City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.