Update: As of 3/11/2013, Judge ruled to halt Bloomberg's banning of large sodas

[bandit country]

^ The last thing any government official wants is for people to quit smoking. What would they do without that sin tax?

 

[hombrelobo]

If you can't control your consumption of bad food, then go have a heart attack and die. Why is it anyone else's problem? Basic Darwinism.

On top of that, I'm riding with my man Swanson on this one. "The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage & balloon up to 600 lbs and die of a heat attack at 43 you can. You are free to do so. To me that's beautiful."

 

[Gex the Damaja]

The Government isn't ready for the legal, social, and economic ramifications that will commence if they banned cigarette taxes.

 

[budlongtaco]

some of the most in shape people I know kill 2 liters 2 or 3 times a day.

Yall generalizing that only obese or fat people drink soda.

 

[frostythepoptart]

the fact that people can have an opinion other than negative on this issue is exactly why **** like this passes and why we lose rights eacha nd every day.


grown *** adults don't know to be dictated how much to eat, and when to eat. can't stand this dude at all.

 

[mr jordan04]

Thanks fat people

 

[picknroll24]

Soda is nasty anyways can't believe people willingly consume 40+ grams of sugar at a time.
Liquid calories FTL
Water FTW

 

[dbyrd501]

1st i've heard of this. not sure its gon work tho

 

[boys noize]

If you can't control your consumption of bad food, then go have a heart attack and die. Why is it anyone else's problem? Basic Darwinism.
On top of that, I'm riding with my man Swanson on this one. "The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage & balloon up to 600 lbs and die of a heat attack at 43 you can. You are free to do so. To me that's beautiful."

Why is it anyone else's problem? Because we live in a society that functions best when we help one another. It's been proven that sugar is incredibly destructive to the human body in large amounts. It's irresponsible to give people access to this crap especially when sugary stuff like this appeals mostly to children. Banning large volumes of sugar water is HARDLY an infringement of your rights. To say that it is is honestly laughable. You'll still be able to pack on the high fructose syrup all you want, you just can't buy the largest size. If Bloomberg was serious about this, he'd tax the hell out of soda or ban it out right.

Couple all that with the fact that those with diabetes that CAN'T pay for their medication rely heavily on government assistance. Where is the government getting money to pay for these people's medical bills? You really think other people's indiscretion with bad food doesn't affect you at all? Get real.

AND you're going to quote the libertarian caricature that is Ron Swanson as your spokesman? I love Parks and Rec but you've got to be trolling right now.

 

[jordanhead718212]

What a clown

 

[il prescelto]

if we're teaching natural selection in school, why are we artificially trying to control the populace? 

because for natural selection to occur people have to die before having children. who dies at age 19 because they drank too much soda?

a lotta people talking about darwinism and natural selection in this thread clearly don't understand the concept all that well.

 

[futuremd]

They didn't ban sodas. They banned the servings of certain sizes. 

But I can understand the "infringement" thats taking place.

Then again, no one wants to pay for the medicine of those who are already putting a strain on public healthcare. 

 

[futuremd]

There are so many obese people living in our society who can't control what they eat. If you can't control yourself, someone has to. Especially those that depend on the government to pay for their diabetes, hypertension and cholesterol medication.

So the govt then should be able to monitor what people eat at all times is your suggestion? When I get home tonight to watch the Bears/Pack game, am I to login at some website to get the special code to unlock the govt issued refrigerator so I can take out the chicken wings? I can only have access to 3 pieces of drumettes too since that's the recommended serving, right? Is that what it's going to come to? Ridiculous!

You know the "FDA" kinda pokes a hole in this argument, right?

Your food is already regulated. You didn't know?

 

[futuremd]

Judging by the support for this law in this thread, the government should just open the doors to the Fema camps and put welcome mats out.

Yeah, everything went downhill when we started integrating school districts. 

 

[hombrelobo]

Why is it anyone else's problem? Because we live in a society that functions best when we help one another. It's been proven that sugar is incredibly destructive to the human body in large amounts. It's irresponsible to give people access to this crap especially when sugary stuff like this appeals mostly to children. Banning large volumes of sugar water is HARDLY an infringement of your rights. To say that it is is honestly laughable. You'll still be able to pack on the high fructose syrup all you want, you just can't buy the largest size. If Bloomberg was serious about this, he'd tax the hell out of soda or ban it out right.
Couple all that with the fact that those with diabetes that CAN'T pay for their medication rely heavily on government assistance. Where is the government getting money to pay for these people's medical bills? You really think other people's indiscretion with bad food doesn't affect you at all? Get real.
AND you're going to quote the libertarian caricature that is Ron Swanson as your spokesman? I love Parks and Rec but you've got to be trolling right now.

First of all, I don't drink soda. Second of all.. it's stupid. Should any government (even local) even be concerned about soda? There are bigger things to worry about then large sodas. Period. Trying to legislate the amount of what people can consume is not the way to get people to lead healthier lifestyles, or to lead to a 'massive' government spending cutback. Education and having healthier foods available at affordable prices are the way to go.

Seriously, what the **** soda? Hopefully he, nor the NYC Board of Health, had to go though much time, effort & cash to get this ban to pass.

 

[mitchellicious]

Minus well just ban people from being fat. Problem solved

Great idea.

 

[GTA 809]

Fatties are just going to buy 2 drinks instead of one.

 

[superantigen]

I'm all for being health conscious, but this is silly.

Reducing the serving size of soda will barely register a blip, especially when there are thousands of "foods" out there packed with an equal if not greater sugar content.

If health was really an issue for him, and he was determined to make an impact, he'd go after the FDA.




...

 

[boys noize]

First of all, I don't drink soda. Second of all.. it's stupid. Should any government (even local) even be concerned about soda? There are bigger things to worry about then large sodas. Period. Trying to legislate the amount of what people can consume is not the way to get people to lead healthier lifestyles, or to lead to a 'massive' government spending cutback. Education and having healthier foods available at affordable prices are the way to go.
Seriously, what the **** soda? Hopefully he, nor the NYC Board of Health, had to go though much time, effort & cash to get this ban to pass.

The answer is YES, people, including those in government, SHOULD be concerned with the effects of overconsumption of sugar. This legislation might not change a damn thing but it's a step in the right direction. I'd propose much more radical measures if we were really talking about caring about health but people in this thread would get crazy about their "freedoms."

I do agree with you that it starts with education and changes in lifestyles. I agree with almost everything you've said on the topic. I'd rather the government cut subsidies to corn producers and give subsidies to those that produce healthy vegetables.

 

[Mark Antony]

9/13, never forget.

 

[futuremd]

Why is it anyone else's problem? Because we live in a society that functions best when we help one another. It's been proven that sugar is incredibly destructive to the human body in large amounts. It's irresponsible to give people access to this crap especially when sugary stuff like this appeals mostly to children. Banning large volumes of sugar water is HARDLY an infringement of your rights. To say that it is is honestly laughable. You'll still be able to pack on the high fructose syrup all you want, you just can't buy the largest size. If Bloomberg was serious about this, he'd tax the hell out of soda or ban it out right.
Couple all that with the fact that those with diabetes that CAN'T pay for their medication rely heavily on government assistance. Where is the government getting money to pay for these people's medical bills? You really think other people's indiscretion with bad food doesn't affect you at all? Get real.
AND you're going to quote the libertarian caricature that is Ron Swanson as your spokesman?

I love Parks and Rec but you've got to be trolling right now.

First of all, I don't drink soda. Second of all.. it's stupid. Should any government (even local) even be concerned about soda? There are bigger things to worry about then large sodas. Period. Trying to legislate the amount of what people can consume is not the way to get people to lead healthier lifestyles, or to lead to a 'massive' government spending cutback. Education and having healthier foods available at affordable prices are the way to go.

Seriously, what the **** soda? Hopefully he, nor the NYC Board of Health, had to go though much time, effort & cash to get this ban to pass.

See heres the thing.

Most of the food industry is hard enough to change because they get subsidizes in various and complicated ways that are WAY to difficult to attack.

Then when you've got conservatives making fun of Michelle Obama for promoting the notion of having a garden or even eating healther, how can we get to a state of maturity to encourage people to make better choices?

Then you really don't know that "better food" is often WAY more expensive. Wheat is more than white bread. Snacks are cheaper than fruit. etc. 

See the difference is that you and NYC don't disagree.

You both want healthier citizens...you just don't like being forced to cut back on something. You'd rather feel like it was an organic decision.

But if you're aware of the barriers in place, but still want something to be done...things like this are some of the only options on the table. 

If you can believe it, there is an outcry with every new food pyramid...and even then its not good enough because it has to satisfy all of the monied interest who benefit from getting their fair share of government supported food representation.

Food is very political.

 

[lakersusctrojan]

Fat people, drink all you sugar drinks your failing heart desire. As long as you have private insurance.

 

[frostythepoptart]

The answer is YES, people, including those in government, SHOULD be concerned with the effects of overconsumption of sugar. This legislation might not change a damn thing but it's a step in the right direction. I'd propose much more radical measures if we were really talking about caring about health but people in this thread would get crazy about their "freedoms."
I do agree with you that it starts with education and changes in lifestyles. I agree with almost everything you've said on the topic. I'd rather the government cut subsidies to corn producers and give subsidies to those that produce healthy vegetables.

You sound ridiculous. You think the government gives a damn about peoples health. Where is the ban on cigarettes ?

You think people are children and need their hand held, from kindergarten until they retire apparently.

You also sound naive and foolish because if you admit that it won't change unhealthy people from being unhealthy what is it accomplishing? Maybe they should limit how many movies you can purchase in a year because you shouldn't be wasting time.

Or how your internet usage runs and you only access educational pages for the majority of the day. I can't believe people don't see the ridiculousness of the government telling us how much we can and can't use what we want to purchase.

 

[futuremd]

The answer is YES, people, including those in government, SHOULD be concerned with the effects of overconsumption of sugar. This legislation might not change a damn thing but it's a step in the right direction. I'd propose much more radical measures if we were really talking about caring about health but people in this thread would get crazy about their "freedoms."
I do agree with you that it starts with education and changes in lifestyles. I agree with almost everything you've said on the topic. I'd rather the government cut subsidies to corn producers and give subsidies to those that produce healthy vegetables.

You sound ridiculous. You think the government gives a damn about peoples health. Where is the ban on cigarettes ?

You think people are children and need their hand held, from kindergarten until they retire apparently.

You also sound naive and foolish because if you admit that it won't change unhealthy people from being unhealthy what is it accomplishing? Maybe they should limit how many movies you can purchase in a year because you shouldn't be wasting time.

Or how your internet usage runs and you only access educational pages for the majority of the day. I can't believe people don't see the ridiculousness of the government telling us how much we can and can't use what we want to purchase.

I don't think you all get how ridiculous this sounds.

In as long as we have nation states composed of citizens who support their country and maintain our boundaries...it COMPLETELY benefits the government and standing powers to maintain an active and functioning society. 

The government DOES have a vested interest in making sure your bodies are well oiled. 

 

[atlien seeko]

I hate this.