City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks

«13456789

Replies

  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,364 Member
    The topic should have said "New York City" not just "City"
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    Sure, I think HUGE portion sizes of food and drinks just distorts our view of how much we should actually be eating at a time, so getting rid of ridiculously large serves of anything seems like a great idea to me.
    But, I don't think it should apply onto to sweetened drinks, it should apply to all drinks. Otherwise you are still led to believe that a huge serving size is normal, or necessary, regardless of what is actually in the cup.
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,364 Member
    Sure, I think HUGE portion sizes of food and drinks just distorts our view of how much we should actually be eating at a time, so getting rid of ridiculously large serves of anything seems like a great idea to me.
    But, I don't think it should apply onto to sweetened drinks, it should apply to all drinks. Otherwise you are still led to believe that a huge serving size is normal, or necessary, regardless of what is actually in the cup.

    I agree, I remember when "super sized" items and the "biggie" sizes first came out and no one thought twice about ordering them. If anything, it was cheaper to order a biggie fry at one point than a small or a medium. It always seemed wrong that something bigger (and albeit, worse for you) would be cheaper than the smaller portion.

    Then there came the time when wendy's (for example) changed their sizing and the former biggie was now known as "large", the former large was now the medium, and the medium was the small....they basically upped all the sizes of the regular portions and did away with the name biggie.

    It is a disservice to society to keep portions sizes as they are. Portion sizes should be reduced, and the prices should be altered to reflect the change in sizing. (ie: a medium soda should not be $2.99 just because large no longer exists)
  • pudadough
    pudadough Posts: 1,271 Member
    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.
  • motherbetty
    motherbetty Posts: 170 Member
    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.
  • shadowkitty22
    shadowkitty22 Posts: 495 Member
    It is a disservice to society to keep portions sizes as they are. Portion sizes should be reduced, and the prices should be altered to reflect the change in sizing. (ie: a medium soda should not be $2.99 just because large no longer exists)

    Or they could just change the sizing but keep the pricing the same to convince people that it's better to just eat at home where it's healthier because you're no longer getting more for your money with the larger sizes.
  • abberbabber
    abberbabber Posts: 972 Member
    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.

    Times infinity.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    what happened to personal responsibility?
  • Umeboshi
    Umeboshi Posts: 1,637 Member
    That's ridiculous. -_- It should be left up to personal choice.
  • bshedwick
    bshedwick Posts: 659 Member
    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.

    +1
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    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.

    But they aren't limiting how much you eat/drink - it just means that if you want two large drinks, you buy two large drinks. How is that restricting your liberty?
  • DataBased
    DataBased Posts: 513 Member
    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 this ^^^
  • TheDudette
    TheDudette Posts: 173 Member
    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.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    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.

    But they aren't limiting how much you eat/drink - it just means that if you want two large drinks, you buy two large drinks. How is that restricting your liberty?

    because they shouldn't be able to do that in the first place. and, force me to buy two large drinks, you are forcing me to spend more to get what I want.
  • liftingheavy
    liftingheavy Posts: 551 Member
    I could not care less about how many oversized sweetened drinks adults drink, or frankly, anything else the do as long as it does not affect me.

    The problem is that I see kids drinking these things more than adults these days. Oversized sweet drinks and fire cracker cheetos in the morning.

    That is a problem. I am a Junior Achievement volunteer and the size of kids in middle school is astonishing compared to when I was in school.
  • JBennis1013
    JBennis1013 Posts: 377 Member
    what happened to personal responsibility?

    Agree with this!!
  • LovelyLibra79
    LovelyLibra79 Posts: 569 Member
    I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
    I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
  • DataBased
    DataBased Posts: 513 Member
    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.

    But they aren't limiting how much you eat/drink - it just means that if you want two large drinks, you buy two large drinks. How is that restricting your liberty?

    Why should they limit what you purchase in whatever quantity? Why would you want them to? If you give a government the power to take away your choices in one area, what makes you think they'll stop at that area?
  • Sindari
    Sindari Posts: 39 Member
    Personal responsibility, accountability, and Darwinism. Up the health education to kids in school, and free choice after that. If you wanna dork up your health be my guest, just don't expect me to pay for your disability for something you chose to do to yourself. THAT is another problem entirely.
  • Chuldah
    Chuldah Posts: 5 Member
    I quit drinking soft drinks, so it makes no difference to me. *shrug*
  • mzhokie
    mzhokie Posts: 349 Member
    I don't think the govt (local or national) should regulate this kind of thing. Seems overkill.
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,364 Member
    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.

    But they aren't limiting how much you eat/drink - it just means that if you want two large drinks, you buy two large drinks. How is that restricting your liberty?

    I agree with this too. If someone needs 32oz of *insert drink here*, they are "free" to order a second one (as per the article).

    I'm not saying that I agree with bloomberg 100% (I think he's rather annoying actually) but I do think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with decreasing the portion sizes. I don't think people need to be policed, but portion sizes were not always so huge and there isn't a logical reason for them to remain that way.
  • liftingheavy
    liftingheavy Posts: 551 Member
    The thing is, we DO pay for their disability.
  • cmeade20
    cmeade20 Posts: 1,238 Member
    I think over sized sweetened drinks are disgusting. I also am baffled by people who consume too much of this crap. (Or any of it really)


    I also feel that the beautiful thing about America is we have a choice as to what kind of life we live. So No I dont think any city,town or state has any business banning any food or drink.
  • Sindari
    Sindari Posts: 39 Member
    I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
    I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!


    Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.

    My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
  • DataBased
    DataBased Posts: 513 Member
    ...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.

    I'm just really curious why people think the government has to intervene? Look at *anything* the government manages - seriously, at least I learn from the mistakes I make over time. I'll make my own mistakes, and not have the red tape and bureaucracy so I can quickly adjust when I learn a better way, thank you very much.
  • liftingheavy
    liftingheavy Posts: 551 Member
    No one complained when they gradually went up, so... Bring them down. The corporations that sell this sugar are now making cups that are 52 ounces. For 99 cents at gas stations, full of Mountain Dew.

    Remember when a bag of chips used to be fun sized? Now they are 99 cents and contain 5 servings and people eat the whole bag because it looks like a normal bag now.
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,364 Member
    I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
    I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!


    Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.

    My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?

    There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
  • alyson820
    alyson820 Posts: 448 Member
    I'm all for it. Before we increased these portion sizes, obesity was something that affected a minority of the population, and now it's the norm.
  • pudadough
    pudadough Posts: 1,271 Member
    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.

    But they aren't limiting how much you eat/drink - it just means that if you want two large drinks, you buy two large drinks. How is that restricting your liberty?

    In this case, they're limiting the businesses' freedom to decide what sizes they offer. Kind of like when they banned serving food with trans fats a few years ago. It restricts the vendor's freedom to sell what they want and let the consumer decide. If I, the consumer, want a small that's smaller than the one McDonald's (or wherever) offers, I can find another establishment that meets that desire. But other people who do want the supersize are still free to get it from McDonald's (or, again, wherever.) The beauty of competition. We don't need the government to regulate this. People will regulate it themselves. And if they don't, it's still none of the government's business how much sugar we put down our gullets.

Categories