Should the government make our choices for us?

I'm sure by now, everyone has heard what Bloomberg has proposed about soft drinks...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/ny...pagewanted=all


Even if I lived in New York, the ban wouldn't have any effect on me, since I never drink any soft drinks. The closest I would come to something like that would be kombucha, but they don't sell that in convenience stores anyways. I mainly drink unsweetened iced tea.


Anyways, I see this as another intrusion into our lives by the government, this time by a Republican (but he might as well be a Democrat because he is so liberal).


It is interesting how the libs think its okay for the government to stick its nose in where it doesn't belong on things like this, but when it comes to abortion or gay marriage, the government is not supposed to lift a finger to stop it.

You can't have it both ways.

The Libertarian view would be to let people do what they want to do, and for the government to stay out of the way. I'm leaning more and more toward the Libertarian point of view and away from the Republican point of view. I just wish Libertarians had a better chance of being elected.


As for the obesity issue, it is my opinion that if we removed the safety nets of medicaid and social security disability, within a few years, we probably would have very few fat people left here. Most of them would stop stuffing their faces, get some exercise and lose their weight.


"The doctor for Susanne Eman, the Casa Grande woman who wants to be the world's fattest woman, tells CBS 5 Eman is covered by the state's AHCCCS medicaid plan. Should taxpayers be footing the bill for any health problems that arise from her weight gain?
Casa Grande woman strives to be world's fattest
www.kpho.com
A woman said to be from Casa Grande is getting international attention for her larger-than-life dream of becoming the fattest woman in the world."

An Arizona mom, who lives near Casa Grande, is getting international attention for her larger-than-life dream of becoming the fattest woman in the world.

Susanne Eman, 32, runs an online blog On the Way to 1600+ Pounds where she describes herself as "your average gal next door who just happens to have a body to match the size of her personality."

British tabloids have run articles claiming this 728-lb single mother of 12- and 16-year-old boys wants to be 800 pounds by the end of the year, and eventually tip the scales at 1 ton.

CBS 5 News asked Susanne Eman for an on-camera interview, but she refused. Eman said that she had signed an exclusive agreement with another media outlet.

Dr. Patrick Flyte is one of Eman's physicians. He told CBS 5 News that he warned Eman that if she continues to put on weight, she'll be putting her health at risk.

"Quite honestly she didn't seem to comprehend the medical or physical risks to her body and health with the goal of hers of being the fattest living woman in the world," said Flyte. "If she does pursue this goal, in all likelihood, she's definitely going to have a premature death and it could happen literally within a few years."

We posted the story on our CBS 5 Morning News and KPHO CBS 5 News Facebook pages and generated more than 150 comments in a matter of hours.

The pictures from her blog and journaling chronicle a troubling tale of a woman who embraced the weight she says she did not at first intentionally gain, to eventually decide to self-exploit her size.

"From the time I was 20 to the time I was 30, I went from 300 pounds to 500 pounds. I noticed that I liked the way the weight felt, and the way my body was filling out," she writes on her blog. "Then, one day at 30 years old I was surfing the net. I came across a dating banner for SSBBW's (Super-Size Big Beautiful Women). I had never heard that term before. I decided to find out what it meant. That got the ball rolling for me. I was impressed and excited. Deep down I had always known I wanted to be fat, but I thought I was alone in this feeling. I began to look into how fat other people were able to become, how they did it, side effects, and whether it could be done in a safe and healthy manner. The more I learned, the more I wanted to let go and gain weight."

She told the British tabloid The Daily Mail that the bigger she gets, the better she feels. She said she wants to find out if it's humanly possible to reach a ton, and despite her doctor's warnings, she's sticking to her goal.

"I feel more confident and sexy. Why shouldn't I push the limits and see how fat I can get and stay healthy?"

She's reportedly unemployed and uses a motorized scooter to get around and do things like her monthly eight-hour grocery trips which, The Mail reports, fills six carts.

"I go for a waddle and do stretches and exercises every day," she told The Daily Mail. "My muscles need to hold up my weight so I have to stay strong."

"Dear Lord, someone stop her. It isn't that important to be known as the BIGGEST in the world. Is it worth dying for?" asked Donna Stauffenberg-Raube on a CBS 5 Facebook page.

Jessica Allen lives in Casa Grande and said maybe since there isn't much to do there, Eman was looking for attention.

We also heard from a lot of viewers who wanted to know why no one from Social Services has intervened, others demanding Eman's children be removed from the house, and some posters angry about what implications this has for public health care.

"Does she have insurance? I would think that the company would have addressed this issue. Why hasn't anyone in a professional capacity stepped in?" asked Maryjane Gonter.



"She needs psychiatric help. The same way that anorexics need it. This isn't about food," said Tanja Cooper.

No they can't have it both ways, personal lifestyle choices, hands off. Regulation on business practices, hands on.

What would you think of businesses only selling soft drinks 32 oz. plus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

No they can't have it both ways, personal lifestyle choices, hands off. Regulation on business practices, hands on.

What would you think of businesses only selling soft drinks 32 oz. plus?

---

I'm not surprised by your response.

Whatever a business wants to do is its own business. That's their choice.

If I don't like what they are selling, I don't have to buy it. That's my choice.

But liberals don't like the idea of people making their own choices and decisions, unless it is something like gay marriage or abortion. Whatever is horrible, they're all for it.

Well everyone, I'm going on vacation again, and yes, I am going to California again. Why not?! I love California.

I won't be back until sometime after the 4th of July. Hopefully, not until August, but we'll see how much mad money I get to spend, and how long it lasts.

Have a fun summer everyone!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

No they can't have it both ways, personal lifestyle choices, hands off. Regulation on business practices, hands on.

What would you think of businesses only selling soft drinks 32 oz. plus?

---

If I don't like what they are selling, I don't have to buy it. That's my choice.

---

And what if all businesses adopted this practice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Well everyone, I'm going on vacation again, and yes, I am going to California again. Why not?! I love California.

I won't be back until sometime after the 4th of July. Hopefully, not until August, but we'll see how much mad money I get to spend, and how long it lasts.

Have a fun summer everyone!!!

---

Maybe while you're at it try getting a job and earning your own money, one can only plan to be a parasite for so long.

I've read many of 999969999 posts, & while I generally don't agree with him, I do agree that business's should not be regulated to this extent. It's a matter of choice, & If I want to drink a damn 320 oz soda, then that's my choice.

I actually think it's a stupid thing to do. Just another way for people to not take responsibility for their own action. "Yeah, I know I'm fat, but it's because they sell these huge sugary drinks. It's not my fault I walk into the store and buy them. It's the store's fault!" Bullshit. And it won't work anyway. Fat asses will just buy 2 or 3 smaller ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999999999999999969999999999999

Anyways, I see this as another intrusion into our lives by the government, this time by a Republican (but he might as well be a Democrat because he is so liberal).

---

You could at least have the balls to admit that it's a Republican that you disagree with this time instead of the facile approach of equating him to a Democrat.
That's completely chickenshit.

Not that I'm surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teflon05

And it won't work anyway. Fat asses will just buy 2 or 3 smaller ones.

---

It's why I don't really take much of an issue with it. Nothing is actually preventing someone from drinking 64 fl. oz. of a soft drink. They are the biggest money makers for these places, and they make it appear financially absurd to not by the larger one. "For just an extra 10 cents, we can get a lot more syrup down your gully". I just wish a lot more places would allow me to cut it down with club soda.

Instead of worrying about sodas, maybe they should instead focus on things like about six months ago, auditors visited 31 of the cities elementary schools and not a single one were in compliance with state physical education requirements. They either had none, or were way under the acceptable levels.

And I wonder if kids didn't spend hours in front the tv, computer, ect., how much that would effect obesity rates?

How about taking the expenditure of enforcing soda laws and set up after school/work fitness programs for people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Instead of worrying about sodas, maybe they should instead focus on things like about six months ago, auditors visited 31 of the cities elementary schools and not a single one were in compliance with state physical education requirements. They either had none, or were way under the acceptable levels.

And I wonder if kids didn't spend hours in front the tv, computer, ect., how much that would effect obesity rates?

How about taking the expenditure of enforcing soda laws and set up after school/work fitness programs for people?

---

There are unhealthy people protesting right now in New York over the small ban taking place on selling sodas larger than 16oz. If the government decided to enforce new soda laws, who knows what crazy shenanigans people will get into to stop it. Furthermore, setting up after school fitness programs will not work in my opinion. Most students I know cannot wait to go straight home to their computers after school. In fact, students are even playing games secretly on their laptops in class when they're supposed to be doing actual work.

If the government wants to stop obesity so bad they should consider inspiring overweight people into being healthy. Enforcing laws on what they should eat is only going to make them grumpy and it won't stop anything. They'll only work hard to lose weight if they're inspired to do so on their own. Sad, but true.

People should be left alone with minimal overall supervision. You get fat and diseased, your fault, your mess. The government didn't feed your fat distended mouth now did it? You paid for it it was your decision. Sure the government encourages you to spend but you gave in didn't you, you fat bastard? Simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hole69

People should be left alone with minimal overall supervision. You get fat and diseased, your fault, your mess. The government didn't feed your fat distended mouth now did it? You paid for it it was your decision. Sure the government encourages you to spend but you gave in didn't you, you fat bastard? Simple.

---

The issue at hand is that the government ends up footing the medical costs for the diabetes and other weight related illnesses of the overly obese. The general issue at hand is that it is more expensive to eat healthy than it is to eat poorly. Thus, food-related decline of health more proportionately affects the poor, and they are the ones that end up needing government assistance, directly or indirectly (through hospitable forfeiture of patient recompense). For this very reason, there's a governmental budgetary incentive to act in preventative fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Instead of worrying about sodas, maybe they should instead focus on things like about six months ago, auditors visited 31 of the cities elementary schools and not a single one were in compliance with state physical education requirements. They either had none, or were way under the acceptable levels.

And I wonder if kids didn't spend hours in front the tv, computer, ect., how much that would effect obesity rates?

How about taking the expenditure of enforcing soda laws and set up after school/work fitness programs for people?

---

There are unhealthy people protesting right now in New York over the small ban taking place on selling sodas larger than 16oz. If the government decided to enforce new soda laws, who knows what crazy shenanigans people will get into to stop it. Furthermore, setting up after school fitness programs will not work in my opinion. Most students I know cannot wait to go straight home to their computers after school. In fact, students are even playing games secretly on their laptops in class when they're supposed to be doing actual work.

If the government wants to stop obesity so bad they should consider inspiring overweight people into being healthy. Enforcing laws on what they should eat is only going to make them grumpy and it won't stop anything. They'll only work hard to lose weight if they're inspired to do so on their own. Sad, but true.

---

You skipped over the part where auditors visited 31 schools and not a single school met state physical education requirements. If every school they visited is not in compliance, chances are good the other 670 schools in NYC are not in compliance either. Meeting these requirements would have more effect than banning sodas.

Students have been playing games on computers longer than you think. We were writing and playing games in school way back when schools had Apple II's.

I know I spent an inordinate amount of time playing Oregon Trail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hole69

People should be left alone with minimal overall supervision. You get fat and diseased, your fault, your mess. The government didn't feed your fat distended mouth now did it? You paid for it it was your decision. Sure the government encourages you to spend but you gave in didn't you, you fat bastard? Simple.

---

The issue at hand is that the government ends up footing the medical costs for the diabetes and other weight related illnesses of the overly obese. The general issue at hand is that it is more expensive to eat healthy than it is to eat poorly. Thus, food-related decline of health more proportionately affects the poor, and they are the ones that end up needing government assistance, directly or indirectly (through hospitable forfeiture of patient recompense). For this very reason, there's a governmental budgetary incentive to act in preventative fashion.

---

I agree, but the problem with this soda ban is that it is not a ban at all. It says places affected by it (as opposed to places like grocery stores who can continue to sell large bottles of sodas) can not sell drinks larger than 16 oz. There is nothing written in it where you can not just buy more drinks. All it does is make people pay more and in turn raise taxes collected for the city.

Another problem arises if other places adopt this. In most restuarants in NYC, you do not get free refills, but in most other places you do (soda is an extremely cheap product for the sellers). What would the point of the ban be if all you had to do was walk up to the soda machine and get more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

I agree, but the problem with this soda ban is that it is not a ban at all. It says places affected by it (as opposed to places like grocery stores who can continue to sell large bottles of sodas) can not sell drinks larger than 16 oz. There is nothing written in it where you can not just buy more drinks. All it does is make people pay more and in turn raise taxes collected for the city.

Another problem arises if other places adopt this. In most restuarants in NYC, you do not get free refills, but in most other places you do (soda is an extremely cheap product for the sellers). What would the point of the ban be if all you had to do was walk up to the soda machine and get more?

---

The ineffectual point of getting people to realize how much soda they're getting down their gully. 16 oz. limitations are an odd choice since 20 oz. bottles are pretty standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

I agree, but the problem with this soda ban is that it is not a ban at all. It says places affected by it (as opposed to places like grocery stores who can continue to sell large bottles of sodas) can not sell drinks larger than 16 oz. There is nothing written in it where you can not just buy more drinks. All it does is make people pay more and in turn raise taxes collected for the city.

Another problem arises if other places adopt this. In most restuarants in NYC, you do not get free refills, but in most other places you do (soda is an extremely cheap product for the sellers). What would the point of the ban be if all you had to do was walk up to the soda machine and get more?

---

The ineffectual point of getting people to realize how much soda they're getting down their gully. 16 oz. limitations are an odd choice since 20 oz. bottles are pretty standard.

---

Sodas sold by grocery stores and convenience stores are not effected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Sodas sold by grocery stores and convenience stores are not effected.

---

That's the point I was making, there's very little external awareness in its design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I know I spent an inordinate amount of time playing Oregon Trail.

---

Oh God! Stay away from Oregon. I don't want you to come here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hole69

People should be left alone with minimal overall supervision. You get fat and diseased, your fault, your mess. The government didn't feed your fat distended mouth now did it? You paid for it it was your decision. Sure the government encourages you to spend but you gave in didn't you, you fat bastard? Simple.

---

Exactly!

Let people do what they want to do, but if they end up screwing up their health because of it, then don't expect the rest of us to pay for their health care.

I feel the same way about drugs. Make them all legal to buy at any store to end the drug cartel wars and the stupid and costly war on drugs, but if people mess up their bodies from taking these drugs, it's their problem, not ours. And then also just get very strict the with DWI DUI laws-- if someone gets caught driving under the influence of any impairing drug, take their car, their license, impose a huge fine, and throw their ass in jail for a long, long time. Tell people to do whatever they want at home, but if they want to go somewhere while intoxicated or drugged, then take a bus, a cab, walk, or ride a bicycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I know I spent an inordinate amount of time playing Oregon Trail.

---

Oh God! Stay away from Oregon. I don't want you to come here.

---

Don't worry, I was in Portland... I doubt you'd ever run into me there.

P.S. please stay away for as long as a time as you've promised. Don't come back any earlier than that :dave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

P.S. please stay away for as long as a time as you've promised. Don't come back any earlier than that :dave:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Well everyone, I'm going on vacation again, and yes, I am going to California again. Why not?! I love California.

I won't be back until sometime after the 4th of July. Hopefully, not until August, but we'll see how much mad money I get to spend, and how long it lasts.

Have a fun summer everyone!!!

---

Ah, you're just mad because I told you to stay away from Oregon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Well everyone, I'm going on vacation again, and yes, I am going to California again. Why not?! I love California.

I won't be back until sometime after the 4th of July. Hopefully, not until August, but we'll see how much mad money I get to spend, and how long it lasts.

Have a fun summer everyone!!!

---

Ah, you're just mad because I told you to stay away from Oregon!

---

I'm upset that you gave me the false impression that you'd stay away for a while, liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Ah, you're just mad because I told you to stay away from Oregon!

---

I'm upset that you gave me the false impression that you'd stay away for a while, liar.

---

Is today, July 17th, after the 4th of July?

It's not yet August.

Also July 3rd, 2013 is after July 4th 2012.

Well, don't worry. I'll be heading back to college in Oregon very soon, and getting out of boring old Eagar, you will once again have the board all to yourselves, devoid of any conservative voices, which is what you want.

The left, far from being open-minded, cannot handle any dissent.

You give yourself too much credit when you included "voice".