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

[doublejs07]

Originally Posted by DubA169

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

I don't get banning foods/drinks.

If you're dumb enough to drink a 32oz. big gulp, that's YOUR problem. At some point people have to be responsible for themselves.

Obesity costs the country millions of dollars if not billions on health care costs. This law won't affect me in any way since I mainly drink water, buti dunno how to feel about it. I hated on the smoking laws, but looking back it was incredibly smart. If I had my way we would all be libertarians. But it's just unrealistic. I don't like restrictions from the govt, but point blank its unhealthy to be drinking that big +%# cup of soda. It's a complicated issue, but hey just buy two sodas if you want. I'm just worried about the slippery slope of government restriction.

Like I said before...I get the smoking bans because it can have an effect on the health of those who don't smoke.  But for the soda ban, it is a slippery slope because it doesn't affect the health of anyone else aside from the person drinking it.  On top of it all, you ban large sodas...the consumer might buy two smalls.  Then you have free refills at MANY restaurants around the US. 

This soda ban is idiotic to me.  We have other issues in this country that need fixing. 
  

 

[josebronx]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by ATLsFinest

As a society we've shown that we can't police ourselves and sometimes the government has to step in.

The Nazis got voted in with the German people thinking this way.

n better mind his own business, how the hell would I be able to share a drink now. I aint paying for 2 cup shiiiiii

 

[jking0821]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Originally Posted by DubA169

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

I don't get banning foods/drinks.

If you're dumb enough to drink a 32oz. big gulp, that's YOUR problem. At some point people have to be responsible for themselves.

Obesity costs the country millions of dollars if not billions on health care costs. This law won't affect me in any way since I mainly drink water, buti dunno how to feel about it. I hated on the smoking laws, but looking back it was incredibly smart. If I had my way we would all be libertarians. But it's just unrealistic. I don't like restrictions from the govt, but point blank its unhealthy to be drinking that big +%# cup of soda. It's a complicated issue, but hey just buy two sodas if you want. I'm just worried about the slippery slope of government restriction.

Like I said before...I get the smoking bans because it can have an effect on the health of those who don't smoke.  But for the soda ban, it is a slippery slope because it doesn't affect the health of anyone else aside from the person drinking it.  On top of it all, you ban large sodas...the consumer might buy two smalls.  Then you have free refills at MANY restaurants around the US. 

This soda ban is idiotic to me.  We have other issues in this country that need fixing. 
  

I said this about the Seat Belt law.  If you don't wear a seat belt in your car the only person it hurts is you.  How many people have not been wearing a seat belt and flew out of the car and hurt some one else????  You should have the right to drive your car without a seatbelt.  If you are dumb enough to drive without a seat belt on ok thats fine....your choice.....but nope now I am fined if i don't wear it.

This is the same type of thing. 

 

[josednk1068]

Although I don't consume large sodas, or really soda at all now that I think about it; however we should not deny those who want to drink large sodas

 

[Deleted member 37467]

They're so concerned w/ our health, yet they sell us cigarettes and alcohol.

*++$ outta here w/ this nonsense.

Telling me I can't buy a big !#! soda.

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

X

 

[weekz]

While I agree with this because fat people are slow walkers (most of the time), slow to get up sub way stairs, and take up too much space on the sidewalk (i say this as a former obese person myself), he is not doing this for the health of the people. While in theory the health of the people being better is a side effect, the main purpose is to get you spend more because old habits die hard and when a person is used to 24oz that 16oz wont cut it so they'll buy two instead. It's about profits. Its about public health as a cover up for bigger corporate profits.

 

[ryanbbn23]

i love the idea. dark cola is something you shouldnt be putting into your body.

 

[|A-Man|]

Bloomberg is taking it too far now

You're gonna start fining/arresting ppl if they still manage to get big drinks? He's setting up his downfall as mayor of nyc and possibly paving the way for new law; the Personal Responsibility Act a.k.a. Be fat if you want to.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Welp. Not sure how I feel about this.

My parents run through soda, and I know it can't be good for them. Maybe this helps some people, but the amount of government intervention on selective issues is kind of alarming.

The things that we're allowed to consume that have killed millions...

 

[upptempo8387]

Originally Posted by Oh YoU MaD

Originally Posted by DrJDoc26

Originally Posted by pr0phecy718



“If I can’t buy one big drink, I’ll buy two smaller ones.

 

[nikeairbound]

I'm not surprised by this because it fits Bloomberg's M.O. as mayor. For the last 11 years he's tried to turn NYC into his ideal city with the bans on smoking, the addition of more green space, and the laws on trans fats etc.. It's the reason that the NYPD is unapologetic about their stop and frisk policy and the clean halls program and their spying on Muslims. The Bloomberg administration always makes it clear or they hint at the idea that they know what's best for us and that's why we should listen to them. Bloomberg seems to get a pass because he's a seemingly liberal guy who supports gay marriage and is pro choice and his policies effect people like smokers or those on public assistance. He hasn't done a terrible job as mayor but I like other people resent his unwavering belief that he is the only person who can run New York City.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

Originally Posted by IronChef

Originally Posted by ATLsFinest

Am I wrong? As a society, we've repeatedly shown we cannot control ourselves around certain foods. I think its about time the government intervened.

It's a thing called freedom, start taking away small freedoms like the ability for fat bodies to fuel up on sodas, and the slippery slope begins.
It's people with mentalities like yours that sit back and let the govt intervene with our day to day lives, taxing us adding insane regulations.
You may not drink soda, but just wait until they want to mess with something you enjoy.
We need less government in our lives, why do you think people from all over the world still immigrate to the US, even though we are seeing the govt grab more and more power?
FREEDOM, the liberties you have here, you don't have anywhere else in the world!

Because these so called freedoms have had a deep impact and influence (though not the only) for making our healthcare system so expensive.  There are certain people that if they can't police themselves since they lack self control should be policed.  We shouldn't have to all pay for 20% of the population that loves to do everything possible not to eat healthy.

That's not what you're advocating though. This ban would affect everyone, not just fat ppl. The way you're talking about it we should just tax fat ppl more.

 

[scott frost]

I mean, its soda. Who gives a *$#+.

 

[beh235]

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by ATLsFinest

about time. As a society we've shown that we can't police ourselves and sometimes the government has to step in. not to mention I don't drink soda anyway

Originally Posted by omgitswes

Minus well just ban people from being fat. Problem solved

Basically.
Personal responsibility is a lost concept to some people.

 

^ I see your point, but where is the line drawn in terms of personal responsibility? Should it spill over to those that aren't fiscally responsible? Should they be punished in the same manner? Should those that aren't in optimal fiscal position be banned from buying things until they fix their situation? Just sayin..

As far as this is concerned, idk. I think it's more of a "look at me" type of thing masked as improving health. As a Mayor, he basically cheated his way into a third term, then changed the policy to cap the Mayoral tenure to two terms AFTER being elected to his third. I still don't think the end justifies the means. In my opinion, he is doing for health in NYC what Giuliani did for crime in NYC.

 

[it b bert]

Originally Posted by omgitswes

Minus well just ban people from being fat. Problem solved

Minus well though 

 

[frenchblue23]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

I don't get banning foods/drinks.

If you're dumb enough to drink a 32oz. big gulp, that's YOUR problem. At some point people have to be responsible for themselves.

100% true, but when those with the problem start costing the state/city/country money because of their mistakes, I guess someone has to step in. 
I personally am disgusted when I see people and their giant sized sugary drinks 

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Not okay with this, but as a Californian I can't say that I'm affected by it personally (yet).

This is a step in the wrong direction, anyway. We talk about the war on drugs and how it's essentially been a disaster from its onset due to its inability to curb drug consumption, aiding the rise of drug lords both here and abroad, throwing into prison people who do not belong there and funneling money into combating citizens at home. But then we have decisions like these made where we continue the same line of thinking of, "we'll restrict x from the public for their own good,' and then watch as it solves nothing.

The right answer would be to raise awareness of how sugar can hurt us through education and ads, encouraging healthy living at the work place (which some employers already do) and even emphasizing the responsibility one has towards loved ones and the community to maintain a healthy diet and weight (though I admit freely that this, unfortunately, is probably the least likely motivator for many people).

 

[k2theablam]

Governement should be banning tobacco, no soda pop.

... but we all know tobacco is in the government's pockets anyways. It'll never happen.

 

[Bert.]

ban soda period IMO

screw coke and pepsi, thats why diabetes and all that is on the rise

give me clean water and im good

 

[obeahmyal]

**Paging Ninjahood** You know, the same NT member who applauded Bloomberg, the "filthy rich duke" who "has been awesome for NYC" because he's run the city like a business. How do you make sense of this form of regulation? 

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Governement should be banning tobacco, no soda pop.

... but we all know tobacco is in the government's pockets anyways. It'll never happen.

Cigarettes don't even have the same impression upon the younger generations that it did on the older ones. Banning them isn't something worth considering anymore.
http://www.huffingtonpost...ate-state_n_1556840.html

Over the decades, smoking rates in the U.S. have decreased. These days, the smoking rate is much lower than those in the 1940s to 1970s, when smoking topped out around 40 percent, according to Gallup.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Originally Posted by IT B BERT

Originally Posted by omgitswes

Minus well just ban people from being fat. Problem solved

Mind Bottlingly simply solution.

 

[an dee 51o]

not sure if srs

How are you gonna ban large sodas? This feels like a plot to make people spend more money. That lady even said she'll buy two sodas. I bet a lot of people will. This is a business decision disguised as one for public health.

 

[6 Rings G.O.A.T.]

California better not follow this plan..