NYC Board of Health approves Mayor's "Supersize" soda ban

[Urbanfortitude]

So I can wreck my health more with TWO of the same size drink instead of a mildly larger one? Thanks, Mayor Poopturd!

 

 

You could. Yes. It will just cost you more money. So now you'd be spending more money to mess yourself up. I think the ban is excessive in general mainly because of the kind of country we're allegedly living in. You know freedom of choice and all that crap. But back when I was growing up, 64 oz sodas didn't seem to exist. so this is one of those two way street issues that I cant settle on one side for. Because I can literally sit here and see both sides of the argument without real effort. When people start to inform themselves and make smarter choices we won't see shit like this happening.

[checkmatechamp13]

LOL... You researched on a site which I can go on and edit myself... I wouldn't call that research Mr. John Jay.

 

 

Type in "obesity paradox" into a search engine and you'll come up with a bunch of hits from websites that aren't Wikipedia.

 

As for being overweight, not everybody who's overweight has risk of health problems. You could be a body builder and technically be overweight.

[Q43LTD]

This is just dumb. There are other things causing obesity besides soda. That's why there's so many soda making machines in Targets, Wal-Mart's and Best Buy

[Turbo19]

This is just dumb. There are other things causing obesity besides soda. That's there so many soda making machines in Targets, Wal-Mart's and Best Buy

 

Before anyone confuses a "soda making machine" with a soda fountain, I believe he is referring to a device similar to the one below.

 

http://www.sodastreamusa.com/

 

I don't think that these machines are making a huge dent in the bottle and fountain industry however.

[Kamen Rider]

LOL... You researched on a site which I can go on and edit myself... I wouldn't call that research Mr. John Jay.

 

 

a page with 11 refernces and 2 futher reading, most of which are medical journals.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-139X.2007.00349.x/abstract;jsessionid=740C8F05C2D17CA3D62693D4993558EE.d03t01

 

I would call that resarch thank you very much.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You could. Yes. It will just cost you more money. So now you'd be spending more money to mess yourself up. I think the ban is excessive in general mainly because of the kind of country we're allegedly living in. You know freedom of choice and all that crap. But back when I was growing up, 64 oz sodas didn't seem to exist. so this is one of those two way street issues that I cant settle on one side for. Because I can literally sit here and see both sides of the argument without real effort. When people start to inform themselves and make smarter choices we won't see shit like this happening.

 

 

And that right there is the real issue... That and the fact that they don't give a damn about what they're putting into their bodies. You either do what the Health Department has done or you make them pay more in taxes for those items, but like I said, if these people want to eat garbage then fine, but other taxpayers should not be forced to pay higher premiums as a result.

 

 

a page with 11 refernces and 2 futher reading, most of which are medical journals.

 

http://onlinelibrary...993558EE.d03t01

 

I would call that resarch thank you very much.

 

 

Well it's about time you stepped up your game...

[realizm]

I never saw what the big deal this mayor is making here other then the fact that he is playing attention whore for publicity and I guess votes. If this was really such an emergency of national public health concern, then I guess he should have banned all sales of two liters of soda across the Metro New York area. That's why we should be laughing at this mayor with this stunt he's trying to pull, wasting the time of avid New Yorkers in the process.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I never saw what the big deal this mayor is making here other then the fact that he is playing attention whore for publicity and I guess votes. If this was really such an emergency of national public health concern, then I guess he should have banned all sales of two liters of soda across the Metro New York area. That's why we should be laughing at this mayor with this stunt he's trying to pull, wasting the time of avid New Yorkers in the process.

 

 

I think it's a big deal that these obese slobs are costing the city and us taxpayers $4 BILLION a year in medical costs... Not exactly chump change... I applaud anything that can be done to get that lowered, as that money could certainly be put to better use like fixing our run down streets and bridges or buying more computers for schools, rather than on some slob who can't control how soda he or she downs and how much fast food and other garbage they consume at someone else's expense literally.

 

Here's an interesting stat:

 

"By 2030, medical costs associated with treating preventable obesity-related diseases are estimated to increase by $48 billion to $66 billion per year in the United States, and the loss in economic productivity could be between $390 billion and $580 billion annually by 2030."

 

Source: http://www.healthyam...org/report/100/

[realizm]

So what? We are not talking about the welfare system and stats on food coupons dude.

[ttcsubwayfan]

I don't drink such large sodas, but if I wanted to, I should have the option to.

 

Go ahead and educate the public on being healthy and all that, but I really don't think that banning sodas is the solution.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't drink such large sodas, but if I wanted to, I should have the option to.

 

Go ahead and educate the public on being healthy and all that, but I really don't think that banning sodas is the solution.

 

 

But who is banning sodas?? You can still drink soda anytime you want, but you can't sit here and tell me that you really need to drink 64 ozs of soda in one sitting... That's the point being made here. People have lost all sense as to what is MODERATION. They are abusing things simply because they can and that is doing nothing but leading to folks having severe health problems that is costing you and me and anyone paying taxes a **** load to maintain. There has to be a line drawn as to when enough is enough because clearly a good 2/3rds of the population (over $190 million Americans) has lost control when it comes to eating proper portions. Anything is fine, but in MODERATION... I don't know what has happened to this population that they think it is normal to sit around drinking 32 oz sodas and supersized fries and all of this nonsense.

 

I remember very well when there were only 12 oz cans and 16 oz sodas and the world didn't come to an end. Now because the city tries to limit the sizes of the actual sodas because we are literally in a fiscal crisis because of this obesity nonsense, people are up in arms... Give me a break. No normal human being should be drinking that much soda in one sitting just because they have the right to. That is just completely irresponsible and certainly not becoming of what an adult should be doing, hence why we're seeing so many people with severe health problems.

 

That's like driving down the street doing 50 mph because you can. You can but there's a huge risk of you killing someone in the process. This is no different. It is reckless behavior that is putting the economy of the entire country at risk and something needs to be done to stop this nonsense because we simply cannot afford to keep paying to sustain this type of lifestyle that many now have.

 

Ridiculous that you have kids having all sorts of health problems that they should be having in their 60s and 70s...

[BreeddekalbL]

good thing i found this  the soda ban is now ILLEGAL! 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9022516

[Orion VII 4 Life]

good thing i found this the soda ban is now ILLEGAL!

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9022516

Yay! The nanny state loses again!

[realizm]

[ From posted link by BreeddekalbL: http://abclocal.go.c...york&id=9022516 ]

 

"In the decision, the judge wrote that Bloomberg's sugary drink regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences. The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole."

 

 Mayor Bloomberg seriously got cockblocked in court over his rampage of unnecessary bans that violates people's right of personal choice and decision making. Kudos to State Judge Milton Tingling in his ruling. Seriously enough is enough with Mr. Bloomberg and his iron fisted tirades.

 

I can see the counter argument already, higher taxes on taxpayers for people who end up sick in hospitals and the insurance costs from improper diets and suffering from medical problems such as diabetes in this case with sugary drinks such as soda. But IMHO I think that should be up to the discretion of the consumer, and the FDA, NY DOH and the City Board of Health. Not the Mayor, seriously, and no bias in that. It's unethical from a political standpoint. Yes I said it. Unethical.

 

There are notable exceptions of course where the bans Mr. Bloomberg had established is actually for the good of the general public, I will admit.  Such as the ban on smoking in public places established by the mayor, which is a no brainer as tobacco is  seriously deadly and kills thousands upon thousands of victims enslaved to the habit each year. Non-smokers don't need to deal with the second hand smoke. Mr. Bloomberg is to be commended for enforcing this ban, I am in accord with him on that one during his terms in office.

[Grand Concourse]

Yay! The nanny state loses again!

Good. It was a stupid ban. I mean if the mayor had to admit ppl can just order 2 drinks that equaled the same size as a large, then what's the point? Now I agree 32oz for one person is just too much, but a ban should not be the way to get the anti obesity message. Imo, a 24oz limit sounds more fair. You don't do extreme restrictions, you do the limits in smaller doses. For a mayor that wants to promote business, this type of ban does more harm than good.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Good. It was a stupid ban. I mean if the mayor had to admit ppl can just order 2 drinks that equaled the same size as a large, then what's the point? Now I agree 32oz for one person is just too much, but a ban should not be the way to get the anti obesity message. Imo, a 24oz limit sounds more fair. You don't do extreme restrictions, you do the limits in smaller doses. For a mayor that wants to promote business, this type of ban does more harm than good.

 

 Mayor Bloomberg seriously got cockblocked in court over his rampage of unnecessary bans that violates people's right of personal choice and decision making. Kudos to State Judge Milton Tingling in his ruling. Seriously enough is enough with Mr. Bloomberg and his iron fisted tirades.

 

I can see the counter argument already, higher taxes on taxpayers for people who end up sick in hospitals and the insurance costs from improper diets and suffering from medical problems such as diabetes in this case with sugary drinks such as soda. But IMHO I think that should be up to the discretion of the consumer, and the FDA, NY DOH and the City Board of Health. Not the Mayor, seriously, and no bias in that. It's unethical from a political standpoint. Yes I said it. Unethical.

 

There are notable exceptions of course where the bans Mr. Bloomberg had established is actually for the good of the general public, I will admit.  Such as the ban on smoking in public places established by the mayor, which is a no brainer as tobacco is  seriously deadly and kills thousands upon thousands of victims enslaved to the habit each year. Non-smokers don't need to deal with the second hand smoke. Mr. Bloomberg is to be commended for enforcing this ban, I am in accord with him on that one during his terms in office.

 

The ban was only stupid because it didn't go far enough.  There is no question that it was invasive in every way, but what's even more ridiculous IMO is that people have no self control. Either way, the way I see it those who want to drink this crap should be HEAVILY TAXED dammit and they will be because the city simply can't afford to keep getting socked with these high unnecessary healthcare costs.  People b*tched and moaned when the former Governor proposed creating a soda tax.  One way or another there will be a tax on this because it's ridiculous that other taxpayers have to see their healthcare rates and taxes constantly skyrocket because you have a bunch of fools out here with no self control.  

 

Now yes everyone should have the right to eat and drink what they want and everyone should also be responsible for their own actions, so that means if Joe Schmoe wants to drink 64 oz sodas, then fine, but he should pay for it with sky high premiums and the higher taxes to boot.  The problem is no one wants to take responsibility for their actions.  

 

Everyone who is applauding this overturn of the ban, I hope you're happy paying taxes for the jerks that eat and drink themselves into oblivion because I sure as hell am not.  I would rather my taxes stay in my pocket or be used for something more important like better roads.  Our tax dollars are eaten up with this nonsense because the city is getting squeezed to deal with sky high healthcare costs and all that happens is those costs get passed on to who.... Those of us who pay taxes and have healthcare, which means more coming out of your paycheck for this crap through higher taxes and higher healthcare premiums.

[realizm]

The ban was only stupid because it didn't go far enough.  There is no question that it was invasive in every way, but what's even more ridiculous IMO is that people have no self control. Either way, the way I see it those who want to drink this crap should be HEAVILY TAXED dammit.  People b*tched and moaned when the former Governor proposed creating a soda tax.  One way or another there will be a tax on this because it's ridiculous that other taxpayers have to see their healthcare rates constantly skyrocket because you have a bunch of fools out here with self control.  Now yes everyone should have the right to eat and drink what they want and everyone should also be responsible for their own actions, so that means if Joe Schmoe wants to to drink 64 oz sodas, then he should pay for it with sky high premiums.

 

Saw this coming a million miles away.

 

I can understand your concerns with skyrocking insurance premiums as a domino effect from the slowly progressive harm to the health of people who overindulge in sodas but again as I was telling you as an counter-argument, people are to decide for themselves what they want to consume. It's not like we are dealing with people who consume dogsh*t, it's only soda. Big deal. (OK that was a bit extreme, I just wantted to say that for the shock value) but the point is again we all know that Bloomberg is imposing bans to collect revenues through ripping us NYers off with FINES. That was the crux of my view on this from the start of this discussion from page 1. I would think that would carry more weight then simply going through sleepless nights over taxes taken out of your next paycheck or skyrocketing health  insurance premiums. 

 

I am not insinuating you are an elitist, please sir don't take this the wrong way, but I am speaking on behalf of the average lower middle class New Yorker!!!

 

OK let me put it this way as a hypothetical scenerio: What is your favorite wine? What if Mr. Bloomberg put a prohibition on your favorite savory wine? Or your favorite food product at Whole Foods because of saturated fat content, high sodium and cholesterol? Would you like that? You would be pretty pissed off to heck I'm sure, saying to yourself "WTF! I have a right to get my favorite delicacy at my own favorite supermarket!! WTF is this?" Think about that in my argument here.

[checkmatechamp13]

Good. It was a stupid ban. I mean if the mayor had to admit ppl can just order 2 drinks that equaled the same size as a large, then what's the point? Now I agree 32oz for one person is just too much, but a ban should not be the way to get the anti obesity message. Imo, a 24oz limit sounds more fair. You don't do extreme restrictions, you do the limits in smaller doses. For a mayor that wants to promote business, this type of ban does more harm than good.

 

Well, the idea is that it's more expensive, so people would think twice before buying the larger size. 2 16 oz sodas is going to be more expensive than 1 32 oz soda.

 

I agree with the general idea of trying to discourage people from drinking too much soda, but I think he went about it the wrong way. For instance, at the kids' birthday parties where they have a big pitcher of soda for 10 kids or whatever, he banned that, even though it's obvious that one person isn't going to drink the whole pitcher. The same thing with the 2-liter bottles that some people order with their pizza pie. Obviously, they're not going to drink the whole bottle in one shot.

 

What would I have done? Probably what you said, maybe limit it to 24 ounces instead of 16, but make exceptions where it's obvious that it'll be shared among multiple people.

[GojiMet86]

Saw this coming a million miles away.

 

I can understand your concerns with skyrocking insurance premiums as a domino effect from the slowly progressive harm to the health of people who overindulge in sodas but again as I was telling you as an counter-argument, people are to decide for themselves what they want to consume. It's not like we are dealing with people who consume dogsh*t, it's only soda. Big deal. (OK that was a bit extreme, I just wantted to say that for the shock value) but the point is again we all know that Bloomberg is imposing bans to collect revenues through ripping us NYers off with FINES. That was the crux of my view on this from the start of this discussion from page 1. I would think that would carry more weight then simply going through sleepless nights over taxes taken out of your next paycheck or skyrocketing health  insurance premiums. 

 

I am not insinuating you are an elitist, please sir don't take this the wrong way, but I am speaking on behalf of the average lower middle class New Yorker!!!

 

I'm of a lower class than you, and I agree with VG8.

 

What's wrong with the government collecting revenue? Your arguement literally can, does, and is, applied to every single tax that has, and will, exist.

 

OK let me put it this way as a hypothetical scenerio: What is your favorite wine? What if Mr. Bloomberg put a prohibition on your favorite savory wine? Or your favorite food product at Whole Foods because of saturated fat content, high sodium and cholesterol? Would you like that? You would be pretty pissed off to heck I'm sure, saying to yourself "WTF! I have a right to get my favorite delicacy at my own favorite supermarket!! WTF is this?" Think about that in my argument here.

 

That arguement can go for smoking. People like smoking despite it being dangerous and harmful for their lungs. That arguement can apply to alcohol. People like alcohol despite it being dangerous, harmful for their damn brain cells, and that it can have some sad consequences for families.

 

It's also not the end of the world if things like that happen. Just go ahead with your life, and find an alternative. Don't go ballistic because  the neighborhood supermarket can't sell your food.

[realizm]

That arguement can go for smoking. People like smoking despite it being dangerous and harmful for their lungs. That arguement can apply to alcohol. People like alcohol despite it being dangerous, harmful for their damn brain cells, and that it can have some sad consequences for families.

 

That is my point as well. Your answer quoted below in my previous post as you scroll up:

 

There are notable exceptions of course where the bans Mr. Bloomberg had established is actually for the good of the general public, I will admit.  Such as the ban on smoking in public places established by the mayor, which is a no brainer as tobacco is  seriously deadly and kills thousands upon thousands of victims enslaved to the habit each year. Non-smokers don't need to deal with the second hand smoke. Mr. Bloomberg is to be commended for enforcing this ban, I am in accord with him on that one during his terms in office.

===========================================================================================

 

I'm of a lower class than you, and I agree with VG8.

 

What's wrong with the government collecting revenue? Your arguement literally can, does, and is, applied to every single tax that has, and will, exist.

 

The intentions behind the collecting of revenue. I've already stated that Mr. Bloomberg is obviosly imposing unnecessary demands on New Yorkers for strictly money related reasons having to do with collecing revenue through fines over again uneccessary bans that violates freedom of life choices.

 

Not for the sake of his concerns for the health of New Yorkers in the case of large soda drinks as he claims to say. Don't get me wrong, I NEVER said that laws should not be imposed with fines and /or imprisonment---- to the contrary laws need to be enforced to keep the peace and deter crime (such as fare beating, an obvious example). Except in the case of drinking soda, I would imagine that is not a criminal offense. 

 

It's also not the end of the world if things like that happen. Just go ahead with your life, and find an alternative. Don't go ballistic because  the neighborhood supermarket can't sell your food.

 

Gojimet86, to clarify for you, that comment was for VG8, he shops at Whole Foods all the time, according to VG8 himself as he expresses several times for the supermarket's great service. 

[Grand Concourse]

Well, the idea is that it's more expensive, so people would think twice before buying the larger size. 2 16 oz sodas is going to be more expensive than 1 32 oz soda.

 

I agree with the general idea of trying to discourage people from drinking too much soda, but I think he went about it the wrong way. For instance, at the kids' birthday parties where they have a big pitcher of soda for 10 kids or whatever, he banned that, even though it's obvious that one person isn't going to drink the whole pitcher. The same thing with the 2-liter bottles that some people order with their pizza pie. Obviously, they're not going to drink the whole bottle in one shot.

 

What would I have done? Probably what you said, maybe limit it to 24 ounces instead of 16, but make exceptions where it's obvious that it'll be shared among multiple people.

No arguments there. I agree about the party issue. I doubt one kid is drinking the whole bottle and that everyone is drinking the same soda from it in small party cups.

 

I also agree that if a person drinks over 24oz for him/herself then that is just too much. But the way this rule or mandate was stated makes it more like an all or nothing issue without exceptions and that is just crazy. Now if they want to ban those 64oz cups, then that is fine. This goes for the people need to share that much soda, they should just get individual cups.

[realizm]

Now this is the way a debate should be. All great points for all participants here in this discussion who are for -or- against this ban on this page, they are all valid points really. I'm really digging this.

[DJ MC]

I knew this shit wasn't going to pass. When you try to pass laws like this what did everyone think was going to happen? Plus what's to stop someone from buying two drinks or having a refill? 

[User]

He's gonna appeal and I'm still gonna have to deal with those annoying sugar ads on TV. I GET IT, I WON'T EAT SUGAR PACKETS DAMNIT.

[realizm]

I knew this shit wasn't going to pass. When you try to pass laws like this what did everyone think was going to happen? Plus what's to stop someone from buying two drinks or having a refill? 

 

He's gonna appeal and I'm still gonna have to deal with those annoying sugar ads on TV. I GET IT, I WON'T EAT SUGAR PACKETS DAMNIT.

 

Welcome to the insane world of politics.