JohnRich 4 #1 April 14, 2011 News:Boston's mayor wants to ban soda and other drinks "Mayor Thomas Menino is taking aim at sugary drinks in Boston as a way of promoting healthier lifestyles and reducing healthcare costs. The Boston Globe is reporting that Menino has issued an executive order to require all of Boston’s city departments to phase out soda and other drinks with high sugar contents over the next six months. "By the sound of it, Menino means business. The mayor wants a complete ban on the sale, advertising and promotion of these drinks on all city property..."Source: http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/blogs/bostons-mayor-wants-to-ban-soda-and-other-drinks So, if I'm a city employee and bring my own Coca-Cola to work with me, are they going to confiscate it? Will they fire me? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #2 April 14, 2011 Time to put a cooler on a pushcart full of $4 sodasYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #3 April 14, 2011 I've heard worse ideas: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #4 April 14, 2011 Anything else on the list of things that pisses you off today? Any kids running on your lawn? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko 1 #5 April 14, 2011 Good thing I don't live in Boston...I can't go a day without my 16oz aluminum case of sugar infused energy supplement known as Rockstar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #6 April 14, 2011 QuoteSo, if I'm a city employee and bring my own Coca-Cola to work with me, are they going to confiscate it? Will they fire me? According to the article, the mayor proposes "a complete ban on the sale, advertising and promotion of these drinks on all city property." On the face of it, that implies a loophole for those who wish to bring it with them. However, Massachusetts is an "employment-at-will" state, which means that unless you're working under an employment contract, an employer can legally fire an employee for (as the employment caselaw calls it) "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." And, generally, an employer can set its own rules for its at-will employees. That means that if the employer wants to ban even the bringing-in of soft drinks by its employees, it may do so, and may fire employees who violate this rule. Can employer confiscate a contraband soft drink? Yes and no. It cannot use physical compulsion to take it from you, but it can order you to surrender it upon pain of termination for refusal. Can the employer search your stuff while you're in the can and seize it out of your napsack? Grey area. Do you feel lucky? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #7 April 14, 2011 The city can simply say that it is concerned about it's health insurance bill and that it is doing what it can to manage those risks. Less soda would surely be a healthy thing."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #8 April 14, 2011 Seems like a reasonable policy for a government to take. Doesn't say anything about bringing your own. They probably already enacted a similar ban on cigarettes.Does that piss you off? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 April 14, 2011 QuoteNews:Boston's mayor wants to ban soda and other drinks uh, your posting title says they already banned them. Now it's just a proposal from a mayor? what a letdown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 April 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteNews:Boston's mayor wants to ban soda and other drinks uh, your posting title says they already banned them. Now it's just a proposal from a mayor? what a letdown. It's the same kind of re-headline link-bait one gets accustomed to if one is a regular reader of Drudge. Doesn't make it right, but it is typical.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 April 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteNews:Boston's mayor wants to ban soda and other drinks uh, your posting title says they already banned them. Now it's just a proposal from a mayor? what a letdown. The headline on the news story from Mother Nature Network said he "wants" to ban sodas. The text of the story, says that it is being reported that he has already issued an executive order to that effect. There is also a link to a Boston Globe story in which they say the ban is already a done deal. Don't blame me if the headline seems a bit contradictory - that's the way the story is written. To the others suggesting that I am "pissed off", the answer is "no". But it does annoy me when people in authority do things like try to regulate what everyone can own, and what they must eat. A free country should not be engaging in that kind of micro-management of everyone's lives. Especially when it deprives people of safety devices like fire extinguishers, and tries to force kids to eat food they don't like or go hungry. The poll results in these threads demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of the people here agree with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 April 14, 2011 Quote The poll results in these threads demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of the people here agree with me. Can you do a poll asking if kids should get good or crappy schools, now? I'm dying to know what the results will be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #13 April 14, 2011 I think it's a good policy. The human pancreas wasn't designed to handle the massive doses of refined sugar consumed by people throughout the world. In my case, the withdrawal symptoms from sugar are excruciating; so much so that I think I have a good idea of what heroin addicts go through when they quit cold turkey. I cope by avoiding refined sugar like the plague. However, natural sugars that are present in fruits, etc. do not bother me. The 2010 Guinness Book of World Records cites the United Arab Emirates as having the highest incidence of diabetes (all types) in the whole world. I do not know where they got their figures from, and although I have no hard evidence to support it, my personal bias (as well as direct observation) makes me think it is because Arabs seem to consume unholy amounts of sugar (do they do so especially on Friday? That would make it double-unholy then...hah). I've read that in studies of the subject (this is anecdotal - again, I have no sources or direct evidence), there is no correlation between diabetes and the consumption of refined sugar, but the cynic in me believes those studies were funded by the food industry and the sugar interests. Any of this sounding familiar yet? OTOH given the homogeneity of the Arab population (and the apparent interbreeding within a narrow gene stock - many in the populations I have observed seem to come from the same extended tribes), it is entirely possible that the incidence of diabetes in the Emirates as cited by the Guinness Book is hereditary - I don't know, but I digress. I hope that refined sugar is the "new tobacco" and will be ruthlessly stomped out of the human food chain. It really has no place - it's no damned good for you, and is a cheap means of getting kids to eat overpriced, fatty crap, thus starting them off early as blind "consumers". Much as I despise Yankee liberals, I think this (the symbolic setting of public policy) is a good place to push back against the junk-food culture. I hope that eventually, vox populi will turn the sugar magnates into the pariahs that Big Tobacco have become. I must admit that coming from me (a conservative and libertarian), these words seem peculiar, but everything one consumes is a drug of one kind or another. Some are benevolent, some not. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #14 April 15, 2011 Quote Much as I despise Yankee liberals, Good thing you C'dYA there -- I was ready to flame away with stuff like "bleeding heart" and "pinko" and "dem" and... Quote I think this (the symbolic setting of public policy) is a good place to push back against the junk-food culture. I hope that eventually, vox populi will turn the sugar magnates into the pariahs that Big Tobacco have become. I agree. Quote I must admit that coming from me (a conservative and libertarian), these words seem peculiar Nothing wrong with a bit of sense every now and then. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #15 April 15, 2011 Quote I hope that refined sugar is the "new tobacco" and will be ruthlessly stomped out of the human food chain. It really has no place - it's no damned good for you, and is a cheap means of getting kids to eat overpriced, fatty crap, thus starting them off early as blind "consumers". Agreed. And we need to put salt and hydrogenated vegetable oil in the same category. I'm all for consumer choice, but when mfgrs, (and restaurants), put this crap in everything, it becomes impossible to avoid it unless you cook everything from scratch."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #16 April 15, 2011 Interesting to read the replies from the last three posters. Since all three replies also mean the free market principle doesnt work. Which is something I would not have expected from those particular posters. Personally I think any property owner can decide what they want to have sold or not sold on their property. If you make money of city "private" property, they should be able to dictate what you can and cannot sell. Which is different from what you can or cannot consume. I don't think there should be a ban on suger or fat or transfat or anything along those lines. I do think there should be a requirement for labelling and nutritional information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #17 April 15, 2011 QuoteIt's the same kind of re-headline link-bait one gets accustomed to if one is a regular reader of Drudge. Doesn't make it right, but it is typical. Kinda like when someone tries to rile people up to go after a person for wearing a military award they didn't earn? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 April 15, 2011 As far as I can tell, it would still be perfectly OK to bring a soda onto the city property. Nothing in that bill forbids a city worker from going to the store across the street and bringing back a soda to consume on city property. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
