Wonder what the lost revenue from this will be for Boston? I think it's crazy, don't need someone telling me what/where I can get a drink.

tk421;738543 wrote:Wonder what the lost revenue from this will be for Boston? I think it's crazy, don't need someone telling me what/where I can get a drink.

So it's absolutely necessary that the government provide soda machines for you?

I Wear Pants;738548 wrote:So it's absolutely necessary that the government provide soda machines for you?

Did I say that?

Why do you think that cities and towns should be required to provide sugary drink options?

Did you know that many of the food vendors within a public facility lease the space and are independent business people. Should they be allowed to sell soft drinks??

Why do you think that cities and towns should be required to provide sugary drink options?

Vend healthy soft drinks and sugary soft drinks. Let the people have a choice. The marketplace will determine what the consumers want and not the nanny state.

I'd say leave it up to damned local governments to decide this type of thing like it is now. If the people of Boston are dissatisfied with this type of decision then they'll not vote for that candidate again.

Could be worse I suppose, you could be forced to eat what the government decides what's best for you:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

And in this case the Principal isn't an "elected official." There's no check involved.

It is crazy how much intrusion there is, but its no big deal of course, just "teabaggers" whining that their poor rights are taken away. Shouldn't they accept what is good for them?

Manhattan, I think you'll find that any reasonable person will think that's a stupid policy. Kids or whomever should be free to bring whatever lunch they want to school or work.

But that is completely different than not selling sugary drinks at a school or something like that. Telling kids they can't bring a soda for lunch I disagree with. Telling kids if they want a soda for lunch they'll have to bring it themselves I'm fine with.

Hell, my high school never sold sodas in the cafeteria machines.

"Manhattan, I think you'll find that any reasonable person will think that's a stupid policy."

I think you'll find that there a lot of unreasonable people in America, unfortunately many of them hold public office and we have too many voters that are ignoring the growing statism in this country (it has more or less consumed most of the traditional "left" already). We've cultivated an unhealthy power structure for them. In the link I provided, there is no way in holy hell this has anything to do with the children, it has to do with the principal's power (she certainly isn't a nutritionist, it is none of her damned business what goes on in the cafeteria), but rather her power trip and that her school gets more money (from the rest of us, as free/reduced lunches are federally funded) as a result of this hare-brained scheme.

I don't see a big leap between that and what the Boston mayor is doing. Quite simply, this isn't a part of his job description and it is none of his f--king business. It is just a power/ego trip that he isn't qualified to make, and shouldn't be able to make. That Boston people simply accept it doesn't say much for their acquiescence towards a tyrannical government.

When the Boston policy says you can't bring your liquid sugar is when I'll get upset. I don't think any establishment, including government ones are beholden to provide soft drink options.

I don't live in Boston (proudly), but the ban goes beyond that, it also goes to concessions at city events - and again per my earlier post this has nothing to do with public health but rather the idiot mayor's ego:

"The mayor, who has battled weight issues, said that too many Bostonians are overweight or obese and that he wants to make healthy choices easy for them.

“I haven’t had a glass of soda in two years,’’ Menino said during a press conference at City Hall announcing the measure."

In other words IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM.

So stupid...again I've never lived in Boston but I have lived in cities that have city-sponsored events. Most recently in Richmond, VA where there are public festivals and concerts and nearly always alcohol (or at least Yuengling beer and and Virginia wine) is offered at concessions. I enjoy a nice bottle of red while watching music, as do most other people that patronize these events. If for some reason we elected a jackass mayor that may have had alcoholism problems in the past and decided that for the "public health" alcohol sales would be banned, I have one word that would explain the reaction - Recall.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle, instead of explaining why certain products should be provided, you need to explain why certain products are banned - on ONE person's whim.

In truth, we cannot approve or disapprove something like this based on what we think "it has to do with." I don't care if the mayor was doing this for the improvement of the city's overall health. I don't care if he was doing it because he felt like going on a power trip that day. Hell, I don't care if he did it because he has no self-control, and this is the only way he won't be sucking down 24 boxes of Hi-C a day. He is permitted (even responsible) to evaluate what food or drink is, and what isn't, provided BY the public facility. He should NOT EVER be permitted to mandate foods and drinks like this not be permitted on the premises.

There is a clear, well-defined line there. He has no right to cross it. So long as he doesn't, he's just being dumb ... not overstepping his boundaries.

"He is permitted (even responsible) to evaluate what food or drink is, and what isn't, provided BY the public facility."

What makes you say that? Does your mayor micromanage on this level? Shouldn't the mayor of your town have more important responsibilities?

No personal offense meant, but I'd hate to live in any city where ONE person is responsible for something like this, let alone have the power to ban a legal substance. This is where I Wear Pants' posts gets it completely wrong - he's arguing that the city shouldn't be forced to provide every option. The issue isn't that, it is why it restricts certain options and why it has the power to do so.

Manhattan Buckeye;738983 wrote:"He is permitted (even responsible) to evaluate what food or drink is, and what isn't, provided BY the public facility."

What makes you say that? Does your mayor micromanage on this level? Shouldn't the mayor of your town have more important responsibilities?

I certainly hope mine doesn't micromanage at this level. He is permitted to do so, though. Moreover, even if an employee of his makes this decision instead of him directly, he's still responsible for it.

Manhattan Buckeye;738983 wrote:No personal offense meant, but I'd hate to live in any city where ONE person is responsible for something like this, let alone have the power to ban a legal substance. This is where I Wear Pants' posts gets it completely wrong - he's arguing that the city shouldn't be forced to provide every option. The issue isn't that, it is why it restricts certain options and why it has the power to do so.

That's the thing, though. Currently, they're NOT restricting those options. They're just not providing them for you. There are plenty of things that government is obligated to do for its constituents. Providing flavored beverages within their buildings is not one of those things. Thus, they are permitted to refrain from doing so.

Hell, just bring your own. They're cheaper if you buy them bulk at the store anyway.

"I certainly hope mine doesn't micromanage at this level. He is permitted to do so, though. "

Why, is your mayor God? That is TIC, but this is not something most executive offices deal with and they certainly don't campaign about. If anything the people that should be most pissed are the lower executives and other government workers. Can you imagine the Police Chief finding out the mayor told him that he couldn't have a coke machine at his precinct?

"That's the thing, though. Currently, they're NOT restricting those options. They're just not providing them for you."

They are restricting the options when you aren't allowed to bring your own food or drink in. In a city as large as Boston I am sure there are some events where that is the case.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,2614451,full.story

this is fucking looney tunes

Manhattan Buckeye;738988 wrote:Why, is your mayor God? That is TIC, but this is not something most executive offices deal with and they certainly don't campaign about. If anything the people that should be most pissed are the lower executives and other government workers. Can you imagine the Police Chief finding out the mayor told him that he couldn't have a coke machine at his precinct?

It would be the same as any employee having the pop machines removed from their places of employment. If the person in charge deems it necessary or beneficial, that's their prerogative. You don't have to be God to have the ability to micromanage.

Manhattan Buckeye;738988 wrote:They are restricting the options when you aren't allowed to bring your own food or drink in. In a city as large as Boston I am sure there are some events where that is the case.

Do we know that as fact? If not, we cannot use it as part of the argument. Even if that is the case, it is still not the city's responsibility to provide you with pop. Under no circumstance is that the city's obligation. None. Now, IF there is some event in which you are unable to bring food or drink (I haven't seen any such examples submitted as proof yet), I would contest that the facility should have SOMETHING. Most likely water to drink. Maybe a snack machine. However, it is not the government's responsibility to provide sustenance to the public.

"It would be the same as any employee having the pop machines removed from their places of employment. If the person in charge deems it necessary or beneficial, that's their prerogative. You don't have to be God to have the ability to micromanage."

But that doesn't make an assclown like this Mayor God. By your logic Obama could ban soda from all federal offices. If he did this his ass would be out in '12 more so than Donald Trump could begin to imagine.

"Do we know that as fact?"

From my experience, state-sponsored concessions typically refuse outside products.

" Even if that is the case, it is still not the city's responsibility to provide you with pop"

That is as obtuse as I Wear Pants' posts. It has nothing to do with providing, but rather prohibition. Do you really not get the difference?

Manhattan Buckeye;739045 wrote:But that doesn't make an assclown like this Mayor God. By your logic Obama could ban soda from all federal offices. If he did this his ass would be out in '12 more so than Donald Trump could begin to imagine.

LOL! You don't have to be God in order to ban pop machines in federal buildings.

I agree that it is a stupid thing to do, and would be a stupid thing to do in the example you mentioned. However, stupid != socialist.

Manhattan Buckeye;739045 wrote:From my experience, state-sponsored concessions typically refuse outside products.

Smuggle 'em in anyway for all I care. If asked, say you have no cash, and you have diabetes. Either way, though, I do think they should have to provide water or something for safety reasons, but it isn't as though no soft drink machines means you can't have anything to drink.

Manhattan Buckeye;739045 wrote:That is as obtuse as I Wear Pants' posts. It has nothing to do with providing, but rather prohibition. Do you really not get the difference?

I absolutely get the difference. However, prohibition is not what the mayor is doing. He's removing machines that PROVIDE these drinks. He's not prohibiting said drinks on the premises.

My place of business doesn't have a pop machine either, but here I sit with a soft drink right next to me. They aren't prohibited, but they aren't provided, either. Removal of these machines is NOT prohibiting said soft drinks. It's simply not providing them.

The distinction you mentioned is the exact distinction I've been trying to highlight this whole time. He's NOT prohibiting. That's the point. That's why I'm not against this action (other than the fact that I think it's dumb). Removal of the machines != prohibition of the substance on the grounds. If all he's doing is removing the machines, then he's not prohibiting the substance from the grounds. No prohibition. There is ZERO in the article about pop being prohibited. None. Nothing.

So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that pop being prohibited is even an issue in play.

"So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that pop being prohibited is even an issue in play. "

Considering how inconsistent your argument is, I can see that.

I've said it at least twice. This goes beyond workplace restrictions on vending machines, it is public concessions at events. You addressed it above, yet seemed to poo-poo it with a "Smuggle 'em in anyway for all I care".

If this guy said no Kosher food allowed to be sold at cafeterias would you get it then?

The mayor's reasoning: I have fought obesity and I don't want my loyal minions to have to fight the same battle.The King knows best!!

Manhattan Buckeye;739101 wrote:Considering how inconsistent your argument is, I can see that.

My argument is not at all inconsistent. Nobody's rights are being infringed. As such, there is no violation here. A government building is not required to carry, or not carry, any particular kind of food or drink. That's not the purpose of the facility.

Manhattan Buckeye;739101 wrote:I've said it at least twice. This goes beyond workplace restrictions on vending machines, it is public concessions at events. You addressed it above, yet seemed to poo-poo it with a "Smuggle 'em in anyway for all I care".

Concession stands are not requirements of any government facility or event. A lack thereof is not an infringement of rights. Also, if one is present, the lack of any one kind of food or beverage is also not an infringement, because no one kind of food or beverage is a requirement of ANY entity, public or otherwise.

The "smuggle" statement was a bit of an apathetic personal opinion on the subject.

I just don't understand how anyone can suggest that if they don't provide a certain food or drink (be it a concession stand or a vending machine), they're overstepping their bounds. The items are no longer being provided by the facility. That's it. This is not a prohibition of anything.

Now, if you want to discuss the fact that some events do not permit people to bring their own food, that's a separate issue. As it is a public facility, I don't think there is any right for the facility to tell me I cannot bring food or drink. However, in such a case, I would contend that THAT is where the fault lies. NOT in the fact that they do not provide it for you.

Manhattan Buckeye;739101 wrote:If this guy said no Kosher food allowed to be sold at cafeterias would you get it then?

Doesn't matter. It is not the responsibility of any public facility to cater to anyone's tastes. At most, facilities should carry water on-hand, in cases where heat may become an issue, and health concerns might arise. Beyond that, however, it is not the responsibility of the facility to provide ANY food or beverage. If they provide ANYTHING (again, beyond maybe water), that is something done above their responsibility.

Now, in the case of Kosher food, it is possible that there can be a case made on religious discrimination (Maybe? I'm no lawyer.). Still, the fact remails that it is not their responsibility to provide a soft drink.

My whole contention is that of provision. No public entity is responsible for providing food or beverage. None.

Now, if they are disallowing you to bring your OWN, I take issue with that, but I'd suggest that THAT is the problem. Not the fact that they will not be providing it.

A working stiff can't buy a soft drink at his place of work because the government wants to fight obesity.Sadly, those who need and use SNAP can buy and consume sugary soft drinks, cookies, baked goods,candy,certain energy drinks and ice cream.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

This is a crazy issue, but hardly worth arguing over.


BTW, some people are using socialism contextually wrong. I find very little socialism in this decision.

georgemc80;739299 wrote:This is a crazy issue, but hardly worth arguing over.


BTW, some people are using socialism contextually wrong. I find very little socialism in this decision.

This is essentially my sentiment.

It is moronic to suggest that just because the mayor cannot control himself, and needs these kinds of boundaries, he should then subject anyone in any public building to the same treatment.

It's not socialistic, but it's idiotic.

I just don't see how "if you want soda you'll have to bring it as we don't want to sell sugary drinks on city properties anymore" is some travesty or huge deal. At worst it's stupid. If I got as upset as you guys have over this at every stupid thing some municipality does I'd just have to off myself.