Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86

Thread: Bloomberg's Soda Bill Passes

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    651

    Thumbs up Bloomberg's Soda Bill Passes

    >> Current Stats: 90% Primal / 143 lbs / ~25% BF
    >> Goal (by 1 Jan 2014): 90% Primal / 135-ish pounds / 20-22% BF

    >> Upcoming Fitness Feats: Tough Mudder, June 2013
    >> Check out my super-exciting journal by clicking these words.

    Weight does NOT equal health -- ditch the scale, don't be a slave to it!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    1,920
    It makes me want to buy a small cup and go back for refills.
    If I just said LOL, I lied. Do or do not. There is no try.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by justyouraveragecavemen View Post
    It makes me want to buy a small cup and go back for refills.
    It's funny you would mention that, because that was my first thought as well. I know my boyfriend always gets a small drink at fast food places because he knows he can just go up and get more. Maybe they'll get rid of soda fountains next...?
    >> Current Stats: 90% Primal / 143 lbs / ~25% BF
    >> Goal (by 1 Jan 2014): 90% Primal / 135-ish pounds / 20-22% BF

    >> Upcoming Fitness Feats: Tough Mudder, June 2013
    >> Check out my super-exciting journal by clicking these words.

    Weight does NOT equal health -- ditch the scale, don't be a slave to it!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    359
    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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by adamm View Post
    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."
    Last edited by Iron Fireling; 09-13-2012 at 03:44 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by adamm View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciavyn View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    They put calorie counts on many restaurant menus
    Yep, because nobody was doing this before Bloomberg thought about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    Is govt always the answer? Hell no.
    So close, drop the "always" and you vindicate everything you said in this post!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View 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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ME/Southwest Asia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    "First they came for my Sprite...and I said nothing..."

    .......
    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..
    I find little to be taken seriously in anything you've written here. (wipes the smirk...... off my face......)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    ........


    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.
    And that is a big reason why.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post
    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.
    CAFE standards have, I'm sure, killed more people than cancer and are generally why your car is made out of fiberglass. I'm sure you're perfectly fine with more dead highway travelers unfortunate enough to get in a wreck, provided it met a greater societal need to conserve energy resources, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post

    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.
    But top down behavioral mandates are a particular feature you appreciate in government..... as long as your guy is in charge of it, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post

    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.
    I don't believe that last sentence one bit. Given what you've written, I believe that if you convince yourself you've got the best idea on how to "fix" somebody elses problem.... you'd have no problem imposing it on them through coercive force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanbiesbrouck View Post

    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.
    Well since you put it that way...... nope, still not on board.
    Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
    Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
    Starting Energy: "bleh...."
    Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
    Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.

    "Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    156
    Agreed that it's worriesome. Especially when we're seeing occasional reports of farm-to-table celebrations shut down for "health violations." Given what the government seems to think is "healthy," I'd rather not see them legislating it.

    ...whoa, just read through the whole thread, and my on-topic reply now seems very off-topic! =/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth Texas
    Posts
    5,464
    Because the next step might be butter!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •