"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772

That whole thing is just stupid! They said you can get huge diet drinks and
most of the people that get the diet drinks are fat!

On Mar 11, 2:34*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772

Failure of the Assault Beverages Ban.

On 3/11/2013 12:38 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772

The judge might be one of those guys that believes in personal freedom.

Bloomberg should instead try to initiate a program to screen and educate
the public about type 2 diabetes because the craving of giant drinks
could be a warning sign of the onset of this disease. OTOH, the numbers
and the loading on our health system this would place are frightful.

>

Betcha the judge is a fattie.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772

On Mar 11, 2:34*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772

No way it could even be enforced...people would just buy more of the
smaller size.

On 11/03/2013 6:39 PM, Chemo wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>
> No way it could even be enforced...people would just buy more of the
> smaller size.
>

BBBBut.... it is the price that appealed..... a huge serving of a sweet
sugary drink for a bargain price. What a way to satisfy one's thirst and
hunger... for a couple minutes.

dsi1 wrote:
> On 3/11/2013 12:38 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>
> The judge might be one of those guys that believes in personal
> freedom.
> Bloomberg should instead try to initiate a program to screen and
> educate the public about type 2 diabetes because the craving of giant
> drinks could be a warning sign of the onset of this disease. OTOH,
> the numbers and the loading on our health system this would place are
> frightful.

What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other people I
know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 6:39 PM, Chemo wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>>
>> No way it could even be enforced...people would just buy more of the
>> smaller size.
>>
>
> BBBBut.... it is the price that appealed..... a huge serving of a
> sweet sugary drink for a bargain price. What a way to satisfy one's
> thirst and hunger... for a couple minutes.

That is true and oddly enough the only people I know who saw that appeal
were men. They would get all excited that they could get such a large thing
for such little money. That's not appealing to me at all. Who wants to try
to drink out of some huge unweildy drink that you probably won't finish
anyway? I learned my lesson the firs time I accidentally ordered a "large"
drink in a movie theater.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:38:15 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>
> Meanwhile restaurants had already invested in new menus displays and
> cups only to now have to store them for possible future use, while
> Bloomberg wastes even more of the taxpayer's money on a lengthy and
> pointless legal battle.
>
> Bloomberg is an asshole politician. They HAVE to get their way, at
> ANY cost. It's simply a matter of personal choice. No lawsuit
> required.
>
> -sw

Yep! Yep! Yep! He's the one that decided that the school kids needed to
spend an hour a day more in school to do reading. Why couldn't they do this
reading at home? If he deemed it necessary? My daughter was in
Kindergarten and at the beginning of the year couldn't even read, beyond
just a few words. So those kids weren't even really reading but they had to
pretend to be because he sent people around to check on them and make sure
they were doing what he said. He is a control freak!

On 3/11/2013 1:23 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> On 3/11/2013 12:38 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>>
>> The judge might be one of those guys that believes in personal
>> freedom.
>> Bloomberg should instead try to initiate a program to screen and
>> educate the public about type 2 diabetes because the craving of giant
>> drinks could be a warning sign of the onset of this disease. OTOH,
>> the numbers and the loading on our health system this would place are
>> frightful.
>
> What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other people I
> know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.
>
>

Well, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it!

On 3/11/2013 6:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> It's simply a matter of personal choice. No lawsuit
> required.
>
> -sw

I agree with you. If some people absolutely insist on having huge cups
of soft drinks, so be it. The only thing the establishments that serve
them are doing is filling a demand (and making money). What the heck,
I'm not the one buying them so I don't care.

You know what I think would happen if this ban went into affect? These
people would just order two smaller sodas.

Jill

In article
>,
Michael OConnor > wrote:

> On Mar 11, 10:01*pm, The Other Guy > wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:48:02 -0700 (PDT), Michael OConnor
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> Bloomberg is an asshole politician. *They HAVE to get their way, at
> > >> ANY cost. *It's simply a matter of personal choice. *No lawsuit
> > >> required.
> >
> > >The part that really irritates me is that these progressives
> >
> > Progressive??!!??
> >
> > You obviously DON'T KNOW who Bloomberg is!
>
> I know exactly who he is, he is a progressive. Just because he is a
> Republican does not mean he is not a progressive; there have been lots
> of progressive Republicans, including GW Bush and John McCain.
<snip>
> What Bloomberg is doing in New York is a test run for what the
> Nancy Pelosis are going to start pulling on the entire nation once
> Uncle Sam is running the health care system. How long will it be
> before we hear about how guns will need to be banned because they are
> costing X billions of dollars a year to treat people who are shot?

I can't find a flaw in your thesis.

leo

In article >,
The Other Guy > wrote:

> Well, THAT is a damned shame,
> as the Government ISN"T running the health care system.
>
> And that's just ONE of his mistakes.

It isn't 2014 yet. Get it? The big progressive plan is to destroy the
insurance companies by undercutting them and entice people into the
"public option" that will be provided by *all* taxpayers to *you*. That
plan to usurp private enterprise was freely discussed by the monopoly
party prior to when the law was rammed through by craven chicanery.
People who have achieved anything will be much the poorer from this
blatant and probably successful grab of private industry. After all,
it's cheaper to me but America is dying because of politically venal
programs just like this.
Government sucks at running and growing anything but itself. I'll be
happy to provide examples. Do you watch Stossel? Of course not! Truth
tellers are far more unsettling than soothsayers.

never political leo

Julie Bove wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
> > On 3/11/2013 12:38 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > Betcha the judge is a fattie.
> > >
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
> >
> > The judge might be one of those guys that believes in personal
> > freedom.
> > Bloomberg should instead try to initiate a program to screen and
> > educate the public about type 2 diabetes because the craving of
> > giant drinks could be a warning sign of the onset of this disease.
> > OTOH, the numbers and the loading on our health system this would
> > place are frightful.
>
> What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other
> people I know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.

Isn't it just normal to sometimes crave something sweet?


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2013 12:38 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>>>
>>> The judge might be one of those guys that believes in personal
>>> freedom.
>>> Bloomberg should instead try to initiate a program to screen and
>>> educate the public about type 2 diabetes because the craving of
>>> giant drinks could be a warning sign of the onset of this disease.
>>> OTOH, the numbers and the loading on our health system this would
>>> place are frightful.
>>
>> What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other
>> people I know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.
>
> Isn't it just normal to sometimes crave something sweet?

Perhaps for most people. Not for me. I sometimes have cravings for beans,
tomatoes, potatoes, pocorn. Very rarely sweets and rarer still sweet
drinks. The only time I did have a craving for punch was when I was
pregnant. I was at a party and had some and thought it tasted good.
Normally I very much dislike such things unless they are sugar free. I grew
up having pretty much only sugar free drinks. The only time I had any that
were not sugar free were if I was at a party or some such thing and that was
all they had. At home and in restaurants, we always drank the sugar free
stuff or I'd have plain iced tea or hot tea if they didn't have.

Sweetened drinks are so vile to me now that my first instinct will be to
spit them out when I accidentally get one. Plus sweetened drinks make me
thirsty which seems to defeat the purpose.

I do sometimes want candy but it's a very specific want. I was thinking
about this the other day. I think what appeals to me about the candy is the
chewiness. I will sometimes have a hard candy if I have a sore throat but
otherwise I don't like it much. I might sometimes want a flavor in my mouth
so I will put the hard candy in there until I get the flavor then spit it
out. Because otherwise hard candy isn't appealing. I very much dislike
creamy candies. Actually most candies do not appeal to me. I recently
bought some bulk wine gums because I had heard how good they were. The lady
at the store said I'd be back. They were that addictive. Nope. They
tasted odd to me, even though I did like the texture. I couldn't eat them.
I also find those licorice Allsorts things to be appealing to the eye. But
I have bought them a couple of times and found that I could not eat them. I
do like Good and Plenty but not the licorice taste so much. One or two of
those is all I can manage.

You could sit me in front of a cake, pie, ice cream or even cookies. I
won't be tempted to eat them. In fact I'll be tempted to want them
somewhere away from me. I don't know why really. I used to love to bake.
I made tons of cookies and some cakes. Not so many pies because I never
could get the crust right. But I didn't want to eat what I made.

On 3/12/2013 4:38 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2013 12:38 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>>>
>>> The judge might be one of those guys that believes in personal
>>> freedom.
>>> Bloomberg should instead try to initiate a program to screen and
>>> educate the public about type 2 diabetes because the craving of
>>> giant drinks could be a warning sign of the onset of this disease.
>>> OTOH, the numbers and the loading on our health system this would
>>> place are frightful.
>>
>> What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other
>> people I know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.
>
> Isn't it just normal to sometimes crave something sweet?
>
>
I believe so. I'm not diabetic. I'm also not really fond of sweets.
(I don't like soda/soft drinks at all.) Still, every once in a while
I'll crave a couple of cookies or a scoop of ice cream.

Jill

On 3/12/2013 10:34 AM, Cheri wrote:
>> I typically buy real cane sugar for cooking, but that's about the only
>> place I find it. I'm on a strawberry soda kick, right now, but it
>> will be short lived, as I'm not really a big soda drinker, preferring
>> plain ice water as my primary all-day drink. I wouldn't mind a soda
>> tax, at all. It's would undoubtedly generate a lot of revemue.
>>
>>
>> nb
>
>
> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that I
> seldomly use.
>
> Cheri

I must agree with you on this one, Cheri. Ultimately, even the non-soda
drinkers (of which I'm one) somehow wind up paying for this sort of
taxation. It's just another layer of tell us what to do. They pretend
it is about health. I don't believe you can regulate things like this.
Try to educate people about food choices, sure.

I said upthread, even if the ban on larger drink sizes went through,
anyone could just buy two of the smaller sodas. So what's the point of
all this folderol?

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/12/2013 10:34 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>> I typically buy real cane sugar for cooking, but that's about the only
>>> place I find it. I'm on a strawberry soda kick, right now, but it
>>> will be short lived, as I'm not really a big soda drinker, preferring
>>> plain ice water as my primary all-day drink. I wouldn't mind a soda
>>> tax, at all. It's would undoubtedly generate a lot of revemue.
>>>
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>>
>> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
>> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that I
>> seldomly use.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> I must agree with you on this one, Cheri. Ultimately, even the non-soda
> drinkers (of which I'm one) somehow wind up paying for this sort of
> taxation. It's just another layer of tell us what to do. They pretend it
> is about health. I don't believe you can regulate things like this. Try
> to educate people about food choices, sure.
>
> I said upthread, even if the ban on larger drink sizes went through,
> anyone could just buy two of the smaller sodas. So what's the point of
> all this folderol?
>
> Jill


I can't see a point either, sort of one of those "sounds good, means
nothing" type of things. I'm all for posting calorie counts/nutritional
information in plain view and things like that, and as you say *educate.*

Cheri

On 12/03/2013 11:25 AM, jmcquown wrote:

>> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
>> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that I
>> seldomly use.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> I must agree with you on this one, Cheri. Ultimately, even the non-soda
> drinkers (of which I'm one) somehow wind up paying for this sort of
> taxation. It's just another layer of tell us what to do. They pretend
> it is about health. I don't believe you can regulate things like this.
> Try to educate people about food choices, sure.


Educate? How much education do people need? I admit that it is a long
time since I was in elementary school, but I remember being told about
eating a balanced diet, about avoiding excessive amounts of sugar and
fat, and to be sure to eat fruits and vegetables. I see magazine and
newspaper articles about nutrition all the time. There are programs on
television about it. Yet, kids these days are fatter than ever.

FIW.... I was at the local YMCA gym this morning and working out on a
machine on the upper floor overlooking the main entrance. A mother came
in with three kids. The oldest, a girl of about 10-11 had an obvious
weight problem. No wonder, she was eating a chocolate bar. Here's a kid
who is already suffering from a weight issue and her mother is buying
her stuff like that and letting her eat it. Heck, they can't even go
to a fitness centre without stuffing their faces with garbage on the way
in??? That girl has had the lessons. He mother, father and grandparents
all went through the same education. It just isn't sinking in.

Forcing prices up with taxes is a strategy that has been used to deal
with alcohol and tobacco. Taxing junk foods should have the same benefits.





>
> I said upthread, even if the ban on larger drink sizes went through,
> anyone could just buy two of the smaller sodas. So what's the point of
> all this folderol?
>

I think it is the pricing. It is not that much more expensive to get
supersized. And consuming the supersizes leads to the consumers being
supersized.

On Mar 11, 5:34*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772

Good. Too much govt. intrusion where people's brains should be doing
the reasoning. If the public hasn't heard yet about the empty
calories in those sugary drinks, then nothing will get thru to that
mentality.

Wanna drink yourself to obesity, or waste your food dollar on
something of no nutritional value? Be my guest.

I get tired of the govt. trying to save us from ourselves.

On 3/12/2013 1:22 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Forcing prices up with taxes is a strategy that has been used to deal
> with alcohol and tobacco. Taxing junk foods should have the same benefits.

Sorry, I haven't seen those benefits.

Jill

On 3/11/2013 10:38 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2013 12:38 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> Betcha the judge is a fattie.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291772
>>>
>>> The judge might be one of those guys that believes in personal
>>> freedom.
>>> Bloomberg should instead try to initiate a program to screen and
>>> educate the public about type 2 diabetes because the craving of
>>> giant drinks could be a warning sign of the onset of this disease.
>>> OTOH, the numbers and the loading on our health system this would
>>> place are frightful.
>>
>> What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other
>> people I know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.
>
> Isn't it just normal to sometimes crave something sweet?
>
>

The love of sweets appear to be programmed into us. As a survival
strategy, this makes a lot of sense because as a source of energy,
sweets pack a lot of punch. OTOH, as a source of sugar, soft drinks are
a lousy delivery system because you have to drink a whole bunch water
along with it. Soft drinks are popular not only because they contain
sugar. Caffeine is probably a major component of our craving for the stuff.

I'm not sure why giant drinks are such a contentious issue but what I do
know is that extreme thirst is the classic warning sign that one could
have diabetes. What puzzles me is why we're not using this obvious
connection to our advantage.

Excessive water drinking could probably indicate other medical
conditions or mental states. My father-in-law was hospitalized because
the notion was planted in his brain that drinking a lot of water would
cure all his ills. Out of little seeds grow giant, overwhelming,
compulsions sometimes.

On 12/03/2013 1:56 PM, Robert wrote:

>>>
>>> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
>>> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that I
>>> seldomly use.
>>
>>
>> It's okay to levy sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco because they are a
>> vices and not good for you.
>
>
> It is currently stated that a glass of wine is good for you health.
>
>

From what I have been told by a (non drinking) pharmacist, a 1half
glass of wine has benefits, but anything more than that does more harm
than good. She is married to a guy who likes to go to Disneyland on
vacation.

Never the less, the popular idea seems to be that alcohol and tobacco
are vices and should be taxed to discourage it. Then because the taxes
make them more expensive, they become a luxury item and if you can
afford to buy them you can afford to pay more tax, The other component
is that that higher prices reduce consumption, and since overuse of
either is bad for you then keeping it expensive should limit your
consumption.

The way I figure it is that junk food hamburgers, fries, potato chips,
chocolate bars and soft drinks should all fit into that same category.
They are okay once in a while but too much of any of them is bad, and,
let's face it, the people who consume any of them tend to consume alll
of them and in large quantities. If it alcohol and tobacco are fair
game for taxes, or that taxes are a good way to curb overuse, then maybe
we should have the same types of taxes on junk food.

Dave Smith wrote:

> n elementary school, but I remember being told about
> eating a balanced diet, about avoiding excessive amounts of sugar and
> fat, and to be sure to eat fruits and vegetables.

Were you that one solitary kid in the front row who wasn't yawning all through
the "how to eat right" class?

On 12/03/2013 1:31 PM, Cheri wrote:

>>
>> It's okay to levy sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco because they are a
>> vices and not good for you. It seems fair that they same should be
>> done to junk foods that are high in salt, fat and sugar and also bad
>> for you. When I look at the diets of kids these days and how fat so
>> many of them are I sometimes wonder of maybe it wouldn't be a good
>> idea to ban some of those foods outright.
>>
>
>
> Who gets to decide what to ban though? Many of the so called junk foods
> are fine in moderation, most food items are.


Ok.... if you eat them in moderation the tax should not be a problem.
Five, ten, twenty cent son a chocolate bar isn't going to break your
piggy bank. Let's be honest about the types of diets that so many fat
people have. They don't have a chocolate bar, or a can of pop, or an
order of fries or a greasy cheeseburger. They have a cheeseburger with
fries , washed down with a large pop, and then a chocolate bar. The same
people will snack on donuts and or potato chips.

One of the problems with junk food is the refined flours and sugar in
them than make for empty calories. You get the sugar rush and soon
after are left craving for more.

On 12/03/2013 1:40 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 3/12/2013 1:22 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> Forcing prices up with taxes is a strategy that has been used to deal
>> with alcohol and tobacco. Taxing junk foods should have the same
>> benefits.
>
> Sorry, I haven't seen those benefits.
>

You don't realize that there are some people who don't smoke or who
limit their tobacco use because of the price? You don't realize that
some people drink less because they can't afford booze? One of the
strategies the government used in my province was to raise the price of
cigarettes to the point where young people could not afford them. If
they can't afford them they don't get into the habit.

Something seems to have worked because there are far few smokers now
than there used to be. I can tell you that I used to smoke, gave it up
for a long time, made the mistake of thinking I could have the
occasional cigarette and then started up again, quit, started again and
quit again. The last time was helped by the introduction of the
harmonized sales tax which saw about 70 cents added to the cost of a
package of cigarettes. It came into effect July 1, about three years
ago. That was it for me. I didn't buy any more.

On 12/03/2013 2:54 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> n elementary school, but I remember being told about
>> eating a balanced diet, about avoiding excessive amounts of sugar and
>> fat, and to be sure to eat fruits and vegetables.
>
> Were you that one solitary kid in the front row who wasn't yawning all through
> the "how to eat right" class?
>
>

Actually, I was probably the kid in my class who was least likely to be
paying attention in any class. My point is that my parents were taught
about healthy eating when they went to school, so we had the benefit of
their learning plus our own school lessons. We should have been teaching
our kids to eat properly. Now some of us are grandparents or great
grandparents, so there are even more generations who should have
benefited from the education efforts. So when someone comes along and
recommends that what we need is education, I have to question how much
more education they need? There are other things, and teaching them
about food obviously hasn't worked.

Along the same lines, some people didn't have sex education in school.
Some still don't. There was a lot of energy invested into the push for
sex education. Some thought young women were getting pregnant because
they didn't know about the birds and the bees. They didn't know how they
got pregnant, or that they could have sex without getting pregnant. We
started teaching sex education and look at the results.....there are
more teen pregnancies now than ever, and more and more serious sexually
transmitted diseases. Look at the spread of AIDS. It was rampant in
the *** community and is now becoming more of a threat to straight
people. For 30 years people have been told about the importance of safe
sex and the use of condoms. We should have expected to have
practically eradicated the disease with safe sex practices.... didn't
happen.

On Mar 12, 2:51*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> *From what I have been told by a (non drinking) pharmacist, a 1half
> glass of wine has benefits, but anything more than that does more harm
> than good. *She is married to a guy who likes to go to Disneyland on
> vacation.
>
A glass or two of superior wine does me a lot of good!

On 12 Mar 2013 12:18:44 GMT, notbob > wrote:



> I wouldn't mind a soda
>tax, at all. It's would undoubtedly generate a lot of revemue.
>
>
>nb

We do pay a sales tax here in CT, but no other tax. Would not affect
me much. I buy a 6-pack of tonic water every couple of months and a
rare soda at times.

I like water, refreshing, healthy, cheap.

On 12/03/2013 4:06 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2:51 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>> From what I have been told by a (non drinking) pharmacist, a 1half
>> glass of wine has benefits, but anything more than that does more harm
>> than good. She is married to a guy who likes to go to Disneyland on
>> vacation.
>>
> A glass or two of superior wine does me a lot of good!
>
No doubt it tastes great and makes you feel good. Even a mediocre wine
can help there.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:22:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:



>
>Educate? How much education do people need? I admit that it is a long
>time since I was in elementary school, but I remember being told about
>eating a balanced diet, about avoiding excessive amounts of sugar and
>fat, and to be sure to eat fruits and vegetables. I see magazine and
>newspaper articles about nutrition all the time. There are programs on
>television about it. Yet, kids these days are fatter than ever.
>

In some cases, at mealtime mom opens a 2 liter bottle of soda for the
family to drink. You can teach, but some people don't want to learn.

On 12/03/2013 4:38 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

>> What a bunch of hooey! I have type 2 diabetes and a lot of other
>> people I know have it too. None of us ever craved diant drinks.
>
> Isn't it just normal to sometimes crave something sweet?
>
>
Sweet drinks? Not me. I like to eat something sweet at the end of a
meal, but I do not crave sweet drinks. I rarely drink pop, don't use
sugar in coffee or tea.

On 12/03/2013 6:19 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Educate? How much education do people need? I admit that it is a long
>> time since I was in elementary school, but I remember being told about
>> eating a balanced diet, about avoiding excessive amounts of sugar and
>> fat, and to be sure to eat fruits and vegetables. I see magazine and
>> newspaper articles about nutrition all the time. There are programs on
>> television about it. Yet, kids these days are fatter than ever.
>>
>
> In some cases, at mealtime mom opens a 2 liter bottle of soda for the
> family to drink. You can teach, but some people don't want to learn.


It never was part of my diet. After my heart surgery my wife started
buying diet soft ops and offered them to me with most meals. I was
thirsty and it was cool and refreshing, so I accepted her offers... for
a while. Later on she wondered why I was turning them down and my son
pointed out that I never used to drink the sugared stuff, so why did she
think I would be interested in the diet versions.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:34:21 -0700, Cheri wrote:
>
>> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
>> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that I
>> seldomly use.
>
> Every time a cigarette tax is proposed and goes up for a vote, it will
> pass because of that same mentality. Very little of the money
> accumulated from the tax actually goes towards any sort of smoking
> causes.
>
> I would vote to triple the tax on petroleum if the money were to go to
> funding proper alternative energy programs and research.
>
> -sw


Yes, we saw how that worked. They used the cigarette settlement money for
everything but smoking related illness. I was surprised that the last time
it was up for a 1.00 a pack increase in CA, they voted it down. I don't
smoke anymore, but I'm not voting for taxes on someone else.

Cheri

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/03/2013 1:56 PM, Robert wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
>>>> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that
>>>> I
>>>> seldomly use.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's okay to levy sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco because they are a
>>> vices and not good for you.
>>
>>
>> It is currently stated that a glass of wine is good for you health.
>>
>>
>
> From what I have been told by a (non drinking) pharmacist, a 1half glass
> of wine has benefits, but anything more than that does more harm than
> good. She is married to a guy who likes to go to Disneyland on vacation.
>
> Never the less, the popular idea seems to be that alcohol and tobacco are
> vices and should be taxed to discourage it. Then because the taxes make
> them more expensive, they become a luxury item and if you can afford to
> buy them you can afford to pay more tax, The other component is that that
> higher prices reduce consumption, and since overuse of either is bad for
> you then keeping it expensive should limit your consumption.
>
> The way I figure it is that junk food hamburgers, fries, potato chips,
> chocolate bars and soft drinks should all fit into that same category.
> They are okay once in a while but too much of any of them is bad, and,
> let's face it, the people who consume any of them tend to consume alll of
> them and in large quantities. If it alcohol and tobacco are fair game for
> taxes, or that taxes are a good way to curb overuse, then maybe we should
> have the same types of taxes on junk food.


They tried the junk food tax in CA...nobody could come to a consensus of
what junk food was, so they did away with it. I hope they never revisit it.

Cheri

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/03/2013 1:56 PM, Robert wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
>>>> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that
>>>> I
>>>> seldomly use.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's okay to levy sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco because they are a
>>> vices and not good for you.
>>
>>
>> It is currently stated that a glass of wine is good for you health.
>>
>>
>
> From what I have been told by a (non drinking) pharmacist, a 1half glass
> of wine has benefits, but anything more than that does more harm than
> good. She is married to a guy who likes to go to Disneyland on vacation.
>
> Never the less, the popular idea seems to be that alcohol and tobacco are
> vices and should be taxed to discourage it. Then because the taxes make
> them more expensive, they become a luxury item and if you can afford to
> buy them you can afford to pay more tax, The other component is that that
> higher prices reduce consumption, and since overuse of either is bad for
> you then keeping it expensive should limit your consumption.


of course, the truth to the matter is that heavy smokers save us money. They
die young, saving a lot of Social Security payments, and the vast majority
of they don't end up with long term illness/Alzheimer's, etc. Let them
smoke, just not around me. Enjoy and goodbye.

On 12/03/2013 7:59 PM, Pico Rico wrote:

>
> of course, the truth to the matter is that heavy smokers save us money. They
> die young, saving a lot of Social Security payments, and the vast majority
> of they don't end up with long term illness/Alzheimer's, etc. Let them
> smoke, just not around me. Enjoy and goodbye.
>
>
I suppose that the same can be said of the people who eat too much junk
food. You don't see many 350 pound plus people over 60.

"Cheri" > wrote:
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:34:21 -0700, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>> Why, because you don't drink much of it? I'm curious why people usually
>>> think it's ok to tax the other guy. I don't, not even on products that I
>>> seldomly use.
>>
>> Every time a cigarette tax is proposed and goes up for a vote, it will
>> pass because of that same mentality. Very little of the money
>> accumulated from the tax actually goes towards any sort of smoking
>> causes.
>>
>> I would vote to triple the tax on petroleum if the money were to go to
>> funding proper alternative energy programs and research.
>>
>> -sw
>
>
> Yes, we saw how that worked. They used the cigarette settlement money for
> everything but smoking related illness. I was surprised that the last
> time it was up for a 1.00 a pack increase in CA, they voted it down. I
> don't smoke anymore, but I'm not voting for taxes on someone else.
>
> Cheri

They will get the tax some way. You will probably pay.
while smoking may be down, pa. Is getting $1,000,000,000 a year in
cigarette tax.
And all the old non smokers will be taxing the systems.

Greg

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:01:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:



>
>You don't realize that there are some people who don't smoke or who
>limit their tobacco use because of the price?

Never met one. Really, I know people that said "when cigarettes hit
$1 a pack I'm going to quit" and they are now paying $8. I know people
that have gone to generic brands and roll your own, but I don't know a
single person that quite due to price.



> You don't realize that
>some people drink less because they can't afford booze?

I do know one or two that drink less, none that stopped completely
though.




>
>Something seems to have worked because there are far few smokers now
>than there used to be.

Less people are starting. Buying smokes is more difficult for the
under 18 crowd, more cancer education, less peer pressure as there are
less smoking peers to learn from.

> I can tell you that I used to smoke, gave it up
>for a long time, made the mistake of thinking I could have the
>occasional cigarette and then started up again, quit, started again and
>quit again.

Once I quit, that was it. I've been tempted, but I've heard too many
stories of people that after some years tried one cigarette and then
went pack to their old pack a day habit. Sitting here writing about
it, I think a good smoke might be nice and it has been almost 40 years
since I stopped. Too addictive to take a chance.


The last time was helped by the introduction of the
>harmonized sales tax which saw about 70 cents added to the cost of a
>package of cigarettes. It came into effect July 1, about three years
>ago. That was it for me. I didn't buy any more.

Good for you!

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:05:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael OConnor
> wrote:



>
>The US Government has proven it can't do Big things efficiently, the
>US Postal Service is a case in point as it is billions of dollars in
>debt, yet Fed Ex and UPS make a profit because they have to answer to
>their shareholders and keep an eye on their bottom line instead of
>having their own printing press to compensate for poor management.
>

The sad fact is, the USPS cannot govern itself. It answers to
Congress and they are one of the reasons they are in the red. They
are now forced to fully fund their pensions (as they probably should
have been doing) but not allowed to raise prices. They are not
allowed to cut back and close money losing locations like UPS or Fed
Ex would do. Or lay off a lot of not needed workers.