I saw that story somewhere too, but I was thinking it was in one of the New England states. Either way, it's getting to be too much.

Here we go. It's a town in Massachusetts.

Ban on Swearing

Are we in Massachusetts now? ###§§§$$$%%%%!!! Bleep.

Tho I don't drink soda at all am still uncomfortable with the idea of government taking away my freedom to purchase whatever size soda I wish to purchase, should I so choose. Agree with the aformentioned post re: grandstanding, however the underlying implications are there. Perhaps a law against consuming too much licorice to prevent hyperkalemia?

No no no. No more "laws" to supposedly "protect me". There are thousands of things (including real licorice - but it's not bad for EVERYone) that could be construed as "bad" for us. If you let gov't and insurance companies make your decisions for you, you would not be allowed to leave your house to do ANY activities whatsoever (ANY sports, flying in airplanes for holidays, going on cruises, having champagne on your anniversary, wearing perfume etc etc).

Oh WAIT, statistically most accidents happen IN the home. Perhaps we should all live in a tent instead lol

People like Putkin would be MOST happy to welcome those who can't think for themselves, or prefer to leave the thinking up to other people. I wish those people well ~

Which part of democracy and freedom of thought have we given up on in these types of instances? Seems to me that only "freedom of rights" is newsworthy (in relation to "culture"), when the truth is most folks don't even know the difference between rights and privileges.

Personally, I think it's a horrible shame that so many died in my country for the "privilege" for people today to be so apathetic and "roll over" like cowards for the latest "PC policy".

Grow some brass ones. When you make "tribes" of people (special interest groups - religious, food choices, whatever), no one wins. Except perhaps the wolves (so much for "civilisation").

There's a difference between "safety" and "safety," the latter being laws that claim to be "for your own good," but don't actually "keep you safe." To me, laws should be designed to defend a country as a whole--but these laws that legislate morality... **forget about it* Oops... I sound like the young buffoon I am, lol

Here's an interesting FACT from a severe diabetic..ME. I drink both sugar-sweetened soda and diet soda sweetened with aspartame, splenda, sucralose and other artificial sweeteners on occassion. After numerous blood tests with my glucometer, diet soda drives my glucose count UP 3-4 times more than sugar-sweetened soda. That has a 98% rate over approx. 120 tests taken.
I do suffer from spleen and liver disease as well as chronic leukemia so that in itself MAY cause some of the weird counts, but 98% over 120 tests?
Here's another fact. Did you know that once aspartame reaches 83 degrees F in temperature that it attains the same chemical composition as formaldehyde?
I'll take natural sugar over artificial sweetener, diabetes or not.
Be careful of those who are "out to save you". They are the ones that own the products and rake in the profit ever time a sale is made, whether diet or sugar sweetened.
When is the last time you saw a Coca-Cola or Pepsi bigwig drinking their own product? It's time to get logical people and ask the questions the rich product owners work so hard to keep you from asking in the first place.
One last point. These "personal saviors" of you and your families are the same ones who believe in flouridating your drinking water. Flouridation, now known as one of the worst poisons in any government controlled system.