So you are for personal freedom to make your own health care decisions but people who need foodstamps don't get personal freedom in their choice of soft drinks?

Where does it stop? Foods with too much fat? No soup because there is too much sodium? No cereals with sugar? Cigarettes aren't food.

The mayor of NY should spend more time worrying about the fact that the number of people n food stamps in NYC is expanding than worrying about banning soda.

More thread pollution about slippery slope. SODA. 40% of public school kids are obese in NYC. Many of these kids get food stamps. We are helping people, not hurting people by banning soda for food stamps.

I didn't bring up butter or cigarettes. There is absolutely no reason in my mind why soda shouldn't be allowed to be purchased with food stamps. You are providing people with financial troubles with assistance not mandating that they eat or drink what the govt tells them can.

It is not up to the govt to dictate to us what we eat. Period. The list of things that are supposedly bad for us is a mile long. I ask again, what's next? The idea that people who are on food stamps can't get soda will somehow cure obesity or even decrease it 1/2 of 1% is ridiculously naive. Helping people by taking away personal choice is dangerous. Banning schools from selling candy or soda? No problem. Banning people from buying soda with the money they receive from the govt? That's your slippery slope.

Fat and happy is better than stupid any day. Of course the truly stupid actually think they are smart.

You are not taking away personal choice. You are keeping people from starving....When you are off the government tit, you will be allowed to kill yourself like everyone else...including you.

Yes, if calling me names makes you feel better so be it. This thread is not about "smart." It is about personal responsibility and accepting welfare. When you incentivize bad behavior of any kind, that's what you get.

You are absolutely taking away personal choice. The govt should not dictate what you choose to eat or drink. Mandating what we can and can't eat or drink is an insanely blatant violation of civil liberties. Like I said before, What's next? Too much fat? Too much salt?

Why you can't see the difference of what welfare is, what is designed to do, and what you are arguing is beyond me...We are not having the same conversation. :wf

Hey you called me obese and say that I should accept it. I call you stupid and believe that you should accept it.

The stance that you have taken is directly opposite of personal responsibility. Accepting welfare and dictating what foods or drinks one decides to use with that welfare are not inclusive of each other. You aren't "incentivizing bad behavior", you are trying to intrude into peoples lives. Drinking soda is not bad behavior regardless of how you spin it.

Chuck, you are considered obese? It is not a personal shot because we are discussing obesity here. You would be the first to admit it is a personal decision you have made....I see what you are saying but the fact is people are not being responsible. 30 years ago, the obesity problem was not an epidemic. Today it is. Therefore, and especially when kids are involved, we can and should mandate that something that contributes towards obesity shouldn't be allowed when it is tax payer funded.

The reason is that you believe what you think is an absolute when clearly it is not. You want to break it down into black and white. In your mind soda is bad so banning it is justified. The problem is that soda is not bad or good. It is just one one of many drinks available and even the circumstantial evidence about obecsity and sugar dont matter to me as much as the rights of the people that your decree tramples on.

No, no, no....This is so incorrect. Look at the Westboro thread et all. I am as consistent as you could ever be.

This is not a subtle difference when you are talking about government money. This is where you and I differ. This is the same argument you tried to use in the tracks being subsidized thread, b/c they do it for casinos. This is your MO. You try desperately to change the subject when the truth is right in your face....Tax money. This is nobody's personal piggy bank, nor should it be. Am I saying we should outlaw welfare? No...God forbid someone who should be thrilled to get a handout, has to avoid a sprite which at 20 ounces has 16 spoons of sugar. Really not asking much here.

You are right. I can always exercise more and eat healthier and become less obese. You on the other hand were seemingly born stupid and despite your best efforts remain that way.

And you are right, people are not being responsible so we should definitely have govt mandates that we be more responsible. Maybe we can publicly flog fat people and shame them into losing weight if banning everything doesn't work? Of course many of the people who would be on board with something like this are also supporters of the "2+2=5 is right" and "every kid gets a trophy" programs which foster everything BUT personal responsibility.

It isn't the gov't money once they hand it over to you. Don't you think that people who are in the foodstamp program have paid taxes at some point in their lives? This idea that I have an "MO" is well, stupid. You believe that the gov't should have the right to tell you how you spend YOUR money once they give it to you. I don't. The Tracks/casino thing? You just don't understand the issues and/or are just plain wrong.

Again, why you being obese makes me stupid is beyond me?...It hardly makes you a bad person or alone. But damn if you aren't touchy about it...if you were comfortable with that choice, you would think you wouldn't be.

My weight is not related to your stupidity. I am in fact completely comfortable with my weight. What I am not comfortable is allowing putz's like you to take free shots at me under the guise of discussing the topic.

It is not a shot. I love my fat relatives as much as my skinny ones. It's beyond me that fat people choose to play the victim. Again, someone who is obese is unsurprisingly not going to support this kind of thing....A better question since you have now polluted this thread beyond repair....Are you in favor of universal health care?

It is beyond me why you can't comprehend that this essentially isn't a health issue. You injecting assumptions about me into every discussion is not only tiresome but insulting. You think that because I am a horse trainer that I have a biased take on the NJ situation is laughable. That you would think I would argue against the banning of soda for food stamp recipients because I am in your words 'obese', is reprehnsible. You know for a fact that you wouldn't say that to my face if we ever were to discuss this in person. So why should you be allowed to take shots at me on a discussion forum? My profession and my weight have zero to do with my ability to discuss topics.

What you call 'polluted' is actually dissenting opinion.

I am not in favor of universal healthcare until I see a system that will not only provide quality care but be properly funded as well. As it stands neither will occur.

So calling someone stupid b/c you disagree with them is ok, but calling someone obese, in the context of a state trying to lower the obesity rate, is wrong? Interesting how that works....Your profession and weight do in fact have something to do with the threads you want to discuss. That is why you went into XYZ thread to begin with. Obviously, anyone of any profession is influenced by their life experiences. To think otherwise is naive....And since I practice what I preach I have actual experience with the largest food bank in the United States since I have volunteered there each of the last 5 years. And you know what? You can get soda there. You know why, b/c it was donated. The government isn't providing it, people are. I bring whatever I can bring when I go, but I can't understand wanting to donate something unhealthy to those in need. :wf