Boston Bans Soda Drinks...

C

Card Slinger J

Aspiring Trainer
Member
http://www.slashfood.com/2011/04/08/boston-bans-soda-on-city-property/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk3%7C209314

This is one of the most unconstitutional bannings ever, the city of Boston, Massachussets has banned the use of fountain drinks and soda including Pepsi, Coca-Cola, 7Up, Mountain Dew, etc. and their reason for it is to try to curb obesity in Boston. Sure drinking soda is unhealthy but in some cases people are addicted to caffienated drinks and losing that access is like losing life support and thus they could die.

All this does is cause more problems than fixing them, If you're going to fix obesity and people being overweight then do it some other way without taking away people's freedom to do so. If people want to be fat they can be fat cause it's their choice, it shouldn't be the Government's job to tell them that they can't drink soda in Boston cause it's an infringement to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
 
cat00.gif


Are they actually being serious? If they want to be fat, LET THEM. That's their life and you shouldn't force them to do different.
 
^I think your link is broken....

Hey cool, I live near Boston =)...wait a minute...ban soda? That seems a little extreme. :/ I don't drink soda enough to really care about this, but I don't really think this is the right way to help people stay healthy. Does this mean if I'm walking around Boston with a soda in my hand I could get in trouble?
 
Afro-G said:
^I think your link is broken....
Click to expand...

Works for me. :/

Hey, why don't they just ban foods that have too much sugars and fats? Candy cake, and ice cream are just as bad as soda.
 
I like the color system they've implemented (the one mentioned in the article), but I'm not sure I agree with a ban of sugary drinks on city property. (It says the ban applies to city property only, but what exactly counts as city property is something I'm not 100% sure of. Can people living in Boston still consume these beverages in their homes?)

They say the ban will assist in cutting healthcare costs, and it probably will. However, I agree with the idea of people needing to take these matters into their own hands, rather than the government stepping in to make choices for them. Most people who want a sugary drink will get one whether there's a ban on them or not. Of course, some people will change their minds because of how far out of the way they'd have to go to get one, so that's what they're banking on.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this... I guess I just feel it should be a person's job to police themself on how well they eat, and not the government's... Or something.
 
They're banning sweet tea and sports drinks, too? Wow. It states that they're planning to phase the drinks out of vending machines, cafeterias, and concession stands, so I think you can still buy soda at a grocery store and drink it at your own risk. I do agree, this will cut the cost of health care, but I think that they are going a little overboard.
 
Xous said:
It says the ban applies to city property only, but what exactly counts as city property is something I'm not 100% sure of.
Click to expand...

City property usually means city buildings, parks, and public facilities( such as pools and sporting arenas )
 
Pretty sure it doesn't break the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment protects against:
  • The government establishing a national religion or favoring any one religion;
  • The government forbidding newspapers to print news;
  • The gov't preventing people from gathering;
  • The gov't banning protests;
  • And the gov't not allowing people to speak their minds in a way that does not harm others.
Whenever the government takes away some sort of freedom, or whatever, people are always all "OH NO FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION". Has anyone actually read the freaking Constitution? I don't see anything about the government not being able to put a ban on a product - in fact, they've done it before! Remember prohibition? Especially considering that this is only on city property, rather than everywhere.

Also, addiction does not work the way you described. Stating that it can cause problems when someone is cut off from what they are addicted to is one thing, but comparing it to life support? Really? And considering that people can still drink these stupid things in their homes, you're really just fear-mongering.
 
I don't agree with the decision, but hey, they were elected, and that was their choice.

So much for me ever moving to Boston.
 
There's really nothing wrong with this. Although it is controlling and overbearing it will probably help, at least with government employees.
 
This is really a bit extreme. In all honesty it really isn't the goverments problem that people are obese. It is the person themself. It's their choice if they want to be fat and not even healthy or at least in moderation.
 
I think people are going overboard on this one. It's not unconstitutional, nor will those "addicted to caffeine" die from a withdrawal. At worst, they'll get really bad headaches and feel a little depressed when they are out-and-about (and away from a grocery store). It sounds to me like only the sale will be banned -- I don't think anyone would be kicked out of a public building if they brought a soda from home; they certainly wouldn't get arrested for drinking a soda. Residents of Boston just won't be able to buy soda from vending machines, cafeterias, etc.
 
tumblr_ljgh1aUsR41qeovp8.gif


Are you KIDDING me? That's absolute overboard. People are so quick to blame sugary drinks and snacks, but have they ever stopped to think who were the ones loafing around on the couches eating them all day?! This disgusts me.
 
I don't think that some of you understand this law. People can still go to a store and buy crappy drinks. They just can't buy them in city buildings.

Please, please try to understand laws before you get up in arms about them.
 
Exactly, Zenith. Sugary drinks were banned at my middle school when I was a student there 10 years ago, and at my high school when I was a student there as well. Point is: it's been done to varying degrees before. I understand that adults have (read: should have) more understanding of the potential for harmful effects, and this is on a much larger scale than my school examples, but the fact remains that not enough Americans are concerned about said effect.

But really, though, how often will you be in Boston in a city building and think, "man, I really want a soda right now!"? If that's the case, walk to a store and buy one.
 
@Zenith: Oh okay, that's better. Like it's going to help though.
My school doesn't have any good sugary, caramel colory, drinks in their vending machines. But we still have sucky things like Powerade and Fresca. There's no difference but it keeps the angry parents at bay I guess. Gosh people are stupid.
 
Does anyone else here call soda "pop"? Lol cuz this thread is messing with my head calling it soda. But anyways I hope it doesn't get to the point where the government regulates what we eat like some of you were flipping out about.
 
The banning really seems like more of a symbolic thing; it's basically the Boston government saying that they recognize that these kinds of drinks are a health hazard, but they can't really do anything about them (like with smoking or alcohol).
 
Here's how I see it

Alcohol. You can still go buy it and no one is gonna stop you (you know what I mean). Take it home and drink as much as you like. Cigarettes are the same way.

Now Boston has added soda to this list. No one's infringing on your rights or whatever. Chill out, dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top