• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drinking Age for Soft Drinks?

S

SteelCityDeac

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
2,355
Reaction score
126
http://io9.com/5881328/scientists-s...-and-there-should-be-a-drinking-age-for-soda/

"A little is not a problem, but a lot kills - slowly. If international bodies are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose - and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS and sucrose - which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole.

States could apply zoning ordinances to control the number of fast-food outlets and convenience stores in low-income communities, and especially around schools, while providing incentives for the establishment of grocery stores and farmer's markets. Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar, particularly soda. Indeed, parents in South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, recently took this upon themselves by lining up outside convenience stores and blocking children from entering them after school. Why couldn't a public-health directive do the same?"

Interesting argument posed here. Since nobody on these boards is ever wrong and our combined intellect would inevitably lead to utopia, what do we all think about this idea?
 
Are they going to stop kids from buying sugar as well?
 
For those concerned with this as a threat to liberty, consider the far reaching implications of the health concerns. This particular subject, sugary sodas, are a great symbol at the crux of the problem. Now, I'm one to "let them eat cake," but less so if I have an economic concern for public health. The obese and elderly are the two biggest strains on our health care system. Why not start here?
 
Last edited:
Man, I've been drinking Mt. Dew since I was 2 years old, 2 liters a day. Didn't hurt me at all.
 
A free market* leading to sub-optimal outcomes? SHOCKER.





*with less-than-perfect information informing decisions
 
This would be awesome. I already make pretty good money selling beer and cigarettes in the woods behind the playground, but if I can start moving soda too? My client base would probably fucking triple. These fucking 1st graders have no idea how much Coors Light costs lol, so I get like $30 for a 12 pack. Imagine how much the little assholes would throw me for Sprite and shit.
 
TownieDeac said:
For those concerned with this as a threat to liberty, consider the far reaching implications of the health concerns. This particular subject, sugary sodas, are a great symbol at the crux of the problem. Now, I'm one to "let them eat cake," but less so if I have an economic concern for public health. The obese and elderly are the two biggest strains on our health care system. Why not start here?
Click to expand...

I have read this a couple times and I cannot figure out what you are saying.
 
I would prefer that we tax the condition of obesity instead of restricting foods that are good for some (people that need higher calories, due to a medical condition or high physically activity) even if those foods not healthy for everyone. I know, it will never happen.

My kids need calories -- they don't need lowfat or skim milk. And soda is good for them, according to their doctor.
 
AMCDeac said:
I would prefer that we tax the condition of obesity instead of restricting foods that are good for some (people that need higher calories, due to a medical condition or high physically activity) even if those foods not healthy for everyone. I know, it will never happen.

My kids need calories -- they don't need lowfat or skim milk. And soda is good for them, according to their doctor.
Click to expand...

Dr. Pepper isn't a pediatrican, bro.
 
I'm pretty anti-government involvement. If obesity is a problem just put a bigger tax on it rather than punishing those who can consume the product without it getting out of control (under the stipulation that the government needs to do anything at all). This is the same sentiment I have for alcohol, tobacco, and weed as well.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm pretty anti-government involvement. If obesity is a problem just put a bigger tax on it rather than punishing those who can consume the product without it getting out of control (under the stipulation that the government needs to do anything at all). This is the same sentiment I have for alcohol, tobacco, and weed as well.
Click to expand...

These seem incompatible. Isn't taxation a form of gvt involvement?
 
SteelCityDeac said:
These seem incompatible. Isn't taxation a form of gvt involvement?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the invasiveness of an obesity tax. Are you kidding me? Government skin fold caliper operators? Mandatory doctor visits for a fucking tax? Using BMI?

Also, the preference for attacking a symptom and not a cause is practically the #1 tenet of lawyer-dom. Numbers is on the right path.
 
Like I said I'm all for this personally, but if we're getting political, my rule of thumb is usually if a dog can eat it, a baby can eat it, and my dog slurps up spilled root beer like he thinks its gonna cure his ball fleas, so I honestly don't see why they'd need to slap a minimum age on soda. Babies can still buy yarn right? You're gonna tell me that a baby is better off eating yarn than having a Sprite Zero?
 
I don't see what the problem is with taxation (probably better than age limits if I think about it). We already tax and regulate things that are unhealthy and can cause a burden on the public via medical costs. Taxing junk food (or in this case, soda) is just an extension of something we've done for a long time. It's a disincentive. Go for it.

This thread reminds me that I need to cut out soft drinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top