New York City's Proposed Ban On Big Soda

[RainMaker]

I'm sure we've all heard about Bloomberg's proposal to put a ban on soda over 16oz. And if you haven't, here you go.

Fill-In | New York City's Plan to Outlaw Enormous Sugary Drinks - NYTimes.com (http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/fill-in-new-york-citys-plan-to-outlaw-enormous-sugary-drinks/)

When I first heard about this, I laughed. Figured it was a joke or something more to it. Maybe just City Hall would ban it from vending machines or something. But not only did I realize it was for the whole city, but there seemed to be some support for it.

Personally I think it's one of the most ridiculous things I've read. I'm fine with warning labels, education, and so on. But this is stupid. Especially when it doesn't ban dairy. So I can't buy a 20oz soda at McDonalds, but I can buy a 32oz chocolate milkshake with 3 times the calories per ounce.

On top of it all, the Left seems somewhat passionate about this. Which is odd since it goes completely against their ideology on other health issues.

[EagleFan]

Lawmakers with too much time on their hands?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i assume it's macro stuff. seat belt laws in a world with motorcycles doesn't make sense either. but statistically seat belt laws reduce annual auto fatalities by x%

same here with diabetes/obesity/whatever

[flounder]

It's the typical politician logic.

Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore it must be done.

NYers can still buy 2 16 oz sodas instead of a 32 oz soda so it's kind of a moot point. Even Bloomberg doesn't think this is actually going to stop people from drinking a lot of soda.

[RendeR]

i assume it's macro stuff. seat belt laws in a world with motorcycles doesn't make sense either. but statistically seat belt laws reduce annual auto fatalities by x%

same here with diabetes/obesity/whatever



This is utterly insipid.

Eating/drinking sugary items does NOT cause diabetes. It does not lead to, push someone to, or indirectly create diabetes.

Its assinine ideas like this one that make it so ridiculously hard to educate anyone. Diabetes is not a FAT disease. Its an internal systemic failure that affects NUMEROUS organs in the human body.

There is no root CAUSE for diabetes, there is no specific item to point at, and there is no 'CURE' either. Some dumb mutherfucker tried arguing with me that there were LOTS of drugs that cured diabetes on the market the other night.

I berated the little prick so badly I made him cry online. Its this utter ignorance that just infuriates me to no end. You will not stop diabetes from happening by banning soft drinks.

Talk about stupid.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

dude, i feel ya. i'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a mayor.

idk anything about diabetes. it was just an example. this is from the ada
The biggest dietary risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes is simply eating too much and being overweight — your body doesn’t care if the extra food comes from cookies or beef, it is gaining weight that is the culprit.

[Kodos]

I gotta side with Norv here.


From WebMD:

Health Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is believed to have a strong genetic link, meaning that it tends to run in families. Several genes are being studied that may be related to the cause of type 2 diabetes. If you have any of the following type 2 diabetes risk factors, it’s important to ask your doctor about a diabetes test. With a proper diabetes diet and healthy lifestyle habits, along with diabetes medication, if necessary, you can manage your type 2 diabetes just like you manage other areas of your life. Be sure to continue seeking the latest information on type 2 diabetes as you become your own health advocate.

Other type 2 diabetes risk factors include the following:

High blood pressure
High blood triglyceride (fat) levels
Gestational diabetes or giving birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds
High-fat diet
High alcohol intake
Sedentary lifestyle
Obesity or being overweight
Ethnicity: Certain groups, such as African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Japanese Americans, have a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than non-Hispanic whites.
Aging: Increasing age is a significant risk factor for type 2 diabetes. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes begins to rise significantly at about age 45 years, and rises considerably after age 65 years.

[RendeR]

Thats not a cause, its a RISK FACTOR. it oes not cause the disease any more than being in the sun causes skim cancer.

Does it put you in a higher risk category? certainly, but it is not in fact the root CAUSE of teh problem.

Banning sunbathing is not going to cure skin cancer either.

[Kodos]

Banning sunbathing is not going to cure skin cancer either.

But it would most certainly lower the incidence of skin cancer.

[Kodos]

Having said that, I think this particular ban is misguided.

And for the record, I don't think tanning beds should be banned, but they should be strictly regulated.

[Noop]

I am against the government telling anyone what to do with their own life. As long as they are not directly hurting people then it is none of their fucking business.

[Bobble]

New York City's Proposed Ban On Big Soda

FINALLY! Finally someone is taking on the tough issues in this country!

"So, what are you guys in for?"
'Murder 1.'
"Hmm. And you?"
'Rape, murder, arson, and rape.'
"Oh, and you?"
'17 oz soda.'
"You bastard!"

[Young Drachma]

No worse than Utah's waterered down beer law. Nanny state statism, but...that's what you get when you reelect a guy who thinks the rules don't apply to him in regards to term limits and has more money than a small country. That said, I'm hard pressed to see where the "left" are supporting Bloomberg on this position. That's a huge stretch.

[miked]

Thats not a cause, its a RISK FACTOR. it oes not cause the disease any more than being in the sun causes skim cancer.

Does it put you in a higher risk category? certainly, but it is not in fact the root CAUSE of teh problem.

Banning sunbathing is not going to cure skin cancer either.

This is mostly true, but it is a monstrous risk factor. Most studies show that it is the most important risk factor (perhaps even more so than genetics). Not saying this law will help as there is no law that can fight stupidity, but drinking a 32oz coke every day will tremendously increase your risk of getting diabetes over somebody who drinks 32oz of water.

[Lathum]

I am against the government telling anyone what to do with their own life. As long as they are not directly hurting people then it is none of their fucking business.

I tend to agree with you, but the problem is the insurance cost over runs are absorbed by all of us. So the person who eats McDonalds 7 days a week and drinks a 2 liter of Mountain Dew daily, causing Type 2 diabetes and all the medical costs associated with it, causes the person who runs 3 miles a day and leads a healthy lifestyle to have to pay more for their insurance.

[Logan]

Doesn't affect 7-11s, so my Big Gulps of Diet Cokes are still coming!

[Lathum]

Doesn't affect 7-11s, so my Big Gulps of Diet Cokes are still coming!

my understanding is it wouldn't effect diet soda. Just sugary drinks. So you can still get cancer from artificial sweeteners, just not diabetes.

[panerd]

The best thing I heard about this story was that during the initial press conference one of the reporters asked if the administration was still planning on attending last Saturday's national doughnut day celebration at Dunkin Donuts (or one of the big names don't remember which one).

I disagree agree with you though Rainmaker on thinking it is outside of the ideology of the left. Thinking they can change everyone's attitude towards their health through legislation seems to be part of their platform, no?

[DaddyTorgo]

Sugar is a poison. A tasty poison, but a poison.

Definitely massively increases your risk of Type 2 diabetes. Doesn't CAUSE it per se, but (along with its associated results) is a huge increaser of your risk for it. That's settled science.

Stupid attempt at a law, for all the reasons noted earlier in the thread, but the idea behind the law (trying to help people cut down on their consumption of processed sugars) is a great one. Once again - not handled well though.

[DaddyTorgo]

I disagree agree with you though Rainmaker on thinking it is outside of the ideology of the left. Thinking they can change everyone's attitude towards their health through legislation seems to be part of their platform, no?
:confused:

What? Not sure where you get that from.

[panerd]

:confused:

What? Not sure where you get that from.

You must live in a bubble then? Mandating a healthy young individual buy health insurance for their own good? Along which lines was the party vote on this one?

[Logan]

my understanding is it wouldn't effect diet soda. Just sugary drinks. So you can still get cancer from artificial sweeteners, just not diabetes.

Yes, but the thought would be that the entire Big Gulp machine could get shut down if those stores were affected.

[panerd]

Stupid attempt at a law, for all the reasons noted earlier in the thread, but the idea behind the law (trying to help people cut down on their consumption of processed sugars) is a great one. Once again - not handled well though.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why do people think that a fat guy doesn't know exactly what he is doing when he buys a 44 oz Coke? How is the idea behind the law anything but a complete denial of human nature?

[Lathum]

Yes, but the thought would be that the entire Big Gulp machine could get shut down if those stores were affected.

well that's just crazy talk

[whomario]

It's the typical politician logic.

Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore it must be done.

NYers can still buy 2 16 oz sodas instead of a 32 oz soda so it's kind of a moot point. Even Bloomberg doesn't think this is actually going to stop people from drinking a lot of soda.


dunno about the US, but over here this would be a massive price difference.

16oz is about 1/2 litre, right ? (i suspected they meant to ban those giant ass bottles where you´d have enough for a dinner with 10 people)

1 litre over here might be about 1Euro, 2 bottles of 0.5 would cost about 1.60 Euros or more.

If it were those giant bottles i´d think it´s not a bad idea, but if 16oz is 1 litre then that´s not even all that big :confused:

[Logan]

dunno about the US, but over here this would be a massive price difference.

16oz is about 1/2 litre, right ? (i suspected they meant to ban those giant ass bottles where you´d have enough for a dinner with 10 people)

1 litre over here might be about 1Euro, 2 bottles of 0.5 would cost about 1.60 Euros or more.

If it were those giant bottles i´d think it´s not a bad idea, but if 16oz is 1 litre then that´s not even all that big :confused:

I've seen a lot of discussion of this being a "tax on the poor".

[Telle]

Sugar is a poison. A tasty poison, but a poison.

Definitely massively increases your risk of Type 2 diabetes. Doesn't CAUSE it per se, but (along with its associated results) is a huge increaser of your risk for it. That's settled science.

Stupid attempt at a law, for all the reasons noted earlier in the thread, but the idea behind the law (trying to help people cut down on their consumption of processed sugars) is a great one. Once again - not handled well though.

Actually, according to the American Diabetes Association, ingesting sugar most definitely DOES NOT cause diabetes. It's possible that eating sugar in unhealthy amounts could lead to obesity, and obesity is a risk factor.. but that's quite a few steps away from saying that sugar itself increases your risk.

Also there's quite a few scientists these days that are coming to the conclusion that obesity may be caused by diabetes, or both by a common cause, rather than obesity causing diabetes. It would still be considered a "risk factor" though, as it would still be true that more people who are obese have diabetes than those who are not.

Sugar is not a poison. Sugar is FOOD. Food that our brains most definitely need in order to function properly (which can definitely be attested to by anyone who's experienced low blood sugar). Anything, no matter how "healthy", can become a problem in our bodies if taken to extremes though.

[miked]

Actually, high glucose intake outside of diabetes is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke. High glucose intake greatly increases your risk for diabetes, which is also itself a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (not just heart attacks either).

But ingesting sugar does not cause diabetes, nobody is really debating that point. Ingesting large amounts of sugar clearly increases the risk of cardiovascular events and onset of diabetes. The whole diabetes vs. obesity issue is also clouded by this new "pre-diabetes" diagnosis, but both obesity and diabetes are independent risk factors.

[SteveMax58]

This is nonsense & exactly the line of thinking that most people who are philosophically against universal health care are concerned with.

Stop trying to force people to do things they are not inclined to do themselves. Encouraging is one thing...micro-banning things that are unhealthy when consumed in excess is asinine. Why not ban fried foods, scrambled eggs, etc. since they are all unhealthy when consumed to excess?

[Autumn]

dunno about the US, but over here this would be a massive price difference.

16oz is about 1/2 litre, right ? (i suspected they meant to ban those giant ass bottles where you´d have enough for a dinner with 10 people)

1 litre over here might be about 1Euro, 2 bottles of 0.5 would cost about 1.60 Euros or more.

If it were those giant bottles i´d think it´s not a bad idea, but if 16oz is 1 litre then that´s not even all that big :confused:

Well what you're missing I think is that the 32 oz drinks are just cups of soda meant to be a single serving. So compared to a 2 liter bottle, it's nothing, but it's the fact that it's an individual drink that they're worried about.

[Young Drachma]

What about the states rights/local control crowd? Isn't this just an example of where NYC can be dumb because it's their local right to do so? Or does that not apply?

[Autumn]

I tend to agree with you, but the problem is the insurance cost over runs are absorbed by all of us. So the person who eats McDonalds 7 days a week and drinks a 2 liter of Mountain Dew daily, causing Type 2 diabetes and all the medical costs associated with it, causes the person who runs 3 miles a day and leads a healthy lifestyle to have to pay more for their insurance.

To play Devil's advocate though, that's the nature of insurance. There's always going to be healthier people paying for the poor health of others. And so if one starts legislating against those with poor health to take the burden off the healthy, at what point do you stop? Because there will always be a difference between the two, or else there would be no need for insurance. So if we fix the dudes chugging soda, in 20 years will we be legislating people who are drinking flavored water instead of regular water?

[SteveMax58]

What about the states rights/local control crowd? Isn't this just an example of where NYC can be dumb because it's their local right to do so? Or does that not apply?

I think its perfectly fine, from a states/locality rights standpoint, if NYC's citizens want it (and not just the handful who are pressured by Bloomberg) but that doesn't mean its not worth pointing out the "dumbness" of it.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is nonsense & exactly the line of thinking that most people who are philosophically against universal health care are concerned with.

Stop trying to force people to do things they are not inclined to do themselves. Encouraging is one thing...micro-banning things that are unhealthy when consumed in excess is asinine. Why not ban fried foods, scrambled eggs, etc. since they are all unhealthy when consumed to excess?

Like I said - agree with the principle...disagree with the execution.

[Telle]

I think its perfectly fine, from a states/locality rights standpoint, if NYC's citizens want it (and not just the handful who are pressured by Bloomberg) but that doesn't mean its not worth pointing out the "dumbness" of it.

I believe from what I've read, this is being pushed through by mayoral decree, or something along those lines. So the citizens of NYC don't really get a say.. even by way of their city legislative representatives.

[DaddyTorgo]

What about the states rights/local control crowd? Isn't this just an example of where NYC can be dumb because it's their local right to do so? Or does that not apply?

Ding ding. What's that old refrain that we always hear from them?

Oh yeah - "If you don't like it...move!"

[spleen1015]

They ban 32oz drinks. Someone creates a 31oz drink. Tada!

[Kodos]

I say tax the crap out of soda (like we do with cigarettes) and put that money into a fund that pays related healthcare costs down the road. That way, it targets the people who are the problem.

[SteveMax58]

They ban 32oz drinks. Someone creates a 31oz drink. Tada!

I guess Bloomberg hates the environment since the container sizing of 31 oz drinks are not respectively smaller than 32 oz drinks. Think of the landfills! :lol:

[CrimsonFox]

They ban 32oz drinks. Someone creates a 31oz drink. Tada!

:thumbsup:

[molson]

I'm thinking of moving to NYC to become a big soda bottle smuggler. I'll truck in thousands of bottles a week I will.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Anybody ever bought a 3-liter soda? It's a race to drink it all before it goes flat. If you have a party of 10 people it's not so bad... but one person alone... that is not healthy.

On this issue I couldn't care less though. You could can arsenic & call it "Liquid Suicide!" People would buy and drink it. People are really, truly idiots. But then again, society pays the (health care) price with all these fat people waddling around. Seen a dating site lately?

[CrimsonFox]

This thread keeps reminding me of Mystery Men with all the villains including one called Big Tobacco sitting around a table at Geoffrey Rush's castle. (And Michael Bay was one of the Frat boys!)

[Logan]

I'm thinking of moving to NYC to become a big soda bottle smuggler. I'll truck in thousands of bottles a week I will.

You can still buy the big drinks in grocery stores, just not in 20+ oz sizes from McDonalds or restaurants.

[Subby]

Most people are too stupid to know what is good for them so you need a governing body to make sure they make the right choices.

:thumbsup:

[Young Drachma]

But then again, society pays the (health care) price with all these fat people waddling around. Seen a dating site lately?

lol

[JediKooter]

I don't know about you, but, I'd be surprised that your 'average' 32oz soda from McBurger Donalds, actually has 32oz of soda in it. Unless you always get it with no ice, it's probably in the 20something ounce range.

[Noop]

I slightly concerned at how many of you don't have a problem with this. As I have stated earlier I am against the government telling people what to do with their own life. If someone wants to be fat and unhealthy while not directly hurting anyone else, what is the big deal?

If we're going to be banning soda what is next? Masturbation? Gas Guzzling Cars? Why not ban smoking since that causes more harm then someone drinking a soda? Better yet how about we banning people from having more kids then they can afford?

I am not sure where it ends when we start allowing the government to do shit like this. There are far more important things that the government, especially the local government in New York, should be worried about like finding a way to create jobs for its citizens.

Sorry for the rant.

[stevew]

Not everything is a slippery slope.

[Subby]

I slightly concerned at how many of you don't have a problem with this. As I have stated earlier I am against the government telling people what to do with their own life. If someone wants to be fat and unhealthy while not directly hurting anyone else, what is the big deal?

If we're going to be banning soda what is next? Masturbation? Gas Guzzling Cars? Why not ban smoking since that causes more harm then someone drinking a soda? Better yet how about we banning people from having more kids then they can afford?

I am not sure where it ends when we start allowing the government to do shit like this. There are far more important things that the government, especially the local government in New York, should be worried about like finding a way to create jobs for its citizens.

Sorry for the rant.
Fat people are destroying this country.

[Young Drachma]

If we're going to be banning soda what is next? Gas Guzzling Cars?



Uh yes. That's already happening in spades.

Also, government can't "create" jobs without massively rigging the playing field. You don't get to be a statist when it comes to job creation, but hands off when it comes to personal decisions that people don't like. It's a silly rule that probably won't even get enacted in NYC, but...I don't think it's the place of people who don't live in NYC to decide anymore than it's the right of people who live outside of Kansas or North Carolina to weigh in on local policy decisions there. It doesn't stop folks, but the fuckery is no less fucked up in any case.

I hardly think that some kind of mandated portion control is really the straw breaking the camel's back of representative democracy. It's just a dumb rule proposed by an oligarch who happens to be mayor of the largest city in the country. But...it's not emblematic of anything that's not already happening.

[Logan]

Why not ban smoking since that causes more harm then someone drinking a soda?

You can still smoke, you just can't smoke in a bar/restaurant or in public parks. You can still drink as much soda as you want, and can even buy a 2 liter bottle from Duane Reade, you just can't buy a 20 oz cup of it from McDonalds.

[molson]

I slightly concerned at how many of you don't have a problem with this. As I have stated earlier I am against the government telling people what to do with their own life. If someone wants to be fat and unhealthy while not directly hurting anyone else, what is the big deal?

If we're going to be banning soda what is next? Masturbation? Gas Guzzling Cars? Why not ban smoking since that causes more harm then someone drinking a soda? Better yet how about we banning people from having more kids then they can afford?

I am not sure where it ends when we start allowing the government to do shit like this. There are far more important things that the government, especially the local government in New York, should be worried about like finding a way to create jobs for its citizens.

Sorry for the rant.

I agree with you in theory, and in this case, but what about the fact that the health of people in our society impacts everyone through insurance costs and care availability.? And what if we go to the next level, let's say New York or even NYC decides to provide universal health care that everyone's paying for. If I'm a voter or a legislator or a mayor at that local level, I can see trying to either force people to be more healthy, or maybe excluding people from the pool if they they live in such a way where they're a drain on the system. Now, banning certain sizes of soda in certain situations may not be an effective way to do that, but just talking the future, I can see more of these types of laws coming.

[Lathum]

I slightly concerned at how many of you don't have a problem with this. As I have stated earlier I am against the government telling people what to do with their own life. If someone wants to be fat and unhealthy while not directly hurting anyone else, what is the big deal?

If we're going to be banning soda what is next? Masturbation? Gas Guzzling Cars? Why not ban smoking since that causes more harm then someone drinking a soda? Better yet how about we banning people from having more kids then they can afford?

I am not sure where it ends when we start allowing the government to do shit like this. There are far more important things that the government, especially the local government in New York, should be worried about like finding a way to create jobs for its citizens.

Sorry for the rant.

I don't think it is a case of people not having a "problem" with it. It is just so silly it's not really worth getting all up in arms over.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it's dumb. but again, i don't see the mayor rubbing his chin thinking about how he can piss off fatties and freedom lovers. i imagine someone came to him with data that said,

'if we cut citywide soda consumption by 50% the we can cut citywide obesity rates by 17%'
'great, how do we cut soda consumption?'

yada yada

[cuervo72]

If I'm a voter or a legislator or a mayor at that local level, I can see trying to either force people to be more healthy

I vote for universal daily morning calisthenics!

[Passacaglia]

I'm thinking of moving to NYC to become a big soda bottle smuggler. I'll truck in thousands of bottles a week I will.

Call it pop, and all those east-coasters will never figure it out.

[Logan]

I don't remember if we had a thread on this, but there was definitely a similar reaction when NYC became the first city to ban the use of trans fats by restaurants.

[Young Drachma]

I don't remember if we had a thread on this, but there was definitely a similar reaction when NYC became the first city to ban the use of trans fats by restaurants.

People just love to hate NYC, because in the same way that red states are a lightning rod for lefties who want to talk about what's wrong with this country, New York City is that for freedom loving 'murricans who want to point to what's wrong with it.

[gstelmack]

Call it pop, and all those east-coasters will never figure it out.

Sorry, born in Massachusetts, and that's what we called it as well.

[Subby]

In all seriousness they should make it 8 ounce soda max and put the machine out back so if you get up to go for refills you get murdered by a svelte crack addict.

GAME OVER FATTIES.

[RainMaker]

I disagree agree with you though Rainmaker on thinking it is outside of the ideology of the left. Thinking they can change everyone's attitude towards their health through legislation seems to be part of their platform, no?

When it comes to abortion and Right to Die, their mantra seems to be "you should have control of your own body". This seems to be the opposite ideology.

I don't remember if we had a thread on this, but there was definitely a similar reaction when NYC became the first city to ban the use of trans fats by restaurants.

I think you can sort of make a case for that as consumers don't really know how things are being made. But with soda, you know what you're getting. Not saying I approve of the trans fat ban, but I guess you can put it under the food preparation safety guise while this feels more like a ban for consumers.

[panerd]

I don't remember if we had a thread on this, but there was definitely a similar reaction when NYC became the first city to ban the use of trans fats by restaurants.

I am just more impressed at the overall health of the city and reduction in the number of fat people with all these new laws. The people are so skinny and healthy there...

Man I am thinking about having a 50 oz soda. Oh boy I need the government to take care of me. I need these laws! Who else will protect myself from this behavior! Be responsible for myself?

[molson]

Sorry, born in Massachusetts, and that's what we called it as well.

Huh? Were you born on cape cod or something?

[Passacaglia]

I wonder if McDonald's makes out like a bandit in this, by selling a smaller pop at the same price. On the other hand, if they have to make new cups, that could cause some extra expense.

[SteveMax58]

When it comes to abortion and Right to Die, their mantra seems to be "you should have control of your own body". This seems to be the opposite ideology.


Thats it. Its your body unless I have to help pay for something I forced you to participate in. Not that the right doesnt have plenty of contradictions as well but we hear about those all the time (because honestly, they are so blatantly stupid that they are funny).

Forced participation for things that take Mr. Fantastic levels of stretching to call "collective protection" is not what freedom means. History is full of examples of why this isn't sustainable. But the moment you bring up freedom you're quickly reminded that "hey some rednecks are stupid & use that word too!"...so therefore that makes it a stupid argument.

[gstelmack]

Huh? Were you born on cape cod or something?

Nah, Pepperell with family in Groton and Attleboro as well. Did vacation on Cape Cod some though.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't remember if we had a thread on this, but there was definitely a similar reaction when NYC became the first city to ban the use of trans fats by restaurants.

That hasn't seemed to have hurt the resaurant industry at all...

[jbergey22]

I dont see what this will accomplish. Fat unhealthy people will be fat unhealthy people until they decide to make a life change. If they arent guzzling pop they will be eating quarterpounders from McDonalds. Unless they are going to eliminate all shitty food it doesnt make much since to just pick out 1 shitty food/drink to pick on.

Id be perfectly fine if they made McDonalds re-do their entire menu and that would improve health in a city much more than cutting down a few ounces of pop at a certain sitting.

[JediKooter]

I'm all for insurance companies charging a higher rate if they can prove that Coke, Sprite, Pepsi, McDonalds, Olive Garden, etc...is the cause of their health problems. Until then, if people continue consuming more calories than they burn off (regardless of what they eat and drink), they are going to get fat.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm all for insurance companies charging a higher rate if they can prove that Coke, Sprite, Pepsi, McDonalds, Olive Garden, etc...is the cause of their health problems. Until then, if people continue consuming more calories than they burn off (regardless of what they eat and drink), they are going to get fat.

JeeberD - making America more obese one Olive Garden at a time...

[lcjjdnh]

I slightly concerned at how many of you don't have a problem with this. As I have stated earlier I am against the government telling people what to do with their own life. If someone wants to be fat and unhealthy while not directly hurting anyone else, what is the big deal?

If we're going to be banning soda what is next? Masturbation? Gas Guzzling Cars? Why not ban smoking since that causes more harm then someone drinking a soda? Better yet how about we banning people from having more kids then they can afford?

I am not sure where it ends when we start allowing the government to do shit like this. There are far more important things that the government, especially the local government in New York, should be worried about like finding a way to create jobs for its citizens.

Sorry for the rant.

Externalities. Many of those behaviors do effect other people. People that drive gas guzzlers pollute their air for the rest of us. People that smoke damage our lungs. People that drink soda raise our health-care costs. I support taxes, rather than outright bans--so that people have to internalize these externalities--but I don't have a theoretical problem with discouraging people from doing them.

[jbergey22]

Externalities. Many of those behaviors do effect other people. People that drive gas guzzlers pollute their air for the rest of us. People that smoke damage our lungs. People that drink soda raise our health-care costs. I support taxes, rather than outright bans--so that people have to internalize these externalities--but I don't have a theoretical problem with discouraging people from doing them.

If they were only consistent with what they are doing. They clearly know that bigger problem exist other than soda but why arent they doing anything about that? McDonalds makes food that is so disgustingly bad for people it wont even naturally rot away like real food yet they want to pick on pop for some reason. Great that they want to do something just handle the bigger problems first.

[stevew]

I doubt they could get traction in banning fast food, but incrementally this step makes a lot of sense. Also only one it two people that are posting in this thread actually live in NYC, so there really is no need for the collective panty bunching.

Also, I'll be major douche hippocrate guy now that I don't smoke, but smoking bans are fucking awesome.

[chadritt]

McDonalds makes food that is so disgustingly bad for people it wont even naturally rot away like real food yet they want to pick on pop for some reason.

The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That Just Won't Rot (Testing Results!) | A Hamburger Today (http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/11/the-burger-lab-revisiting-the-myth-of-the-12-year-old-burger-testing-results.html)

[JediKooter]

The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That Just Won't Rot (Testing Results!) | A Hamburger Today (http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/11/the-burger-lab-revisiting-the-myth-of-the-12-year-old-burger-testing-results.html)

Very interesting.

[jbergey22]

The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That Just Won't Rot (Testing Results!) | A Hamburger Today (http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/11/the-burger-lab-revisiting-the-myth-of-the-12-year-old-burger-testing-results.html)

Very interesting.

Indeed interesting. It still did seem the non McDonalds meat had a more natural process but still not what I expected.

[JediKooter]

Indeed interesting. It still did seem the non McDonalds meat had a more natural process but still not what I expected.

Definitely not what I expected, but, I do like the explanation. Not sure if it is accurate, but, sounds reasonable.

[RendeR]

My question then becomes, "what is being done to preserve the burger that chick is waving around her classroom and lying to her students about?"

[JediKooter]

My question then becomes, "what is being done to preserve the burger that chick is waving around her classroom and lying to her students about?"

I have no idea, but, it's possible that:

1. She's lying and did something to the burger
2. She doesn't know why the burger hasn't rotted/decomposed and is assuming that there is something 'bad' in the meat or some kind of preservatives
3. The other blog post is lying

There's probably some other possibilities, but, those are the ones that stick out to me as the most plausible.

[chadritt]

The only teacher ive seen talk about this, which was a LONG time ago hence me remembering shed been debunked already, flat out said she didnt understand the science behind what was and wasnt happening. This makes me think she is making assumptions based on a total lack of knowledge

[Marc Vaughan]

Thats not a cause, its a RISK FACTOR. it oes not cause the disease any more than being in the sun causes skim cancer.
Does it put you in a higher risk category? certainly, but it is not in fact the root CAUSE of teh problem.
Banning sunbathing is not going to cure skin cancer either.

So you think smoking shouldn't be banned or restricted at all? .... it increases your risk of various diseases but its not the only way to catch them after all ...

[Danny]

Pretty soon we will be asking the government if it is alright to take a crap.

[Danny]

So you think smoking shouldn't be banned or restricted at all? .... it increases your risk of various diseases but its not the only way to catch them after all ...

It shouldn't be banned, it should just be taxed to hell. If someone wants to kill themselves, fine and lets use that money to improve kid's education and our law enforcement.

[RainMaker]

A 20oz cup has just hit the South Tower.

[Danny]

i assume it's macro stuff. seat belt laws in a world with motorcycles doesn't make sense either. but statistically seat belt laws reduce annual auto fatalities by x%

same here with diabetes/obesity/whatever

I think we can all agree to make an exception for Hoops...

[Rizon]

I thought that non-rotting burger thing has been pegged as a hoax/fraud already.

[EagleFan]

I see this in the diabetes risks, should we fear the next steps...

Ethnicity: Certain groups, such as African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Japanese Americans, have a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than non-Hispanic whites.

Aging: Increasing age is a significant risk factor for type 2 diabetes. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes begins to rise significantly at about age 45 years, and rises considerably after age 65 years.

[EagleFan]

The problem is that there are too many people that feel the government needs to run their lives for them.

Seatbelt laws...
Trans-fat bans...
Soda bans...

Our founding fathers must be turning over in their graves.

[JediKooter]

Don't forget the no talking or texting on your cell phones in the car ban.

[Danny]

Don't forget the no talking or texting on your cell phones in the car ban.

That is completely different. In that case, you are putting others in danger.

[Suicane75]

Fat people are destroying this country.

I'm gonna sit on you.

[JediKooter]

That is completely different. In that case, you are putting others in danger.

Actually, I was just following EagleFan's theme of modern inventions that our founding fathers could have never imagined to have existed over 200 years after the birth of this fine nation. ;)

[lighthousekeeper]

If someone wants to be fat and unhealthy while not directly hurting anyone else, what is the big deal?

If we weren't forced to collectively share health care costs, I would totally agree with you. But as it stands now, I'm forced to either pay for your fat Uncle Joe's diabetes, or forego health insurance altogether (which, because of shared health care, is overpriced and therefore not a viable option).

Now if the gov't banned health insurance altogether, then soda bans should also be removed.

[Suicane75]

The thing is, everything we do affects each other intrinsically. If I'm of a certain ethnicity and I move into your neighborhood, that affects you too right? Would you not want me there because of how I affect your property values? And that's just an example that popped into my head, I'm not calling you out or making a personal attack or anything.

I'm just saying that we all have to pay in to freedom in some way or another.

[flounder]

What amazes me about these debates is that everyone always assumes that their side is going to be the only one using these powers.

For example, our health care system spends billions of dollars dealing with the effects of HIV infection. One of the greatest risk factors for HIV infection is male homosexual sex. Clearly, we have no choice but to ban male homosexual sex. Nothing against you gay people. It's just the health care costs. Honest.

[SteveMax58]

I'm gonna sit on you.

SEE...TOLD YOU!

[SteveMax58]

What amazes me about these debates is that everyone always assumes that their side is going to be the only one using these powers.

I find taking the "live & let live as long as long as you aren't stopping me from living" generally solves most philosophical issues.

Or in other words...I should not try to dictate how you must live your life so long as you are kind enough to do the same. When you cross the bounds directly (i.e. you try to kill me, rob me, or generally screw me over) then thats when we need laws since those things are fundamental to everybody.

"Cheaper" healthcare does not give me the right to dictate how you live. However; if there were no mandate for it, I could choose not to participate.

Quite simple really. And far less presumptuous.

[Young Drachma]

The problem is that there are too many people that feel the government needs to run their lives for them.

Seatbelt laws...
Trans-fat bans...
Soda bans...

Our founding fathers must be turning over in their graves.

Yeah, I'm sure those would be the things freaking them out if they came back. Hah.

"Wait you let everyone vote?"
"Even women?"
"Wait, what did you say the President's name was?"

*keels over and re-dies.*

[stevew]

They should do some sort of founding fathers watch MTV Cribs skit.

[molson]

What amazes me about these debates is that everyone always assumes that their side is going to be the only one using these powers.

For example, our health care system spends billions of dollars dealing with the effects of HIV infection. One of the greatest risk factors for HIV infection is male homosexual sex. Clearly, we have no choice but to ban male homosexual sex. Nothing against you gay people. It's just the health care costs. Honest.

Society and the law feel more strongly about some activities than others though, it's just a matter of where it falls on the scale. We could probably benefit society by strictly regulating who can reproduce and how many kids they can have, but we wouldn't accept that. On the other hand, most people find seatbelt laws to be a pretty limited intrusion for the benefits it provides society as a whole. Male homosexual sex is moving further up the scale of culturally protected activities all the time. I'm not sure exactly where soda falls, but it's definitely higher up than seatbells and lower than homosexual sex. Almost everything impacts society in some way, and direct v. indirect impact isn't a foolproof way of evaluating government interference either. There's all kinds of say, finance regulations, or environmental regulations that don't really impact you directly, you'll just deal with the indirect impacts of the regulation or lack of regulation.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i try not to look at it politically and imagine i was playing sim city

health advisor: 'mayor, your sims are too fat!'

( ) mandatory cpr training for all sims
( ) increase youth sports funding
(x) ban large soft drinks

[flounder]

I'm not sure exactly where soda falls, but it's definitely higher up than seatbells and lower than homosexual sex.

Are you sure about that? I'll bet there are many areas where a proposition to ban homosexual sex would receive a lot more votes than a proposition to ban soda. There are probably at least a few areas where bans on things like mixed-race marriage and integrated schools would poll higher than a ban on soda.

[Logan]

In that hypothetical world I think those bans would be much easier to enforce versus something done in private.

[molson]

Are you sure about that? I'll bet there are many areas where a proposition to ban homosexual sex would receive a lot more votes than a proposition to ban soda. There are probably at least a few areas where bans on things like mixed-race marriage and integrated schools would poll higher than a ban on soda.

True, I guess here's cultural feelings AND legal protections. No state or city can legally ban homosexual sex, though they can ban or heavily regulate soda.

[spleen1015]

They'll be able to ban homosexual sex if it is proven to cause diabetes.

[Logan]

Unlikely...gay guys are usually in pretty good shape.

[panerd]

Health panel talks about wider food ban - New York News | New York Breaking News | NYC Headlines (http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban#ixzz1xhbcxJWy)


MYFOXNY.COM - The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.

The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

[flounder]

This might be what finally puts an end to this. When they were just going to keep the poors from drinking soda it was fine, but banning Frappuccinos? This aggression will not stand, man!

[Coffee Warlord]

Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat...

Are you shitting me?

John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.

What the hell is that?

John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.

...Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence.

[JediKooter]

They can have my buttered popcorn when they pry it out of my cold dead hands...

[flounder]

...Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence.

Anything that is not forbidden will be mandatory.

[Noop]

I knew this would happen. You got to fight them for the first minor offense it is usually a pretext for them to go after something else.

[Drake]

Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat...

Are you shitting me?

John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.

What the hell is that?

John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.

...Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence.

Fantastic movie reference that my kids would not have gotten. Good work.

[JediKooter]

You mean they don't know the 3 Sea Shells?

[Drake]

Two things:

1. Wesley Snipes
2. Sylvester Stallone

There's no plausible scenario I can come up with that would convince kids between the ages of 14 and 21 that I wasn't full of shit when I said, "No, it's awesome! It's a riff on Aldous Huxley! Only with guns! And Denis Leary!"

They'd go live with their mother, and I wouldn't blame them.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

more good news (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/new-york-to-repeat-chicago-s-parking-meter-catastrophe-20120613)

Well, Chicago isn’t alone anymore. Hizzoner Michael Bloomberg in New York has decided to do his own version of the Chicago infrastructure bake sale; the city announced that it is putting up nearly 90,000 parking meters for lease. They’re expecting to get over $11 billion in upfront money from the deal, which is great news if you’re Mike Bloomberg, who gets to use that money to patch current budget holes instead of making tough cuts or raising taxes. The news is less awesome for the next half-dozen New York City mayors, or for the citizens of New York, who now will get to spend most of the 21st century grappling with its increasingly monstrous deficits with a major tributary from the city’s revenue stream shut off.

A New York parking meter deal, like the Chicago deal, would be a perfect example of the deeply cynical short-term thinking of many American politicians these days. These deals involve a sitting executive selling off a valuable piece of city property at a steep discount to private financial interests (often, to friends or campaign contributors), in order to solve a current cash flow problem that, surprise, surprise, will still be there the year after you finish spending the proceeds of your sale.

[DaddyTorgo]

more good news (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/new-york-to-repeat-chicago-s-parking-meter-catastrophe-20120613)

These shady fucking deals shouldn't be allowed. Should never have been allowed in the first place, and I wonder if there's some way they could be legally overturned?

[JediKooter]

Chicago! No wonder Al Capone loved that place.

[Fidatelo]

I've noticed my city doing stuff like this under the current mayor. My favorite was the downtown parkade they sold because it needed a few million in repairs and "we are not in the business of running parking lots". So what if the thing just rakes in cash with (repairs not withstanding) very little overhead? So they sold it off for some quick cash and one less immediate expense. Idiots.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

strange days. i fully expect our children to murder us.

[SteveMax58]

You all need to be kept alive for as many seconds as possible so that we can keep feeding the matrix. Not to mention...sugars cause power spikes on the matrix.

[molson]

strange days. i fully expect our children to murder us.

All we have to do is come up with some catchy nickname for our generation that ignores all the damage we caused. Then everyone will honor us and Tom Brokaw will sell lots of books.

[Kodos]

The Samaritans!

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

the sweatpants generation. no belt tightening required.

[JediKooter]

Who are the dumb ones though? The voters or the politicians?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i'd call it a feedback loop of corruption and retardation

[Rizon]

Who are the dumb ones though? The voters or the politicians?

Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

[JediKooter]

Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

The politicians are easily scared, but, they'll be back...and in greater numbers.

[SportsDino]

I agree with you in theory, and in this case, but what about the fact that the health of people in our society impacts everyone through insurance costs and care availability.? And what if we go to the next level, let's say New York or even NYC decides to provide universal health care that everyone's paying for. If I'm a voter or a legislator or a mayor at that local level, I can see trying to either force people to be more healthy, or maybe excluding people from the pool if they they live in such a way where they're a drain on the system. Now, banning certain sizes of soda in certain situations may not be an effective way to do that, but just talking the future, I can see more of these types of laws coming.

The moment we start charging big polluters for the costs they impose on others (wiki externality), or go after those who wantonly waste a public resource, well that is about when I think we should start thinking about those insidious soda drinkers.

Not to mention I think the 'whole insurance means the government has the right to run roughshod over your civil liberties' argument is weak. This is very indirect to be described as a some sacred public resource, especially when you have to make voluntary contributions of serious money to make use of it in most cases (the only thing arguably public is emergency room, and I'd be cool with attaching a debt system to the use of the emergency room where your life is filled with bills if you abuse it too much).

Get your noses out of everyone's elses business and focus on how to build your own and maybe we will get more jobs in this shit hole and people will stop wasting dollars as they argue over splitting pennies.

[flounder]

I thought this article (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/24/12386054-marchers-fill-streets-as-cities-across-us-celebrate-gay-pride?lite) about the NYC gay pride parade was amusing.

Among those participating were Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who was accompanied by her wife. Quinn and her longtime partner were married last month.

Bloomberg had a message to the rest of America: "The government should get out of your personal life."

"New York is a place where you can do whatever you want to do," he said, before stepping off onto the parade route.

[JediKooter]

Pot calling kettle...pot calling kettle...come in kettle...

[Marc Vaughan]

i try not to look at it politically and imagine i was playing sim city

health advisor: 'mayor, your sims are too fat!'

( ) mandatory cpr training for all sims
( ) increase youth sports funding
(x) ban large soft drinks

What I don't understand is 'why ban them'? ....

In the current economic climate banning costs money in enforcement etc. .... as such why not instead just put a tax on fattening products as a percentage of their overall cost.

This would dissuade people from consuming such large quantities of them and at the same time (at least) be revenue neutral, possibly revenue positive if punitive enough.

[sterlingice]

There is so much win in this thread and I'm only talking about the Demolition Man quotes on this page. But this is definitely my favorite as it had me trying to hide my laughter at work:

i try not to look at it politically and imagine i was playing sim city

health advisor: 'mayor, your sims are too fat!'

( ) mandatory cpr training for all sims
( ) increase youth sports funding
(x) ban large soft drinks

Also, don't get me started on the quickly increasing pace of privatizing important future revenue streams for quick bucks now.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

What I don't understand is 'why ban them'? ....

In the current economic climate banning costs money in enforcement etc. .... as such why not instead just put a tax on fattening products as a percentage of their overall cost.

This would dissuade people from consuming such large quantities of them and at the same time (at least) be revenue neutral, possibly revenue positive if punitive enough.

A tax on sugar required approval from the NY State government. They refused to do so. So this is a creative way around that.

[RendeR]

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.

This guy has no credibility what so ever.

I am a diabetic, my DOCTOR specifically told me to eat and I quote "All the popcorn you want as often as you want. its basically empty micro calorie snack food. put as much butter or seasoning you want on it. You won't get enough butter to hurt anything from even a large at the movie theater. if you want to avoid the butter put Parmesan cheese over it. All you like."

Direct orders from a physician to a diabetic patient.

These board members are clueless about the real issues facing people when it comes to weight and consumption.

If you're going to limit/ban sugary drinks you can't just hit soft drinks and milkshakes. you must also take in the quart sized lattes and other coffee offerings.

The whole thing in NYC is utterly ridiculous posturing and ignorance run amok among the mayoral lap lickers.

it will not help change anything with the possible exception of getting rid of the mayor come election time.

[JediKooter]

This guy has no credibility what so ever.

I am a diabetic, my DOCTOR specifically told me to eat and I quote "All the popcorn you want as often as you want. its basically empty micro calorie snack food. put as much butter or seasoning you want on it. You won't get enough butter to hurt anything from even a large at the movie theater. if you want to avoid the butter put Parmesan cheese over it. All you like."

Direct orders from a physician to a diabetic patient.

These board members are clueless about the real issues facing people when it comes to weight and consumption.

If you're going to limit/ban sugary drinks you can't just hit soft drinks and milkshakes. you must also take in the quart sized lattes and other coffee offerings.

The whole thing in NYC is utterly ridiculous posturing and ignorance run amok among the mayoral lap lickers.

it will not help change anything with the possible exception of getting rid of the mayor come election time.

Sounds like the dude is just parroting crap he's heard from people that think if you eat anything that is not 'natural', will kill you.

[Abe Sargent]

This guy has no credibility what so ever.

I am a diabetic, my DOCTOR specifically told me to eat and I quote "All the popcorn you want as often as you want. its basically empty micro calorie snack food. put as much butter or seasoning you want on it. You won't get enough butter to hurt anything from even a large at the movie theater. if you want to avoid the butter put Parmesan cheese over it. All you like."

Direct orders from a physician to a diabetic patient.

These board members are clueless about the real issues facing people when it comes to weight and consumption.

If you're going to limit/ban sugary drinks you can't just hit soft drinks and milkshakes. you must also take in the quart sized lattes and other coffee offerings.

The whole thing in NYC is utterly ridiculous posturing and ignorance run amok among the mayoral lap lickers.

it will not help change anything with the possible exception of getting rid of the mayor come election time.

Maybe it'll be like medical marijuana, you can get a card and get all of the popcorn you want

[RendeR]

Lulz, thanks abe, I needed that ;)


Jedi: I think you may well be correct on that.

[Autumn]

I have to question not being able to get much butter on popcorn. I've watched people melt down a half a stick, a whole stick of butter to put on a batch or two of popcorn. I don't think doctors, or anyone, should underestimate how far we will go to make our food taste "good".

[Aylmar]

I have to question not being able to get much butter on popcorn. I've watched people melt down a half a stick, a whole stick of butter to put on a batch or two of popcorn. I don't think doctors, or anyone, should underestimate how far we will go to make our food taste "good".

Even if you melt down two sticks, only so much of it can cling to the popcorn when you're pouring it over. Now, if you drink the excess run-off (if it doesn't soak through the bag and onto your lap during the movie), that's another problem entirely. If you're going to do that, though, I recommend salting the hell out of it so the flavor in the butter really stands out...

[Autumn]

I'm talking about home popcorn, not movie popcorn. I've never seen any significant amount of excess butter at the bottom of the bowl afterward, so I don't think you're getting much runoff.

[MacroGuru]

This was officially passed the the NYC BOH today and if it succeeds will more than likely be adopted by the state and at that point of time...I might seriously consider where I live.

[JediKooter]

I heard it's going on the ballot in NYC for people to vote on. Maybe I read wrong though.

[Marc Vaughan]

Fantastic movie reference that my kids would not have gotten. Good work.

Makes note to force errr persuade his sons to watch Demolition Man this weekend ....

(we're finishing watching the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy tonight :D)

[sterlingice]

strange days. i fully expect our children to murder us.

I missed this quote the first time around in this thread

Now it gets a :D

SI

[Ksyrup]

Not Bill Walton‏<s>@</s>NotBillWalton
NY has banned over sized highly caffeinated concoctions full of food coloring and gas. So why is <s>@</s>realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) still walking around?

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - Judge strikes down NYC sugary-drinks size rule (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20130311/DA4V3EQ03.html)

[bhlloy]

So big companies like 7-Eleven would be immune from the ban? I'm shocked I tell you.

Good for the judge. Even if I didn't disagree with the law vehemently, not allowing mom and pop corner store to sell something that the multi-national corporation next door can sell is blatantly ridiculous and discriminatory

[Logan]

So big companies like 7-Eleven would be immune from the ban? I'm shocked I tell you.

Good for the judge. Even if I didn't disagree with the law vehemently, not allowing mom and pop corner store to sell something that the multi-national corporation next door can sell is blatantly ridiculous and discriminatory

The mom and pop shop would only not be able to sell it if it were a restaurant. A mom and pop convenience store, or bodega which is so popular in NYC, would still be able to.

[Buccaneer]

Good for the judge and a victory for personal liberties. Now do yourself a favor and stop drinking that crap, as I have.

[Jas_lov]

Great ruling. Bloomberg clearly overstepped his bounds and judiciary stopped him. People have the right to choose their drink size themselves.

[RainMaker]

This was the dumbest law ever and I just want this whole story to go away.

[molson]

It'll be interesting to see if they try to re-write it and get it through the actual legislative branch of if they'll give up on the whole thing now.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'm a fan of Mike Bloomberg, but this was just dumb. I don't see it as being aimed at adults though, as adults can reason that if they really want to drink 1000 calories worth of soda you can just buy a few bottles. I think it was aimed at stopping kids from just buying the biggest thing they see and drinking it.

I think a better model would be to have the caloric content in big, bold letters on EVERYTHING. Not just per serving either... but how much it would be to drink/eat the entire thing.