Plain packaging result!

[Big RR]

Diabetes and pre-diabetes? One need only look how the diagnostic criteria (blood glucose, especially after fasting) has curiously gone down as more and more pharmaceutical companies have come out with hypoglycemic agents they want to sell. Coincidence? You decide. FWIW, the same has happened with "acceptable" blood pressure ranges.

Not that lowering of possibly problematic blood sugar levels/blood pressures is a horrible thing, but I'm not so sure taking those drugs for years or decades is all that good--avandia has been linked to so many complications that it's practically disappeared from the market, actos has been linked to bladder cancer, metformin to a number of chronic diseases. But often drug therapy starts immediately upon even a pre-diabetic diagnosis.

As for the soft drink ban, when one can choose to buy more than one drink, what's the point. Those who want to over-imbibe still will do so, those who don't, won't. Just because whiskey is sold by the shot, not the bottle, in most bars does not keep people who want to from getting drunk.

[oldr_n_wsr]

As for the soft drink ban, when one can choose to buy more than one drink, what's the point.

Just more crappola from "look at what i did" politicians. A lot of wasted time and energy when things that matter got put on hold.

[Big RR]

Well with Bloomberg I don't think it is "look what I did", it's "look what I can do". From subverting the ban on more than 2 terms as mayor, to this, Bloomberg give Narcissus competition.

[Long Run]

It should take the soda pop companies about 15 minutes to figure out how to make more money off of this silliness.

[rubato]

The connection between increase in body weight and the incidence of diabetes makes it unlikely that it is just a change in diagnostic criteria:



You chance of have a lower extremity amputated is twice as high with diabetes:




The US rate of amputation from diabetes is more that twice as high the #2 country, denmark, and 3 1/2 times as high as most.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... s-Amp1.jpg


Blaming it on a small change in diagnostic criteria appears to be false.

Of course diabetes is just one problem caused by over-consumption of sugar. High blood pressure and strokes are others.

Obesity is a public health crisis in the United States and we must begin to address it in the same way we addressed deaths from smoking and diptheria.

Making it slightly less convenient to over-consume will have a large impact.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

"....
As for the soft drink ban, when one can choose to buy more than one drink, what's the point. Those who want to over-imbibe still will do so, those who don't, won't. ... "

Then it must be a mystery to you why the softdrink sellers stopped trying to sell two or three of the smaller ones and made the size larger.

Obviously the evidence shows that making them larger increased consumption.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

As for the soft drink ban, when one can choose to buy more than one drink, what's the point. Those who want to over-imbibe still will do so, those who don't, won't. Just because whiskey is sold by the shot, not the bottle, in most bars does not keep people who want to from getting drunk.

I think that the point is to raise awareness of the health risks Big RR. If you could only buy whisky in single measures and not doubles because of some health risk you'd take notice.

Anyway, the people that this is aimed at are probably too lazy to make a second trip to buy another drink. That's why they buy a bucket in the first place.

[Big RR]

"....
As for the soft drink ban, when one can choose to buy more than one drink, what's the point. Those who want to over-imbibe still will do so, those who don't, won't. ... "

Then it must be a mystery to you why the softdrink sellers stopped trying to sell two or three of the smaller ones and made the size larger.

Obviously the evidence shows that making them larger increased consumption.

yrs,
rubato

I'm sure lucky I had you to explain it to me then. Thanks.

Sean--[quoteI think that the point is to raise awareness of the health risks Big RR. If you could only buy whisky in single measures and not doubles because of some health risk you'd take notice.

Anyway, the people that this is aimed at are probably too lazy to make a second trip to buy another drink. That's why they buy a bucket in the first place.][/quote]

I disagree, those who really want to drink gallons of sugary beverages will do what they have to in order to get them; again, just because one has to buy
whiskey a jigger at a time and not in a bottle does not prevent someone who wants to from drinking an entire bottle's worth--someone who wants to can drink the soda fountain dry.

To me it's just an idiot trying to flex his muscle and show what he can do, not any real concern for health. Changes in behavior come from education and convincing people to change, not the decree of someone who insists he knows better.

[oldr_n_wsr]

From what I understand this only applies to resturants (McD's ect), street vendors and possibly big gulps.

It does not stop one from buying a 1 or 2 liter bottle of cola from 7-11 or even the pizza parlor along with their couple of "everything" slices. Seems a lot of effort for not much payback.

ETA
And how does this affect those new fangled "squirty" things where your just squirt your sugar/tasty juice into a bottle of water? (I don't know if those are sugar or some substitute for sugar. Personally, I don't like any of the sugar substitutes)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Why don't they just ban biggie size people?

[Sean]

I disagree, those who really want to drink gallons of sugary beverages will do what they have to in order to get them; again, just because one has to buy
whiskey a jigger at a time and not in a bottle does not prevent someone who wants to from drinking an entire bottle's worth--someone who wants to can drink the soda fountain dry.

To me it's just an idiot trying to flex his muscle and show what he can do, not any real concern for health. Changes in behavior come from education and convincing people to change, not the decree of someone who insists he knows better.

I think that the motivation for a lot of people who buy this is greed (no shit Sherlock! - Ed) rather than a desire for the beverage. By that I mean that they buy it because it's there and not because they really want it. Of course, once they buy it they will drink it all.

I don't think that the comparison of whisky shots and bottles is a fair one. Single and double shots are a much closer analogy. I believe that most people will consider the number of drinks they have had rather than the actual quantity of alcohol.

Anyway, I think that the whole idea is worth a try... Is it really doing any harm to anybody except (possibly) the soft drink manufacturers?

[Big RR]

Sean--you are right, it's not really "harming" anyone, but I do see it as an unwarranted intrusion of government into personal liberty. Yes, it is in the interest of the people it is aimed at, but IMHO the government should not step in unless the activity that is affected directly harms third parties; there is no such harm here (unless second hand sugar exposure is a problem). Yes, I understand that society will bear the indirect costs of sick and prematurely dead persons, but I see that as a necessary cost of maintaining our freedom; unless people are free to do things others might deem as "stupid", they are not free at all.

[oldr_n_wsr]

unless people are free to do things others might deem as "stupid", they are not free at all.

I ride a motorcyle (on Long Island no less) and many (including my wife) think that is stupid. But I still do it as I enjoy it and relish my time on my bike. I am sure anyone can fill in "motorcycle" for another enjoyment they get that may risk life and limb (short term and long term).

[Gob]

IT IS difficult to pinpoint which is most confronting - the image of Bryan Curtis' corpse-like body, so emaciated it is hard to tell if he is dead or alive, or the photo taken just 10 weeks earlier of the then 33-year-old - seemingly fit, with a wide moustache and shining, blue eyes, unrecognisable as the man about to die.

Whichever it is, the pictures that stare out from a murky green cigarette pack are haunting. So much so, that of all the graphic images currently being splashed across the plain packs - there are seven in circulation and seven more to be introduced next year - this is the one smokers do not want to have to look at.

''We are hearing about people who are being given that pack and they're saying, 'Look, I don't want that one, give me another one','' Quit Victoria executive director Fiona Sharkie says.

''It's a very human connection, rather than just a body part, and it's having a really shocking impact on people.''

The story of exactly how Bryan Curtis came to appear on our plain packs is unclear. The Department of Health will only say that Mr Curtis was a US citizen who died of smoking-related lung cancer. It entered into a confidential agreement with his family to use the images.

Fairfax Media believes it was Mr Curtis' dying wish to prevent even one child sharing the same fate. An article published in the St Petersburg Times in Florida in June 1999, just weeks after he died, tells the story of the St Petersburg mechanic, roofer and construction worker, who smoked two packs of Marlboro Reds a day for nearly 20 years, until he died, aged 34.

In the weeks before his death, the father of two urged his mother to help him spread the anti-smoking message. She subsequently rang newspapers, radio and television stations seeking someone who would tell her son's story.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-man ... z2FRwlG026

[Crackpot]

every time I see this thread I could swear it's about Gob's latest purchace form an adult website.

[rubato]

Sean--you are right, it's not really "harming" anyone, but I do see it as an unwarranted intrusion of government into personal liberty. Yes, it is in the interest of the people it is aimed at, but IMHO the government should not step in unless the activity that is affected directly harms third parties; there is no such harm here (unless second hand sugar exposure is a problem). Yes, I understand that society will bear the indirect costs of sick and prematurely dead persons, but I see that as a necessary cost of maintaining our freedom; unless people are free to do things others might deem as "stupid", they are not free at all.

Free to make choices so bad that no sane person would ever say that they are expressions of individuality rather than suicidal stupidity.

Argument fails.

yrs,
rubato