The NAACP Pretends That Sugary Soda Is a Civil Rights Issue

I understand the comments listed - I posted this because it would illicit and incite a discussion in several areas. So in that 'respect', I want to play devil's advocate for a moment to address a few. These are not necessarily my opinions, they are just responses which may be one a "devil's advocate" may have...

Sugar is energy, and most of the animals you cite, use it for just that - energy (even some/most humans) however, a lot of humans (especially in this country) are, for lack of a better word, addicted to it - because almost everything we eat nowadays contains some form of glucose, fructose, or other conglomerated sweetener that does not necessarily process in the human body - natural sugars? There is an epidemic now of diabetes in this country that was not here 30 years ago, and it is only going to get worse at the rate it is going. Fast food, and soft drink companies, as well as fructose corn syrup and similar concoctions are turning this country into the fat people we saw depicted in the cartoon movie WALL-E. It seems to come down to re-education and/or control. Sugar addicts are addicts - and what do they finally have to do with addicts to prevent them from harm to themselves and society? Re-education and/or control.

The racism cited in the story deals with the Major Beverage companies (ie: Coke/Pepsi) using these minority groups with heavy checks to illicit a 'race card' - they are only there as a Trojan Horse.

One size certainly does not fit all - that is true - but a 6'6" 280-pound man is not regulated into the same serving size as a young kid per se - he - or even the small child for that matter, can purchase more than the maximum size by purchasing two, or more, if they choose to - but have you ever seen a little kid, say 5,6,7,8 running around with a 32oz, or even a 64oz drink in their fat little hands? do you honestly think, acting as a responsible parent, that that could be 'healthy' for them?

He may be trying a radical way of cubing the onset of obesity in his city, but many cities have also curbed smoking almost everywhere except your own car or home - this is essentially to the concerns of second-hand smoke - but a nation of diabetics and unhealthy obese people can only overtax a healthcare system that is not only now overtaxed, but over exploited by the unhealthy who choose to be, at the expense of the unhealthy who have no choice to be.

We can make our own choices - or we can be forced into someone else making them for us...we still have a choice.

You left out much of the middle class, and illegal aliens.

Steve

OK, THAT I can fully agree with. But I didn't actually look at this as the health care system. although it affects it.

Steve

I don't know how I could have missed that either - that's a pretty radical proposal! Why, just the sheer number of lawyers conglomerating alone could cause global warming with all the hot air! Watch for major ozone changes in Oregon!

Who introduced that bill?

No, indeed.

Fortunately, in many cases.

Licensing, approving and legitimizing new products is and always has been different from the regulatory processes pertaining to existing products, though. If alcohol were undiscovered and came on to the market this year, for the first time, there's little question that in most countries of the world it would never get a product licence (remember that its benefits would also not be known and proven, in those circumstances). And I think nobody could seriously question that the same would also be true of cigarettes, of course.

It's strikingly similar to ClickBank's product approval process (and actually for some very similar reasons, too): there are (unfortunately) plenty of products with non-FTC-compliant sales pages already listed and still available, but they're still (correctly) turning down new applications with grotesquely non-FTC-compliant sales pages.

Complete consistency of approach is, as in many other aspects of everyday life, a chimera.