no more than 16oz soda nanny state or good thing?

Options
124678

Replies

  • Hotpinkmama
    Hotpinkmama Posts: 34
    Options
    Really with all of the issues we have in this country NY government is choosing to focus on soda size??? Now I know what's wrong with the government officials, they'VE LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY !!
  • randomnennie
    randomnennie Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    No one should tell a potentially unhealthy person to be healthier as much as telling a healthy person to eat unhealthy.

    It's all about personal choice. Stay out of peoples cabinets and fridges!
  • Hotpinkmama
    Hotpinkmama Posts: 34
    Options
    I'm surprised only a couple people have supported it.

    It has nothing to do with "freedom". It has to do with the state promoting healthy choices over unhealthy ones. So have a beef with that if you want to.

    People consume items in units. Larger drinks are more cost effective because it's usually only a few cents more for the next larger size. If you buy the larger size, you drink more, and if what you're drinking is bad for you, your health is more heavily impacted. As others have pointed out, an individual's health is important to society in general for financial reasons. People are going to be just as happy with a smaller size, they will consume the unit they have purchased and be done.

    I think it is a good thing.
    Bottled water is more expensive than bottled soda. If the goal is to make us healthier, shouldn't they look into making healthier choices less expensive, rather than just limiting portion size for unhealthy options? It doesn't limit portions, just the size of the portions. All it limits is the cup size. I could buy a 16 oz soda, drink it, refill it, and still drink 32 oz of soda, rather than just buying a 32 oz soda to begin with. It's a complete waste of time.

    Here's an interesting statistic. Soft drink profit margins are about 90%. Fresh produce profit margins are around 10%. To me, THAT'S the problem that government should be working to fix.
  • gogophers
    gogophers Posts: 190 Member
    Options
    I'm surprised only a couple people have supported it.

    It has nothing to do with "freedom". It has to do with the state promoting healthy choices over unhealthy ones. So have a beef with that if you want to.

    It has everything to do with "freedom". With this law, we aren't "free" to make our own choices. They are also NOT promoting healthy choices. An example of that would be an ad campaign to educate the public on the dangers of soda.

    Yes, there are some reasons why regulating soda consumption may be helpful to society. But, getting rid of the 4th amendment could result in us catching more criminals. That's good because it may result in a reduction in crime. The point is, our freedoms are never taken away for "no reason whatsoever." There's always some seemingly legitimate reason to impinge on our liberty, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.
    People are really blowing this out of proportion. The proposed law would prevent cup sizes for soda sold at sporting events and restaurants to be 16oz, but it does not say anything about bottles, nor does it kill the free refills that most restaurants offer. It also does has no effect on convenience stores, so your 64oz Double gulps and the (amazingly horrible) 128oz monstrosities are perfectly safe. At the end of the day, this law would do almost nothing to the lives of regular people, I see it as more of a show by Bloomberg so that he can officially state that he cares about people's health.

    Read the proposed law.
  • Hotpinkmama
    Hotpinkmama Posts: 34
    Options
    i totally agree with Tigerwood above !!
  • AlabasterJar68
    AlabasterJar68 Posts: 121
    Options
    Would we still get free refills? Lol.

    LOL...yeah exactly!
  • clover5
    clover5 Posts: 1,643 Member
    Options
    Nanny - Leave me alone.
  • bm99
    bm99 Posts: 597 Member
    Options
    Let private business sell whatever they want as long as it is within federal laws. If the big drinks sell, so be it. If they don't, stores won't stock them.

    The focus should be at the ROOT of the problem. You can deny fatties a giant soda but they'll just buy more than 1. Teach them that you don't need or want the larger portion. Focus on NUTRITION EDUCATION rather than randomly banning things hoping it will help.

    Also Bloomberg is a tool.
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    Options
    What do you think about this proposed new law in NY about not being able to sell/buy soda bigger than 16oz? good or bad?

    Infringement on personal liberty.
  • jojo52610
    jojo52610 Posts: 692 Member
    Options
    totally stupid - like someone else said they just go and buy two
  • Takatora
    Takatora Posts: 10
    Options
    This is just part of the steepening slope when you start asking government to regulate (read: Control) healthcare. Instead of "societal costs" being the increase price you pay for products made by companies who have to pay more sick time to their unhealthy worker, tax payers are now directly responsible for subsidizing the unhealthy population's healthcare.

    Could the next step be banning oreo packages containing more than 4 cookies? Or maybe we should just skip to the end and send all of those with BMI over 30 to fitness (read: Fat) camps. After all, society comes first.
  • cici1028
    cici1028 Posts: 799 Member
    Options
    Good thing. No one needs more than 16oz of soda in a sitting. And if for some reason they do, no big deal, just go and get another one. There isn't a cap on consumption, just on the size of a single serving container.
  • Wonderwoman2677
    Wonderwoman2677 Posts: 434 Member
    Options
    Hello Big Brother :/
  • Rhea30
    Rhea30 Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    I don't think its good. First, people are overweight for different reasons. Some may over drink soda while someone else might be overeating some kind of food. This doesn't help the problem, also I don't think its the government's job to regulate our choices, especially when it comes to food that may not necessarily be bad for you. To me this looks like some politician trying to gain good points with certain groups/public by making this appear like he/she is doing something good about a situation and sadly in doing this we lose some freedom.
  • skullshank
    skullshank Posts: 4,324 Member
    Options
    it disgusts me (for the most part), that LAWS are being proposed/passed to cut people off of something like soda.
    give me a break! the obesity epidemic will NOT be solved by outlawing a certain size of sugary drink.

    people will be making bathtub mountain dew in no time! lol
  • samf36
    samf36 Posts: 369 Member
    Options
    it is called soft tyranny. What will they ban next ? Shouldn't it be up tot he people of the city?
  • LuckyAng
    LuckyAng Posts: 1,173 Member
    Options
    The proposed ban is nonsense.

    Of all the things I used to do as a teen in NYC parks, I can't believe that the Big Gulps we drank would be the thing to get us harassed.

    :laugh: No kidding.
  • hcyndy
    hcyndy Posts: 51
    Options
    It is a good idea but people will just find a way around it like they always have. Like during the prohibition era, Alcohol isn't good for you but since it made people "feel good" they found ways of getting it anyway. (Not saying soda is comparative just saying people will find away around this) Just like the public smoking ban in larger cities (Great idea but I don't think it will work)
    you can put regulations and fines on anything you want but it all comes down to whether or not someone is willing to change. You can't force things upon someone.
    Great concept though
  • str8bowbabe
    str8bowbabe Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    Look at it like the regulations on smoking that came in years ago - new packaging requirements, new rules for selling to underage people, etc.

    Since unhealthy choices affect the whole society in terms of productivity, health care costs, infrstructure costs(more hospitals, bigger seating etc) I think that these regulations come in from more the financial side than the "take away my freedom side".

    Your personal choice to be unhealthy has huge cost to society in many ways. Government is just trying to mitigate some of the impacts by making it harder for people to be unhealthy - to save money and prevent the country from eating itself into a stupor.

    Unhealthy people = unhealthy country.

    I agree with this for the most part, but I think more regulation is not the answer. If the government is really concerned about health care costs (which they obviously are, as well as myself, for paying large premiums to my insurance company to pay for healthcare for those without insurance), instead of telling us what we can and cannot do, the government should be encouraging healthy foods; making organic cheaper and easier.

    For example, going to Jack in the Box, you can get two junior bacon cheeseburgers and a medium drink for just over $3. That less than if I tried to buy two organic mangos at the store... this is what’s wrong. The fact that we can buy the burgers isn't the problem, it’s the fact that with the healthier options, you get less food for more money...

    I agree with you on this. If the government wants to truly help, then how about not allowing cookies, snack cakes, soft drinks etc on food stamps? If they want assistance then give them healthier options and do not allow they to purchase such stuff on food stamps.
  • nightsrainfall
    nightsrainfall Posts: 244 Member
    Options
    People make their own choices - let them make them, but they should also have to be the ones to pay for those choices.

Categories