New York City's Proposed Ban On Big Soda

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Noop

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]

Originally Posted by Noop

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

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]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by chadritt

The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That Just Won't Rot (Testing Results!) | A Hamburger Today

Very interesting.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by chadritt

The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That Just Won't Rot (Testing Results!) | A Hamburger Today

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Very interesting.

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

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]

Originally Posted by 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?"

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

Fat people are destroying this country.

I'm gonna sit on you.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Danny

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]

Originally Posted by Noop

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]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I'm gonna sit on you.

SEE...TOLD YOU!

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.