New York OKs nation's first ban on super-sized sugary drinks

Options
245678

Replies

  • cramernh
    cramernh Posts: 3,335 Member
    Options
    Against.

    Let people make their own decisions.

    If people want to wreck their health by drinking soda in large quantities, that is THEIR choice. There should be NO reason for NY to have approved such a law.

    Personally I dont drink soda - havent in about 15 years.

    It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit pans out against NY though... been reading that activity like crazy!
  • ClareRae
    ClareRae Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    I'm against. I would also like to see the scientific studies that support the claims they make about the health benifits of such a law.
    I'm curious, too, to see what will happen when it's enforced. Will people buy more than one in protest? Carry them around in specially made drink fanny packs?
    I get that obesity is killing people, as a health care worker I see it all the time. I think education is the better way to go, not restrictions that treat people like uncontrolable children.
  • blackcoffeeandcherrypie
    blackcoffeeandcherrypie Posts: 486 Member
    Options
    Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)

    ...I love your comment about sugar killing more people than tobacco. Your evidence provided leaves no room for a different opinion.

    My use of the word 'probably' left a great deal of room for a different opinion :-)

    However, if it is evidence you're looking for, and not just a rant about nanny state goverments, then I would recommend reading 'Pure, White and Deadly' by John Yudkin.
  • taunto
    taunto Posts: 6,420 Member
    Options
    While its not the ideal solution, I think something had to be done. Obesity, in not only this country, but world wide is becoming an epidemic. People are consuming high amounts of calories without so much as to realizing it.

    The ban does not prevent you from going and grabbing a sugary soda.
    It does not stop you from going and grabbing a second serving of a sugary soda.

    It does however prevent you from over consuming without paying much attention to the amount of high calorie soda you're drinking. I don't know about you, but I know for me, even if I am full/satisfied I still often drink the pop in the container just because... well I have no idea why but thats what I do.

    Like I said, possibly not the ideal solution but something had to be done. CLEARLY letting people make their own informed decision wasn't enough.

    To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason
  • chunkiedunker
    chunkiedunker Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    I do not think sugary drinks are healthy---but,really. A ban? I'm curious. Are you pro or against? :drinker:
    -


    i think its pointless. people are still going to drink their soda/pop all they will do is drink it out of two or three cups now. the mayor is a bit of an idiot. the very next day after announcing this he was at national donut day where they had a 2 foot diameter donut.

    kinda hypocritical dont you think?
  • ClareRae
    ClareRae Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    Also, I'm waiting for the people with so many 'soda fines' they get arrested. Wouldn't that be interesting? From the pick up, to the jail cell, to the court case... I wish Seinfeld was still on. This would make for a good episode like the Soup Nazi.
  • GoldspursX3
    GoldspursX3 Posts: 516 Member
    Options
    Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)

    ...I love your comment about sugar killing more people than tobacco. Your evidence provided leaves no room for a different opinion.

    My use of the word 'probably' left a great deal of room for a different opinion :-)

    However, if it is evidence you're looking for, and not just a rant about nanny state goverments, then I would recommend reading 'Pure, White and Deadly' by John Yudkin.

    No thanks. I'm well aware that massive amounts of sugar is not healthy for me.

    My point was that it is grossly irresponsible to make outrageous claims without knowing what you are talking about. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about by your own admission.
  • DocCollins_SFA
    DocCollins_SFA Posts: 113
    Options
    This ban is ridiculous! I should be able to get a Route 44 Cherry Limeade from Sonic if I darn well want to! Will I? Probably not, but taking that choice away from me is the start to some very bad stuff. What will they ban next?! Large fries? Full fat dressing? Fried chicken over grilled? You can't force people to be healthy! What is this world coming to?! I don't need the government making these choices for me. I say all of this and I'm a registered democrat!
  • taunto
    taunto Posts: 6,420 Member
    Options
    I do not think sugary drinks are healthy---but,really. A ban? I'm curious. Are you pro or against? :drinker:
    -


    i think its pointless. people are still going to drink their soda/pop all they will do is drink it out of two or three cups now. the mayor is a bit of an idiot. the very next day after announcing this he was at national donut day where they had a 2 foot diameter donut.

    kinda hypocritical dont you think?

    This is without a doubt a publicity stunt. But most actions done by politicians are. But the argument isn't about the mayor, its about the law and its effect
  • GoldspursX3
    GoldspursX3 Posts: 516 Member
    Options

    To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason

    I'm all for measures that provide awareness and knowledge on what people are consuming. That is not hindering me from living my life as I see fit. Totally different from banning portion sizes.
  • DocCollins_SFA
    DocCollins_SFA Posts: 113
    Options

    To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason

    I'm all for measures that provide awareness and knowledge on what people are consuming. That is not hindering me from living my life as I see fit. Totally different from banning portion sizes.

    ^
    ^
    This!
  • bulbadoof
    bulbadoof Posts: 1,058 Member
    Options
    When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:

    That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.
  • GoldspursX3
    GoldspursX3 Posts: 516 Member
    Options
    This ban is ridiculous! I should be able to get a Route 44 Cherry Limeade from Sonic if I darn well want to! Will I? Probably not, but taking that choice away from me is the start to some very bad stuff. What will they ban next?! Large fries? Full fat dressing? Fried chicken over grilled? You can't force people to be healthy! What is this world coming to?! I don't need the government making these choices for me. I say all of this and I'm a registered democrat!

    mmmm...Sonic Cherry Limeade. Have to make it "easy ice" or you only get a few sips out of it though.
  • wewon
    wewon Posts: 838 Member
    Options
    Against.

    Let people make their own decisions.

    Ditto.

    Sorry, but you can only hold people's hand so far. Informing people of the calorie content and giving them the ingredients list should be enough.
  • GoldspursX3
    GoldspursX3 Posts: 516 Member
    Options
    When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:

    That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.

    What choice? This is making the choice for you by the nanny government!
  • DocCollins_SFA
    DocCollins_SFA Posts: 113
    Options
    When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:

    That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.
  • DocCollins_SFA
    DocCollins_SFA Posts: 113
    Options
    When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:

    That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.

    Reasons why I may want a 64oz soda:
    1. Floating the river all day
    2. Road trip
    3. Just cuz!

    This doesn't help people put more thought into the choices they are making because it completely takes away their ability to even make a choice!
  • SusanMcAvoy
    SusanMcAvoy Posts: 445 Member
    Options
    100% for it. Since Marijuana is illegal and it shouldn't be because it's perfectly safe, why not ban something that really hurts us? Why do they need to sell large quantities of sugar anyway?. It's only for profit. Money always matters more than peoples health. I wish they would do that in all states. And I'm glad McDonald's is now going to post it's calorie content in the actual restaurants. As a nation we are dying of excess fat and sugar consumption. I understand peoples concerns over the government being in our personal business but it really pisses me off that money (for profit) has more importance than the consumers health.
  • Amy911Gray
    Amy911Gray Posts: 685 Member
    Options
    I'm not understanding---New York is telling me how much soda I can buy at one time? What about those people that buy the extra big sizes to measure their daily intake? Why oh why do they think this is a legislative item?
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options
    To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason

    Agreed.

    In addition, people seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps they are not aware) that sometimes there is a hidden cost from production by private enterprise which gets paid by society as a whole. They essentially pass the bill for payment on to the taxpayer. Pollution and obesity are common examples.

    Is that fair? No. Does the responsibility of business stop at the point of sale? No. Should business escape responsibility for the extended consequences of their production? No.

    It's a question of balance. Do you want to excessively interfere in the market? No but you also want to factor in the consequence of market failure (negative externalities.)

Categories