NYC Large sugary drink ban proposed

Options
1235716

Replies

  • londoneye
    londoneye Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    Yeah, God forbid Americans learned any lessons from countries who have stayed slim by spending tax money on building SIDEWALKS so people don't have to drive everywhere, or MANDATING physical education in schools, or REGULATING fast food advertising... A socialist nightmare! (That just happens to result in people being healthier, happier, and more productive!)

    Most cities/towns are way more spread out than what people in other parts of the world are used to. I lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma for the majority of my life and the closest thing that sold food was a mile away. There are sidewalks but nobody uses them. It's not because we're lazy, it's because we don't want to spend 2 damn hours walking to the mall.

    Also, regulating advertising is regulating freedom of speech. Something most Americans are against ;)

    Right, but I didn't say Americans were lazy. My point was that they are made fat by their environment and the food and activity incentives and opportunities around them. Town planning is something that (can be) influenced and regulated by governments, so that walking to a nearby shop to buy fresh produce is something that is available to everyone.

    And as for freedom of speech, most people accept that it is not unlimited. Speech that harms or deliberately misleads the vulnerable (e.g. marketing fast food to children using their favourite cartoon characters) is fair game in my eyes.

    Tulsa was not intended to be as big of a city as it is or as residential as it is. It was primarily for the oil industry. Have you ever lived in an American city? The way they are composed is usually blocks of residential area with small pockets of retail. It isn't like here in the UK where there is a small grocery store on nearly every street.

    Anyways, I'm pretty most cities were planned way before there was such an obesity epidemic. Your suggestion is fine for new city planning, but kind of pointless for the majority of existing communities.

    And no, people are made fat by eating too much food. Believe it or not, nobody forces you to eat McDonalds for your three meals a day.

    Yes, and the OP was talking about soft drinks, one of the only food products directly linked with obesity. My point with the example of sidewalks and PE regulation was that government can have a role in making a healthy lifestyle easier and more accesible to us all.
  • londoneye
    londoneye Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    I'd also like to point out that soda is cheap due to govt corn subsidies. Maybe THAT is where the govt should back out!
  • mom2gar
    mom2gar Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    I think it's another bull**** step by government... People must choose for themselves wether or not to be healthy... They'll just by smaller soda's and drink more of them... What's next, King Mike makes everybody exercise?

    here here!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    I think it's a good idea, though I didn't see anything about free refills on small drinks, so it will be easy to get around for anything other than 'to go' orders.

    While I don't like the idea of the government controlling what we can eat, as long as the government has to pay for the rising cost of healthcare I think it's probably necessary.
  • roachhaley
    roachhaley Posts: 978 Member
    Options
    Yeah, God forbid Americans learned any lessons from countries who have stayed slim by spending tax money on building SIDEWALKS so people don't have to drive everywhere, or MANDATING physical education in schools, or REGULATING fast food advertising... A socialist nightmare! (That just happens to result in people being healthier, happier, and more productive!)

    Most cities/towns are way more spread out than what people in other parts of the world are used to. I lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma for the majority of my life and the closest thing that sold food was a mile away. There are sidewalks but nobody uses them. It's not because we're lazy, it's because we don't want to spend 2 damn hours walking to the mall.

    Also, regulating advertising is regulating freedom of speech. Something most Americans are against ;)

    Right, but I didn't say Americans were lazy. My point was that they are made fat by their environment and the food and activity incentives and opportunities around them. Town planning is something that (can be) influenced and regulated by governments, so that walking to a nearby shop to buy fresh produce is something that is available to everyone.

    And as for freedom of speech, most people accept that it is not unlimited. Speech that harms or deliberately misleads the vulnerable (e.g. marketing fast food to children using their favourite cartoon characters) is fair game in my eyes.

    Tulsa was not intended to be as big of a city as it is or as residential as it is. It was primarily for the oil industry. Have you ever lived in an American city? The way they are composed is usually blocks of residential area with small pockets of retail. It isn't like here in the UK where there is a small grocery store on nearly every street.

    Anyways, I'm pretty most cities were planned way before there was such an obesity epidemic. Your suggestion is fine for new city planning, but kind of pointless for the majority of existing communities.

    And no, people are made fat by eating too much food. Believe it or not, nobody forces you to eat McDonalds for your three meals a day.

    Yes, and the OP was talking about soft drinks, one of the only food products directly linked with obesity. My point with the example of sidewalks and PE regulation was that government can have a role in making a healthy lifestyle easier and more accesible to us all.

    Well, sorry, but installing sidewalks into suburban or rural areas isn't going to change the fact that everything is miles away from everything else. Most states (as far as I'm aware) do have mandatory PE. You can opt out in high school.
  • londoneye
    londoneye Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    Not to mention how disgusting it is that this is even being brought up given the current state of the economy and job market.

    Do you know how many BILLIONS obesity costs the US economy (and taxpayer)???
  • marycmeadows
    marycmeadows Posts: 1,691 Member
    Options
    saw this somewhere earlier. i think it's bs. what about refills. this will not stop people from drinking sugary drinks - and will not stop them from drinking as much as they drink now.
  • roachhaley
    roachhaley Posts: 978 Member
    Options
    I'd also like to point out that soda is cheap due to govt corn subsidies. Maybe THAT is where the govt should back out!

    ^ This

    Effing corn subsidies. Spending SO MUCH taxpayer money for stuff that is bad for the environment and bad for the body. Stupid. Just watched a West Wing episode dealing with this so I'm all riled up about corn right now :P
  • Juliebean_1027
    Juliebean_1027 Posts: 713 Member
    Options
    What ever happened to PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY!

    It is NOT the governments job to regulate what and how much we eat! If I want to overeat, having a ban on x-large soda is not going to stop me...nor will it stop anyone else.

    Get the governement out of my life...if I wanted the governement to control it, I will just go live in a communist country!

    What is next? ...x-large bags of candy, big macs, whoppers, large pizza with toppings,etc....????

    This.
  • londoneye
    londoneye Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    Yeah, God forbid Americans learned any lessons from countries who have stayed slim by spending tax money on building SIDEWALKS so people don't have to drive everywhere, or MANDATING physical education in schools, or REGULATING fast food advertising... A socialist nightmare! (That just happens to result in people being healthier, happier, and more productive!)

    Most cities/towns are way more spread out than what people in other parts of the world are used to. I lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma for the majority of my life and the closest thing that sold food was a mile away. There are sidewalks but nobody uses them. It's not because we're lazy, it's because we don't want to spend 2 damn hours walking to the mall.

    Also, regulating advertising is regulating freedom of speech. Something most Americans are against ;)

    Right, but I didn't say Americans were lazy. My point was that they are made fat by their environment and the food and activity incentives and opportunities around them. Town planning is something that (can be) influenced and regulated by governments, so that walking to a nearby shop to buy fresh produce is something that is available to everyone.

    And as for freedom of speech, most people accept that it is not unlimited. Speech that harms or deliberately misleads the vulnerable (e.g. marketing fast food to children using their favourite cartoon characters) is fair game in my eyes.

    Tulsa was not intended to be as big of a city as it is or as residential as it is. It was primarily for the oil industry. Have you ever lived in an American city? The way they are composed is usually blocks of residential area with small pockets of retail. It isn't like here in the UK where there is a small grocery store on nearly every street.

    Anyways, I'm pretty most cities were planned way before there was such an obesity epidemic. Your suggestion is fine for new city planning, but kind of pointless for the majority of existing communities.

    And no, people are made fat by eating too much food. Believe it or not, nobody forces you to eat McDonalds for your three meals a day.

    Yes, and the OP was talking about soft drinks, one of the only food products directly linked with obesity. My point with the example of sidewalks and PE regulation was that government can have a role in making a healthy lifestyle easier and more accesible to us all.

    Well, sorry, but installing sidewalks into suburban or rural areas isn't going to change the fact that everything is miles away from everything else. Most states (as far as I'm aware) do have mandatory PE. You can opt out in high school.

    Most States do not. Have a look at HBOs recent 'weight of the nation' doc for more info

    http://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/

    But I guess that you would support such a move, which, as I was trying to point out, is an example of government intervention in 'private' health matters.
  • dsimms1966
    dsimms1966 Posts: 1
    Options
    My weight is none of the government's business.
  • 10acity
    10acity Posts: 798 Member
    Options
    I find it incredibly disturbing that there are so many replies in support of this. I cannot fathom how any thinking human being could possibly be anything but outraged by the suggestion.

    Our government does not exist in order to dictate (note intentional word choice) how individuals live their lives. Beyond upholding/enforcing the law-- and even many of those have gotten completely out of control-- in order to ensure a reasonable degree of safety for its citizens, the government has no business in our personal lives-- and what I choose to drink or eat is pretty damn personal. It's just another step toward making everyone so damned dependent on the government that no one can even remember how to function on their own. Not to mention how disgusting it is that this is even being brought up given the current state of the economy and job market.
    Yeah, God forbid Americans learned any lessons from countries who have stayed slim by spending tax money on building SIDEWALKS so people don't have to drive everywhere, or MANDATING physical education in schools, or REGULATING fast food advertising... A socialist nightmare! (That just happens to result in people being healthier, happier, and more productive!)

    We've had government-mandated physical education in schools since the 1960s, dude. And I walk everywhere in my city. On sidewalks.


    PE in schools is regulated at State level

    "In its first report since 2000, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education gave states and the federal government a failing grade on physical education in the American school system. Noting that no federal law requires that physical education be offered in schools or provides any incentive for physical education programs, the report says states too are dodging the issue, with many setting some general or minimum requirements but delegating responsibility for meeting those standards to individual school districts. "

    http://www.healthinschools.org/News-Room/EJournals/Volume-7/Number-4/The-Shape-of-the-Nations-Children.aspx

    And I'm glad your city has invested in sidewalks. Not all do.

    http://www2.tbo.com/news/life/2011/aug/04/rural-areas-lack-of-sidewalks-fueling-obesity-prob-ar-247686/

    Because public education is regulated at the state level. And rightly so, as we are the United States of America. It's not an accident.

    As a previous poster said, you can't legislate common sense. And trying is (a) stupid (b) a waste of energy and resources (most notably my tax money) and (c) never going to be effective. Frankly, I'm not even sure I think PE should be mandated at that level. Forget that you can't really force someone to exercise, how about that a government shouldn't? "Give me liberty or give me death" and all of that? All of this removal of personal responsibility and initiative is what creates the attitude of entitlement that has become so prevalent. When the government decides we're all idiots who can't even make our own food choices, we'll slowly begin to act like idiots as we can expect Uncle Sam to make our every choice and provide for our every need. I've never been to the UK, but I can tell you for sure that the majority of Americans value liberty more than this.
  • londoneye
    londoneye Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    My weight is none of the government's business.

    So who pays for the medical costs of obesity?
  • twistofcain
    twistofcain Posts: 190
    Options
    Ok, ban anything over 16 ounces? I will just buy multiples of them!


    Stop trying to control the people. Educate them on making better choices, rather than taking every ****1ng thing from them because it is bad for them.
  • londoneye
    londoneye Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    I find it incredibly disturbing that there are so many replies in support of this. I cannot fathom how any thinking human being could possibly be anything but outraged by the suggestion.

    Our government does not exist in order to dictate (note intentional word choice) how individuals live their lives. Beyond upholding/enforcing the law-- and even many of those have gotten completely out of control-- in order to ensure a reasonable degree of safety for its citizens, the government has no business in our personal lives-- and what I choose to drink or eat is pretty damn personal. It's just another step toward making everyone so damned dependent on the government that no one can even remember how to function on their own. Not to mention how disgusting it is that this is even being brought up given the current state of the economy and job market.
    Yeah, God forbid Americans learned any lessons from countries who have stayed slim by spending tax money on building SIDEWALKS so people don't have to drive everywhere, or MANDATING physical education in schools, or REGULATING fast food advertising... A socialist nightmare! (That just happens to result in people being healthier, happier, and more productive!)

    We've had government-mandated physical education in schools since the 1960s, dude. And I walk everywhere in my city. On sidewalks.


    PE in schools is regulated at State level

    "In its first report since 2000, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education gave states and the federal government a failing grade on physical education in the American school system. Noting that no federal law requires that physical education be offered in schools or provides any incentive for physical education programs, the report says states too are dodging the issue, with many setting some general or minimum requirements but delegating responsibility for meeting those standards to individual school districts. "

    http://www.healthinschools.org/News-Room/EJournals/Volume-7/Number-4/The-Shape-of-the-Nations-Children.aspx

    And I'm glad your city has invested in sidewalks. Not all do.

    http://www2.tbo.com/news/life/2011/aug/04/rural-areas-lack-of-sidewalks-fueling-obesity-prob-ar-247686/

    Because public education is regulated at the state level. And rightly so, as we are the United States of America. It's not an accident.

    As a previous poster said, you can't legislate common sense. And trying is (a) stupid (b) a waste of energy and resources (most notably my tax money) and (c) never going to be effective. Frankly, I'm not even sure I think PE should be mandated at that level. Forget that you can't really force someone to exercise, how about that a government shouldn't? "Give me liberty or give me death" and all of that? All of this removal of personal responsibility and initiative is what creates the attitude of entitlement that has become so prevalent. When the government decides we're all idiots who can't even make our own food choices, we'll slowly begin to act like idiots as we can expect Uncle Sam to make our every choice and provide for our every need. I've never been to the UK, but I can tell you for sure that the majority of Americans value liberty more than this.

    I'm in Luxembourg. Everyone is thin and no-one seems particularly oppressed to me!
  • GorillaNJ
    GorillaNJ Posts: 4,051 Member
    Options
    Ok, ban anything over 16 ounces? I will just buy multiples of them!


    Stop trying to control the people. Educate them on making better choices, rather than taking every ****1ng thing from them because it is bad for them.

    You can still go into a bodega and get a 20oz or 2 liter bottle... just not in a restaurant or other place that serves food and is inspected by the health department for it.
  • pg3ibew
    pg3ibew Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    I didn't read all the posts, but here is my 2 cents.

    Bloomberg is an idiot.

    He raised all the SIN(liquor and cigarettes) taxes just about every year he has been in office. You know what? People are still buying them. And worse: they are going to other states to buy them.
    In NYC a pack of smokes is 12 bucks.
    In NYC a bottle of wine is 20 bucks.
    Gasoline(not a sin tax) is 4 bucks.
    NJ is just a 10 minute ride away. Those same smokes are 7.50 and the bottle of wine is 12 bucks and gas is 3.40. Do you know what happens now? Everyone goes to Jersey to shop for the day. They wind up eating in Jersey as well. So, for a ten dollar toll, you go to Jersey, buy gas, cigs and liquor for the week and wind up eating lunch and dinner and Jersey. You kow who gets hurt? Every business owner in NYC.

    Spend the day in NJ and save yourself a hundred bucks and that is factoring in the 10 toll to cross into NJ.
  • roachhaley
    roachhaley Posts: 978 Member
    Options

    Most States do not. Have a look at HBOs recent 'weight of the nation' doc for more info

    http://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/

    But I guess that you would support such a move, which, as I was trying to point out, is an example of government intervention in 'private' health matters.


    Really? I saw a list on the PBS website and the majority of states did. The list was outdated but I can't imagine all of the states have changed their policy.

    Your link was just to the main Weight of the Nation page. No information about PE classes immediately obvious to me.

    And yeah, I do think there should be mandatory PE classes in public school. You know why? Because it's public school. Taxpayers are paying for it so if there is a vote to add mandatory PE then I have no issue with it.

    http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shpps/2006/factsheets/pdf/FS_PhysicalEducation_SHPPS2006.pdf

    This shows that the majority of schools have a mandatory PE program. That's from your HBO website
  • rachel5576
    rachel5576 Posts: 429 Member
    Options
    This is so ridiculous i laughed out loud! Really i don't see the point.
  • wahmx3
    wahmx3 Posts: 646 Member
    Options
    I don't see how that is the answer at all.... I agree with the principal behind it, but what else is next. If I go to the movies once a year and want a super size soda, that should be my choice. There are far more effective things.... tax junk food (which I know is difficult to do ), offer more gym time and recess time at school (increase the length of the school day to do this or have the kids go a few extra days to make up the time), offer free workout classes or gym memberships, cut out the advertising to kids especially, more campaigns to promote nutrition and show how bad some of the "bad" foods really are.