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

reply to post by antonia

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...

In all fairness, soda is a completely invented thing. They can put whatever they want in it, nothing is "essential" to the food in question. The funny thing here is that while people are going on and on about "Let me have my sugar if I want to!", they don't realise that most sodas haven't had sugar in years. It is all "High-Fructose Corn Syrup".

Personally, I'm not against this ban. Yes, yes, freedom to do what you want, but, seriously people, have some limits. In another other thread on this topic, someone was talking about how they like to sit down to their movie in the cinema with a 72oz (about 2.25l) glass of coke, and bucket of popcorn, and all I was thinking was....WHY ON EARTH DO THEY HAVE A 2.25l GLASS SERVING OF COCA COLA?! HAVE SOME SELF-CONTROL!

reply to post by proteus33


I was just thinking about that... then the city will pass a regulation requiring that vendors limit the number of drinks by issuing tickets for only 2 drinks

this is how these types of regulations start and then get overblown.....

freedom is not free nor risk free!

Totalitarianism for sure!



What a world we live in... where movies become truth sooner or later

What the hell?**BEEP you are fined 1 credit** coming soon to a hallway near you!

reply to post by neo96


Ironically, my grandmother died of a rare cancer brought about by consuming a large amount of...SACCHARIN!

She loved her TAB soda and Sweet N' Low. She thought she was making the healthier choice of not consuming natural sugar or corn syrup.

She was only 57 when she died, I was only 8 mths old.
I wish I could have known her.

Will the law have a clause that people aren't allowed to refill their 16oz drink at fast food joints? And that one person can not buy two drinks? What about the fast food joints where you fill your own drink...can I buy a 32oz "diet soda cup" but secretly fill it with regular cola?

It's a silly law with 100 ways to get around it; therefore, unable to be enforced.

Besides, what's the deal with forcing people to be "healthy"? Don't get me wrong, I try to live a healthy and active lifestyle because I know what I do now will catch up to me when I'm older. But there is this idea that we have to be healthy and I just don't get it.

There are people out there who just don't want to be healthy and limiting a sugary drink to 16oz will do absolutely nothing to improve their health.

So instead of tackling real issues, the goverment will spent too much time, energy and money in creating this law (much less trying to enforce it) that will have zero effect. That pretty much sums up the problem with government.

reply to post by neo96


Please dont take my SUGAR away!! LOL..heck- I live on Sugar and Red Bull Energy Drinks!

reply to post by babloyi


High-Fructose Corn Syrup IS SUGAR.

Honestly, I would rather die eating garbage than listen to these health nazis for a minute.

You think I am going to bow down to their demands?
Hell no.

Hey let's ban things we don't like personally that other people do like, then claim it's for their health.
Meanwhile Aspartame is left untouched by the ban?

These freaking criminals! Aspartame is far worse than sugar.

no ban on cigarettes and alcohol? priority fail!

reply to post by canselmi


At least those places where you fill your own cup, you get to put what You Want in there. Try getting a coke from someone behind the counter at McDonalds and they are Programmed to scoop it 90%+ full of ice first. Even when you say NO ICE! they are So Conditioned you have to repeat it over and over again.
American's Second biggest scam next to bottled water.

It's why I carry my own cans around in my car with me. Normally after getting several cases on sale at a place like Shopright for around 20 cents a can.

I've come a long ways from the old days of having to inject sugar water directly into me with a hypodermic needle to get my fix.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Honestly, I would rather die eating garbage than listen to these health nazis for a minute.

You think I am going to bow down to their demands?
Hell no.

Hey let's ban things we don't like personally that other people do like, then claim it's for their health.
Meanwhile Aspartame is left untouched by the ban?

These freaking criminals! Aspartame is far worse than sugar.

Which is why I'm tempted to go back to sugary drinks, but I'm too far at a risk for diabetes to do it.
It seems these guys come out with new idiotic statements every year though, first saying that one thing is good for you then the next year it's bad. It's no different than that vitamin craze which was proved to be just a big waste of peoples money. Or those health drinks. Or better yet the infamous bottled water which is still here today and I am forever surrounded by fools who refuse to drink tap water but waste their money on the stuff in fancy plastic. Every week a truck goes past my house to a neighbor to refill their precious water supply even though they've got natural water beneath their feet if they wanted it, and some of the best free tap water in the nation.

I can picture it now...

Homeland Security surrounds a building...
The SWAT team busts in, guns drawn.

Criminals with liter bottles of cola are then rounded up, cuffed, and hauled off.

They were forcing people to be obese after all!
These are the new sugar terrorists...

Originally posted by babloyi

Personally, I'm not against this ban. Yes, yes, freedom to do what you want, but, seriously people, have some limits. In another other thread on this topic, someone was talking about how they like to sit down to their movie in the cinema with a 72oz (about 2.25l) glass of coke, and bucket of popcorn, and all I was thinking was....WHY ON EARTH DO THEY HAVE A 2.25l GLASS SERVING OF COCA COLA?! HAVE SOME SELF-CONTROL!

Who cares what they drink during the movie?
Ever heard of minding your own business?

Why don't you exercise some self control and take your nose outta a place it doesn't belong?

Funny how when one makes a arrogant comment it has a tendency to fly back in their face...

Sounds good to me! Brought to you by the people who made a pack of ciggies cost $8 and up in NYC.

Time to put the fried chickens and candybars down, America. Get your fat asses in the gym!

reply to post by CaptainLJB

Originally posted by CaptainLJB
High-Fructose Corn Syrup IS SUGAR.

Well, technically, it is FRUCTOSE (with some glucose mixed in). Sugar (as we know it) is sucrose.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Who cares what they drink during the movie?
Ever heard of minding your own business?

Why don't you exercise some self control and take your nose outta a place it doesn't belong?

Funny how when one makes a arrogant comment it has a tendency to fly back in their face...

Not quite seeing how it flew back in my face. Who cares? Who cares if the dude in front of you in the cinema is picking his nose and eating it? Who cares if the dude behind you in the masturbating? People care.

As far as this particular scenario goes, people care because it is a disgusting testament to excessive behaviour, that results in immensely degraded health.

Ironic, since it's the Federal Government which subsidizes the corn which sweetens these drinks, making them obscenely profitable for the producers.

When will we stop doing that?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I can picture it now...

Homeland Security surrounds a building...
The SWAT team busts in, guns drawn.

Criminals with liter bottles of cola are then rounded up, cuffed, and hauled off.

They were forcing people to be obese after all!
These are the new sugar terrorists...

I laughed at the for a second and then i remember the armd FDA "agents" now busting milk producers.

Not so far fetched by any means,

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

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.

That's because it's not just sugar that is causing the weight gain. That is an urban myth that has been used for decades to sell diet plans and processed cardboard food.

Sugar is food; food is sugar. Proteins, carbohydrates, all forms of nutrition are broken down into sugars before they can be used by the body. It's not the sugar that is doing the dirty deed; it is the absorption and usage of that sugar. The human body is designed to withstand a certain amount of stress from famine, overwork, etc. The way it does this is by regulating the amount of energy reserves it maintains. If one is at the weight the body's chemical mechanisms are trying to regulate to, they will not gain or lose weight easily, irregardless of whether they eat a feast of cheesecake or run a marathon.

Depending on the body's perceived needs and the availability of food, the body will absorb what it needs from the food eaten. The rest will be rejected and passed out as waste. Should the body detect the need for greater reserves, it will try to absorb more sugars from available food and store that energy as fat to be used later. Should the body detect that too much is being held in reserve, it will start to decrease the storage capacity of the fat cells by burning stored sugars instead of absorbing the needed energy from food.

Several factors can affect this "fat thermostat", or even overpower it. Gross overeating will cause some weight gain in spite of the body's attempt to regulate; continual exercise without sufficient energy intake will force the body to use its reserves regardless of how much it thinks it needs them. But in both cases, as soon as the overpowering influence is removed, the body will restore itself to its original condition with some allowance for the change it made to the "fat thermostat" (which is usually opposite to the desired result... thus stopping a diet plan usually causes extreme weight gain to a heavier weight than one had before starting the diet).

Certain additives in food such as massive amounts of growth hormones, can also play havoc with this system. Certain organic substances can overload the sensory systems and cause the body to react in a way inconsistent with how it was designed. This raises or lowers the "fat thermostat" to levels inconsistent with normal operation, and the body's own regulatory system then acts as the body's own worst enemy, being tricked into following bad information.

If the calorie calculations were true, only those who religiously followed a strict calorie intake and exertion schedule (which I am not even sure would be possible to do accurately) would be able to maintain their weight. If the calorie calculations were true, it would not matter what one ate, but how much one ate. If the calorie calculations were true, everyone who ate a particular amount with similar exertion levels would weigh the same.

None of those are true; therefore the calorie calculations are not true.

And again, all this is irrelevant to the bigger question: why is it acceptable for any reason to remove the freedom of choice to live one's life as one sees fit?

TheRedneck

It's all fine and dandy but if we let them do this what is next no candy so no more holidays. I mean come on are they going to take away everything til all we can eat is green crops. I still would like to go buy a big bag of candy when I want to enjoy some. This is the last thing we need to worry about anyway. Things like crime and our economy should come first and feeding the hungry. I mean what is going on worrying about the size of a soda drink do we need a bib to.

And again, all this is irrelevant to the bigger question: why is it acceptable for any reason to remove the freedom of choice to live one's life as one sees fit?

That is a brilliant question if a standard is to be set then there should be one universal law applied to all issues case in point is is not acceptable for government to tell a woman to keep her child and yet by some other's standards it is totally acceptable to ban something they simply do not like.

We can not pick and choose what issues government gets to interfer in what it boils down to freedom of choice is freedom of choice,

That remains to the person not at the behest of others and that is what PRO-ChOICE is all about.