Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by mirkwood »

mirky walks to the fridge...looks at the Mtn Dew: DEW S A, Big Red, Mtn Dew Voltage, Stewart's Cherries and Cream, Henry Weinard's Orange Cream, Caruos's Maraschino Cherry cola, Pepsi and debates which one to drink next. All the while contemplating why the bishop wants to see me tomorrow before sacrament meeting. Probably to keep me and my evil ways from those Valiant 10's...must be getting released.

Some of you really strain at gnats...

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9831

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by JohnnyL »

I'd love to see them start with the church office buildings... Have the church leaders bring their own caffeine, instead of getting it from the vending machines, lol.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1990/03/caf ... n?lang=eng

"Some people avoid caffeine by switching to decaffeinated coffee. However, several medical investigations over the last decade have shown that between 40 and 50 percent of decaffeinated coffee drinkers have gastrointestinal difficulties, such as ulcers, colitis, or diarrhea. (Goulart, 1984.) Decaffeinated coffee stimulates the production of stomach acid because the roasting of coffee beans releases harsh acids and oils that irritate stomach linings. One study of 13,000 patients in Boston, Massachusetts, area hospitals also showed that the risk of developing myocardial infarction was the same for decaffeinated coffee drinkers as it was for regular coffee drinkers. (Health Letter, 1982.)

Several studies have proposed reasons why drinking coffee might be related to coronary heart disease. First, because coffee contains a moderate amount of caffeine, a stimulant, it may promote arrhythmias—variations in the normal heartbeat—leading to acute heart problems. (Prineas et al., 1980.) Second, coffee intake and elevation of the cholesterol level in the blood may be linked. (Mathias et al., 1985.)

Apparently, the potency of caffeine is related to body weight. To a 150-pound adult, “a cup of instant coffee or a can of cola beverage could give about 1 mg caffeine per kilogram of body weight. In a very young child, a cup of chocolate or a candy bar would give the same proportion of stimulant to body weight. When this child drinks a can of cola, … caffeine intake is comparable to an adult drinking four cups of instant coffee. … Restlessness, irritability, sleeplessness, and nervousness are some of the symptoms.” (Bunker and McWilliams, 1979, page 30.)

Understanding the effects of caffeine upon children is important for Latter-day Saint parents. As seen in the accompanying list, many commonly used beverages and products contain varying amounts of caffeine. The products are listed only for comparison.

After twenty years of experience in medicine, I counsel inquiring members that eating or drinking anything that may result in bodily harm is probably a violation of the spirit of wisdom enjoined in Doctrine and Covenants 89.

According to a statement in the Priesthood Bulletin of February 1972 (volume 8, number 1), “There has been no official interpretation of [the] Word of Wisdom except that which was given by the Brethren in the very early days of the Church when it was declared that ‘hot drinks’ meant tea and coffee.

“With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.”

The Word of Wisdom is true to its name—it wisely instructs us against drinks that are harmful to our bodies."

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by mirkwood »

mirkwood wrote: June 17th, 2017, 6:51 pm mirky walks to the fridge...looks at the Mtn Dew: DEW S A, Big Red, Mtn Dew Voltage, Stewart's Cherries and Cream, Henry Weinard's Orange Cream, Caruos's Maraschino Cherry cola, Pepsi and debates which one to drink next. All the while contemplating why the bishop wants to see me tomorrow before sacrament meeting. Probably to keep me and my evil ways from those Valiant 10's...must be getting released.

Yep, released.


Despite the contents of my fridge and my stomach, I was asked to fill a leadership position. Imagine that...

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

Yes, sadly, these unfortunate realities are matters of serious concern and of shaky foundations, which prompts one to wonder if everything is indeed a sham. :(

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by mirkwood »

A sham? Yes, the purported belief that soda is against the WOW is definitely in that category.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

"Caffeine is an example of a stimulant, which is a type of drug that speeds up the action of your brain and also makes you more alert.

From http://science.howstuffworks.com/question531.htm:

Caffeine works by changing the chemistry of the brain. It blocks the action of a natural brain chemical that is associated with sleep. Here is how it works.

If you read the HSW article How Sleep Works, you learned that the chemical adenosine binds to adenosine receptors in the brain. The binding of adenosine causes drowsiness by slowing down nerve cell activity. In the brain, adenosine binding also causes blood vessels to dilate (presumably to let more oxygen in during sleep).

Adenosine is produced by your daily activity. For example, the article How Exercise Works discusses how muscles produce adenosine as one of the byproducts of exercise.

To a nerve cell, caffeine looks like adenosine. Caffeine, therefore, binds to the adenosine receptors. However, it doesn't slow down the cell's activity as adenosine would. The cells cannot sense adenosine anymore because caffeine is taking up all the receptors adenosine binds to. So instead of slowing down because of the adenosine level, the cells speed up. You can see that caffeine also causes the brain's blood vessels to constrict, because it blocks adenosine's ability to open them up. This effect is why some headache medicines, like Anacin, contain caffeine - if you have a vascular headache, the caffeine will close down the blood vessels and relieve it.

With caffeine blocking the adenosine, you have increased neuron firing in the brain. The pituitary gland sees all of the activity and thinks some sort of emergency must be occurring, so it releases hormones that tell the adrenal glands to produce adrenaline (epinephrine). Adrenaline is, of course, the "fight or flight" hormone and it has a number of effects on your body:

* Your pupils dilate
* Your breathing tubes open up (this is why people suffering from severe asthma attacks are sometimes injected with epinephrine)
* Your heart beats faster
* Blood vessels on the surface constrict to slow blood flow from cuts and also to increase blood flow to muscles; blood pressure rises
* Blood flow to the stomach slows
* The liver releases sugar into the bloodstream for extra energy
* Muscles tighten up ready for action

This explains why, after consuming a big cup of coffee, your hands get cold, your muscles tense up, you feel excited and you can feel your heart beat increasing.

Caffeine also increases dopamine levels in the same way that amphetamines do (heroine and cocaine also manipulate dopamine levels by slowing down the rate of dopamine re-uptake). Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that, in certain parts of the brain, activates "reward pathways" (i.e. the pleasure center). Obviously caffeine's effect is much lower than heroin's, but it is the same mechanism. It is suspected that the dopamine connection contributes to caffeine addiction.

So you can see why your body might like caffeine in the short term, especially if you are low on sleep and need to remain active:

* Caffeine blocks adenosine reception so you feel alert.
* It injects adrenaline into the system to give you a boost.
* And it manipulates dopamine production to make you feel good.

The problem with caffeine is the longer-term effects, which tend to spiral. For example, once the adrenaline wears off, you face fatigue and depression. So what are you going to do? You take more caffeine to get the adrenaline going again. As you might imagine, having your body in a state of emergency all day long isn't very healthy, and it also makes you jumpy and irritable.

The most important long-term problem is the effect that caffeine has on sleep. Adenosine reception is important to sleep, and especially to deep sleep. The half-life of caffeine in your body is about six hours. That means that if you consume a big cup of coffee with 200 mg of caffeine in it at 3 p.m., then by 9 p.m. about 100 mg of that caffeine is still in your system. You may be able to fall asleep, but your body probably will miss out on the benefits of deep sleep. That deficit adds up fast. The next day you feel worse, so you need caffeine as soon as you get out of bed. The cycle continues day after day.

This is why 90 percent of Americans consume caffeine every day. Once you get in the cycle, you have to keep taking the drug. Even worse, if you try to stop taking caffeine, you get very tired and depressed and you get a terrible, splitting headache as blood vessels in the brain dilate. These negative effects force you to run back to caffeine even if you want to stop.

It has been said that the reason so many sodas and colas contain added caffeine is to get you hooked. In the same way that addiction to nicotine makes cigarettes such a great consumer product for the companies that produce cigarettes, added caffeine in colas causes an addiction of sorts."

User avatar
aspietroll
captain of 50
Posts: 62

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by aspietroll »

BeNotDeceived wrote: June 13th, 2017, 8:11 pm
Michelle wrote: June 13th, 2017, 3:02 pm We are not commanded in all things. With Utah and the US obesity problem do we really need to push another sugar laden addiction?

Plus, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html
Sugar laden soda should be taxed and the proceeds used to fund activities, better yet add one-penny per net-carb. :)
Government taxation should never be done to control people's behavior. Taxes should only be levied to raise funds for legitimate government functions.

If government can legitimately tax to make people drink less pop, where do you stop? Government can tax the church to shut them up on abortion (other churches, LDS leadership doesn't push a pro life legal agenda) and government can tax a family for having too many kids and contributing to over population.

And when people actually do stop drinking soda, government will want to tax something else to replace the revenue. Kinda like the crony lawmakers at state and national levels that want to tax e-cigarettes. The fear campaign against e cigarettes is to keep people buying heavily taxed tobacco, instead of electronic cigarettes, which can save lives by getting people off cigarettes.

User avatar
aspietroll
captain of 50
Posts: 62

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by aspietroll »

Elizabeth wrote: June 20th, 2017, 2:03 am
* Caffeine blocks adenosine reception so you feel alert.
* It injects adrenaline into the system to give you a boost.
* And it manipulates dopamine production to make you feel good.

The problem with caffeine is the longer-term effects, which tend to spiral. For example, once the adrenaline wears off, you face fatigue and depression. So what are you going to do? You take more caffeine to get the adrenaline going again. As you might imagine, having your body in a state of emergency all day long isn't very healthy, and it also makes you jumpy and irritable.

The most important long-term problem is the effect that caffeine has on sleep. Adenosine reception is important to sleep, and especially to deep sleep. The half-life of caffeine in your body is about six hours. That means that if you consume a big cup of coffee with 200 mg of caffeine in it at 3 p.m., then by 9 p.m. about 100 mg of that caffeine is still in your system. You may be able to fall asleep, but your body probably will miss out on the benefits of deep sleep. That deficit adds up fast. The next day you feel worse, so you need caffeine as soon as you get out of bed. The cycle continues day after day.
Ok. But what point is the bad part about caffeine?

I personally enjoy drinking 3 or 4 cups of coffee in the evening. It regulates my sleep so when I decide to pewter on down at about midnight, I can wake up at 6 or 7 am and not even feel drowsy. I suppose that the long half life of caffeine allows me to wake up at 7 AM feeling fully alert. Which is great. I suppose that is because when you sleep, your body discharges the Adenosine that had built up due to physical activity performed throughout the day. When a nap discharges the Adenosine, you wake up with the caffeine still in your system but being more effective because it has less Adenosine to compete with.

For whatever bad health affects are associated with caffeine, oversleeping can be worse. The human body has what is called a "pacemaker" which is evolutionary engineered to boost the cells in your body full of energy when the body is exposed to the morning light.
Your internal rhythms are set by your circadian pacemaker, a group of cells clustered in the hypothalamus, a primitive little part of the brain that also controls hunger, thirst, and sweat. Primarily triggered by light signals from your eye, the pacemaker figures out when it's morning and sends out chemical messages keeping the rest of the cells in your body on the same clock.

Scientists believe that the pacemaker evolved to tell the cells in our bodies how to regulate their energy on a daily basis. When you sleep too much, you're throwing off that biological clock, and it starts telling the cells a different story than what they're actually experiencing, inducing a sense of fatigue. You might be crawling out of bed at 11am, but your cells started using their energy cycle at seven. This is similar to how jet lag works.
"Whats up With That: Why Does Sleeping in Just Make me More Tired?" Wired.com

Thats the science behind sleeping for ten hours making you feel horrible, similar to hung over, when you wake up. The article goes on to link chronic overseleeping to diabetes, heart disease, obesity, memory problems later in life, and early death.

Sleep is a natural cycle that would consume the body and mind if you let it. It is important to regulate it. I find caffeine to have a net improvement over my sleep cycle with my natural sleep cycle being detrimental without caffeine. It reminds me of how the ancient Greeks believed the gods of sleep and death to be twins.

In the Iliad, if you ever read that in school, there is a king named Sarpedon, directly descended from Zues, who fights on the side of the Trojans against the Greeks. He dies in battle and Zeus has the twin gods of sleep and death appear to carry Sarpedon's body away from the battle so Zeus can have it buried in a more peaceful place.

Image

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Incentivize Innovation
aspietroll wrote: June 20th, 2017, 4:36 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: June 13th, 2017, 8:11 pm
Michelle wrote: June 13th, 2017, 3:02 pm We are not commanded in all things. With Utah and the US obesity problem do we really need to push another sugar laden addiction?

Plus, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html
Sugar laden soda should be taxed and the proceeds used to fund activities, better yet add one-penny per net-carb. :)
Government taxation should never be done to control people's behavior. Taxes should only be levied to raise funds for legitimate government functions.

If government can legitimately tax to make people drink less pop, where do you stop? Government can tax the church to shut them up on abortion (other churches, LDS leadership doesn't push a pro life legal agenda) and government can tax a family for having too many kids and contributing to over population.

And when people actually do stop drinking soda, government will want to tax something else to replace the revenue. Kinda like the crony lawmakers at state and national levels that want to tax e-cigarettes. The fear campaign against e cigarettes is to keep people buying heavily taxed tobacco, instead of electronic cigarettes, which can save lives by getting people off cigarettes.
e-cigarettes are a great example! :ymapplause:

Taxing tobacco helped incentivize their creation. Image

Cost is among peoples primary reason for placing a purchase. Taxes can make it easier for alternative products to compete in the market place. Overconsumption of calories is also detrimental. SSBs aka Sugar Sweetened Beverages are the simplest expression of this concept. Sugar Laden Crap really is descriptive as a large Coke from the soda fountain contains a whopping 30 teaspoons of sugar. :ymsick:

The basic idea is to raise the price of bad stuff and use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption i.e. pay legitimate health care costs which would benefit via an OUNCE-OF-PREVENTION is worth a pound of cure. What wins now, is whatever is the cheapest crap irrespective of health impacts. :ymdevil:

Raising the price of crap will incentivize the innovation of better alternatives. Adding ONE-PENNY per NET-CARB wouldn't PROHIBIT anyone from choosing all the crap they care to consume, provided they pay the TRUE COST. :ymparty:

User avatar
aspietroll
captain of 50
Posts: 62

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by aspietroll »

BeNotDeceived wrote: June 20th, 2017, 7:22 am
The basic idea is to raise the price of bad stuff and use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption i.e. pay legitimate health care costs which would benefit via an OUNCE-OF-PREVENTION is worth a pound of cure. What wins now, is whatever is the cheapest crap irrespective of health impacts. :ymdevil:

Raising the price of crap will incentivize the innovation of better alternatives. Adding ONE-PENNY per NET-CARB wouldn't PROHIBIT anyone from choosing all the crap they care to consume, provided they pay the TRUE COST. :ymparty:
Change "use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption" to "establish a number of bureaucrat departments which become dependent on taxing an unhealthy human behavior" please. An electronic cigarette may have nicotine, but it doesn't have any of the hundreds of other cancer causing agents in tobacco. Several state governments tax e cigarette sales because of the nicotine. Taxing nicotine for the sake of keeping people from getting addicted to something is nothing but an excuse used by bureaucrats to find a new tax revenue source to replace an old revenue source. If they cared about health then they'd refuse to tax e cigarettes in any way so the price would of e cigarettes would be low enough to get as many people off tobacco as possible, saving as many lives as possible.

The way government gets tobacco companies to keep prices of cigarettes high is to create regulatory commissions that give government bribes to tobacco companies, known as "subsidization" to guarantee they keep prices high. Subsidizing companies with tax dollars allows some tobacco companies a form of financial security their competitors don't have. This gives an unfair advantage of some tobacco companies and tobacco farmers, over other companies and farmers. This hurts communities and the free market.

It's the same kind of subsidization that the government bribes sugar producers in America with to make them sell sugar way above world market price making it the most expensive sugar in the world, and subsidizing food producing companies to use the expensive American sugar instead of foreign sugar, and use a ton of it. It just really racks up the budget and corrupts a lot of politicians and results in unhealthy people.

Get government out of all unconstitutional interference in the free market and stop having a tax commission or regulatory agency or whatever try to play nanny with everybody.

The government cant encourage innovation.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by BeNotDeceived »

edamame_spaghetti
aspietroll wrote: June 20th, 2017, 8:24 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: June 20th, 2017, 7:22 am
The basic idea is to raise the price of bad stuff and use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption i.e. pay legitimate health care costs which would benefit via an OUNCE-OF-PREVENTION is worth a pound of cure. What wins now, is whatever is the cheapest crap irrespective of health impacts. :ymdevil:

Raising the price of crap will incentivize the innovation of better alternatives. Adding ONE-PENNY per NET-CARB wouldn't PROHIBIT anyone from choosing all the crap they care to consume, provided they pay the TRUE COST. :ymparty:
Change "use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption" to "establish a number of bureaucrat departments which become dependent on taxing an unhealthy human behavior" please. An electronic cigarette may have nicotine, but it doesn't have any of the hundreds of other cancer causing agents in tobacco. Several state governments tax e cigarette sales because of the nicotine. Taxing nicotine for the sake of keeping people from getting addicted to something is nothing but an excuse used by bureaucrats to find a new tax revenue source to replace an old revenue source. If they cared about health then they'd refuse to tax e cigarettes in any way so the price would of e cigarettes would be low enough to get as many people off tobacco as possible, saving as many lives as possible.

The way government gets tobacco companies to keep prices of cigarettes high is to create regulatory commissions that give government bribes to tobacco companies, known as "subsidization" to guarantee they keep prices high. Subsidizing companies with tax dollars allows some tobacco companies a form of financial security their competitors don't have. This gives an unfair advantage of some tobacco companies and tobacco farmers, over other companies and farmers. This hurts communities and the free market.

It's the same kind of subsidization that the government bribes sugar producers in America with to make them sell sugar way above world market price making it the most expensive sugar in the world, and subsidizing food producing companies to use the expensive American sugar instead of foreign sugar, and use a ton of it. It just really racks up the budget and corrupts a lot of politicians and results in unhealthy people.

Get government out of all unconstitutional interference in the free market and stop having a tax commission or regulatory agency or whatever try to play nanny with everybody.

The government cant encourage innovation.
The price of a product should reflect its total cost, not just the cost of production, but also its impact on our health. E-cigs should be no different, where there is no harm, there should be no foul.

Mass transit also would make sense as fat people cost more to transport than thin people. =))

2018 will see implementation of SSB tax in Europe and other early adopters are already reaping the benefits of well thought out tax policies. Seattle being the most recent example. Really I'm a fiscal conservative, but recognize the power of the profit motive to incentivize innovation.

Here's my latest great find on my keep clear of crap food campaign aka an uphill battle.
Image

User avatar
aspietroll
captain of 50
Posts: 62

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by aspietroll »

BeNotDeceived wrote: June 20th, 2017, 1:39 pm edamame_spaghetti
aspietroll wrote: June 20th, 2017, 8:24 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: June 20th, 2017, 7:22 am
The basic idea is to raise the price of bad stuff and use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption i.e. pay legitimate health care costs which would benefit via an OUNCE-OF-PREVENTION is worth a pound of cure. What wins now, is whatever is the cheapest crap irrespective of health impacts. :ymdevil:

Raising the price of crap will incentivize the innovation of better alternatives. Adding ONE-PENNY per NET-CARB wouldn't PROHIBIT anyone from choosing all the crap they care to consume, provided they pay the TRUE COST. :ymparty:
Change "use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption" to "establish a number of bureaucrat departments which become dependent on taxing an unhealthy human behavior" please. An electronic cigarette may have nicotine, but it doesn't have any of the hundreds of other cancer causing agents in tobacco. Several state governments tax e cigarette sales because of the nicotine. Taxing nicotine for the sake of keeping people from getting addicted to something is nothing but an excuse used by bureaucrats to find a new tax revenue source to replace an old revenue source. If they cared about health then they'd refuse to tax e cigarettes in any way so the price would of e cigarettes would be low enough to get as many people off tobacco as possible, saving as many lives as possible.

The way government gets tobacco companies to keep prices of cigarettes high is to create regulatory commissions that give government bribes to tobacco companies, known as "subsidization" to guarantee they keep prices high. Subsidizing companies with tax dollars allows some tobacco companies a form of financial security their competitors don't have. This gives an unfair advantage of some tobacco companies and tobacco farmers, over other companies and farmers. This hurts communities and the free market.

It's the same kind of subsidization that the government bribes sugar producers in America with to make them sell sugar way above world market price making it the most expensive sugar in the world, and subsidizing food producing companies to use the expensive American sugar instead of foreign sugar, and use a ton of it. It just really racks up the budget and corrupts a lot of politicians and results in unhealthy people.

Get government out of all unconstitutional interference in the free market and stop having a tax commission or regulatory agency or whatever try to play nanny with everybody.

The government cant encourage innovation.
The price of a product should reflect its total cost, not just the cost of production, but also its impact on our health. E-cigs should be no different, where there is no harm, there should be no foul.

Mass transit also would make sense as fat people cost more to transport than thin people. =))

2018 will see implementation of SSB tax in Europe and other early adopters are already reaping the benefits of well thought out tax policies. Seattle being the most recent example. Really I'm a fiscal conservative, but recognize the power of the profit motive to incentivize innovation.

Here's my latest great find on my keep clear of crap food campaign aka an uphill battle.
Image
Government shouldn't be allowed to dictate when one man's private actions hurt society. Your logic carried to its natural conclusion would support the NAZI Germany policy of putting down the elderly and the disabled because they drain too much of government healthcare.

And I have never seen a real fiscal conservative actually have positive thoughts on any policies of the Seattle city government :ymhug:

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by mirkwood »

Would it shatter your testimony to know that members of the First Presidency and Q12 have/are soda drinkers?

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

Yes, which is what my previous comments inferred. :(
Elizabeth wrote: June 13th, 2017, 3:06 pm Disappointing, to say the least.
Elizabeth wrote: June 19th, 2017, 1:03 pm Yes, sadly, these unfortunate realities are matters of serious concern and of shaky foundations, which prompts one to wonder if everything is indeed a sham. :(

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by mirkwood »

Elizabeth wrote: June 20th, 2017, 8:56 pm Yes, which is what my previous comments inferred. :(
Elizabeth wrote: June 13th, 2017, 3:06 pm Disappointing, to say the least.
Elizabeth wrote: June 19th, 2017, 1:03 pm Yes, sadly, these unfortunate realities are matters of serious concern and of shaky foundations, which prompts one to wonder if everything is indeed a sham. :(
Wow.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by BeNotDeceived »

aspietroll wrote: June 20th, 2017, 2:24 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: June 20th, 2017, 1:39 pm edamame_spaghetti
aspietroll wrote: June 20th, 2017, 8:24 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: June 20th, 2017, 7:22 am
The basic idea is to raise the price of bad stuff and use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption i.e. pay legitimate health care costs which would benefit via an OUNCE-OF-PREVENTION is worth a pound of cure. What wins now, is whatever is the cheapest crap irrespective of health impacts. :ymdevil:

Raising the price of crap will incentivize the innovation of better alternatives. Adding ONE-PENNY per NET-CARB wouldn't PROHIBIT anyone from choosing all the crap they care to consume, provided they pay the TRUE COST. :ymparty:
Change "use the proceeds to pay the consequences of their consumption" to "establish a number of bureaucrat departments which become dependent on taxing an unhealthy human behavior" please. An electronic cigarette may have nicotine, but it doesn't have any of the hundreds of other cancer causing agents in tobacco. Several state governments tax e cigarette sales because of the nicotine. Taxing nicotine for the sake of keeping people from getting addicted to something is nothing but an excuse used by bureaucrats to find a new tax revenue source to replace an old revenue source. If they cared about health then they'd refuse to tax e cigarettes in any way so the price would of e cigarettes would be low enough to get as many people off tobacco as possible, saving as many lives as possible.

The way government gets tobacco companies to keep prices of cigarettes high is to create regulatory commissions that give government bribes to tobacco companies, known as "subsidization" to guarantee they keep prices high. Subsidizing companies with tax dollars allows some tobacco companies a form of financial security their competitors don't have. This gives an unfair advantage of some tobacco companies and tobacco farmers, over other companies and farmers. This hurts communities and the free market.

It's the same kind of subsidization that the government bribes sugar producers in America with to make them sell sugar way above world market price making it the most expensive sugar in the world, and subsidizing food producing companies to use the expensive American sugar instead of foreign sugar, and use a ton of it. It just really racks up the budget and corrupts a lot of politicians and results in unhealthy people.

Get government out of all unconstitutional interference in the free market and stop having a tax commission or regulatory agency or whatever try to play nanny with everybody.

The government cant encourage innovation.
The price of a product should reflect its total cost, not just the cost of production, but also its impact on our health. E-cigs should be no different, where there is no harm, there should be no foul.

Mass transit also would make sense as fat people cost more to transport than thin people. =))

2018 will see implementation of SSB tax in Europe and other early adopters are already reaping the benefits of well thought out tax policies. Seattle being the most recent example. Really I'm a fiscal conservative, but recognize the power of the profit motive to incentivize innovation.

Here's my latest great find on my keep clear of crap food campaign aka an uphill battle.
Image
Government shouldn't be allowed to dictate when one man's private actions hurt society. Your logic carried to its natural conclusion would support the NAZI Germany policy of putting down the elderly and the disabled because they drain too much of government healthcare.

And I have never seen a real fiscal conservative actually have positive thoughts on any policies of the Seattle city government :ymhug:
An awesome demonstration of
19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES: A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.
Begs the question: Does church welfare supply an abundance of sugar-laden soda?

The government system funds whatever is called food, even substances better described as poison. Image

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

I am tired of taxes. I pay a fortune in taxes! Today, I pay $140,000.00 STAMP DUTY on a recent property purchase! I cannot believe I am paying this to the Government on top of an already inflated property price. Add this to Land Tax, Capitol Gains Tax etc etc etc
aspietroll wrote: June 20th, 2017, 4:36 am
BeNotDeceived wrote: June 13th, 2017, 8:11 pm
Michelle wrote: June 13th, 2017, 3:02 pm We are not commanded in all things. With Utah and the US obesity problem do we really need to push another sugar laden addiction?
Plus, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html
Sugar laden soda should be taxed and the proceeds used to fund activities, better yet add one-penny per net-carb. :)
Government taxation should never be done to control people's behavior. Taxes should only be levied to raise funds for legitimate government functions.
If government can legitimately tax to make people drink less pop, where do you stop? Government can tax the church to shut them up on abortion (other churches, LDS leadership doesn't push a pro life legal agenda) and government can tax a family for having too many kids and contributing to over population.
And when people actually do stop drinking soda, government will want to tax something else to replace the revenue. Kinda like the crony lawmakers at state and national levels that want to tax e-cigarettes. The fear campaign against e cigarettes is to keep people buying heavily taxed tobacco, instead of electronic cigarettes, which can save lives by getting people off cigarettes.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by gkearney »

Elizabeth, you paid $144,000 in stamp duty on the property transfer. That must've been some place you bought.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

True :)

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Stacks of sugar ... Image

Image

WHO urges global action to curtail consumption and health impacts of sugary drinksImage

11 OCTOBER 2016 | GENEVA - Taxing sugary drinks can lower consumption and reduce obesity, type 2 diabetes and tooth decay, says a new WHO report.

Fiscal policies that lead to at least a 20% increase in the retail price of sugary drinks would result in proportional reductions in consumption of such products, according to the report titled “Fiscal policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs)”.

Reduced consumption of sugary drinks means lower intake of “free sugars” and calories overall, improved nutrition and fewer people suffering from overweight, obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose or fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook, or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices, and fruit juice concentrates.

Obesity on the rise

“Consumption of free sugars, including products like sugary drinks, is a major factor in the global increase of people suffering from obesity and diabetes,” says Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO’s Department for the Prevention of NCDs. “If governments tax products like sugary drinks, they can reduce suffering and save lives. They can also cut healthcare costs and increase revenues to invest in health services.” ... :ymhug: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rel ... drinks/en/

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Silver »

Elizabeth wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:10 pm I am tired of taxes. I pay a fortune in taxes! Today, I pay $140,000.00 STAMP DUTY on a recent property purchase! I cannot believe I am paying this to the Government on top of an already inflated property price. Add this to Land Tax, Capitol Gains Tax etc etc etc
OK, I know I have previously sent some strongly worded posts in your direction, but that's all behind us now, OK? Because would you, um, adopt me?

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

No. I already have six children, and nineteen grandchildren and yet more to come.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Silver »

Elizabeth wrote: June 24th, 2017, 6:17 am No. I already have six children, and nineteen grandchildren and more to come.
Then I would be Lucky 7!

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Coca-Cola arrives at LDS Business College, but BYU stays on no-caffeine wagon

Post by Elizabeth »

I have a beautiful single daughter :) though I am hoping she can find a worthy LDS man who will love her for herself.

Post Reply