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

This thread touches me in a way it would not have a week ago.
I'll start by saying this shouldn't be a rule handed by the government. Not their place to say what to put in you. I don't even think it will spit in the face of obesity. Everyone will just have a personal stash or get more refills.
BUT Seriously watch how much soda you drink yourself.

I was a heavy soda drinker up to a week ago, when I HAD to quite cold turkey. Turns out caffeine and sugary drinks are good at making kidney stones (calcium drinks to, but that's another story). Well the first rounds of stones didn't teach me. It was hell to pass them...worst than child labor by a mile. Well now (since I didn't learn when I should have) I have what they call a staghorn stone. It is taking up damn near my whole kidney. The DR used words to describe it like ''monster'' and ''small fist sized''. I'm getting geared up for invasive surgery, possibly multiple surgeries.. This mini-rant was not for pity, it's a warning to those who don't think it's a thing like I said, a week ago that would not have been my stand.

Sorry for the mini rant about soda...a week ago I found these anti soda things annoying. If you bothered to read this and only take in one thing from it let it be this....Moderate not-so-good-for-you drinks by yourself now, or risk not being able to enjoy them ever again in your future. O did I mention caffeine withdraw when talking about quitting cold turkey? moderation is key

Originally posted by fleabit

512 calories.. and a staggering 128g of sugar.. in one drink. 32 TEASPOONS OF SUGAR! You don't think they should in any way regulate this? If people are too dumb stupid to realize what they are doing to themselves, maybe they should interfere.

edit on 1-6-2012 by fleabit because: (no reason given)

Or maybe we should let nature take it's course? You do realize most posters around here are pretty much anarcho-capitalists. Therefore, they wouldn't want to pay for any kind of health care anyway. So what would it matter if they sugared themselves to death?

Strange, it used to be seeking out sugar was an advantage to one's survival and now it seems you should run in the other direction.

reply to post by PutAQuarterIn



Sorry about the stone. My brother actually had kidney stones at 16 from soda consumption as well. I hope you get better soon

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Hold on now
How are the people whom are constantly screaming states rights, now upset that a state is doing what they think is in the best interest of their citizens?

Sure, complain about a soda ruling in new york, but say nothing about dry countys...because, you know...thats their right.

hey, shaddup you damn anarchists! You want your tax dollars to go support a overburdened healthcare system in your state due to all the diabetes? Ya..didn't think so.

People are generally retarded...no, they won't stop..they will keep going and going until they pop or run out...this is states rights.

SfX - Laughing at the inconsistency.

This has nothing to do with state rights. This is nanny state period!

I have long known that healthcare and more specifically government healthcare was going to be used for an excuse to get in everyone's personal business and guess what? I was right!

That is why I have been opposed to government healthcare from the very beginning. Because government healthcare is about control!

It is simply going to be used as an excuse to control your life.

You must do this and that because of the greater good. This will simply be the sacrifice of the individual and his or her rights to the all mighty, powerful, all knowing STATE.

It will expand the already powerful tyranny of the medical establishment ...

Control freaks and those that make excuses for them SUCK

Sugary drinks are dietary garbage, containing no nutrition what so ever, that being said, what's next? Is Herr Bloomberg going to tell you how much toilet paper to use when you wipe your touchas? Will big brother someday soon follow you into the stall and see if you adhere to governmental laws regarding acceptable defecation? Where does it stop? It stops with Totalitarianism. Like it or not we are currently in a Fascist, Imperialistic State well on it's way toward Totalitarianism, they will control every aspect of you life pretty soon. If I were you, I'd stay the hell out of New York State, that state is run by Hitlerites. Sieg Heil New York!

Originally posted by MegaMind
This has nothing to do with state rights. This is nanny state period!

I have long known that healthcare and more specifically government healthcare was going to be used for an excuse to get in everyone's personal business and guess what? I was right!

That is why I have been opposed to government healthcare from the very beginning. Because government healthcare is about control!

It is simply going to be used as an excuse to control your life.

You must do this and that because of the greater good. This will simply be the sacrifice of the individual and his or her rights to the all mighty, powerful, all knowing STATE.

It will expand the already powerful tyranny of the medical establishment ...

edit on 1-6-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

It has everything to do with states rights.
Romney passed healthcare in Ma. This is accepted by the right because it is a state solution verses a federal solution...so both sides are in on this.
Other nanny state things:
Seat belt/helmet laws, education mandates, drug bans, media bans, alchohol bans, etc..a long list and many pick and choose what they think is reasonable and what they think is unjust based on their own desires and lifestyle.

Do I agree with this particular suggestion? Thats beside the point actually...the bigger question is, does it represent a threat to health care, national security, or other considerations...if yes, then the state in question can act to protect the greater society. Thats how its always been, thats how it always will be. The argument politicians have is not if this should or shouldn't be done..but where it should be done at...fed or state level...We have already sacrificed this liberty long ago in the name of safety, security, and civil society. There is no stopping this train..it has left the station over a hundred years ago.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
It has everything to do with states rights.
Romney passed healthcare in Ma. This is accepted by the right because it is a state solution verses a federal solution...so both sides are in on this.
Other nanny state things:
Seat belt/helmet laws, education mandates, drug bans, media bans, alchohol bans, etc..a long list and many pick and choose what they think is reasonable and what they think is unjust based on their own desires and lifestyle.

None of those things are acceptable to a free society ...

Do I agree with this particular suggestion? Thats beside the point actually...the bigger question is, does it represent a threat to health care, national security, or other considerations...if yes, then the state in question can act to protect the greater society. Thats how its always been, thats how it always will be. The argument politicians have is not if this should or shouldn't be done..but where it should be done at...fed or state level...We have already sacrificed this liberty long ago in the name of safety, security, and civil society. There is no stopping this train..it has left the station over a hundred years ago.

Soft drinks a threat to national security, healthcare?

Then maybe the FDA shouldn't have approved high fructose corn syrup! Treasonous?

What a joke this government is!

Whatever enjoy the tyranny then ... I suspect you can't wait ...

Oh ... and can you not be bothered with weighing in on your support of the ban?

Only on ATS could you find people ridiculous enough to support/excuse this kind of nanny state crap ...

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by SaturnFX
It has everything to do with states rights.
Romney passed healthcare in Ma. This is accepted by the right because it is a state solution verses a federal solution...so both sides are in on this.
Other nanny state things:
Seat belt/helmet laws, education mandates, drug bans, media bans, alchohol bans, etc..a long list and many pick and choose what they think is reasonable and what they think is unjust based on their own desires and lifestyle.

None of those things are acceptable to a free society ...

We are not a free society? Who said it was free?
We got life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...thats it. A free society is anarchy. We must temper freedom of the people with responsibility of the community...any nation that has ever made something of itself understands that.
What we want is liberties...people confuse the two.
I don't want the corporation down the street have the freedom to toss their garbage into the lake I fish out of..I don't want my neighbors have the freedom of blasting music and keeping the entire neighborhood awake for weeks on end...
The word freedom is used by politicians to get the less than average minds rallied whom mistake freedom for liberty...sounds cool...all bravehearty...FREEDOM!
Put a thought into a truely free society...that would last about a week before warlords would arise and take over

Soft drinks a threat to national security, healthcare?

Then maybe the FDA shouldn't have approved high fructose corn syrup! Treasonous?

What a joke this government is!

Whatever enjoy the tyranny then ... I suspect you can't wait ...

Oh ... and can you not be bothered with weighing in on your support of the ban?

Only on ATS could you find people ridiculous enough to support/excuse this kind of nanny state crap ...

edit on 1-6-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

High Fructose: I fully expect large taxes to eventually come on it actually.

As far as weighing in on the ban? Why would I...I am not sitting in New York, therefore it doesn't effect me.
In general, I am opposed to it...sell a short can, people will just buy two cans or just buy a 2 litre. The long term effect will increase revenue for the state, but the environmental impact will mean there are 2 cans or bottles going into a landfill where there was just 1...So, on a more big picture view of it, it is not a good move (however, oil companies more than like the idea...sell double their plastics to the soda addicts)



Add:
Open a map
Point to a place somewhere on earth that has a free society that you would want to live in (if this nation evaporated one day and you had to live elsewhere)

Originally posted by albertabound

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by albertabound

You do realize you just covered

• Cell phones
  
• Televisions
  
• Computers
  
• Automobiles
  
• All plastics
  
• 90% of all agriculture
  
• All electricity
  
• Medicines
  
• Heating/Cooling

Right?

TheRedneck

In their current petrolium based production, yes. I can guarentee you there are alternatives to the current production of these products that are not destructive.

This is the first step - legalizing hemp, once and for all.
lwww.cbc.ca...

Basically, in order to right these things, we need to destroy Wealth, Inheritance, and Privilege. This is at the center of it all - want and desire of more wealth and power. If we do not eliminate these things, it will never stop, period.

When you come to think of it and put it that way, maybe the mayor of NYC should just condemn the whole city itself!

I'm all for hemp though. I don't know how DuPont and Hurst got away with Any of that sh!t in the first place.

reply to post by SaturnFX



Free society as opposed to a closed society ruled by dictators - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, etc etc etc.

We live in a free society in that we have rights - freedoms that past and current societies do not.

This type of nanny state governing is encroaching on those freedoms.

In this particular case the right to sell and consume how much soda you want in a single container.

I wonder why you won't specifically say you are for or against the ban based on the reason the ban was proposed?

You aren't ashamed by your position are you? Is it unpopular?

BTW I almost never drink soft drinks, my drink of choice is unsweet tea. However, occasionally my gf and I sometimes enjoy a coke at the theater. When we do we buy one large drink and split it. Under Bloomberg's dictates to the city of New York we would not be allowed to do that. Funny but I doubt even the communist Chinese regulate drink sizes.

Why make excuses for this?

Originally posted by neo96

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

www.nytimes.com

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.
The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be pro

(visit the link for the full news article)

One more reason to bypass New York City when visiting relatives in New England!

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You aren't ashamed by your position are you?

Why should he be? Aren't you arguing for "freedom"? If you want to be free to hold your opinions then others must be allowed that same freedom. There is not shame in holding a different opinion.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy 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.

If they choose to be idiots then the result is their own responsibility and as it stands smoking, drinking and obesity will not get you health insurance.
Besides such bans seem to confuse gluttony with addiction, i mean i drank soda plenty as a kid but i never felt addicted or any need for it when i went without for any period of time.
In fact when i stopped drinking soda 11 years ago i never felt withdrawal nor did i miss it even once and from what i experienced soda is about as addictive as water, to call it addiction is merely an excuse used to remove personal responsibility from the individual and lay blame on others, either for greed or for creating new laws by causing outrage.
Emotions are the tools of oppressive governments, after all what better way to control than to appeal to fear and compassion.

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Free society as opposed to a closed society ruled by dictators - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, etc etc etc.

Actually, we are in a worse situation. We are in a society ruled by average minds..or rather, politicians trying to win the favor of average minds.
If you live under a dictatorship, you might luck out and have a brilliant benevolent dictator...but in what we have, which is technically a Oligarchy with some face paint of a constitutional republic, then ya..the average mindsets are running for all time...and thats the good scenario, the worse case senario is money does the decisions..corporations becoming people, political systems becoming corporate tools...
No man, a free society this is not, and hasn't been for a very, very long time.

And I personally don't believe we want a free society anyhow as I stated...we want a wise society with tons of liberties for the people..This is what has and always will be constructed by the people.

This type of nanny state governing is encroaching on those freedoms.

Liberties..not freedom...you don't have the freedom to make anthrax at home, you don't have the freedom to sell drugs to others, you don't have many freedoms..Drinking soda is a liberty you have, and that is what this is potentially effecting...
But it actually doesn't. There is no law that states you cannot drink a million gallons of the stuff a day...this is targetting the company verses person...if they banned it completely, then it would be effecting your liberty to drink it, but its not.
Its just regulating the container for the substance.

In this particular case the right to sell and consume how much soda you want in a single container.

Selling and consuming is not targeted here. the containers are.
the stuff will still be sold and consumed. the liberty is in tact

I wonder why you won't specifically say you are for or against the ban based on the reason the ban was proposed?

Because this is new york, not florida.
If this was in florida, I would state my disagreement based on the arguments I made in my previous posts (this changes nothing, just adds more litter)..but I can also see why a state would want to initiate it...more tax dollars
As a smoker, "sin" tax is nothing new to me.

You aren't ashamed by your position are you? Is it unpopular?

BTW I almost never drink soft drinks, my drink of choice is unsweet tea. However, occasionally my gf and I sometimes enjoy a coke at the theater. When we do we buy one large drink and split it. Under Bloomberg's dictates to the city of New York we would not be allowed to do that. Funny but I doubt even the communist Chinese regulate drink sizes.

Why make excuses for this?

I am a soft drink fiend. I drink diet though so not to gain 300 lbs for my addiction.
I am a smoker. I don't flip out much when they want to make it harder for me to smoke..I understand the logic behind what they are doing. The difference here is I don't subscribe to the "free country" bull that some politicians pretend to support (never do..catagorically...no politician ever suggested in matters of policy to free the country. Taxes will always be paid, roads will always be paved, police forces by the state will always rome the streets, etc...we don't want a free country...I can't afford the mercs it would take to secure my surroundings)

We live in a society of rules, regulations, and oversight to grow the society. Within this, we are trying to find a good medium between community order and personal liberties. This is what the US is, has pretty much always been, and nothing will ever (or should ever) change that. We can discuss the merits of each liberty on its own term..but to believe that this is a free society is beliving in santa claus.

reply to post by PutAQuarterIn


Americans are just going to buy 2 of the smaller ones now, and it will cost more, WIN WIN

We got life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...thats it

and drinking one huge big cup of soda is that act for some who are any of us to say what they should be doing?

Me? I ain't the boss of no one else but me.

Some of these comments amaze me. "Oh well your all too fat to make your own decisions", etc. Funny.

Let's be quite honest. Soda is bad for you. Especially since it went from cane sugar to HFCS. However, with that being said... there are a lot of things "bad" for you. But the government doesn't step in and tell you what to do. This is NOT an issue of States rights. This is simply a man, Bloomberg, who is nothing more than the Mayor of a city, trying to play supreme ruler. This is a man with so much money, he was able to BUY a third term as mayor. This is a man driven by power. He already said that because he was successful with the smoking ban, he knows he can get this pushed through. And if he does, it really will only affect Manhattan. But.. the rock will roll down hill.

Soda is bad for you. But who's decision is it if I drink it or not? Yours? My doctors? The mayors? No.. it's mine. And only mine. Who's decision is if if I decide to go to 7-11 and buy a case of beer and get trashed? Or a 40oz, and then go out driving and kill an entire family? Alcohol has a hell of a lot more negative consequences than soda does. And yet I can go down to any beer distributor and buy a keg of beer. Can I go buy a keg of Coca Cola? No.

This is Michael Bloomberg trying to impose his opinion on others. Plain and simple. He shouldn't even be Mayor right now. But that is another topic. Money talks doesn't it.

reply to post by DerekJR321


Soda doesn't come in kegs
You could go to a resteraunt supplier and buy the concentrated syrup though. You would also need the carbonated water. That is how fountain machines work.

If the governments were interested in the health of the people they would follow the Japanese model and substitute sugar with Stevia instead of chemical cancer-causing sweeteners.

en.wikipedia.org...

But I guess the sugar lobby wouldn't like this idea too much.

Raising taxes on sugary products would help the government('s wallet), not the public health.

reply to post by gnostician


I tried stevia before, that stuff is almost as gross as sweet n low. I will take organic cane sugar anyday. It tastes way different than the other substitutes to me. If I had to choose between sweet n low, or stevia, I would grab the stevia grudgingly. Maybe just go without a sweetener altogether.