PDA

View Full Version : Life New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks


Count Zarth
05-31-2012, 06:58 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1&hp


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 prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores. LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday. The industry has clashed repeatedly with the city’s health department, saying it has unfairly singled out soda; industry groups have bought subway advertisements promoting their cause.

“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.

Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings.

In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common.

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed. :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.


The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.

With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants.

In interviews at the AMC Loews Village, in the East Village in Manhattan, some filmgoers said restricting large soda sales made sense to them.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Gochenauer, 21, a personal assistant from the Upper West Side. Soda, she said, “rots your teeth.”

But others said consumers should be free to choose.

“If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision,” said Zara Atal, 20, a college student from the Upper East Side.

Lawrence Goins, 50, a postal worker who lives in Newark, took a more pragmatic approach.

“Some of those movies are three, three and a half hours long,” Mr. Goins said. “You got to quench your thirst.”

Deberg_1990
05-31-2012, 07:00 AM
Awesome! More government control over peoples individual choices. That will solve everything.

blaise
05-31-2012, 07:01 AM
Stupid.

Bewbies
05-31-2012, 07:03 AM
New York is retarded.

Bwana
05-31-2012, 07:06 AM
Oh great, perhaps we need a new Sugary Drinks czar, to go with the new grill brush czar! :spock:

Aries Walker
05-31-2012, 07:07 AM
I'm not usually one to stamp something as over-regulation, but this is pretty blatant over-regulation.

El Jefe
05-31-2012, 07:40 AM
Awesome! More government control over peoples individual choices. That will solve everything.

QFT

BigMeatballDave
05-31-2012, 07:47 AM
Welcome to New(communist)York!

sedated
05-31-2012, 07:48 AM
Why don’t they tax larger drink sizes? When you can go into QT and get a 16oz for $0.39 or a 64oz for $0.59, there’s little reason to hold back. And the economy could certainly use all the help it can get.

BigMeatballDave
05-31-2012, 07:57 AM
Meanwhile, tobacco is still legal to buy...

mikey23545
05-31-2012, 08:00 AM
So will you still be able to buy a quart of Colt 45 if you want to?

blaise
05-31-2012, 08:01 AM
Meanwhile, tobacco is still legal to buy...

It's like $12 a pack in NYC though.

Chocolate Hog
05-31-2012, 08:07 AM
Why don’t they tax larger drink sizes? When you can go into QT and get a 16oz for $0.39 or a 64oz for $0.59, there’s little reason to hold back. And the economy could certainly use all the help it can get.

What a stupid idea.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

blaise
05-31-2012, 08:12 AM
No giant soda at the movies but you can get a giant tub of popcorn loaded with fake oil-butter and salt.

BigMeatballDave
05-31-2012, 08:13 AM
It's like $12 a pack in NYC though.

Oh, I'm not surprised. They're not trying to bans sales, though.

BigMeatballDave
05-31-2012, 08:13 AM
So will you still be able to buy a quart of Colt 45 if you want to?

Yep. Fucked up, huh...

qabbaan
05-31-2012, 08:24 AM
Ereckshun agrees with this. It's a matter of national security.

Deberg_1990
05-31-2012, 08:24 AM
Whats to stop Joe Fatty from buying a 3 liter at the store and downing it on his couch all night?

DJ's left nut
05-31-2012, 08:27 AM
Awesome! More government control over peoples individual choices. That will solve everything.

I've been told that we should trust the government to take small, minimalist steps in running our healthcare system. We don't have to worry about overreach at all...

mr. tegu
05-31-2012, 08:32 AM
"The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores"

Any personal trainer will tell you that a milkshake or alcohol is a much better choice in lieu of sugary drinks.

blaise
05-31-2012, 08:35 AM
Whats to stop Joe Fatty from buying a 3 liter at the store and downing it on his couch all night?

Nothing. And nothing to stop him from eating 4 hot dogs at the baseball game where he can't buy a large soda.

BigMeatballDave
05-31-2012, 08:37 AM
Any personal trainer will tell you that a milkshake or alcohol is a much better choice in lieu of sugary drinks.That's silly considering milkshakes and alcoholic beverages also contain sugar.

Donger
05-31-2012, 08:38 AM
Anyone else thinking of Demolition Man? I never considered that movie would be prophetic.

HemiEd
05-31-2012, 08:39 AM
Awesome! More government control over peoples individual choices. That will solve everything.

Yeah, more laws, that will fix everything.

All cars should be painted gray, and everyone should wear the same clothes. While we are at it, all people should be blonde headed and blue eyed, that should work!

nychief
05-31-2012, 08:40 AM
well, he already banned transfats... Bloomby has made healthier eating his legacy... seems cosmetic to me, but if it restricts some access, then I guess it could have an affect.

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 08:40 AM
That's what they get for electing a Democrat as a governor. Idiots. Enjoy socialism in your own state. ROFL

lcarus
05-31-2012, 08:46 AM
I can't believe the stupidity of this country sometimes. Just...wow. I was listening to Colin Cowherd talk about this on the way to work, and he seemed to agree with the law.
"People aren't taking care of themselves, it's time to take care of the people". Moron.

Frazod
05-31-2012, 08:48 AM
Anyone else thinking of Demolition Man? I never considered that movie would be prophetic.

I tend to think about it every time somebody "bro fists" me instead of shaking my hand like a man.

lcarus
05-31-2012, 08:50 AM
I tend to think about it every time somebody "bro fists" me instead of shaking my hand like a man.

Don't you hate that? Or when someone gives you the "gangsta" handshake.

Fish
05-31-2012, 08:51 AM
Anyone else thinking of Demolition Man? I never considered that movie would be prophetic.

Would you prefer Demolition Man or Idiocracy? Right now we're leaning more toward Idiocracy...

Frazod
05-31-2012, 08:51 AM
Don't you hate that? Or when someone gives you the "gangsta" handshake.

I'm not even sure what that is.

nychief
05-31-2012, 08:58 AM
Well judging from the response on this thread, and many poster's understanding of socialism, education, not healthy eating, should be this country's reform focus.

lcarus
05-31-2012, 09:01 AM
Well judging from the response on this thread, and many poster's understanding of socialism, education, not healthy eating, should be this country's reform focus.

Some people are gonna be fat. Some people are gonna be stupid. A lot of people are gonna be fat and stupid.

Donger
05-31-2012, 09:02 AM
Would you prefer Demolition Man or Idiocracy? Right now we're leaning more toward Idiocracy...

I've not seen Idiocracy.

Fish
05-31-2012, 09:11 AM
I've not seen Idiocracy.

It's a sad look into the future.

BossChief
05-31-2012, 09:12 AM
Tebow will cure NY of obesity.

Donger
05-31-2012, 09:15 AM
It's a sad look into the future.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4MOoC2byK1A/T5i_71ofNqI/AAAAAAAAChk/NOygu2Ff9Aw/s1600/3497348226_49867899b0%5B1%5D.jpg

blaise
05-31-2012, 09:27 AM
I've not seen Idiocracy.

It's a good premise but not executed all that well.

Frazod
05-31-2012, 09:28 AM
It's a sad look into the future.

So is Doctor Zhivago.

HemiEd
05-31-2012, 09:30 AM
Well judging from the response on this thread, and many poster's understanding of socialism, education, not healthy eating, should be this country's reform focus.

If someone wants to be a fat fucking slop, and eat shit, it is their right. It is not my fucking problem, or my business, end of fucking story.

saphojunkie
05-31-2012, 09:41 AM
"Durrr regulation & communism & liberal blah blah blah"

:rolleyes:

Frosty
05-31-2012, 09:43 AM
If the government really forced people to eat healthfully, a lot of companies in the US would go bankrupt.

L.A. Chieffan
05-31-2012, 09:46 AM
the tax payers should be happy, health care costs should go down

nychief
05-31-2012, 09:59 AM
If someone wants to be a fat ****ing slop, and eat shit, it is their right. It is not my ****ing problem, or my business, end of ****ing story.


Sure, lots of people feel that way. But ever time the Government stops a predatory practice, it does not socialism make. I just get a little tired of bloviateing by the uninformed. Jesus can we discuss the fact he wants to stop selling dirt cheap 40oz sodas aimed at children without some junior college dropout screaming "abolish the Fed."

Baby Lee
05-31-2012, 10:46 AM
Are they gonna tear out all the self-serve free refill soda kiosks in restaurants?

EDIT - nm:tl:dr

Brock
05-31-2012, 10:49 AM
Sure, lots of people feel that way. But ever time the Government stops a predatory practice, it does not socialism make. I just get a little tired of bloviateing by the uninformed. Jesus can we discuss the fact he wants to stop selling dirt cheap 40oz sodas aimed at children without some junior college dropout screaming "abolish the Fed."

"aimed at children". LMAO

Mr. Laz
05-31-2012, 10:50 AM
while i understand the point, you can't legislate things like this imo


dam seat belt law is bullshit too ... it's just a money grab


smoking law is different because 2nd hand smoke effects OTHER people

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-31-2012, 10:56 AM
Lame.

Chiefnj2
05-31-2012, 10:59 AM
while i understand the point, you can't legislate things like this imo


dam seat belt law is bullshit too ... it's just a money grab


smoking law is different because 2nd hand smoke effects OTHER people

Seat belts effect others.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 10:59 AM
Have to start somewhere. Obesity is out of control in this country and fat people are pretty disgusting to look at. Not to mention parents that are destroying their children's lives by making them so unhealthy.

Brock
05-31-2012, 11:01 AM
Have to start somewhere. Obesity is out of control in this country and fat people are pretty disgusting to look at. Not to mention parents that are destroying their children's lives by making them so unhealthy.

Where does it end?

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:02 AM
That's what they get for electing a Democrat as a governor. Idiots. Enjoy socialism in your own state. ROFL

Our mayor is Republican.

You have no idea what socialism is if you think this country functions as such.

jiveturkey
05-31-2012, 11:03 AM
Why not just charge people who choose to lead less then healthy lives more for health insurance? The main argument every time something like this comes up is the costs associated with healthcare.

You get to choose how you live and nobody else is on the hook for it.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:03 AM
Where does it end?

NY has made smoking pretty unattainable and its greatly reduced the smoking rate but by no means are the rights to buy cigarettes threatened.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-31-2012, 11:03 AM
Have to start somewhere. Obesity is out of control in this country and fat people are pretty disgusting to look at. Not to mention parents that are destroying their children's lives by making them so unhealthy.

Charlie Wies just gave you the stink eye whilst polishing off a 40 oz. slurpee.

Count Zarth
05-31-2012, 11:04 AM
Our mayor is Republican.

You have no idea what socialism is if you think this country functions as such.

According to wiki he left the party and is now "independent."

He was also a democrat before he was a republican.

Smells like one too.

qabbaan
05-31-2012, 11:04 AM
You can't prohibit the lifestyle that leads to obesity. You cant (and shouldnt) ban unhealthy foods.

The only way people will change is if they feel it in their wallets. Maybe the rest of us shouldnt have to pay the increased health care expenses of the obese?

Brock
05-31-2012, 11:05 AM
NY has made smoking pretty unattainable and its greatly reduced the smoking rate but by no means are the rights to buy cigarettes threatened.

Where does it end?

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:05 AM
Have to start somewhere. Obesity is out of control in this country and fat people are pretty disgusting to look at. Not to mention parents that are destroying their children's lives by making them so unhealthy.

Ok, start by making people exercise and turn off their TVs.

Count Zarth
05-31-2012, 11:06 AM
Losing weight is 80 percent diet, though.

qabbaan
05-31-2012, 11:06 AM
Why not just charge people who choose to lead less then healthy lives more for health insurance? The main argument every time something like this comes up is the costs associated with healthcare.

You get to choose how you live and nobody else is on the hook for it.

Ten years from now, under "health care reform":

"But my fat ass was a pre-existing condition, and you can't refuse me because of a pre-existing condition!"

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:07 AM
Where does it end?

They should outlaw the sales of pizza, hot dogs and candy. Gotta start somewhere.

Saul Good
05-31-2012, 11:08 AM
Losing weight is 80 percent diet, though.

Losing weight is only a small part of being healthy.

bevischief
05-31-2012, 11:10 AM
Ten years from now, under "health care reform":

"But my fat ass was a pre-existing condition, and you can't refuse me because of a pre-existing condition!"

pre-existing condition goes away under the bill the way it is written.

bevischief
05-31-2012, 11:11 AM
Just put a tax on it instead, and they should be charged more more being over weight for medical insurance.

Ace Gunner
05-31-2012, 11:12 AM
new york is leading the way to america's future. I had to leave that state as a born and raised new yorker.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:14 AM
When you got McDonalds here they don't ask if you would like to super size anymore. Not sure what its like in other places. You can still get it but they don't push it on you.

qabbaan
05-31-2012, 11:15 AM
pre-existing condition goes away under the bill the way it is written.

Well, there you have it, they can't discriminate because you're fat, they'll just charge everyone more, so we are all paying for it. Therefore all unhealthy foods must be banned.

Not tobacco though, we love all the tax revenue.

Brock
05-31-2012, 11:15 AM
When you got McDonalds here they don't ask if you would like to super size anymore. Not sure what its like in other places. You can still get it but they don't push it on you.

That's the same as anywhere else.

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:16 AM
I never get asked to Super Size at McDonalds.

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:17 AM
That's the same as anywhere else.

But they do it in a more sophisticated fashion in NYC. In fact, they're so sophisticated they can't figure out a way to drink less soda without a law.

Baconeater
05-31-2012, 11:17 AM
Soooo...what's to stop people from simply buying multiple drinks?

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 11:18 AM
Our mayor is Republican.

You have no idea what socialism is if you think this country functions as such.

I said Governor fuck face...keep up.

Deberg_1990
05-31-2012, 11:19 AM
When you got McDonalds here they don't ask if you would like to super size anymore. Not sure what its like in other places. You can still get it but they don't push it on you.

That was fine because it was a company decision, not government one.
Posted via Mobile Device

nychief
05-31-2012, 11:21 AM
According to wiki he left the party and is now "independent."

He was also a democrat before he was a republican.

Smells like one too.


That is all correct. And if we are going to talk smell... you smell like sour milk, funions and tears... with a hint of your mom's perfume (when the cat's away the fat mousing living in the basement will play).

Ace Gunner
05-31-2012, 11:23 AM
Well, there you have it, they can't discriminate because you're fat, they'll just charge everyone more, so we are all paying for it. Therefore all unhealthy foods must be banned.

Not tobacco though, we love all the tax revenue.

and not the drug alcohol, they need to establish permanent checkpoints.

nychief
05-31-2012, 11:24 AM
I said Governor **** face...keep up.


It is hard to keep up with your articulate arguments. slow down. New York has had many Republican governors and the city has had a republican in gracie mansion for much of the last twenty years... this isn't a party issue, shit for brains.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:33 AM
But they do it in a more sophisticated fashion in NYC. In fact, they're so sophisticated they can't figure out a way to drink less soda without a law.

New York and New Jersey rank 37th and 42nd in obesity.

It's not nearly the problem here as it is elsewhere.

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 11:35 AM
It is hard to keep up with your articulate arguments. slow down. New York has had many Republican governors and the city has had a republican in gracie mansion for much of the last twenty years... this isn't a party issue, shit for brains.

Is it hard to keep up when the word "Mayor" wasn't even remotely in my fucking post? And Cuomo is a Republican? Well damn....I've lost touch. Facts state otherwise you piece of shit. I don't give a shit about past Governors. Where the hell did you get that from what I was saying? You really are retarded.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:36 AM
Is it hard to keep up when the word "Mayor" wasn't even remotely in my ****ing post? And Cuomo is a Republican? Well damn....I've lost touch. Facts state otherwise you piece of shit. I don't give a shit about past Governors. Where the hell did you get that from what I was saying? You really are retarded.

The law we're discussing is a city ban. Not statewide.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:38 AM
I said Governor **** face...keep up.

If you can avoid the name calling for a minute maybe you'd notice that we're discussing the city, not the state.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 11:39 AM
You people are sensitive as shit. It's not like they're banning sugary drinks altogether - they're just making the mass consumption of the stuff a little more difficult.

The fact of the matter is that the mass obesity that this country experiences DOES affect other people. There's no question at all that such an unhealthy population leads to sky-high healthcare costs, which in turn makes things worse for everyone.

It's not just dollars, either. When's the last time that you went alone on a flight and sat there with an empty seat next to you dreading that one of the many morbidly obese people in the aisle will sit next to you? Or a bus? The overall quality of life for the US is worse than it would be if people were made to be healthier.

There are some liberties that really ought not be allowed to everyone, in my opinion. Like they've already done with vaccinations, they balance choice with subtle changes to society that slowly engineer the population to increase health and quality of life for all. I don't want to live in a country that's below proper levels of herd immunity because some uneducated hicks choose to believe that vaccines a secret plot by the Jews.

Each of these people are still entirely capable of drinking as much sugary soda as they were before, but they're probably too lazy to get off their asses and get another, thus leading to less soda consumed and hopefully a marginal improvement in the health of the country. Sign me up.

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:40 AM
New York and New Jersey rank 37th and 42nd in obesity.

It's not nearly the problem here as it is elsewhere.

Is there a point there?

Saulbadguy
05-31-2012, 11:40 AM
Just make diet sodas taste more like regular soda.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 11:41 AM
New York and New Jersey rank 37th and 42nd in obesity.

It's not nearly the problem here as it is elsewhere.

In proportion of obese people? Even if the rate is low, the sheer population numbers would still mean a huge number. Also, consider the larger effect that obesity has in a space-limited city compared to somewhere out in the country.

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:42 AM
You people are sensitive as shit. It's not like they're banning sugary drinks altogether - they're just making the mass consumption of the stuff a little more difficult.

The fact of the matter is that the mass obesity that this country experiences DOES affect other people. There's no question at all that such an unhealthy population leads to sky-high healthcare costs, which in turn makes things worse for everyone.

It's not just dollars, either. When's the last time that you went alone on a flight and sat there with an empty seat next to you dreading that one of the many morbidly obese people in the aisle will sit next to you? Or a bus? The overall quality of life for the US is worse than it would be if people were made to be healthier.

There are some liberties that really ought not be allowed to everyone, in my opinion. Like they've already done with vaccinations, they balance choice with subtle changes to society that slowly engineer the population to increase health and quality of life for all. I don't want to live in a country that's below proper levels of herd immunity because some uneducated hicks choose to believe that vaccines a secret plot by the Jews.

Each of these people are still entirely capable of drinking as much sugary soda as they were before, but they're probably too lazy to get off their asses and get another, thus leading to less soda consumed and hopefully a marginal improvement in the health of the country. Sign me up.

How is it fair to single out one business when there's many unhealthy food items offered in NYC? Why is it fair to a restaurant owner to tell him he can't sell his product the way he wants when they do nothing about people eating hot dogs, or cookies, or candy or playing video games for 5 hours a day?

BWillie
05-31-2012, 11:44 AM
I especially like how it's okay to consume a huge alcoholic sugary drink, but not a Coke that is that big. FFS....

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 11:44 AM
How is it fair to single out one business when there's many unhealthy food items offered in NYC? Why is it fair to a restaurant owner to tell him he can't sell his product the way he wants when they do nothing about people eating hot dogs, or cookies, or candy or playing video games for 5 hours a day?

Because large amounts soda consumption is a MUCH larger indicator of obesity than any of those other things.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:45 AM
Is there a point there?

uhhhhhhhhh....... maybe some of the policies NY enacts work?

OMG SOCIALIST!?!?!

qabbaan
05-31-2012, 11:48 AM
Good point. What prevents a fatty from buying two Cokes then? They can drink out of both straws at once and consume twice as fast! Profit!!!!

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:49 AM
uhhhhhhhhh....... maybe some of the policies NY enacts work?

OMG SOCIALIST!?!?!

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't remember mentioning socialism.

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:51 AM
Because large amounts soda consumption is a MUCH larger indicator of obesity than any of those other things.

It's something fat people do. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the thing that's making them fat. It's normally part of an overall unhealthy lifestyle.
If it's so bad why not ban it completely?

Bambi
05-31-2012, 11:52 AM
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't remember mentioning socialism.

Cause our NY socialist policies work.

We have less fat people.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 11:53 AM
It's something fat people do. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the thing that's making them fat. It's normally part of an overall unhealthy lifestyle.
If it's so bad why not ban it completely?

For the same reason that people can still buy cigarettes and booze. Drinking soda is ingrained in our culture, and it's not realistically possible to completely ban it (prohibition in the early 20th century, anyone?). Even if they can't ban it, they can provide disincentives for drinking it. People will be mad at first, then quickly forget about it and move on with their lives, probably drinking less soda in the process.

blaise
05-31-2012, 11:54 AM
Cause our NY socialist policies work.

We have less fat people.

Oh, so obesity in NY was much higher prior to the policies?

And those policies are state-wide?

Count Zarth
05-31-2012, 11:56 AM
Good point. What prevents a fatty from buying two Cokes then? They can drink out of both straws at once and consume twice as fast! Profit!!!!

It's tiring carrying two cokes around.

Lzen
05-31-2012, 11:57 AM
Sure, lots of people feel that way. But ever time the Government stops a predatory practice, it does not socialism make. I just get a little tired of bloviateing by the uninformed. Jesus can we discuss the fact he wants to stop selling dirt cheap 40oz sodas aimed at children without some junior college dropout screaming "abolish the Fed."

This is retarded. That is not the job of the government.

Easy 6
05-31-2012, 11:58 AM
Its none of Bloombergs or Canofbiers damn business, doesnt the mayor of that huge city have more pressing issues to worry about?

I'm drinking a large coke from hardees right now, suck it Bloomberg & Can, you marxomainstreamcommunofascistbot* (patent pending*sportsshrink).

vailpass
05-31-2012, 11:59 AM
Is this the doing of the First Sasquatch?

Von Dumbass
05-31-2012, 12:00 PM
People are too stupid and impulsive to do right for themselves. The government has to step in and try to discourage people from making bad decisions in any subtle ways they can.

You can still get your soda, it just won't be the size of a 2 liter anymore.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 12:02 PM
Oh, so obesity in NY was much higher prior to the policies?

And those policies are state-wide?

Not sure about your first question. Probably. We have quite a bit of government policies aimed at health.

Not sure about your second question. Some are, some aren't. Being that the city makes up nearly half the population of the state it is quite a large influence on demographics.

Lzen
05-31-2012, 12:02 PM
It is hard to keep up with your articulate arguments. slow down. New York has had many Republican governors and the city has had a republican in gracie mansion for much of the last twenty years... this isn't a party issue, shit for brains.

I believe they call those RINOs. Progressive ideals are progressive ideals, party affiliation makes no difference with these types.

Bambi
05-31-2012, 12:02 PM
People are too stupid and impulsive to do right for themselves. The government has to step in and try to discourage people from making bad decisions in any subtle ways they can.

You can still get your soda, it just won't be the size of a 2 liter anymore.

Or you can just walk next door to the bodega and get a 2 liter.

Donger
05-31-2012, 12:02 PM
LMAO

"This country is going straight to Hell!"

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/xZfGiHxRPK8/mqdefault.jpg

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:04 PM
Its none of Bloombergs or Canofbiers damn business, doesnt the mayor of that huge city have more pressing issues to worry about?

I'm drinking a large coke from hardees right now, suck it Bloomberg & Can, you marxomainstreamcommunofascistbot* (patent pending*sportsshrink).

http://i.qkme.me/3oft9x.jpg

Thank goodness you're not the mayor, or you'd only be doing one thing at a time - the MOST IMPORTANT thing.

People are too stupid and impulsive to do right for themselves. The government has to step in and try to discourage people from making bad decisions in any subtle ways they can.

You can still get your soda, it just won't be the size of a 2 liter anymore.

^That is essentially what the rest of my post was going to be.^

If holding the belief that the government ought to protect me from idiots and the society-destroying habits makes me a "socialist" or whatever, then I guess that's what I am.

qabbaan
05-31-2012, 12:04 PM
Cause our NY socialist policies work.

We have less fat people.

I understand your making this statement, because "correlation = causation" is the essence of liberalism

Lzen
05-31-2012, 12:07 PM
.....The fact of the matter is that the mass obesity that this country experiences DOES affect other people. There's no question at all that such an unhealthy population leads to sky-high healthcare costs, which in turn makes things worse for everyone.....

There are some liberties that really ought not be allowed to everyone, in my opinion. Like they've already done with vaccinations, they balance choice with subtle changes to society that slowly engineer the population to increase health and quality of life for all. I don't want to live in a country that's below proper levels of herd immunity because some uneducated hicks choose to believe that vaccines a secret plot by the Jews....

Is this truly a path you wish for us to take? And if we're going to be healthy, how about we do everything, not just attack one thing? Let's ban everything that is unhealthy.

- Ban tobacco
- Ban alcohol
- Ban television
- Ban motorcycles
- Ban pornography
- Ban homosexuals


I could go on and on.....

Where does it stop? This is not the government's role.

blaise
05-31-2012, 12:11 PM
Not sure about your first question. Probably. We have quite a bit of government policies aimed at health.

Not sure about your second question. Some are, some aren't. Being that the city makes up nearly half the population of the state it is quite a large influence on demographics.

But you're saying the policies have made the state less fat, even though the policies previously mentioned are only city policies. You really don't seem to know that the policies are doing anything at all and you're touting their success and screaming "socialism" for some reason.

You're not making much sense. Though, I don't expect much from you. You're the guy who says, "typical" when talking about behavior of certain demographics, and yet complains about the prejudices of others.

I suppose I'm just wasting my time.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:12 PM
Is this truly a path you wish for us to take? And if we're going to be healthy, how about we do everything, not just attack one thing? Let's ban everything that is unhealthy.

- Ban tobacco
- Ban alcohol
- Ban television
- Ban motorcycles
- Ban pornography
- Ban homosexuals


I could go on and on.....

Where does it stop? This is not the government's role.

You must be talking about a different law, because this is hardly a ban. It's a disincentive, much like the additional taxes on tobacco and alcohol that already exist (and have existed for some time).

I'm assuming you added a few of those things at the end of your list for shock value, and not because you've constructed any sort of logical argument behind them.

Donger
05-31-2012, 12:13 PM
See what you people are missing over in the DC Forum? Do ya?

Lzen
05-31-2012, 12:17 PM
You must be talking about a different law, because this is hardly a ban. It's a disincentive, much like the additional taxes on tobacco and alcohol that already exist (and have existed for some time).

I'm assuming you added a few of those things at the end of your list for shock value, and not because you've constructed any sort of logical argument behind them.

No, I was making a point that if you truly think the government should do something real about the obesity problem, they should ban things that make people obese. And while they're at it, they should make obese people exercise. And ban other unhealthy foods such as cake, cookies, chips, ice cream, etc.


And while they're at it they should ban everything else that is unhealthy in a lifestyle. And yes I do believe those last 2 things are part of an unhealthy lifestyle. That's why I listed them.
See, that's how this kind of thing works. Someone else's beliefs shoved down your throat through government regulation.

Saul Good
05-31-2012, 12:19 PM
uhhhhhhhhh....... maybe some of the policies NY enacts work?

OMG SOCIALIST!?!?!

National obesity rate is 26%. New York's is 25%. Congratulations

Mr. Laz
05-31-2012, 12:19 PM
Seat belts effect others.
everything effects others

2nd hand smoke DIRECTLY effects other people

selt belt laws eventually effect the population by higher insurance blah,blah,blah

but then if you are going to legislate that then drinking,football,sky diving ... every potentially negative action effects others.

hey start making laws for everything that leads to raising the overall cost of humanity. Which is everything.

selt belt law is just a way for police to get more money in fines

my selt belt ... my life ... fuck off

mr. tegu
05-31-2012, 12:26 PM
Everyone should just buy Soda Streams! Each soda has about a fifth the calories and a fifth the sugar. Plus they taste just like the regular flavors. Dr. Pepper is my favorite drink, but Dr. Pete (Soda Stream brand) tastes essentially the exact same.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:26 PM
No, I was making a point that if you truly think the government should do something real about the obesity problem, they should ban things that make people obese. And while they're at it, they should make obese people exercise. And while they're at it they should band everything else that is unhealthy in a lifestyle.


And yes I do believe those last 2 things are part of an unhealthy lifestyle.
See, that's how this kind of thing works. Someone else's beliefs shoved down your throat through government regulation.

Well, it just so happens that my belief about obesity being a burden on the country are scientifically proven, while I can't say that I've seen any such proof about pornography or homosexuals (or, god forbid, homosexual pornography).

Obesity is a health issue. It has been repeatedly proven to lead to cancer, heart disease, and a number of other chronic illnesses. It has reached epidemic levels in this country (if you're willing to treat it as a disease), and doesn't show any signs of reversing itself any time in the near future. You'd have us do nothing about it?

Meanwhile, you're comparing it to social issues which, unless I've been missing all the scholarly articles about it, have not been proven to have a negative influence on society.

If you had read my previous posts, you'd have seen my argument for why you can't just ban things outright - it's simply not possible. The best the government can do is implement gradual changes to the way people live (much as they did with smoking) which, over the course of time, will improve the standing of this nation and its residents.

Donger
05-31-2012, 12:28 PM
The best the government can do is implement gradual changes to the way people live (much as they did with smoking) which, over the course of time, will improve the standing of this nation and its residents.

Christ, you sound like Locutus.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:28 PM
everything effects others

2nd hand smoke DIRECTLY effects other people

selt belt laws eventually effect the population by higher insurance blah,blah,blah

but then if you are going to legislate that then drinking,football,sky diving ... every potentially negative action effects others.

hey start making laws for everything that leads to raising the overall cost of humanity. Which is everything.

selt belt law is just a way for police to get more money in fines

my selt belt ... my life ... **** off

An unsecured body in a high-speed crash becomes a deadly projectile.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:29 PM
Christ, you sound like Locutus.

He sounds like a good man.

Honestly, though, would you claim that the laws they implemented regarding smoking over the last several decades haven't had a positive effect? People can still smoke if they want, but rates have fallen dramatically, and with them the negative health consequences.

Fish
05-31-2012, 12:30 PM
There's a guy that works in my building that brings a 12 pack carton of Dr. Pepper to work every morning. Every time I see him enter the building coming to work, he's carrying a carton. I can't imagine how bad that would be for your body.

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 12:30 PM
The law we're discussing is a city ban. Not statewide.

You think the Governor had no knowledge on this? For the most important city in the state of NY? Albany means nothing compared to NYC. He obviously was in support of it. Don't be naive.

Demonpenz
05-31-2012, 12:31 PM
they'll have to take my big gulp from my Cold, Fat, cheeto stained half

Donger
05-31-2012, 12:33 PM
He sounds like a good man.

Honestly, though, would you claim that the laws they implemented regarding smoking over the last several decades haven't had a positive effect? People can still smoke if they want, but rates have fallen dramatically, and with them the negative health consequences.

To which laws are you referring?

Mr. Laz
05-31-2012, 12:38 PM
An unsecured body in a high-speed crash becomes a deadly projectile.
and a driver that has a heart attack while driving turns the car into the same deadly projectile. So lets make a law that makes ANYTHING that might cause a heart attack illegal.

lets start with every fast food restaurant ... those dam things cost society trillions through direct and indirect negative health effects.

cookies,candies,cake ... every dessert should be illegal to make or sell


big difference between that stuff and someone blowing 2nd hand smoke around and spreading lung cancer around like it's contagious.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:39 PM
To which laws are you referring?

Highly increased taxes on tobacco products. Laws that limit tobacco advertising and require them to put health labels on their products. More recently, laws that ban smoking in many public locations. There are probably more that I don't remember off the top of my head.

tooge
05-31-2012, 12:41 PM
I'm not usually one to stamp something as over-regulation, but this is pretty blatant over-regulation.

plus you cant triple stamp a double stamp

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:42 PM
and a driver that has a heart attack while driving turns the car into the same deadly projectile. So lets make a law that makes ANYTHING that might cause a heart attack illegal.

lets start with every fast food restaurant ... those dam things cost society trillions through direct and indirect negative health effects.

cookies,candies,cake ... every dessert should be illegal to make or sell


big difference between that stuff and someone blowing 2nd hand smoke around and spreading lung cancer around like it's contagious.

What you're saying is a stretch, and you know it. A law that mandates the use of a simple safety feature that's already in your car is nothing like what you described.

It seems like our beliefs are at odds, though, so I don't really see what continuing to argue will accomplish.

BWillie
05-31-2012, 12:42 PM
I cannot believe how many ppl support this. If someone wants to be fat, then for god sakes, they should be able to be fat. It's not the government's job to tell them they can't be. Now I'm all for government programs to assist with those with obesity if they see fit, but I don't find them to be necessary. If someone wants to drink a 2 liter of soda, and someone is willing to sell it to them, it should not be banned. If someone doesn't care if they get fat from this sort of thing, it should not be up to the government. If someone gets diseases or ailments related to obesity, the government should not have to pay for it...cough cough Obamacare....

Donger
05-31-2012, 12:46 PM
Highly increased taxes on tobacco products. Laws that limit tobacco advertising and require them to put health labels on their products. More recently, laws that ban smoking in many public locations. There are probably more that I don't remember off the top of my head.

Okay. Have such measures benefited the overall health and welfare of our country? Possibly, or probably. But I don't agree with that being the government's responsibility. I want my government to do ONLY what I can't do. I don't want a nanny state.

qabbaan
05-31-2012, 12:46 PM
The government should do something about beer when they are done with soda. Look around you in the Arrowhead parking lot. Beer is definitely correlated with obesity. And think of all the other social benefits. No drunk drivers. No women or children abused by drunks, or neglected by drunks, or unprovided for by drunks. Beer is a public health issue.

Maybe the government should limit beer to 8oz. Have to start somewhere.

philfree
05-31-2012, 12:47 PM
Maybe they should make eating pig illegal? Well at least make a law that won't allow anyone to eat more then a healthy amount.

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 12:49 PM
The government should do something about beer when they are done with soda. Look around you in the Arrowhead parking lot. Beer is definitely correlated with obesity. And think of all the other social benefits. No drunk drivers. No women or children abused by drunks, or neglected by drunks, or unprovided for by drunks. Beer is a public health issue.

Maybe the government should limit beer to 8oz. Have to start somewhere.

That is..................AWESOME! :usa:

Fish
05-31-2012, 12:50 PM
The government should do something about beer when they are done with soda. Look around you in the Arrowhead parking lot. Beer is definitely correlated with obesity. And think of all the other social benefits. No drunk drivers. No women or children abused by drunks, or neglected by drunks, or unprovided for by drunks. Beer is a public health issue.

Maybe the government should limit beer to 8oz. Have to start somewhere.

:facepalm:

Lzen
05-31-2012, 12:51 PM
Well, it just so happens that my belief about obesity being a burden on the country are scientifically proven, while I can't say that I've seen any such proof about pornography or homosexuals (or, god forbid, homosexual pornography).

Obesity is a health issue. It has been repeatedly proven to lead to cancer, heart disease, and a number of other chronic illnesses. It has reached epidemic levels in this country (if you're willing to treat it as a disease), and doesn't show any signs of reversing itself any time in the near future. You'd have us do nothing about it?

Meanwhile, you're comparing it to social issues which, unless I've been missing all the scholarly articles about it, have not been proven to have a negative influence on society.

If you had read my previous posts, you'd have seen my argument for why you can't just ban things outright - it's simply not possible. The best the government can do is implement gradual changes to the way people live (much as they did with smoking) which, over the course of time, will improve the standing of this nation and its residents.

It's just like a progressive to believe that their ideals are right and everyone else's can't be proven. The other things I mentioned have been studied, btw.

So let's give a hypothetical. Hands passing germs are cause for societal spreading of diseases. I say the gov't should make a law that everyone have hand sanitizer available and must use it before eating, touching door knobs, shaking hands, etc. If you don't, it's a $100 fine. Would you agree with this law?

Is this example absurd? Certainly. But it's no different, IMO. See, there's something that you proressives can't seem to get through your thick skulls. The government's role should be LIMITED. Banning trans fats and regulating beverage size are things that should be outside the scope of govt's role.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:53 PM
Okay. Have such measures benefited the overall health and welfare of our country? Possibly, or probably. But I don't agree with that being the government's responsibility. I want my government to do ONLY what I can't do. I don't want a nanny state.

Fair enough. We're each entitled to hold whatever beliefs we like, and that's why the law is taking hold in NYC and not here. I'd imagine there's more support for this kind of legislation in a more liberal environment.

Mr. Laz
05-31-2012, 12:53 PM
What you're saying is a stretch, and you know it. A law that mandates the use of a simple safety feature that's already in your car is nothing like what you described.

It seems like our beliefs are at odds, though, so I don't really see what continuing to argue will accomplish.
i'm exaggerating to make a point.

You can create any negative scenario to support a law if you allow for indirect,potential negative effects on society.

I'm an adult and if i want to drive without wearing a selt belt then it's my life to risk.

I'm an adult and if i want to smoke then fine as soon as i figure out how to keep the smoke to myself and not flood everyone else's air i should be free to do so.

direct vs indirect ... not really a hard concept.

This large drink prohibition is 'indirect' to an extreme and probably not going to be effective since people can just buy 2 mediums and get the same amount of sugar.

Saul Good
05-31-2012, 12:54 PM
The government should limit the amount of time people are allowed to spend on the internet. It's bad for your health.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 12:58 PM
It's just like a progressive to believe that their ideals are right and everyone else's can't be proven. The other things I mentioned have been studied, btw.

So let's give a hypothetical. Hands passing germs are cause for societal spreading of diseases. I say the gov't should make a law that everyone have hand sanitizer available and must use it before eating, touching door knobs, shaking hands, etc. If you don't, it's a $100 fine. Would you agree with this law?

Is this example absurd? Certainly. But it's no different, IMO. See, there's something that you proressives can't seem to get through your thick skulls. The government's role should be LIMITED. Banning trans fats and regulating beverage size are things that should be outside the scope of govt's role.

But they HAVE implemented regulations about hand-washing. Ever worked in a restaurant? How about a hospital? It's illegal for many to use the restroom and not wash their hands afterwards. You're right that what you suggested is absurd - that's why they haven't done it.

This disincentive for mass consumption of sugared sodas is closer to the real hand-washing laws than the ones you suggested, in my opinion.

Also: I never said that your beliefs can't be proven, simply that I don't think they have. If you have the evidence for your claims, then I'd be glad to see it, and perhaps then I'd agree with you.

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 12:58 PM
The government should limit the amount of time people are allowed to spend on the internet. It's bad for your health.

Not just that, the amount of time you spend on jerking off. More than an hour will get you thrown in prison for self reckless endangerment.

Graystoke
05-31-2012, 01:06 PM
Not just that, the amount of time you spend on jerking off. More than an hour will get you thrown in prison for self reckless endangerment.

Fap Police?

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 01:07 PM
i'm exaggerating to make a point.

You can create any negative scenario to support a law if you allow for indirect,potential negative effects on society.

I'm an adult and if i want to drive without wearing a selt belt then it's my life to risk.

I'm an adult and if i want to smoke then fine as soon as i figure out how to keep the smoke to myself and not flood everyone else's air i should be free to do so.

direct vs indirect ... not really a hard concept.

This large drink prohibition is 'indirect' to an extreme and probably not going to be effective since people can just buy 2 mediums and get the same amount of sugar.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. I studied public health in college, and you'd be surprised how little changes here and there can make enormous differences in the long-term. For instance, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported that increasing the drinking age to 21 has decreased traffic fatalities in the 18-21 age range by about 13%, which is very significant over a population group that size.

The problem with people "figuring out" how to keep their smoke to themselves is that most people simply can't or won't do it. Perhaps if our country (or the world, for that matter) were full of responsible people like yourself, legislation wouldn't be necessary. In that same world, communism is a valid and successful way of organizing a society, but we've all seen how that works in reality.

Canofbier
05-31-2012, 01:08 PM
Fap Police?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/21/article-1125202-0109F1FE00000578-736_468x728.jpg

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 01:11 PM
Fap Police?
ROFLROFLLMAOROFLLMAOLMAOLMAOROFL

I'd be thrown in prison on countless occasions if there were Fap Police.

Setsuna
05-31-2012, 01:13 PM
Maybe you're right, maybe not. I studied public health in college, and you'd be surprised how little changes here and there can make enormous differences in the long-term. For instance, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported that increasing the drinking age to 21 has decreased traffic fatalities in the 18-21 age range by about 13%, which is very significant over a population group that size.

The problem with people "figuring out" how to keep their smoke to themselves is that most people simply can't or won't do it. Perhaps if our country (or the world, for that matter) were full of responsible people like yourself, legislation wouldn't be necessary. In that same world, communism is a valid and successful way of organizing a society, but we've all seen how that works in reality.

Please leave, Commy.

Flachief58
05-31-2012, 01:14 PM
New York is retarded.

This, but that's how shit like this becomes national law. Look at how much stupidity comes from Cali. The end result is the consumer pays more for less and our government reaps the reward.

nychief
05-31-2012, 01:17 PM
Please leave, Commy.


You can't spell Communism, you idiot. Please lets not pretend you have the foggiest idea what it means... now kindly get back to your blue collar comedy VHS and beating your wife.

bandwagonjumper
05-31-2012, 01:18 PM
Okay. Have such measures benefited the overall health and welfare of our country? Possibly, or probably. But I don't agree with that being the government's responsibility. I want my government to do ONLY what I can't do. I don't want a nanny state.

So you're probably against laws forcing you to wear seatbelts in cars or wearing a helmet when you drive a motorbike? Fair enough. The problem is that you can't trust people to look after themselves. Peolple are like sheeps. People alwyas follow rules. If not made by the government, its made by churches, employers, friends, family etc. I don't know you and I don't want to but you follow rules. You didn't made them. Somebody else did. What you really want is that somebody else makes them instead of the government. But are there better qualified?

nychief
05-31-2012, 01:18 PM
This, but that's how shit like this becomes national law. Look at how much stupidity comes from Cali. The end result is the consumer pays more for less and our government reaps the reward.

Yeah, New York sucks... and California. Nothing good comes out of those two places.

Flachief58
05-31-2012, 01:22 PM
Yeah, New York sucks... and California. Nothing good comes out of those two places.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on that

Donger
05-31-2012, 01:24 PM
So you're probably against laws forcing you to wear seatbelts in cars or wearing a helmet when you drive a motorbike? Fair enough. The problem is that you can't trust people to look after themselves. Peolple are like sheeps. People alwyas follow rules. If not made by the government, its made by churches, employers, friends, family etc. I don't know you and I don't want to but you follow rules. You didn't made them. Somebody else did. What you really want is that somebody else makes them instead of the government. But are there better qualified?

Yes, I'm against them, even though I always wear my seat belt (because I understand physics).

Bambi
05-31-2012, 01:32 PM
This, but that's how shit like this becomes national law. Look at how much stupidity comes from Cali. The end result is the consumer pays more for less and our government reaps the reward.

Chew off any faces lately?

durtyrute
05-31-2012, 01:35 PM
Awesome! More government control over peoples individual choices. That will solve everything.

We asked for it

Flachief58
05-31-2012, 01:41 PM
Yes, I'm against them, even though I always wear my seat belt (because I understand physics).

I always wear my seatbelt while driving and helmet when riding (eventhough it's not required if you carry enough insurance). Granted, not everyone does.

Unfortunatly our government is a money eating machine. The only way they can make more money is to spread their gloom and doom bullshit and tell us the only way you can be protected from the evils of the world is to implement a new tax.

All to many laws nowadays are simply an excuse to take more of your dollars. See "grill brush" thread

Flachief58
05-31-2012, 01:45 PM
Chew off any faces lately?

Not lately but I am hungry. When you coming to Florida? Let's meet up on your last day here after you spend all of your money here so we never have to pay state income tax.

Oh yeah, please shave for me. The hair gets stuck in my teeth

Carlota69
05-31-2012, 01:57 PM
I love how certain people, and no one necessarily in this thread I just hear it in general, rant about the government getting too involved in our private lives. They say things like, "Who cares if someone drinks so much coke they get fat? Who cares if someone eats their selves to oblivion? It has no affect on me. Damn liberal government!!" All the while stomping their feet about how they have a right to vote on whether gay couples can marry each other, and that its up to the states if they can. Its the ultimate in hypocrisy really. People getting married to one another has absolutely no bearing on your life, health care costs, taxes etc...but someone who lives on coke will have some affect on you in one way or another. Health care costs foremost. Having said that, I agree with the Gov being too involved. tax the shit out of it and lets make some $$$$$$.

Flachief58
05-31-2012, 02:09 PM
I love how certain people, and no one necessarily in this thread I just hear it in general, rant about the government getting too involved in our private lives. They say things like, "Who cares if someone drinks so much coke they get fat? Who cares if someone eats their selves to oblivion? It has no affect on me. Damn liberal government!!" All the while stomping their feet about how they have a right to vote on whether gay couples can marry each other, and that its up to the states if they can. Its the ultimate in hypocrisy really. People getting married to one another has absolutely no bearing on your life, health care costs, taxes etc...but someone who lives on coke will have some affect on you in one way or another. Health care costs foremost. Having said that, I agree with the Gov being too involved. tax the shit out of it and lets make some $$$$$$.

The problem is that nothing is stopping anyone who wants to drink a drum of coke with their 4 big macs and fries from doing so other than forcing them to order 2 drinks instead of one. Twice the taxes are now generated.....

petegz28
05-31-2012, 02:16 PM
Anyone else thinking of Demolition Man? I never considered that movie would be prophetic.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wyD9ftpzKj0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
05-31-2012, 02:28 PM
I love how certain people, and no one necessarily in this thread I just hear it in general, rant about the government getting too involved in our private lives. They say things like, "Who cares if someone drinks so much coke they get fat? Who cares if someone eats their selves to oblivion? It has no affect on me. Damn liberal government!!" All the while stomping their feet about how they have a right to vote on whether gay couples can marry each other, and that its up to the states if they can. Its the ultimate in hypocrisy really. People getting married to one another has absolutely no bearing on your life, health care costs, taxes etc...but someone who lives on coke will have some affect on you in one way or another. Health care costs foremost. Having said that, I agree with the Gov being too involved. tax the shit out of it and lets make some $$$$$$.

Quiet woman. Men are talking.

Flachief58
05-31-2012, 02:34 PM
Quiet woman. Men are talking.

I :) 'd

Carlota69
05-31-2012, 02:37 PM
Quiet woman. Men are talking.
Says someone whos ' name is DONGER.:rolleyes:

Donger
05-31-2012, 02:38 PM
Says someone whos ' name is DONGER.:rolleyes:

You don't fool me for a second. You love Donger.

Anyway, back to the evil, fizzy, sugar water topic.

Carlota69
05-31-2012, 02:40 PM
You don't fool me for a second. You love Donger.

Anyway, back to the evil, fizzy, sugar water topic.
I've always loved giving you shit about your name. Makes me happy. :evil:

Donger
05-31-2012, 02:42 PM
I've always loved giving you shit about your name. Makes me happy. :evil:

Oh, so you like playing with Donger?

Color me surprised.

:p

Carlota69
05-31-2012, 03:18 PM
Oh, so you like playing with Donger?

Color me surprised.

:p

:p

Xanathol
05-31-2012, 04:37 PM
The government ( in any form ) has no right to do this, but hey - since when has that stopped them? The best part is, when in the last 20, 30, 40, etc years has the government got involved in anything remotely like this and managed to not make a bigger mess of things? Just look at their 'data' on how many 'obese' people there are and the terms & conditions that define such - a simple height to weight ratio. Under their terms, Barry Sanders in his prime was 'obese' ( look it up yourself if you don't believe me ).

I propose a new health law to stem the flow of "metro" pansies living in this country - cage matches. If you cannot survive a round with a professional heavyweight boxer / cage fighter / etc, you are considered a 'burden on society' since you're the type that needs protection from local 5th grade bullies and therefore should be pruned.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-31-2012, 04:39 PM
They better not put a ban on Kool-Aid dammit!! I could go for 40 oz of Strawberry Kiwi right about now.

Guru
05-31-2012, 07:34 PM
Anyone else thinking of Demolition Man? I never considered that movie would be prophetic.

They will outlaw sex next. Oh wait, we are talking about DC. That will never happen.

Deberg_1990
05-31-2012, 07:41 PM
How much longer until the Government mandates the use of the three shells?

Guru
05-31-2012, 07:42 PM
How much longer until the Government mandates the use of the three shells?

and how the hell do you use them?

BTW it was sea shells not shells.

Tombstone RJ
05-31-2012, 07:43 PM
so just the selling of these big drinks is illegal right, not the ownership of said drink?

chiefzilla1501
05-31-2012, 07:51 PM
The government ( in any form ) has no right to do this, but hey - since when has that stopped them? The best part is, when in the last 20, 30, 40, etc years has the government got involved in anything remotely like this and managed to not make a bigger mess of things? Just look at their 'data' on how many 'obese' people there are and the terms & conditions that define such - a simple height to weight ratio. Under their terms, Barry Sanders in his prime was 'obese' ( look it up yourself if you don't believe me ).

I propose a new health law to stem the flow of "metro" pansies living in this country - cage matches. If you cannot survive a round with a professional heavyweight boxer / cage fighter / etc, you are considered a 'burden on society' since you're the type that needs protection from local 5th grade bullies and therefore should be pruned.

People are fat. People have diabetes. Fat people and diabetes and heart disease are skyrocketing the cost of health care.

I take care of myself, and I pay an enormous price because people don't take care of themselves, because food manufacturers are not transparent in their marketing and labeling... hell, even if you buy regular raw meat, people don't realize that there is a ton of seasoning in preservatives. Even people who TRY to eat healthy buy stuff that isn't good for you, by accident. Worse, the system has become so messed up that unhealthy food can be bought at a severely discounted price while good food is unattainable to poor people.

I don't know that this is the right solution. But I like that New York is on the cutting edge of a lot of health initiatives, especially since I am a big fan of states rights to try out stuff like this. The smoking ban is the most obvious example.

Tombstone RJ
05-31-2012, 08:02 PM
I can hardly wait until the NYPD sets up a special unit just to bust these big gulp selling criminals! Then, the inevitable TV series will be made. NYPD Burp!

Count Zarth
05-31-2012, 08:07 PM
There's a guy that works in my building that brings a 12 pack carton of Dr. Pepper to work every morning. Every time I see him enter the building coming to work, he's carrying a carton. I can't imagine how bad that would be for your body.

How fat is he?

Fish
05-31-2012, 08:22 PM
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/741/diabeetusue.jpg

Ace Gunner
05-31-2012, 08:41 PM
young ppl are all up the yuppie generation's ass about medicare etc and yet they are going to be the most unhealthy generation since the renaissance.

fucking hilarious.

Easy 6
05-31-2012, 09:25 PM
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/741/diabeetusue.jpg

ROFL noice, caught me off guard.

WhiteWhale
05-31-2012, 09:50 PM
People are fat. People have diabetes. Fat people and diabetes and heart disease are skyrocketing the cost of health care.

I take care of myself, and I pay an enormous price because people don't take care of themselves, because food manufacturers are not transparent in their marketing and labeling... hell, even if you buy regular raw meat, people don't realize that there is a ton of seasoning in preservatives. Even people who TRY to eat healthy buy stuff that isn't good for you, by accident. Worse, the system has become so messed up that unhealthy food can be bought at a severely discounted price while good food is unattainable to poor people.

I don't know that this is the right solution. But I like that New York is on the cutting edge of a lot of health initiatives, especially since I am a big fan of states rights to try out stuff like this. The smoking ban is the most obvious example.

You know I'm an advocate of putting warning labels on Soda. It degenerates bones, causes cancer, heart disease, tooth decay, and obesity. Most sodas also contain a very addictive chemical called caffeine. It's every bit as bad, in my opinion, as smoking.. yet we market it to children and then wonder why all the kids are fat.

I'm just sayin'. Soda is bad for you. People have NO IDEA how bad it really is.

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 12:01 AM
You know I'm an advocate of putting warning labels on Soda. It degenerates bones, causes cancer, heart disease, tooth decay, and obesity. Most sodas also contain a very addictive chemical called caffeine. It's every bit as bad, in my opinion, as smoking.. yet we market it to children and then wonder why all the kids are fat.

I'm just sayin'. Soda is bad for you. People have NO IDEA how bad it really is.

Absolutely.

That's crap that the government shouldn't have a role in intervention. Anyone who's read "the jungle" knows that meat packers used to be ungodly disgusting. While I think the FDA is too regulatory, it's better than the alternative when manufacturers were pushing fake pills and cough syrup with no medical proof. And sorry to smokers, but smoking bans have improved everybody's public life.

Because you're right. Chocolate milk at schools. Raw meat that's already been salted. Even in restaurants, how many people know that panera bread is super bad for you? Etc... People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies. If they don't, then our labeling standards for all foods isn't good enough.

BigChiefTablet
06-01-2012, 08:57 AM
I love this idea you have of banning soda. It combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect.

DMAC
06-01-2012, 09:00 AM
I love this idea you have of banning soda. It combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect.

FYP

ChiTown
06-01-2012, 09:04 AM
I love this idea you have of banning soda. It combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect.

:LOL:

BigChiefTablet
06-01-2012, 09:05 AM
heh...yeah I thought about attributing the quote but decided I really didn't care.

Otter
06-01-2012, 09:13 AM
I don't like NYC as a place to live, never have, but it does offer some experiences you'll never see elsewhere. It's different and you couldn't pay me enough money to live there but it's cool.

That said, I hate the philosophy of that city. It's like their trying to stop evolution. If you're sucking down 3 big gulps a day instead of water get the **** out of the way and let smart people take your place.

Anyone who thinks government is the answer hasn't been paying attention.

Xanathol
06-01-2012, 09:48 AM
People are fat. People have diabetes. Fat people and diabetes and heart disease are skyrocketing the cost of health care.

I take care of myself, and I pay an enormous price because people don't take care of themselves, because food manufacturers are not transparent in their marketing and labeling... hell, even if you buy regular raw meat, people don't realize that there is a ton of seasoning in preservatives. Even people who TRY to eat healthy buy stuff that isn't good for you, by accident. Worse, the system has become so messed up that unhealthy food can be bought at a severely discounted price while good food is unattainable to poor people.

I don't know that this is the right solution. But I like that New York is on the cutting edge of a lot of health initiatives, especially since I am a big fan of states rights to try out stuff like this. The smoking ban is the most obvious example.
The smoking ban is another horrible example of government overreach. And judging by the looks of the people pushing this type of legislation, they should be the last ones telling others what is 'unhealthy' and what is not.

People are assholes ( especially in New York / Jersey area ). Assholes cause high blood pressure. Therefore, let's ban assholes and thusly, ban New York / New Jersey people, in general. And to combat the high blood pressure the assholes get from dealing with each other, they should be forced to have a smoke to calm down.

KC Tattoo
06-01-2012, 10:04 AM
The thing that gets me in all of this is that it cost more to eat healthy food. I mean go to the groc store and buy a healthy choice tv dinner vs a regular tv dinner and you pay twice or three times as much. The diet industry has made bank on selling diet food & yet America is still fat and getting fatter. So I don't think it's the soda industry that is the problem. Imo, it has a lot to do with the price of food that makes it hard to eat healthy. You buy cheap unhealthy food to get buy.

I'm not fat but I could lose 10 pounds and be a little bit healthier shape but I don't have any desire to go on a diet to do that. I like fatty unhealthy foods as that is what I have been accustome to most of my life.

I remember going a month eating Casey's General Store breakfast pizza & I must of gained ten to twenty pounds just in that month and decided to hold off and just get it once in a while cuz I wasn't feeling good. So then I had to discipline myself my eating habbets and it makes a big difference on doing that. I don't need the govement to make striction on what I can or cannot have.

KC Tattoo
06-01-2012, 10:09 AM
The smoking ban is another horrible example of government overreach. And judging by the looks of the people pushing this type of legislation, they should be the last ones telling others what is 'unhealthy' and what is not.

People are assholes ( especially in New York / Jersey area ). Assholes cause high blood pressure. Therefore, let's ban assholes and thusly, ban New York / New Jersey people, in general. And to combat the high blood pressure the assholes get from dealing with each other, they should be forced to have a smoke to calm down.

I find it ironic that the gov tries to control or ban smoking in general. Tobaco was a huge export product that help this country strive and succeed as a nation.

Count Zarth
06-01-2012, 10:23 AM
The thing that gets me in all of this is that it cost more to eat healthy food. I mean go to the groc store and buy a healthy choice tv dinner vs a regular tv dinner and you pay twice or three times as much.

You're doing it wrong.

Don't buy frozen dinners.

Buy fresh whole food. It's not that expensive.

KC Tattoo
06-01-2012, 10:29 AM
You're doing it wrong.

Don't buy frozen dinners.

Buy fresh whole food. It's not that expensive.

That was an example. I buy fresh produce when I can, that's healthy to eat. But still healthier items tend to cost more in the groc store.

Count Zarth
06-01-2012, 10:32 AM
That was an example. I buy fresh produce when I can, that's healthy to eat. But still healthier items tend to cost more in the groc store.

How much did you spend on breakfast pizza that month? Add it up.

KC Tattoo
06-01-2012, 10:51 AM
How much did you spend on breakfast pizza that month? Add it up.

I don't know just a breakfast pizza slice in the morning what ever it cost then. I could tell from eating one slice a day I was adding pounds and feeling sluggish. My arteries were cloggling up so I quit cold turkey. I never could put on pounds until then I was skinny as a toothpick.

Count Zarth
06-01-2012, 10:54 AM
That's not what made you fat. You could eat one slice of breakfast pizza every day and lose weight.

KC Tattoo
06-01-2012, 11:10 AM
That's not what made you fat. You could eat one slice of breakfast pizza every day and lose weight.

It didn't make me fat, but I could tell it was making me put some extra pounds on. I've never been fat but up untill then I weighed 155 pounds and then started to gain some weight. I know the pizza had something to do with that. That was just 5 or 6 years ago. Today I weigh 195 and it's not from the pizza that was just the start of my gaining weight. I was a route driver for 12 years with a high metabolism, when I quit being a route driver I stop being on the run all the time and my metabolsim drop and the result for me was to gain some weight. I'd feel real good if I was to drop about 10 pounds but I don't want too as I like where I am. I hated being a 150 pound weekling lol.

Setsuna
06-01-2012, 09:59 PM
That's not what made you fat. You could eat one slice of breakfast pizza every day and lose weight.

Just because you aren't thin, don't be a hypocrite. I eat whatever I want and don't get fat. I may die earlier than a person with more fat on them because I don't eat healthy but that don't mean being fat will cause my death. He's right, ever since this health craze started, you are breaking the bank to try and stay alive longer. Fuck these companies.

Count Zarth
06-01-2012, 10:01 PM
It didn't make me fat, but I could tell it was making me put some extra pounds on.

It didn't make you fat, but you could tell it was making you fat?

You are seriously dumb.

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 10:02 PM
I don't like NYC as a place to live, never have, but it does offer some experiences you'll never see elsewhere. It's different and you couldn't pay me enough money to live there but it's cool.

That said, I hate the philosophy of that city. It's like their trying to stop evolution. If you're sucking down 3 big gulps a day instead of water get the **** out of the way and let smart people take your place.

Anyone who thinks government is the answer hasn't been paying attention.

You're naive if you think you're not paying for the sins of the big gulp guy.

You pay for them when 1/4 of them get preventable diabetes. Your premium goes up or your coverage goes down. And you did nothing wrong.

ThaVirus
06-01-2012, 10:14 PM
The diet industry has made bank on selling diet food & yet America is still fat and getting fatter. So I don't think it's the soda industry that is the problem.

There are a lot of problems. Apathy is the main issue. Of all the fat people in America, maybe 1% (random, made-up number) of them actually have some kind of medical condition that gives them the excuse. People don't care about being in shape. Those that want to be don't care enough to put in the effort it takes to slim down. Society is a lot to blame. We've lowered our standards on overall health and fitness. There are so many fat people walking around, who cares if you are too? You blend right in.

Portion sizes are out of control, fast food, soda. I remember growing up my sister would go through a whole 2-liter of soda in a day if my dad didn't stop her. That shit is pure sugar and it just makes you thirstier... For more soda.

It's really not hard to maintain a healthy weight. Obviously it's easier to be a fat fucking slob and gain weight, but if you have an ounce of motivation and dedication, you could keep your weight in check.

Count Zarth
06-01-2012, 11:10 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/526678_400079563366694_1290066286_n.jpg

Dylan
06-01-2012, 11:12 PM
Mayor Bloomberg should work on his "Napoleon," dictator fat head. The proposal won't pass.

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.

Nanny Bloomberg was a Democrat that switched his registration to Republican to avoid the Democratic primary...then in 2009 (?) switched his registration to Independent after he had a fallout with Republicans over some BS policy.

Forbes' reported Bloomberg's net worth at $22 billion. I believe he is ranked 10th - 12th richest man in the world.


Check out this funny clip from Comedy Central:
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:414692" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-31-2012/drink-different---pick-your-poison">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

Setsuna
06-02-2012, 11:17 AM
Mayor Bloomberg should work on his "Napoleon," dictator fat head. The proposal won't pass.



Nanny Bloomberg was a Democrat that switched his registration to Republican to avoid the Democratic primary...then in 2009 (?) switched his registration to Independent after he had a fallout with Republicans over some BS policy.

Forbes' reported Bloomberg's net worth at $22 billion. I believe he is ranked 10th - 12th richest man in the world.


Check out this funny clip from Comedy Central:
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:414692" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-31-2012/drink-different---pick-your-poison">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
Thanks dylan!

Dylan
06-02-2012, 11:37 AM
Hysterical clip!

Baconeater
06-02-2012, 01:20 PM
Heck, I agree with the idea that food stamps shouldn't be able to be used to buy soda. They shouldn't be able to be used for a lot of other things as well.

Deberg_1990
06-05-2012, 10:48 AM
ROFL



No soda limit at Bloomberg's company, despite proposed NYC super-size ban


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/05/no-soda-limit-at-bloomberg-company-despite-proposed-nyc-super-size-ban/


New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn't want New Yorkers super-sizing sugary drinks, but employees at the media and financial information company he founded can guzzle all the free soda they want while they work.

Employees at Manhattan’s 55-story Bloomberg Tower -- which houses Bloomberg L.P., retail shops, restaurants and condominiums -- enjoy unfettered access to pantries stocked with juices, soft drinks, coffee and tea, as well as health-conscious snacks such as fruits, trans fat-free bites, nuts and vegetables. Although no one counts how many trips workers make to the freebie shelves, drink portions are 12 ounces or less, smaller than the giant gut-busters Bloomberg wants to ban at city restaurants, delis, sports arenas and movie theaters.

“The serving sizes in question are well below the serving sizes in the proposal,” Bloomberg’s spokesman Stu Loeser wrote FoxNews.com in an email. “Nothing we're proposing will stop New Yorkers from drinking more than 16 ounces of sugary drinks, just not in one container.”

A spokesman at Bloomberg L.P. declined comment when reached Tuesday by FoxNews.com.

In late 2010, when Bloomberg sought to ban poor New Yorkers from buying sugary drinks with food stamps, an unidentified Bloomberg employee told The New York Times that the company pantries overflowed with snacks and drinks.

“We have all the junk in the world up there,” the unidentified employee told the newspaper. “I mean, you can gain 15 pounds in a hurry.”

Under the unprecedented proposal, which is Bloomberg’s latest effort to fight obesity in the Big Apple, drinks would be capped at 16 ounces, except for diet soda, beverages that are least 70 percent juice or those comprised of 50 percent or more of milk or milk substitute. Drinks sold at many supermarkets or convenience stores would also not be covered by the proposal, which is expected to be approved by the Bloomberg-appointed Board of Health and could take effect as early as March.

Popular drinks like Starbucks Frappuccinos, however, will likely be exempt due to their dairy content, city officials have said, and ubiquitous summer treats like 7-Eleven’s Slurpees won’t be included in the proposed ban since convenience stores are regulated by the state as grocery stores.

A recent poll found 53 percent of New Yorkers consider the said proposed ban a big-government overreach, while 42 percent said it would be good health policy, according to a poll released last week.

The NY1-Marist poll also found that 45 percent of respondents said they think the ban would help people lose weight, while 52 percent said it wouldn't make a difference. More than half, meanwhile, said they never order a sugary drink large enough to be banned.

As expected, the proposal has been panned by the soft-drink industry and critics who claim individuals should be allowed to make their own choices, despite recent research that links sugary drinks to rising rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

Bloomberg, for his part, has stressed that soda-lovers angered by calls of a “nanny state” are free to purchase more than one sugary beverage.

“You tend to eat all of the food in the container,” the three-term mayor told reporters last month. “If it’s bigger, you eat more. If somebody put a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.”

Stewie
06-05-2012, 10:57 AM
I hate big container.

Okie_Apparition
06-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Kool-Aid Singles in your front pocket
drives the women in****ingsane

mikeyis4dcats.
06-05-2012, 11:42 AM
ROFL


The NY1-Marist poll also found that 45 percent of respondents said they think the ban would help people lose weight, while 52 percent said it wouldn't make a difference. More than half, meanwhile, said they never order a sugary drink large enough to be banned.



I'm certain nearly half of those polled have no clue what size they order. A medium soft drink at the majority of fast food places is 20oz, as are the most popular bottled drinks. A small fountain drink at most fast food is 16oz. But if you order just about any "combo meal" you are getting a medium. I don't believe for a minute that the majority of people are ordering a small.

Chiefnj2
06-05-2012, 11:46 AM
I'm certain nearly half of those polled have no clue what size they order. A medium soft drink at the majority of fast food places is 20oz, as are the most popular bottled drinks. A small fountain drink at most fast food is 16oz. But if you order just about any "combo meal" you are getting a medium. I don't believe for a minute that the majority of people are ordering a small.

How much actual soda is in the 20 oz cup with all the ice they put in?

Fish
06-05-2012, 11:47 AM
The thing that gets me in all of this is that it cost more to eat healthy food. I mean go to the groc store and buy a healthy choice tv dinner vs a regular tv dinner and you pay twice or three times as much. The diet industry has made bank on selling diet food & yet America is still fat and getting fatter. So I don't think it's the soda industry that is the problem. Imo, it has a lot to do with the price of food that makes it hard to eat healthy. You buy cheap unhealthy food to get buy.

I'm not fat but I could lose 10 pounds and be a little bit healthier shape but I don't have any desire to go on a diet to do that. I like fatty unhealthy foods as that is what I have been accustome to most of my life.

I remember going a month eating Casey's General Store breakfast pizza & I must of gained ten to twenty pounds just in that month and decided to hold off and just get it once in a while cuz I wasn't feeling good. So then I had to discipline myself my eating habbets and it makes a big difference on doing that. I don't need the govement to make striction on what I can or cannot have.

People buying frozen TV dinners are not grasping the concept of eating healthy. Frozen packaged meals are about as unhealthy as it gets. In many cases, worse than fast food. Because they're fully cooked, and frozen, they're pumped full of preservatives and crap. That's not really a representation of the diet food industry. That's the shit food industry slapping a "Diet" label on nasty shit to make you feel slightly less guilty about being a lazy fat ass who can't cook.

blaise
06-05-2012, 11:55 AM
People buying frozen TV dinners are not grasping the concept of eating healthy. Frozen packaged meals are about as unhealthy as it gets. In many cases, worse than fast food. Because they're fully cooked, and frozen, they're pumped full of preservatives and crap. That's not really a representation of the diet food industry. That's the shit food industry slapping a "Diet" label on nasty shit to make you feel slightly less guilty about being a lazy fat ass who can't cook.

Some are better than others, though. And there's more of the better available than there used to be. 10 years ago you'd need to go to a Whole Foods store to get something like Amy's. Now, most grocery stores have an organic/whole food type section. There's also tons more soy milks, almond milks etc than there used to be. And free range chicken eggs, stuff like that. I think the mentality is changing, but slowly. Hopefully, as it becomes more popular the cost might go down on some stuff.

mikeyis4dcats.
06-05-2012, 11:58 AM
How much actual soda is in the 20 oz cup with all the ice they put in?

doesn't matter, the restriction is on container size.

Pasta Giant Meatball
06-05-2012, 12:58 PM
Kool-Aid Singles in your front pocket
drives the women in****ingsane

Whipping out a Mango Melon Splash gets the same reaction as a Magnum falling out of the pocket.

ChiefsandO'sfan
06-13-2012, 10:53 AM
After soda ban proposal, NYC officials set sights on popcorn and milkshakes

Published June 13, 2012

FoxNews.com

Watch out, moviegoers -- Nanny York City is taking aim at yet another of life's gluttonous pleasures.

On the heels of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's call for a ban on jumbo-sized sodas and other sugary drinks, city officials are now considering restrictions on treats ranging from popcorn to milkshakes.

At a meeting Tuesday, members of the New York City Board of Health expressed support for Bloomberg's proposal. They then started brainstorming other ways to cut the fat, according to MyFoxNY.com.

Member Bruce Vladeck proposed limiting movie-theater popcorn containers.

"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," he said.

Another member suggested limits for milkshakes and "milk-coffee beverages."

The board, whose members were appointed by Bloomberg, will vote on the mayor's drink proposal -- but agreed to a six-week, public-comment period before taking a vote, according to MyFoxNY.com.

Bloomberg has said the drink ban is an attempt to fight obesity in the city.

His first-in-the-nation ban, formally announced May 31, would limit sweet drinks to 16 ounces at venues across the city -- from restaurants to street carts to movie theaters. However, the proposal allows refills.

The ban would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages. Nor would it include drinks sold in grocery or convenience stores. Food establishments that don't downsize would face fines of $200.

Bloomberg, who took office in 2002, has also taken a tough stance on foods with trans fats and smoking. He has put a stiff tax on cigarettes packs and has banned smoking in workplaces, parks and beaches.

The New York City Restaurant Association is fighting the drink proposal and is considering legal action of it goes into effect.

Association spokesman Stefan Friedman recently called the proposal "zealous." He said officials should seek solutions that are actually going to curb obesity.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/13/new-york-now-considering-limits-on-popcorn-milk-drinks-pending-ban-on-jumbo/#ixzz1xh2IbgRm

blaise
06-13-2012, 10:56 AM
They realize people share popcorn at the movies, right?