NYC Mayor Bloomberg wants put an end to your soda addiction by limiting the amount that can be sold in a container. Click Here (huffingtonpost.com)
I don't drink much soda, but when I do it is usually a big ass soda washing down something terrible that I also don't normally eat like some fastfood or movie theater popcorn.
Soda is bad for you. Soda is bad for me, but my big soda drinking isn't hurting you like my cigarette smoking was.
Would this affect larger mugs/glasses of beer at restaurants/bars? I would think one could make an argument for restricting those as well to just pints, but I guess alcohol restrictions are something else entirely.
This is sad because we shouldn't need government parenting over us for drinking too much soda, and yet, obesity is a problem. My soda habits leave me little room to talk...
Originally posted by EddieBurkettWould this affect larger mugs/glasses of beer at restaurants/bars? I would think one could make an argument for restricting those as well to just pints, but I guess alcohol restrictions are something else entirely.
No, alcohol's exempt, as are diet sodas, dairy products, and fruit juice.
This is beyond silly for so many reasons, not the least of which is that anything over 16oz is now considered "big." How un-American!
I wonder what places like Wendy's and McDonald's are supposed to do to convince you to buy higher-priced combo meals. Give you multiple drinks? "Spicy chicken combo please." "Would you like that with one, two, or three drinks, sir?"
If I am unfortunate enough to have this happen to me (yes, this is all about me) I'm already planning my Kickstarter project for 2-liter-bottle-to-serving-glass conversion kits. Donate now!
The really idiotic thing about all this is that when it goes into effect, you'll be limited to a 16 oz, 150 calorie Coke at McDonalds, but you can still get a 32 oz, 1100 calorie shake made from who knows what.
Which is ultimately worse for you?
"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Originally posted by EddieBurkettWould this affect larger mugs/glasses of beer at restaurants/bars? I would think one could make an argument for restricting those as well to just pints, but I guess alcohol restrictions are something else entirely.
No, alcohol's exempt, as are diet sodas, dairy products, and fruit juice.
--K
Alcohol is exempt because we all know excessive alcohol consumption doesn't kill you, soda does. /boggle
I may be a liberal but this is just stupid. Everyone is either going to get two drinks instead of one big one or businesses will offer free refills (if they don't already).
Originally posted by CerebusAm I the only one here thinking "Wait, don't you get free refills?"
Good grief.
We're talking about NYC. I can count on one hand the number of sit-down restaurants I've been to here that give you free refills. If we throw in fast food restaurants, my count probably doesn't crack ten.
Originally posted by Mike ZeidlerThe really idiotic thing about all this is that when it goes into effect, you'll be limited to a 16 oz, 150 calorie Coke at McDonalds, but you can still get a 32 oz, 1100 calorie shake made from who knows what.
Which is ultimately worse for you?
The coke - nothing but sugar and acid. At least the milkshake has some nutritional value beyond sugar but not much.
I think this is stupid and doomed to fail anyway. Obesity and bad diets need to be dealt with but not this way. We need to change behavior through education not inane laws.
Originally posted by DrDirtI think this is stupid and doomed to fail anyway. Obesity and bad diets need to be dealt with but not this way. We need to change behavior through education not inane laws.
I honestly cannot understand how anybody could ever think otherwise. This is absurd and the only thing it has accomplished is to rile up the right wing against the "liberal food police."
Originally posted by DrDirtI think this is stupid and doomed to fail anyway. Obesity and bad diets need to be dealt with but not this way. We need to change behavior through education not inane laws.
I honestly cannot understand how anybody could ever think otherwise. This is absurd and the only thing it has accomplished is to rile up the right wing against the "liberal food police."
I agree totally. I just wish the right-wing and left-wing for that matter would wake up and realize that no matter how well-intended, you can't legislate behavior, whether it's abortion and drugs or bad eating habits. Education is the key not laws and this is coming from a Roosevelt liberal Democrat.
Originally posted by wannaberockstar Alcohol is exempt because we all know excessive alcohol consumption doesn't kill you, soda does. /boggle
Well, one could argue that alcohol is exempt because minors already can't buy it (at least legally).
Originally posted by wannaberockstar I may be a liberal but this is just stupid. Everyone is either going to get two drinks instead of one big one or businesses will offer free refills (if they don't already).
No, the reality is that there is a lot of research showing that portion sizes have a very significant impact on people's consumption. The fact that people who really do make a conscious decision to drink more soda have these options makes it less of an imposition on freedom, but doesn't undermine the goal.
OTOH, the fact that Bloomberg endorsed National Donut Day in the middle of all this is ricoculous.
Originally posted by DrDirtI think this is stupid and doomed to fail anyway. Obesity and bad diets need to be dealt with but not this way. We need to change behavior through education not inane laws.
I honestly cannot understand how anybody could ever think otherwise. This is absurd and the only thing it has accomplished is to rile up the right wing against the "liberal food police."
I agree totally. I just wish the right-wing and left-wing for that matter would wake up and realize that no matter how well-intended, you can't legislate behavior, whether it's abortion and drugs or bad eating habits. Education is the key not laws and this is coming from a Roosevelt liberal Democrat.
That's it, exactly: You can't legislate behavior.
I think a pretty good reason why people are obese is that a 2L bottle of Coke costs $1.99 and a 2L carafe of orange juice costs $6. I'm guesstimating on the prices, of course, but you catch my meaning.
The cheapest food is also the worst for you. On a budget, you're not gonna pay more to get fresh, healthy ingredients when six TV dinners will keep you from going hungry for far less money.
Mayor Bloomberg's idea isn't bad exactly, but it wouldn't solve any problems.
And I'm not sure how you educate your way out of this dilemma, either, except to ensure people get a good education so they can ostensibly get better jobs and be able to afford better food. But then again, jobs aren't easy to come by either.
"Don't do anything I wouldn't do." --Stone Cold Steve Austin
Fan of the Indianapolis Colts (Super Bowl XLI Champions), Indiana Pacers and Washington Nationals
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006
Originally posted by ges7184Of course one of the reasons junk food is so cheap is because government subsidizes the heck out of it. So we could maybe change that.
I assume you mean corn and high fructose corn syrup. in spite of the battle going on, sugar is basically sugar and corn "sugar" is cheaper because a country like Brazil is using sugar cane for ethanol.
Government subsidies are at a fraction of where they were a decade ago and will be essentially eliminated in the next Farm Bill. Please realize that processed/junk food is cheap in part because of the lack of food in it. Lots of salt and artificial flavoring.
Even with today's higher commodity prices, there is only about 10 cents worth of wheat in a loaf of bread.
-lol- Good man. Personally I'd challenge him to a gentlemanly duel. Lately I've been torn about maybe taking out a membership with the PC's, if only so that I could vote in favour of ratification.