City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks
Replies
-
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.
NY already requires that has has for a couple of years in EVERY restaurant.....they want to go a step further.
They were trying to do it in MA - but it never went anywhere. There were rumors it would be part of the Affordable Care Act, but I'm not sure that it will ever come to fruition. I would seriously love it everywhere though. That said, I love eating at places that have locations in NY just for that reason.0 -
this is so stupid. they want to be able to have it still be sold in convenience stores.... where do you think people are buying them the most? i do not believe the government should be able to monitor what people are eating. if people can drive motorcycles without helmets and risk their lives everyday, shouldn't people be able to eat what they want even if it is bad for them?
yes, i understand people should make better choices, but it's not for the government to make.0 -
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?
AMEN TO THIS!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^0 -
That is nuts!
We do not need the city to tell us what to drink!
If we quit buying, they will quit selling!
We do not need our right to choose taken away!0 -
bump so i can read later0
-
I always get the largest size if it is cheaper by ounce, and share it with my bf. I'd rather have a venti shared by 2 than 2 talls at Starbucks, for example. Therefore, I am not against oversized. It is up to the consumer to decide what is best for them.0
-
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^^^^0 -
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?"0 -
I always get the largest size if it is cheaper by ounce, and share it with my bf. I'd rather have a venti shared by 2 than 2 talls at Starbucks, for example. Therefore, I am not against oversized. It is up to the consumer to decide what is best for them.
Will they give you a second cup to split it in? Because I don't care how close I am to someone, I want my own coffee cup. I'm willing to pay more per ounce to get it, too.
Though I'm not against oversized. I don't believe the government should be regulating adult behavior.0 -
Jon Stewart ridiculing this right now... Gotta love Jon!0
-
I think it's awesome that NY is doing that! However, it doesn't affect me.
Now when Portland's Mayor decided to ban plastic shopping bags . . that was another story!0 -
GREAT RANT by the great Mr. Stewart!! You can buy M&M's in any store in NYC...so funny!!!! The huge sandwich in front of him was funny too...Jon Stewart ridiculing this right now... Gotta love Jon!
p.s. I agree with Personal responsibilty Mr. Bloomberg!0 -
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.
Oh no, the government was never meant to have *anything* to do with taking care of "well-being and general welfare" - they knew that role is to be filled by the family structure and, for those who worshipped, their spiritual community.
Our founding fathers created the Constitution to ensure that government was severely restricted in its powers, with its prime directive to defend citizens, the nation, and the Constitution so that citizens could pursue happiness (which, in the day, meant work at whatever you wanted to do in order to make a living, and keep the fruits of your labor). Government and the judiciary is meant to PROTECT our freedoms, not restrict them. It was never granted the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to buy something they don't want or give money to help the poor or tell them how to package their products. That is onerous governance, and it is against the will of any who understand and value the freedoms our forefathers fought to provide us - if we could manage to keep them.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.
And so you would restrict others based on what you believe. That scares the <bleep> out of me.0 -
The government regulates tobacco use, alcohol use, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc. I don't have any problem with them limiting the size of a drink that is intentionally designed to cause health problems. The people who sell these drinks only care about how much money they can get. They don't care about the health of their customers. Given that attitude, let's regulate it.
they make large drinks to kill us? intentionally? really? hyperbole on line one, please.
Maybe I missed something, but is there some kind of debate about the negative effect of massive amounts of processed sugar on a person's health? I thought diabetes and high blood pressure were major health issues affecting this nation. Did I miss something? Maybe you could fill me in.0 -
No. Why a ban? It would just cost money to enforce, and its not going to make any difference at all. If a person wants to drink a bucket of soda at a time, they can just buy a few, or pick up a 2 liter. Put the money into public education to teach students and their parents why you shouldn't drink said bucket of soda instead.
This! The money should be spent on education.0 -
Wrongo BIG TIME. The government is required to help with the "general welfare" of its citizens. It's in the Constitution. Or did you NOT READ IT? I am getting sick of you people who totally hate the U.S. government, but are pro war and pro military and want the U.S. government to kill people, but not HELP people.0
-
Wrongo BIG TIME. The government is required to help with the "general welfare" of its citizens. It's in the Constitution. Or did you NOT READ IT? I am getting sick of you people who totally hate the U.S. government, but are pro war and pro military and want the U.S. government to kill people, but not HELP people.
Well, first of all, that applies to the Federal government. This is NYC. Does NYC have a "general welfare" clause in their city...whatever?
Second of all, the general welfare clause as it pertains to the Federal gov't pertains to them levying taxes to spend money on the duties already specified in the constitution. It has nothing to do with setting up legislation regarding the general welfare and it's not meant to cover an infinite number of "issues".
ETA: I adopt the James Madison interpretation on that specific clause. And yes, I believe that a lot of other legislation crosses this same line.0 -
This is nonsense. Once you're an adult, the government shouldn't have any bearing over what you want to put into your body - drugs, food, whatever. If you're over 18 and you want to inject 60 fluid ounces of Pepsi directly into your veins, that's your prerogative. Put a high tax on it, like cigarettes, and put that money to good use rather than trying to run the country like a daycare.0
-
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.
Absolutely this!0 -
This is nonsense. Once you're an adult, the government shouldn't have any bearing over what you want to put into your body - drugs, food, whatever. If you're over 18 and you want to inject 60 fluid ounces of Pepsi directly into your veins, that's your prerogative. Put a high tax on it, like cigarettes, and put that money to good use rather than trying to run the country like a daycare.
This, exactly. The only thing I'd stipulate is "Put a high tax on it TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE and, if they vote yes, put the money to good use..."
@Gastankerdriver:
There is no debate about whether the drinks or the sugar or the tobacco or the ________________ (fill in the blank) are good or bad for you - the debate is whether you feel the government should tell you what you can and cannot have.
Yes, I've read the Constitution. Painting me with a broad brush to say I love war and want my government to kill people shows you aren't prepared for an intellectual debate. So say whatever you want - you've made your own argument irrelevant.0 -
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 want to agree with you--the last place I need extra government intervention is in my refrigerator or the drive through line BUT who pays the health care costs for all of the people over-consuming fast food garbage? Who takes care of their children because they are too sick to do it themselves? I say, if someone is hellbent on killing themselves they should be issued a gun and allowed to get it over with quickly and cheaply. No long, drawn out tax-payer funded dying.
Ditto.0 -
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?0 -
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.
^ DOWN WITH THE NANNY STATE.
If you want to be a fatty, do it. If you don't, DON'T. None of my business.0 -
I'm indifferent. If they banned it here, oh well. I'll drink water. I'm not going to get upset about it.0
-
Just another way for the government to try to legislate our lives......how about dealing with the more important issues?0
-
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.
You - President 2012 LETS DO THIS !0 -
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?
Yes. Because it's those little steps that lead up to the larger ones. It's not the size of the legislation...it's the idea behind it.
And the education really isn't there, unless they've changed it a LOT in 10 years. I remember learning about the basic food groups and how to bake cupcakes in Home Ec...but that's about it. Nothing about calories in/out or anything like what I've learned over the past year or so.0 -
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?0 -
What a great argument against government-controlled health care. I agree with you - when the government uses taxpayer money to run healthcare, we all of a sudden have to start making choices for others because we are the ones who will get stuck with the bill. It happens too much already. And I think that's the path that Gastankerdriver said we are already on. He's comfortable with it, but a number of us are not....I want to agree with you--the last place I need extra government intervention is in my refrigerator or the drive through line BUT who pays the health care costs for all of the people over-consuming fast food garbage?....
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.0 -
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.”0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions