Thursday, June 14, 2012

This Is Beyond Ridiculous. Why The Hell Do I Still Live Here?


by Andrew Roman

______________

Popcorn May Be Next
If oversized cups of sugary drinks (those larger than 16 ounces) really are a scourge to the health and well-being of a gluttonous, overweight citizenry (as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) – I mean, if they are really contributing in such an adverse way to the overall condition of the population to the point that the confiscation of liberties has become necessary (again, as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) - then wouldn’t it be prudent, nay imperative,  to simply make them  illegal?

This is a legitimate question, not incendiary finger-snapping blog rhetoric.

Seriously, what would be the rationale for not making them illegal, based on the objective from on high? That soda is only bad for us in big cups as opposed to multiple smaller-sized cups? Or bottles? Or cans? 

If our lives are really at stake here, how can these overseers of all that is good and righteous not ban these immoral body-bloating concoctions?

As it stands right now, should the City of New York bend over, grab its ankles and accept His Royal Highness Michael Bloomberg’s big-cup ban, we the people will still be able to recklessly poison ourselves by cleverly purchasing two sixteen ounce cups of sugar-filled beverages (which, as a product of the New York City Public School System, brings me to a grand total of thirty-two total ounces of sugary drinks, if I’m not mistaken) …or even three cups (forty-eight ounces of sugary drinks) …or ten cups (one hundred sixty ounces).

Why then do it at all (if our well-being is really the issue)? Surely, Blunderberg’s health minions have considered this calamitous  reality, troubled as they obviously are with the health of New Yorkers.

How serious can the New York City Politburo really be about our collective physical states if it is still within our power to legally pour as many ounces of Dr. Pepper into our gobs as we like, albeit somewhat inconveniently in several containers as opposed to one?

Indeed, the Big Apple – or better yet, the Controlled-Portion-Apple – has, out of whole cloth, given itself the power to care about us so much - to do that which is for our own collective good - that it can literally tell a privately-owned entity that it is no longer allowed to sell a perfectly legal item in a perfectly legal manner to law-abiding Americans.  And they do so based on the deadly marriage of dimwitted emotion-based logic and big government liberalism.

Spare me the hackneyed, knee-jerk, ridiculous claims that overweight people are such a burden to the health system that it has become obligatory to curb our liberties.  Is it really the contention of big-government, soft-tyrannical types that skinnier people would bring down costs of health care for everyone across the board in such a way as to legitimize such an unheralded power-grab?

How does that work exactly?

Do people who are not obese and live longer visit their doctors less and require less medication over the course of their lives? Really? Skinny people don’t suffer from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pneumonia, ulcerative colitis, migraines and Parkinson’s as much as Pepsi drinkers? So, the majority of people in hospitals, emergency rooms, rehabilitation centers and clinics are undisciplined Slurpee guzzlers?

Doesn’t it stand to reason that if someone lives to be 95 instead of 75, he or she will have twenty more years on this earth to suffer illnesses, require medical attention and break down like everyone else? Do skinnier people simply keel over dead when their time is up, out of the blue, from a perfectly healthy state? Don’t most people deteriorate toward the end of their lives, requiring doctor care, medicine and extensive tests regardless of how old they are when the end comes? 

Let's for a moment, look at the zealotry of the anti-smoking crusaders.

If, for example, 50,000 people die annually, as is the contention from anti-smoking warriors, due to second-hand smoke, why would these nanny-staters complain about rising costs? These people are dying, aren’t they? They can’t be a drain on the health care system if they’re dead, can they? And if more people are dying annually from simply being around smokers than die in auto accidents, isn’t it obvious that smoking, too, must be banned outright?  (Maybe autos should be banned as well, no? Maybe breathing.)

I'm not pro-smoking, by the way. I'm pro-liberty.

Personally, I haven't had a regular soda of any kind for years and haven't smoked a cigarette since 1998. These are my choices, not Mayor Bloomberg's choices. 

If the freedom to choose the Big Gulp is really contributing to the escalating costs of health care and the deteriorating quality of life in the City of New York as claimed, then isn’t it incumbent of the East Coast Kremlin to banish all sugary drinks, period? How can something so important and so critical be instituted conditionally? Do they not care enough?

And what of those people who are thin and healthy who wish to have a 64-ounce Coke at a venue like Yankee Stadium? Setting aside the immediate benefit to the state of being able to collect more tax money from the guy forced to buy three sixteen-ounce sodas instead of one, is the New York Politburo going to assert that this infringement on choice – which libs are always championing when it comes to being able to scrape away inconvenient embryonic tissue in the womb – is still for his own good? Does King Bloomberg know better what is better for this man's body than the man himself?

Obviously he does, because as expected, the Apple Health Police are now looking to expand their reach into our private lives by targeting such society-crippling pleasures as popcorn, milkshakes and specialty coffee drinks.

From MYFOX.com:

The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.
The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens.  They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.
At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.
One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.
"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.
Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.
"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.
Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city.  It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.

Did you catch that? The government would "allow" refills. How sporting of them. How generous.

Who the hell are these people to tell us what we can and cannot choose? And under what authority do they claim to be able to do it? Whim?

Seriously, I dare them to try and take away my wife's daily 32-ounce Iced Mocha Latte. I double-dare them.

It’s funny, tragic and sad at the same time….

The Occupy Wall Street types spent months on end living like unkempt hobos in the park, defecating on police cars, disrupting businesses, screaming and yelling about the tyranny of corporations and free markets. They marched, protested, attacked and broke laws to rail against the oppressions and injustices of capitalism. Yet, there isn’t a single corporation in all of America with the power to come to your home and take away your liberties. No bank, retailer, investment firm, restaurant chain, automobile manufacturer or oil company can show up on your doorstep and make you less free.

Not one.

Only government can do that.

-

7 comments:

  1. "the Controlled-Portion-Apple" I like that! Wish I'd said it!

    I agree with you on smoking, too. I'm not a smoker, but if it is a so dang bad kinda kill you substance, why not ban it altogether?

    If I were to market filter tipped arsenic cigarettes as 100% Natural, the FDA would shut me down in a New York Minute (pun intended). So what is it about tobacco? Is it the science they have wrong, or is that trumped by their desire for the tax revenues from tobacco?

    ReplyDelete
  2. On second thought, I'd reverse the two... the "Portion Controlled Apple". Consider it stolen!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Relax Proof, I know a dude that can score you some popcorn...
    but he doesn't deal with strangers, I'll have to go in, you wait in the car lol

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ahh, your way sounds MUCH better.... "Portion-Controlled-Apple." I wish I'd said it that way! I suppose I could've just went back in and re-edited it and no one but you and I would be the wiser, but revisionism is an exercise of the left. I actually embrace truths. LOL

    Keep in mind, to order cigarettes from OUT OF STATE - say, for instance, at on online tobacco place - is ILLEGAL here. In other words, the free market is NOT free in New York. One cannot buy cheaper cigarettes online or have out-of-state cigarettes shipped to one's home here in New York. Yes, one can order battery-powered marital aids, viagara, marigold seeds, alcohol and porno magazines from out of state...but not cigarettes.

    And will someone PLEASE explain to me why it is illegal to advertise cigarettes on TV and radio? I'm serious. Is it not a LEGAL product? I consider myself pretty intelligent, but I still don't get why the government has the right to completely ban a legal item from ALL airwaves. This STILL puzzles me.

    And the last time I checked, there is no social epidemic of police being called to someone's home because Dad beat his wife over a Marlboro Gold, or killed an innocent pedestrian because he was puffing on a Salem.

    Can we say the same thing about Budweiser or Jack Daniels? How many bar fights have occurred because someone was chain-smoking Newports? How many domestic-abuse cases can be attributed to Pall Mall over-indulgence?

    Believe me, I am NOT anti-alcohol. I simply make the point to illustrate this absurd health-care-is-the-new-morality attitude hurled upon cigarette smoking.

    A little context.

    A little clarity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to worry, from hence forth it will be "the Big Apple, or as my friend Andrew Roman suggests: the Portion Controlled Apple...".

      And yes, there is a certain schizophrenia regarding the control of legal substances. I believe the Nanny State would like us all to merely lock ourselves in our homes and wait for further instructions.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.