Thirsty Boston?

[bigbadberry3]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/10/bo ... latestnews

Can he enforce these healthy choices?

Walk to work.
Stairs only.
Vegetables.

[BusyBadger]

I want to create a civic environment that makes the healthier choice the easier choice in people’s lives, whether it’s schools, work sites, or other places in the community

Instead of "easier choice" he should be saying "only choice", which really equates to "no choice". Diet sodas are ok under the ban but what about those suffering from PKU that want a soda? A little exclusionary, wouldn't you say?

But, I suppose when a city like Boston doesn't have any other pressing problems to work on the mayor can take time to work on things like what drinks are sold on city property.

Oh wait, what's all this with the MBTA?

MBTA Driver Selling Drugs
Because it's tough to make it on $62K a year in Beantown

Lawmakers to examine MBTA delays
and yet...

T Rehab Station Closure
Hmmm, no wonder...

MBTA GM receives police protection
Or maybe he needs to pay his drivers more than $62K a year.

Boston FD rescues MBTA worker
I guess the mayor really is on to something, if that guy hadn't had all those sugary drinks he wouldn't be so damned heavy.

[srellim234]

They may not be able to get a Coke but at least the kids in the schools can pig out on all that expired food:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... 5020110401

Perhaps these little local dictators in governors' and mayors' offices should try getting their current operations fixed before they start dictating more rules and regulations for others.

BTW, do they serve beef at the cafeteria at the state capital there in Massachusetts? How about no white rice, only brown? While you're at it, governor,how about outlawing tea bags containing black tea because green and white tea contain more antioxidants?

[IBCoupe]

Instead of "easier choice" he should be saying "only choice", which really equates to "no choice". Diet sodas are ok under the ban but what about those suffering from PKU that want a soda? A little exclusionary, wouldn't you say?

They could probably go ahead and choose from the assortment of other drinks that are available to them. From the article:

The order allows for the sale of beverages such as diet sodas, diet iced teas, 100 percent juices, low-calorie sports drinks, low-sugar sweetened beverages, sweetened soy milk and flavored, sweetened milk. Beverages such as bottled water, flavored and unflavored seltzer water, low-fat milk, and unsweetened soy milk can continue to be sold.

Sorry to interrupt. Feel free to continue.

[BusyBadger]

Instead of "easier choice" he should be saying "only choice", which really equates to "no choice". Diet sodas are ok under the ban but what about those suffering from PKU that want a soda? A little exclusionary, wouldn't you say?

They could probably go ahead and choose from the assortment of other drinks that are available to them. From the article:

The order allows for the sale of beverages such as diet sodas, diet iced teas, 100 percent juices, low-calorie sports drinks, low-sugar sweetened beverages, sweetened soy milk and flavored, sweetened milk. Beverages such as bottled water, flavored and unflavored seltzer water, low-fat milk, and unsweetened soy milk can continue to be sold.

Diet sodas are ok under the ban but what about those suffering from PKU that want a soda?

Miss that last bit, did you? It's ok, it's Monday.

[IBCoupe]

I didn't miss it. They can go ahead and choose something else. Or they can go to a supermarket. Or a gas station.

It's not "exclusionary" against any particular group of people in any known sense of the word, genetically-defective or otherwise.

[AppleBonker]

I'm somewhat healthy, so I don't need to government telling me what I can or cannot consume. If I want to drink or eat something unhealthy, I should be allowed to. Since when is it the government's job to help unhealthy people turn it around? Want to actually fight the obesity epidemic? Maybe change healthcare up so that Fatty T. McFatass has to pay for all of his own healthcare costs rather than insurance companies balancing it out with what they make from me. If he had to fund his own problem, he might think twice about what he's drinking when he's one whopper away from a massive coronary. And if he doesn't, that will be one less obese person out there. Either way, the obesity rate declines.

[themadscientist]

The attack on smokers was the opening move. Perhaps people are starting to understand why this non-smoker was not part of the lynch mob blaming smokers for all society's trouble and calling for their persecution back when it was the "in" thing. I knew those bastards would be coming for my soda.

Tell you what politicians. In the spirit of "encouraging" others to behave a certain way by leaving them no alternative, let's limit you people to one term and hold your pay in escrow pending a review of your term.

Keep the lights stay on, get the trash picked up, train, deploy and fairly pay public service workers and quit worrying about what the f*** is in my cup!

See you guys at the coca cola speakeasy. The password is "empty calories."

[AppleBonker]

The attack on smokers was the opening move. Perhaps people are starting to understand why this non-smoker was not part of the lynch mob blaming smokers for all society's trouble and calling for their persecution back when it was the "in" thing

This. With one exception. I'm happy when a lot of locations made it so you couldn't smoke in restaurants. That encroaches on my right to enjoy the taste of my meal. Aside from that, I say let smokers do as they please. And the places taxing cigarettes at like $4/pack are just ridiculous. As long as it doesn't cost me more in healthcare (which it does), I'd be all for letting smokers kill themselves rapidly.

[themadscientist]

Oh, I agree. I would frequent smoke free restaurants exclusively, but I think it should be the business owner's decision whether to allow smoking or not. Market forces of people gravitating toward establishments that have rules that fit their preferences will decide. That's that scary free market principle that scares a lot of activist types. Can we get some anti activism activism? A stay the hell out of my life and mind your own damned business movement. Tell the lefties to quit vandalizing our SUVs and chaining us to the salad bar and the righties to quit trying to track our genitalia and pasting bible verses into our government documents.

[IBCoupe]

They haven't criminalized consumption. From the press release:

Citing a link between the consumption of sugary beverages and rising obesity rates and healthcare costs, Mayor Thomas M. Menino today issued an executive order requiring City departments to take steps in the next six months to phase out the sale, advertising, and promotion of sugary beverages on City-owned property.

They haven't even prohibited the sale of those things within city limits. Christ, guys. Turn your faux outrage down a couple notches. This isn't nanny-statism. If he had done the same exact thing as a cost-cutting measure, you wouldn't care, because how many of you buy your soft drinks on city-owned property?

Of course, this provides an exellect opportunity for me to s*** on FOXNews, as they very happily conflated this with Fenway. If you weren't careful, you might think that this new rule applied to Fenway Park, a private establishment, and not primarily to the City of Boston Public Schools.

[AppleBonker]

But what gives the mayor the right to eliminate this choice? Why is he making this selection for the residents? Even if it is small, any erosion of personal freedoms is a bad thing.

[IBCoupe]

What choice is he making for you?

[AppleBonker]

Between a coke and water. If I'm in a city building and want a coke, I'll have to go somewhere else to purchase one even though there is likely a vending machine nearby (that currently sells coke or pepsi I would imagine).

They're changing the status quo in public buildings purely because people can't control their own weight, correct? Well, if I can control my own weight, why should things be changed for me, too?

[AppleBonker]

Also, if it starts here and you don't have a problem, where will you begin to have a problem? What if they banned "sugary" beverages in city buildings (as in you can't bring your own)?

[AZhitman]

Bonk nailed it. Faux outrage? Whatever.

What's next? My secretary can't have a bowl of M&M's on her desk, because some fatty might be tempted to scarf them down?

What kind of liberal are you? How can you keep defending even simple assaults on basic freedoms and the enactment of frivolous intrusionary legislation?

It's not "exclusionary" against any particular group of people in any known sense of the word

Except people who simply WANT A GODDAMNED SODA.

genetically-defective or otherwise

Umm, did you seriously just say that?

[stebo0728]

Lawls - you guys are the best. Ive been sitting back watching this one, but have yet to formulate my post. Stay tuned, its sure to fuel the fire ....

[IBCoupe]

Honestly, banning soda in schools is not a big deal. And, yes, Adam, were they to ban the carrying of soda, I might actually have a problem. But not that big a problem, because you can still carry them elsewhere. Christ, are we so fat that we can't go a couple of hours at the DMV without high-fructose corn syrup?

The ability to buy a soda in a public building is not a fundamental right. I'm sorry. It's just not. I really have a hard time believing you guys could really be worked up over this.

[AZhitman]

Schools? I'll buy that. That's part of making good decisions for people who are too young to make them on their own, and I think it's incumbent upon us as adults to be responsible in that arena.

But you're confusing the issue here, which actually surprises me. Sure, those people CAN go without. But it's not someone else's business to tell them to.

Is it a fundamental right of the vendor who maintains the machines to be able to sell a Dr. Pepper? Are you willing to nonchalantly impact his bottom line over some ill-advised ban on a totally legal beverage?

[szh]

Honestly, banning soda in schools is not a big deal. And, yes, Adam, were they to ban the carrying of soda, I might actually have a problem. But not that big a problem, because you can still carry them elsewhere. Christ, are we so fat that we can't go a couple of hours at the DMV without high-fructose corn syrup?

The ability to buy a soda in a public building is not a fundamental right. I'm sorry. It's just not. I really have a hard time believing you guys could really be worked up over this.

Agreed! This is a tempest in a teapot.

FWIW, at many of the government offices here in California (not DMV though), you have to go through a metal detector and cans of soda are not allowed through. But, you can certainly buy what you want - from vendors and vending machines - once inside.

Z

[stebo0728]

Ok heres my initial thoughts. Most likely these machines are maintained and stocked by a company that pays its bills by selling its product, and any other business would do. What isnt considered at first in issues like this, is that the the government is actually hampering the free market. Yes fat-a** can go next door to 7/11 and get his coke, BUT, now 7/11 has been given an unfair advantage in the marketplace by this action. Im not concerned that he has some aspiration to thin his community, im sure he has the best of intentions, but the fact is, measure like this should not be in place unless immediate uncontested danger awaits the consumer. We sit back and snear at capitalism, when we constantly place unnecessary handcuffs on it. Its like asking a plumber to come in and fix your sink, but demanding he doesnt use a pipe wrench. To me its not as much about choice of the individual, but more a problem with government tampering with the free market.

[AppleBonker]

Christ, are we so fat that we can't go a couple of hours at the DMV without high-fructose corn syrup?

Hey, not all of us. And because tubby over there can't control himself my choices need to be limited? That sucks.

The ability to buy a soda in a public building is not a fundamental right. I'm sorry. It's just not. I really have a hard time believing you guys could really be worked up over this.

I never said it was a right for me to be able to buy one. But just because it isn't a right doesn't give the government free-reign to make decisions for me. If it had been this way from the beginning, fine. But they are making a material change to the way public buildings are functioning (albeit a small change). Until they can provide an adequate reason, I don't like it. If the only reason they can muster is that we need to save obese people from themselves, I'm sorry. That a terrible reason to do anything.

[AZhitman]

So, I couldn't bring a soda from home in my brown bag lunch if I worked for the State of CA? I'm forced to buy one from the price-gouging vendor if I want a soda?

I mean, I'd understand it if soda came in ferrous cans, which could be misconstrued as a weapon by a metal detector - but they're NOT. Aluminum cans don't set off a properly-set up metal detector.

If that's accurate, add that to the list of reasons I hate that state.

Am I the only one that wants to scream at these people: LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

[IBCoupe]

Is it a fundamental right of the vendor who maintains the machines to be able to sell a Dr. Pepper? Are you willing to nonchalantly impact his bottom line over some ill-advised ban on a totally legal beverage?

I don't believe I'm confusing the issue. This rule only applies to city-owned buildings. Schools. City Hall. There is no fundamental right to put a vending machine outside the Mayor's office, or inthe school cafeteria.

Again, this is not a ban on soda vending machines within city limits, but, again that article was intentionally misleading. f*** FOXNews.

[IBCoupe]

Before I reply to Stebo or Adam, I want to make sure that we're all aware that this rule would only apply to buildings owned by the City of Boston, right? And our outrage continues unabated, being fully aware of that fact?

So, if you are still upset after considering that, go ahead and read the rest of my comment.

Stebo, when the City sets internal workplace policies, they aren't regulating the market. If they set workplace regulations for all of Boston, they are, but not when they set them for city employees. This is no different. This rule is not market interference.

Adam, if the city eliminated all vending machines from it's buildings, what choice would it have made for you? I don't think it would have made any, and I don't think by allowing only certain vending machines that it's doing that, either.

And Greg, re: CA, if employees are really prohibited from bringing cans of soda in (bottles too?), and it reeeaaally bugs them, there's no fundamental right to public employment, either.

[AZhitman]

So, you're taking a "if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere" position?

Duly noted. That'll come in handy.

[AppleBonker]

First, yes I understand that this only applies to city-owned buildings.

Adam, if the city eliminated all vending machines from it's buildings, what choice would it have made for you?

I would say they hadn't made a choice for me in this case. Just more difficult for me to get a beverage/snack of any kind.

I don't think by allowing only certain vending machines that it's doing that, either.

Technically, I'd agree. If all the vending machines only contain water/unsweetened iced tea/V8/whatever they have not made a choice for me entirely. But, they have made it easier for me to purchase one of those beverages rather than a coke/pepsi/whatever. That is where my issue comes from. Why are they promoting only certain kinds of beverages?

On a side note, it always frustrated me when I attended the University of Illinois that all university buildings ONLY had Coke vending machines. Since I am a fan of Mountain Dew, this was annoying for me. However, in that case I understood it because I know the university had a contract with Coke. I can only assume that Coke was the higher bidder when trying to win this exclusivity. I consider that to be a viable reason to restrict what can or cannot be in a vending machine. Because there are fat people out there is NOT a valid reason.

[IBCoupe]

Don't shop for drinks at City Hall?

That's all I have for you. I don't think it's an outrage to eliminate cigarette-vending machines from public buildings, and I think the same can be said for drinks high in sugar.

I don't know that the line has been drawn properly (seen the sugar in fruit juice, lately?), but I don't have anything against drawing the line.

[IBCoupe]

So, you're taking a "if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere" position?

Duly noted. That'll come in handy.

Heh. I should say that I'm okay with it because it's not really a condition of employment. Go ahead and ask me if I think the City should fire all fat people.

[AppleBonker]

Don't shop for drinks at City Hall?

But what if I'm there already and happen to get thirsty?

I don't think it's an outrage to eliminate cigarette-vending machines from public buildings

Wasn't this an issue with minors being able to purchase though? The vending machines clearly don't ID the customer.

and I think the same can be said for drinks high in sugar.

Seeing as there is no minimum age to purchase pepsi, I don't agree.

I don't know that the line has been drawn properly (seen the sugar in fruit juice, lately?), but I don't have anything against drawing the line.

But what is the benefit of drawing said line?