Soda Pop - The Next Tobacco?

Sugar won't be outlawed, even though it's an addictive drug. Y'all know that the colonial Americas were run by druglords, right? Most of the millions of African slaves were brought to sugar plantations, where they died young to feed the sugar addictions of Europeans. Any one Caribbean sugar island was worth more to England than all the American colonies combined. Sugar druglords were the richest guys in the Empire.

The New World's gifts to the Old include: sugar (and rum), nicotine (and other solanaceous alkaloids), cacao+vanilla, coca. and more than a little coffee. Not to mention many hallucinogens. Old World botanicals are mostly spotty and dull in comparison. Cf. Richard Evans Schultes, HALLUCINOGENIC PLANTS: A Golden Guide.

Back to sugar. Try to avoid consumables filled with HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup). Go ahead, just try. Processed foods are usually loaded with HFCS rather than cane or beet or other sugars. HFCS is indeed bad shit. But the maize corn production industry is huge, rich, powerful, far beyond the dreams of tobacco firms.

The US lives on midwest corn and energy. Watch the cycle in Nebraska and Kansas: natural gas pumps feeding fertilizer plants feeding cornfields feeding livestock, a vast interlocking web of money and its fallout. Break that cycle, and consequences follow.
 
Last edited:
Governments haven't been able to get rid of tobacco.

I'm sure in your mind forcibly seizing tobacco from adults is a legitimate role of government. God forbid adults be allowed to pick their own pleasures.
 
I'm sure in your mind forcibly seizing tobacco from adults is a legitimate role of government. God forbid adults be allowed to pick their own pleasures.
Gov't, supposedly acting on behalf of the populace, may decide that trillions spent in medical costs treating addicts of alcohol, tobacco, sugar, opiates, etc justifies limiting their use. If adult pleasures don't cost society much, no problem. Otherwise, problem.

Move it to the private sector. Are private health insurers / providers justified in raising rates on people who have grossly abused themselves? Should a quarter-ton fatty pay more for liposuction? Should smokers pay more for lung surgery and cancer treatment?

This isn't like fucking your sister. Substances of abuse incur huge costs. Do you want to pay for other people's self-abuse, or would you rather limit losses by imposing restrictions on the source material?

It might be better if the shit just killed quickly. Then the only cost is hauling the corpse to a landfill.
 
Governments can take pot and 'shrooms away from you. Don't hear of too many RWCJ types complaining about that while they drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes and bitch about Liberals.
 
This isn't like fucking your sister. Substances of abuse incur huge costs. Do you want to pay for other people's self-abuse, or would you rather limit losses by imposing restrictions on the source material?
.

Why not everyone just pay for their own self abuse?

It's freedom, liberty and the American way!! :cool:

Why is that such an impossible concept for people to wrap their brains around? :confused:
 
Thanks, I wanted to be clear. I truly hope you or no one close to you even needs assistance. Though, it would possibly be the only to convince you that caring for those who may have trouble caring for themselves is a just action of a civil society, I still hope you and yours never have to incur such hardships.

That's usually my policy.

*shrug* whatever I don't care enough to hold a grudge or go digging for what happened.

If you want to move on and continue our conversation cool, if you want to be a bitch about it though also cool, I won't hold it against you either way.
civil is always my default, and I'm happy to continue that with you and others.
 
Governments can take pot and 'shrooms away from you. Don't hear of too many RWCJ types complaining about that while they drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes and bitch about Liberals.

Who do you figure fits that description here?
 
Another attempt at avoiding personal responsibility.

They're looking for a check from Coca-Cola.
 
Probably not on topic, but Ima post anyway:

It seems like opioids are the next big thing we, as Americans, need to be told to be ascared of - and donate huge sums of tax money to chosen vendors as our saviors - so as to protect us from ourselves.

For me - it's my life, my body, my choice. If I want to pump myself full of chemicals and die an early death, its nobody's business. Especially not the governments.

I realize arguing for a government that leaves one alone is purely hypothetical; but I'm a dreamer.
 
Why is the concept of responsibility only applied to the individual person?

Yes I am responsible for what I consume, but is not the manufacturer responsible for what they produce, their actions?
 
Why is the concept of responsibility only applied to the individual person?

Yes I am responsible for what I consume, but is not the manufacturer responsible for what they produce, their actions?

Yes. They are responsible.

However, when government steps in to regulate them, they are absolved of a lot of responsibility.

If government stays out of it, then individuals, maybe even groups, can sue them on the basis that they harmed them. In this case, railing against soda pop smacks more of a mentality that seeks to rule based on the foundations of pop (political) science. The only way that sodas can harm you is if you over-indulge. You can over-indulge on french fries too.

What you are calling for is nothing more than the religious passion to impose your sense of morality on everyone else.

Instead, go find a victim and sue Coca-Cola™.
 
How are they acting responsibly?

Do they participate in recycling programs for the massive waste their product puts into the landfill system?

Do they actively seek to mitigate or clean up their pollution from the production process?

Do they participate in health awareness activities?



How exactly are they being responsible for the problems they are creating?
 
Why then, are you not at war with milk and fruit juice?


They come in plastics too and they aren't engaged in recycling efforts...


:rolleyes:


Is Pepsi selling itself on its health benefits, or did Pepsi delve into the bottled-water market?


And why aren't you railing against the pot industry selling itself as "healthy?"

Does it not come in plastic too???
 
Please name a single beneficial thing about consuming soda pop. One redeeming quality - tasting good (subjective) does not count.

How are soda pop manufacturers being responsible for the problems their product is creating?
 
I don't drink pop.


When I did, it was because of its sweet goodness and caffeine were pleasurable.



Pleasure is a benefit. All things should be done in moderation, but legislating moderation is nothing more than the the religious tyranny of the majority.
 
Please elaborate on what problem(s) they are causing.



I don't think you can because in order to do so, you have to ignore all other factors, like the Glow Ball Alarmists and CO2...
 
Probably not on topic, but Ima post anyway:

It seems like opioids are the next big thing we, as Americans, need to be told to be ascared of - and donate huge sums of tax money to chosen vendors as our saviors - so as to protect us from ourselves.

For me - it's my life, my body, my choice. If I want to pump myself full of chemicals and die an early death, its nobody's business. Especially not the governments.

I realize arguing for a government that leaves one alone is purely hypothetical; but I'm a dreamer.

I've come all the way around to Ron Paul's "Yes, heroin should be legal." You are 100% right. Where are all the "My body, my choice!" people on this?

As far as the opioid "crisis")," it's a huge cradle-to-grave style industry. The ACA made it both easier to get customers in for opioids to "pain management" clinics as well as drug treatment, (well intentioned, expene8ve scam) and methadone maintenence. I know of something like 15 methadone maintenance centers. I got to talking to one of the patients, there are 800 "doctor visits" per day at the one clinic he goes to 6 days a week. Pre-ACA with a good U/A results, they could get a month at a time. Now no one "qualifies" to dose themselves. ...and there's a very good drug out now they completely cuts craving and withdrawal and makes methadone unnecessary. Rarely prescribed.

If we let people do as they wish, (and we should) they also bear the cost of their choices. I say we treat withdrawals as medically necessary as a compassionate society but that's it.
 
Please elaborate on what problem(s) they are causing.



I don't think you can because in order to do so, you have to ignore all other factors, like the Glow Ball Alarmists and CO2...

The soda manufacturer should get a government subsidy for all of the carbon capture. . .

. . .tax belching to pay for it.
 
I've come all the way around to Ron Paul's "Yes, heroin should be legal." You are 100% right. Where are all the "My body, my choice!" people on this?

As far as the opioid "crisis")," it's a huge cradle-to-grave style industry. The ACA made it both easier to get customers in for opioids to "pain management" clinics as well as drug treatment, (well intentioned, expene8ve scam) and methadone maintenence. I know of something like 15 methadone maintenance centers. I got to talking to one of the patients, there are 800 "doctor visits" per day at the one clinic he goes to 6 days a week. Pre-ACA with a good U/A results, they could get a month at a time. Now no one "qualifies" to dose themselves. ...and there's a very good drug out now they completely cuts craving and withdrawal and makes methadone unnecessary. Rarely prescribed.

If we let people do as they wish, (and we should) they also bear the cost of their choices. I say we treat withdrawals as medically necessary as a compassionate society but that's it.

At the risk of being found out as a heartless asshole, I consider drug overdoses a form of Darwinism.

Sure it's sad and we can all have a good cry at our loss when a loved one OD's. But said druggie made a choice.
 
I've come all the way around to Ron Paul's "Yes, heroin should be legal." You are 100% right. Where are all the "My body, my choice!" people on this?

As far as the opioid "crisis")," it's a huge cradle-to-grave style industry. The ACA made it both easier to get customers in for opioids to "pain management" clinics as well as drug treatment, (well intentioned, expene8ve scam) and methadone maintenence. I know of something like 15 methadone maintenance centers. I got to talking to one of the patients, there are 800 "doctor visits" per day at the one clinic he goes to 6 days a week. Pre-ACA with a good U/A results, they could get a month at a time. Now no one "qualifies" to dose themselves. ...and there's a very good drug out now they completely cuts craving and withdrawal and makes methadone unnecessary. Rarely prescribed.

If we let people do as they wish, (and we should) they also bear the cost of their choices. I say we treat withdrawals as medically necessary as a compassionate society but that's it.

The soda manufacturer should get a government subsidy for all of the carbon capture. . .

. . .tax belching to pay for it.

To the former, I have long advocated ending the war on drugs. Overdosing is a problem of known dosages which the black market does not provide. As to the latter...

lol
 
And if we were to prioritize things the government needs to ban - cocksuckers with leaf blowers outside my office at 8 in the morning.
 
Back
Top