City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks

abberbabber

Harry S Truman: “Those who want the government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide.”

<love>

DataBased

Harry S Truman: “Those who want the government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide.”

<love>

Ditto!

TJamesChristensen

When your average citizen walks into your average fast food restaurant and sees "Upgrade your drink for only 25 cents!", most of them are going to do it. Yes, it is their personal choice and they have every right to do whatever they want, but I really do not see any problem with them upgrading their drink to size that is maybe not as big as a Big Gulp or super-sized drink. I really don't think someone's life is going to be ruined if they suddenly can't get a HUMONGOUS drink anymore - on the other hand, their life may be ruined just a little bit more by getting that drink. People didn't get really fat because they're making wonderful personal choices, they got fat because they're eating and drinking crap in huge portions. Now someone needs to regulate those just a little bit because obviously people can't do it for themselves.

Something like regulating soda sizes could very well be in their best interest - whether it is municipal, federal or whatever government size. Obesity rates mean that more and more people are getting sick, putting a strain on healthcare, disability and employment (recession aside), etc. This isn't just a small portion of society either, this is a monumentally HUGE strain on resources. Not only is it in their interest, it should be in yours as well - you will have to pay more and more taxes if they are needing to shovel more money into healthcare. A lot of you are saying that this won't cure anything and people will still make bad choices, that it's a band-aid...you're right that it won't solve everything but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Also, a lot of you are saying that the money should be put into education - well, the education has been there for a while now and no matter how much of a presence it has, fast food restaurants still have a MUCH bigger presence. It will take a combination of education AND regulations to do any good at all.

I guess I just don't understand everyone talking about a "Nanny State", I don't view it as a control over your life, I view it as a guide to helping people get healthier. The government is NOT going to start controlling all sorts of things if YOU don't let them - you're bigger than they are and they know it, but is a large soda really going to send everyone into a tizzy about rights and freedoms? Really?

You stated the real problem but probably don't realize it

Something like regulating soda sizes could very well be in their best interest

Who is deciding what is in everyone's best interest? These types of decisions are never put to a vote, most of the time laws are passed quietly and by the time the general public realizes what happened its too late.

I view it as a guide to helping people get healthier.

A guide would be having a sign posted advising against consuming large quantities of soda, listing the possible consequences. This gives people no choice, they may only purchase what someone else has decided is appropriate for them. Big difference!

TJamesChristensen

New York clearly knows that a 52 ounce drink and a pound of fries in one bag leads to overeating and they want better for their residents. Whats wrong with that?

What is this, communist Russia? Now our government gets to decide "what they want for us" and forbid us to eat/drink/buy/use/ etc the things they don't approve of? What next, will they just be handing out the foods they deem healthy so we all have the same approved foods?

So True! Totally agree with you. As I've stated before we have already had a case where a little girl had her sack lunch seized by a state employee and replaced with the school lunch because it was not approved foods. It always starts off by giving up the smallest rights, until you realized you don't have any rights left to give up.

elenathegreat

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.

Exactly!!
Well said.:drinker: :drinker: :drinker:

Katie0174

I'm sorry I can't remember the person's name who said this is such a small thing, it isn't like we're really taking anything away from anybody - just regulating the size. Think about it though. It does take away a great deal, even though it seems small. Because it's a slippery slope, and once you get the ball rolling down that hill, it picks up speed. Then you get people who are so comfortable with it because we already live in that world, and it doesn't seem too bad. But it is bad. I'd rather live in a nation where I am free to make my own choices, and my own mistakes, and grow and mature by myself by learning my own lessons, than to have some politician come around and tell me how big a cup I can have, and making those choices for me.

That's all.

I was that person, I believe.

I would just like to say that I DO agree with you to an extent that the government should not be placing all sorts of regulations and everything on people. I support regulations like smoking bans and drinking and driving laws and things like that, as well. In response to your post I'd like to say that you don't live in that nation that you are referring to, though, and you can't right now because not enough people are standing up for themselves. Not enough people make a big deal out of things and a great majority of people are complacent in this, so now we are all living in nations where the governments put regulations on things. So, that being said, I would rather live in a nation where the government is going to take steps to reduce illnesses and things by making small decisions like this.

Katie0174

Who is deciding what is in everyone's best interest? These types of decisions are never put to a vote, most of the time laws are passed quietly and by the time the general public realizes what happened its too late.


A guide would be having a sign posted advising against consuming large quantities of soda, listing the possible consequences. This gives people no choice, they may only purchase what someone else has decided is appropriate for them. Big difference!

That's the thing is that these types of things ALWAYS happen, and the general public never seem to mind all that much unless it is something extremely controversial. That's how we got to where we are and you still don't see most people making a big deal out of it. What I'm saying is that if there are going to be regulations, they might as well be ones that will help people out with their health at least in some small way.

DataBased

I'm sorry I can't remember the person's name who said this is such a small thing, it isn't like we're really taking anything away from anybody - just regulating the size. Think about it though. It does take away a great deal, even though it seems small. Because it's a slippery slope, and once you get the ball rolling down that hill, it picks up speed....

I was that person, I believe.

I would just like to say that I DO agree with you to an extent that the government should not be placing all sorts of regulations and everything on people. I support regulations like smoking bans and drinking and driving laws and things like that, as well. In response to your post I'd like to say that you don't live in that nation that you are referring to, though, and you can't right now because not enough people are standing up for themselves. Not enough people make a big deal out of things and a great majority of people are complacent in this, so now we are all living in nations where the governments put regulations on things. So, that being said, I would rather live in a nation where the government is going to take steps to reduce illnesses and things by making small decisions like this.

Thank you so much for rejoining the conversation. I felt that there was that essence in what you had written that was less about it being okay for government to make even these small decisions for us and more about it being where we are already. I hope I represented it accurately.

I do believe I understand what you're saying - though I have to admit to not agreeing with the conclusions you draw. To me, saying that "we don't have that nation now so we might as well make the best of things" is defeatist. I don't mean an attack on you personally, but I do find myself recoiling at the way your conclusion feels to me - it really seems like you're saying it is better to make the bad things that are happening at least serve some good. And to me, I'd rather start making noise about every intrusion on our freedoms and get back to where America was intended to be - a truly sweet land of liberty.

heretocount

Well call me a consperatist (I know I spelled that wrong :blushing: )

But I am willing to bet that this whole silly thing is just a way to confuse and distract the masses from the most important things we should change such as the crap they put in our food, and the way they process it, EVERY ONE REMEMBER PINK SLIME? let's get back to enforcing OUR Government instead of letting them enforce us!

gypsybree

I don't think places should be promoting giant calorie laden drinks.

Whether the government enforces it or the companies decide to quit, doesn't really matter to me, it just really needs to be stopped.

Its like the kids who live in the ghetto and walk by the crack dealer everyday... something has to give in our society.

Fast food is everywhere and they all promote soft drinks, unless you get a kid's meal. Then you can get a chocolate or plain milk or a soft drink, some places have juice.

tamheath

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!

Awesome idea! But then, by your theory, I guess the government should also ban sugar, bread, pasta, and desserts. BAN THE CUPCAKES! Because they are BAD for you and will make you fat, fat, fat. Yep. That sounds like a government job. :ohwell:

DavetheHYNIC

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 just leisurely read this thread and noticed that this was the most "liked" post and just wondered if these so called libertarians (which most really aren't they are happy to have the government regulate things that they are for/against) actually got what they wished for.

The Crackhead who the poster doesn't care about cant afford to buy crack(even if its legal) and breaks into multiple houses. Local taxes are spent on law enforcement. Crackhead kills unsuspecting libertarian MFPer. The state spends millions prosecuting, incarnating and then to the delight of right wingers executed. The three kids the crackhead left behind become the ward of the state. For the rest of their childhood the kids get federal government assistance. Which we all pay for.

Government is for the people by the people if we could wrest it from the oligarchs and big businesses who control it like Exxon, The Bushes, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Wall Street, and the other billionaires who control both parties, maybe we could get somethings done to help everyone.

Oh yeah I was taught by my parents and church to care about my fellow citizens not the government.

heretocount

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 just leisurely read this thread and noticed that this was the most "liked" post and just wondered if these so called libertarians (which most really aren't they are happy to have the government regulate things that they are for/against) actually got what they wished for.

The Crackhead who the poster doesn't care about cant afford to buy crack(even if its legal) and breaks into multiple houses. Local taxes are spent on law enforcement. Crackhead kills unsuspecting libertarian MFPer. The state spends millions prosecuting, incarnating and then to the delight of right wingers executed. The three kids the crackhead left behind become the ward of the state. For the rest of their childhood the kids get federal government assistance. Which we all pay for.

Government is for the people by the people if we could wrest it from the oligarchs and big businesses who control it like Exxon, The Bushes, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Wall Street, and the other billionaires who control both parties, maybe we could get somethings done to help everyone.

Oh yeah I was taught by my parents and church to care about my fellow citizens not the government.

yout logic makes no sense, weither or not the crack is illegal some one who had it in them to hurt others will or wont based on who they are not based on laws,

liberals are for less government control, they are for US controlling the government not the government controlling us, which IS what our for fathers wanted

kayemme

I'm indifferent. If they banned it here, oh well. I'll drink water. I'm not going to get upset about it.

that is, until the water supply is poisoned and needs to be sold to you in "recycleable" bottles for $2 a quart. oh, my bad; that's what's happening now.

Wildheart_Baby

I like the theme of this thread, in the whole, they can have my oversized drink when they pry it out of my cold dead hand.

Oh no, someone thinks a company shouldn't sell me a drink with enough sugar to send a classroom full of 5 years old into a hyperactive mess of screaming and running around, my rights are being violated, its the first step on the road to being told how many kids I can have or what I should think.

Yes there is such a thing as personal responsibility, but there's also a reason that they don't allow ten year olds to drive cars or people have to be vetted to own handguns, sometimes personal freedom needs to be sidelined for the good of everybody in society, America has a crisis on its hands, with the health of the nation in the balance, yes you might think, I should have the right to buy an oversized drink, its my choice how I live my life, well you probably aren't going to be a burden on your local health clinics and hospitals.

I saw a report where a woman was feeding her 6 month old baby, a burger from some fast food outlet, she had the freedom to do so but should she be allowed to do so, not really so we take that choice away from her, for the good of the baby's health, the same thing applies with the oversized drink, you might be responsible but others aren't, otherwise, why not have the kids driving and give anyone who wants a handgun, their own.

DataBased

I like the theme of this thread, in the whole, they can have my oversized drink when they pry it out of my cold dead hand.

Oh no, someone thinks a company shouldn't sell me a drink with enough sugar to send a classroom full of 5 years old into a hyperactive mess of screaming and running around, my rights are being violated, its the first step on the road to being told how many kids I can have or what I should think.

Yes there is such a thing as personal responsibility, but there's also a reason that they don't allow ten year olds to drive cars or people have to be vetted to own handguns, sometimes personal freedom needs to be sidelined for the good of everybody in society, America has a crisis on its hands, with the health of the nation in the balance, yes you might think, I should have the right to buy an oversized drink, its my choice how I live my life, well you probably aren't going to be a burden on your local health clinics and hospitals.

I saw a report where a woman was feeding her 6 month old baby, a burger from some fast food outlet, she had the freedom to do so but should she be allowed to do so, not really so we take that choice away from her, for the good of the baby's health, the same thing applies with the oversized drink, you might be responsible but others aren't, otherwise, why not have the kids driving and give anyone who wants a handgun, their own.

Hmmm... interesting points. Okay, well let's say this. Let's say I'm a person you would think of as being from the "religious right" and I am firmly against video games, most television shows, and the Internet except for those purposes for which I say it us appropriate. I want those things either banned or controlled. The video games are full of violence and they corrupt young minds. So even if there are people who can use them responsibly, I really think they need to be banned because they can be abused. And television - oh my goodness, you can dial up sex, violence, and all kinds of product or sports endorsements which confuse and subject people to ideas that are unwholesome. If it's bad for those people, regardless of how easy it is to turn the channel - we can't trust people to look after themselves. We better ban it. And the Internet - my word, that's a can of worms! Why, people might use it to organize against government, or they might try to access content that is against what we believe, and they might use it to be arses to one another. We cannot have that. Even though a great many people don't use it that way - it CAN be abused, hence it must be stopped.

For... or against?

See, it doesn't matter who is doing the restricting of freedoms - unless a substance is explosive (can cause damage to mass numbers of people) or incredibly lethal in an immediate way, people HAVE to be free to choose their own way. We have absolutely no chance of growing and gaining maturity if we take away each person's ability to make bad choices. We each have to make our mistakes in order to grow - haven't you noticed that? Does a child walk perfectly the first time? Or does a child have to fall down a few times before learning? We learn by making mistakes and finding better ways of living. It's who we are as a species.

Just a conjecture, but I venture a guess that you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs if some church person was in charge and wanted to force you to live according to their beliefs.

abberbabber

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 just leisurely read this thread and noticed that this was the most "liked" post and just wondered if these so called libertarians (which most really aren't they are happy to have the government regulate things that they are for/against) actually got what they wished for.

The Crackhead who the poster doesn't care about cant afford to buy crack(even if its legal) and breaks into multiple houses. Local taxes are spent on law enforcement. Crackhead kills unsuspecting libertarian MFPer. The state spends millions prosecuting, incarnating and then to the delight of right wingers executed. The three kids the crackhead left behind become the ward of the state. For the rest of their childhood the kids get federal government assistance. Which we all pay for.

Government is for the people by the people if we could wrest it from the oligarchs and big businesses who control it like Exxon, The Bushes, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Wall Street, and the other billionaires who control both parties, maybe we could get somethings done to help everyone.

Oh yeah I was taught by my parents and church to care about my fellow citizens not the government.

I have no idea what your point is........

Is it like, if we legalize drugs, there will be more crackheads breaking into houses? I'm confused as hell :huh:

abberbabber

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 just leisurely read this thread and noticed that this was the most "liked" post and just wondered if these so called libertarians (which most really aren't they are happy to have the government regulate things that they are for/against) actually got what they wished for.

The Crackhead who the poster doesn't care about cant afford to buy crack(even if its legal) and breaks into multiple houses. Local taxes are spent on law enforcement. Crackhead kills unsuspecting libertarian MFPer. The state spends millions prosecuting, incarnating and then to the delight of right wingers executed. The three kids the crackhead left behind become the ward of the state. For the rest of their childhood the kids get federal government assistance. Which we all pay for.

Government is for the people by the people if we could wrest it from the oligarchs and big businesses who control it like Exxon, The Bushes, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Wall Street, and the other billionaires who control both parties, maybe we could get somethings done to help everyone.

Oh yeah I was taught by my parents and church to care about my fellow citizens not the government.

yout logic makes no sense, weither or not the crack is illegal some one who had it in them to hurt others will or wont based on who they are not based on laws,

liberals are for less government control, they are for US controlling the government not the government controlling us, which IS what our for fathers wanted

Classic liberals are for that. Pretty much everyone on the right and the left claims to be against government control until it comes to their pet issues.

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

That isn't better, it's exactly the same. A portion is whatever they say it is. An ounce is an ounce is an ounce. Label a 32 ounce drink a 32 ounce drink and you've been honest. Label it 2 "portions" or 3 "portions" and I have no idea how big it actually is. No need to "shorthand" anything. If I want a 32 ounce drink, I say "I'll have a 32 ounce drink." In what way is your "portion" suggestion "better?"

As far as I'm aware a regular drink size is "8 ounces" here in the US - so that was what I was basing it on. So, if 8 ounces is a serving someone asking for 2 portions would be asking for 16 ounces. The reason I said it was because if people think that 24 ounces is considered a "serving size" (which it is not) - they might actually think ordering 24 ounces is like having "1" drink - when it's really have 3. I meant to say "servings" not "portions" - but it wasn't really a serious suggestion anyway, so there ya go.

zCarsAndCaloriesz

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.

mfpcopine

It's a proposal, not a confirmed plan. It's a limited restriction on the sale of super-sized drinks, not a ban. Here's an excellent opinion piece by a New York Times columnist with lots of comments.

My view: It's sad that it's had to come to this, I personally have plenty of "individual responsibility" in the weight area, but the obesity problem has gotten completely out of hand, it affects children, and it is costly for everyone. This is one small suggestion that may make people think, just as listing the calorie content for foods in many restaurants has caused some folks to think about how much they're eating.

More than 1 in 3 Americans is classified as obese.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/bruni-trimming-a-fat-city.html?_r=1&hp

mfpcopine

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.

As someone in the comment to the New York Times piece I just posted said, When everyone has the insurance or money to pay for their "individual choices" then we can talk. As it stands now, all of us are subsidizing the companies that make these drinks. It IS our business.

KarmaxKitty

.

KarmaxKitty

I don't care how big the biggest is, my concern is how small a smallest is. When I order a small I don't want 24oz please. Drives me nuts.

THIS. This kind of ish drives me NUTS.

delilah47

Mayor B may think he's helping, but he's just furthering the big brother prediction. Washington state already has a good handle on it. They have the second highest tobacco tax (next to NY) and they just put new taxes on convenience store items like candy bars, sodas, bottled water and 6-packs of beer. In the past 3 years the cigarette tax has gone up several times at $1.00, $1.50 at a time. The only place cigarettes cost more is NYC. If you are poor, don't move to WA unless you want the state to run your life. You may want to make an advance trip to pick your overpass bridge, because they are ALL crowded. WA has a multi-billion dollar tourism industry and do you think they would tax that instead of burdening their residents? Heck no!

If people keep okaying the sin taxes, what you can purchase will be based on income level. Like.. oh, you want to buy a bakery cake for your kid's birthday? Well, let's see... you make $30,000 per year so you don't qualify for a bakery cake. Go home and bake your own cake.

Recently, our state government threw out the voter's requirement that the state legislature needs a 2/3 majority to raise taxes and changed it to a simple majority, (over 50%). There's a new petition to vote the old method back in. Our state legislators just change anything to their liking without regard to the voter's wishes. Just like the vote several times to quit supporting a pro basketball team (Sonics) in Seattle (which all county residents pay taxes to support). Finally the Sonics moved out and now, without regard for voter's wishes, they are finagling to get another pro team in Seattle. It seems pro ball clubs can't afford to support themselves AND make hundreds of millions of $$$. So, we pay for the stadiums, pay through the nose to attend and THEY collect the profits. The team owners don't even consider running a team like a business anymore. They don't have to, because people just lay down and let big business trample all over them.

If I were younger, I would be out there protesting these issues. If we all just sit on our a$$es, we will no longer have ANY choices as the state or feds will decide for us with the slant being toward what works best for rich people and corporations.

Ahhh.. if feel a *little* better. Pardon my manners, I got off subject a little.

dmpizza

Too many terms give politicians fat heads.

StarvingDiva

The government should not be involved in anyones individual choice. They are banning soda over 16oz but not milkshakes, or juices which can be just as caloric. Ridiculous. The government has more important things to do than becoming food police in what I drink or do.

The fact of the matter is, if someone wants to drink 32 oz of soda, they are still going to drink 32 oz of soda, they will just get two. Stupid. Bloomberg also wanted to ban salt.

StarvingDiva

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.

AMEN!

run2jeepn

I could care less. I don't drink Soda much at all. I surely don't want my son to drink a Large Coke.

I see what he is trying to do..

This is what I think should happen. If your over 10-15% over weight. You should have higher insurance. If you smoke or Chew you pay more.. Even if you buy Life Insurance you have to take a swab test to see if you are a tobacco user. Then if you are they charge you a higher rate. I also think Food Stamps should be limited to only Healthy. Just my 2 cents.

Sharon009

I think they need to spend the governments money doing something else. Most 'overweight' people I know, including my former self, drink diet soda. As a matter of fact, all of my 'thin' friends drink sugary soda only and sweet tea but limit their intake. I have problems with my blood sugar, thats why I have always drank diet.