A rising from the ashes': seeds of hope in San Francisco after tragic year for the most vulnerable


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/san-francisco-covid-coronavirus-homeless-marginalized?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

bearister said:

---

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

---

How many were vitamin D deficient also?

bearister said:

---

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

---

A little bit of context: 73.6% of American adults are overweight or obese (2017-2018).

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

bearister said:

---

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

---

Yeah but you're not allowed to say it out loud. They'll tell you you're fat-shaming.

It was never about science for the Democrats.

BearForce2 said:

---

It was never about science for the Democrats.

---

It is when they're trying to shut something down. After that, only union approval can open it back up.

LMK5 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

It was never about science for the Democrats.

---

It is when they're trying to shut something down. After that, only union approval can open it back up.

---

Funny and sadly true.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

---

Yeah but you're not allowed to say it out loud. They'll tell you you're fat-shaming.

---

Who exactly is victimizing you? Are you urgently trying to share an opinion on obesity on a podcast or something but feel like you can't? No one on here is afraid to say that obesity leads to bad health outcomes, which is different from saying that obesity = ugly, unattractive, or deserving of shame.

---

B.A., I can share my opinion but the question is would an expert feel comfortable doing so today? A subject like this does not get the coverage it deserves because there are many people who will attack the person who brings it up, even though it's important information. Just in case you didn't get the memo, we're not living in a time where people are held to account for things that are under their control.

LMK5 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

---

Yeah but you're not allowed to say it out loud. They'll tell you you're fat-shaming.

---

Who exactly is victimizing you? Are you urgently trying to share an opinion on obesity on a podcast or something but feel like you can't? No one on here is afraid to say that obesity leads to bad health outcomes, which is different from saying that obesity = ugly, unattractive, or deserving of shame.

---

B.A., I can share my opinion but the question is would an expert feel comfortable doing so today? A subject like this does not get the coverage it deserves because there are many people who will attack the person who brings it up, even though it's important information. Just in case you didn't get the memo, we're not living in a time where people are held to account for things that are under their control.

---

How well do you think Republicans and their elected officials in the most obese states would respond to hearing hard truths about how they, in particular, needed to change their diets? "KS, OK, AR, LA, AL, TN, KY, SC, WV, IN, MI -- eat more vegetables and less junk food and red meat." I don't think that Fox News is helping condition people in those states to respect the opinion of scientists.

bearister said:

---

The preceding makes one wonder how many of those lives could have been saved if tRump had:

1. Leveled with the American public regarding how lethal Covid 19 was (like he did with Bob Woodward in that recorded conversation);

2. Not have politicized the wearing of masks and the practice of social distancing; and

3. Allowed free reign to Dr. Fauci to impart truthful and accurate information to the American public.

My surmise is that it is a very large number.

---

Just for a comparison...

The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany, combined, have about the same population as the United States.

Their COVID death toll to date: About 458,000. So, in answer to your question, you could estimate it at about 70,000. But that would just be the low hanging fruit: There were lots of problems with those countries' handling of COVID, as well, so that should've been our floor, certainly not our ceiling.

US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump's policies | US news | The Guardian


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-response-donald-trump-health-policy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-response-donald-trump-health-policy

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

---

Yeah but you're not allowed to say it out loud. They'll tell you you're fat-shaming.

---

Who exactly is victimizing you? Are you urgently trying to share an opinion on obesity on a podcast or something but feel like you can't? No one on here is afraid to say that obesity leads to bad health outcomes, which is different from saying that obesity = ugly, unattractive, or deserving of shame.

---

B.A., I can share my opinion but the question is would an expert feel comfortable doing so today? A subject like this does not get the coverage it deserves because there are many people who will attack the person who brings it up, even though it's important information. Just in case you didn't get the memo, we're not living in a time where people are held to account for things that are under their control.

---

How well do you think Republicans and their elected officials in the most obese states would respond to hearing hard truths about how they, in particular, needed to change their diets? "KS, OK, AR, LA, AL, TN, KY, SC, WV, IN, MI -- eat more vegetables and less junk food and red meat." I don't think that Fox News is helping condition people in those states to respect the opinion of scientists.

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous. Rather than teach our kids good eating habits and to exercise, they take the soda out of the vending machines at schools. That's much easier and no one needs to be held to account for themselves. Perfect. It's a snapshot of our collective reluctance to discipline our base desires.

I think you'll find that obesity is highest where incomes and educational accomplishment are lower. Also, food is cheap and readily accessible in America--we're a very wealthy nation--so lots of people use food for comfort. It takes discipline to abstain from stuffing ourselves, and discipline is not an admirable attribute these days, at least not as much as perceived victimhood.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html

---

Yeah but you're not allowed to say it out loud. They'll tell you you're fat-shaming.

---

Who exactly is victimizing you? Are you urgently trying to share an opinion on obesity on a podcast or something but feel like you can't? No one on here is afraid to say that obesity leads to bad health outcomes, which is different from saying that obesity = ugly, unattractive, or deserving of shame.

---

B.A., I can share my opinion but the question is would an expert feel comfortable doing so today? A subject like this does not get the coverage it deserves because there are many people who will attack the person who brings it up, even though it's important information. Just in case you didn't get the memo, we're not living in a time where people are held to account for things that are under their control.

---

How well do you think Republicans and their elected officials in the most obese states would respond to hearing hard truths about how they, in particular, needed to change their diets? "KS, OK, AR, LA, AL, TN, KY, SC, WV, IN, MI -- eat more vegetables and less junk food and red meat." I don't think that Fox News is helping condition people in those states to respect the opinion of scientists.

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous. Rather than teach our kids good eating habits and to exercise, they take the soda out of the vending machines at schools. That's much easier and no one needs to be held to account for themselves. Perfect. It's a snapshot of our collective reluctance to discipline our base desires.

I think you'll find that obesity is highest where incomes and educational accomplishment are lower. Also, food is cheap and readily accessible in America--we're a very wealthy nation--so lots of people use food for comfort. It takes discipline to abstain from stuffing ourselves, and discipline is not an admirable attribute these days, at least not as much as perceived victimhood.

---

The reason I brought politics into the equation is that I felt you brought politics into the equation. I stand corrected if you were only making a vague generational comment such as every kid gets a participation trophy nowadays.

You said that experts are not allowed to say the following out loud: "Nearly 80% hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese" Your wrote: "They'll tell you you're fat-shaming."

Who is "they"? Mind you, our discussion is happening at the same time that the Republican party is trying desperately to make cancel culture their defining issue.

---

"They" are people who publish; the media. Instead of telling kids (and adults) that they need to put the Ben and Jerry's away or you're going to wind up in the cardiologist's office we choose to whitewash the message so as not to assign responsibility to the person. Do you not see this? When I was a kid things were quite the opposite. If you were fat they called you fatso, or sometimes a fat ****. That's obviously hurtful and wrong, but today we've swung way too far in the opposite direction. You know who loses in the end? The kids.

Take a look at this article. Cosmo is attempting to modify what you've been told all your life about weight management and health: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/body/a34915032/women-bodies-wellness-healthy-different-shape-size/. To what end? Convincing the chubbies that they've got absolutely nothing to be concerned about? It's just a different shape of health? I suspect your doctor would strongly disagree.

You are calling out Cosmo (the UK version) for promoting unhealthy body images because for decades Cosmo and similar mags used to promote healthy body images for women? Of all magazines to cite. This might be the start of their reparations for all the eating disorders they contributed to.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

I don't recall rational and intelligent conservatives like LMK5 supporting Michelle Obama's advocacy for better eating habits for kids.

The media isn't the reason poor people are fat. It's a perfectly valid societal goal that policy can help address, if you have any interest in addressing societal problems. Unfortunately roughly half of our voting base doesn't have that interest which is why fox news spends more time talking about Dr Seuss then COVID relief.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL? Wow, just wow. Would that really do it? Is that how we reduced the rate of smoking in this country, or was it a long, drawn out educational campaign that everyone eventually bought into?

Do your kids ever watch re-runs of the Brady Bunch? Ever notice how thin everybody was? Was it because we had higher taxes on baked goods back in the 70s, or was it a prevailing attitude that said, in effect: "Don't stuff yourself; it's unseemly and wasteful. Have some respect."?

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL?

---

Hang on . . . how do you think some cities got rid of their homeless problem? Nice words about personal responsibility?

LMK5 said:

---

Is that how we reduced the rate of smoking in this country, or was it a long, drawn out educational campaign that everyone eventually bought into?

---

Uh, we banned smoking in a lot of places. That helped a lot.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL?

---

Hang on . . . how do you think some cities got rid of their homeless problem? Nice words about personal responsibility?

---

They raised taxes on the homeless? Started charging rent for sidewalk or park space? Raised taxes on tents? Or did they just enforce plain vanilla vagrancy laws already on the books?

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL?

---

Hang on . . . how do you think some cities got rid of their homeless problem? Nice words about personal responsibility?

---

They raised taxes on the homeless? Started charging rent for sidewalk or park space? Raised taxes on tents? Or did they just enforce plain vanilla vagrancy laws already on the books?

---

So in other words the government enforced laws that banished them from certain spaces. Does that sound right?

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL? Wow, just wow. Would that really do it? Is that how we reduced the rate of smoking in this country, or was it a long, drawn out educational campaign that everyone eventually bought into?

Do your kids ever watch re-runs of the Brady Bunch? Ever notice how thin everybody was? Was it because we had higher taxes on baked goods back in the 70s, or was it a prevailing attitude that said, in effect: "Don't stuff yourself; it's unseemly and wasteful. Have some respect."?

---

Are you serious? Do you not think that the reduction in smoking is from concerted public policy? How were those educational campaigns funded and executed? Surgeon general's warning ring any bells? Limitations on tobacco advertising? Are you familiar with cigarette taxes?

You know the answers but you don't know the question.

The USDA has promoted unhealthy food practices at the behest of big food companies for decades and it's had a massive impact on our food production and distribution. Grocery stores looked different in the 70's than they do now. And by the way, conservatives defended the tobacco industry for decades and opposed policy to address the problem just like you are now for nutrition. Look at the Heartland Institute - defended the tobacco industry in the 90's and promotes anti climate change interests now.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL?

---

Hang on . . . how do you think some cities got rid of their homeless problem? Nice words about personal responsibility?

---

They raised taxes on the homeless? Started charging rent for sidewalk or park space? Raised taxes on tents? Or did they just enforce plain vanilla vagrancy laws already on the books?

---

So in other words the government enforced laws that banished them from certain spaces. Does that sound right?

---

Banish is such a strong word sy. I would say they are required to "move right along." They don't get round up and shipped off to Berkeley. They are just told to start walking. In other words, you cannot homestead a space that's earmarked for the good of all citizens. I'm sure you agree.

Trying to banish orange soda for everyone because some people abuse it is abuse of power, and that's what you're promoting, correct? If not, please advise.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL?

---

Hang on . . . how do you think some cities got rid of their homeless problem? Nice words about personal responsibility?

---

They raised taxes on the homeless? Started charging rent for sidewalk or park space? Raised taxes on tents? Or did they just enforce plain vanilla vagrancy laws already on the books?

---

So in other words the government enforced laws that banished them from certain spaces. Does that sound right?

---

Banish is such a strong word sy. I would say they are required to "move right along." They don't get round up and shipped off to Berkeley. They are just told to start walking. In other words, you cannot homestead a space that's earmarked for the good of all citizens. I'm sure you agree.

---

Just like we did for smoking. Lots of places where you're not allowed to smoke.

Placing higher taxes on soda or cigarettes is basically encouraging people to "move right along" to buying something else, right? I'm sure you agree.

Europe waits for Covid vaccines 'like pioneers in a Western' as third wave sees cases rocket 50% amid EU jab shambles


https://www.the-sun.com/news/2491566/europe-waits-vaccines-pioneers-western-covid-third-wave-eu/

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL?

---

Hang on . . . how do you think some cities got rid of their homeless problem? Nice words about personal responsibility?

---

They raised taxes on the homeless? Started charging rent for sidewalk or park space? Raised taxes on tents? Or did they just enforce plain vanilla vagrancy laws already on the books?

---

So in other words the government enforced laws that banished them from certain spaces. Does that sound right?

---

Banish is such a strong word sy. I would say they are required to "move right along." They don't get round up and shipped off to Berkeley. They are just told to start walking. In other words, you cannot homestead a space that's earmarked for the good of all citizens. I'm sure you agree.

---

Just like we did for smoking. Lots of places where you're not allowed to smoke.

Placing higher taxes on soda or cigarettes is basically encouraging people to "move right along" to buying something else, right? I'm sure you agree.

---

I do agree that placing higher taxes on what we can consider a vice is warranted because the extra health care costs associated with some of these products should be borne by the users. But I believe that some of those taxes should be used on public education campaigns. Those do the real job--over a length of time--to shape behaviors. Some good examples are anti-smoking; reduction of fats in our diet; and safe driving habits.

For instance, I don't smoke and I despise smoking and second hand smoke. I would never tell someone they can't smoke in their own home, but I do believe that someone should not be able to smoke in an area where it affects the health of others. One person's choice of smoking location ends where the right for someone to breath reasonable air begins. I also don't drink. Alcohol levies a tremendous cost to society. I'd love to see it go away but I would never tell Unit2 that he can't have his cocktails in his own home (sorry, couldn't help it Unit2). However, I do think that the taxes on alcohol should be used to educate people on the dangers of it and also to help offset the extra health care costs associated with it. But let's face it, you could double the taxes on alcohol tomorrow and it wouldn't move the needle a millimeter.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

B.A., I think trying to tie America's issue with obesity with a political party is a little ridiculous.

---

I agree. I also hope you remember this point the next time you feel the urge to rail against crime or homelessness in "Democrat-run cities."

---

Oh you're better than that sy. You can directly affect crime rates and vagrancy by enacting policies and enforcing them. OC had a vagrancy problem along the Santa Ana River trail and it was cleaned up in one week once the decision was made. You cannot change human eating habits with policies. That takes education over a long period of time and resulting family and personal responsibility.

---

You could absolutely change human eating habits with policies. You could more heavily tax or even outright ban certain types of food. In general this isn't done because people want their freedoms. Some homeless people and their advocates also say they should be free to live as they please. These are all policy decisions with trade offs.

---

sycasey, you are definitely the liberal's liberal. So the way to modify peoples' behavior is with onerous taxation or outright banishment by a government entity LOL?

---

Hang on . . . how do you think some cities got rid of their homeless problem? Nice words about personal responsibility?

---

They raised taxes on the homeless? Started charging rent for sidewalk or park space? Raised taxes on tents? Or did they just enforce plain vanilla vagrancy laws already on the books?

---

So in other words the government enforced laws that banished them from certain spaces. Does that sound right?

---

Banish is such a strong word sy. I would say they are required to "move right along." They don't get round up and shipped off to Berkeley. They are just told to start walking. In other words, you cannot homestead a space that's earmarked for the good of all citizens. I'm sure you agree.

---

Just like we did for smoking. Lots of places where you're not allowed to smoke.

Placing higher taxes on soda or cigarettes is basically encouraging people to "move right along" to buying something else, right? I'm sure you agree.

---

I do agree that placing higher taxes on what we can consider a vice is warranted because the extra health care costs associated with some of these products should be borne by the users. But I believe that some of those taxes should be used on public education campaigns. Those do the real job--over a length of time--to shape behaviors. Some good examples are anti-smoking; reduction of fats in our diet; and safe driving habits.

---

No objection to that.