Bloomberg's Soda Bill Passes page 3

[bob loblaw]

Horrible. Just horrible.

I'm somewhat okay with forced labeling, because that is just giving us INFORMATION so we can make the choices we want. If we WANT a gallon of soda, we should be able to buy it if someone wants to sell it to us.

I believe 100% that people should be able to live as health OR un-healthy as they choose. Remember, most of the world thinks we on this forum eat un-healthy, so be VERY careful what you wish for when it comes to giving power to government. If it was up to Big Gov, butter and bacon would be next.

[Iron Fireling]

I think banning large sodas is both stupid and evil. Stupid, because as is mentioned, people can always get refills. Evil, because I don't like legislating eating habits. I'm all for labels, warnings, etc, but not for the government legislating what is good or bad to eat or drink.

I mean, this is the same government that gave us the food pyramid and has soy down as heart healthy. Do we really want to set a precedent (granted, state gov not fed gov, but still) that any government can outlaw food?

--Me

I agree with this. Really, people have enough knowledge (hopefully) to KNOW that drinking a large soda is stupid... if they choose to do it, it's on them. I don't like the law interfering with what someone can or can not have. Besides which, it doesn't stop the concept of free refills, and even if they DID stop free refills... people could always buy a second drink, couldn't they?

It's like all the stuff with cigarette packaging here in Australia. First they put gross pictures on. Did that stop people smoking? Well, no... apparently not. Did it stop teens taking up smoking? Well, if the teens I see around me are evidence... then again, evidently not (even though they're not legally old enough to buy them). Now there's a new law (coming into practice at the end of the year, I think) that all cigarettes must be packaged in plain packaging (I'm assuming the gross pictures will remain). Will that change anything? Again, probably now (who cares if you don't have a pretty packet?!). People will choose to harm their health if that's what they want to do. Trying to ban stuff doesn't help. People need to make their own decisions for their own health.

I think it's also stupid to assume that sugary drinks are the leading cause of obesity... sure they're a contributing factor, but really they're not the be all and end all.

Ooooh and I should add THIS: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...096185,00.html

"Other countries have imposed tariffs on food and drink considered unhealthy, but Denmark is taking the "fat tax" appellation literally. In the name of reducing cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes, the law that went into effect on Saturday specifically targets saturated fats — the fats found most commonly in animal products like butter, cream, and meat. But few outside the government seem to think it's a good idea — or even a healthy one."

[j3nn]

Soda is cheap and ubiquitous because corn is cheap. Why is corn cheap? Because the federal government subsidizes the heck out of it. Our government is so big, so out of control, that it creates, perpetuates, and recklessly tries to rectify all of the problems taxpayers fund simultaneously! Why don't people see this demented cycle? We need to stop feeding this beast before it kills us all. Future generations will wonder how such well-fed people with a wealth of knowledge all around them allowed such stupidity to reign.

[JoanieL]

I like laws like this. It releases me from the chore of thinking.

They'll ban burgers/steaks/red meat over four ounces next - you mark my words. "Healthy people" will try to pass laws that the fumes from cooking beef (second hand beef) be disallowed since people who breathe second hand beef get heart disease.

The once great city of Manhattan will degenerate into a city of pale people with no vices who eat nothing with a face, avoid the sun, and do nothing but that generates any fun. People with tans will be shunned. The only things that will be legal will be working for Monsanto and eating quinoa salads.

Thank goodness I can always count on the majority to protect me from myself.

[Vanbiesbrouck]

I mean, this is the same government that gave us the food pyramid and has soy down as heart healthy. Do we really want to set a precedent (granted, state gov not fed gov, but still) that any government can outlaw food?

"First they came for my Sprite...and I said nothing..."

a) I question the endurance of any freedom so fragile it can be ruined by the size of a plastic bottle.

b) They outlaw a lot of things. (Raw Milk, among them). Are you advocating zero government? To me, the "It's a slippery slope argument" is always a sign someone unwilling to have a serious discussion. Just because a government can do 'some' things, doesn't automatically mean they will do 'every' thing.

They've reduced or eliminated soda vending machines in schools. I'm sure somewhere there's an 11 year old libertarian up in arms about his lack of democratic access to Mountain Dew. He has a somewhat valid point. And, next to him at lunch, are 3 fat kids that drink soda because it tastes sweet, who don't know a calorie from a crayon, but are bummed that they (at 11!!) weigh too much to play pee-wee football (135lbs).

Every once in a great while, the govt 'helping' you, actually helps you. I say this as someone under the age of 40, who had to read about Polio in a History book, because it had become impossible as an American to experience it. (thank you, govt).

c) They aren't outlawing soda consumption. They are reducing sizes, and (de facto) raising prices. You can still get the same amount you always did. Only, it'll cost more, and it'll come in more containers. Economics 101, the price elasticity of soda demand will reduce consumption. Someone, somewhere, someday will say "Hmm...if 1 is the 'normal' size...why am I drinking 3 of them?"

d) Do I love it? Not really. But, do I applaud Bloomberg for looking around, seeing an epidemic, and experimenting with small steps to fix it? Yes. The smoking ban in NYC is fking genius. It makes my nights out in bars, etc 100% better. They put calorie counts on many restaurant menus, and that helps. This too, will help. If it bombs, they'll repeal it & try something else.

I don't mind when they try and fail. I mind when they stop trying.

I drive to work behind the occasional Snapple truck in NY with a "Don't let the government tell you what size drink to buy!" poster on the back. So, now it's isn't about giant sodas...it's about Democracy!!! Yes, Helen...Coca Cola is now finally worried about your freedom. Hogwash. They want to make more money, just like people selling Lipitor saying your cholesterol has to be below whatever magical tipping point they've decided will allow them to (wait for it) sell more Lipitor. Pepsi doesn't give a rats ass about my health, but any de facto price increase in their soda will eventually bring down consumption.

Gotta agree with the rest. You aren't going to get people to eat smarter by forcing them to do it.

The history of government fuel economy standards flies in stark contrast to your statement.

Back in the 70s, the govt asked for higher fuel economy. Auto companies said they couldn't do it, claimed it was harmful govt interference on the public market, said it would ruin their profits & throw people out of work. Only, they ended up doing all of that by themselves, through incompetence & managerial inertia. "People won't buy those little cars", they said. Then, the big 3 spent 25 years with Honda & Toyota eating their lunch, and now you can buy a 300hp Camaro or Ford Mustang that gets 30mpg, something only the smallest Hondas were getting 30 years ago. Invisible hand of the market, every once in a great while, needs a kick in the butt from Uncle Sam.

Yes, not every car sold today is a prius or a leaf. Yes, there was an SUV bubble. Yes, many people started driving 20mpg cars, then 30mpg cars only as gas prices went up. But, the govt raising fuel economy standards is PART of the equation. Without the govt pushing things forward now & again, fewer things would get done. Is govt always the answer? Hell no. They should aim to keep things safe, fair, and stay largely out of the way. But, now & again...there is a place for govt. Seat belts. Fuel economy. Drinking age. Just because they aren't always right, doesn't mean they are always wrong, either.

True story: If you got elected in November & made Mark Sisson head of the FDA...people would instantly bitch about a nanny state when he told them to stop eating grains. Only, for the first time in a long time, the govt would be actually be right about the American diet.

To partially agree with the thread: I'm not a fan of the government making decisions for everyone all of the time. But...look around, everyone's fat.

All that this 'ban' does is:

(a) force you to into a smaller, more appropriate portion size, and
(b) charge you more for excessive amounts of sugary soda.

The ban does not say that you can't buy 48oz of regular coke. Just, now it'll cost you $ 6 instead of $ 3 (or whatever). The net effect of that is that people will cut back, because it acts like a luxury tax on a bad decision. If you still want 32oz in one sitting, just pay the $ 6 and shut up about it. Poor people, who often suffer from a lack of proper nutritional information and poor choices, will start to see calories from soda come down slightly. Will it fix everyone's type 2 diabetes? No. Will it make everyone a grok? No. Are there loopholes? Yes. Is it perfect? No.

But it's a step, just like fuel economy standards are a step, just like cigarette warning labels are a step. Just like stopping the consumption of grains...was a step.

[Fernaldo]

Just another example of awesome legislation... man I'm sure glad the government is here to protect me against myself. Jesus, I cannot even describe how stupid this law is. Let me get this straight, I can buy a carton of cigarettes but I can only get a 16oz soda?

Queue the Doors: "This is the end..."

[2ndChance]

It doesn't make it impossible to drink a gallon of soda; it just forces people to go out of their way to do it. It prevents mindless consumption. I don't like the idea of the government getting too regulation-happy re: food... but then again, we're all paying for each others' healthcare, and people who are sabotaging their health now will be a burden on more than just themselves soon... Anyway, I'm happy the dangers of soda-drinking are getting national attention!

[JoanieL]

And a tax on steak won't make it impossible to buy one, it will just force people to go out of their way to do it.

For those who think this is a good idea, I caution that most of the country live on CW and think that all the meat we eat is very unhealthy indeed. The next food taxed could be the one you love.

[Iron Fireling]

And a tax on steak won't make it impossible to buy one, it will just force people to go out of their way to do it.

For those who think this is a good idea, I caution that most of the country live on CW and think that all the meat we eat is very unhealthy indeed. The next food taxed could be the one you love.

Yup, and if Denmark can create a "fat tax" then the US or any other nation can do the same thing. If CW is considered the be all and end all it's not just sodas that will be affected, but the stuff that WE actually consider healthy but THEY do not!

[DamienMaddox]

"First they came for my Sprite...and I said nothing..."

a) I question the endurance of any freedom so fragile it can be ruined by the size of a plastic bottle.

As you should. There is a reason for the saying "freedom isn't free". That is because freedom has to constantly be asserted if you wish to keep it. Nobody can make you a free person, only you can.

b) They outlaw a lot of things. Are you advocating zero government?

Except that is precisely what government does, it is in governments nature to expand. The only question is the speed at which it expands. If it is not expanding, then what are all those law makers doing? If they want job security, they must keep passing laws, and for every law passed, government expands.

They've reduced or eliminated soda vending machines in schools. ... He has a somewhat valid point. And, next to him at lunch, are 3 fat kids that drink soda because it tastes sweet, who don't know a calorie from a crayon, but are bummed that they (at 11!!) weigh too much to play pee-wee football (135lbs).

So do we agree that public schools are doing a terrible job at educating children or are you just using fat shaming as an attempt to illustrate some kind of point? Because clearly only the fat kids are stupid right?

I can live with no soda in schools, but I do have a problem with compulsory attendance. If a kid wants to have soda with a lunch, he should be allowed to have it. If he doesn't like that his school hasn't taught him the difference between a calorie and crayon, he should be able to quit attending that failure of a school without the threat of either his parents getting fined, or jailed, or even him/herself getting sent to juvenile detention for truancy.

Every once in a great while, the govt 'helping' you, actually helps you. I say this as someone under the age of 40, who had to read about Polio in a History book, because it had become impossible as an American to experience it. (thank you, govt).

A fictitious paper entity cured polio? Awesome.

I thought it was an individual who just happened to be working for government because rules and regulations prohibited private industry from doing and accomplishing the same things. How long would the FDA sit on a cure for polio today if a private company had developed a cure?

c) They aren't outlawing soda consumption. They are reducing sizes, and (de facto) raising prices. ...

Neat. So its kind of like, if you make more money, they tax you more? This way, we don't all kill ourselves working too hard? Those of us who can find work anyways, in part because a companies hiring abilities are capped by those progressive tax rates.

d) But, do I applaud Bloomberg for looking around, seeing an epidemic, and experimenting with small steps to fix it?

Experimenting? There isn't any science to this, Bloomberg simply proclaimed "if you do this, you get a warning, if you continue, you get a fine, if you still continue, you get a bullet."

Yes. The smoking ban in NYC is fking genius. It makes my nights out in bars, etc 100% better.

Awesome. I wonder why it took the threat of police and guns to get night clubs to ban smoking? You would think that there would be enough people with your preferences that some clubs would have those policies on their own and still attract enough people to them to stay in business.

Guess we'll never know.

What really is a shame is, if someone wanted to go to something like a cigar lounge, well, that option is off the table. Thanks to the over-zealous catering of your specific preferences.

They put calorie counts on many restaurant menus

Yep, because nobody was doing this before Bloomberg thought about it.

I don't mind when they try and fail. I mind when they stop trying.

Most statists feel that way, they hate being proven wrong.

Back in the 70s, the govt asked for higher fuel economy. ....

High fuel economy is nothing new.

The real question is who has the bigger incentive to increase fuel economy? If a car company has a car with a high mpg, they are going to sell more of those cars, assuming they perform just as well as the other cars with lower mpg.

Government suffers though, because higher mpg means lower taxes from gasoline sales. How do we really know that government regulation improves fuel efficiency?

Yes, not every car sold today is a prius or a leaf. Yes, there was an SUV bubble. Yes, many people started driving 20mpg cars, then 30mpg cars only as gas prices went up. But, the govt raising fuel economy standards is PART of the equation.

Electric cars don't really help. Energy is energy whether it comes in liquid form or electrical current. There really is no difference between charging your car like your cell phone and refilling the gas tank. They both use mostly non-renewable fossil fuels to power that car, but simply use different forms.

Without the govt pushing things forward now & again, fewer things would get done.

Quite the contrary. There may be a few example where government pushes old technologies along, but the truth is, we would be far more advanced without government meddling.

Is govt always the answer? Hell no.

So close, drop the "always" and you vindicate everything you said in this post!

They should aim to keep things safe, fair, and stay largely out of the way. But, now & again...there is a place for govt. Seat belts. Fuel economy. Drinking age. Just because they aren't always right, doesn't mean they are always wrong, either.

Government swooped in an mandated seat belts as soon as they showed up on the market. In all likelihood, they were going to become common anyways. Just like air bags. They are now mandated I believe, but they found their way into cars without government saying they had to be there.

Drinking age, ridiculous. This drives kids to drinking at house parties with no parental supervision, which guarantees most kids will be driving home drunk. Where is the logic in this really? You only have to be 18 to enlist in the army and get killed somewhere, but you can't drink until you're 21? Why is that? If people have such poor judgement before reaching age 21, then why doesn't the military allow those under 21 to break their commitment after enlisting?

True story: If you got elected in November & made Mark Sisson head of the FDA...people would instantly bitch about a nanny state when he told them to stop eating grains. Only, for the first time in a long time, the govt would be actually be right about the American diet.

Yes, lets mandate a one size fits all diet for everybody. What could possibly go wrong with that?

To partially agree with the thread: I'm not a fan of the government making decisions for everyone all of the time. But...look around, everyone's fat.

Keep looking, there is a lot more to it than impulse control. There are a lot of skinny people too, but not all of those skinny people work hard to stay skinny. Many fat people work a lot harder trying to be skinny than some skinny people. There is a lot of other factors than self-control.

You can't throw a stick without hitting processed food. So much of what people consider normal food choices, are garbage. Government is not interested in fixing that.

All that this 'ban' does is:

(a) force you to into a smaller, more appropriate portion size, and
(b) charge you more for excessive amounts of sugary soda.

Government shouldn't have a say in any of this.

The ban does not say that you can't buy 48oz of regular coke....

Great, so the poor people will just have to drink more of that awesome fluoridated new york city municipal water. Nothing screams health like neurotoxin laced drinking water.

Will it fix everyone's type 2 diabetes? No. Will it make everyone a grok? No. Are there loopholes? Yes. Is it perfect? No.

Does it do anything useful at all? No.

But it's a step, just like fuel economy standards are a step, just like cigarette warning labels are a step. Just like stopping the consumption of grains...was a step.

Do you have any friends or relatives that have come running up to you one day, with a pack of cigarettes, screaming "OMG HAVE YOU EVER ACTUALLY READ THE LABEL ON THESE THINGS? THEY CAN KILL YOU!?"

Of course not, everybody started figuring out at the same time that cigarettes we're bad for you. Government then decided "welp, better do something about it so it looks like we're fixing the problem!" and slapped the "Ya don't say?" labels on cigarettes.

(Had to remove some of your quotes to meet the 10k char limit)