The Obama administration is considering nixing potatoes in federal child nutrition programs such as WIC.


... the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture stop participants of the federal Women, Infants and Children program, known as WIC, from buying potatoes with federal dollars. The institute also called for the USDA-backed school lunch program to limit use of potatoes.

Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed. Next year, the agency will roll out a final rule on the WIC program, which last year served 9.3 million children and pregnant and breast-feeding women considered at risk for malnutrition.

Really? We're going to ban a fresh vegetable for hungry children?

Additional information to counter the spreading of FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt):


"The recommendation was made to encourage consumption of other fruits and vegetables," she said.

Jean Daniel, spokeswoman for USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, said the WIC program was updated for the first time in 30 years after a study showed more consumption of leafy greens and other veggies was needed.

Whatever the USDA decides, potatoes won't disappear from school lunches, although they might become less common, Daniel said,

"It's an opportunity to make healthy eating choices as varied as possible, and it's a learning lesson for children about how to put a plate together that's healthy and balanced," she said.

See, when you have all the information and not just the sound bites it appears differently.

Maybe they can eat some of the 4 lb. yams from the White House garden.

Maybe they can eat some of the 4 lb. yams from the White House garden."cause that what you think black people eat?

See, when you have all the information and not just the sound bites it appears differently.

I'm not spreading "FUD," just the facts. It matters not that they want to encourage eating other vegetables, banning this vegetable is moronic and it IS further evidence that this administration thinks we're too stupid to take care of ourselves.

"cause that what you think black people eat?

Who made this about black people? Funny how you accuse me of spreading FUD while playing the race card with zero justification for doing so.

I'm not spreading "FUD," just the facts. It matters not that they want to encourage eating other vegetables, banning this vegetable is moronic and it IS further evidence that this administration thinks we're too stupid to take care of ourselves.It's not a ban - that's the FUD.

Who made this about black people? Funny how you accuse me of spreading FUD while playing the race card with zero justification for doing so.Ok, what does you're the "White House yams" comment refer to?

4 lbs of yams what is that like 10 yams?

Clearly it was about the 1st Ladies magical garden . Look it up . She grew a 4lb yam.

But you see racists behind every rock and twice this week you have implied it. I have no inclination to waste time addressing it every time I'm slurred .

we're too stupid to take care of ourselves.
The obesity rate says we are.

Potatoes in hot lunches are either fries or have liberal coverings of gravy and butter. Fat, fat, fat. What kid will eat a cooked but unadorned potato?

Yams (or even sweet potatoes) would be a much better alternative over fried or gravied white potatoes --

Nutritionally speaking:

Sweet potatoes are relatively low in calories and have no fat. They are rich in beta-carotene; having five times the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A in one sweet potato, as well as loaded with potassium. These nutrients help to protect against heart attack and stroke. The potassium helps maintain fluid and electrolyte balance in the body cells, as well as help maintain normal heart function and blood pressure.

Yams are similar nutritionally but are not a great source of Vitamin A. They are a good source of vitamin C, potassium, manganese, dietary fiber, and vitamin B6 (pyridoxine). Yams are also known to help protect against cardiovascular disease, benefit those with hypertension, and believed to be an anti-cancer food.

Tom is right I saw something about 4lbs of yams and thought wow that's not that many.

Yams (or even sweet potatoes) would be a much better alternative over fried or gravied white potatoes --

Nutritionally speaking:

Sweet potatoes are relatively low in calories and have no fat. They are rich in beta-carotene; having five times the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A in one sweet potato, as well as loaded with potassium. These nutrients help to protect against heart attack and stroke. The potassium helps maintain fluid and electrolyte balance in the body cells, as well as help maintain normal heart function and blood pressure.

Yams are similar nutritionally but are not a great source of Vitamin A. They are a good source of vitamin C, potassium, manganese, dietary fiber, and vitamin B6 (pyridoxine). Yams are also known to help protect against cardiovascular disease, benefit those with hypertension, and believed to be an anti-cancer food.

I love sweet potatoes my wife makes mashed sweet potatoes with OJ in them they are awesome!!

It's not a ban - that's the FUD.

Excuse, me the article says they're considering a "bar" on buying potatoes with federal subsidies.

Main Entry: ban (http://thesaurus.com/browse/ban)
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: officially forbid

Synonyms: banish, bar, blackball, close down, close up, curse, declare illegal, disallow, enjoin, exclude, halt, ice out, illegalize, inhibit, interdict, outlaw, pass by, pass up, prevent, prohibit, proscribe, restrict, shut out, suppress

You were saying?

Ok, what does your the "White House yams" comment refer to?

It wasn't my comment and I took it to mean she grew yams in her garden. I don't think along racial lines like you do.

http://photos.upi.com/slideshow/lbox/0eefcfa10343a5bec517e4e056fb9f57/Michelle-Obama-Fall-Harvest.jpg

It was all the rage down here:

The First Lady?s Fall 2010 Kitchen Garden Harvest | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/22/first-lady-s-fall-2010-kitchen-garden-harvest)


Ok, what does your the "White House yams" comment refer to?

The obesity rate says we are.

Oh, so some study says obesity rates are bad so it's time for the government to control our lives? Not on my watch.


Potatoes in hot lunches are either fries or have liberal coverings of gravy and butter. Fat, fat, fat. What kid will eat a cooked but unadorned potato?

Most. Potatoes are an essential part of soups and stews. They can be mashed with a healthy butter substitute and garlic and herbs, diced and baked to a crispy deliciousness with rosemary and pepper or any number of herbs and spices. Season them and wrap them in foil with diced onions and throw them on the grill. Don't tell me I can't get a kid to eat healthy taters.

It was all the rage down here:

The First Lady?s Fall 2010 Kitchen Garden Harvest | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/22/first-lady-s-fall-2010-kitchen-garden-harvest)
Ah I see. I guess I missed that startling report. :)

Good grief, yams are yams. Who doesn't love yams? They aren't potatoes, and can grow to 150 pounds. Sweet potatoes are only distant potato cousins. I think what we eat in the US is usually a kind of sweet potato, even if from the yam bin at the store, but don't quote me. As for race, I suppose the fact that yams originated in W Africa might have something to do with stereotypes?

How did this get off the subject? The question has been asked and answered - potatoes won't be off the WIC list.

it IS further evidence that this administration thinks we're too stupid to take care of ourselves.Hello again, Steve:

Does that mean you support legalizing drugs and gay marriage?? Or it THAT nanny state activity just swell with you?? Actually, you LOVE nanny state stuff, doncha? You just pick WHICH nanny state stuff pisses you off.

excon

How did this get off the subject? The question has been asked and answered - potatoes won't be off the WIC list.

They won't? Says who? Which reminds me, I think I forgot the link on the OP.

Feds consider limiting potatoes offered to kids (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101020/ap_on_bi_ge/us_food_and_farm_defending_potatoes)

You just pick and choose WHICH nanny state stuff pisses you off.

Don't you?

Oh, so some study says obesity rates are bad so it's time for the government to control our lives? Not on my watch.
You (i.e. adults) are not doing so well at it.

Don't tell me I can't get a kid to eat healthy taters.
So can I. Are you in charge of a school lunch program or on a school board?

Don't you?Hello Steve:

Let me see. I like it when the nanny state provides student loans... I like it when they provide medicare and social security... I like it when they give starving people food stamps and give unemployment to the out of work...

So, I guess I do... But, the distinction to the nanny state stuff I like, and the stuff you like is MAJOR.. The nanny state stuff I like HELPS people.. The nanny state stuff you like, screws them over...

excon

You (i.e. adults) are not doing so well at it.

Oh really? I can't think of one fat kid that I know, I don't see fat kids running around the neighborhood or walking around the schools.


So can I. Are you in charge of a school lunch program or on a school board?

Irrelevant.

So, I guess I do... But, the distinction to the nanny state stuff I like, and the stuff you like is MAJOR.. The nanny state stuff I like HELPS people.. The nanny state stuff you like, screws them over...

And banning a vegetable is helpful? Tell that to all those potato farmers in Idaho, Colorado and elsewhere.

And banning a vegetable is helpful? Tell that to all those potato farmers in Idaho, Colorado and elsewhere.
My mom's from Idaho, grew up on a potato farm, and is all for it. She says if people can't control their use of butter, gravy, and deep frying, thus driving up health care costs, this is what has to happen.

Oh really? I can't think of one fat kid that I know, I don't see fat kids running around the neighborhood or walking around the schools.
I get the library newsletter from Plainview and see photos of kids who visit the Unger Library. You apparently don't get out much. Take a drive down south a bit.

My mom's from Idaho, grew up on a potato farm, and is all for it. She says if people can't control their use of butter, gravy, and deep frying, thus driving up health care costs, this is what has to happen.

This is what HAS to happen? That is the attitude that will ruin freedom for all of us.

You apparently don't get out much. Take a drive down south a bit.

Trust me, there is nothing in Plainview I'm interested in seeing. And I get out just fine, thank you.

Trust me, there is nothing in Plainview I'm interested in seeing. And I get out just fine, thank you.
Hey, it ain't that far away! And you'd get to see chubby kids who eat french fries! Should I have John send you the newsletter?

Hey, it ain't that far away! And you'd get to see chubby kids who eat french fries! Should I have John send you the newsletter?

Like I said, there is nothing in Plainview I'm interested in seeing. Been there, done that, it's a place to drive through, not stop... unless a Wal-Mart distribution center and prisons are your thing. Although, the very best popcorn in the land (https://www.panhandlepopcorn.com/default1.asp?SPA=TQIWP1022201040046PM) comes from Plainview.

Tater tots were the best ammunition for food fights, they'd better not ban potatoes.

Tater tots were the best ammunition for food fights, they'd better not ban potatoes.

Excellent point. And who doesn't love flinging spoonfuls of mashed taters?

it's a place to drive through, not stop...
Sort of like Amarillo...

This is what HAS to happen? That is the attitude that will ruin freedom for all of us.

Hi speech

In think it has to happen. The rights we think we should have are sometimes in conflict with 'the public good'. I think this is the point Wondergirl was making in relation to health care.

Exactly the same thing applies in Australia to cigarettes. In every state it is very difficult to find a place where you can smoke, other than your own home.

Regards

Tut

Hi speech

In think it has to happen. The rights we think we should have are sometimes in conflict with 'the public good'. I think this is the point Wondergirl was making in relation to health care.

Exactly the same thing applies in Australia to cigarettes. In every state it is very difficult to find a place where you can smoke, other than your own home.

Regards

Tut

And who determines the "public good" that your talking about?

Now let's see . What is more harmful ,some food dished out in moderation by the school lunch programs or illegal drugs ? Pototoes are rich in vit.C and potassium , fiber ,minerals and other vitamins. The worse thing in them is carbs .
... pot ? At best you can make an argument that it could be useful as medicine .

As for the carb factor ;if the kid is going home after school and their only recreation is surfing the net instead of playing ball ,then I can see how carbs could easily be converted into fat rather than energy.

Here is how the nanny state applies in this case . If you let yourself become dependent on the nanny state to feed you and your family ,you really shouldn't complain about what they feed you.

I love yams . I slice them thin and deep fat fry them... you can even shape them like tater tots... or pile them on the Thanksgiving plate soaked in turkey gravy. Then I sit down like a couch potato the rest of the day to watch the football games.

Sort of like Amarillo....

Plainview is a podunk town. Amarillo is the home of the original Abuelo's (http://www.abuelos.com/) (which by the way, serves some of the most amazing potatoes). 'Nuff said.

now let's see . What is more harmful ,some food dished out in moderation by the school lunch
All some kids eat is fries and pizza -- and ice cream.

Then I sit down like a couch potato the rest of the day to watch the football games.
There you go! You've bought right into it!

In think it has to happen. The rights we think we should have are sometimes in conflict with 'the public good'. I think this is the point Wondergirl was making in relation to health care.

Come on Tut, we're talking about a vegetable.

All some kids eat is fries and pizza -- and ice cream.

Then let's ban stupid parents instead.

Then let's ban stupid parents instead.

That will never happen. The system makes far too much money on those types of parents.

Then let's ban stupid parents instead.
Banning isn't necessary. Educating them on how to parent will work for me.

Banning isn't necessary. Educating them on how to parent will work for me.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Kind of like with banning cell phone use while driving.

Banning isn't necessary. Educating them on how to parent will work for me.

Personally I think that in today's world they might want to think about testing before turning on the texting feature of a phone. If the person in question can't form basic sentences and know how to write properly then they shouldn't be allowed to use that feature. Its ruining the english language.

[Texting is] ruining the english language.
I'm with you, brother! You should (like I did) join up with some Q&A site to see how that's working...

And it's destroying social life. I'll never forget the first time I drove past a group of students waiting for the school bus in the morning who weren't talking with each other (heavens!), but each was busily poking his finger onto tiny squares on a thing about the size of a 3x5 card.

I'm with you, brother! You should (like I did) join up with some Q&A site to see how that's working....

And it's destroying social life. I'll never forget the first time I drove past a group of students waiting for the school bus in the morning who weren't talking with each other (heavens!), but each was busily poking his finger onto tiny squares on a thing about the size of a 3x5 card.

Lol. They do that at the malls too. I guess Im too old to understand.

I'm 50 and I find texting quite useful actually, and considering I have to work with a bunch of young 18 to 20 something's - it's sometimes the only way to communicate.

I'm 50 and I find texting quite useful actually, and considering I have to work with a bunch of young 18 to 20 somethings - it's sometimes the only way to communicate.

Well lets see. I don't have a problem reading what you have written. But try that with some of the ones you have been texting with or the teens at the mall and that is a different story. Look around AMHD and you will see its running rampant. Imagine what job applications look like.

it's sometimes the only way to communicate.
And why would that be?

And who determines the "public good" that your talking about?

Hi Cal,

Good question. Most people accept we shouldn't have complete freedom to do as we like. By the same token it follows that the state should not have complete authority over everyone. The public good in this case is when the public welfare is at stake.

I don't think it matters if we are talking about obesity, cigarettes, or mobile phones. If the public has a genuine stake in these things then it may well have to happen that freedoms need to be infringed upon.

Using mobile phones while driving is obviously unsafe and no one has the right to put themselves and other people at risk. No one would disagree with that.

In Australia we have a national health care system. Obesity and smoking are a big drain on the budget. Australian tax payers are paying people to have the right to smoke and then seek medical treatment after 30, 40, years. The same type of argument applies to obesity. People can eat what they like but the taxpayer has to pay for their insulin if they develop diabetes as a direct result of their decision to eat the wrong foods.

The public good in this case is determined by the Government who acknowledges that the taxpayer wants value for money when it comes to health care. In other words, we should not have to pay for preventable diseases.

Hi Cal,

Good question. Most people accept we shouldn't have complete freedom to do as we like. By the same token it follows that the state should not have complete authority over everyone. The public good in this case is when the public welfare is at stake.

I don't think it matters if we are talking about obesity, cigarettes, or mobile phones. If the public has a genuine stake in these things then it may well have to happen that freedoms need to be infringed upon.

Using mobile phones while driving is obviously unsafe and no one has the right to put themselves and other people at risk. No one would disagree with that.

In Australia we have a national health care system. Obesity and smoking are a big drain on the budget. Australian tax payers are paying people to have the right to smoke and then seek medical treatment after 30, 40, years. The same type of argument applies to obesity. People can eat what they like but the taxpayer has to pay for their insulin if they develop diabetes as a direct result of their decision to eat the wrong foods.

The public good in this case is determined by the Government who acknowledges that the taxpayer wants value for money when it comes to health care. In other words, we should not have to pay for preventable diseases.

I find this argument a little funny because using that analagy you could ban just about everything using the public good as codification. What about activities like driving a car, motorcycle riding, hang gliding, sking, rock climbing ?

When you just pick there will always be flaws. Here is an example that I saw in my lifetime. Persons being admitted to a hospital with a deadly virus yet allowed to roam the public after it was discovered. Does that sound like it benefited the public good?

I find this argument alittle funny because using that analagy you could ban just about everything using the public good as codification. What about activities like driving a car, motorcycle riding, hang gliding, sking, rock climbing ?

When you just pick and choose there will always be flaws. Here is an example that I saw in my lifetime. Persons being admited to a hospital with a deadly virus yet allowed to roam the public after it was discovered. Does that sound like it benefited the public good?

Hi again Cal

Doesn't sound like it was in the good at all.

Interesting you mention dangerous activities. A few years ago there was a series of incidents where people through they would set out in small craft in order to try and do the impossible. There was a call to ban such activities because of the cost of sea rescue. Again, it is largely funded by the taxpayer.

There is no easy answer to this problem. Does freedom of speech allow someone to run into a crowded auditorium and yell, 'FIRE',when there is no fire? Should we stop this person exercising their freedom of speech when there is a danger of people being hurt?

In Australia we don't stop people from smoking, overeating, or undertaking some crazy adventure. We just discourage them from doing these things.

Again no easy answer

Regards

Tut

The public good in this case is determined by the Government who acknowledges that the taxpayer wants value for money when it comes to health care. In other words, we should not have to pay for preventable diseases.
Yet here choice is being eroded in health care options which means that the public will increasingly be obliged to assume the risk.

If there is risky behavior then the person doing the risky behavior should bear the cost. That is why auto policies have premiums ,that is why in many cases daredevils are fined if a rescue has to be attempted.It is why the man in Tennessee ,who took the chance and didn't pay his annual fire dept fee ,should at a minimum pay a huge fine if the dept is then called upon to put a fire out in his home.
With private health insurance there can be built in incentives for the obese to reduce their weight. But that won't happen in a society where the government decides that everyone must have the same health care plan. Then of course the state must employ soft tyranny to achieve it's objectives.Like I said already ,when you choose to live off the largess of others ,then you shouldn't complain about the strings attached .When you are forced to... that's a horse of a different color .

* it occures to me that largess may not be the appropriate term since it's implies a voluntary benevolence. Confiscating and redistribution of wealth does not fit the definition of largess.

Yet here choice is being eroded in health care options which means that the public will increasingly be obliged to assume the risk.

If there is risky behavior then the person doing the risky behavior should bear the cost. That is why auto policies have premiums ,that is why in many cases daredevils are fined if a rescue has to be attempted.It is why the man in Tennessee ,who took the chance and didn't pay his annual fire dept fee ,should at a minimum pay a huge fine if the dept is then called upon to put a fire out in his home.
With private health insurance there can be built in incentives for the obese to reduce their weight. But that won't happen in a society where the government decides that everyone must have the same health care plan. Then of course the state must employ soft tyranny to acheive it's objectives.Like I said already ,when you choose to live off the largess of others ,then you shouldn't complain about the strings attached .When you are forced to.............that's a horse of a different color .

Hi Tom,

Consider this example. Being old and silly as I am a few years I decided to take up snowboarding. I just so happened that I meet another old person ( younger than me, but relatively old given the activity). A bit of a rarity so we decided to try and out do each other. The ultimate challenge for us was the terrain park. I jokingly said to him before we embarked, "Is you insurance paid up?". His reply was, "What insurance> I can't afford it".

As it turned out I was the one who needed medical attention and eventually an operation. It wouldn't have matter if I had managed to get to the bottom unscathed and he was the one who need his knee reconstructed. The cost to both of us is the same. This is what equity is all about.

Regards

Tut

TUT ,considering your example it would be reasonable for the public to insist that the other guy cease that activity. Simularily in a single payer nanny state system the government would be justified in banning the activity.
In the example cited in the op I already said that people who expect the government to feed them shouldn't complain too much about what the government decides to feed them .

Consider my example. Here in New York we have a mayor who thinks he knows better than us what we should and shouldn't eat .He is taking authoritarian steps to implement his notions.
Where public money is involved he plans on banning the purchase of soda /carbonated beverages .

But he also wants to ban the use of salt in city restaurants. For now his "guidelines " are "voluntary" . But legislation has already been proposed in our State legislature that would "prohibit restaurants from using salt when preparing customers' meals." A restaurant would be fined $1,000 each time a chef cooked with salt.

Now this is hysteria because ,just like the potato ;the health risks associated are being tremedously overstated.

Now , some consumers actually want the choice of a low salt diet ,and the free market has responded . Quite frankly ;many healthy choices become more palatable with the addition of a little salt(including many of these veggies being promoted for healthy alternative) . I would also argue that where there is health risks in salt ,it comes from the bleaching done in the commercial processing. Natural sea salts are loaded with needed minerals.

Public health ,like AGW is unsettled science. What is consensus one day is yesterday's silly pretext. Yes by definition there are liberties surrendered to live in civil society. But when does public interest cross the line ?

TUT ,considering your example it would be reasonable for the public to insist that the other guy cease that activity. Simularily in a single payer nanny state system the government would be justified in banning the activity.

Hi Tom,

Herein lies the problem.

Is it ,'the free market' that determines what my fiend can and cannot do?

The 'free market' is a tool of free people.It allows for the free exchange of goods and services between free people .It's win win . Your friend comes to an agreement between himself and the person he's purchasing the service from... both win . Let's not talk in absolutes here because I already conceeded that dependent people depend on the good will of others (or the coercive powers of the government to force others to pay for the services). In a free market your friend is the one making the choice. He says he can't afford the insurance ,but that was from what I can tell ,a choice he made. Clearly his inability to pay for health insurance did not affect his ability to pay for his risky recreational pursuits. On the other hand you may have someone who has similar financial situations as he who doesn't buy or rent the snowboard. Who maybe cooks at home ,and makes similar sacrifices so they can do the responsible action of purchasing the insurance ( why did he need to pay for it anyway ? I thought your nanny state has a form of universal coverage?) .
The question is ? Why was he engaging in risky activity if he knew he had no insurance ? Answer... because he knew if he hurt himself someone else would foot the bill.
The system you are promoting is merchatile . There are winners and losers ;most time decided by the government referee .

Well lets see. I dont have a problem reading what you have written. But try that with some of the ones you have been texting with or the teens at the mall and that is a different story. Look around AMHD and you will see its running rampant. Imagine what job applications look like.

I get what you're saying and I agree, but have a little more faith. I get most texts from them in regular English.

And why would that be?

They respond.

The cost to both of us is the same. This is what equity is all about.

Equity is a myth, there will always be winners and losers and sometimes that's the same person. It's isn't fair to hold me back from my potential because someone else wasn't as fortunate or industrious is it?

When faced with the public good question its almost impossible to find a definition that is universal when applied. There are extreme examples like China and its limits on children to movies that portray a future that we may face like soylent green. If the "public good" is about the bottom dollar then we have nowhere to turn but the accountants. Add to the mix the compassion of the public and the lines move all over the place. The bottom line is freedom is rarely free. But when we leave the nest we don't need governmental parents hovering over us for the rest of our lives either.

Side note: The virus that Im speaking of in previous post was the aides virus. And at the time when it first appeared there was discussion of quarantine of the persons infected. As horrible as it sounds we now bare the costs for our decisions.

2004 Report on the global AIDS epidemic - 4th global report - Financing the response to AIDS (http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/GAR2004_10_en.htm)

The virus that Im speaking of in previous post was the aides virus. And at the time when it first appeared there was discussion of quarantine of the persons infected. As horrible as it sounds we now bare the costs for our decisions.

I knew exactly what you were referring to. Political correctness was determined to be the "public good."

The 'free market' is a tool of free people.It allows for the free exchange of goods and services between free people .It's win win . Your friend comes to an agreement between himself and the person he's purchasing the service from ...both win . Let's not talk in absolutes here because I already conceeded that dependent people depend on the good will of others.

HI again Tom,

In an ideal world maybe, but economic rationalism is just that. A rationalist argument

Australia went down that part in the 70's it has long since been rejected or modified. We realized that like most rationalist positions we can't pull ourselves up by out own boot straps. We also took into consideration the social costs.

Any idea of good will of others doesn't apply when it comes to a significant portion of the Australian population. Again, were are still largely an egalitarian society.




Regards

Tut

Equity is a myth, there will always be winners and losers and sometimes that's the same person. It's isn't fair to hold me back from my potential because someone else wasn't as fortunate or industrious is it?

Hi speech,

Yes, it is a myth, but it is no less a myth than economic rationalism. If you are saying that a myth is something than has no basis in experience then, yes> both can be regarded as a myth. In your country you can strive for unobtainable economic rationalism. In Australia we strive for unobtainable equity. I know which one I'd rather aim for.

Regards

Tut

Really? We're going to ban a fresh vegetable for hungry children?Hello again, Steve:

I'm having trouble with your hypocrisy... It's OK with you to ban marijuana, apparently for the public good, but you don't want to ban crap food from your children - I guess because you either don't see the danger in crap food for kids, or you want to make that decision for yourself...

But, you're happy with the nanny state telling you that you can't smoke pot?? I'm sorry. I don't get it... Maybe that's because I CHOSE to smoke a big joint before I posted this. But, my being stoned isn't what's causing my confusion... It's really your hypocrisy... I'd like to call it something else, Steve, because I know you'll be offended having been called a hypocrite... But, there's NO other word for it...

excon

I get what you're saying and I agree, but have a little more faith. I get most texts from them in regular English.
Regular English? The whole point of texting is to abbreviate -- before = before and 2 = too/to/two and u = you. Your coworkers text and spell everything out in "regular English"?

Regular English? The whole point of texting is to abbreviate -- b4 = before and 2 = too/to/two and u = you. Your coworkers text and spell everything out in "regular English"?

Thank you for the education on texting. :rolleyes:

There is no "whole point" of texting other than to send someone a message. Since phones now have keyboards it's not the pain in the a$$ it used to be to type a message. I said what I meant before and I meant what I said, them's the facts.

Thank you for the education on texting.
So you are exchanging texting, not "regular English," with coworkers. Got it!

Regular English? The whole point of texting is to abbreviateIt used to be but with predictive text technologies that most modern come equipped with much of the abbreviations have vanished.
Here's an example of a similar phone to mine:
YouTube - HTC Desire Predictive Text (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaEUqnoIyWw)

It used to be but with predictive text technologies that most modern come equipped with much of the abbreviations have vanished.
Here's an example of a similar phone to mine:
YouTube - HTC Desire Predictive Text (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaEUqnoIyWw)
The person typing was actually literate and knew the difference between "it's" and "its" and between "then" and "than" and actually used punctuation. It was like his third grade teacher was looking over his shoulder and helping him press buttons. Most people use cell phones, and not fancy equipment that cost a lot. I'm not impressed.

Well my HTC Magic cost me $79 and it opened us up to geocaching so it's money well spent for us. The old texting with numeric keypads is quickly going away.

Well my HTC Magic cost me $79 and it opened us up to geocaching so it's money well spent for us. The old texting with numeric keypads is quickly going away.
Plus, you're already literate.

You're a sweetee. :)

Your a sweetee. :)
Hmmm, I may take that back.

So you are exchanging texting, not "regular English," with coworkers. Got it!

Please, stop speaking for me. I meant what I said and it was correct the first time.

I'm having trouble with your hypocrisy..

Ex, these days you get your panties in a wad no matter what I say.


But, you're happy with the nanny state telling you that you can't smoke pot?? I'm sorry. I don't get it...

That's because no one is asking kids to smoke potatoes.

S.F. Supes Pass Happy Meal Ban with Veto-Proof Majority (http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2010/11/sf_supes_pass_happy_meal_ban_w.php)

Pathetic.

Pathetic.Hello again, Steve:

I agree. I don't believe the state should interfere with how I spend my money... However, THIS is the natural outgrowth of laws that YOU support... Although you make fun about smoking potato's, you have NO PROBLEM hiring the nanny state to arrest and jail people who spend their money on marijuana... Apparently, you support this law for OUR OWN GOOD - a nanny state proclamation if I ever heard one. You also scream and holler about the mandate to buy insurance that's been foisted upon you... That too, is the natural progression of the same ideology that YOU support... You just want it to be ONE way - YOUR way. You want to ban the stuff YOU want banned, not the stuff YOU like. When that happens, you throw up your hands and complain about the NANNY state... But the enemy in THIS battle, my friend, is YOU.

As I've said MANY times in the past, if you want to protect YOUR liberties, you have to protect your NEIGHBORS liberties. You didn't, and we're ALL paying for it.

excon

Well at least it's gone from everything is Bush's fault to everything is my fault.

Sorry, I see no moral equivalence or natural progression in criminalizing a drug that does impair function and puts the public at risk, and banning toys for kids.

Sorry, I see no moral equivalence or natural progression in criminalizing a drug that does impair function and puts the public at risk, and banning toys for kids.Hello again, Steve:

You STILL miss the point... It's not about the MORAL issues, it's about the LEGAL issues... Certainly, it's MORAL to pass laws that protect children from toys that get caught in their throats... Certainly, it's MORAL to pass laws that prevent people from eating food that isn't good for them... Certainly, it's MORAL to pass laws that prevent the inevitability of you and I paying for their medical bills... So, a case CAN be made for the MORALITY of the SF ban.

If you want the laws of the nation to protect MORALITY, then you're going to get laws that protect OTHER PEOPLES morality when they have POWER. It's actually BETTER to protect ALL us from everybody's morality - and let you and I spend our money as we see fit.

But, you don't get any of this... You talk about MORAL equivalence of criminalizing a drug that impairs function and puts the public at risk, yet you say NOTHING about banning alcohol, which of course, puts the public at a much greater risk than pot. So, there's nothing MORAL about your position, at all.. It's pure ideology.

excon

I don't miss the point at all, ex and I agree, alcohol is worse. Better yet, I've said before that I really don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana. I've also come out against smoking bans, so you can stop blaming me for leading to the ban of toys in Happy Meals.

In fact I find it quite ironic that the left wants to at the same time legalize pot while banning toys. What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, hell we'll give you the needles to shoot your heroin and condoms to your 13 year old, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.

Luckily in Ca. when it comes to moral issues voted for by referendum ,there is a cintilla of common sense left in the populace.

Luckily in Ca. when it comes to moral issues voted for by referendum ,there is a cintilla of common sense left in the populace.

Will they attack Mormons again?

I don't miss the point at all, What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.Hello again, Steve:

You ABSOLUTELY, do miss the point... You're still trying to equate YOUR morality with the RIGHT morality...

You also miss a couple of other things... You think the legalization issue is about "getting as high as you want". Nothing could be further from the truth. What it really is, is an acknowledgment of the failed drug war, and a REAL attempt to DO, what the drug war purports to do, but FAILS to do. That's to keep pot OUT of the hands of children... If it's legal, and sold in places where ID's can be checked, and poisons can be detected, we'll protect our children BETTER than we have been. Right now, they buy it at the local dealer who doesn't care how young they are. That's cool with you, I guess. No it isn't, you'll say. You'll say we need to get rid of the local dealer, and we CAN if we only "cracked down"... Do you know how silly that's sounding these days??

The other thing you missed (you too, tom), is that you don't change laws based on 50 years worth of lies overnight... Like gay marriage, pot WILL become legal.

But, this thread is about the nanny state... Go ahead - complain about nuggets while you wear your right wing blinders... But, don't come complaining to me when the nanny state does OTHER stuff you don't like, cause they WILL. That's simply, because, as you've said, there's SOME things the nanny state bans, that you're perfectly HAPPY about them banning - for our own good, of course...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I like how you edited this part out, "I've said before that I really don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana. I've also come out against smoking bans."

Your argument with me is a strawman. Oh, and it doesn't matter that we legalize something and check ID's and such, the kids are going to get it anyway and the left is going to fight for their right to have it.

Oh, and it doesn't matter that we legalize something and check ID's and such, the kids are going to get it anyway
Like alcohol and cigarettes?

the kids are going to get it anyway and the left is going to fight for their right to have it.Hello again, Steve:

I'M the left. I epitomize the left. I've posted LOTS about kids, and pot, and legalization... Never once did I advocate that children should smoke pot. In fact, I don't know anyone who thinks children have a right to have pot. Dude!

But, it's fine that you'd add more lies to the debate. Your side has been doing it for 50 years. What else is new? The TRUTH?? From you guys?? Nahhh.

excon

PS> I didn't edit it either.

Like alcohol and cigarettes?

Um, that's exactly what I was referring to.

PS> I didn't edit it either.

What you quoted:


I don't miss the point at all, What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.

What I said:


I don't miss the point at all, ex and I agree, alcohol is worse. Better yet, I've said before that I really don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana. I've also come out against smoking bans, so you can stop blaming me for leading to the ban of toys in Happy Meals.

In fact I find it quite ironic that the left wants to at the same time legalize pot while banning toys. What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, hell we'll give you the needles to shoot your heroin and condoms to your 13 year old, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.

You only omitted everything in italics to make on seamless quote.

I know you wouldn't advocate kids having the right to smoke pot, but the push to undermine parental authority grant kids more rights has been well documented here. If sex is harmless then children should have their sexual freedom they say. If pot is harmless and legal why shouldn't kids have that freedom as well? That's a natural progression if you ask me.

That's a natural progression if you ask me.Hello again, Steve:

Like gay marriage progress's into marriage with horses. Yeah, I know how you guys think.. Bonkers...

excon

It's no goofier than you blaming me for banning Happy Meals. Truth be told, you just want to argue. Banning Happy Meals is stupid, period.

"cause that what you think black people eat?

What's wrong with Yams... they are highly nutritious http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/nutritional-value-of-yams-5759.html. And in fact... Yams (which are NOT the same as sweet potatoes contrary to popular opinion) are African and Asian in origion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_(vegetable)..so yes a lot of Black people do eat yams... and a lot of other things.

I'd say something that's been cultivated as food for 8,000 years in Africa might be consumed by a lot of blacks.

Stuff White People Like (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/)

Heck... schools are better off serving both Yams and Sweet potatoes than they are mystery meat or Mac and Cheese.

And I'm no vegan.

Stuff White People Like (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/)

What's your point?

What's your point?
How about then Cowboys!

As already acknowledged (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/pre-election-recap-521676-4.html#post2587435), they suck. So what's your point?

As already acknowledged (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/pre-election-recap-521676-4.html#post2587435), they suck. So what's your point?You posted about the Cowboys in a Pre-election recap thread - what was the point of that?

You posted about the Cowboys in a Pre-election recap thread - what was the point of that?

It was a response to an inside joke. And the point of yours?

Also an inside joke, plus it's funny!

When the USDA isn't taking taters away from kid's diets, they're pushing cheese on us (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hpw).

Ain't the USA a hell hole, eh?

Ain't the USA a hell hole, eh?

Because of cheese? Dude. :rolleyes:

I like my Velveta... doesn't matter what a California politician says...

Hello again, Steve:

What do you think the government does with the milk it buys for the sole purpose of keeping milk prices HIGH? They make cheese. What do they DO with all that cheese?? But, that's not the subject of my question to you. I suppose you'll object to the premise of my question, but I'll live with your objection...

What I want to know is this. Although you complain about the "nanny state" banning stuff for our own good, it HAS been established that you believe the "nanny state" SHOULD ban SOME stuff for our own good. I just want to know WHERE you draw the line?

Yes, that changes the conversation from a complaint about government, to the moral decisions we make... That's, frankly, what this is about... You huff and puff about my bringing attention to it. You say, "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the " should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here." Maybe you can justify that by saying the department that bans drugs ISN'T the " should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here.". It's the cops... To which, I wrinkle up my nose and wonder what you've been smoking...

excon

PS> Do you favor price supports that help dairy farmers, but hurt consumers?

You huff and puff about my bringing attention to it. You say, "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the "nanny state" should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here." Maybe you can justify that by saying the department that bans drugs ISN'T the "nanny state". It's the cops... To which, I wrinkle up my nose and wonder what you've been smoking...

Dude, when you answer your questions for me there's not a whole to say is there?

PS> Do you favor price supports that help dairy farmers, but hurt consumers?


Hell no ! That is an easy earmark to get rid of .


The funny thing about the happy meals is that if there is a reason they are unhealthy ,is because the government allows the harmful ingredients in the final product to be used . Why blame Micky D's for selling harmful products when they are cooking up ingredients that are lawful ? It's the crap that should not be used in food manufacturing that is the biggest problem in manufactured foods .

In that I think the government has a legitimate role . It would take too long for me to get into great details . But let's talk about salt since that is what gets nanny staters like Bloomy's panties in a knot.
Inherently there is absolutely nothing wrong with sodium from salt. The real problem is the salt(primarily sodium chloride ) that gets marketted . Processed table salt is junk that gets bleached and has addatives that are indeed harmful . Unprocessed sea salt is ugly and not as white . But it contains many useful minerals (calcium, magnesium, potassium and 90 other trace and micro-nutrients)and should be part of the average diet. Mined from underground salt deposits,table salt is heat blasted, chemically treated, heavily processed to eliminate trace minerals and contains additives to prevent clumping. Table salt has added iodine which occures naturally in sea salt.

High fructose corn syrup should not be a food ingredient and the primary reason it is is to satisfy a subsidized agricultural constituency.

So I see that what excon says is correct: you are FOR regulation for the stuff that you want regulated. Isn't that the nanny-statism that you so deplore?

The funny thing about the happy meals is that if there is a reason they are unhealthy ,is because the government allows the harmful ingredients in the final product to be used . Why blame Micky D's for selling harmful products when they are cooking up ingredients that are lawful ? It's the crap that should not be used in food manufacturing that is the biggest problem in manufactured foods . Hello again, tom:

I think you're on to something... Maybe the nanny state could ban whatever ingredients you're talking about above, instead of toys and happy meals...

But, it's STILL the nanny state involving itself in our buying decisions. I don't see much difference in government banning stuff that McDonalds can't buy, or banning the happy meals that those ingredients produce.

The question is, do you support government intervention into our buying decisions. It seems clear to me that you do.

excon

Yes I do and I have been consistent on this point . The problem however is not the food but the lawful ingredients used in the foods . I am in favor of the government deciding a food ingredient ,drug ,chemical is unsafe for human consumption and taking measures to ban or restrict it's usage .
Does that make me a nanny-stater ? No . I think that is a traditional legitimate role of government.

I think San Francisco would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientific link between happy meals and childhood obesity .There is no basis at all for the ban execept to be punitive to McDonalds. I hope they take the city to court.

So I see that what excon says is correct: you are FOR regulation for the stuff that you want regulated. Isn't that the nanny-statism that you so deplore?

Again, if you guys are going to answer for me then just talk among yourselves.

Does that make me a nanny-stater ? No . I think that is a traditional legitimate role of government.Hello again, tom:

One man's nanny state, is another man's government doing its job.

Me? I'm what you wished you were. I don't believe the government has ANY role in my buying or selling decisions... Let the free market rule.

excon

Let the free market rule.
excon
That's much worse than government regulation In my opinion.

Me? I'm what you wished you were. I don't believe the government has ANY role in my buying or selling decisions... Let the free market rule.

Except for health care. How about assault weapons?

Good ,then I'll use massive amt's of growth hormones on the diseased beef I raise and you'll gladly purchase it from me .

Except for health care. How about assault weapons?Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... I don't want 'em to regulate my insurance company OR my gun store. I want to be able to BUY whatever the market offers. Should I be able to buy a bazooka? Uhhh, YES! I actually BELIEVE in the Constitution.

excon

How about regulating where convicted sex offenders are able to live, hang out or work? Or what doctors are allowed to practice... same with lawyers. Or who can drive schoolbuses or other means of public transportation.

Good ,then I'll use massive amt's of growth hormones on the diseased beef I raise and and you'll gladly purchase it from me .
How about regulating where convicted sex offenders are able to live, hang out or work?Hello liberals:

Nope, and Nope!

Use what you will on your beef. It'll kill people and the lame stream media will report it. I'll read about it, and no - I ain't going to be your customer... That protection doesn't involve the nanny state... It involves the FREE MARKET at work.

If sex offenders need to be watched, they shouldn't be out. I have no problem with putting 'em away for good the FIRST time.

See you, liberals.

excon

Ex,
I'm on to you.

:D

Hello liberals:

Nope, and Nope!

Use what you will on your beef. It'll kill people and the lame stream media will report it. I'll read about it, and no - I ain't gonna be your customer... That protection doesn't involve the nanny state... It involves the FREE MARKET at work.
excon


No skin off my nose . I'll sell my beef at discount prices and I'll sell it out . I'll give back rewards to purchasers ; I'll sell it to people who don't read or pay attention to the news (a growing segment of the population) .They won't know about the harmful affects until long after I've vacated the farm and retired.

The problem is not regulation of the market.. it is useless ,counterproductive and excessive regulations that are the problem. I don't know of any free market conservative who thinks there should be absolutes like you are arguing for... and in truth ,I don't really think you believe the position you are taking on this issue . If there is any role for government it is in public safety .

No skin off my nose . I'll sell my beef at discount prices and I'll sell it out . I'll give back rewards to purchasers ; I'll sell it to people who don't read or pay attention to the news (a growing segment of the population) .They won't know about the harmful affects until long after I've vacated the farm and retired.

If there is any role for government it is in public safety .Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree. I'm not an anarchist. Certainly, the criminal code would still exist. In my free market world, you'd STILL be in jail for killing people.

Besides, you're not saying, are you, that in our current heavily regulated environment, business is PREVENTED from adulterating their products?? Really?? Dude!

excon

In my free market world, you'd STILL be in jail for killing people.

How could I be jailed for utilizing a legal ingredient ? There is no such a thing as an adulterated product unless there is a law associated with it ;even if it's only laws requiring accurate labelling . It is still government intervention in the "caveat emptor" world .

How about regulations preventing pot smokers from driving Subway trains... or any passenger carrying conveyance like Buses, planes etc..

Because I can quote cases where deaths have resulted from a stoned operator. JUST in the Washington DC Metro system

Thanks to a bipartisan anti-smoking statute, the nanny state's FDA has come up with some nice images to take up half the space of a pack of cigarettes, corpses, rotten lungs and teeth (http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm), etc.

Next up if they haven't banned Happy Meals, burgers and fries altogether - images of bypass surgery on your fries and 900 lb people on your hamburger wrapper. Or (http://twitpic.com/35qaow)...

There is not any evidence of a connection between children eating a happy meal and childhood obesity . That is why the attack against Micky D's by the clueless San Fran leaders is wrong . What they are doing is favoring other fast food places that do not include toys with the meal... it's not even that these other restaurants are offering a healthier alternative. Micky D's and Burger King should take this action to court .

Or they could sell the toy for the price of a meal and give the burger ,fries and drink away for the purchase of the toy. The toys are sure to be a hit at the Folsom Street Fair.

I hear Michelle is pushing for them to replace the happy meal with the McWagyu

The problem with kids being fat... is they are being fed too much and too much of the wrong things by their parents.

When did NO become a dirty word... and when did responsible parents start to take their kids to McDonalds often enough for them to become grossly overweight as a result.

There is not any evidence of a connection between children eating a happy meal and childhood obesity . Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry. The feds DON'T need evidence. I hear they're producing a film called "French Fry Maddness". No, of course, its not true, but that hasn't stopped 'em before. As long as they can LIE to ban stuff, and it's JUST FINE WITH YOU, I'm not feeling your pain...

excon

You mean like Al Gores... An inconvienient truth... which is anything but. Or any other movie that moron Director produced.

Hello smoothy:

Try to focus... Do I understand that you support the nanny state ban on marijuana, but decry the ban on happy meal toys?

Aren't YOU the guy who made a thread called inconsistency and liberals?? I think you did. Can you see the hypocrisy and inconsistency in your position? I don't think you can.

excon

Hello smoothy:

Try to focus... Do I understand that you support the nanny state ban on marijuana, but decry the ban on happy meal toys?

Aren't YOU the guy who made a thread called inconsistency and liberals??? I think you did. Can you see the hypocrisy and inconsistency in your position? I don't think you can.

excon

Illegal drug use has NOTHING in common with banning plastic toys for kids.

You never answered my question about if you agreed with regulating Public Transportation operators regarding drug use... because we have had multiple cases of Metro Transit accidents with multiple fatalities that were directly caused by marijuana use... as manditory drug tests after the accident proved they were stoned. And it happens quite often if I can pull multiple instances JUST here in my area it happens other places too. You just won't hear the pro pot lobby reporting on it.

Now if you want to discuss how the right to put lives at risk driving stoned is equal to a fast food restaurant giving a plastic toy in a meal to a child the kids parents voluntarily bought, I'd like to hear it...

Because I don't remember Public Transit Passengers being asked of it was cool for the driver to smoke a doobie when they boarded... and no... if it was a bottle of Jack Daniels instead it would be no different.

I hear Michelle is pushing for them to replace the happy meal with the McWagyu

With a side of yams.

Illegal drug use has NOTHING in common with banning plastic toys for kids.Hello again, smoothy:

The two positions, i.e. banning marijuana, for our own good, and banning toys, for our own good, have NOTHING in common with each other... Right...

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

The two positions, i.e. banning marijuana, for our own good, and banning toys, for our own good, have NOTHING in common with each other... Right....

excon

YOU might want to be on a bus, plane or train opperated by someone stoned... or driving on the highway next to one... the rest of us don't. You support legalizing drunk driving too?

Now what THAT has to do with a plastic toy in a meal that hurts nobody..?


How about hunting trips on the border to pick off illegals?

I think the Feds packaging safaris for that can bring in money to the treasury and put a dent in the illegals problem both. After all, why regulate anything... lets have a free-for-all.

Lead paint... Chinese lead toys... Federal safety regulations... etc

YOU might want to be on a bus, plane or train opperated by someone stoned......or driving on the highway next to one.....the rest of us don't.

Now what THAT has to do with a plastic toy in a meal that hurts nobody....???????????????Hello again, smoothy:

I got news for you. 25 million people smoke pot regularly. Don't you think you've been on a highway with one or two, or maybe been on a bus with a stoned driver? Did you live? Pot is NOT alcohol. In fact, it's actually marijuana that doesn't hurt anybody, but a plastic toy could kill a child...

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I got news for you. 25 million people smoke pot regularly. Don't you think you've been on a highway with one or two, or maybe been on a bus with a stoned driver? Did you live? Pot is NOT alcohol. In fact, it's actually marijuana that doesn't hurt anybody, but a plastic toy could kill a child...

excon

What complete and total BS...

Pot does effect reactions... simular to alcohol... and in fact Stoned people KILL others... just like any drunk.

But then... you are far from objective about drugs... you simply discard any evidence that disproves any claims the stoners make...

And there have been SERIOUS accidents caused by Stoned operators... PROVEN by drug tests. Not one... not two... but many. There have been several Metrobus and Metrorail accidents HERE that the drivers tested positive for Pot use after the crash... not all survived.

But then... if your drug of choice was Cocaine... you would want that made legal too... or Heroine. There are far more legitimate uses that are proven by non-junkies for Opiates than there are for Pot... most of which are harped by the pot smokers themselves... so no... not a chance they have a bias and agenda to push their propaganda...

Cigarettes have never hurt a sole either... nor has beer... or Whiskey... or crack... hell lets just legalize streetwalking. Why regulate Teachers... lets let released rapists work in women's centers... schools... etc... after all, you think the Government has no business regulationg anything. Like drilling for oil off the pacific coast. I'm all for Drilling for oil off the west coast... they use lots of fuel... so... no drilling allowed... then no fuel goes there.

Hello again, smoothy:

If you'd like to start a drug thread, I'll join. But, for purposes of THIS thread, let's recap; you're fine with the nanny state banning stuff, as long as you THINK it should be banned. But if you DON'T think it should be banned, it should NOT be banned.

Does that about sum it up? Okee dokee.

excon

Actually Drugs isn't a nanny state issue... just because a State may say its legal doesn't make it so... Federal Law outlaws it and trumps any State law. So California can't technically make it legal in any way shape or form when it's a violation of federal law.

Why don't you just say, you like to get stoned... want to get stoned, and like to drive stoned...

And not argue its like drinking Gatorade.

Now... read what you just said...

Because you just did EXACTLY what you are accusing me of. Only I have better reasons for it.

Drugs isn't a nanny state issue.... Only I have better reasons for it. Hello again, smoothy:

Your spin on it, doesn't make it so. The fact is, you're FINE with the state banning stuff, YOU think SHOULD be banned, but they're WRONG to ban stuff you DON'T think should be banned... And that should be so, because ----- you have good reasons.

Dude!

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Your spin on it, doesn't make it so. The fact is, you're FINE with the state banning stuff, YOU think SHOULD be banned, but they're WRONG to ban stuff you DON'T think should be banned... And that should be so, because ----- you have good reasons.

Dude!

excon

Its NOT a spin... its a fact. NO state in the United states can legalize anything that is already Illegal under federal Law...

They CAN enhance that, making more things illegal but they can't make them legal when a higher authority dictates otherwise. Dry towns are examples. Or a Dry State. Don't see the ACLU harping about that do you?

And listen to Mr. Hypocrite... yapping about how HIS views should be law... when they aren't trying to tell others that their perspective when it IS the same as current law has no merit. Because you have your reasons...


Sorry, but as mnuch as you may want it... Comminsts don't run this country... and thus... ONE allowed viewpoint doesn't exist. And you can't toss the opposition in a Gulag as much as the Dems have wet dreams about doing so.

Yeah you have the right to HOPE otherwise... but the fact remains that the law says Illegal drug use is... well Illegal.

And its been that way since way before either of us were born. For Damn good reason.

You notice the thought police aren't knocking on your door right now... Think about it a bit.

Its NOT a spin...its a fact. NO state in the United states can legalize anything that is alreadty Illegal under federal Law....Hello again, smoothy:

Here we go, off the rails once again... Please pay attention... We're talking about the IDEA of the nanny state banning stuff - not drug laws or states rights issues, or the Constitution, or federal law... We're talking about an IDEA - at least we were.

The OP was dissing the "nanny state". I simply mentioned that you guys LIKE the nanny state when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't. It's like our discussion the other day about "big" government... You LIKE "big" government when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't.

It's no more difficult than that.

excon

:(
Thanks to a bipartisan anti-smoking statute, the nanny state's FDA has come up with some nice images to take up half the space of a pack of cigarettes, corpses, rotten lungs and teeth (http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm), etc.

Next up if they haven't banned Happy Meals, burgers and fries altogether - images of bypass surgery on your fries and 900 lb people on your hamburger wrapper. Or (http://twitpic.com/35qaow)...

Thanks to a bipartisan anti-smoking statute, the nanny state's FDA has come up with some nice images to take up half the space of a pack of cigarettes, corpses, rotten lungs and teeth (http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm), etc.

Next up if they haven't banned Happy Meals, burgers and fries altogether - images of bypass surgery on your fries and 900 lb people on your hamburger wrapper. Or (http://twitpic.com/35qaow)...

The Brits tried something similar
Death (cigarette) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_%28cigarette%29)

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .

Hello again, smoothy:

Here we go, off the rails once again... Please pay attention... We're talking about the IDEA of the nanny state banning stuff - not drug laws or states rights issues, or the Constitution, or federal law... We're talking about an IDEA - at least we were.

The OP was dissing the "nanny state". I simply mentioned that you guys LIKE the nanny state when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't. It's like our discussion the other day about "big" government... You LIKE "big" government when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't.

It's no more difficult than that.

exconAnd I have no problem with States banning certain things... while not others. You for example LIKE regulations pertaining to sex offenders... You LIKE regulations that will transfer wealth from those that earn it to those who are too lazy.

You like regulations that force Half the population that works hard to not only pay for their own health are... but for the other half too.

You want a PRIME example of NannyState... look no further than the Obama Administration and Obamacare.

The Brits tried something similiar
Death (cigarette) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_%28cigarette%29)

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .

Is there a human being walking this earth in an advanced culture that DOESN'T know Smoking causes cancer?

And if they don't... WHY? And if they are that stupid to know what it does, why are they allowed to walk free.

Now if they do know and still smoke... its because they don't give a damn... yeah it probibly IS a hard habit to break... but if they don't try then whose fault is it.

Everyone has seen those pictures by now... except for those in a few third world locations that are totally illiterate and have never seen a TV... the rest are fully aware today. And yeah... a quit Smoking Hotline would have better results.

The Brits tried something similiar
Death (cigarette) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_%28cigarette%29)

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .


Australia has led the way when it comes to grisly photos on cigarette packets. These photos and aggressive anti-smoking programms have seen a significant decline in the number of smokers.

Australia has, and will have some of the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the world. By 2012 all cigarettes will be in plain packets ( no logos allowed). An increase in cigarette tax will go directly in health care.

Upon reading posts about 'the nanny state' one thing puzzles me above everything else. Your constitution guarantees you, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Our constitution doesn't have these type of rights yet, in Australia we see universal health care as necessary for 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. In other words, we see it as a fundamental right in the same way we see free speech as a fundamental right.

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.


Tut

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.Hello TUT:

Blows me away too. We certainly believe that a citizen has a RIGHT to have a fire in his HOUSE put out - but not one in his belly... Makes no sense..

excon

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.

And as far as I know every hospital in America has to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. We've been there and discussed this. NO ONE is refused health care in America and insurance coverage is not a fundamental right.

So why don't most people just stop paying those crazy monthly premiums and just go to the hospital for free?

And as far as I know every hospital in America has to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. We've been there and discussed this. NO ONE is refused health care in America and insurance coverage is not a fundamental right.Hello again, Steve:

I never did let you get away with your misstatements, and I'm not going to start NOW.

You get EMERGENCY treatment in the hospital. You don't get LONG TERM treatment. People who don't have insurance and who need LONG TERM treatment, in this country, DIED before this health care law. They suffered the nations DEATH PANEL. TUT is simply pointing out our very own DEATH PANEL, that you seem to want to go BACK to.

You don't get cancer treatment in the emergency room... You don't get your appendix taken out in the emergency room... You DIE if you need that stuff. How is it, that you DON'T know that??

excon

Compassionate Conservatism, Texas Style ? Progressive Nation (http://progressivenation.us/2010/11/09/compassionate-conservatism-texas-style/)

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .

I have no doubt these images would be somewhat effective. In your face offensive, but effective. But if they're going to be consistent and fair, I do expect such graphic warnings on food packaging, alcohol and prescription labels.

On all those wheels of cheese they're pushing on us (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-nanny-state-ban-519183-11.html#post2596195) they should add images of clogged arteries and bypass surgery. Every glass of Pinot Noir served at the White House should be plastered with images of roadside memorials and drunk driving accidents. And goodness, I can't even begin to describe the graphics that should be on a prescription bottle of Lyrica.

I have no doubt these images would be somewhat effective. In your face offensive, but effective. But if they're going to be consistent and fair, I do expect such graphic warnings on food packaging, alcohol and prescription labels.

On all those wheels of cheese they're pushing on us (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-nanny-state-ban-519183-11.html#post2596195) they should add images of clogged arteries and bypass surgery. Every glass of Pinot Noir served at the White House should be plastered with images of roadside memorials and drunk driving accidents. And goodness, I can't even begin to describe the graphics that should be on a prescription bottle of Lyrica.
One can enjoy a glass of fine wine with a meal. I can have some grated cheese on my pasta. Can you think of any benefits of smoking?

Australia has led the way when it comes to grisly photos on cigarette packets. These photos and aggressive anti-smoking programms have seen a significant decline in the number of smokers.

Australia has, and will have some of the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the world. By 2012 all cigarettes will be in plain packets ( no logos allowed). An increase in cigarette tax will go directly in health care.

Upon reading posts about 'the nanny state' one thing puzzles me above everything else. Your constitution guarantees you, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Our constitution doesn't have these type of rights yet, in Australia we see universal health care as necessary for 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. In other words, we see it as a fundamental right in the same way we see free speech as a fundamental right.

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.


Tut

The problem is almost half the population expects the other half to pay so they can get it free. THat means the half that works the hardest has to pay twice as much to support the lazy half.

Fact is if you went into any Hospital emergency room... they would treat you for free.

They could NOT refuse treatment. That is something they don't want everyone to know.

And incidentally... there is NO country on the earth with socialized medicine that doesn't practice some form or quota and rationing of certain services.

And yes I can click off a list of close personal friiends and family that are now dead because of European socialized medicine that would likely be alive right now if they had been in the USA. And yes I've seen the insides of European hospitals way too often as well as having been a patient in an American hospital a few times... I'd much rather pay to be in ours than be in one of theirs for free.

At least in ours if you need it now you get it now. Except for organ transplants there is no waiting list.

I never did let you get away with your misstatements, and I'm not going to start NOW.

I didn't make any misstatement, I was 100 percent correct.


You get EMERGENCY treatment in the hospital. You don't get LONG TERM treatment.

And your state or community didn't already take care of those who needed a safety net? Mine does, always has and you know this because we've discussed the fact that my daughter was brought HERE to Amarillo, TX in the year 2000 to be treated for AIDS and all of the opportunistic infections she had with it. Her life was saved by our community hospital, her meds were taken care of by the State of Texas, and a PRIVATE physician provided her long-term care, so enough of this bullsh*t that I don't know what I'm talking about. OK?

Fact is if you went into any Hospital emergency room...they would treat you for free.

They could NOT refuse treatment.
So why doesn't everyone do that then?

At least in ours you need it now you get it now.Hello again, smoothy:

If you need a cancer removed, you DON'T get it now. You DON'T get it EVER. You DIE. Do you not understand this?

excon

Compassionate Conservatism, Texas Style ? Progressive Nation (http://progressivenation.us/2010/11/09/compassionate-conservatism-texas-style/)

See my post here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-nanny-state-ban-519183-16.html#post2599228). Got it?

One can enjoy a glass of fine wine with a meal. I can have some grated cheese on my pasta. Can you think of any benefits of smoking?

Got me salivating... a Nice Pasta ragu with freshly grated stravecchio Parmagianno cheese... And a nice Lambrusco.

her meds were taken care of by the State of Texas, and a PRIVATE physician provided her long-term careSo who paid for the meds and the physician if you or her didn't?

So who paid for the meds and the physician if you or her didn't?

Read the damn post.

Read the damn post.
I did. The state paid. So you got the other taxpayers to pay for your family's healthcare? Sounds like socialized medicine to me.

I did. The state paid. So you got the other taxpayers to pay for your family's healthcare? Sounds like socialized medicine to me.

After what I just posted, you still feel the need to be an a$$?

I don't understand. I'm not being an ***. You quoted an example that shows that socialized medicine has its place, it's not as bad as you try to make it out to be. I didn't bring up your daughter - you did. Now you're trying to turn the tables on this discussion. Sad.

I don't understand. I'm not being an ***. You quoted an example that shows that socialized medicine has its place, it's not as bad as you try to make it out to be. I didn't bring up your daughter - you did. Now you're trying to turn the tables on this discussion. Sad.

What's sad is you feel the need to provoke no matter what. You mock my state and after countering with a very personal example of the safety net working in my state, you make digs about socialized medicine. It was EXACTLY what excon said doesn't happen, with the epitome of compassion in the long term care a PRIVATE physician gave my daughter. Like I said, enough of this bullsh*t, I was right the first time.

It absolutely was not "provoking" no matter how you lay it out. If that event is that sensitive to you then don't bring it up. We all have loved ones and we all want them cared for - THAT's why Canadians love their system, for the same reasons that you enjoyed it when you need it.

It was EXACTLY what excon said doesn't happen, Hello again, Steve:

To be clear, I didn't say it DOESN'T happen. Certainly, we have compassionate and charitable people here. I said it's a system that people CANNOT count on, and doesn't work for everybody. As a result, people DIE! A LAW, on the other hand, CAN be counted upon.

excon

It absolutely was not "provoking" no matter how you lay it out. If that event is that sensitive to you then don't bring it up. We all have loved ones and we all want them cared for - THAT's why Canadians love their system, for the same reasons that you enjoyed it when you need it.

I'm past being sensitive about my daughter's situation, NK. The point is I was right the first time and I have the ultimate example, so enough already.

Right about what? The state paying for someone's care?

So why doesn't everyone do that then?

A lot of people do... seriously, if you HAVE to go to the emergency room... they are FULL and you would wait hours, but a life threatening event does get treated ASAP. Because they do Triage patients. Most there are not insured.

I've been into one three times for anaphylaxis. A doctor saw me inside of 3 minutes of walking in despite full waiting room. Obviously due to that being very urgent type of condition. I did have insurance but that wasn't dealt with until after I was treated. It wasn't a condition FOR getting treated.

Its not like some people portray... if you don't have insurance you will die in the gutter. The Reality is you get needed emergency treatment... what you don't get is routine exams etc...

And I did have a family member that lost his job and insurance had a ruptured appendix... spent a month in the hospital due to complications... he had no assets then and they dropped the bill as a result.

If you listen to the liberal talking points and they were true... he would have died. The reality is far different.

Life threatening stuff is taken care of... its the other stuff you won't get unless you have some means to pay for it. Call it a minimum of care IS provided now.

Canada has its fair share of problems paying for its program... and a lot of rationing of what is routine stuff to us. Like elective surgeries are usually done in days at most... not weeks or months. No waiting list for artificial joints, or pacemakers (outside of medically required delays), and you don't have to get a medical board to approve it first here.

To be clear, I didn't say it DOESN'T happen. Certainly, we have compassionate and charitable people here. I said it's a system that people CANNOT count on, and doesn't work for everybody. As a result, people DIE! A LAW, on the other hand, CAN be counted upon.

To be clear you said, "You don't get LONG TERM treatment." I proved that wrong.

To be clear you said, "People who don't have insurance and who need LONG TERM treatment, in this country, DIED before this health care law." My daughter had no insurance, no money and the system not only SAVED her life, she's still with us today. In the local community hospital, her CD4 count was 4, she had pneumonia, CMV, hepatitis C, kidney failure and she was unconscious. That's for starters.

To be clear you said, "They suffered the nations DEATH PANEL." Not so.

To be clear you said, "You don't get cancer treatment in the emergency room... " After discharge my daughter also received cancer treatments and still does.

To be clear you said, "You don't get your appendix taken out in the emergency room... You DIE if you need that stuff. How is it, that you DON'T know that?? "

I showed you how I know you're wrong. 'Nuff said.

P.S. Health care you can get, cheese you can get. It's potatoes you can't get.

So one person who got state sponsored treatment is proof that all people get long term treatment? Is that all the proof we all need to make any point we need to make - find one person?

So one person who got state sponsored treatment is proof that all people get long term treatment? Is that all the proof we all need to make any point we need to make - find one person?

The president likes to use a poster child (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/obama-healthcare-natoma.html), at least my example is true.

I showed you how I know you're wrong. 'Nuff said.Hello again, Steve:

No, it's not nuff said. Your personal anecdote, while heartwarming, is NOT indicative of what happens to the public at large... I'm addressing THAT stuff.

Unless, of course, you're saying that because it happened to you, that it happens to EVERYBODY. I think you ARE saying that. We don't agree.

excon

We can disagree, but you said flat out that before Obamacare Americans that needed health care were out of luck and that is not true. Do some slip through the cracks? Sure, but they are not all sentenced to "death panels," which were your words.

My daughter is an example of the excellent, lifesaving, long term care - including regular exams and dental - available in THIS community in this state. Your community and your state may have "death panels," but mine doesn't (and I doubt yours does either).

you said flat out that before Obamacare Americans that needed health care were out of luck and that is not true. Hello again, Steve:

Ok, I'll fix it. Before Obamacare, Americans that needed health care were MOSTLY out of luck, and that is true.

But, it's not about numbers. It shouldn't be about MOST people, or SOME people, or LUCKY people. It should be about ALL people, and that's what the law does (or soon will).

excon

Ok, I'll fix it. Before Obamacare, Americans that needed health care were MOSTLY out of luck, and that is true.

Sorry, I don't buy that either. Problems, yes. Perfect, no. But you don't get an obese citizenry that needs to have potatoes withheld from their diet that has a life span of 77.9 years if people are "MOSTLY out of luck" on health care. We've all said let's make it better, but why do you have to screw mine up to do that?

But you don't get an obese citizenry that needs to have potatoes withheld from their diet that has a life span of 77.9 years if people are "MOSTLY out of luck" on health care.

Amazing how the life span keeps increasing in this nation of lousy health care.

BTW... Excon's state passed a law in 2008 that gave their death panel it's ultimate weapon... euthanasia.

We've all said let's make it better, but why do you have to screw mine up to do that?Hello again, Steve:

Now we get down to the nuts and bolts... IF we've screwed yours up, then it's a BAD LAW. IF it DOESN'T screw yours up, and DOES what it purports to do, then it's a GOOD LAW. But, tell me truly. Has yours actually BEEN screwed up?

It's that purporting thing I have trouble with. So do you. The fact is, neither of us knows how it's going to work out. I certainly don't trust the Democrats to have written a law that mimics what they purport. And, I certainly don't trust the Republicans to tell me the truth about it, in any case.

Therefore, I suggest that it hasn't panned out yet. It COULD be a monstrosity, or it COULD be a great piece of legislation. Most of the law doesn't take effect till 2014, and the economic results won't be known until later than that.. Until then, we can choose to believe the glass is half full, or half empty. I CHOOSE to believe it's half full - but they've fooled me before.

So far, I LIKE what I see. I LIKE the fact that your insurance company can't drop you if you get sick. I LIKE that you can keep your children on your policy until they turn 26. I LIKE that the doughnut hole is closed for seniors. I LIKE the report from the CBO that says the law will REDUCE the deficit. What's not to like?

excon

BTW ....Excon's state passed a law in 2008 that gave their death panel it's ultimate weapon.... euthanasia.Hello again, tom:

You'd rather have the nanny state tell me when to go? Dude!

excon

Hello again, tom:

You'd rather have the nanny state tell me when to go? Dude!

No one would ever just take it upon themselves (http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/fctholl.htm) to put patients out of their misery (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7839369/Murder-case-GP-Dr-Howard-Martin-I-helped-patients-die.html) would they?

No one would ever just put patients out of their misery would they?Hello again, Steve:

Well, I didn't like the word euthanasia and was going to object, but I thought it was a catchall word that INCLUDED assisted suicide. I now don't think it does, and I should have objected. But, let's be clear here. The law in Washington allows ME to choose the time of MY departure. It doesn't give the nanny state that right, as you suggest... In fact, the law takes that decision OUT of the hands of the nanny state, and puts it squarely in MY hands where it absolutely SHOULD be. No?

I understand your position... You LIKE the fact that the nanny state requires people to die naturally, even though that death might be horrible, painful, and cost an exorbitant amount of money. THIS kind of a nanny state interference is just FINE with you, because of some misbegotten religious mumbo jumbo that I don't subscribe to. I'd like to be FREE of the nanny state. You and tom? Not so much.

excon

And the "advisory panel" aka the “consulting physician"will not steer them towards "chosing" voluntary suicide? Nahhh that never happens.
Just ask Barbara Wagner of Oregon who's life saving drug was denied by the Oregon system ;but was steered towards assisted suicide.

There are no safeguards in the Washington plan . Next of kin does not have to be notified. Depressed or mentally ill patients can be persuaded... ooops I mean advised to take the lethal dose.All the records are sealed from public view.
Wagner was saved because the evil pharmaceutical company that made the cancer drug heard of her plight and offered it to her for free.

There are no safeguards in the Washington plan .
Hello again, tom:

Safeguards = nanny state. I thought you didn't LIKE the nanny state...

excon

Why would a doctor or nursing home kill the cash cows?

Safeguards = nanny state. I thought you didn't LIKE the nanny state..

There's a huge difference between reasonable protections and making us all government sucklings.

Hello again, Steve:

The law in Washington allows ME to choose the time of MY departure. It doesn't give the nanny state that right, as you suggest... In fact, the law takes that decision OUT of the hands of the nanny state, and puts it squarely in MY hands where it absolutely SHOULD be. No?



Too good to pass up answering that comment

... say you off yourself... what is the state going to do for breaking the law? Hang your corpse from a flagpole for 90 days after you die?

Right about what? The state paying for someone's care?

Kramer explains how this is done...

rCZRqH7sRyA

Amazing how the life span keeps increasing in this nation of lousy health care.

This triggered thoughts regarding a study I heard about. We have been found to be at the bottom of the life expectancy ladder when compared to a dozen developed countries. Interestingly enough, obesity is not a factor in the death rate. So I guess the nanny state should be allowing those on food stamps to purchase taters. The study actually supports a nanny state when it comes to health care. The other countries that beat us all supply their citizens with universal health insurance. Medical Daily: Life expectancy in America lowest compared developed countries (http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20101008/2484/life-expectancy-in-america-lowest-compared-developed-countries.htm)

So they eliminated other possibilities and came to a conclusion based on a supposition where they provide no evidence of linkage .Sadly ,that is probably what passes for scientific research these days. What is that ? A Sherlock Holmes novel ? Eliminate the obvious and the only thing remaining ;regardless of a lack of evidence ,must be the culprit .
It sounds like the only basis for their conclusion is a pre-determined outcome.
Again... probably the best you can hope for from a scientific community these days .

From their web site :
The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.

Amazing then that an "independent " study funded by them would support their mission.

Show me in their study where they explored the linkage of the US absorbing up to 1.5 million immigrants annually legal and illegal from various ethnicites and levels of poverty and health . Many of them have brought back into this country diseases that had been eradicated in the country years ago. Just this week a case of dengue fever occurred in Miami . Do they just dismiss this reality because it is an inconvenient truth ?

LOL. Tom, it does appear they went directly from point A to point M.

Why isn't health a fundamental right in the U.S. This was the question I posed earlier. The only answer I got was something along the lines of "It just isn't"

In a country that prides itself on the ideals of, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' why does someone who needs an expensive drug to save their life, or to promote the quality of their life have to rely on the charity of a drug company to provide it for free or at a greatly reduced price.

This is the bit I still can't figure out.

Tut

Why isn't health a fundamental right in the U.S.? This was the question I posed earlier. The only answer i got was something along the lines of "It just isn't"

I answered it, Tut. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, and no one is denied health care. Ex will argue that, but he's wrong.

I answered it, Tut. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, and no one is denied health care. Ex will argue that, but he's wrong.Hello again, Steve:

You use your own family to prove your point... Well, I have some family too - ME. When I was a young uninsured whipursnapper, I needed a blood test for my cholesterol. I went to the emergency room to get it.. They said no. They said that's not what they do.

Shortly thereafter, in my local supermarket, there was a lab doing FREE cholesterol tests. I got one. My cholesterol was 325 - VERY HIGH. I was a heart attack waiting to happen. I went to the emergency room to get a prescription for a cholesterol lowering drug. They said no. They said that's not what they do. They denied me health care. That's just so.

excon

I answered it, Tut. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, and no one is denied health care. Ex will argue that, but he's wrong.

Hi Speech,

I will probably go along the claim that no one is denied health care. Even though I saw an interview with a woman who took her daughter to a hospital but was told to go elsewhere because the hospital only deals with insured patients. Unfortunate the girl died before the mother could reach a different hospital.

I am prepared to accept that mistakes can be made in any system. I guess what I am asking is, "Why does wealth determine the quality of health care one receives?"

Regards

Tut

Tut to use a well worn cliché... the answer to your question is because there is no such thing as a free lunch... You have to take from Peter to give to Paul...

Steve is absolutely right. There is NO denial of care due to economic circumstances.
If people are not getting care then perhaps they don't know the options available for them . Perhaps there is a case that we should do a better job informing the needy about their options .

Tut to use a well worn cliche....the answer to your question is because there is no such thing as a free lunch.... You have to take from Peter to give to Paul...

Steve is absolutely right. There is NO denial of care due to economic circumstances.
If people are not getting care then perhaps they don't know the options available for them . Perhaps there is a case that we should do a better job informing the needy about their options .

Hi Tom,

Yes, there is no such things as a free lunch.When I was working I paid for other people's health. When I was working I also paid into 'freedom of speech' in the form of a national government run T.V. station. The caption was, 'It cost the tax payer 4 cents a day' ( probably a lot more now). Most people accept that the national station provided. 'a good balance' when put up against the private networks.

The point is that almost everyone is prepared to pay in order to guarantee freedom of speech. There is no degree of quality when it comes to free speech. A poor person has just as much right to freedom of speech as a wealthy person.

Saying there is no denial of health care does not address the problem of EQUITY in health( this is why I keep asking the same question). If equity is not a problem in health then someone having more freedom of speech shouldn't be a problem. If there is a problem with freedom of speech then I am sure most people would be prepared to pay in order to ensure such freedoms are maintained.

Regards

Tut

Well I certainly disagree that paying for a government mouthpiece represents Freedom of Speech .

Now as to equtiy of health care that is not a right nor should it be. You have your safety net system and you also have the privilege to pay for additional coverage Down Under . Given that system I find it strange that you would consider the system equitable when the more affluent can buy a better degree of health care than the poor.

You extend your safety net to all. We don't ;and I don't think it necessary. I'll gladly pay for the health care of the poor and my family . Why should my hard earned wealth go to pay for anyone else's ?

Why is health care a right for all and not food clothing and shelter ? Do you pay into a system where everyone eats "for free " or is housed "for free" or is clothed "for free " ? Of course you don't .

On this very post we came to a bit of a consensus that those who depend on the government largess have no business complaining about the choices they are given by the government . In my view that is just as true with health options.

Potatoes are cheap and easy, often fried and/or drenched in grease. As a parent... if I ever count a potato as a vegetable... please shoot me for stupidity.

Its carbs. Where are the antioxidants? Cancer fighters? With veggies, go with colors. Yeah, there are some vitamins and minerals. Carotenoids. Nothing like what you get with intense colors.

Seriously... if you count taters as your child's quality portion of veggies... uhm... well... k.

Now... do I need my government to bar and/or ban the use of potatoes in a kids school lunch? no.

But if it happens, am I willing to do the work to make sure my kid gets quality veggies with home packed meals?

If the answer is no then you are relying on the nanny state to feed your child... so... then you only want a nanny state that you approve of?

Potatoes are nutrient rich . Those who say it is the things used to doctor potatoes that contribute to empty calories have a point. But pound for pound the potato offers as many nutrients as many other healthy food choices ;and in addition provide valuable soluble and insoluable fiber .And yes they are loaded in phytochemicals .

Well I certainly disagree that paying for a government mouthpiece represents Freedom of Speech .

Now as to equtiy of health care that is not a right nor should it be. You have your safety net system and you also have the privilage to pay for additional coverage Down Under . Given that system I find it strange that you would consider the system equitable when the more affluent can buy a better degree of health care than the poor.

You extend your safety net to all. We don't ;and I don't think it necessary. I'll gladly pay for the health care of the poor and my family . Why should my hard earned wealth go to pay for anyone elses ?

Why is health care a right for all and not food clothing and shelter ? Do you pay into a system where everyone eats "for free " or is housed "for free" or is clothed "for free " ? Of course you don't .

On this very post we came to a bit of a concensus that those who depend on the government largess have no business complaining about the choices they are given by the government . In my view that is just as true with health options.

Hi Tom,

Actually, we now have two government networks. Strange place Australia, isn't it?

A Steve pointed out there is no such thing as equity and this is true. This however does not stop anyone from from trying to get as close as possible to that goal. In terms of equity our system is a close as anyone could hope for at the moment. I am not saying it does not have its share of problems and I am not saying it is completely equitable. There is no health care system that is ideal;they all have problems.

Why do I see health care as a right? Because it is a scarce commodity. I don't think scarce commodities should be subject to the whim of the free market. We all know where the best bits end up.

The problem seems to be that some people don't want to pay for fundamental rights if they seen to be valuable and in short supply.

Actually, we do pay into a system to house people but it is not for free. It is a nominal rent.

Why is food and clothing different? Because it is not a scarce commodity for the vast majority of Australians. Actually, come to think of it some fresh food items are G.S.T free.

Regards

Tut

And the remedy for scarcity is increases on the demand side without concurrent increases on the supply side... and that's supposed to lower costs as our advocates claim ? That's a new economic theory to me . Where are all these new doctors and health care providers supposed to come from ? Are there incentives like increases in income to entice students to become doctors ? Nahhh... over here we are threatening to cut reimbursements to doctors who cater to the government subsidized health care systems .
Peter Ferrara and Larry Hunter: How ObamaCare Guts Medicare - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html)

Yes indeed... health care becomes a scarce commodity under a socialized system. That's why you hear of case after case of service denial in these systems that promise health care for everyone.

and the remedy for scarcity is increases on the demand side without concurrent increases on the supply side....and that's supposed to lower costs as our advocates claim ? That's a new economic theory to me . Where are all these new doctors and health care providers supposed to come from ? Are there incentives like increases in income to entice students to become doctors ? Nahhh ...over here we are threatening to cut reimbursements to doctors who cater to the government subsidized health care systems .
Peter Ferrara and Larry Hunter: How ObamaCare Guts Medicare - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html)

Yes indeed ....health care becomes a scarce commodity under a socialized system. That's why you hear of case after case of service denial in these systems that promise health care for everyone.

Hi Tom,

I think you have made a contextual error here. Health care IS a scarce commodity in your free market system. In time it may well turn out to be a scarce commodity under 'socialized medicine' as well.

It seems to me that you argument can only be valid if 'socialized medicine' is the ACTUAL CAUSE of resource scarcity. What you have presented is not a demonstration of this considering the limited American experience to date.

Regards

Tut

potatoes are cheap and easy, often fried and/or drenched in grease. as a parent... if i ever count a potato as a vegetable... please shoot me for stupidity.

its carbs. where are the antioxidants? cancer fighters? with veggies, go with colors. yeah, there are some vitamins and minerals. carotenoids. nothing like what you get with intense colors.

seriously... if you count taters as your childs quality portion of veggies... uhm... well... k.

now... do i need my government to bar and/or ban the use of potatoes in a kids school lunch? no.

but if it happens, am i willing to do the work to make sure my kid gets quality veggies with home packed meals?

if the answer is no then you are relying on the nanny state to feed your child... so... then you only want a nanny state that you approve of?

Most of the good nutrients are in and near the skin. Eaten with the skins and prepared properly they are a good to have as part of your diet. But obviously... in moderation. And prepared in other ways than peeled, and deep fried in Goose fat.

yeah I failed to qualify in my a-potato-isnt-a-great-vegetable rant that most kids I know won't touch the skin, most schools don't present it with the spuds, and when you check out the nutritional value of a baked potato with versus without skin, it shows peeled taters aren't all that and a bag of chips when you're ranking veggie power. Good carb fuel and some minerals and nutrients... add fat and salt. etc. but even the nuns didn't make us eat potato skins in elementary.

so unless they're steaming (not boiling or frying) potatoes with skins on... there is great loss of nutrients. And its believed that phytochemicals are largely lost with industrial processing. Just cause its in the veggie that came out of your grandparents garden doesn't mean its anywhere near as present in the prepackaged, processed, deep fried crap that get served in schools.

lycopene is an exception. Id run chemistry labs with students isolating the lycopene from betacarotene in second year organic labs and lycopene is very well preserved in tomato pastes that are canned.

again... I don't want the govmt meddling in this, and id rather have my son at school eat some carbs for energy and satiation than not... my job as a parent to make sure he gets his vitamins at home.

I'm just not willing to count his side of fries in a happy meal as his vegetable. I doubt California would either. ;) happy meal toy haters.

*note to self: never, ever again cite California logic when trying to make a legitimate point*

and lycopene is very well preserved in tomato pastes that are canned.


Indeed... in the case of lycopenes ,it's better to have the tomatoes cooked .

Graphic image strategy used to decrease smoking not planned to be used to decrease abortions
(http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/18/graphic-image-strategy-used-to-decrease-smoking-not-planned-to-be-used-to-decrease-abortions/#ixzz15g3rvZ8B)

Of course not. Why use graphic images to discourage instant death?

McDonald's sued for marketing Happy Meals to children
(http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-mcdonalds-lawsuit-20101215,0,4807107.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews+%28L.A.+Times+-+Top+News%29)

The lawsuit, filed by a Sacramento mother and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, contends that giving toys with children's meals circumvents parental control and teaches children unhealthy eating habits.

Apparently parents are too stupid and powerless to not buy Happy Meals.

Apparently parents are too stupid and powerless to not buy Happy Meals.
That seems to be the case with the Sacramento mother who filed suit --

In a call with reporters, Monet Parham, a Sacramento mother of two, said she was bringing the case because of the constant requests for McDonald's Happy Meals.

"I don't think it's OK to entice children with Happy Meals with the promise of a toy," Parham said, adding that she tries to hold her daughters, 6 and 2, to monthly visits to the fast-food chain. But she said their requests increased this summer...

"Needless to say, my answer was no," Parham said. "And as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn't stop with one request. It's truly a litany of requests."

She is apparently allowed to give only one "no."

By the way, according to futureofcapitalism.com --

Ms. Parham is the same person as "Monet Parham-Lee". Monet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Interestingly, her name has been scrubbed from the website of Champions for Change, the Network for a Healthy California. She has given numerous presentations and attended conferences on the importance of eating vegetables and whatnot.

She presents herself as an ordinary mother. She is not. She is an advocate, and an employee of a California agency tasked with advocating the eating of vegetables. To the extent that Monet Parham-Lee has EVER taken her daughter to a McDonald's, she should have known better.

Her bio and photo are here --

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/12/stupid-public-interest-group-sues.html

Thanks for the bio. I knew if the Center for Science in the Public Interest was involved it was no ordinary plaintiff... they think think we're all too stupid for our own good.

they think think we're all too stupid for our own good.Hello again, Steve:

They?? THEY?? Excuse me?? When it comes to stuff you LIKE being banned (marijahoochie) then the government ain't so stupid, are they? How can one decry a government ban, and support a government ban at the same time??

I understand... A ban comes out of the left side of the mouth, while the right side is CRITICIZING bans... It's perfectly clear to me...

excon

You'd think the fat people on the streets is graphic enough for people to take responsibilitiy for their own dietary habits.

Mothers who won't be parents and set rules for their own children should have their kids taken from them when they try to sue someone for selling them a legal product they walked in and bought on their own initiative.

What next... Sue Betty crocker for selling cake mix?

Mothers who won't be parents and set rules for their own children should have their kids taken from them Hello again, smoothy:

Sooo, keeping pot OUT OF THE HANDS of children, ISN'T one of the reasons it should be banned. Hmmmm... Somewhere, back in my pot addled memory, I seem to recall that is the EXACT reason you do it...

So, it continues... Out of the right side your mouths, you decry mothers who can't discipline their children, but out of the other, you BAN stuff because the parents are TOO stupid to do it themselves...

I understand perfectly.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Sooo, keeping pot OUT OF THE HANDS of children, ISN'T one of the reasons it should be banned. Hmmmm.... Somewhere, back in my pot addled memory, I seem to recall that is the EXACT reason you do it....

So, it continues.... Out of the right side your mouths, you decry mothers who can't discipline their children, but out of the other, you BAN stuff because the parents are TOO stupid to do it themselves....

I understand perfectly.

exconPOT is a narcotic...

A happy meal isn't. HUGE differnce.

They??? THEY??? Excuse me??? When it comes to stuff you LIKE being banned (marijahoochie) then the government ain't so stupid, are they?

Yes, They... THEY!! I was very clear in referring to the Center for Science in the Public Interest thinking we're all too stupid for our own good. I didn't mention the government or a ban.

I take it then an individual suing McDonald's over toys in Happy Meals in conjunction with an activist group on the basis that "giving toys with children's meals circumvents parental control and teaches children unhealthy eating habits" makes sense to you.

That some nitwit activist could lead to McDonald's no longer providing toys in Happy Meals because she's being held hostage by her children offends me.

That some nitwit activist could lead to McDonald's no longer providing toys in Happy Meals because she's being held hostage by her children offends me.Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with you... I think we should be free to buy whatever the hell we WANT to buy. The only thing that offends me, is your support for ONE ban, and not the other.

I too, am offended when they want to put me in the slammer for smoking a joint in the privacy of my own home.

excon

POT is a narcotic.....Hello again, smoothy:

Wrong again... But, you're consistent. In any case, the point you make is valid... It's OK to ban stuff you DON'T like, but it's NOT OK to ban stuff you LIKE.

I understand... Really, I do.

excon

POT is a narcotic..... A happy meal isn't. HUGE differnce.Hello again, smoothy:

We're not talking about product... We're talking about parents not being able to discipline their children. On the one hand, you think they ARE, but on the other, you think they AREN'T...

Again, I understand completely. I do... Really.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Wrong again... But, you're consistent. In any case, the point you make is valid... It's ok to ban stuff you DON'T like, but it's NOT ok to ban stuff you LIKE.

I understand... Really, I do.

excon

POT IS a drug... you wouldn't get HIGH if it wasn't... You don't get stoned eating a sourdough Roll.

Drugs affect you... thus Your actions affect others, usually for the worse.

That's why there are drunk driving laws... sure the Drunks might take offense to THAt just like the Stoners take offense POT is illegal... and the Meth-mouths that crank is illegal... and the Heroin addicts that Heroin is illegal... and the crack heads that crack is illegal.


Two words... Tough Titty.


I like to drive fast... law doesn't allow it... and in fact, I've never hurt anyone driving fast... should I be allowed to drive as fast as I want too?

The only thing that offends me, is your support for ONE ban, and not the other.

You forget the 'liberal' in me is not opposed to legalizing weed (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-nanny-state-ban-519183-9.html#post2589437), so in reality you should once again stop at "I don't disagree with you."

You forget the 'liberal' in me Hello again, Steve:

You sound like your senator, John Cornyn. He puts earmarks in the bill, but since he's going to vote against it, it's OK...

I know, Steve, that you take a hands off approach. If they ever get around to legalizing it, you'll support it... But, if you were a liberal on the issue, like you claim to be, you wouldn't just throw up your hands. You'd be down in the trenches with me. You ain't. Just once, I'd like to hear you decry marijuana prohibition as much as your decry toy prohibition.

excon

Two words... Tough TittyHello again, smoothy:

I understand... Parents aren't smart enough to prevent their children from using drugs, so for our own good, the nanny state has to step in. BUT, when it comes to things you LIKE, the parents are good to go.

Truly, I understand.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I understand.... Parents aren't smart enough to prevent their children from using drugs, so for our own good, the nanny state has to step in. BUT, when it comes to things you LIKE, the parents are good to go.

Truly, I understand.

exconSo... when are you going to support allowing drilling for oil anyplace we want... as well as doing away with speed limits. Those actually have far lower impact on people than people with their choice of mind altering substances would, and why should ONE specific mind altering substance have its legal status changed and not all the rest?

And incidentally... Tobacco should be on that list.

So....when are you going to support allowing drilling for oil anyplace we want....as well as doing away with speed limits. Hello again, smoothy:

Smoothy, my friend, you miss the point. This isn't about THINGS. It's about your belief that the government SHOULD or SHOULD NOT ban stuff. You WANT it both ways, as usual. But I'm not going to let you have it both ways, as usual...

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Smoothy, my friend, you miss the point. This isn't about THINGS. It's about your belief that the government SHOULD or SHOULD NOT ban stuff. You WANT it both ways, as usual. But I'm not gonna let you have it both ways, as usual...

excon

Oil is stuff... stuff I use every day.

You support banning stuff. You support banning certain stuff but not other stuff.

Do you support legalizing Cocain too? How about Heroin... if not, why not?

Do you support legalizing Cocain too? How about Heroin...if not, why not?Hello again, smoothy:

I believe in the Constitution... Nowhere in there does it say they can tell me how to spend my money. They can't make me buy health insurance, and they can't stop me from buying heroin.

Why do I believe that?? Because I believe in FREEDOM. You? Not so much.

excon

We aren't allowed to hunt and kill Illegals... who violate the law or gang members that terrorise entire neighborhoods. But I think we should.

There is nothing in the constitution or Bill of Rights that says you have the inalienable right to use narcotics of any sort.

Incidentally... its your people (The Democrats) that have been forcing health care on everyone, even when most people don't want it, but expecting half the people to get it free and make the other half of us pay for everyone. And the same fools that were forcing it on us claiming it was going to save us billions a year, now admit it will cost Trillions more a year and ruin everyone's standard of care and still expect us to swallow it.

Didn't see anything in the Constitution that allows that sort of power by the Federal government either.

We aren't allowed to hunt and kill Illegals ....who violate the law or gang members that terrorise entire neighborhoods. Hello again, smoothy:

You're unable to make the distinction between the prohibition of THINGS, and committing murder. We're off the rails here, once again...

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You're unable to make the distinction between the prohibition of THINGS, and committing murder. We're off the rails here, once again...

exconGang members commit Murder... many Illegals who aren't gange members commit Murder... yet WE aren't allowed to cull that herd...

Where in the constitution or bill of rights is the distinction between stuff and things differentiated?

Gang members commit Murder....many Illegals who aren't gange members commit Murder....yet WE aren't allowed to cull that herd....

Where in the constitution or bill of rights is the distinction between stuff and things differentiated?

We are allowed to cull the herd should we choose to. And yes it is in the constitution. Its called the 2nd amendment. Its one of the rights that help protect all others. The castle doctrine is a benefit of that. Gun ownership by private citizens to defend their homes is still strong. So when they come to yours its your turn to cull the herd.

And as far as drugs goes I seem to remember a line called "the pursuit of happiness" ;)

I have a great idea . Let's make the elimination of the FDA one of our budget cuts. Since anyone can buy and sell anything regardless of safety concerns then there is absolutely no reason to have a Federal agency charged with food and drug safety .

Tom, you're busy this morning!

Hello again, tom:

Just to recap, the wingers on this page are FOR the nanny state's involvement in your life when they LIKE what the nanny state does... But, when they DON'T like what they do, they snivel...

excon

Just to recap, the wingers on this page are FOR the nanny state's involvement in your life when they LIKE what the nanny state does... But, when they DON'T like what they do, they snivel..

And yet you love it that the government takes my money to take care of someone else and is going to force me to buy health insurance and submit to their death panels.

The things I've been discussing are stupid and you should be supportive instead of sniveling. Banning vegetables, fast food restaurants and suing because you're too stupid to resist the whining of your children is something we should all agree on.

The things I've been discussing are stupid and you should be supportive instead of sniveling. Banning vegetables, fast food restaurants and suing because you're too stupid to resist the whining of your children is something we should all agree on.Hello again, Steve:

Who disagrees?? Certainly NOT ME. But, stupid IS stupid, right? Why should the nanny state protect stupid people who want to buy drugs??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Who disagrees??? Certainly NOT ME. But, stupid IS stupid, right? Why should the nanny state protect stupid people who want to buy drugs????

excon

Its for the same reason they want us to stop smoking because we may die early and then we won't get the social security that doesn't exist.

Its for the same reason they want us to stop smoking because we may die early and then we wont get the social security that doesnt exist.Hello again, dad:

We agree. The government DOES have an interest in stopping us from smoking cigarettes... Over the last 25 years, they've been VERY successful at it too,. At least HALF of the 50 million Americans who smoked, quit.

And, we did all that WITHOUT banning cigarettes, or putting a single person in jail.

excon

Hello again, dad:

We agree. The government DOES have an interest in stopping us from smoking cigarettes... Over the last 25 years, they've been VERY successful at it too, ... At least HALF of the 50 million Americans who smoked, quit.

And, we did all that WITHOUT banning cigarettes, or putting a single person in jail.

excon

I really think it depends on what you see as banning and non arrest. They did ban the sale in places and also restrict where product use could occur. They eliminated vending machines and took away private rights of business to run as they wish. Also placing fines and threat of arrest on persons not wanting to follow "thier" rules.

And on top of all that it just amazes me how they keep raising taxes on cigarettes and cliam its for health costs then decry how much a smoker costs the system. All the while wondering why they are losing revenue.

But that's our goobermint at work.

I really think it depends on what you see as banning and non arrest. Hello again, dad:

I don't see the campaign against tobacco even remotely similar to the drug war. Yes, there were government imposed restrictions.. I don't agree with ANY of them. What I think did the trick, was first and foremost, the TRUTH was exposed that cigarettes cause cancer. Then that truth was broadcast across the nation, tirelessly. That, PR campaign, in my view, had the biggest impact with the least restrictions.

If we simply told the truth about drugs, we'd have a similar result.

excon

The problem with the truth is how you digest it. What works for me doesn't mean it works for you. I heard a new anti smoking campaign going now that claims 1 cigarette can kill you. Ive never seen nor heard that in my lifetime.

And even when the truth is available people tend to ignore it for their own interests. Ive seen the list and it can be found online for what goes into making crack. I can't believe any person in their right mind would smoke or otherwise do anything that was made with battery acid. Go figure.

There is no real war on drugs. Its simply a control issue and a way to trample rights. Some states tax drugs that are illegal. Again go figure.

King County bans public e-cigarette smoking (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/431933_e-cig-ban.html?source=mypi)


The King County Board of Health passed a controversial proposal Thursday that bans the public use of electronic cigarettes, despite protests that the battery-powered, nicotine-delivery sticks emit no second-hand smoke and are often used for harm reduction.

The measure is not a complete ban on e-cigarettes. Rather, it prohibits e-cigarette smoking in the same places where real smoking is forbidden by the state, such as restaurants, bars and workplaces.

But the state's tobacco smoking ban, adopted in 2006, was based on the fact that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. The rationale behind King County's e-cig ban was a fear of eroding "social norms."

Health officials reasoned that the fake smokes - which emit a less-smelly, combustion-free vapor - are so similar to real smokes that they may cause people to think it's OK to smoke in public. And that may lead to more nicotine addiction and second-hand smoke, officials said.

"By returning smoking to the public eye, public e-cigarette use threatens to undermine the social norming impact" of the smoking ban, testified Scott Neal, manager of the tobacco prevention program for Public Health -- Seattle & King County.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

You have GOT to be kidding me.Hello again, Steve:

Yeah... A cop saw me smokin one... He threw me on the ground and told me he was going to "beat the e-smoke outta me, homey..." I don't know why he called me homey.

excon

I've been wondering about this ever since the faux outrage began, how in God's name did this administration manage to get an absurd ban (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/why-the-feds-banned-four-loko-1) on a perfectly legal product in such a short time? I'm speaking of Four Loko.

F-dShFXNsz4

As the video points out and I wondered, are they going to come after your rum and Coke next? Make you take a breathalyzer test if you go for coffee after 9:00 p.m.

I've been wondering about this ever since the faux outrage began, how in God's name did this administration manage to get an absurd ban on a perfectly legal product in such a short time? I'm speaking of Four Loko.Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, banning drugs... Those bastards... What's next? Pot?

excon

As if Schmucky, the guy that pressed for this ban and pushes NY wine sales isn't a hypocrite? I bet he's never had a cup of coffee after one of his wine and sandwich commutes (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/regular_rider_sP2qM98jYoEb8BfN36FfGN) to DC.

Yeah, banning drugs... Those bastards... What's next? Pot??

You have an unlikely ally, Pat Robertson (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december262010/robertson-pot-approval-tk.php).