San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had made two moves of note in the past year. He declared his city a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants and now just today Hot Air reports:
Coca-Cola is out, and soy milk is now part of San Francisco’s official city policy. Under an executive order from Mayor Gavin Newsom, Coke, Pepsi and Fanta Orange are no longer allowed in vending machines on city property, although their diet counterparts are – up to a point
Now this kind of thing makes me wonder. What if an illegal immigrant is caught drinking Coca Cola on city property? What then?
Meanwhile California continues to ignore its ever faster descent into an economic whirlpool which threatens to drag us all down into a Depression with them. And there will be no soda during the depression. But plenty of illegal immigrants.
July 6, 2010 at 11:09 pm
There is a kind of insanity endemic to Leftists and their liberal groupies that is so wonderfully exemplified by guys like Gavin Newsome, Barbara Boxer and that Obama fellow, el at, ad nauseum.
July 6, 2010 at 11:14 pm
It's just a matter of time before the candy bars get replaced with granola bars and dried fruit.
July 7, 2010 at 12:09 am
They really hate the free market in SFO, don't they?
July 7, 2010 at 2:06 am
They can really prioritize – NOT!
July 7, 2010 at 5:04 am
Um…yeah. Because anything a leftist does, like attempt to fight childhood obesity is bad. Yes…I said OBESITY.
Me thinks they doth prostest too much…
July 7, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Early Riser said…
Um…yeah. Because anything a leftist does, like attempt to fight childhood obesity is bad. Yes…I said OBESITY.
Me thinks they doth prostest too much…
ER,
The puzzling thing to me is this: I'm 46, and I can say that my childhood friends and I did not enjoy especially healthy diets (at least what we would consider healthy today; I imagine our moms did what they thought best for us). We ate plenty of "bad" foods, drank lots of soda and Kool-Aid, but we were, by and large, skinny kids. I guess the main difference is that we played outside and rode our bikes wherever we could whenever the weather allowed; even Pong was a novelty when I was little. I'm just saying that if the government is interested in getting kids healthy, perhaps it should place a prohibitively hefty "sin" tax on all electronic gaming devices. Just a thought.
July 7, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Now this kind of thing makes me wonder. What if an illegal immigrant is caught drinking Coca Cola on city property? What then?
Have a parade?
@early riser: If people want to spend taxpayer money changing over school cafeterias, I have no problem with that. Especially since for many kids, school meals are the only ones they may eat that day. But it seems that here, we're also talking about city hall and police stations, not just schools. Places where adults, not children, would gather. Presumably, adults ought to be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to have a Coke or just get some water from the water fountain. Perhaps I am naive.
July 7, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Those soy allergy lawsuits should be fun.
Maybe if they didn't OUTLAW the game of TAG… Ah-DUH! How many trillions of calories have been burned by Tag and Dodgeball? When I was 11, I would eat 4 cheeseburgers, 3 hot dogs, 2 pieces of pizza and about a 6 Cokes during the course of an 8 hour day of running around like a madman. I was nothing but ribs!
Hey! Why not just make it illegal to be fat? Think of all the revenue they could generate from "Fatty Fines"! Wow! Imagine the things they could fund with that? Speaking of parades, just THINK of all the FABULOUS DECORATIONS they could buy for the gay pride parades! Oooo gooody! (Skinnies-only, please)
This is nothing but fat-ism pure and simple. Fat is people too!
Oh and what will they do if they catch an illegal "immigrant" with a Coke? Make him eat Mentos.
(Seriously, I'm against childhood obesity as well. But I am FOR parental oversight of children, not GOVERNMENT substituting for parental responsibly – shees! Gym class accepted. Maybe kids shouldn't be allowed to access video games until they have at least graduated from High School. How's that for a regulation.)
July 7, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Jimbo, the preferred term is "fluffy", not "fat".
Now go purchase a "lucky to be fluffy" pin (they are the golden brown ones that look like a french frie twisted into the shape of a ribbon).
July 7, 2010 at 5:03 pm
The real problem is suburbs. Europeans don't eat much better than we do, but they walk everywhere. With the explosion of suburbs, everyone needs to drive to wherever they want to go, therefore they do a lot less walking.
July 7, 2010 at 9:08 pm
what on earth does this have to do with childhood obesity? How many children buy drinks from vending machines on city property? And diabetes, maybe, but obesity?
July 7, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Midday – you are correct. It ALL ADDS UP. We have a MUCH more sedentary lifestyle (I'm using the collective "we") than our parents did, and our children doubly so. While my 5-year-old can use a "toy" computer (no internet, standalone programs for learning and no games) I had to badger my wife and her family to consenting to ban any videogames from being played or gifted to our children. I agree with you 100%. I ensure our children are active (they do calesthetics with me in the morning) and participate in sports/get outside time (although that is getting dicey given our surroundings) as much as possible. You are correct.
But back to the point: it ALL ADDS UP. You may have had a high-sugar diet growing up which you offset by physical activity, but amount of pre-prepared foods we buy at the store these days are 80%+ more than your parents did. And the amt of high-fructose corn-syrup/sweetener has skyrocketed as well (as we all know, corn is the backbone to the American agricultural economy).
The point is, when we are adults we can make the decisions on what to put in our body. But that doesn't mean we need to make it easy. When smoking was banned from public places, a number of people were up on arms screeching about freedom of choice. Well, yes, you have the choice to buy your cancer-sticks and suck on them somewhere else. Same with sugar-laden sodas. No one is taxing sugar, and you can still get the diet alternative.
This is such a small deal being made into a huge deal. People really need to unclench here (then again, it might be the only excercise some here are getting today…so maybe not).
July 8, 2010 at 1:05 am
I mourn for my beloved Coca-Cola!
July 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm
E.R. you make some excellent points here on the evils of sugar and the problems of fat kids, but the role of government should be to protect us when we can not protect ourselves.
Government should not be the usurper of the role of the parent. How about this instead: if your kid has a BMI over a certain number, then you go to jail. I'm OK with that. And I am ok with the role of government in vigorously educating the public about health.
But, as an adult, I certainly don't need government to tell me that can't have a Coke if I want one. Forget that! That's ridiculous. Someone else made the point that these Coke machines are not in schools so all the angst about children is misplaced here. This stuff is already banned from schools – which is fine with me. But this law looks like it will mainly affect adults.
Far to much evil has been done in the name of "good for the people". From K.G.III to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century American's have correctly resisted the governments' attempt to interfere in the most basic choices of the people.
The problem, as always, with this liberal sledgehammer, group-punishment approach is that it is full of emotion and devoid of stats. You can show me tons of stats on childhood obesity, HF Corn Syrup and so on, but you CAN NOT link them directly to that Coke machine in City Hall. You can't prove that anyone is GOING to even drink a soda. They may, they may choose not to. (I found myself grossly overweight at one point then woke up one day and said, "I'm disgusting" So I stopped eating like a pig and lost about a pound a day for MONTHS until I was healthy again. Anyone can self-regulate.)
As far as being clenched (which I can't believe you mentioned on a post about San Francisco) if government wants to take my Coca Cola you better believe that it will be my first that'll be clenched. (All you communist Pepsi drinkers may not understand this – ha ha). They can have my Coke when they pry if from my cold dead fingers (if I didn't spill it on my shirt when I died).
Come on E.R. can't you see the connection here? What will they take next? Hot dogs? They are FULL of fat! How about Apple Pie? They've already taken motherhood. You REALLY want to live in the land of soy milk?
Last: Why do some of us loathe and fear the over-involved government? Because any time you take away freedom, you take away the choice to do evil OR GOOD! How can I make the right choice with my own free will if government won't let me? That in itself is an evil. God gives us that freedom because He wants us to choose good – in all aspects of our lives. Do you want government deciding what's good and evil? That's just crazy talk. (These are the same idiots who've outlawed hugs in school.)
July 8, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Jimbo – no one is saying you can't have a coke. Just waddle yourself down to the store and buy one. Just not on government property. No freedoms are being infringed upon.
July 8, 2010 at 5:02 pm
** sound of soy milk exploding out of Jimbo's nose **
WADDLE? Hey. I am quite svelte now again, thank you.
So. First it was a good idea b/c it was about the health of children. Now it's just no biggie because it's only an issue of city property. But who owns the city property? The people do! So it matters. (You are talking about Firemen not being able to have a Coke in their firehouse? That is just ridiculous.)
It may be no HUGE deal, but it's stupid. Really stupid.
In a larger sense, it is about government trying to play the role of parent and guardian and doing whatever it can to control our choices. That's why it is ridiculous – that and the fact that it's a stupid way for them to spend time and money. SF is a reflection of the way all government works; and how it doesn't. So, yes, BOOOO! Hissss! Dumb idea.
Now excuse me while I go finish my Twinkie…
July 8, 2010 at 5:52 pm
We'll have to agree to disagree (not on youo being svelte…on the other stuff). There is no "money" being spent here; money is being MADE, by vendors. And once again, no one is holding an uzi to your poor firemen making them relinquish their last can of coke. There will be no metal detectors sounding when someone brings one in from home. They just won't be available in vending machines on city property (and yes, this includes schools).
The world will continue to spin.
July 8, 2010 at 6:36 pm
After fighting a hot fire, they should be allowed to have a SODA from a vending machine in their fire house. P.R. costs money and time is $, and they are spending both. (While spending even more to "safe haven" illegals.) To me that's nincompoopery.
But you are right, the earth does still seem to be moving – even in San Francisco. They've got that going for them.
July 8, 2010 at 6:54 pm
And once again, they can still get a SODA, but it will be diet. What part of that didn't you get?
I'm kind of at a loss here as to just where in the constitution our right to get soda from a vending machine is anyway. Personally, I don't think I've ever bought any food or drink from a vending machine in my life. Maybe that's why I'm finding all of this ridiculous.
July 8, 2010 at 7:23 pm
The part I didn't get was the SUGAR in my Coke. I got stuck with the diet.
Here's the part I take issue with (maybe I am the only one): They HAD the regular sodas, now they are taking those sodas away. They HAD the freedom to choose a Coke at work (not a diet one) and now they don't. "Smokey" used to be able to buy his Coke Classic at work, now he can't and has to bring one from home. Do I care that he has to bring one from home? Do I feel sorry for him? No. Do I care about Coke or soda in general? NO. I care about the principle of government staying out of such decisions. (Get rid of all vending machines – fine. Allow vendors to sell most popular items – fine. Regulate the minutiae of item choice? BZZZ! Wrong.)
So yes this is a very minor thing, but that is ALSO my point. Government should be focused elsewhere. I don't like the whole IDEA behind government attempting to govern such things. I think THAT is stupid. (inefficient, a waste of time and money, etc.) So, it's not about the Coke, it's about the principle.
(N.B. If we were talking about a cigarette vending machine it would be different, because of the overwhelming evidence that the cigarettes cause cancer from secondary smoke, etc. You would have to first prove that Coke causes obesity and not that some other condition causes people to over-consume in general, then you would have to show that when I drink my Coke, the guy next to me also gets fat. This is why it's OK for them to regulate seriously dangerous products. But sugar (and salt) just aren't the same as Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.)
If that still doesn't make sense, then I am just not smart enough to convey my simple thoughts (wouldn't surprise me) and will just leave it there. Like I said before you make some good points, but I am making totally different ones. But you may be right after all, we may just disagree.