Once again, we have an implication by a comic that infers something separate from reality with respect to the ruling in this case. The judge actually recognized that it could be within the purview of a local government to regulate a product, but struck down the law because of it’s capricious and arbitrary nature. As an example, 7-11s were exempt, but restaurants were required to comply.
Yes, but the judges ruling is pretty squirrely. It’s like the cigarette companies saying that they should be legal, even though any new toxic product would be illegal to sell, because addicted Americans want to be able to choose to keep smoking. Then when you try to restrict smoking in restaurants, they say “but it’s a legal product! You can’t restrict it!” The point of the law is that people can get more than 16 oz by ordering another drink. That’s fine! It’s America, a free country. But enough people will stop at 16 oz. to save New York taxpayers a huge amount in future health costs.
I totally agree with “personal responsibility” angle, but, with commerce and advertising, and the fact you can’t BUY a “small” size any more, marketing HAS taken away a lot of that “freedom of choice” from a brainwashed populace.
Of course the marketing of more guns,mostly to those who already HAVE a lot of guns, and a lot of paranoia, is the result of the same marketing and brainwashing issue.
2011worldchamps about 11 years ago
Yeah but it’s your choice to put your mouth there. Whatever happen to personal responsibility?
curtisls87 about 11 years ago
Once again, we have an implication by a comic that infers something separate from reality with respect to the ruling in this case. The judge actually recognized that it could be within the purview of a local government to regulate a product, but struck down the law because of it’s capricious and arbitrary nature. As an example, 7-11s were exempt, but restaurants were required to comply.
rockngolfer about 11 years ago
Do you follow Over The Hedge? RJ has been eating Smackees all week. Comments are good.
d_legendary1 about 11 years ago
“Even if it requires taxpayer’s money.”
So you’re in favor of corporate welfare?
Rickapolis about 11 years ago
More guns. That’s the answer. MORE GUNS. Give everybody all the guns they want. No limit. No law. THAT will lower gun violence. Right GOP?
ARodney about 11 years ago
Yes, but the judges ruling is pretty squirrely. It’s like the cigarette companies saying that they should be legal, even though any new toxic product would be illegal to sell, because addicted Americans want to be able to choose to keep smoking. Then when you try to restrict smoking in restaurants, they say “but it’s a legal product! You can’t restrict it!” The point of the law is that people can get more than 16 oz by ordering another drink. That’s fine! It’s America, a free country. But enough people will stop at 16 oz. to save New York taxpayers a huge amount in future health costs.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
I totally agree with “personal responsibility” angle, but, with commerce and advertising, and the fact you can’t BUY a “small” size any more, marketing HAS taken away a lot of that “freedom of choice” from a brainwashed populace.
Of course the marketing of more guns,mostly to those who already HAVE a lot of guns, and a lot of paranoia, is the result of the same marketing and brainwashing issue.
braindead Premium Member about 11 years ago
I’m 55, and when I learned to read, I read this message the labels on the sides of packages and cartons of cigarettes:
“Warning! Smoking might cause Lung Cancer”-So, Tigger, do you think that warning label belongs there?
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Tigger never reads anything, as you may note there’s never any awareness of what cartoonists, or commentators on these pages say.