- This topic has 1 reply, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
if they aren’t smart enough to not drink 64 oz of Coke with a pseudo-beef hamburger, then yes, someone should make that choice for them. (i’m ducking now!)
Better duck LOW! Typical leftist thinking: “I know what’s best for you so I will make your decisions for you”. Bloomburg’s outlawing a large soda is absurd. All you need to do is buy two smaller sodas……or are the servers at McDonald’s now supposed to track the number of people you are buying for and, like the bartender who takes your keys, tell you ‘no’ if you order “more than you should drink”. And what about the refill stations at fast food restaurants? Buy a small and refill it 5 times?
Legislating behavior does NOT work.
taxing the crap out of cigarettes has cut down on sales significantly. will it work for sodas, who knows? but clearly something hs to be done because the medical care systems are broken because of all the diet-related health problems.
[quote=”maravilla”]i am more than one hour away from SJO and live where there are more cows than people. Systemic ingestion of fluoride does not improve teeth or prevent cavities. there are dozens of studies that prove this. and the topical application of fluoride is questionable in the prevention of caries — studies done in the last ten years show that cities with no fluordation have lower incidences of cavities. and nobody has a fluoride deficiency. as for other nutritional deficiencies, the standard american diet, laden with too much sugar, chemicals, and processed ingredients has been the downfall of an entire population, and the Ticos have succumbed to the propaganda to eat this stuff, too. there is no mystery why costa rica is suffering from an obesity, heart disease, and diabetes epidemic. i do as much as i can to educate people about what not to eat, and what to eat, but you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.[/quote]
For your edification: http://history.nih.gov/museum/education_fluoride.html
Yes, it is a government site, so, even thought you seem to trust the government in NYC to protect people from sugary beverages, you will question the NIH site….sigh.
As for your suggestion that people who live in cities with no fluoride in the water having low incidents of cavities, it could just be that they brush with fluoride toothpaste. DUH
you can believe whatever you want. Harvard recently released a report linking fluoride to a host of illnesses, including smaller brain size and retardation. not all toothpaste is fluoridated. i have never in my life used a product with fluoride in it. and neither did my daughter who never had a cavity in her entire life. putting a toxic chemical in your water is just plain STUPID!!! all one has to do is read the latest research, as opposed to gov’t propaganda, to see that there are serious questions about this practice and many cities are ceasing to put it in their water supplies. they don’t use it in most european countries because of the health risks.
Just what I expected. Didn’t even read the NIH site which is just a history of the scientific investigation of fluoride. And a posting of what seem to be conspiracy sites. And no real discussion of the science involved or of the NYC attempt to legislate behavior. Typical.
The blog is just what I expected referring to HIGH LEVELS of naturally occurring fluoride in water in China. Read the NIH history before you post again.
stop being so snide. typical. read that NIH pap years ago, dear. and i guess Harvard is such some podunk institution with no credibility.
http://www.westonaprice.org/environmental-toxins/fluoride-worse-than-we-thought
Harvard is about the Chinese problem with HIGH LEVELS of natural fluoride.
And its not pap, its a history of the scientific investigation of fluoride.
Snide? Back at ya cookie
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Typical leftist thinking: “I know what’s best for you so I will make your decisions for you”. Bloomburg’s outlawing a large soda is absurd.
Legislating behavior does NOT work.[/quote]
You’re welcome to characterize Bloomberg’s and others’ thinking as you will, Victoria, but as the world becomes more and more technically complex, we, as individuals, are less and less prepared to make decisions about those very complex matters. We are ever more dependent upon experts. You and maravilla may research the effects of chlorind or fluoride in water and toothpaste to your hearts’ content, but you’ll be diverting time and attention from a thousand other matters of equal importance about which you ([u]and I[/u]) will continue to know essentially nothing.
For as long as the community (read: taxpayers) are liable for the health costs of the obese/diabetic/cardiac members of the community, we do have a legitimate interest in their behavior. It’s not a dissimilar situation from that which requires seat belts, air bags and other safety systems in cars, which requires that you not drill your water well in your septic drain field, and hundreds of other matters.
And, like it or not, you [u]can[/u] legislate behavior.
For proof, one need look no farther than the recent history of civil rights in the United States. As recently as the mid-1960s, hotel and restaurant owners commonly refused service to non-whites. Then the law changed. And so did their behavior — overnight.
One should not, however, confuse changing [u]behavior[/u] with changing [u]attitudes[/u] (read: prejudices).
First, we will debate what we will as issues arise.
Next, we solve that issue by making the individual responsible for personal healthcare – not the government.
I agree that health codes are important, but drilling for water in my septic field (no I wouldn’t do that) is self-limiting (“think of it as evolution in action”) as such people are unlikely to pass on the “stupid gene”.
You can legislate seat belts as you wish – and people can accept fines for not wearing them.
As for legislating behavior, it was not overnight. Nor was it universal. Clubs still have ‘guidelines’ for membership and there are African-American groups (the Black Caucus in DC and a nationwide sorority that is racially restricted to blacks) that are restricted.
So, no. We chose behavior according to our internalization of right, wrong, law, personal desires, and a host of other things. If you want 64 oz of soda, you will get it.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]You can legislate seat belts as you wish – and people can accept fines for not wearing them.
As for legislating behavior, it was not overnight. Nor was it universal. Clubs still have ‘guidelines’ for membership and there are African-American groups (the Black Caucus in DC and a nationwide sorority that is racially restricted to blacks) that are restricted.
[/quote]But, in fact, people do [u]not[/u] “. . . accept fines for not wearing them [seatbelts, that is] . . .” The vast majority of the population complies with the law (which did change their behavior) and wear seat belts. And by complying, they do not “. . . accept fines . . .”.
As for private organizations (country clubs, fraternities and sororities, etc), those have never been subject to the civil rights legislations that Congress and the state legislatures have passed over the years. But hotels and restaurants, among others, are subject to those legally-mandated requirements and their behavior has changed. In the main, they comply with the law.
Or can you point to specific examples where there are still “Whites Only” waiting rooms, restrooms, seating areas in movie theaters, water fountains, etc? Do you know of a single restaurant where black Americans are required to come to the back door and eat in the alley? Can you point to a single public transportation system in which non-whites are required to sit in the back of the bus?
Due to the FDA and innumerable marketing schemes and farm lobbyists, the word “organic” has come to mean, explicitly or implicitly, healthy stuff that is better for you than non-organic. The reality is, that any substance based on carbon atoms, frequently but not always of biological origin, is by definition organic: formaldehyde, coal, dioxin, nerve gas, limestone, gasoline, etc. are all organic compounds. I am skeptical of arguments that “organic” foods (in a marketing sense) are “better”. The life expectancy of someone imbibing organic formaldehyde, nerve gas, and coal is not promising. The chemical composition of persons who promote an “organic” lifestyle sometimes has some surprises. Regardless of where you live, you have measurable amounts of organic chemicals that do you no good, which enter you from food you eat, water you drink, and [b]especially[/b] air you breathe. The astounding variety of these chemicals was the subject of a National Geographic article several years ago. Unfortunately I lost the exact reference but an approximation is here:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/10/toxic-people/duncan-text/1Human physiology uses these unwanted chemicals in unpleasant ways, but whether you live in Costa Rica or Cleveland or Cornwall, you’ve got ‘em. Different areas, different chemicals. Doubt it? Here’s a typical example. Though DDT has been banned for decades, and has never been used in polar regions, both penguins in the Antarctic and polar bears in the Arctic have DDT in their tissues which has been implicated in reproductive inhibition and reduction in adult size in both. Though an “organic” [in a health food sense] diet may [or may not] reduce our overall exposure to organic [in a chemical sense] chemicals, they are with us always. Happy New Year.
Nope, ya got me there.
But I can choose not to use a seat belt if I accept the penalty if caught. I can speed, if I accept that I may be caught and fined.
Ever spend time in the deep South? I have. And I can tell you there are places where anyone can walk into a public bar but will leave quickly. If they are smart.
So legislating large-scale behavior works. But people will still find a way to drink that extra-large soda. And underage drinkers will still get their beer and cigarettes from the corner store.
Victoria, you’re right that you and I can disobey the law and accept the consequences, but in very many instances we do not; we comply. See, for example, the lines at the Post Office next April 15th. Stand on any overpass and watch the seatbelt compliance as it passes by underneath. And find a restaurant with a Whites Only sign.
There are biker bars and gay bars all over where you or I might feel uncomfortable, but if they refused to serve us due to our race, they would pay a very steep price. The law says they must accommodate us and they do and will.
I, too, am skeptical of Mayor Bloomberg’s effort to make large soft drink servings contraband, but accessing things illegally by a few doesn’t prove that laws don’t affect behavior in the real world.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
