City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks

tsh0ck

This guy's gonna be upset:

nope. he's safe. the law can't hit the 7-11s and the like, because they are regulated like grocery stores. this would generally hit movie theaters and food joints.

LillysGranny

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

I want to agree with you--the last place I need extra government intervention is in my refrigerator or the drive through line BUT who pays the health care costs for all of the people over-consuming fast food garbage? Who takes care of their children because they are too sick to do it themselves? I say, if someone is hellbent on killing themselves they should be issued a gun and allowed to get it over with quickly and cheaply. No long, drawn out tax-payer funded dying.

TJamesChristensen

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

This.

This quote sums up my feelings on that train of thought nicely.

"So I’m not a health freak, and no, I don’t want to pass laws mandating the eating of broccoli. But I do want us to understand how wrong and simple-minded our definition of freedom is today. Any time the government appears to be suggesting some program aimed at getting people to do something that is obviously good for themselves—buying health insurance, not eating a bucket of popcorn big enough that two cats could screw in it—a certain number of idiots jump up and cry “Ha! Nanny state! Taking away my freedom!”"

I could say more, but none of it would be particularly polite. However, I will say I enjoy having a government that actually cares about it's citizens. Government has a place in maintaining the well-being and general welfare of all of it's citizens at all times, and if that means some restrictions and/or requirements on behavior then so be it. After all, we already live in that world and I do not see much of a difference over I can't own an artillery piece over I can't buy a 2,000 calorie beverage. No typical person has the need for either one and both can too easily cause damage to society as a whole. In short, the rights of one person do not trump the good of us all.

Its not that people don't want our government to care about us, they don't want them making all of our decisions.

For example:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291113/department-home-lunch-security-mark-steyn

A state employee removed a girls sack lunch because it was determined to be against their recommended guidelines. Even good ideas have a way of getting out of hand really quickly.

manda1002

Not that I agree with it, but why are they starting with the size of the drink? When is the last time any of us went somewhere that DIDN'T offer free refills on soda? I used to work at McDonalds years ago, and we'd have customers that would order small or medium drinks, but then sit there refilling them over and over and over again. It doesn't matter what SIZE you get, it's how many refills you can get.

ironanimal

what happened to personal responsibility?

The government stopped trusting people to make the decisions themselves. And with the projected obesity statistics over there in the states, you can see why.

It may not be right, but it may well be necessary.

jefflturn

Next they will limit the amount of children you can have or the gender of the children. Oh I know lets limit the amount of clothes and shoes you can have. This nanny state crap will be the end of our free society. No more personal responsibility. what a load of crap!



DOWN WITH THE NANNY STATE!

dmpizza

Bloomberg is out of control. This is why there used to be term limits.
He won't let restaurants donate food to city homeless shelters because "they can't vouch for the nutritional value". Its the best food in the world and this tool is completely out of reality.

TourThePast

OMG its called self restraint and responsibility.

How's that working for you, as a nation?

cindyhoney2

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

I agree 100%, if you want to drink raw milk, so be it, raw cookie dough, here ya go, a 32 oz pepsi, more for you, I'll pass thank you.

Wildheart_Baby

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

With the strain it puts on health services, it seems the government needs to step in and do something to help with the obesity crisis.

Package02

I quit drinking soft drinks, so it makes no difference to me. *shrug*

First they came for the soft drinks, but I didn't drink those, so I did nothing.....

This has got to be my favorite quote from this thread thus far :laugh:

SBecken87

I think all sodas should be banned period...there is not nutrional value what-so-ever. Plus sugar is addicting, so you take bread...pasta...desserts---things high in carbs and then drink high in sugar and you're overloading your body with sugar. But your gonna keep eating more because it tricks your brain into thinking your still hungry. I've fought with this a lot, not the drinks but with carbs and I'm on day 3 of cutting carbs dramatically and already feel the change in my energy levels and I just overall feel healthier. I know its only been 3 days but I've done this before and dropped 5 pant sizes...but as soon as I start eating carbs again the weight comes right back and fast...so now I'm determined to STAY AWAY!! Once the second day goes by without them, my body no longer craves it and I'm not hungry during the day...where before when I was eating bread I was hungry ALL DAY!

Krissy366

I'm against banning things, but 100% in favor of requiring nutritional information on every food product in both stores and restaurants. People should be able to make their own choices, but I strongly believe they should be informed choices.

cameralinds

If they regulate sugary drinks, what would they decide they want to "regulate" next?

I feel like this is like sticking your toes in a cold pool and getting shoved in the deep end without expecting it.

Regulating things as simple as sugary drinks can lead to dangerous waters. Not cool.

TourThePast

Regulating things as simple as sugary drinks can lead to dangerous waters.

Water is not dangerous.

Unless you drink it straight from a river.

Or unless you fall in and can't swim.

marydb0000

what happened to personal responsibility?

The government thinks we're too stupid......Stay out of my bedroom - and stay out of my fridge!!

Package02

I'm against banning things, but 100% in favor of requiring nutritional information on every food product in both stores and restaurants. People should be able to make their own choices, but I strongly believe they should be informed choices.

Agree with this 100% I know Cali has a law that is similar to this although it only requires chain restaurants to post their information. I think if you're going to make a law to try and fight obesity then the biggest thing you can do is simply require restaurants to post their caloric information.

zaithyr

Yes, it's unhealthy, but I think it's dumb to put a ban on a food product. And banning a larger size of soda or whatever will NOT stop people from drinking it. All they have to do is go somewhere with free refills or they will buy more of the smaller size. It can cause you to be overweight if you drink it all the time but then again anything in excess can be bad for you. More awareness would be a better road rather than try to restrict soda sales. What are they going to do next? Ban the making of cakes?

tamheath

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

This, exactly. Government poking its nose in where not needed. People need to be educated, not just "no, no, no large drinks for you." Ridiculous. What's next? No buttered popcorn at movies because it's not healthy. We are all adults and are entitled to make our own decisions.

jenilla1

How about instead of banning them you just eliminate the ridiculous subsidies for corn and corn byproducts (e.g. high fructose corn syrup) and let the price of regular soda dictate the market? And hey - I'm not even a Libertarian - I'm a Dem!

Ding, ding, ding! We have a Winner! :drinker:

kettle_belle83

I think this proposal is at best only scratching the surface of the obesity epidemic in this country. Banning sugary drinks isn't going to solve the problem, but what's the government to do? Something must be done as the rising costs of obesity are being passed on to us.

livinginwoods

One freedom at a time. :explode:

gigibenton

First it is a big gulp..then it will be a large pizza-or a pitcher of beer-or a large bottle of wine-or a bucket of chicken. You open this floodgate and what will be next? Do you really want the government of any city to be making these decisions?

kylesmommy89

I'm for it. They're not banning sugary drinks, just getting rid of the ridiculous portion size. If you want that much soda, buy two. At least it will put how much you are consuming in a better perspective. I've drank an entire Big Gulp before and not really noticed. I would never drink 2 or 3 cans of soda back to back because I would realize how much I've actually drank.

flutgos

Nope. If people want to be fat *kitten* then let them. It isn't affecting me at all. It also gives me a better chance with women. haha The only type of banning that I was for the banning of smoking in public places. It is now banned here in Ohio. That directly affects my health and it was pretty hard to stay away from it. All of the bars and restaurants allowed smoking. I can't just stay at home 24/7.

Krissy366

I think it's the trickery I disagree with, so what I would prefer is that people label things as they are.

a "large" drink, if it is 32oz should be called "32oz" drink. The problem is with the younger generations who don't realize a "large" drink is actually 12oz and that buy buying a "large" you're actually buying 3 large drinks.

Also, things should be sold in unit price.

Or better yet, label them as portions. So when someone asks what sizes they have the answers are "2 portions, 4 portions or 6." Of course, they would still shorthand it as small medium or large, but maybe the cups themselves could be labeled. LOL

thepanttherlady

If the Mayor truly wants to target obesity, let's start at the school level. Nutrition should be a mandatory subject in school. I can count on one finger how often I've used the skills I learned from wood or metal shop since I've been out of school yet it was required to graduate. Physical Education becomes a choice once you've accumulated enough credits. It too (or even combined with nutrition classes), should be mandatory.

How about targeting school lunches? Seems the families that utilize this option the most are low income families. The same ones who make less healthy food choices due to income constraints. My 11 year old daughter came home one day and asked me if I knew how much sodium were in the lunches the school serves. An 11 year old. Granted, if my eating habits hadn't been what they were (and still occasionally are), I wouldn't be in the position I'm in to be on MFP. I wouldn't be educating myself the best I can with healthier choices and and then passing my knowledge on to my children on what a portion size is, how to read a nutritional label etc.


For the government to step in and tell me what size drink I can have (non-diet or juices which contain a tremendous amount of sugar excluded) thinking this will reduce obesity is absurd. It will eliminate convenience, not consumption.

quixoticmantis

what happened to personal responsibility?

Yup!

LilacDreamer

I'm against banning things, but 100% in favor of requiring nutritional information on every food product in both stores and restaurants. People should be able to make their own choices, but I strongly believe they should be informed choices.

Agree with this 100% I know Cali has a law that is similar to this although it only requires chain restaurants to post their information. I think if you're going to make a law to try and fight obesity then the biggest thing you can do is simply require restaurants to post their caloric information.

NY already requires that has has for a couple of years in EVERY restaurant.....they want to go a step further.

DFWTT

Bump for later and to add all my new found conservative friends!