list ingredients or allergens.
> But to
> : tell us what we can and can not buy? I'm not even sure I agree with the
> ban
> : in NY on trans-fats. People know what they are. If they choose to eat
> : them. Well... That's their choice.
>
> : Why is alcohol allowed? Isn't it a drug? Shouldn't it be treated as
> such?
> : I think so but I'm not in charge.
>
> : Heck at the rate they are going they are going to ban any food that has
> more
> : than a certain number of grams of sugar per serving. Next they might
> even
> : monitor our carb intake! And then what? Fried foods? Butter?
>
> : I can even understand it if they find something to be unsafe. I am
> thinking
> : of cocaine that used to be put in Coca Cola. Yes, it has its uses. But
> : shouldn't be available OTC. Or Sarsparilla or however you spell it.
> They
> : found that to be harmful.
>
> : But to say that you can buy a food or drink but you can only buy so much
> at
> : once? Beyond ridiculous. Ban the damned stuff or put a warming label
> on
> : it. But don't treat us like children.
> : > We accepted it because it seemed clear that something was needed.
> : >
> : > thisis where it starts, with someone getting a bright idea of how to
> save
> : > the health of individuals and money (via the health care system) for
> the
> : > citizens who have to pay the health care costs of the indigent.
> : >
> : > Wendy
>
> : That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda
> Stream.
> : Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.
>
>
> But a lot of children are drinking large amounts of the stuff or eating
> those huge buckets of glopped up popcorn at teh movies.
>
> If you want you can buy a cold 2 liter bottle of soda and drink it down,
> but not at a fod stand in a big bucket with a straw to just gulp down.

They're not doing that here! Maybe some are. But I rarely ever see a child
with a huge popcorn. If they get it at all they usually get the kid package
which is a very small amount of popcorn, a small candy (not the theater
pack) and a small drink. The theaters are also selling a huge amount of
healthy foods and drinks now. People here are very health conscious.

Angela just went through three dance recitals. They had pretzels, tortilla
chips, animal cookies (very few of those got eaten), pizza, sandwiches,
apple slices, veggie plates, a ham, cheeses. Someone brought a huge box of
something that looked like Rice Krispy treats but I think it was made with
Fruity Pebbles. Only two portions of that was eaten. Some of the kids did
have Jamba Juice. I don't know what kind. They do make low sugar ones now.
I saw plenty of coffee and tea. Yes, kids drink coffee here. Tons of
water. One single serve bottle of root beer. Some diet Coke. I did see a
few kids eating cookies or candy but mostly it was healthy food.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...

> I do remember plenty of All You Can Eat buffets. A favorite one was the
> Jolly Jester. It had animated characters to amuse the children. We went
> there once with the neighbors. We were told we could take as much as we
> wanted but we had to eat it all. Well let me tell you, those kids could

You're quite a bit younger than me, and also we lived in the country and had
to travel to town so that may be why I don't remember them. I do know that
there were very few overweight children in the schools I attended.

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/24/2012 2:38 PM, Cheri wrote:

> I don't really do McDonald's anymore, but I think something like the
> Double BK Whopper was/is the biggest hamburger I've seen. When we first
> moved here from the hills (before the chains came to town) the Sno-White
> featured a Texas Burger that seemed large, but nothing like now. In the
> days of yore, I got the best hamburgers ever from the A&W with the
> carhops since A&W originated here. It's still here, but I haven't been
> in years. LOL

I've never tasted a single bite of McDonald's hamburger in my life, and
I worked there in college.

I did have some BK whoppers, though.

Many years ago.

Susan

"Susan" > wrote in message
...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/24/2012 2:38 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> I don't really do McDonald's anymore, but I think something like the
>> Double BK Whopper was/is the biggest hamburger I've seen. When we first
>> moved here from the hills (before the chains came to town) the Sno-White
>> featured a Texas Burger that seemed large, but nothing like now. In the
>> days of yore, I got the best hamburgers ever from the A&W with the
>> carhops since A&W originated here. It's still here, but I haven't been
>> in years. LOL
>
> I've never tasted a single bite of McDonald's hamburger in my life, and I
> worked there in college.
>
> I did have some BK whoppers, though.
>
> Many years ago.
>
> Susan


Occasionally I will get a BK Whopper with no bun, but not often. It's just
so much easier and better tasting to make that stuff at home exactly like I
want it. If I was going to lust after fast food, it would be Long Long
Silver's fish. I really love that, but haven't had it in ages. :-)

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I do remember plenty of All You Can Eat buffets. A favorite one was the
>> Jolly Jester. It had animated characters to amuse the children. We went
>> there once with the neighbors. We were told we could take as much as we
>> wanted but we had to eat it all. Well let me tell you, those kids could
>
> You're quite a bit younger than me, and also we lived in the country and
> had to travel to town so that may be why I don't remember them. I do know
> that there were very few overweight children in the schools I attended.

We had some. There was at least once in every class. Heck my dad was
overweight as a child as was his dad.

In article >,
"Ozgirl" > wrote:

> 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.

that's just wrong. you only have to look at the general downward trend of
smokers in states that tax tobacco heavily. in addition, while it may not have
an immediate effect, there are incremental decreases due to these high costs to
deter new smokers. finally, while the higher cost might not deter specific
individuals on their own due to that cost, as the disposable income becomes
scarcer in "relationships", the pressure is increased on the smoker to quit by
the "spouse"



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.

On 25/06/2012 9:03 AM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article >,
> "Ozgirl" > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> that's just wrong. you only have to look at the general downward trend of
> smokers in states that tax tobacco heavily. in addition, while it may not have
> an immediate effect, there are incremental decreases due to these high costs to
> deter new smokers. finally, while the higher cost might not deter specific
> individuals on their own due to that cost, as the disposable income becomes
> scarcer in "relationships", the pressure is increased on the smoker to quit by
> the "spouse"
>
Not sure where in the world you are but here the market for illegal
tobacco increases every time they raise the price of tobacco products
there is no tobacco legally grown in Australia any-more but there is a
huge black market in illegal products if there is money to be made the
crooks will do it. shades of Prohibition if the Government tax is too
high someone will start making or growing it,

>
>
> 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.


--
(- -)
=m=(_)=m=
RodS T2
Australia

In article >, RodS > wrote:

> > that's just wrong. you only have to look at the general downward trend of
> > smokers in states that tax tobacco heavily. in addition, while it may not
> > have
> > an immediate effect, there are incremental decreases due to these high
> > costs to
> > deter new smokers. finally, while the higher cost might not deter specific
> > individuals on their own due to that cost, as the disposable income becomes
> > scarcer in "relationships", the pressure is increased on the smoker to quit
> > by
> > the "spouse"
> >
> Not sure where in the world you are but here the market for illegal
> tobacco increases every time they raise the price of tobacco products
> there is no tobacco legally grown in Australia any-more but there is a
> huge black market in illegal products if there is money to be made the
> crooks will do it. shades of Prohibition if the Government tax is too
> high someone will start making or growing it,

seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast, but even if
there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the misdemeanor of a
public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
news:atlas-bugged-

> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast, but
> even if
> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
> misdemeanor of a
> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco

I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing here in
CA according to newspapers.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> news:atlas-bugged-
>
>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast, but
>> even if
>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>> misdemeanor of a
>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
>
> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing here
> in CA according to newspapers.
>
> Cheri

Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
illegally at a bubble tea shop.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
>> news:atlas-bugged-
>>
>>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast, but
>>> even if
>>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>>> misdemeanor of a
>>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
>>
>> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing here
>> in CA according to newspapers.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
> illegally at a bubble tea shop.

According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience stores that
are involved.

Cheri

In article >, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Cheri" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> >> news:atlas-bugged-
> >>
> >>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast, but
> >>> even if
> >>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
> >>> misdemeanor of a
> >>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
> >>
> >> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing here
> >> in CA according to newspapers.
> >>
> >> Cheri
> >
> > Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
> > illegally at a bubble tea shop.
>
> According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience stores that
> are involved.
>
> Cheri

strange that people would be so willing to deal with the consequences of no
tax-stamp. I guess they should teach Al Capone in school

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
>>> news:atlas-bugged-
>>>
>>>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast, but
>>>> even if
>>>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>>>> misdemeanor of a
>>>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
>>>
>>> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing here
>>> in CA according to newspapers.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
>> illegally at a bubble tea shop.
>
> According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience stores
> that are involved.

Most of the convenience stores we have here are the chains like 7-11 and
those connected to the gas stations. Not saying that couldn't happen there
but probably not as likely.

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Cheri" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:atlas-bugged-
>> >>
>> >>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast,
>> >>> but
>> >>> even if
>> >>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>> >>> misdemeanor of a
>> >>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
>> >>
>> >> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing
>> >> here
>> >> in CA according to newspapers.
>> >>
>> >> Cheri
>> >
>> > Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
>> > illegally at a bubble tea shop.
>>
>> According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience stores
>> that
>> are involved.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> strange that people would be so willing to deal with the consequences of
> no
> tax-stamp. I guess they should teach Al Capone in school



Thankfully, I quit over two years ago now. Geez, I saw that they're right
around $6.00 a pack now, though the voters did turn down the $1.00 a pack
tax recently. That surprised me. I had a friend in the newsgroup that was
nailed for buying out of state, so I imagine the penalties would be high for
bootlegged cigs.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in
> message ...
>> In article >, "Cheri"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > "Cheri" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in
>>> >> message
>>> >> news:atlas-bugged-
>>> >>
>>> >>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the
>>> >>> left-coast, but
>>> >>> even if
>>> >>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>>> >>> misdemeanor of a
>>> >>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their
>>> >>> tobacco
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been
>>> >> increasing here
>>> >> in CA according to newspapers.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheri
>>> >
>>> > Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being
>>> > sold
>>> > illegally at a bubble tea shop.
>>>
>>> According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience
>>> stores that
>>> are involved.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> strange that people would be so willing to deal with the consequences
>> of no
>> tax-stamp. I guess they should teach Al Capone in school
>
>
>
> Thankfully, I quit over two years ago now. Geez, I saw that they're
> right around $6.00 a pack now, though the voters did turn down the
> $1.00 a pack tax recently. That surprised me. I had a friend in the
> newsgroup that was nailed for buying out of state, so I imagine the
> penalties would be high for bootlegged cigs.

$6 for legal cigarettes? How many in a pack? I think a pack of 20
average $13 here.

"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >, "Cheri"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Cheri" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> >> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in
>>>> >> message
>>>> >> news:atlas-bugged-
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast,
>>>> >>> but
>>>> >>> even if
>>>> >>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>>>> >>> misdemeanor of a
>>>> >>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing
>>>> >> here
>>>> >> in CA according to newspapers.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cheri
>>>> >
>>>> > Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
>>>> > illegally at a bubble tea shop.
>>>>
>>>> According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience stores
>>>> that
>>>> are involved.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> strange that people would be so willing to deal with the consequences of
>>> no
>>> tax-stamp. I guess they should teach Al Capone in school
>>
>>
>>
>> Thankfully, I quit over two years ago now. Geez, I saw that they're right
>> around $6.00 a pack now, though the voters did turn down the $1.00 a pack
>> tax recently. That surprised me. I had a friend in the newsgroup that was
>> nailed for buying out of state, so I imagine the penalties would be high
>> for bootlegged cigs.
>
> $6 for legal cigarettes? How many in a pack? I think a pack of 20 average
> $13 here.

Yes, 6.00 for 20 cigarettes, outrageous really, but as I say...it doesn't
matter to me. My BIL said one thing about Australia that he hated was the
price of Jack Daniels, but he doesn't smoke. :-)

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, "Cheri" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > "Cheri" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in
>>> >> message
>>> >> news:atlas-bugged-
>>> >>
>>> >>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast,
>>> >>> but
>>> >>> even if
>>> >>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>>> >>> misdemeanor of a
>>> >>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing
>>> >> here
>>> >> in CA according to newspapers.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheri
>>> >
>>> > Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
>>> > illegally at a bubble tea shop.
>>>
>>> According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience stores
>>> that
>>> are involved.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> strange that people would be so willing to deal with the consequences of
>> no
>> tax-stamp. I guess they should teach Al Capone in school
>
>
>
> Thankfully, I quit over two years ago now. Geez, I saw that they're right
> around $6.00 a pack now, though the voters did turn down the $1.00 a pack
> tax recently. That surprised me. I had a friend in the newsgroup that was
> nailed for buying out of state, so I imagine the penalties would be high
> for bootlegged cigs.
>
> Cheri

I think they are over $7 a pack here for the good ones. They were about $3
a pack when I quit. I thought that was a bad price!

"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >, "Cheri"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Cheri" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> >> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in
>>>> >> message
>>>> >> news:atlas-bugged-
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> seriously doubt if there is much illegal tobacco on the left-coast,
>>>> >>> but
>>>> >>> even if
>>>> >>> there is, it is more likely that people would rather suffer the
>>>> >>> misdemeanor of a
>>>> >>> public toke than the federal crime of no tax-stamp on their tobacco
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think you're wrong there. Cigarette smuggling has been increasing
>>>> >> here
>>>> >> in CA according to newspapers.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cheri
>>>> >
>>>> > Here too. It was on the news some time back. They were being sold
>>>> > illegally at a bubble tea shop.
>>>>
>>>> According to the papers, here in CA it's the little convenience stores
>>>> that
>>>> are involved.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> strange that people would be so willing to deal with the consequences of
>>> no
>>> tax-stamp. I guess they should teach Al Capone in school
>>
>>
>>
>> Thankfully, I quit over two years ago now. Geez, I saw that they're right
>> around $6.00 a pack now, though the voters did turn down the $1.00 a pack
>> tax recently. That surprised me. I had a friend in the newsgroup that was
>> nailed for buying out of state, so I imagine the penalties would be high
>> for bootlegged cigs.
>
> $6 for legal cigarettes? How many in a pack? I think a pack of 20 average
> $13 here.

Most have $20. I think there are a couple of off brands that have 25 but I
could be wrong.

On 6/23/2012 1:21 AM, Cheri wrote:
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda
>> Stream. Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.
>
> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
> obesity. I'm sure it's all going to come down to more money the
> government can squeeze out of people. High taxes on large sizes etc.
> Next *they* will decide that ribeye steak/pork/lamb is bad for you, or
> whatever the collective hysteria happens to be on a certain day, so you
> can only sell it in 3-4 oz size and so on. Personally, most of us have
> paid taxes all of our lives for the very expensive poor choices of
> others, and will continue to do so, so the old "oh but it costs so much"
> doesn't fly at all with me.
>
> Cheri

I've seen an article saying that restrictions on advertising aimed
at children did work in one of the Canadian provinces - children
then tended to gain less excess weight.

Robert Miles

"Robert Miles" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/23/2012 1:21 AM, Cheri wrote:
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda
>>> Stream. Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.
>>
>> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
>> obesity. I'm sure it's all going to come down to more money the
>> government can squeeze out of people. High taxes on large sizes etc.
>> Next *they* will decide that ribeye steak/pork/lamb is bad for you, or
>> whatever the collective hysteria happens to be on a certain day, so you
>> can only sell it in 3-4 oz size and so on. Personally, most of us have
>> paid taxes all of our lives for the very expensive poor choices of
>> others, and will continue to do so, so the old "oh but it costs so much"
>> doesn't fly at all with me.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> I've seen an article saying that restrictions on advertising aimed
> at children did work in one of the Canadian provinces - children
> then tended to gain less excess weight.
>
> Robert Miles

I'm sure it would, but the children aren't buying the food, and trading soda
for juice...is no better as far as weight gain goes.

Cheri