/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.10484815]

Should there be a legal limit on how much soda one can purchase in a single transaction/location? How about instilling an age limit on soda purchases? Obesity in this country runs rampant.

[Anonymous No.10484817]

Fuck off commie

[Anonymous No.10484820]

I'd say 5 years old, but even that seems young. I like your idea, Anon.
>inb4 muh freedoms

[Anonymous No.10484824]

>>10484817
>>10484820
America wins again.

[Anonymous No.10484829]

>>10484815
No. In addition to this being up to an individual's decision, how would it even work? A person could simply order multiple times.

Want to fix obesity? Make people pay their own health care costs.

[Anonymous No.10484835]

America is fat because the people here are mostly fucking retarded as shit. If they want to give themselves diabetes and die early then whatever, we're already paying out the ass to take care of disabled fat fucks so it's not like the damage is going to escalate much more than it already has

[Anonymous No.10485116]

>>10484829
>Make people pay their own health care costs.
They already do that in burgerland, only the government forces you to. Healthcare is still a business and not a service.

[Anonymous No.10485183]

>>10484829
Such a plan assumes that people can think ahead, and fatties at that. As if the threat of ending up nearly immobile, in constant discomfort and dying of heart failure shouldn't be deterrent enough if that were possible.

[Anonymous No.10485307]

>>10484815
eat a diddly ding dong

[Anonymous No.10485353]

>>10484815
I agree prevention is the best solution to health care issues. But I disagree on limiting personal freedoms.

[Anonymous No.10485419]

>>10484815
Nope, way too much collateral damage and unintended consequences, which is why government intervention almost never works. Plenty of people that take care of themselves buy pop why should they burden the cost equally as much as DiaBetty for the same 12 pk?

[Anonymous No.10485658]

>>10485116
No. Poor people, the people who typically stuff their face with cheap, garbage food, can't afford to pay their health care costs. The rest of society pays for them.

[Anonymous No.10485663]

>>10484815
No, but it should be illegal to sell soda in the first place. You might as well legalise guns if you're going to let people poison themselves with this stuff.

[Anonymous No.10485671]

>>10484815
The slippery slope is a real thing anon.

[Anonymous No.10486065]

Could have a negative effect "holy shit I can finally drink soda, I'm gonna drink SOOOO MUCCHHHH"

IMO it should just be banned entirely. America would become so much healthier overnight

[Anonymous No.10486073]

Put some lead inside so people who drink a lot of soda die.

[Anonymous No.10486205]

Quitting soda is the best thing I can recommend for a person's health. I promise after like 2 months of not drinking it you won't miss it. I tried hawaiian punch recently because it was my favorite as a kid and I nearly threw up.

[Anonymous No.10486222]

>>10486205
>Quitting soda
I think this deserves an award for "fattest combination of two words in the English language"

[Anonymous No.10486227]

>>10484815
Washington or NY fag detected

[Anonymous No.10486317]

I'd support making them put real sugar in it again. I don't really drink much soda and when I do it's the Meskin ones made with sugar. You really can tell the difference from corn syrup. But you can't tell people how much soda they can buy. They kinda tried in NYC and dude almost got run out of office. Over soda.

[Anonymous No.10486360]

>>10484815
Soda should be taxed like tobacco. The addicts will stop consuming it, because addicts are poor. A 2L bottle of sodapop should cost 10USD.

[Anonymous No.10486361]

>>10486227
>Washington fag detected

[Anonymous No.10486365]

>>10484817
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10486367]

>>10486360
>because addicts are poor.

Wrong.

[Anonymous No.10486373]

>>10486317
>d dude almost got run out of office. Over soda.
only because multi billion dollar outside groups jumped in
most locals were in favor initially but fat fuck staten islanders and such got brainwashed

[Anonymous No.10486384]

>>10486317
Yeah I know you euroshits find this hard to believe but in America we actually don't like nanny state faggots telling us what we can and can't do

[Anonymous No.10486386]

>>10486384
It's a shame because your population obviously needs a lot of help making appropriate life decisions.

[Anonymous No.10486401]

>>10485116
Nah, we pay for other people's health care costs not our own.

My premiums via my employer have gone up several times due to the actions & health conditions of people who are not me.

[Anonymous No.10486410]

>>10484815
It's pointless, stupid and won't actually do anything.

[Anonymous No.10486415]

>>10486360
>store often has 5 for 5 deals on huge bottle of soda
>everyone and their mother leaving with 5-20 bottles of soda

[Anonymous No.10486469]

>>10486386
lol we spend an assload less on food while eating more than you because the nanny stating for things like this is kept to a minimum

[Anonymous No.10486473]

>>10486360
do you have any interaction with people outside of your upper middle income suburban enclave ever?

[Anonymous No.10486474]

>>10486469
I see. And yet your overall lifestyle isn't actually any better? Many would consider it worse, even.

[Anonymous No.10486495]

>>10486473
Why are you saying that as if having to speak to fat people and criminals is a good thing?

[Anonymous No.10486513]

>>10486495
because your type always purport to know what's best for the unwashed rabble when you don't have a clue in hell how they live
>>10486474
nah, if you put a modicum of effort it's not even close

[Anonymous No.10486526]

>>10486410
>cutting obese people form their endless supply of soda won’t do anything

Redditchan never ceases to amaze me.

[Anonymous No.10486527]

>>10486513
I grew up poor. I drank quarter water. That’s why I know it should be fucking banned.

[Anonymous No.10486539]

>>10486526
how do you propose to enforce this without screwing people over that don't deserve to be for no reason, making it arbitrary as hell, and not wildly inefficient for the cost my little statist friend? Robbing citizens of billions to watch the obesity rate slow from a 0.2% increase to a 0.18% increase isn't exactly a good program.

[Anonymous No.10486550]

>>10486526
>They won't either buy another sugary thing, or just spend the money to buy it anyway while fucking over everyone else. Meanwhile everyone else will be fucked over because of this.

They're not fat because they have access to soft drinks, they're fat because they eat and drink a lot and don't exercise. The very idea this is something the government should do is appalling, especially as it won't sort out the problem.

[Anonymous No.10486554]

>>10486527
>I am the judge for everyone! Bow to my whims ye masses!

Hope you get hit by a truck.

[Anonymous No.10486557]

>>10486526
>They just make hot chocolate or drink very sugary iced coffees they make themselves.

Well done.

[Anonymous No.10486568]

>>10486526
Sure, if you could magically wave a wand and erase soda from this earth, yeah. But how do you actually plan on enacting an effective ban?

Don't you fucks study history? Surely you've seen that every time people try to ban something the ban ends up being circumvented by all manner of means. I.e.:
-prohibition didn't stop people boozing. It gave rise to moonshiners and a huge wave of organized crime who profitied off illegal alcohol. People made bathtub wine.
-war on drugs is doing pretty much the exact same thing
-banning assault weapons didn't stop school shootings

The only thing bans do is create a black market, and that's even more hazardous than the alternative.

>>10486550
>The very idea this is something the government should do is appalling, especially as it won't sort out the problem.
Applies to every ban ever.

[Anonymous No.10486574]

>>10486554
>I will literally kill myself if I have to drink something other than hummingbird feed sometimes!

You’ll thank me when you don’t get your feet cut off due to diabetes complications.

[Anonymous No.10486584]

>>10486557
If fat people started making their own Starbucks, they’d still be fat but they’d be less poor. Still an improvement.

[Anonymous No.10486587]

>>10486574
No he won't. He'll just consume something else equally unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.10486592]

>>10486574
I don't drink fizzy drinks, you controlling idiot. Guess what? I can oppose bad policies that won't really affect me because they're bad and won't do what they say and will just lead to more government control over people's lives for no benefit.

[Anonymous No.10486596]

>>10486568
And by and large is actually true. Banning drugs sure worked, amirite? How about prohibition? Stopping people from owning flick knives has really put a damper on knife crime in London. We banned taking shit into the country without paying import fees! Now smuggling has gone!

[Anonymous No.10486606]

>>10484829
You are one of the most obese countries in the world while at the same time already being one of the countries with the most inequality in health care based on income.

If your suggested solution actually made a difference you wouldn't have so many fattes over there. Unless you can provide any sort of statistics that show paying for your own health care reduces obesity I'll consider your suggestion idiotic.

[Anonymous No.10486624]

>>10486592
>that won't really affect me

Taxes we don’t pour down the bottomless pit that is poor people’s health problems are taxes we can spend on useful things like roads and schools.

[Anonymous No.10486638]

>>10486606
How so? We do have a lot of issues with high healthcare costs, but the majority of them are tied to other people.

I've worked for 4 different companies here in the US. In every single one of them I've seen my premiums increase due to the direct actions of other employees under the same health plan.
>>company A hires a bunch of new employees and most of them are smokers
My premiums go up even though I don't smoke
>>company hires a new fat-ass accountant who also happens to be a hypochondriac and who takes her 5 kids to the doctor for the tiniest sniffle
My premiums went WAY up
>>Obamacare gets enacted
My premiums nearly doubled
I could go on.

[Anonymous No.10486641]

>>10484815
We dont need to regulate people out of making bad choices
if they want to drink gallons of sugar and become so fat they cant walk, thats totally fine as long as society doesnt have to pick up the bill

[Anonymous No.10486656]

>>10486539
Taxes. Taxation has proven to decrease the amount of cigarette smokers.

[Anonymous No.10486659]

>>10486641
But they do. Because there's always someone wanting to appeal to the softie demographic that thinks retards shouldn't be weeded out.

[Anonymous No.10486665]

>>10486656
Everyone just vapes now

[Anonymous No.10486666]

>>10486624
Except that this won't sort out the health problems so actually you'll just be dealing with the same, or increased burden. In addition, when sales of fizzy drinks and such go down, that means the tax the government would have made from the profits of all the businesses, companies, restaurants, soft drink manufacturers, shops, etc will also go down. Will it be matched by the tax on the soft drink? Dunno, but chances are the economics wouldn't work in their favour.

>>10486656
No, not really. Vaping decreased it; but cigarette smokers by and large just stopped reporting it to their doctors and just paid the extra fee; it also HEAVILY increased counterfeit and smuggled tobacco sales. And then what did the government do? Crack down on vaping and moved to tax the shit out of it. And you know what else happened? People who wanted a cigar a few times a year or a tin of tobacco every few months for their pipe got hit by massive price increases.

[Anonymous No.10486689]

>>10486656
It also robs people dry who choose to smoke. Lots of peoples livelihood is severely curtailed by smoking for no reason other than you charging $5-$10 tax on a $1-$2 product. That statement in a vacuum doesn't mean it's a good idea. Tv's been proven to be incredibly detrimental to society why not make a $500 tv $5000?

There's also a lot of people that enjoy pop that are healthy and your ass wants to tax them no differently than some landwhale.

[Anonymous No.10486700]

>>10486638
What are you trying to argure? That insurance is bad? I guess you could go without the insurance but I doubt you would want that.

If anything I'd taking it as an example of how insurance costs are unstable enough to cause problems and making it more difficult to get proper healthcare unless you are well off. A single payer system would solve a lot of that, just look at it as an insurance that covers the entire population without increased premiums for whatever risk factors or genetics or other things insurance companies obsess over.

[Anonymous No.10487123]

>all these brainwashed goyim defending the caffeinated Jew

[Anonymous No.10487180]

>>10484815

[Anonymous No.10487196]

>>10487123
>giving the governmental jew even MORE power over individuals bodies

[Anonymous No.10487240]

>>10486700
>What are you trying to argure?
That contrary to what the person I was replying to said, my healthcare costs are in fact driven by other people. In other words, if one of my co-workers has high healthcare costs because of their choices then I, among others, are stuck paying for it.

I've got no problem with paying for insurance. I simply want my healthcare costs based on MY health and lifestyle choices rather than those of 3rd parties whom I cannot control.

>>look at it as an insurance that covers the entire population without increased premiums for whatever risk factors.....
But it DOES have increased premiums because of those things. For example: I don't smoke, but a lot of the population does. That cost goes into everyone's premium, not just the smokers. Ditto for people who drink. Or have a bazilion kids. Or who are obese, etc.

[Anonymous No.10487245]

>>10487123
I, for one, think that sugary soft drinks are awful.

I just think banning them:
a) doesn't do any good anyway
and
b) restricts people's right to do what they want with their own bodies, which is even worse.

[Anonymous No.10487262]

>>10484815
Yeah, anyone over the age of sixteen shouldn’t be legally allowed to buy soda imo

[Anonymous No.10487263]

>>10484815

[Anonymous No.10487270]

>>10484815
>>10487263

[Anonymous No.10487290]

>>10484815

[Anonymous No.10487383]

>>10486473
I don't think he even talks to anyone in his town or anywhere else.
>addicts are poor
No,they're portrayed as poor. The well off to rich ones don't get jailed or even get stigmatized like the poor ones do. And all those scummy junkies you see in downtown's,ghetto main strips and housing projects? Most of them aren't from there. I sold heroin for a long time and most of my customers were wingers from the suburbs,successful tradies,and white collar professionals-a lot of lawyers. 10% were professional shoplifters,frauds,or stick-up men.

[Anonymous No.10487395]

>>10486373
All I can imagine is Anthony Cumia drunk on Bud Light ranting about Big Gulps on YT now. IDK if he ever did but he must have,right?

[Anonymous No.10487397]

>>10484815

Do what the UK (and various other European countries) have implemented - a sugar tax on fizzy drinks. Companies will compensate for this by raising the price of their product. This is good for two reasons as it discourages purchases and raises money. Extra revenue made from this tax goes back toward healthcare and health initiatives.

[Anonymous No.10487399]

>>10487383
*wiggers

[Anonymous No.10487429]

>>10487290
THEY DON'T USE REAL SUGAR!
Sorry,it just pisses me off. I can't support a ban but I wish people wouldn't buy it and they'd shut down. How desperate do you think they'd get? Would they get a bailout?

[Anonymous No.10487465]

>>10487180
A century ago, the average lifetime was a lot shorter than it is now.

[Anonymous No.10487471]

>>10485116
If that was the case I would have to fork over a thousand bucks a month for a single shot in the ass so I don't drink.
Fuck that shit, tax payers can cover that.

[Anonymous No.10487491]

>>10487397
or as many have done they cut the sugar and replace it with artificial sweeteners, which seems to be just as bad as you then subconsciously overeat to replace the 'missing' calories

[Anonymous No.10487587]

>>10487397
>discourages purchases and raises money
Depending on the exact numbers, both of these can be false. Higher taxes may not compensate for the lower consumption.
If the companies who make the products have to cut back, they will have to let people go: lost taxes and lost purchasing power.
Not to mention that they have punished people who can behave themselves.

[Anonymous No.10487597]

>>10487587
>Expecting bongs to know shit about economics.

[Anonymous No.10487599]

Ban high fructose corn syrup

[Anonymous No.10487610]

>>10487587
Yeah I've thought of that which is why I could never support a ban or a "sin tax".

[Anonymous No.10487621]

This is the gun control debate in different terms.

If I couldn't get soda, I'd drink beer instead. Kids would make up the difference by eating more candy, so you'd have to ban candy. Unless you restricted all calorie-containing sweeteners (including honey) you wouldn't achieve anything.

But here's the emotional argument that might get where the rational arguments don't. I lose five pounds and I'll be underweight. I don't have a thyroid problem or anything, but for some reason I'm burning everything I'm taking in. I eat like a farm boy and it's still barely enough. Because there are other people who could cut out what they don't need, you're proposing to deprive me of what I do.

You want to throw me under the bus to save people who won't save themselves (because they don't want to be saved). Sometimes things are better left un-meddled in.

[Anonymous No.10487642]

>>10487599
We don't need to ban HFCS, all we need to do is remove the retarded taxes on sugar.

History lesson time: Before the late '70's the US used sugar just like everyone else. A bunch of US sugar companies started bitching to congress tha they couldn't compete with inexpensive imported sugar and begged for help. So congress passed high taxes on foreign sugar, as well as import quotas. The price of sugar skyrocketed. But instead of buying higher-priced US sugar the big industrial customers (like Coca Cola, etc.) switched to HFCS instead and the US sugar industry lost even more business.

Getting rid of HFCS would be easy: repeal the taxes and quotas and suddely sugar becomes cheaper again and nobody would bother using HFCS anymore.

[Anonymous No.10487653]

>>10487621
This. But the thing is you simply can't effectvely restrict sweeteners even if you wanted to. People can keep bees in their yard. They can grow plants bearing sweet fruits, or sugar beets. Sugar (like alcohol in the days of prohibition, or cannabis today) is so easy to produce that it's impossible to actually restrict it.

[Anonymous No.10487657]

>>10487642
That's great, anon! All we have to do now is convince politicians to refuse lobby money and choose the people's benefit over their own!
Gee whiz, that sure sounds like an easy job!

[Anonymous No.10487670]

>>10484815
instead of limiting people of freedom, we should teach nutrition and health from an early age. Its not an epidemic, its a educational problem

[Anonymous No.10487675]

There is literally no reason to have soda. It's a treat not a drink.

Ban the fucking thing so I can short coca cola stock and retire

[Anonymous No.10487678]

>>10487670
>limiting people of freedom
How dumb are you jesus christ. The only reason shitfood like faygo is cheaper than water is because our crop subsidy priorities haven't changed since the early cold war. You can't screech about freedom and continue to support a system that distorts supply and demand in favor of the worst possible garbage.

[Anonymous No.10487694]

>>10487678
there's always water retard, which is cheaper than faygo. but thanks for trying

[Anonymous No.10487704]

>>10484815
All fat people should be lined up and shot; problem solved.

[Anonymous No.10487719]

>>10484815
Eat shit, you statist fuck.

[Anonymous No.10487809]

>be underweight
>all soda I like has part or all of its sugar replaced with sweeteners
>tastes like shit now
>full sugar version no longer sold
I hate everyone

[Anonymous No.10487898]

>>10487809
>full sugar version no longer sold
drink hispanic/international sodas

[Anonymous No.10487935]

>>10484815
What we need is education, personal responsibility, and better parenting

[Anonymous No.10487970]

>>10484815
no. the nutritional values are listed on the can. freedom means making informed decisions...not making every little thing illegal.

[Anonymous No.10488009]

>>10487599
Digits confirm.
I can get behind that.

[Anonymous No.10488022]

>>10487599
Or stop subsisiding it.