General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBloomberg's soda ban prohibits 2-liter bottles with your pizza and some nightclub mixers
Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.
They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.
Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.
Families will get pinched at kid-friendly party places, which will have to chuck their plastic pitchers because most hold 60 ounces — even though such containers are clearly intended for more than one person.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)At the least, people will think twice about how much soda pop they and their kids are swilling.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You're ok with our officials rationing our beverage/food? Wtf..
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)You can buy as many doses as you like.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Imo this guy has major issues. What he's doing reminds me of the old communist era. Sick.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Or you save up so you can buy them lots of soda pop, if that's what you still want to do after thinking about it.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Sorry , but what Bloomberg is doing is absurd and laughable at the same time. He is treating his people like they're immature children who need to be kept in check.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)What a bunch of BS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2188378
There are rules and restrictions regarding those because of people like you. I don't think you sound responsible enough to own a gun, but you do, apparently. You're a good argument for why there should be more restrictions there, too.
edit to add: If this goes to a jury, both those links are easily found on her transparency page.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)understand why you shouldn't be able to.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)What about what Bloomberg is doing? What's your opinion on it? You're ok with it?
bike man
(620 posts)darkangel218 (3,076 posts)
28. Ive done that many times.
As soon as I woke up, I had a beer.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...by people who choose to spend the extra money on a bunch of individually bottled separate servings?
We all get that you don't think people should be drinking so much soda. But Bloomberg's way of attempting to achieve that goal leads to absurd consequences.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)In NY, each bottle or can carries a five-cent deposit. No self-respecting New Yorker actually bothers to return them. So the six-pack carries an extra 25-cent tax over the 2-liter bottle.
daleo
(21,317 posts)I see plenty of bottle pickers around my city. Not a nice sight for a civilized society, but at least no recyclables go to waste.
Actually, not all are homeless, but plenty are.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Sums it all up quite nicely. 
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Bloomberg said so, so it must be true. 
MH1
(19,156 posts)It's really quite simple, actually.
Giving stuff like Coca Cola to children will one day be recognized as child abuse.
And if you're an adult, wise up and deal with it.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)somebody better call CPS 
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)and let me decide what and how much I put in my body.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)which have NO sugar?
MH1
(19,156 posts)and the better quality stuff - already more expensive - should only be enjoyed as an occasional treat, if at all.
Non-diet soda: massive amounts of sugar (often in the form of HFCS), carbonation (bad for teeth, and bad for gut in large amounts), and often caffeine (not necessarily clearly labeled).
Diet: aspartame or other nasties ("pick your poison", literally) to replace the sugar, but otherwise all the other bad stuff listed above.
Oh, I drink the stuff sometimes. But I know it's bad and I don't mind it being taxed accordingly. Actually I wish it were less prevalent in society and that I hadn't been raised in a culture where it's just assumed we all drink the stuff. I've mostly broken the habit but probably can't reverse all the damage.
It really bugs me to see anyone giving soda to a kid. I'm glad a lot of schools have gotten rid of the stuff. They all should. If the kids go across the street to the 7-11 to get it, whatever, but at least they had to get some exercise and the school didn't directly enable it.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)between diet and non diet, and that hides the fact that sugar is what does the damage. Yes, i know there has been talk of "other nasties", but they have not been proven, especially not the newer ones like splenda or stevia.
I say this because, as a Diabetic, the fruit juices and milk that are healthy for most people are NOT for yours truly.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)Diet drinks are exempt from this - which in light of the recent news they're MORE likely to cause diabetus seems colossally stupid. Then again I think the entire regulation is colossally stupid.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It's no secret that those with higher education and more money eat and drink better. And consequently enjoy better overall health and longer life spans.
Junk food has addictive qualities and deleterious effects on health that people have little resistance to.
The Science involved shows that to change this behavior that is negatively impacting our society is to change the environmental factors. Simply expecting people to make a choice in the face of advertising and proliferation of crap is not going to work.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)it's not your place to tell me what or how much I put in my body. You want to run a PSA so I can make a more INFORMED choice, fine. But it's not your place to make it for me. Your logic is part of the reason why we have a war on drugs, because people like you think people are too stupid to make a decision about what goes in their own bodies.
handmade34
(24,017 posts)rein in the corporations then this is what is necessary... I would much rather see the companies be held responsible for external costs...
I don't want anyone to be told what they can put in their body but the empirical evidence shows that collectively something needs to be done
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)are we going to regulate portion sizes or have meal calorie limits in restaurants next? We scoff at Republicans when they want limit access to drug or alcohol because they're "bad for you", but we're going to turn around tell you what size of soda you can buy.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Cigarettes. They're terrible for people. No one should smoke, but we'll never be able to make them illegal because of the tobacco lobbiests.
So what we ought to do is issue every smoker a $20 per year (or month) Smoker's ID. Each week, you are allowed to buy one pack, and your ID is flagged. No store in the city limits is allowed to sell you any more cigarettes for a rolling week period. If you are caught by police with out of town cigs, you spend a night in jail.
This will get people to start thinking about how much they smoke.
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)Have enough people in jail for stupid reasons?
christx30
(6,241 posts)I thought the rediculousness of my idea would be enough for people to see it. Maybe it's too close to something Bloomberg would think of. I don't want to control people's habits. I personally don't care. You want to eat a 4 pound steak by yourself? Have at it. You wanna drink 3 44oz drinks in an 8 hour day? I'd suggest food with it, but it's your life. People like Bloomberg get into a power trip, and people on this board are enablers of it by not shooting it down.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Jesus Christ! Nanny-state mf'ers! This is freakin' COLA, not crack cocaine!
I thought it was stupid when Bloomberg instituted it, and I think it's even stupider now.
Bake
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)
Let's get rid of pitchers of beer
No more bottles of wine over 16 oz
No more than 2 drinks per customer at bars
We should see how many other things we can limit and ban
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Just buy the six-pack and go on. Your freedom is not at risk.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Ron Green
(9,870 posts)amount of HFCS water, and I think a bottle of wine or a pitcher of beer is typically consumed more responsibly than a 3-liter bottle of soda pop.
The main point is that to prohibit the huge bottle of sugar water is to cause the consumer, or more importantly the parent of the consumer, to think about portion control.
I guess I have to say it again: people can always buy lots of smaller bottles of the stuff.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Why should people pay more money for lesser amounts on a legal product??
I hope they don't come for things you like
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)What's happening is that in the interest of public health, corporations that are pushing harmful and addictive "foods" in the "free market" are being regulated in a way that forces consumers to think about what they're buying for themselves and their kids, and causes people on Internet boards to discuss their Freedoms.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Bloomberg is most definitely "coming for things." Including public education and unions. Line up behind this authoritarian jackoff at your own peril.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)NO civilized nation should allow guns in the street.
As the NRA won't clean up itself, they do need Big Daddy to help move them along.
People like window guards on their apartment windows so their baby don't fall out.
Some people remove them and their babies fall out.
They are arrested for murder.
Same with seatbelts
Don't wear them, get a fine.
Seatbelts save lives.
So does not being obese.
And insurance costs alot of money, and those that don't have insurance, have to have it paid for by those that do. So wellness saves everybody money.
But there are of course fools that don't wear seatbelts or bicycle helmets.
And of course there is Zimmerman and Dorner. Two people with guns that killed, like all guns do. Never met a gun that wasn't built to kill.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Why do you defend a right wing 1%er who wants to defund libraries, kill public education, and undermine teachers' unions? (And that's just THIS month!)
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)there are 17,234, 456 different issues.
This is two of them out of that.
He is not running for president or any office.
SOON Christine Quinn will be the first out Gay Mayor of NYC and all those things you can ask her her views on. She is quite personable and easy to address.
I am sure she can help you find the answers you are seeking.
BTW, who would have thought it possible that NYC could actually survive a concrete beach oasis on Broadway bet. 42-47th street.
Yet, it happened and NYC is quite easier on all the people, less smog, less fumes.
And 90% of people used to smoke in NYC, now 90% don't.
Thanks to a nudge and a poke.
Which is also leading NYC to have less morbid;y obese people who are saving tens of thousands of dollars in not having hospital and operation bills.
Whihc is greatest for those poorest.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)after he has left office and you will, obviously, continue to be a fan of this right winger. You either agree with his extremist right agenda or you are willing to ignore it in your continued praise and adulation. I don't know which is worse.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)If you have an issue on education, why are you in a Wellness thread?
there are a million other threads yet you seem to be following me thread to thread.
Why?
I do understand though that the NRA hates him.
Because he has slain the NRA and LaPierre is the last nut standing who will support their views.
They no longer can get the politicians they bribe. Shame if you love guns and the NRA I suppose.
What's your views on guns and the NRA and the 2nd? Have no idea what your view is.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)when you limit what adults can do.
Maybe you like being told what choices you can make, some of us don't.
If you don't think you are smart enough to order what you like and need a few other people to tell you what you can and can't do in that regards hire someone to babysit you.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)That's quite frankly childish nonsense that places the wants of the individual above the good of society as a whole; we tell adults they can't smoke in restaurants and bars, as well. In case you haven't noticed, obesity, and associated diseases like type 2 diabetes, are a severe public health problem. As lung cancer was in the 1960's. Legislation and regulation can help people change their behaviour in ways that just saying "drinking soda is bad" won't; especially when you have billion-dollar companies with glossy advertising denying that their product has adverse health effects.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)you get enough sleep? That's important for good health-
how much water you drink a day?
You take the stairs or elevator? What's your BMI?
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Got rid of my guns over the past five years. Down to 2 small cars, getting rid of at least one of them soon. Haven't smoked in many years. Eat maybe 8 ounces of meat in a week.
The government and its various warnings, edicts and messages have helped me in some of my decisions. The Free Market almost always tempts me in the wrong direction, and although it's always my decision what to consume, I like policy-makers to respond to the best science and to the "better angels" as we move into the future.
I don't know if this answers your question, but thanks for asking.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Everyone rides a scooter for commuting, saves the Earth...
That would be a good law
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)and use public transportation or our bikes (or walk.) it's a small step for the planet, a bigger one for us.
But the topic here is limiting the size of soda pop bottles, right? I've got no problem with having to bitch about, and therefore think about, paying more for the stuff.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)that way you won't drive so much.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)And if you want to drive a lot you can always go the gas station as many times as you want! Good suggestion, Bloomberg will probably implement that soon.
christx30
(6,241 posts)control your own urges and temptations, you want the government to limit and ban things for everyone. That's awesome. That's the kind of thinking that got religions started. "I can't stop having sex, so I need God to make it a sin."
We should put a 2 hour limit on Internet for everyone. Force exercise. No limit to the number of things we should do in the interest in the public health.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)banned, or it's not. Yesterday, I could do this. Now because of a power hungry busybody, I can't do this any more.
Sometimes, people want to just be left the hell alone. People want to make their own decisions and not have some asshole ban or limit or meddle in our lives. We'd hate for the pubs to force us to do things for our own good, we'd hate it. "Abortions are bad for women, so we're gonna go ahead and ban them." I guess it's ok when it's us making limits on things?
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)I can't do this anymore."
I wonder how many deaths in a year are from diabetes compared to those from 30-round magazines?
christx30
(6,241 posts)No one is forcing you to drink the soda. You make the decision to do so or not.
I'll expand on the DU freedom mantra:
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
If you are against gay marriage, don't have one.
If you are against contraception, don't use any.
If you don't want a large soda, don't buy one.
See? Not that complicated. But don't take something away from me just because you aren't happy with it.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)No one is taking away your right to buy a rifle and ammunition, just as no one is banning sugar water. It's just that in the interest of public health and safety, there are limits placed on these things.
Show me how these issues are different. Please.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Buys a high capacity magazine, they are a potential threat to themselves and others. If someone buys a large soda, they might be a threat to themselves only.
Would you accept limits on abortion?
"In the interest of public safety, we are going to do the transvaginal ultrasound thing." We can make limits on anything we want if we preface it with "in the interests of public health". Sounds like fun. " in the interests of public harmony we'll limit debate about public policy" or I like the idea of, in the interest of public health, limiting everyone to 1 pack of cigarettes per week. Mandate exercise. Monthly fridge inspections. Fines for walking around barefoot. Ban skydiving. Jail time for high fat foods. Eventually we are going to find your particular vice. Something that makes your life easier and ban or limit it. Why? Well, for your own good. Because you didn't want a government. You wanted a mommy and daddy to protect you from yourself. Because you have no self control.
I get a 44oz soda before work. It's not hurting you, or costing you a damn thing. So leave me the hell alone.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)that disproportionaly hurts low and middle class families?
Do you have a problem with Bloomberg holding protesters without charge during the 2004 Republican convention?
Do you have a problem with Bloomberg declaring war on the Occupy movement to help his Wall Street buddies?
Do you have a problem with Bloomberg vetoing a bill that would have outlawed discrimination against the unemployed?
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)I'm not sure where you got that other stuff.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And it doesn't outlaw people from buying the same amount of soda. It just makes them pay more for it with the profits going to Bloomberg's corporate buddies.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Me thinks he's coocoo for coco puffs
JHB
(38,213 posts)...or put himself out to pasture.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)
Cirque du So-What
(29,732 posts)etc., etc.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It may be funny, but that's what happened in east Europe. They started rationalizing the food first and you know the rest.
Cirque du So-What
(29,732 posts)After all, the 2L bottle is generally intended to serve at least a couple of people - although I know people who could polish one off like nobody's bidness. I do take exception, however, with any comparison of Bloomberg with Hitler, which diminishes and trivializes the horrors of the Third Reich.
I don't like the prohibition against large servings on the basis that it affects the poor disproportionately, seeing that people will circumvent it easily...easily except for taking a hit in their wallets, that is. I see Bloomberg's ploy as purely political - an attempt to make him seem more 'moderate' (whatever the hell that means anymore) while providing cover for thievery on the part of powerbrokers. If he had true concern for public health, he would emphasize education instead of prohibition. It's just a shiny distraction that allows RWers to complain about 'ultra-liberal Bloomberg', meanwhile giving him a pass on all that he does in favor of the RW agenda.
On edit: In the first place, it's 'rationing' - not 'rationalizing.' In the second place, it's not rationing, unless the amount of money in someone's wallet available for the soda budget is taken into account.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Just another sin tax.
The sin tax is one of the most interesting dichotomies of the liberal mind (not that Bloomberg is any sort of liberal). It makes for fascinating reading on DU . . .
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Only a regulation of serving sizes from eateries. You can still drink as much sugar water as you want in New York.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)bike man
(620 posts)is not a bad idea. Obviously the consumer can't/won't do it.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Nor do they drink the entire pitcher of fruit punch at kiddie parties.
This is excessive.
It's just like saying you shouldn't get a bottle of wine for the table and instead must buy by the glass.
Personally I drink less if we share a bottle. The pour is always more than what I would pour for myself.
bike man
(620 posts)brands. It may not be the norm, and it may well not apply to you, but they do exist.
christx30
(6,241 posts)exist, everyone has to spend extra money to get everyone individual containers?
That's like saying that no one is allowed to buy cartons of cigarettes, and everyone should have to be limited to 1 pack per week, because there are heavy smokers out there.
How about people like Bloomberg mind their own business and fix the damn potholes and leave me the hell alone?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)He'd crack that mother open and drink it right from the bottle, and finish the whole thing with his meal.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)But do these sell 2 litre bottles of Coke etc? If so, will these be banned too? If not, why not?
Let me make myself clear - I think the ban on these drinks is absurd - particularly as it will affect drink containers clearly aimed at groups containing more than one person. But even on personal liberty grounds, I do not support it.
Edited to change "3 litre" to "2 litre" which is the quantity expressed in the OP.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Why it does for pizza delivery seems odd to me.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)So you could have the pizzeria deliver the pizza, and the corner store (or "bodega"
deliver the soda, chips, dessert, etc. Basically, Tiny Fascist is forcing you to make two phone calls (and depriving the pizzeria of the extra business) 
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Whereas the supermarket isn't.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)They sell the 2 liter bottles as well as smaller sizes of 12 oz (a can) to 16 oz (roughly a half liter bottle) in packs of 6 to 12.
Most small convenience stores sell the 2 liter as well as individual bottles or cans of the smaller sizes.
By the way, in the U.S. "Coke, etc." is referred to as "soda" in areas outside the Midwest or northern middle of the country. In the Midwest, it's called "pop". Long ago it was called "sodapop" everywhere.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)Holland (where I live) and the UK (which I frequently visit) have similar aisles.
Not a great sodapop fan myself, but do enjoy it on the rare occasions when I go the Colonel or MickeyD.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)I live in the DC area (a "soda" area), but I'm from Michigan (clearly in the "pop" camp).
When I go home to see my Mom, I drink a lot of the local stuff. I can get the diet version of what is supposed to be a grapefruit pop, "Squirt," of which the non-diet version is available in many places now. Squirt mixed with orange juice is a nice non-alcoholic cocktail, actually, if you ever get the chance.
I can also get "Vernor's," a Detroit-made pop, that is a cross between a very gingery ginger ale and a New York-style cream soda. Sometimes you sneeze when you just start to drink it because it is so gingery. Yum-yum. (Not the sneeze.) It's worth trying if you every visit or change planes in Detroit.
Thanks for using the word "sodapop." It doesn't favor any region of the country!
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)Usually, it's a non-alcoholic drink, but it does come in an alcoholic version.
I used to buy the non-alcoholic version in my supermarket in Australia. Lovely stuff.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)It must be available somewhere around here.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have always been able to find it there.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)but you can buy beer and wine warm or cold at convenience stores. No alcohol of any kind is sold in the supermarket. It's a little bizarre.
There's a big chain around here called "Total Beverage." They opened a store a few miles away from me and they might have it because they carry many non-alcoholic beverages as well as beer and wine.
It's on the list.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It does have a bit of a kick--even the non-alky stuff; it has a bit of a ...zing, I guess! Strong flavor, but nice!
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)because most prepared orange juices have more calories per ounce than sodas...
sP
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Buy the soda at a supermarket you can get 20 cans (12 ounces) for 4 bucks.
You can get 4 twelve packs(48 cans) for $9 dollars.
And 2 liter bottles in the supermarket costs a buck.
So what a bogus argument.
Pizza places, both there and deliveries rip people off. They should not even be allowed to rip people off like this.
Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg.
Gun lovers hate him.
I am not surprised.
And he is saving people thousands of dollars a year in medical expenses. Especially those that least can afford it.
And pizza places can NOT deliver beer, so what a bogus argument it is.
It's like those who go to a 90 minute movie and buy a 48 ounce soda, then ask for a refill.
That is 1560 calories WASTED in 90 minutes.
Then they eat two tubs of popcorn and in those 90 minutes, consume MORE calories than one is suppose to eat in one day.
Try wellness. It works.
And diet soda if you have to drink soda. zero calories.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)it's a personal choice and convenience argument.
If i go to a pizza place, can I bring my store bought cola? Probably not. So, i eat my pizza there, then go home and drink my cola?
Same if I ask for home delivery. If I have cola in the fridge, I don't order with my pizza. If I don't have any, it's my choice - go without cola, or pay a bit more. My choice.
Yes, I pay over the price for the drinks at the pizza place, but a nice young man or woman pours it for me. thank you, nice person. Again, my choice.
Bloomberg is well-intentioned (kudos to him) - but will it work? You state "he is saving people thousands of dollars a year in medical expenses". Got a link for that? Doesn't it only come into effect in March????? So how is he saving already?
Who the hell mentioned beer???? I see no mention of it...but if you're buying, I'll have an Amstel...a large one since it's only February.
And thanks for your wellness advice. There are some who over-indulge in fast food, but many of us don't. Many of us go to the movies often and eat lots of popcorn. Many of us don't.
But if we want to, it's our choice.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)change behavior will not work.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)Do you have the DATA?????
It seems like Bloomberg is the one expecting people to change. If he has proof, great.
If not....????
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)If they only have a 24 ounce they will buy it and sit down at drink and eat what they bought
MOST people won't get up and buy another one, if they had a 48 ounce they would drink that and mostly, without even realizing it.
As they are satisfied with 24. Thereby saving 390 calories. (130 calories in an 8 ounce serving).
After one is sitting most (especially if there are NO free refills) won't waste the energy to buy more
The proof is in Europe, especially France.
France has the best food, the most fattening cheese but people eat a reasonable portion
DO NOT SNACK in between, and don't ask for refunds
There is a reason the French can fit in their smart cars and save lots of money on gas.
And look at size of packages in supermarkets.THough that is done for price reasons, if one buys a package that used to have 16 ounces of food, and now has 13.5, people just eat less.
They don't buy an extra package.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)I live in Europe and have travelled extensively. Customers are not restricted to one size. I am always asked about what size of drink i want. And even if I'm not, I have the option of specifying what I want.
The menu choices in (say) MickeyD's in France/Germany/Holland look pretty much like they do in Australia/UK and i suspect the US (and the choices are usually in English). People can ask for more or less.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)It's like in New York City, people eat pizza in a local self owned pizza place, not one of the chains.
And outside, the chains offer "New York Style Pizza". In NYC it is just Pizza 
Yes, people can ask for what they want, but especially in movie theatres in the US,
they have
large 5 with a free refill
medium 4.75
small 4.50
so people look at it and say, they will take the large, it's only 50cents more and they get double.
Also, they have buy large drink/large popcorn and get $1 off, and it ends up being cheaper
than a small one. So which do you think they will get?
And who do you think will get sick down the road when one is 50 plus?
Of course, in Europe, you have a much better health system, and everyone has healthcare.
Here, (at least til 2014) many don't have health care, and going to the doctor is an expense they cannot afford.
And those the heaviest have the largest doctor bills.
handmade34
(24,017 posts)
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)But the citizens of NYC, through their elected representatives, have decided to do something about the obesity epidemic. They should be applauded.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Folks can elect the less than stellar deal on soda with their pizza delivery, if they wanted to make a store run they would have. Why the fuck do you and Mikey think you need to dictate how folks do any such thing?
They eat whatever popcorn they want, be it a little or a lot or none at all.
Of course I think he should be barred from any and all official office for life for his "stop and frisk" bullshit alone and probably some serious jail time like twenty years for violation of natural human rights.
You guys aren't anything liberal, you are hard core authoritarians.
dsc
(53,397 posts)but I buy when on sale and your can prices are better than anything I have been able to get in the past year with one exception. I can't do better than 3 twelve packs for 9 dollars and only once have I seen the 20 pack at 4 dollars, it usually is around 4.50 at best.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)That's not what America was founded upon.
The government is supposed to be there to help us, not dictate how much soda we can drink.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)it'd be much cheaper to go to the pizzeria and pick it up. (In NYC, this is generally no more than a few blocks.)
What's next? Tiny Fascist banning delivery and making everyone go to pizzerias for slices??
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)Bloomberg knows what's best for everyone. People are too stupid to make their own decisions. What to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, what to wear. Bloomberg will make everyone's decisions from now on.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)attempts to influence out-of-state politics in order to undermine teachers' unions and "reform" education? And what do you think about his new plan to put libraries out of business? Your hero is a right wing piece of shit.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)One more...
union_maid
(3,502 posts)Protect us from each other if necessary? I'm for it. This it way too much protecting us from ourselves. Next thing you know they'll be banning weed. ....Oh....
Really, though, I think this is intrusive. And I don't drink sweetened soda.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)in NYC to uphold this glorious law!<SARCASM>
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Bloomberg is beginning to annoy and I don't even live there yet. Please, New Yorkers do a (hopefully) future New Yorker a favor and replace this guy in the next election. I mean no doubt it might be unhealthy to drink so much soda, but I feel like people have a right to make that choice themselves. Plus, it sounds like this will rip a lot of families off.
dballance
(5,756 posts)I found the text of what the law says: 1) Sugary drinks shall not be offered or sold in cups or manufacturer-sealed containers (e.g. bottles, cans) that contain more than 16 fluid ounces.
Link to PDF: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/boh/max_size_sugary_drinks_briefing.pdf
A pitcher or carafe of soda/non-juice mixer is not a CUP. So unless someone provides a link to the alleged brochure (which the Post should have done) or an official statement from the NYC Health Department the Post's story and all this outrage seems to be over nothing when it comes to pitchers/carafes.
Reading the law to include delivery orders seems a little silly. I doubt the people passing the regulations ever gave delivery a thought because it's ridiculous to read the law that way. It will be health inspectors enforcing these laws. I highly doubt the city is going to expand their role to include monitoring whether or not a delivery person delivers a 2 liter soda to a customer with their pizza. So it's going to be hard for an inspector to witness a violation in order to issue a citation for that violation. I doubt the attorneys of most eateries who offer delivery are advising them to stop delivering 2 liter sodas.
As for the journalistic standards of the NY Post? Why do I NOT find it at all surprising the NY Post doesn't have a statement from the city?
All I see in that "news" article is a few people who work in the food service/hospitality industry with their hair on fire over the regulations. I sincerely doubt the mayor's efforts were intended to stop restaurants from serving pitchers of soda to a group of kids or to prevent delivery of a 2 liter soda with a pizza or other delivery food. I also have to note none of this was mentioned or publicized during the run-up to the ban. Why not?
Why didn't the NY Post get a statement from the city clarifying whether or not these people's concerns are founded or are just so much mishigas? They could have asked the city's health department if they read the law the same way as these people have read it and intend to enforce it that way. But conspicuously did not. There isn't even the appearance they attempted to contact the city. No statements about how officials were unavailable for comment or didn't respond before deadline.
Gee, could the Post's lack of effort to get quotes from the city be because they might have gotten an opinion from the health department that says they don't read the law to prevent serving pitchers of soda to groups? Or carafes of mixers to groups in a bar or delivering an unopened 2 liter soda with a food order to someone's residence? That would have really taken the wind out of the sails of the article if that had happened. It would have not allowed for all the ginned up rage over nothing.
I tried to find a link to the brochure the story references but could not and the NY Post, conveniently, didn't provide a link or take time to scan portions of it relevant to their story.
Once again we have a "newspaper" article with quotes only from the people opposed to a measure and none from the actual people who passed the measure or will have to enforce it. Certainly no statements from the city attorney's office or health department attorneys with their interpretation of the law and how it will be enforced. So basically an article completely without any basis in the reality of the law.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Thanks for finding the text of the law, by the way .
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Thanks for the information.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Hey look! That covers two liter bottles. Just what would be delivered with the pizza.
So....you're arguing the health inspectors can't read a menu?
Then why'd they include the bit about "manufacturer-sealed" containers? If their goal was to target fast food and 7-11, why not target only fast food and 7-11?
Well, you think this is shoddy media coverage. Perhaps there was shoddy media coverage?
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)This is soooooooo dumb.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Problem solved.
You're welcome.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Your bottles are illegal.
Man I am glad I do not live in that city. Stupid laws like this would just piss me off.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)What about a bunch of 16 ounce bottles? 
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)If people will no longer be able to buy a 2 liter or pitcher to serve their family, and will instead be forced to spend more for a bunch of smaller portions, then the effect is really just lining the pockets of investors of Coca Cola etc.
Let's be real, this is absurd.
appleannie1
(5,457 posts)individual drinks. They rarely got soda at home so a pitcher of soda to be shared was an extra treat.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)This is about CUPS(plastic/paper) ones.
This whole thread is premised on a total NY Post fabrication
WHICH shows that the ultra Murdoch NRA loving owned NY Post hates the liberal Mike Bloomberg by attempting this smear.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)sugary drink in a cup or container that is able to contain more than 16 fluid
ounces."
You're simply and factually incorrect. The law applies to cups, pitchers, bottles (as has been talked about numerous times in this topic), jars, tupperware tubs, to-go containers, ziploc bags and literally any other vessel that holds more than a pint. Then again, this law being even more authoritarian than you thought probably gives you the warm fuzzies...maybe they can put cameras in every restaurant to make sure!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Which seems more reasonable, given that a 20-ounce bottle has become the standard size.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)that the contents are as promised but no the cap is 16.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)And used to be a 12 ounce bottle or can was the norm.
(those old green bottles of coke were 12 ounces).
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I've never seen a DUer defend more Republican bullshit than you do.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)but he is not running for anything
Just maybe a Noble peace prize for his gun stand.
But I can understand why the NRA hates him.
BTW-you know he endorsed President Obama twice don't you?
JI7
(93,617 posts)that is not what this is.
i'm not sure i support what he is doing. but it certainly isn't because of the above bs.
my issue is mostly that there are people who eat and drink well most of the times. but there are certain times like at parties where they want to have some of the junk.
i have cut back on soda and can't drink as much as i use to . but there are times when i want to eat/drink whatever i want and the high prices just seem unfair for those without money .
daleo
(21,317 posts)Pizza goes nicely with a glass of wine, too.
handmade34
(24,017 posts)is good with pizza too
handmade34
(24,017 posts)aught to be responsible for all external costs.. soda is unhealthy empty calories and massive amounts of money is spent (by the companies) on psychological marketing to entice people to spend money on products that harm them...
I can't think of any good reason that we shouldn't do everything we can to persuade people to cut their consumption of soft drinks...
So many complain about "the government" being too controlling but where is the outrage towards the irresponsible corporations???
"...Now that soft drinks are sold in almost all public and private schools, dentists are noticing a condition in teenagers that used to be found only in the elderly-a complete loss of enamel on the teeth, resulting in yellow teeth. The culprit is phosphoric acid in soft drinks, which causes tooth rot as well as digestive problems and bone loss. Dentists are reporting complete loss of the enamel on the front teeth in teenaged boys and girls who habitually drink sodas..."
So, this is what people want to fight over to protect their right to buy?????
high-fructose corn syrup (or aspartame if diet)
caffeine
phosphoric acid
flavorings
Three firms control 89% of US soft drink sales ($52 billion dollar a year in U.S.)
randome
(34,845 posts)You'd think the next step in this fearful change is people marrying their dogs or something. The horror.
subterranean
(3,762 posts)It seems to me that would do just as much, if not more, to curb the obesity rate in New York.
handmade34
(24,017 posts)there is some nutritional value of pizza toppings... soft drinks are total empty calories!
Fla_Democrat
(2,622 posts)
Historic NY
(40,037 posts)why don't you whine to the producers.....
Tien1985
(923 posts)This isn't just about cost... It's about Freedumbbb! We all have the inalienable right to decide what garbage we ingest ad how much of it. (First world problems)
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
left is right
(1,665 posts)will just barely hold a 12 oz can. I buy a big gulp as much for the ice as I do the diet pop I put in it. Yes, I know, that I am spending a whole lot for the ice but it tastes better than the ice I freeze at home. It is easier to crunch on than homemade ice and I like the fountain experience of insulated cup, lid, and straw. My daily big gulp is one of my few entertainment options. I don’t see will enough to drive; I usually take the bus or walk to my destination; I seldom go out, once the work day is over; I don’t smoke, seldom drink; I don’t drink coffee and only hot tea. Leave my big gulp alone.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Please read the rules.
BTW, in NYC you are not suppose to eat or drink on buses or trains.
Leads to roaches and higher expenses to clean them, so it is not liked anymore.
Of course one can't smoke on either.
SO, NO ONE IS TOUCHING YOUR BIG GULP.
BTW, ice is not part of the plan either, therefore you could still buy a cup of ice.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)A ONE liter bottle, plus a ONE liter bottle equals.....?
petronius
(26,696 posts)
Ilsa
(64,371 posts)One drink, cheaper than three, plenty to go around.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)This fits perfectly with his wanting to control national education deform, undermine unions, stop-and-frisk suspicious people of color, and defund the libraries.
madville
(7,847 posts)He doesn't back it for safety, I think he gets off in the idea of controlling other people and banning things.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and for decades, the norm in bottles of soda was 12 ounces. The old green bottles all were
12 ounces
The same ones people all drank at the beach.
It is only in recent times that it grew to so large.
MOST NYC pizza places had small cups and charged LARGE prices with the small cups.
It was known that REAL PIZZA places in NYC move 100s of slices during crowded times,
and do NOT want people sitting around taking up space sipping large sodas.
Their biz was in selling FRESH hot dripping regular pizza (as NYC pizza don't need the toppings in the first place, because NYC pizza don't need a cover up, the real pizza is the best in the world), and having people quickly eat their 2 slices and making room for the next person.
Normal pizza places in NYC are very small, as rents are large, and seating is very tight.
(And most pizza places have very small width tables, specifically laid out like that so
it is uncomfortable for people to sit for a long time).
Most have a few higher tables for standees.
Most NYers anyhow take the pizza and eat while walking.
If one is not in NYC itself, one doesn't have to worry.
And outside of NYC, they have cheaper rents, so larger spaces.
I wonder how many people who are complaining live in or work in NYC to begin with.
This is strictly local to NYC.
And next time one complains, try complaining to the street vendors and hot dog stands who
will sell a 12 ounce can in their cart for $2.50 if they can get away with it...(If you say you are a resident, they might lower the price, but the marked price is for the tourists.
But what is really amazing is how crowded the Broadway Olive Garden is.
100s of REAL Italian places to eat in NYC, and the tourists all go and wait 2 hours to eat at the Broadway Olive Garden.
(something that should be saved for other states and the suburbs or NJ where they don't make REAL NYC pizza, just bad attempts at it.)
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)slippery slope. Those of you who have no problem with this, just wait until something you like is added to list of nanny laws, unless you're someone who is just so damn perfect with not a single vice to be had.
Do you know how ridiculously sanctimonious you guys sound?
It's none of your business what other people choose to put in their bodies so long as it doesn't hurt other people (ie drinking then driving). It's called freedom of choice and for those of you who can't see the big deal right now, this is where the slippery slope comes in.
This nanny state mentality will only lead to more of the same. This is just a jumping off point. When they find obesity rates are not coming down, and it won't as a result of this absurd attempt, they'll find more ways to regulate that said product, charge more tax or completely ban it.
Besides, I don't even see how it's supposed to help the intended "purpose". If someone wants more, they'll just buy more. They aren't forced to restrict the sale to one per customer. You can buy as many individual servings as you like. While you have to pay extra in a restaurant, you can then stop at the grocery store on the way home, buy a couple 2 liter bottles and drink them at home, all at once if you please. The really hardcore soda drinkers are not going to stop or cut down drinking it over this lame attempt to curb obesity. Also, it isn't just soda that makes people fat, there are probably a 1001 other things out there that contribute too. This won't accomplish zilch. The only thing it will do is create a "fat tax" with a list of more and more things to be added later as things start slipping down that damn slope.
customerserviceguy
(25,406 posts)How'd that work when our society tried it with homosexuality?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)
This is really nanny-state stuff here. What's next?
dminaz
(9 posts)I'm not for this kind of regulation, but if you stop to think about it, it does fall in line with the Affordable Health Care Act that Obama is trying to implement.
If the government is going to be paying for healthcare, it seems only right that they want everyone as healthy as possible. The healthier everyone is, the lower the healthcare costs.
Seeking Serenity
(3,322 posts)just keeps adding more and more reasons why I'm glad I don't live in NYC.
I guess I just like my personal autonomy and freedom of choice too much.