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

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

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?

What? Not sure where you get that from.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Logan]

Originally Posted by whomario

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

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

[Telle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by whomario

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

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Telle]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

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]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

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!

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

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

[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]

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.

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.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

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]

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.

Fat people are destroying this country.