Boston mulls soda ban in government buildings

[Momof3angels]

(NBC) - The city of Boston is looking at options to fight the battle of the bulge, including banning the sale of soda at City Hall and all city-owned buildings.

That doesn't mean Bostonians won't be able to drink soda. They just won't be able to buy it at those locations.

"There's no talk of a ban of sugar-sweetened beverages in any municipal building," Boston Public Health Comr. Barbara Ferrer said. "It's just a question of what gets sold in our municipal buildings in our vending machines."

Not everyone is happy with the proposal.

"We don't want government to dictate our lives and decide whether or not we should be purchasing various things," Gene Babon commented. "If soda is legal to purchase, then we should be able to purchase it."

"Of course there will be resistance," Ferrer admitted. "Part of our job, before we implement any measure that's going to meet a lot of resistance, it to talk to people."

Boston recently received a federal grant for $12 million to take concrete steps to fight obesity.

[micah719]

Just turn the elevators off.

Boston recently received a federal grant for $12 million to take concrete steps to fight obesity.

That way lots of folks will be using pre-existing concrete steps to fight obesity, and you can refund the citizens some of those taxes that wind up in the hands of folks unqualified to spend them.

[Momof3angels]

Just turn the elevators off.


That way lots of folks will be using pre-existing concrete steps to fight obesity, and you can refund the citizens some of those taxes that wind up in the hands of folks unqualified to spend them.

Nope. Sorry. That just makes way too much sense.

[mattfivefour]

Micah, my brother! Your "shut off the elevators" comment almost made me spit out my gum!

[Adopted Son]

Let those who wish to drink pop, do so, even at their own peril. Educate them on the results, like the smoking issue. DO NOT TAKE AWAY ANY MORE FREEDOMS! In our faith, it's like telling God to take away our free will, because we may choose something eternally bad for us! Come on! If it doesn't infringe on others, don't get governmentally involved! The statistics showing those who abuse their health costs X dollars is pahooey! Why do we let 19 yr. old college researchers tell us what we think and what we should do?

[Keeplookinup]

Micah, my brother! Your "shut off the elevators" comment almost made me spit out my gum!

[mikitta]

IF and only if this was about Boston banning the sale of soda pop anywhere in the city, then I would agree with you all. But it's not.

It's about the city deciding to no longer make soda pop available in the vending machines in municipal buildings in order to encourage healthier choices by people who use those buildings.

They didn't say they would hunt you down for drinking a Big Gulp of Mountain Dew you got at 7-11 and write you a ticket for it. They didn't even say they were banning the drinking of soda in City Hall. They said "we won't make Mountain Dew or any other sodas in cans or bottles available through vending machines in government buildings in the city."

Now, tell me how that violates your rights? Is it the City of Boston's responsibility to make sure you have available to you, in all city buildings, the venue through which to purchase soda? I always thought the vending machines were more of a privilege than a right.

It is certainly the Council's prerogative to change what is put in those vending machines - and it doesn't violate your rights in the least that they decided to take out soda. I hope they put in bottled water instead. Or just return to the days when all they had was a water cooler or water fountains in those buildings.

God Bless,
mik

[Adopted Son]

It's about the city deciding to no longer make soda pop available in the vending machines in municipal buildings in order to encourage healthier choices by people who use those buildings.

Mikitta,

"encourage"?? Force is more like it. #1, it's nobody's job to determine what is good for me other than me. Why not let us all eat ourselves to death? You could sit in the same cafeteria with me drinking pop I purchased there, without any pain or expense to you or anyone else.

I become agitated when we think it's ok to make decisions for others, when God Himself refuses to do so. The," let's take care of those who can't think properly for themselves" is a very slippery slope to borrow a cliche. #2, The action immediately states the Boston government only represents those who don't choose to behave in a way they think is bad for you. Gosh, that's awful.

[mikitta]

Are you saying the government has an OBLIGATION to provide soda pop for you? Your logic is flawed.

God Bless,
mik

[mattfivefour]

Hi Mik (and I am sure that A.S. will respond for himself) but as I read this thread and Adopted's comments I think that his objection is not that it is the obligation of the government to supply pop but rather that instead of placing in the machines what people might want (which is the normal way of doing business—satisfying a want or a need) the government there is placing in the machines what it thinks people ought to drink. In other words the government is deciding what is good for you and therefore what you can have. And this is where they are crossing the line—from serving the public to dictating to it.

[mikitta]

1. The government owns the building so the government gets to chose what goes into the vending machines that they own.

2. The government isn't taking away your right to anything, they are simply offering choices you might not like and have to leave the premises to get elsewhere.

This whole argument is ... unintelligent.

God Bless,
mik

[anath]

The Gov't certainly is interfering into our lives by overstepping their boundaries into what we can eat or drink in fast food restaurants, schools, federal buildings and there's no stopping them. Their intrusion is a terrible offense to me. I do not want their choices nor their excessive regulations! Is this Russia or what?

[VersysRyder]

Are you saying the government has an OBLIGATION to provide soda pop for you? Your logic is flawed.

God Bless,
mik

I ask that you look in the "logic mirror."

Your question asks if the government should be buying soda, at least the way I read it anyway.

Now, let me pose a question to you: although there is no "soda mafia" running rampant arresting or ticketing people in this instance, what could possibly be the end result of this embargo on soda in government buildings?

True, there is no conspiracy here against the people, however, does not the government have better things to do than regulate vending machines in their government buildings?

Besides, not all soda is calorie-laden, sugar-loaded, caffeinated elixir. There are quite a few choices on the market that have zero calories, and very low sodium.

Ultimately, it's an asinine regulation being implemented, and the only outcome I see is the state/local government being mired in business that doesn't need to be fiddled with. $12M could be better spent elsewhere, such as implementing the bicycle renting system employed in other cities, devising a better means for people to walk around the city, and so forth.

[mattfivefour]

Hey, Donnie!!! Where ya been? Haven't seen you post for a couple months. We missed ya! How's the Kawasaki running? And how are you and yours doing?

[brethorn56]

In my opinion, you are not going to do a whole lot in the fight against obesity by removing sodas in government buildings. People who are fighting the battle of the bulge have more problems than drinking a couple of sodas in a day. They will find ways of getting to McDonalds, Burger King, etc. to get their fix. I say do some good old fashion “push aways” from the kitchen table and leave the soda machines in.

[Adopted Son]

1. The government owns the building so the government gets to chose what goes into the vending machines that they own.

.

This whole argument is ... unintelligent.

God Bless,
mik

Uh, who owns the government? The citizenry, you and I and all the rest. And my point is, SINCE WE THE PEOPLE own all governmental property, then let us decide for ourselves what and where we consume capitalistically produced goods. America used to be about freedoms, this is another example of us losing it. (Small as it may be.)

[mattfivefour]

Incidentally, I saw on Fox this morning that NYC's municipal government wants to prevent poor people from buying sugared soft drinks. The bureaucrats think that sugared drinks are contributing to too much obesity among people on welfare, thus the city has asked the USDA to make it illegal to buy non-diet sodas with food-stamps. Is this much of a step from then deciding that people cannot eat high caloric foods, or foods with more sodium or fats or whatever than the government thinks is good for them? Where does this stop once government comes to believe that its job is to control how people live for the good of society.

The political ideology indicated by this type of thinking is that the state knows better than the individual and it must control them for the good of society. I am surprised—no, shocked—that some defend such moves as being within the government's rights. The government is—or should be—no more than the mechanism constructed by the society and answerable to it for the orderly running of the affairs of the state (not of the individual). As such government—or, rather, those who are employed in the public service (and let us not forget that this phrase means "the service of the public", meaning "us", based upon what we want)—these must function according to what the lawmakers that we elect decide is good. Bureaucrats may make recommendations to those lawmakers whom they are supposed to serve; but since by virtue of the career nature of their employment they do not have a mandate from the people to make changes, they should not attempt to impose their ideas on society. The "right's" of government are those given it by the Constitution and by the voters when they elect their municipal, state and federal representatives.

I have noticed over the past few decades a creeping authoritarianism manifesting itself in the public sector and a growing view in the halls of government that the state must act over the rights of the individual in order to impose and maintain the values that the state decides are good, rather than kowtowing to what the masses want or decide. The desirability of the concept of big brother state has taken hold among the political parties in power and its tacit acceptance by a careless public has aided the bureaucrats and the lawmakers as they have begun to exert more authority over society.

[Momof3angels]

I have noticed over the past few decades a creeping authoritarianism manifesting itself in the public sector and a growing view in the halls of government that the state must act over the rights of the individual in order to impose and maintain the values that the state decides are good, rather than kowtowing to what the masses want or decide. The desirability of the concept of big brother state has taken hold among the political parties in power and its tacit acceptance by a careless public has aided the bureaucrats and the lawmakers as they have begun to exert more authority over society.

A few years ago I was discussing my decision to homeschool our children with my MIL. When I told her my state doesn't require annual testing or reports, she said, "The state has a right to know how you are educating your children." A right to know? Are you kidding me?

I fear the days when we expect the government to be a servant of the people are long gone.