Slashdot Mirror
Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple
An anonymous reader writes "NYC residents may soon be unable to buy big gulps. In an effort to curb obesity, New York City's Mayor Bloomberg is seeking a ban on oversized sodas in restaurants, movie theaters and stadiums officials said on Wednesday. 'Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the U.S., public health officials are wringing their hands saying, "Oh, this is terrible,"' Mayor Bloomberg said. 'New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.'"
Seems like a pretty redundant ban to me. Most places offer free refills on soda...
Why don't you ASK YOUR PEOPLE what they want you to do... and don't just open your fat mouth.
If I want to be 330lbs and buy a 64 oz soda, who the hell is he to tell me I cant? This is america, dammit. Soda is my religion.
I would think the public prefers education more than legislation... Could be wrong though
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Instead of banning something entirely (this is still a "free" country, right?), lets just educate consumers on what they're putting into their bodies. For example, if you want to buy a 64 oz. soda, you live in America, you get your big ass soda. However, put the nutrition info on the cup so you, at the very least, can learn that 64 oz. of Pepsi contains 800 calories, about 1/3 recommended daily intake, and 224 grams of carbs, about 3/4 recommended daily intake. That's disgusting and the problem is nobody realizes how disgusting that is.
Why would the government get to decide how fat I get to be?
Seems like that should be my choice.
The nanny state is here!
Let us know how it goes, NYC!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
... how to live your life. That's why we're infallible and immortal.
When a libertarian wants to do something, he does it without bothering anyone
When a liberal wants to do something, they make everyone do it
When a libertarian doesn't want to do something, he quietly doesn't do it
When a liberal doesn't want to do something, they make it so no-one may do it
Think about that next time you post some anti-libertarian trash on Slashdot. We just want to let you do what you want to do (unless you want to ban people from doing things, I guess that we won't let you do).
Just you wait. This whole thing will blow over once he gets his cut from the sugar and corn lobbyists. Then, he will say it was all an unpopular misunderstanding and how he really cares to make NYers voice be heard. Oh, and he really cares about your health too. Win win win all the way for that man.
Life is not for the lazy.
The prices for a pop at a restaurant or movie theater is all about gouging the customer.
I'd rather buy a $0.69 two liter pop at Aldis than a $6.50 12 oz at a movie theater.
Then again, since these places make their money off suckers, maybe they'll raise their rates on their other goods,
God spoke to me
If "that's what the public wants the mayor to do" then the public wouldn't be buying ginormous sized beverages and thus there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The fact that they are buying the large sodas means the public wants it. I can see slapping a warning on the side of the containers that say "Hey fatty, you keep drinking this much crap and you're going to die from diabeetus," but a ban seems to infringe on peoples' freedom of choice. (Unlike the bans on foie gras, there's no one torturing corn plants to make the soda.)
Sooo... JUST carbonated soft drinks? Does that mean he's banning beer, too? The phrase "beer gut" didn't just arbitrarily appear in dictionaries. What about those "fruit juices" spiked with fructose, the nicotine of food additives?
What a hypocrite.
Shouldn't there be some kind of actual evidence that big sodas per se are what's making Americans fat before we start banning them? Is he saying that every fat person drinks big gulps?
Any bets on how much hand-wringing about 'big government' 'nanny state' and 'paternalism' there will be now that Bloomberg is targeting large sodas rather than the terrifying marijuana, assassin of youth?
I honestly don't much care for either reefers or Fructose-Extreme Big-Gulp Edition; but I find it endlessly curious how mere time seems to change perception of given public health and public safety crusades. Some city tells smokers to do it outside, or restarauants to cut down on their trans-fats, on pain of some paltry fine and the editorialists are ready to tell you that fascism has finally come to America; but the ones that get hunted down by actual cops and sent to real jail? Apparently not a concern...
I would think the public prefers education more than legislation... Could be wrong though
What's the new saying? Something like "Democracy triumphed over communism. Corporations triumphed over democracy."
"The public" are sheep. They have been programmed, propagandized and beaten into being sheep. If "the public" were not sheep, then a vast majority of modern problems wouldn't exist.
That's the main problem - or maybe a better way to phrase the question is, "why did it get so bad that a mayor had to step in to take matters into his own hands?" One word answer, and here's the hint: (makes baaa baaa sound)
"The mind is a terrible thing to, um, uh, oh bollocks." -- Me
At the local Kwik Trip (it's like a northern US 7-11 but way nicer) they have a 56 oz "Mega Buddy" drink which is one up from the "Big Buddy" and "Best Buddy" :-P The difference is, over half their choices of things to put in it are diet or low calorie. I fill up on the 0 calorie Lipton Peach Tea or 5 calorie per serving Minute Made Light. And sometimes I am definitely THAT thirsty. So banning big drinks is idiotic. You can drink all you want of something relatively healthy. In fact, drinking a lot IS healthy.
What does piss me off is Burger King. I went there and decided to get a drink with my meal and they basically don't carry anything I'd drink. I'm thirsty as hell and I'm forced to drink one of their awful choices. I'm not a Pepsi or Coke guy and beyond that, they had nothing diet. That's what they should ban, if anything (and I don't think they should ban anything, fatties should make their own damn decisions. If someone's going to drink 800 calories because they don't think diet tastes good enough, they deserve the consequences).
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).
Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.
Are people so fucking stupid now...they cannot fathom that behavior such as drinking a ton of sugared beverage a day....to wash down nothing but greasy, fat laden burgers...will make them fat? Even if it is the case....why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.
Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
People actually decided to take responisbility for their own weight? If you're fat don't complain, stop buying yourself large sodas and fast food, it's the consumer's fault not the company's.
tired of seeing fatsos with cute faces. if they all slimmed down, there'd be more attractive women around
Coca Cola and Pepsi Co. must have slipped up and forgot the mayors monthly stipend.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
When our society seemingly turns to government to protect us from the consequences of our stupid decisions*, eventually we end up with a government that is going to want to control our every decision. It makes sense in a world where the government subsidizes your health care, that the government gets a voice in your unhealthy choices.
*to wit:
- I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
- I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
- I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
- I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
- I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
- I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"
It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
As they would say in Firefly: "Nee mun doh shr sagwa".
-Styopa
there's two definitions of freedom:
the teenager definition "i can do whatever i want with no concern for the consequences"
the adult definition "i can do anything i want that doesn't harm someone else"
for example, the "right" to speed is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager will never crash their car and hurt an innocent driver who had the ill fortune of sharing the road with the idiot
the "right" to smoke is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager only exhales pure filtered air in the face of fellow pedestrians and housemates and doesn't raise the healthcare insurance costs of anyone else
likewise, the "right" to mainline fructose is freedom according to a teenager, see healthcare argument above
please note: the term "teenager" in the context of this comment is a mental function measurement independent of chronological age. there are plenty of chronological teenagers who are mental adults and morally mature, and there are 40 year old gasbags who still define freedom according to a mental teenager's definition
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Programmer productivity will suffer.
If the public wanted that, they would either buy smaller drinks, or drink less of the drink... the fact that they're not would indicate they DON'T want the mayor to do anything...
Why'd we even bother fighting the war on terrorism!
Mayor Bloomberg also announced that police would be "stop and frisk"ing individuals with a BMI over 30 to search for contraband oversized sodas.
On the one hand, I hate being told what to do. On the other hand, the "small" drink at the movie theater is about 4 times the size I actually want do drink.
Banning plastic bags in LA was one of them, now NYC banning soda...
NYC ban is a disgrace epitomizes nanny state transition US is undergoing, stomping at elementary liberties: including a freedom to eat whatever I want, and private transaction between consenting adults: not about selling drugs, not about exchanging sexual favors, Taliban literature, arms, bombs or anything else, just an item of food.
Where are all the Niemoller loudmouths?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Why don't we take this a step further and add a "calorie tax". This would actually create incentive for companies to reduce portion sizes and create healthier recipes. Implement some sort of sliding scale that would discourage the types of food that lead to too much calorie consumption. You could also discourage the proliferation of process packed goods by exempting "raw" foods like fruits and vegitables, most butcher cuts of meat, fish, etc. It would probably also be a good idea to exempt semi-processed food ingredients like cooking oil, flour, hell even sugar. (How much sugar do you eat in a day that came as crystalized sugar in a bag? Unless you cook a lot- Probably none!) A situation where a prepared cake is heavily taxed,but the ingredients to make said cake are not is exactly the sort of scenario that I think would be a good idea.
On a tangent, It would probably also be a good idea to stop massively subsidizing the corn industry, because all they seem interested in doing is making a whole lot of HFCS to sell as cheap high calorie sweetener. We're literally using our own tax dollars to make ourselves fat.
They can pry my Big Gulp from my cold, puffy, bloated, dead hands!
then they came for anti-Semites, then they came for Taliban supporters, and when they came for soda drinkers, everybody was so involved in following zillion channels on the internet to choose from, that nobody gave a damn about it.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I don't particularly want my insurance rates going up to have to pay for obesity-related health problems.
And 46 O.Z. of corn-syrup goo is a bit EXTREEEEEEEEME! . Drink water, lardass.
This seems like it goes too far. I'd rather just see a ban on mandatory soda purchases. All those places that require you to buy a big gulp the moment you enter the door and refuse to allow you to leave until you've drunk it.
Oh, wait, you mean there aren't any places like that? We're only talking about banning voluntary purchases? Well we don't need the government to do anything in that case. If "the people" want to stop voluntary purchases they can do that themselves with no government effort or expense at all.
Mission accomplished! Good job mayor.
Its interesting that the bad food is so cheap, in part, because the ingredients are subsidized by the US government. In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you. Or the pricing structure makes it too expensive.
Not only that, but farmers are going out of business trying to grow stuff that is good to eat. They are not eligible for the subsidies. So they learn to grow stuff that is bad for us instead. Its also greatly slanting the system towards huge factory farms.
If he wants to fix something, put a high state tax on Federal farm subsidies. And put the proceeds towards opening markets for healthy foods. Level the field.
Pass the salt.
I am sorry, salt is bad for you, and thus it is illegal.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
The real problem is food obsessed parents. I grew up in such a household and the worst part is not having any say in what when down my own throat. Even when I knew I shouldn't eat so much or eat something healthier, I couldn't. On one side there was "I PAYED FOR ALL THIS FOOD SO YOU WILL EAT EVERY LITTLE BITE BEFORE IT GOES BAD!... bitch bitch bitch bitch" and on the other side was "Oh, you want to go on a diet? Only girls diet. So that means you are sick homosexual."
It wasn't until I finally moved out of that abusive environment that I was able to lose weight.
Simply banning "jumbo" sizes won't fix this.
8oz of Coca-Cola Classic has only 97 calories. Compare with other supposedly healthier choices that would not be banned:
8oz orange juice: 100 calories
8oz low fat yogurt: 250 calories
8oz chicken breast meat: 400 calories
8oz 80% lean ground beef: 616 calories
8oz french fries: 741 calories
What kind of an idiot can possibly think that banning sodas will fix the obesity problem?
Most overweight people I know drink diet pop (that's soda for the rest of you). Now that may use that to wash down a Snickers or two, but they still buy diet pop. So the Big Gulp is being unfairly targeted. That being said, I think diet pop is just as bad for you as sugar and HFCS based pop.
In my opinion, the disappearing public water fountain has contributed more to people drinking soda pop instead of water than any Big Gulp ever has. It's just obscene to spend $2.00 for 16 oz. of tap water just because it's bottled when a Big Gulp is, what, 64 floz or 128 floz. If cities would provide clean and accessible water fountains, they might see a decrease in people drinking soft drinks. And dog owners, just because you kiss your dog, it doesn't mean it's sanitary to let it drink from a water fountain.
The other misconception is that obesity can be linked to a particular food group. Being obese myself, I know that I like food in general, including vegetables. I eat a too much of those, too. I didn't take my health seriously until I went to a doctor who was quite frank and now I'm losing weight. Until then, I thought I was eating okay but now I realize my perception of my food portions were out of wack and maybe that's something that you can blame on a Big Gulp. But not just the Big Gulp.
I think most obese people don't seek medical attention out of embarrassment which is something most obese people suffer through in their daily lives. Universal healthcare in the U.S.A. would go further in solving this problem.
If you have ever been to NYC, you'll see that the obesity epidemic is not nearly as visible there as in the suburbs. People actually *walk* to get places in NYC, and therefore get exercise whether they planned to or not. And you actually have options as to what to drink in NYC. It is much easier and socially acceptable to have good lifestyle habits in the city.
Here in the suburbs, we have no sidewalks and it is near suicide to consider walking or bicycling on the roads. All the "restaurants" are crappy pizza joints with your choice of Coke or Pepsi or Gatorade (sugar, sugar, or sugar). I have to drive 10 minutes away to find a safe place to walk or bike, and have to have a gym membership in order to get any meaningful exercise. I'd love to live in a city, any city.
...to have a law passed that people be responsible for their own food choices and decisions made in their own lives.
Excuse me Mr. fucking Bloomberg...what if I want to be obese that's the WHOLE POINT OF FREEDOM. I am getting sick to fucking death of all these inane moronic laws being considered / passed to protect people from evolution pruning out the crap from the human gene pool.
but from what I've heard NYC obesity problem is non-existent compared to some other places in US. This looks more like an attempt to lower the doses and up the prices (with the excuse of lower revenue due to this ban).
If there's one basic principal engrained on the American psyche it's "Do what Authority says" We've all seen how well Prohibition and the War on Drugs turned out and everyone is always complaining about the inordinate amount of rights the founding fathers have given them and constantly going on and on about how they hope Congress or the State will do something about that. I mean really, how many rights does one need. Personal choice is something not everyone should have a right to have.
So yes, Mayor Bloomberg is absolutely spot on when he says Americans want to be told what to eat and drink. In fact, I don't think it's enough. He should create a Food Safety Administration to audit every household's weekly meal plan, inspect fridges for contraband and give the lady of the house some tactile pleasuring.
The only problem I have now is that a medium size sodas at fast food restaurants are now ridiculously huge. A medium soda used to be between 16 and 20 ounces, but now it is closer to 32.
There should be some standard that specifies that specifies the size of what a medium soda should be so drinking 32 ounces of sugary soda isn't considered the new normal. If someone wants a bigger soda, let them order a large or super sized but a medium should be a average sized portion for a healthy person.
Is there anything else they would like to regulate and take away?? Can they list them all now so we can give an appropriate blanket reply??
Any drink with zero calories should be exempt.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Yeah, how about drinking water instead of concentrated weapons-grade diabeetus juice? Why does government have to take responsibility for people who refuse to take personal responsibility? If you want to replace your blood with a mix of HFCS and cholesterole, I couldn't care any less until you expect me to pay your fucking health bill. Banning disgusting fast "food" and slimy drinks these people use won't do it, and neither will legislating 2 hours on the treadmill daily. But I guess a populist legislative response is easier than actually having people take responsibility for once in their lives.
Seems like a pretty redundant ban to me. Most places offer free refills on soda...
And thus the poor who are less likely to be able to come back for a refill (like construction workers on a break) are the ones really screwed over by arbitrary government limits on acceptable beverage size.
If New Yorkers keep voting in people that do this though they have only themselves to blame.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Please! Take action so we don't have to take responsibility for our own lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to think for ourselves.
A better solution may be to force anyone who complains about how this type of thing negatively impacts them to take a class in self control.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Next they will make you stand in line for Bagels, but no schmear for you because it can make you fat.. what will be next Coffee Creamers? Snicker Bars? if they let this happen there would be no end to them telling us how to look.
Just how is obesity linked to diabetes, exactly? Is it, as everyone assumes, gluttony causing obesity causing diabetes? If so, how come many fat people don't have diabetes?
Is it possible that whatever causes diabetes also causes you to store more sugar as fat?
If soda is so bad for you, why does the body process it as food instead of sending it to the liver to be handled like other toxins?
And how on earth did this become the top priority in NYC over crime, housing problems, etc?
whaddarya, some sort of web 2.0 brogrammer?!!
Get a clue jr, and drink coffee, like a real man. Black, not loaded up with sugar and whipped cream like some effete poofta hipster . And larn ya some C. Or FORTRAN at least.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
TL;DNR but I can tell you, this would never happen in an Android market.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Move to New Hampshire if you don't like this crap. We actually had a state rep (Catherine Mulholland, D-Grafton dist. 10) propose a soda tax here in 2010. The bill was defeated, with the help of the most effective liberty lobbying group in the country, and the rep lost her re-election in 2010, also due in no small part to the liberty activists opposing her.
Liberty in your lifetime
In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you
That is a lie.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Israel bans skinny models; new york bans unhealthy foods. What's next, a ban on unsafe sex? Israel is a screwed-up country so I can't expect much out of it, but the US has some feet in reality. I think that Bloomberg ought to be banned.
List of things that are illegal (or soon may be )which I believe should be legal:
unhealthy foods
skinny models
gambling
file sharing
politically sensitive speech
beer
weed
shrooms
modifying a consumer device which you own
I used to say nudity should be legal, but I have changed my opinion on this since to many people are now fat. I think only the good-looking should be allowed to be nude in public. The problem with this is; who gets to decide? So, let's cover it up for now. For some of you, a niqab or burka should be required.
What about diet soda?
Will they allow giant cups of diet soda?
Note - somebody eating themselves to death slowly is that like not wearing a seat belt or possibly committing suicide?
How is the reasoning for food regulations that far from the other stuff we allow?
We still allow suicide to be illegal, in fact we don't let doctors pull the plug when we should die. We legit excuses do we have there which can be extended into other topics?
Not wearing seat belts raises costs for everybody else measurably; so that argument is your "criminal" action costs other people money. Insurance lobbies to save the public money so that law eventually always passes.... Of course, the large savings such a law creates NEVER results in citizens seeing lower insurance rates. I know my car insurance did not go down at all following the passing of that law in my state... Insurance company profitability increased during that span... Does anybody seriously think these insurance lobbies REALLY want to protect people by passing such laws??
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
oh yeah, drinking less soda is going to help people lose weight. right. this is a guy on political stage tap dancing to avoid political bullets or selling snake oil to get re-elected or...getting kickbacks from major coffee shops.
Dude, you mean WATER, like in the toilet?!
gross!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
...so what's to stop King Bloomberg and NYC from dictating that cigarettes shall be no longer than 2", and no more than 5 to a pack, since they're bad for you and thus more is worse?
This is all about removing sugar from the food system and replacing it with laboratory grown chemicals.
Want to curb consumption of high fructose corn syrup? You can start by removing all government subsidy of the corn industry.
And, if they are [being irresponsible] but aren't harming anyone else, so what?
Being irresponsible harms other family members for whom you are traditionally or even legally expected to provide. Drinking too much sugary soda leads to obesity and diabetes mellitus.
Do you want to die early and leave your family members without your support?
Welcome to the world of second class citizenship, Chunk.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
This is what you progressive gimme-more-gummint types wanted, isn't it? Big Daddy government poking its nose into every nook and cranny in your life?
Subject pretty much says it all. Obesity wouldn't be a problem if we didn't make it a problem. If someone makes poor decisions and suffers health problems because of it, then so be it. It's not the public's responsibility to make sure I don't kill myself slowly and it's not the public's responsibility to pick up the check when I decide to participate in activities known to be unhealthy. I don't need/want government to protect me from myself.
'New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do."
Honestly, and speaking as a New Yorker, I think the public wants the mayor to go fuck off. So, would Hizzoner please resign and move to Boston?
If the public didn't want these big drinks, then the public wouldn't be buying these big drinks, problem solved. That's the public showing what it wants by doing what it does.
This is an autocratic nanny-state politician who's listening to a few lobbyists.
Bans like these rapidly turn towards freedom restrictions because Americans are looking to their government to do their thinking for them. Healthy eating is a choice and an easy one to make; we neither need nor want our government officials getting involved that granularly in our lives, especially as it is okay to eat unhealthy on occasion. We want our government involved in our lives in as few ways as possible. Most of us know soda (expecially diet soda) isn't healthy. All you need to do is turn the bottle around and look at the ingredients that non-chemists have difficulty pronouncing. If Americans made the right choices, i.e. whole grains without enrichment or chemicals, then food companies would have to adapt. We make up an entire story around why we eat the worst foods for us when the choice is simple, very simple: there is neither ease nor difficulty surrounding this choice. You just have to make it! I told myself I was eating them to make myself feel better and I actually only felt better for a VERY short period of time and felt worse afterwards. I literally woke up one day and said to myself, that's enough. I'm morbidly obese and just sick of it so I made a choice to start eating good foods and I'm starting to drop some weight while feeling better almost immediately. It also takes patience because I know it took years to gain this weight but I want to lose it right away. Another typical American gotcha .... the quick fix pill. The best fix is patience and letting the body heal itself and return to homeostasis naturally.
I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
The government does not propose to pay for abortion because people should be able to have sex. The logic arises from studies conducted that suggest that legalized and subsidized abortion results in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime. While you might debate that, the reasoning is that it's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to have a criminal interred on and off for life. Are you against taxpayer dollars being used to teach contraception in schools? What about tax dollars to hand out free condoms to those most at risk? Subsidizing abortions is a step further in that direction. It is not designed to give people the ability to have sex without protection.
I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
Are you aware of what a "dependent" is on a tax form? Again, it's cheaper for society to issue welfare and food stamps than to deal with the societal harms that come from malnourished children and the state assuming control over a child. What exactly is your ideal scenario in this case? That we have street urchins that occasionally die in our streets? That we have social services taking care of tens of thousands more children?
I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
Again, you seem to imply that the government is being lobbied by the addicts. Instead it is the cost/benefit of dealing with addicts that have already developed dependencies on illegal addictive substances. You implement awareness programs with taxpayer dollars and the final unfortunate step is helping these people control their addictions so they're not mugging or killing people for money. A lot of these people have to support their habits with crime. Our jails are already overcrowded so the alternate step is to try to treat them and keep them from engaging in such behavior. Again, what is your ideal scenario? That you shake your finger at an addict and say "Welcome to the school of hard knocks, now go beat someone for money for your habit so you can spend the rest of your life in jail where I can pay more money for you to live."
I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
Right, because everyone who is poor is poor because of shitty life choices and they should starve for those choices. We have the ability to provide them basic food and subsidize their housing but your ideal scenario is what exactly? You do know that they do not live like kinds and queens?
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
If the alternative is crime ridden neighborhoods, I'll take a little bit of a nanny state. You people that demand one extreme over the other are really annoying and short sighted. Did you know that buildings have to make fire code in order to be constructed? God, what a nanny state we've found ourselves in! Why aren't we working to remove any sort of building and safety codes? PROTIP: A happy medium exists somewhere in between the extremes. When society's total cost is drastically lower to implement a nanny state law, we start to weigh the pros and cons.
My work here is dung.
Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?
Yes, and I also know the difference between a state, meaning a first-level political subdivision, and a state, meaning the entity with a monopoly on violence.
Death (TM) brand cigarettes came in a black box with a skull and crossbones. They were quite popular.
Of course it's not socialist - Obama's (not really, it was congress' plan) plan would make you pay to get a health plan. Those who couldn't afford one would be subsidized; that's not really socialism but rather welfare. It has roots in socialistic behavior.
On the contrary, these people want their healthcare paid for by someone else who isn't the government. It's like socialism, but since it's not the government and they're not sure what the name for it is. They have re-apportioned the word "freedom" to mean "tied to your employer for all of your healthcare needs or hounded by collectors for all of time due to the last emergency room visit you couldn't afford." You can see how that last phrase is a little awkward, whereas Freedom just rolls of the tongue.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Well, maybe if the government got out of the business of parenting humanity from womb to tomb
Would you end child protective services entirely? If not, where do you draw the line between a parent who is abusing his child by living a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death and a parent who is abusing a child otherwise?
I disagree with the ban, but anyone who frames this as a question of freedom is fooling themselves. These major corporations put huge amounts of money into influencing consumers to buy more. In the case of carbonated sugar water, it should be obvious why: the restaurant's major expense is labour. Selling a large instead of a small doesn't increase the cost of labour, but it does increase the revenues (with a minor increase in the cost of materials).
So the government is really stepping up to say that it is protecting us from the corporations. It isn't really stepping up to protect us from ourselves.
"Nothing so needs reforming as other peoples habits" Mark Twain
Why don't they just cut to the chase and outlaw Obesity?
As a software developer, I can say that many an innovation was birthed in Mountain Dew, junk food, and greasy pizza. Not saying it is healthy, but reality is that people "need" this stuff. If you ban soda at restaurants, people will just find other ways to get their sugar and caffiene high in bulk.
Any drink with zero calories should be exempt.
And it is. From the featured article: "It would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy or alcoholic drinks."
If the mayor is really worried about our health, we'd better ban athletics before we ban soda:
More than 3.5 million children ages 14 and under receive medical treatment for sports injuries each year. Injuries associated with participation in sports and recreational activities account for 21 percent of all traumatic brain injuries among children in the United States. Overuse injury, which occurs over time from repeated motion, is responsible for nearly half of all sports injuries to middle-and high-school students. Immature bones, insufficient rest after an injury and poor training or conditioning contribute to overuse injuries among children. Most organized sports related injuries (62 percent) occur during practices rather than games. Despite this fact, a third of parents often do not take the same safety precautions during their child's practices as they would for a game. A recent survey found that among athletes ages 5 to 14, 15 percent of basketball players, 28 percent of football players, 22 percent of soccer players, 25 percent of baseball players and 12 percent of softball players have been injured while playing their respective sports. Children ages 5 to 14 account for nearly 40 percent of all sports-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. The rate and severity of sports-related injury increases with a child's age.
In 2001, the number of sport-related injuries for each sport are as follows:
Gymnastics - 99,722
Basketball - 680,307
Baseball - 170,902
Softball - 118,354
Football - 413,620
Soccer - 163,003
Volleyball - 55,860
Track & Field - 15,113
Hockey - 63,945
From 1982-2002, the total numbers of direct and indirect fatalities among high school athletes were:
Baseball - 17
Basketball - 88
Cheerleading - 21
Cross Country - 14
Football - 22
Soccer - 31
Track & Field - 47
Wrestling - 16
http://www.sportssafety.org/sports-injury-facts/
Soda has no redeeming value and a lot of nasty things. People need to drink less.
However, being a liberal, never having voted Republican, I am against the government telling people what they can and can't eat.
I'm surprised that Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican, a party known for beating that drum is initiating this ban.
Folks, I have some disturbing news for you. The government does not love you. There, I said it. Things like this and the insane cigarette tax in New York City (over $10 a pack!) are not about your health but about money and control. The government is conditioning you "big brother" style to accept its stifling control over every area of your life.
So Bloomberg is claiming that people are clamoring to be prevented from buying soft drinks with sugar in them that are too large.
Just so we understand.
And the large sized slurpee is the correct one to get.
Yeah, soda is bad. A big container of sugar and chemicals that people assume is required to quench thirst.
But isolating one food product is not going to cure obesity.
So what, large soda drink sizes will be banned, but still allowed are mega-Venti 1 gallon sized quad-quad cream sugar extra foam and whip cream topped, caramel and chocolate syrup triple espresso infused coffees with a side of 10" radius cupcake and a oversized bagel with extra schmear is not a factor in obesity? And that is just a precursor to some street-meat based meal at noon and several pounds worth of ground beef and freedom-fries for supper.
Fatties will find their vices regardless of what form of unconstitutional bullshit a NYC mayor imposes
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
This really is nanny government. I'm totally for encouraging people to lead more healthy lives but banning things doesn't seem the right way to do this. It would be better to sell people the benefits rather than punish them into submission.
How about free exercise classes, free yoga classes, advertising the benefits of losing a bit of weight or adding a bit of muscle instead? A few adverts featuring sexy girls/guys and a slogan about how they like fit guys/girls would likely be more effective and cheaper than banning sugary drinks.
Drinking regular soda is like having a piece of cake or a sandwich, but without the satisfaction. Diet has nasty chemicals. Both contribute to osteoporosis and tooth decay.
Tea, on the other hand, has caffeine, comes in a variety of strengths, has next to no calories, does not hurt your stomach like coffee, is CHEAP, is great hot and is great cold.
Forget Lipton and other teas you find in the supermarket. Other countries know that Americans do not know tea and they send us their crap.
Order something nice online, even a pricier tea will be competitive per serving against a tall bottle of soda from a soda machine.
Drink your tea plain. If you can't get used to the taste 1 tsp of sugar will help and is only about 20 calories ( versus 200 + in a soda ). Mixed blends with things like orange or lemon grass will make the tea tasty enough that you may not need to add anything at all.
I find that tea has a "cleaner burn" than soda. I feel alert but calm also at the same time and I've read that the other chemicals in tea do that. Soda after a point makes me irritable.
While it's still not such a great idea to gulping down tons of sucrose, the bigger culprit here is fructose. Fructose isn't detected the same as sucrose or glucose, so you don't feel satisfied. Also, fructose is metabolized by the liver, which means that organ is tied up working on fructose rather than all the other pollutants that you're bringing into your body. There's a reason why detox suplements prefer the biologically active forms of nutrients, so the liver doesn't have to convert them, freeing the liver for breaking down other toxins in your system. Your liver has limited capacity. Use it wisely.
It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV. I would, in fact, support free abortions. I'd rather have someone irresponsible abort a kid that they can't afford to take care of instead of being robbed by that kid or having taxpayers pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for his prison time.
The problem is that we're all connected and unless you want to be responsible for providing your own roads, drinking water, electricity and defending your compound that is unsafe to leave, we need at least some level of government and socialization. Medical care in that world seems kind of pointless, as you would have no great methods of contacting a provider (no eminent domain to build a network of telephone wires, radio waves would be useless without a central body to set up channels), and they might not be able to reach you quickly through a patchwork of private roads. And you'd better hope you have something worth bartering for care without a nanny state to set up and maintain a common currency. But at least there would be no government to steal your money for taxes or control your actions...just robbers, pirates, criminals.
I'm not saying the government should encourage people to be lazy by any means, just that there are indirect benefits to providing some services.
It's a substance that creates craving and addiction and provides the body with no real nourishment, and consistent long-term consumption of it will lead to a degradation of one's health. Try stopping cold turkey and see how you feel after a couple of days.
It's like cigarettes, in that even with daily use, you may not see the long-term consequences for years, but they're there and they come.
It's not the only issue that is creating an obesity epidemic in America, but it's a significant one. If you go back 20-25 years, you wouldn't see such a high-percentage of rotund individuals. Just look at old TV news clips, or newspaper photos, it was much more rare.
But with Bloomberg's plan, I don't see what would stop anyone from buying two 16 oz. drinks of coke instead, so I really wonder how effective this would be.
Frankly, I'm all for individual rights, but how about a Surgeon General's warning instead on the side of every bottle of coke and diet coke (aspartame isn't any better), stop the marketing of it to kids and distribution in school settings, and education and recovery plans to assist anyone who wants to escape a daily high volume sugar intake permanently.
We know prohibition doesn't work, and despite the irrational execution of America's "war on drugs", I'm not advising it. But c'mon, lets stop pretending that there isn't a serious problem with is being marketed and sold as consumable food in America (and it's not just sugar), and actually do something about it.
False Continuum much?
No one said anything about preventing government intervention in cases of actual crime. Also, your assertion that some fat guy is abusing his kids by simple dint of his being fat is nonsensical.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The issue with soda is more phycological than just free choice vs nanny state.
Our brains are constantly bombarded with advertising convincing us that we want sweetened, colored and fizzy liquids. More than any other form of consumption, beverage purchases are impulsive. Constant prodding drives these impulses. Starbucks needs to have 3 stores on every other block and in each supermarket to capture the consumers impulse before it passes.
The secret is the best and only beverage to satisfy our thirst is water and it's free. Most of these flavored beverages are actually diuretics, which only make you more thirsty causing you to buy and drink more. Now the same advertising geniuses have even convinced everyone that you should pay even more than the flavored liquids for plain tap water filtered and rebottled.
The fact is the beverage industry exists on peoples false perceptions that drinks you pay money for are better than H20. Stop for a minute and look around at how much of our consumer world revolves around transporting, stocking, advertising these useless beverages who's consumption is driven by our subliminal planted cravings. Then think about how much waste and litter is generated by packaging these liquids.
I think an even better solution would be to ban the disposable big cups. If people want a big soda, let them bring their own reusable mug or get refills on the small cups. Also anywhere that sells soda should also provide free water (and not as the lever option on one of the fountain spouts that never works right and always gets synthetic lemonade in your water).
He's not a republican, he's an independent.
You won't stop people from doing the wrong thing, but you can tax them and make some money that can be invested in the health care of the severely obese. It's a kiind of government run health care system. Oh, yeah. Those don't work either.
Is it any wonder why people are leaving NY in droves?? Can you say TAXED to DEATH!?
Need I remind you that they (Big Govt) will have to leverage yet ANOTHER tax (or increase other taxes) to pay for enforcement of this idiocy!?
Lets try personal responsibility for once... DUH!!!
they'ld ban the frigging High Fructose Corn Syrup that is the reason soda pop is so fattening these
days and bring back cane sugar ( which also doesn't leave that awful after taste ).
False Continuum much?
A continuum is introduced as a way to work around accusations that a dichotomy is false. What argument technique is recommended as a way to work around accusations that a continuum is false?
No one said anything about preventing government intervention in cases of actual crime.
Which only ends up in a debate over the definition of "crime". Should intentionally failing to provide for your children by committing suicide be considered a crime? Should it be considered a crime if the suicide is slow?
I don't understand why some support this type of intrusive govt. regulation of individual rights. I don't drink soda but that's my choice. I should be able to drink what I want, smoke what I want, eat what I want. And don't even get me started on abortion or gay marriage. Nobody's business but my own.
If I were a corporate person, this would be a non-issue as "everyone knows that less govt. regulation is good for corporations." If that's the case, then why not for non-corporate people too?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After I got diabetes and got my stomach stapled down I cut my Dew consumption in half....oh and now, the bed sores are healing nicely. I am able to get out of bed and change my moo moo once a day.
So - what makes you so certain the guy doesn't have a massive life insurance policy?
I would support amending this proposal to allow the sale of large sugary fountain drinks to people who carry documents proving life insurance, just as the privilege of driving a motor vehicle requires proof of liability insurance, and the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, or lottery tickets requires proof of age.
What makes you sure that the other parent isn't also employed and perfectly capable of caring for the kids in question?
I would support amending this proposal to allow the sale of large sugary fountain drinks to people who carry documents proving the other parent's financial responsibility.
since it doesn't include alcoholic beverages
> Also I have been a HUGE soda drinker all my life and I'm underweight.
That's great for you weight-wise, but it fails to address two issues.
One is the fact that any law reduces freedom to some extent--including, obviously, laws prohibiting harmful substances. The fact that this ban does not help you with a weight problem does not mean that it is not a net gain for society. Like banning cigarettes or smoking is annoying for people who don't get lung cancer.
The other is that soda pretty much *dissolves your bones*. Google it. It's acidic as hell. Even though it tastes so good. Even if you're not overweight, it's still pretty bad for you.
I don't think a ban on selling it is the right answer--it makes too many lawbreakers and criminals and grey market--but changing the conditions of sale may help. By doing things that make it more expensive, like this law.
That being said, I hear Bloomberg is an asshole. But that doesn't make this idea entirely wrong.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
High levels of sugars in the diet are a long-term poison and the primary driver of obesity and the cluster of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome (type II diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, elevated triglycerides, heart disease, even Alzheimer's). Those of you needing a refresher on the biochemistry should watch this video of Dr. Robert Lustig -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Other references include the excellent work of Gary Taubes on the misguided and scientifically unproven war on dietary fat and the subsequent advocacy of low-fat diets.
It's great to see sugar targeted aggressively, but I don't agree with Bloomberg's ban for a number of reasons. It's anti-choice and it lets juice off the hook, which due to its fructose content is actually worse than something sweetened with sugar (which is glucose/fructose in equal proportions). It's also not nearly broad enough due to the widespread loading of processed food with high fructose corn syrup and sugar.
What needs to be done more generally is not just attacking soda per se, but raising the wholesale price of sugar and corn syrup to about 5 times their current level, either via an excise tax or in combination with elimination of any agricultural subsidies on corn and sugar beet production. This will make it much more expensive for food producers to add in sugars to their products and will hopefully reduce the overall glycemic load on our food supply. Less sugar consumed means less obesity.
Darnit! Why does Apple care what I drink... ...oh, that Apple.
If you quit giving them medical care, checks for their children, welfare, food stamps we would be better off.
I am not saying that we make them starve. But how about we go back to big colorful fake money looking food stamps.
That way there would be a bit of stigma attached. More incentive to get a fucking job.
YOU may imagine that making poor even poorer, less healthy and more stigmatized is a good thing.
Which doesn't only make you A PRICK - it makes you an ignorant prick.
Look at Africa and their numbers. Poverty and harsh living environments mean MORE children per woman - not less.
And since you think that those poorer than you are parasites, think for a while how much you've payed your computer, your mobile phone, your flat screen TV, your car, your house...
Think for a moment how much are they worth "on the street", when desperate people start coming to your neighborhood.
Poverty breeds crime. It also breeds diseases.
And when an epidemic of some "easily vaccinated for, but too expensive to waste on the poor" disease hits - your ass will feel it too, one way or the other.
By "giving" to those who have less you're not buying yourself some cushy cloud up in heaven.
You're saving your own ass down here in the mud.
Oh and BTW... "Colorful fake money looking"?
If you can buy stuff with it, you can trade it for money.
And when you and your kids are facing a choice of starving or taking the "colorful fake money", you don't really give a fuck about what some candy ass prick thinks about the stigma attached to its color.
You fucking asshole.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection...
That went out the window with the invention of fire and pointy sticks.
Or do wolfs and bears still regularly eat members of your family?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
into the lives of people. Really? There is no need for this type if idiotic legislature. If people can't curb their calories, eat, drink, and live responsibly, then they deserve whatever health problems they get as a result. We need less nanny-ism from the government and more commonsense from the public.
--- b2b.mallaidh.org | www.mallaidh.org | www.kidsalive.org/article/kahlil-pfaff/
I have a disease called Achalasia Cardiae which means my upper stomach "mouth" (cardia) is unable to relax. Thus I have high difficulties getting the food/liquids down my oesophagus. If I do not swallow large amounts of liquid, when my throat is filled, I will literally puke or have the food in my lungs. If this time is not minimized, through swallowing large amounts of liquid when eating, my stomach/throat/oesophagus will become malformed.
It is my right to stay healthy and swallow liquids. Turns out NYC residents does not have these rights. Luckily I live in Sweden.
I have declined surgery because this is my way of life, and I want it to stay this way. I do not want my stomach cut open, split in two, and wrapped around my throat, stitched together again. Nor do I want to be forced into surgery just because new laws malform my stomach.
(Achalasia affects about one person in 100,000 per year.) - Wikipedia
I guess he hasn't heard of this little thing called the constitution. There are certain freedoms you have in there from people trying to do stuff like this to you.
I don't know about all of you but I am tired of being punished for other people being completely fucking stupid. This is getting out of hand, fat people EXERCISE, if you can't not MY problem.
Next there will be a nation wide sugar tax so fat people wont eat very much of it, or WILL they?
Can you say "STUPID!" Why sodas... and not twinkies, or snickers, or all deserts in resteraunts, or any prime ribe over the size of 4 ounces, or beer (high carb so lite only), or non sugarless gum, or milk (high fat), or cool aid, or fruit juices (all are high calorie), or pizza (wow you can really get fat off of eating pizza), or all pastas, or ... Just get rid of all food and give everyone a nutrition card to report to your government controlled nutrition center for your ration of each balanced meal nutritional wafer. You must get only 1 per meal and you must visit 4 times per day... smaller portions are better for you. This will solve the problem, no choice, just do what the governemt says, when it says to do it, and in the manner is tells you to do it. After all free will and choice are evil and must be systematically removed from public use.
After that, then let's welcome in mandatory exercise programs... and it goes on and on and on...
Government regulation on anything is just that... the loss to all of a choice. What do you want to trust the government to do for you? As for me, I want government to do as little as possible to infringe on my liberity. Use it or loose it and those who think not, just watch it slip away.
At least Bloomberg is attacking the issues that are truly important to society...
HA! uid 234k calling uid 37k a junior hipster. Classic.
LegendMUD
we're restricting food to combat obesity when hunger is still a very real problem. many people who can't afford all the food they need to remain healthy will find that food stamps are very difficult to get without the proper scam in place. next people will complain, 'oh. why should my taxes have to pay for the healthcare of someone who's too lazy to make more money' meanwhile countries that have actual socialist healthcare never talk about unfairly punishing people for being unhealthy.
You can't buy a 20oz soft drink, but you can buy as many packs of cigarettes as you want.
Talk about blatant corruption out in the open. This is nothing more than fleecing the soda and restaurant industry for lobbying and "protection" money.
He/she took out insurance policies and saved money for their family to use
And as I wrote here, I would support waiving these restrictions for customers who prove such insurance.
But at 18 those kids should have enough common sense
I'd bump that to at least 19 to give the child time to finish high school first. Compare to current U.S. student aid law, which deems a child financially dependent on parents until age 23.
People should be trying to better themselves.
I agree. But how do you recommend that one plan to provide for oneself should one prove unable to better oneself? For example, how should one plan for becoming permanently disabled and unable to work due to this disability? Or how should one plan to provide for one's child should the child be disabled from childhood?
You got me there: I was assuming the wrong mens rea. These bad habits are not intentional but reckless, meaning "conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk" according to Black's Law Dictionary. But just as we prosecute reckless homicide and reckless driving, so should we prosecute reckless suicide and reckless neglect of a dependent. I'm willing to fix the rest of the false assumptions in my argument; which should I work on next?
Watch the movie Idiocracy. It's coming, and I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. I'll paraphrase something that I once read (can't come up with a cite, sorry): "I say we take the safety labels off of everything and let nature work itself out."
It's already here man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz12kGOZ-mw
If they now charge $6.50 for a 30 ounce coke, they will then sell the 16 ounce for $6.50.
They might bridge it by offering one free refill, but this is new york, so probably they won't even do that.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Beer should come in 1.5 L mugs, like in Paris! Not like those tiny 0.3 L glasses they have in Amsterdam.
Will NYC Mayeor Bloomberg touch beer glass sizes, too? Brrr.
I was under the impression beer fatten too.
oblig
Corn syrup and sugar are[1]. SO, if you want to curb obesity, it's pointless to take out only soda. Even fruit juice[2] contains levels of concentrated sugars which cause all sorts of problems. Yes, even juices without added sugar. Candy bars, licorice, gooey sweets -- most anything you can find in a convenience store is going to be just as bad, if not worse than soda.
Also, many of the products containing corn syrup are made from extracts of the same corn used for large scale meat production; engineered to put on lots of pounds quickly. Corn syrup (and many corn products) are simply a blatant disregard for people's health in many ways.
[1] - http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
[2] - http://blog.fooducate.com/2009/11/13/orange-juice-is-just-as-bad-as-cola-really/
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Not everyone who drinks large sodas does so to the point of getting fat.
Bars aren't allowed to sell an alcoholic beverage to someone who obviously looks already drunk. Likewise, restaurants and convenience stores wouldn't be allowed to sell a sugary soda to someone who obviously looks already obese.
Not every fat person dies sooner or unexpectedly.
I think the reasoning behind laws like this is that enough untimely deaths prove to arise from obesity to warrant the people's attention.
Not all fat people who do die sooner/unexpectedly have kids to leave behind.
You're right, and I think the presence of people with no dependents will be the hardest part of my argument to fix.
Not all of the kids left behind are done so without being provided for.
Which I mentioned elsewhere with the proof of insurance.
Would you end child protective services entirely?
Perhaps you missed the "...to tomb" part of the the post you quoted. CPS, while not perfect, serves a valid function. There are cases where yes, the government needs to intervene for the welfare of the child. Those cases should be limited to circumstances where the child is likely to be actively and clearly harmed by the parent (i.e., neglect, physical/sexual/emotional abuse, etc.). However, the need for government to intervene on the child's behalf ends when the child is no longer a child. In other words, I neither want nor need the government to protect me from myself when I become an adult.
If not, where do you draw the line between a parent who is abusing his child by living a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death and a parent who is abusing a child otherwise?
That is one of the most absurd things I have read on /., and that's saying a lot. Every one of us is going to die eventually. Some of us may live well beyond the average life span despite very unhealthy habits, and some of us may die early despite doing everything "right." Furthermore, what do you consider to be "living a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death?" Consider me, for example. I am very involved in the outdoors. I ride a motorcycle. I fly airplanes. I rock climb, white water kayak, mountain bike, and I frequently see black bears in my yard because of where I have chosen to live. I don't drink soda, however, I limit consumption of junk food and I exercise regularly. Am I more or less likely to live to see my 11 year old daughter reach adulthood than a parent who drinks a 64 oz. Big Gulp everyday? Should government tell me I can't ride my motorcycle, or do some of the other things I enjoy because those activities involve risk and therefore I might not live to see my daughter grow up?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
As long as you renounce all claims to any state-funded programs....education, roads, health care, medicare, social security, fire protection, etc.
I'm a Brit who emigrated to the US about 10 years ago.
One thing I found very hard to get used to was that the taste of nearly all food in the US is sickeningly sweet. It makes it all taste the same as you can hardly even taste the natural flavor of the food itself.
There's sugar (presumably actually corn syrup) in large quantities in EVERYTHING, even stuff thats meant to be natural or savory like vegetables, nuts or cheese. Most US bread tastes like cake to me, instead of wheaty or nutty like it does back home.
You don't (re)notice until you leave and come back, but trust me the first couple of days of eating any food in the US tastes horrible.
Then your get acclimatized as your taste buds and waistline get assimilated into the Corn Lobby collective's master plan.
Ok, look, the apparent premise here is that sodas, by virtue of their caloric content, lead to obesity. Further, that rationing by portion size will lead to a reduction in obesity. Some here are mentioning the demerits of HFCS over good, wholesome sucrose (which is all too rare in sodas these days), but that is not the issue here. Caloric content is the criterion, pure and simple. By this reasoning, however, juices, sweet tea, coffee, energy drinks, many mixed drinks, etc. should similiarly be restricted in portion. And if purported non-caloric deleterious effects of HFCS were the issue, diet drinks should be included as well, since the sweeteners in them are for the most part even more questionable, as well as any drink in BPA packaging, which should probably be banned altogether. You're actually on sounder footing there, as that is really a product safety issue.
There is of course the implied premise that it is somehow the City's job to manage the drinking or purchasing habits of the populace. I'm not going to argue that one way or the other in this post. My point is that merely that Mayor Bloomberg has appointed himself guardian of your health and dictator of your body, whether he actually cares about it, or whether you live or die, as much as he cares about the City's insurance bill, his own portfolio, or his impression on Michelle and/or his re-election fund (yeah, I know he's rich enough to fund his own campaign, but do you really think he got that way by spending his own money?), or whatever.
We'll skim over the question of whether people will not simply buy more portions, or smuggle in bootleg 2-liters from the Safeway or Jersey, and maybe be steamed enough about the extra expense to vote Bloomberg out. That's been touched on elsewhere in this discussion anyway.
The conclusion to be drawn here is that Mayor Bloomberg has simply let power go to his head in pandering to political correctness without bothering to really think the thing through. The bottom line, as always: Follow the money.
There are a lot of studies showing that artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame potassium, saccharine , etc.) aren't particularly healthy.
From to the wikipedia article on artificial sweeteners:
"Rats given sweeteners have steadily increased calorie intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity (fatness). [6] Furthermore, the natural responses to eating sugary foods (eating less at the next meal and using some of the extra calories to warm the body after the sugary meal) are gradually lost.[8]
A 2005 study by the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio showed that increased weight gain and obesity were associated with increased use of diet soda in a population-based study. The study did not establish whether increased weight gain leads to increased consumption of diet drinks or whether consumption of diet drinks could have an effect on weight gain.[9]"
Now I'm just waiting for some city that's smarter than the rest of us to ban food.
"An employer, let us say, pays a seamstress twopence a day, and she does not seem to thrive on it. So little, perhaps, does she thrive on it that the employer has even some difficulty in thriving upon her. There are only two things that he can do, and the distinction between them cuts the whole social and political world in two. It is a touchstone by which we can—not sometimes, but always—distinguish economic equality from servile social reform. He can give the girl some magnificent sum, such as sixpence a day, to do as she likes with, and trust that her improved health and temper will work for the benefit of his business. Or he may keep her to the original sum of a shilling a week, but earmark each of the pennies to be used or not to be used for a particular purpose. If she must not spend this penny on a bunch of violets, or that penny on a novelette, or the other penny on a toy for some baby, it is possible that she will concentrate her expenditure more upon physical necessities, and so become, from the employer's point of view, a more efficient person. Without the trouble of adding twopence to her wages, he has added twopenny-worth to her food. In short, she has the holy satisfaction of being worth more without being paid more.
This Capitalist is an ingenious person, and has many polished characteristics; but I think the most singular thing about him is his staggering lack of shame. Neither the hour of death nor the day of reckoning, neither the tent of exile nor the house of mourning, neither chivalry nor patriotism, neither womanhood nor widowhood, is safe at this supreme moment from his dirty little expedient of dieting the slave."
--G. K. Chesterton, _Utopia of Usurers_
Enjoy your celery, chumps.
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
I have just two words for you:
1. Fuck
2. You.
Don't have a nice day; have a debilitating aneurysm instead.
It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV.
That's so sweetly naive and incredibly wrong. My wife and I are married and share a joint checking account. There's no difference between "my money" and "her money" at any important level; even if we kept track of who contributed how much, it still gets stirred into the same pot. It's not like I take her to dinner with "my money" and she buys clothes with "her money", regardless of whether we pretend that's the case.
It's the same with Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, they have a total budget. The government pays for non-abortion services, but the end result is that by financing those services, PP is freed up to spend some of its other-sourced money on abortions.
I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has a spreadsheet that demonstrates that abortion funds and non-abortion funds are separate. That's nice. But realistically, it's all drawn from the same pool.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Do what they do with cigarette cartons.
Put pictures of morbidly obese diabetics on the cups.
What about COBOL you insensitive clod!
What is considered a crime and the severity there of is a societal issue expressed through government legislation. Fill in some of the bits between either end and you'll see that it really isn't a false continuum. To help inspire your imagination I'll start things for you. Obviously the position of some are debatable but also not the point
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
either let people provide their own or charge fair market prices.
The trouble is that if you let people provide their own, they'll sneak in alcohol, and that violates other laws. (Statute citation available upon request.) Banning all outside beverages is cheaper to enforce than banning only outside alcohol.
Seems like a lot of people don't want to subsidise the healthcare of fatties and are willing to limit peoples freedom because of it.
I hope they don't do anything that may cause healthcare costs.
Like exercise. Anything outside of swimming is a source of broken bones and joint damage. Any exercise risks muscle tears and contact sports are right out.
Drive. Think of how much A&E would save without driving! Think of all the asthma and COPD you cause, you scum!
Going out into the sun with bare skin anywhere in summer. Ok so this ones probably safe on Slashdot, but every other white person in the southern US is a skin cancer expense.
Hell the fatties are doing you a favor. A large portion will die in their 40s suddenly without warning and with low to no prior medical costs.
It's the health freaks that really cost money. Most will make it to their 80s and beyond and now you have to give them round the clock care as well as a ton of drugs to keep them just barely alive.
So the remaining sticking point the movie made was regarding subsidies and pricing of unhealthy foods. I will look for more information.
Every one of us is going to die eventually
Please allow me to repair my question: "a lifestyle that leads to the parent's untimely death", or "a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death before the child's self-sufficiency".
Consider me, for example. I am very involved in the outdoors. I ride a motorcycle. I fly airplanes.
And if you have suitable life insurance, your 11 year old daughter is protected. Perhaps the right way is to require parents to carry life insurance rather than restricting how parents can destroy their own health.
Bunch of obese fat bastard driving up health care costs tax the ever living shit out of it.
Big Gulps aren't the problem. Poor decision making is. Don't pay for their obesity-related problems... that's the legislation that should be passed. You are a fat turd, because you eat and drink too much, that's your problem not mine. I bet you can still by a pack of smokes at 7-11 in New York.
If you can not purchase a large the buy two mediums.
I recently moved to France (internal transfer in the same company). When I started my workplace offered free soda. I knew it was bad but I kept rationalizing having another can. As a result my consumption went up from practically zero to 5 cans a week. The only alternatives were the coffee machine or water.
You talk about a nanny state in the US but it is nothing compared to France (Note that I am not saying a nanny state is a good or bad thing, that is a decision each society has to make for itself.). The government health officers upon inspecting our workplace said that the soda machines had to go and after a few months they did. My soda consumption has fallen back to the previous near-zero levels.
Now I am not saying 5 cans is a lot but I just want to emphasise how important our environment is in deciding what we do. At home I never drink soda because I never buy it. Interestingly my previous workplace also provided free soda but they had a healthy alternative that I preferred (tea and/or milk).
We did not evolve on a savanah littered with soda cans so you cannot expect people to navigate the modern world in an optimal way. However, we do have the power to shape our environment both at a personal and at a societal level and we should take advantage of this fact.
I don't live in NYC. I didn't vote for the asshole holding the office of mayor. You New Yorkers have exactly what you wanted. Live with it.
If the way things are going pisses you off, then vote the idiots out of office. Elect somebody who doesn't want to run your life for you.
Does he plan to ban the sale of booze and tobacco as well? They're far more dangerous to the health of the populace than 32 ounces of Mountain Dew.
Who suffers? Money going to fat cat administration donors don’t stop foreclosures.
The government's job is to promote the common good. That sometimes means helping people who've made mistakes. You seem to be more interested in making people suffer for them. I wonder if your tune would change if you or someone you cared about ever slipped up. But no, that would never happen. You don't make mistakes. You're a god.
Why is the government’s job to help people who make mistakes? People often need help, but vast bureaucracies are the worst way to help individuals. Common laws, yes. Redistributing “wealth” to individuals, no!! What perversion has taken hold that the state is the sole supplier of benefice?
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
"It is a Class C misdemeanor for a person to knowingly carry liquor into a restaurant or place of public entertainment for the purpose of consuming it, displaying it, or selling, furnishing, or giving it away to another person on the premises, or for the purpose of having it served to himself or another person, then and there." (IC 7.1-5-8-6)
It's an amazing episode of complete lack of morals, ethics, and empathy what we are seeing. There is a serious psychosis becoming prevalent in our society, it's a sick mentality that starts at the top and infects all the way to the bottom. When you observe this type of behavior in any species, they will turn on themselves in a flash of teeth and claws.
Yet again I say to good people, read up on fascism and it's history. Contrast and compare it with our current events and political clime. If for some reason you think it's a wonderful idea, ponder how it turned out for the Germans when they tried it. After reading some of these heartless, brutal comments, I have to wonder how far we are from our own camps?
Take the Red Pill.
The purpose of this ban is not to combat the obesity problem. It is to appear to combat it. This sort of action makes (stupid) people believe that their governors are actually doing something to respond to their concerns. Its value is strictly political.
This guy was in PA, so it's cool! Sheetz gas stations sell a smashingly huge 52ozer!
"A rum and Coke? Here ya go... here is your 44oz Coke and thimble of rum. The dump bucket for rum is over there."
-- Terry
You assume we fall prey to the lemming-like eating habits of yours you attempt to project on us?
I just got through reading a bunch of these comments. Makes me thirsty, I think I'm going to head down to 7-11 for a Big Gulp... Thankfully I don't live in NYC!
From FTA:
Establishments that skirt the ban would face a $200 fine.
Is that a $200 fine per year? Per incident? I am guessing more like a $200 year fine...
You clowns in NYC deserve what you get. You elected this ldiot! More government involvement into the everyday lives of Americans, because after all...politicians are smarter than everyone else.
my convenience trumps your need for heavy-handed intervention.
I gather you haven't actually lived in Manhattan? Refills aren't free at most restaurants in NYC. It's just another one of those "taxes" that you pay for the privilege of living in the city.
Anyway, I'm glad I no longer live there especially with Bloomberg trying to pull crap like this.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Meanwhile people smoke in public areas like bus stations putting everyone's health at risk -- rather than just their own. Even in jurisdictions where there are laws against this, enforcement is usually non-existent.
...but as a 37 year old with an apetite that won't quit who loves coco cola too much and was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes a year ago let me just warn you that managing the disease when you have food issues is a real pain. In fact it makes live miserable. Avoid at all costs. Switch to some sugar free soda at least. Of course I wouldn't have heeded that advice a couple of years back....but I still feel the need to warn you.
When they came for the non-diet sodas over 16 oz I did nothing, I only drink diet.
When they came for the greasy burger, I did nothing, I prefer fish.
When they came for suggary deserts, I did nothing
Now they come for diet soda (You should drink water)
Now they come for Fish Sandwich (Mercury ??)
Now they come for healthy fruit (Sugar there too)
Now I only have bread and water.
Who the hell comes up with stuff that broken anyway....
People always accuse doctors of having a God complex, and in many ways the low fat paradigm is the result of that.
Ancel Keys made some observations and weak correlations about dietary fat and cholesterol being related to heart disease in the mid 1960s. This was fertile ground for researchers and clinicians and many of them staked their careers on it and due to the fact that they could never quite get their studies to prove the relationship between heart disease and dietary fat & cholesterol (and still haven't!) they were able to string this out into an entire career.
Once you have careers and reputations on the line, you have a self-sustaining paradigm -- nobody wants to come out after 30 years of being dedicated to this idea to say "Gee, we were wrong all along." So they never promote research that questions their beliefs -- and that's probably putting it mildly, they actively attack and discount it.
Despite nearly 40 years of this advice, though, obesity is skyrocketing and the low fat paradigm is starting to crumble.
I think there's another unspoken element in this, and that's an American cultural predisposition to promote paradigms which are judgmental and involve denial of pleasure. Certainly by the mid 1960s, overall economic success had made meat an everyday staple for most Americans. It tasted good and made you feel good -- so a solution to heart disease and obesity was penance -- don't eat what you enjoy and what makes you feel good. And if you don't get thin on low-fat? Why you're not trying hard enough -- not enough exercise, not enough self well, it's a weakness of character problem!
Part of why they reacted so severely to Atkins was that he never preached that -- he said "Hey, eat as much of that steak as you like! Put a tab of butter on it! Eat until you're full, don't go hungry!" This was like religious blasphemy, not only did it contradict the fact of low-fat proponents, it contradicted the morality of their position.
Don't ban soda. It's far too direct an approach and an insult to soda consuming voters. Instead, as they are a government, involving politics and such, they should just ban soda containers. All the problems will go away now.
You seem to be implying that "Let the chips fall where they may" style comments can be somehow linked to fascism. Unfortunately, the fascists were all about government taking care of and controlling it's populace.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Two medium sized gupls to go, please!
Yes once again You leaders prove without a doubt that They are morons.
This sort of action (trying to outlaw stupid behavior) only gets traction in a society that has decided to subsidize or otherwise centrally manage health care. This is why Republicans think that government run medical insurance programs are attacks on freedom. As an analyst in the health care industry (mostly on the medical side) I support these sorts of laws, but as an activist for freedom I deplore them. Wish my health care package covered experimental surgeries on splitting conflicted left(rational)-right(compassion) brains.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Where people in "health retreats" were doing some of the most insane things to themselves in the name of good health.
So no more beer boobs?
FTFY. Oh, noes!
Portion size. Thats why Americans are fat. Food is cheap and portions are huge. When I first moved to New Zealand I ate out a lot. The portions seemed tiny and I was always hungry. Then I just got used to it and now I can't stop losing weight. In fact what used to seem tiny now fills me up.
... if this is the kind of problems Mayor needs to solve.
Firstly, I must mentioned that I don't live in the US.
I personally think that this is a move in the right direction!
People simply eat too much, if you limit the size of the meals that they can order then they'll consume less - yes, they could order double of everything, but they won't!
As for free refills, that's fine as well ... because the majority of poeple are LAZY and won't get up and walk to the counter for the refill!