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

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
The chance of the most populated city in America actually being able to go through with this? Slim to none. It wont happen.


Oh really?
The ban on certain things like.......Transfat won't happen.
Oh yeah, already has.....

Ban on Citizens guns rights won't happen..............
Well crap, that happened too.

I am thinking of making up new shirts. Instead of the I "Heart" NY, maybe do I "Broken Heart" NY.
Or I "Hearted" NY until they took away my right to a Big Gulp.



Just another reason on the already long list of reasons to never go to NY. You guys there can keep it.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


It still boggles my mind that city gun ordinances like in New York can trump the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. constitution.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Way to stay on top of these things, Neo. The government needs to stop over-regulating everything, including what we eat and drink. One of the problems with having a state health insurance plan is that it justifies controlling what the citizens eat and drink - because what we consume affects money spent by the government on our health.

There is also danger here that fat people will be left to die, or old people, and this will be justified by the same means. However, it is often forgotten that we would not have to do this if we hadn't decided to go for a public health insurance plan in the first place.

PS) Time to start selling sodas on the underground market, am I right? It will be like 1930 all over again.
edit on 31-5-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


Maybe, but people have a right to make that choice themselves. No government - city state or federal - should be in the business of telling anyone what to do with their body. Whether it's drugs, abortion or eating yourself to death. It's no one's business but your own.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
The chance of the most populated city in America actually being able to go through with this? Slim to none. It wont happen.


Oh really?
The ban on certain things like.......Transfat won't happen.
Oh yeah, already has.....




In all fairness, trans fats are added items and are not essential to the food in question. It's a cheap way to extend shelf life, but you don't need it for anything else. They aren't taking a consumers choice away by doing that, rather they are forcing food makers to use non-hydrogenated oil in the production of food items.
en.wikipedia.org...

This soda thing, it's laughable. Furthermore, letting fruit juice and dairy drinks get a pass? They are just as bad. The solution to obesity is not micromanagement, however the government does need to stop subsidizing a certain plant. If they did prices for junk would go up naturally and prices for actual healthy food would go down.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Why the need to ban large drinks? It's not like they are forced down your throat - drink or drown.
We are humans, we have free will and choice to consume what we wish. Each to their own in the context of food, bans should not be introduced to stop people from consuming what they want - after all they are in control of their own body. Unhealthy and overweight? It's generally the fault of the person who put themselves into that state. If people want to stay healthy, they will.
Some people choose to smoke, some don't, non-smokers are arguable healthier than smokers. Some people may choose to drink fizzy sugar stuff over water or fruit juice (although most of that has high sugar content). Ultimately the city shouldn't ban large drinks because people are getting unhealthy, people are responsible for their indulgence, not the city.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia


In all fairness, trans fats are added items and are not essential to the food in question. It's a cheap way to extend shelf life, but you don't need it for anything else. They aren't taking a consumers choice away by doing that, rather they are forcing food makers to use non-hydrogenated oil in the production of food items.
en.wikipedia.org...

This soda thing, it's laughable. Furthermore, letting fruit juice and dairy drinks get a pass? They are just as bad. The solution to obesity is not micromanagement, however the government does need to stop subsidizing a certain plant. If they did prices for junk would go up naturally and prices for actual healthy food would go down.


So, I guess you or the NY resident are just too dumb to make a decision for yourself?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

So, I guess you or the NY resident are just too dumb to make a decision for yourself?



The point was trans fats add nothing to food, are not necessary for food and have deleterious effects on health. If they are not required to use the offending substance to make a food item then you are not taking away a choice. You can still get the Twinky, the manufacturer just can't use hydrogenated oil to make it. Oh it's kinda like saying "Well you know lead is bad for you so let's not put that in paint". Can you not buy paint anymore? You can't compare it to banning guns or something of that manner because the food items still are available with the removal of the offending substance. This could also be done with tar based dyes, unnecessary food additives and added sodium nitrates. In fact, many countries do ban these items yet they can still get junk food.

I'm sure you still don't understand anyway.
edit on 31-5-2012 by antonia because: added a thought
edit on 31-5-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Haven't the lawmakers in NY realized yet that the citizens in NY could care less what they do, and will continue to live their lives they way they want to live it.

Like another poster said, they will just buy two sodas.

NY came up with the bright idea of banning smoking indoors then charging close to $15.00 a pack of cigarettes in hopes that it would make people stop smoking. Guess what. It hasn't.

Just a waste of time and paperwork if you ask me.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
This is just taking the nanny state too far.

In a few years they'll probably discover that sugar is actually good for you and aspartame is harmful. Opinions on food items are always changing. Once I was told eggs were harmful to my health; now they're saying that egg whites, at least, can be beneficial.

They're putting aspartame in everything now but I don't know that it has been around long enough for any of us to know its long-term effects.

If I want real sugar in my soft drinks I don't know why anyone should forbid me to have it.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





If I want real sugar in my soft drinks I don't know why anyone should forbid me to have it.


That reminds me of when Pepsi and Coca Cola came out with their "retro" sodas with real sugar. You look at the retro version vs. the modern versions nutritional information and the retro sodas with the real sugar was actually BETTER for you on paper. I just don't get it.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
so bloomberg made plans for what he is going to do once the citizens throw him out on his ass because this is going to cause massive backlash. is it so he can say he for peoples health or so venues can sell more drinks because now people will buy 2 to get the same amount they were getting in one



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
When the gubment decides to pick up the tab for socialized healthcare, it suddenly discovers that it needs to ban everything that could be bad for people to keep costs down. Here in Philly, the mayor keeps trying to push through a soda tax but, he keeps getting shot down (thank God).

I think this push to ban or tax unhealthy foods is connected to the roll out of Obamacare and the desire to keep costs down. Next, they'll go after extreme sports and start targeting states that don't require motorcycle helmets.

All in the interest of keeping the public safe (from having the gubment going bankrupt paying for all their medical bills).



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
If they want to do something about obesity, they should start by banning half the stuff they put in food these days. Do we need preservatives in fast food or any food these days. When you leave a Mc Donald's hamburger out for over a year and it doesn't grow mold on it, you know it has way too much preservatives in it.

It should be like ground beef, after 3-4days it should go bad and smell, not filled with preservatives to make it last 200yrs if kept frozen.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Why are we even discussing the potential health benefits of soda? That in itself is an indication that government is indeed in full Totalitarianism mode and has the right to decide for each individual what they will and will not consume.

I remember one week back years ago... at the beginning of the week, whole milk was considered a 'healthy' thing... then there was a news story stating it could be a carcinogen... then there was another report stating that whole milk had health benefits. Can anyone imagine the speed with which laws would need to be passed to keep up with reports like that?

But I digress...

The underlying issue seems to be this socialistic belief that an action by one person has a direct impact on other people. Unfortunately it does, but only because of laws. Insurance, which spreads risk out among a group of people to reduce individual cost, works by analyzing that risk based on the relevant factors involved and assigning a price that allows the insurer to pay out claims and still make a profit. When laws get passed that prohibit utilization of these relevant factors in the name of 'fairness', this throws the entire economic equation out of balance and forces those who do not have the relevant factors to pay for those who do.

In other words, if one wishes to have ObamaCare (or any nationalized health care system), one is also accepting a decree to pay for the actions of others. If one wishes to have ObamaCare and not be required to pay for the actions of others, one agrees that the government has the right and ability to control the actions of all. Notice I said "of all", not "of others". Simple logic decrees that unless a caste society is imposed, no one is immune from such governmental influence. If the present discussion does not apply to you now, it is likely a future discussion will.

The legal term that troubles me whenever I hear these discussions is "precedent". If a particular thought process is used for one decision, then it becomes acceptable to use that same thought process for other future decisions. In simpler terms, if it is OK to outlaw cigarettes because they are detrimental to health according to present understanding, it is OK to outlaw trans-fats because they are detrimental to health based on present understanding. It is then OK to outlaw soda because it is detrimental to health based on current understanding. It is then OK to outlaw coffee because it is detrimental to health based on present understanding. It is then OK to outlaw red meat because it is detrimental to health based on current understanding. It is then OK to outlaw asparagus if it is detrimental to health based on current understanding. It is then OK to outlaw bologna if it is detrimental to health based on current understanding. It is then...

I could go on and on.

If a caste society is established, it is rare when those who support it become members of the ruling caste. Thus, a desire for such a system more often than not is in actuality a desire for a lack of freedom.

The real argument is between those who value freedom and those who do not. I personally value freedom, to the point that I find it difficult to comprehend that those who do not even exist. Yet, I see they do... otherwise this argument would not be ongoing.

As someone who has managed to not wake up dead for a goodly number of years, I have seen first-hand the vagrancies that accompany scientific research. I alluded to this earlier, speaking of the week of revolving whole milk. Science has the ability to make bad experiments and present faulty information. This is theoretically countered by the peer-review system, in which results must be reviewed, repeated, and reconsidered by others before a consensus is reached as to what the truth of the matter truly is. Unfortunately, peer review is rarely exercised fully today; more commonly, one experiment that happens to agree with the uninformed views of a portion of the public is accepted as fact until such time as multiple peer reviews and differing scientific opinions are forced into view. The Main Stream Media, the primary source of information for most and which often touts 'official' government positions, tends to make unpopular scientific results either unavailable to the public or denigrates those with dissenting information to the point they either drop the subject or are met with lack of funding. Thus, my continued insistence of the term "based on current understanding" rather than "based in scientific fact".

There is not much left to add. My position is clearly stated above.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Mountain Dew is my staple drink and 24 years later I am still the size I was in High school(32 waist), but that's me. I do recognize that it effects people in different ways. Personally, I think, its the fatty foods more than the soft drinks. What really gets me, is that its okay to have a large alcoholic drink and be running around stupid putting yourself or others at risk of physical injury or death but its not okay to be fat while doing it. He is attempting to force the people of NY to be healthier but doing it in a half arsed way. I say get a clue Bloomberg, get a clue!


The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Here is another thing those genius's are not thinking about is the volume of a 32 ounce soda is usually displaced by a volume of ice which takes away from the total volume of soda consumed,

Which means if the volume of ice filled top would displace at last half of the total volume of soda consumed.


Yes it will backfire. people instead will by bottles to take with them and will end up consuming more soda undiluted by ice.

As for Diet soda - I usually only see fat people drinking it. Everyone I know who drinks a bunch of regular soda is barely overweight. Sugar burns off with quite fast with just a little bit of activity.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agarta
Mountain Dew is my staple drink and 24 years later I am still the size I was in High school(32 waist), but that's me. I do recognize that it effects people in different ways.


Perhaps, it's more likely you "compensate" for this by either fidgeting, working out or eating less of something. If you aren't eating enough calories to gain wight then you won't.
You might find this interesting: www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Star from me and Applause too.

You said the magic word: "Precedent"

The King of NY doesn't really care about people's health. This ban is a non-issue as far as health goes. As pointed out, people will just get 2 sodas, or in places that offer free refills, they'll just hit that up. The ban would do NOTHING to help people's health.

But it would help to set more of a precedent for the state to pass other laws down the road.

That's the problem with governments: they don't want you to be really free, they only want you to think you are.

Remember that.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Saw this earlier on Drudge.... This nothing more than creeping socialism which will lead to the destruction of the freedoms we have left.Next it will be something else and then something else... just like the left/right wingnuts slow march to end democracy.

NYC is a strange place where people have given up their individual liberties for fake safety. I see stop and frisk; trans fats ban' now the ban on sugary drinks is not what America is all about. I wonder if this is also an attempt to raise the prices of the drinks through regulating the size of the cup or bottle.


One way around this ban would be to just sell a giant cup of ice and a 2 liter.... Nanny Bloomers is just a socialist....

I wonder how much flouridr they put into the NYC water syatem because these people seem to be sheeple not the aragant New Yorkers of the old days!





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join