New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

Originally posted by BigBruddah

Originally posted by neo96

The "ban" doesn't apply to "diet" sodas which taste rather nasty in my opinion. Wait and see New York will face tax revenue loss from this "briliiant plan of action to combat obesity".

Very interesting that it doesn't include diet soda... Do they want everyone getting cancer from coke zero or are they just getting something from coca cola for pushing the sale of it?

I drink about 3 cans of coke zero a day...you sayin' im gonna get cancer? From what exactly? The Aspartame? Has that been proven to be carcinogenic? The answer is ...NO

Originally posted by Mahree
First "they" went after the smokers...for health reasons.

Now "they" are aiming at large sugar sodas...for health reasons.

Does anyone see a pattern in this?

So, are you suggesting that Drinking 32 Oz of sugar water and smoking are not unhealthy? Also, 2 instances are not enough to call it a "pattern"

I am of the opinion that based on the 10th Amendment States can do pretty much as they wish as long as they don’t violate the bill of rights.

I like it this way I think it was the founders intent that people of a like mind could congregate together and either pretty much limit government to the minimal amount possible or swing all the way to the Nanny State. People were to vote with their feet if they didn't like their city, county, or State laws - now it's so homogenized as to be almost irrelevant where one lives. The Federal Government controls everything.

The problem is that now with the abolishment of the 17th amendment which made Senators also subject to the voter popularity contest that the States (who used to appoint the Senators) lost their representation (using the 10th Amendment) to save the individual States from the will of the larger more populated States.

Well, that and the more the Fed taxes the States it can then extort whatever actions they want by simply threatening to withhold funds – like with the failed 55mph fiasco, and the not so failed 21 year old drinking age. Take money that belongs to the people of a smaller State to begin with then withhold it until they agree to the wishes of the larger States.

I mean we recently had SEN Chuck Schumer (because of something that happened in FLA with Treyvon Martin) calling for the Fed to take away funding from States who had those pesky castle doctrine or stand your ground laws. Because of course we all know that in the States with the largest urban populations strict gun control results in lower instances of gun crime. I mean LA, NYC, Chicago and even the Nation’s Capitol with the strictest laws regarding guns in the US have the lowest gun crime – don’t they? So obviously we need that sort of control out here in rural America too so we can live the same dream.

Then there are the left coasters wanting to take the toys out of happy meals. NY City is regulating salt in the soup for the homeless. I mean when hungry I’m sure salt content of your donated food is of a major concern to you. OMG make whatever Nanny rules you want for your State Chuck and Nancy (California) – just leave the rest of us alone.

Is it any wonder that the less populated States in the middle of the nation who have unequal representation despise theses few large more populated ones who try to force their inane policies on the whole nation. This is going to be the cause of the next Civil War.

Almost identical to 1860 it only takes but a very few of the largest liberal States to pick a president in 2012 – the rest of the (Smaller flyover and RED) States and their wishes are largely irrelevant. No one wants’ to feel irrelevant. I mean Lincoln won in 1860 and he wasn’t even on the ballot in 11 of the Southern States. Sure, I bet the Southerners felt all fuzzy that the nation had their best interests at heart. Slavery was the boogieman hung on the issue to make the Southern cause seem inhumane - it was about lack of relevant representation at the Federal level.

If the people of NY, CA and IL and the other indebted Nanny States want these type people in power and want these kind of rules more power to them – I don’t live there for those reasons. I don't want someone who thinks regulating my food intake and salt is any of their business to be "my" representative".

Do as you will there in the left and west coasts just don’t advance this crazy crap for the whole Nation.

Even though the sentiment is blaming this on government control of your lives, the fact of the matter here is most people in the US are Idiots when it comes to their health. And in some cases like this they need direction. Maybe there should be a law that is passed to not allow anyone whom is an addict to such sugary drinks, alcoholic drinks, and a smoker, to obtain any type of health insurance. People feel they can do what ever they want with disregard to their health then expect the government to take care of them when they cant breath, or get diabetes. But have a problem when government tries to curb their bad habits.. what a joke

Originally posted by flice
I dont know why you are trying to defend the sale of soda products... Even by saying thats it has always been here.. Duuh. That doesnt mean its a safe product....

You need to educate yourself a bit regarding health and foods since this move by new york is a move based on public health rather than trying to take something away from you.

Sure it is - that and the money they can soak from the public to spend on more inane laws and regulations that should be simply the purview of the individual.

Originally posted by fliceHere in Denmark we finally got tax on fat and sugar meaning that the foods or should we cal them snack became more expensive to buy than PROPER food. Excellent move since obesecity has become a public western issue. If you obese... I would go as far as saying youre a liability to society and need to be under administtration... Price and amounts on BAD products like soda and whatnot is a step in the right direction.

That’s because you have a cradle to grave society – here if you are fat “you” not the collective are responsible for the higher insurance premiums since you are the one making the choice to be a fat fatty…. Since our Lord and Savior EurO’bama has shoved his European style healthcare down our throats if it passes legal muster we too will have the government managing our food intake because as our health care provider they would have justification. 70% of American’s don’t want it that way – why? We like freedom, even if it is the freedom to be fat, and make bad choices.

If I wanted to live in Denmark I would - then I too could have the Nanny State run my life for what kind of taxes do you pay?

High income taxes in Denmark worsen a labor shortage

The problem, employers and economists believe, has a lot to do with the 63 percent marginal tax rate paid by top earners in Denmark - a level that hits anyone making more than 360,000 Danish kroner, or about $70,000. That same tax rate underpins such effective income redistribution that Denmark is the most nearly equal society in the world, in that wealth is more evenly spread than anywhere else.

Oh and then on top of that you get to shell out Denmark Value Added Tax Rates like 25% extra for every single item I buy.

Danish value added tax (VAT) is levied at a standard rate of 25% of the sale price of most goods and services and the legislation generally follows EC Directives. No graduated rates exist.

Man - why don't we all move to this utopia?

I'd rather the government just stay out of my life as much as possible I’ll bankroll my own life.

Yet tobacco and alcohol are still legal? Oh wait, I almost forgot... those are heavily taxed. The government wouldn't dare make something illegal if it cut off their precious income!

Could this imply that they are discreetly trying to nudge people over to aspartame? Somebody is definitely pushing the aspartame agenda these days. It's in EVERYTHING. It seems like more gum contains aspartame than real sugar these days. Seriously, the next time you have a few minutes to kill in a store while you're waiting around or something, pick up five packs of gum and read the ingredients. I guarantee you that four out of those five packs will contain aspartame.

Somebody wants us consuming it more and more, I have no doubt about that.

Originally posted by Golf66
Since our Lord and Savior EurO’bama has shoved his European style healthcare down our throats if it passes legal muster we too will have the government managing our food intake because as our health care provider they would have justification. 70% of American’s don’t want it that way – why? We like freedom, even if it is the freedom to be fat, and make bad choices.

I should point out that in Canada we have a publicly funded health care system like the one you're describing, and the government doesn't stick its nose in our lifestyle choices. We can eat whatever we want, or even drink and smoke as much as we want and they can't do a god damn thing about it.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Even though the sentiment is blaming this on government control of your lives, the fact of the matter here is most people in the US are Idiots when it comes to their health. And in some cases like this they need direction. Maybe there should be a law that is passed to not allow anyone whom is an addict to such sugary drinks, alcoholic drinks, and a smoker, to obtain any type of health insurance. People feel they can do what ever they want with disregard to their health then expect the government to take care of them when they cant breath, or get diabetes. But have a problem when government tries to curb their bad habits.. what a joke

I agree - if you walk (if you can) into a hospital fat as sin and having lung cancer from having smoked for 50 years or a liver like a pickled trout from excess drink and you can't find a company to sell (your obviously without willpower or restraint ass) health insurance then I say they turn you right back out on the street to suffocate in your own fluids.

Why should the responsible taxpayers through Medicaid have to foot the bill for your lifetime of poor choice. Only words should be g'night fatty - should have made better choices.

This is about Rights. I grew up taking in sugary drinks, not any more, but This needs to be said:

WHY DON'T THEY JUST BRING BACK FRAGGING PROHIBITION!!!

Can't drink, can't smoke, and now can't Sugar!

Again, I don't do any of this, but I know people who Do/Did. I've seen innocent, casual cigarette smokers over the past couple decades transformed into third-class citizens. People who can't even smoke on their own property without neighbors bitching about it! First they segregate them in diners, then they outlaw it altogether. Then they make smoking in Open Public Areas bloody Illegal. I think they're heading towards a No Smoking Planet law.

The thing is this: secondhand smoke is WAY over-rated as a deathly curse. The whole things's been blown out of proportion. I think a guy who builds a camp fire and inhales That smoke is worse off than a guy who sits between a couple of smokers at a bar for five minutes.

Now some bozos are starting with SUGAR of all things!

Maybe they'll equate it to Crack and send their alcohol, tobacco, sugar, and firearms stooges out to confiscate it and wave rifles around over it. Next they'll be saying it emits an invisible gas/radiation which is deadly to people in close proximity. There are people in prison facing longer terms for possessing pot than some Murderers. Sugar-users will be there right alongside them soon.

Enough is enough!

Haha. Emperor Bloomberg enacting his will on his subjects yet again. Sooner or later he is going to bite off more than he can chew, and he will choke on it. That's why I'm glad that I live on the opposite side of the state.

Not like I drink soda anyway. The stuff will kill ya. If someone wants to drink it, that's their free choice, not the choice of a billionaire Bureaucrat like Bloomberg. He needs to get a life.


-TS

So instead of getting one 24oz soda I'll buy two 16oz sodas.

My question is why does Bloomberg want to give an unfair advantage to big business in NY by pushing people to consume more and pay more?

We know pretty well by now that people dont change their behaviors due to regulations. Smoking was in decline before all the "tax tobacco" started up and those who still smoke cut back in other areas to afford the cost and those who quit or attempt to quit rarely cite cost as a factor.

Besides, if everyone quit smoking governments would lose all that revenue so they dont really want you quit in the first place and they know you wont quit.

The same thing with the soda. For people who dont drink it it doesnt matter. For people who live with it as a vice it also doesnt matter because they'll get around the regulation one way or another.

And what's with it not applying to diet rat-poison sodas? Go ahead, drink all the poison you want?

It's all completely pointless. Bloomberg doesnt have anything better to do?

They had better ban Cotton Candy too!! It's all sugar!!!! God forbid we let little ones experience it's fun while attending a carnival or one of those dastardly circuses.

NYC is racing to take the Nanny State Crown!! Pathetic.

Just buy several small sizes and pour them into a Big Ass cup. Save your BigAss cups people. Recycle your Big Gulp Cups....

Wow!

Originally posted by neo96

100 years anyone ever died from it?

Yep..the other day...well her habit certainly contributed to it....

A New Zealand mother of eight has died after drinking 10 liters of Coca-Cola a day, a coroner's investigation heard.

Natasha Harris, 30, suffered a cardiac arrest that her partner believes was brought on by her massive soft drink intake.

Pathologist Dr. Dan Mornin told the court it was likely Harris had severe hypokalemia -- a lack of potassium in the blood -- brought on by her excessive consumption of soda.

He said she died from cardiac arrhythmia, and that her soft drink habit, along with poor nutrition and too much caffeine, contributed to her death

Source:
Woman dies after drinking 10 liters of Coke a day

CX.

This is so silly. So instead of buying one big soda, people will buy two instead. And there will be twice as much trash and an even bigger carbon footprint because of it. The nanny-state fails again ...

reply to post by CX


It played a role among many other factors. All of which have the unifying theme of "poor health."

Yet Bloomberg doesnt go after alcohol which can be the sole factor in your demise in either one night of excess or a lifetime of abuse.

If I had to guess I'd say NY has a hefty liquor tax.

Table 1
New York Alcohol Tax
Current Rate/Gal(1)
Estimated Gals. Of Bev. Sold
Estimated Tax Revenues (2)
Beer
$0.14
328,000,000
$45,920,000
Wine
$0.30
58,000,000
$17,400,000
Distilled Spirits
$6.44
26,000,000
$167,440,000
Total
412,000,000
$230,760,000

reply to post by CX


That's a hell of a lot of soda!! compounded with a laundry list of health problems. Imagine drinking 10 liters of Beer a day. It's all about moderation and no law will stop a persons addictive behavior. Can't buy a big gulp? Then people will just buy more of a smaller size and will still consume just as much.

We don't need Nanny laws for this... or anything like it... Who's going to enforce this nonsense anyway? Will the police pull me over if they spot me drinking straight from a 2 liter bottle rather than a Big Gulp cup? Just nonsense..

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by QQXXw
. I support mayor Bloomberg on this 100% and its about time other politicians stopped thinking about money and revenue and started to think about the health of the citizens they serve.

Then you support this..........Which I dont.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible

Obesity is a physical state in which the person consumes as much food as possible in an effort to placate their inner machinations, at the behest of society, public healthcare funding, and most of all, that 10% of a seat I get to rest upon when taking the bus to work due to the immense, hippopotamus-like size of my city's inhabitants. Take their soda. My back hurts from my 10% of a seat.

two please

Piece by piece, control is being handed to these guys. Majority are giving it to them without a fight, falling for the same typical bs "its for your best interest". Nothing ever EVER is for our best interest, its for their best interest always.

I should point out that in Canada we have a publicly funded health care system like the one you're describing, and the government doesn't stick its nose in our lifestyle choices. We can eat whatever we want, or even drink and smoke as much as we want and they can't do a god damn thing about it.

B.C., New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and P.E.I. have all launched suits against the makers of cigarettes, based on the premise people are idiots and tobacco firms conniving profiteers. And now, Premier Alison Redford’s government has hooked Alberta’s carriage to the same gravy train — with $10 billion the amount being sought in our province’s lawsuit against the dastardly tobacco pushers.

Alberta looking to feast at the legal trough

It would seem that even though smokers have propped up the social services in Canadian provinces for years via high cigarette taxes, the governments still want more... The nanny state used to tell us that cigarette taxes are high because the "Forced Canadian State Health Insurance" will need that money to take care of you when you get cancer. What happened to all of those billions of dollars they were putting aside from cigarette taxes to pay for the ill effects of smoking?

I'm sure glad I buy my cigarettes from First Nations Native Reserves at around 24$ a carton, the 80$ a carton average price scheme they have going in most provinces is obviously being used to fund other things. I will refuse giving the tax man ANY of my money at ANY opportunity. The good thing is they will never stop the selling of cigarettes from Native Reservations as it is their RIGHT to make a living tax free selling Native made items. They would have a war on their hands if they ever attempted to go onto these reserves and shut the stores down.