a 100-ounce drink.
The gargantuan plastic mug in his hands may well be the biggest soda sold in the nation.
No matter that dietitians and even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are decrying the health risks of sugary drinks. Azuse, 26, a bearded bear of a man, strolled into a Kum & Go convenience store on the north side of town yesterday afternoon, filled his mammoth cup to the brim with Mountain Dew Code Red, and made no apologies.
Kind of reminds me of this:
Here's the thing though...this individual thinks Bloomberg's ban on 16oz sodas is a good thing...his reasoning?
My defense of the "ban" is that the strain obesity puts on society -- greater
shared healthcare costs, social burdens from customers, patients, and
co-habitors, and the general specter of the obesity "epidemic" in the U.S. -- is
much greater than the burden put on customers to buy a second soda, to get up
and refill their drinks, or to merely stop drinking such absurd quantities of
sugary drinks. I understand the value of personal choice, and liberty, and
Truth, Justice, and the American Way, but I also cannot equate restrictions
similar to making it more difficult to purchase a gun or not being able to house
cigarette vending machines at your diner to stamping out one's freedom of
choice. If you want a gun, it's still legally available to you. If you need your
nicotine fix, your $11 cigarettes are at the corner store, same as your 2-liter
For the left, hating on smokers and the obese has always been given a pass...don't ask me why, I have not ever been able to figure out how the libtard's mind works...but when I read the above it made me think...'greater shared healthcare costs'?...what about the costs put upon society by people that participate in risky sexual practices? This would include both heterosexuals and homosexuals...why aren't these people included in liberal's false 'concern' for society and healthcare costs?
We all know why...those are sacred cows of liberals...but it raises the question of whether or not government should begin interfering with their lifestyles and lifestyle choices...I am NOT advocating that...but why should those choices be ignored when focusing on whether or not someone else should be able to buy a large sugary soda or another pack of cigarettes...
The old adage comes to mind: 'Be careful what you wish for'...what if, somewhere down the road, some other do-gooder decided to use the same yardstick as was used for smokers and the obese on people's sexual choices?...somehow liberals have ignored that when running around with all their so-called 'do-gooder' legislation which really boils down to controlling what you and I decide to do...interferance from the nanny government on very personal choices...good OR bad...that should be left up to the individual and not policed by the ever-expanding, ever-ominous gub'ment...