This is typical of centre right think tanks, anything they don't like they wanna tax, because education and changing peoples ways costs way too much.

Don't think he needs any help from me on that score. Seems to do very well all by himself.

Not sure where I read it but there was a loophole in this new clause allowing the major fast food chains to continue selling large cups and small independent stores had to quit.

One could argue that legislation is the only viable option when health lobbies try and take on corporations that spend billions in product placement, advertising and political lobbying while knowing that the huge amounts of corn syrup fructose they put in their drinks is killing people.

"all this units nonsense"?
I can appreciate that no-one knows whether 21 units is the correct boundary ... but it's a fact that as alcohol consumption has increased, so has cirrhosisof the liver.
People used to die in their fifties and sixties of it, now we are increasingly seeing people dying of it in their thirties.
I think we need another thread for this topic.


Give over.

If it is, then legislate to ban the use of corn syrup fructose.

Or legislate to put tobacco-style warnings on all products containing it.

Do something that might actually work.

What is the point of banning the sale of greater than 16oz drinks? What if I get one, then am still thirsty, so get another? Or two? It is futile and pointless, as well as likely to make no difference at all to obesity health issues, as well as ridiculous since hardly every purchaser is obese, and no purchaser is obese because they buy big drinks at takeaways. It is ridiculous because if you were really wanting to have an anti-obesity effect then you should restrict the entire calorie content any individual is allowed to buy. What is healthier, a large Coke, or a small diet coke with a double big-Mac meal, extra fries, extra onion rings and a McFlurry or two? You simply can't micromanage these things, it's silly, it is an unwarranted intrusion which does nothing to achieve its stated aims, but makes an ass of the law.

I'll drink to that, and so will only comment that I seriously doubt that any person who died of cirrhosis of the liver recently did so without having known that the government recommends 3 or 4 units or whatever limits

Also alcohol misuse is not the only cause of the condition and I don't know of any evidence proving the link you make although would accept that especially the young who want to drink alcohol at alarming rates and in huge quantities are clearly at great risk of doing themselves long term harm. Every single one of them knows all about units, and it's printed on every bottle they buy, but it doesn't modify their behaviour.

Oh and btw it is nonsense, given that we learned a year or two back that in actual fact, the unit limits were pulled out of a hat, on the basis of no evidence at all, by government health experts that were put on the spot and asked to come up with a figure. It could have been any figure.



Says the man whose phone calls are all on tape in America, whose every outdoor movement is logged by mobile providers and tracked by CCTV, whose every purchase from supermarkets can be logged tracked and purchases targeted, who even while browsing this site has his postings continually monitored and ads flashing up depending on context.

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 4.83154296875:5