I'm not easy with governments banning anything really. Think the point in this case is that, even by doing something as seemingly pointless as this, they are making a statement and perhaps starting the ball rolling so that they can introduce more stringent warnings over a period of time.

Your original post was a tirade against legislation in general, you included tobacco and alcohol, and used the reference to 1984. So why would you suggest legislating against corn syrup?

This all about survelliance, true it chimes with 1984 but it has nothing to do with the topic.

Now, if all of this was linked-up, we should be worried.
Mind you, I'm probably listed as a dissident already, what with the opinions I post on here, plus my magazine subsrciptions ... well dodgy, I am.

But again, worth a topic on its own.

I would distinguish between legislation in general and legislation in particular.

There are laws already regarding alcohol and most of them I don't have a problem with.

However on this type of issue the approach should IMHO be education, and if people are properly informed then it's their choice. It is not specifically a quart of cola, but the point that there is no reason to pick on that, if you're not going to make "portion" rules about each and every product for consumption, and I'm against that as unfeasible, a complete infringement of liberty, and a number of other things.

If corn syrup does kill people then yes, of course, legislate against it. Except that I don't believe it does. I would accept that in some cases the over-consumption of it along with the entirety of that particular individual's diet will contribute to obesity and that may or may not lead to health issues.

Certainly if I visit the States and fancy a large Coke, whether I can legally be served it is a total irrelevance to my wellbeing or otherwise. So the law would apply to me, but would be utterly pointless. I really don't see how that sort of micromanagement would have any effect. As there's nothing to stop me buying two smaller drinks.

There's any number of other reasons too. Just for one more example, IF someone's over-consumption of sugary drinks is actually so bad that it is causing them harm them I'd bet the vast majority of the sugary drinks they are consuming would be at 50c for 3 liters from the corner store, not $4 at Maccy D's.

Er, i was replying to you. If you feel your post was 'nothing to do with the topic' then I suggest you send yourself a stiff complaint.


Well it kind of is, the issue is the desire to control and micro-manage every aspect of existence from cradle to grave so there's a clear connection.


I know, your file reference is 29746029773BYZRR89298743AQTR9433.02876531/THX7 and you are due to be terminated in 15 seconds

I have but I replied to myself to try talking with people other than myself.
Anyway, I was replying to your conflation of monitoring with control.
Control might require the monitoring for control to be effective ... but the monitoring on its own is limited in the control it exerts.


See above.

Er, yes. If I ever work out what that means, i might respond 5.0732421875:5