Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,962 posts)
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 05:38 PM Nov 2013

Bill de Blasio vows to make Mayor Bloomberg's big soda ban a reality

On Oct. 19, the New York Daily News reported:

Bill de Blasio Friday turned sweet on Mayor Bloomberg, heaping praise on Hizzoner’s controversial ban on big soda — and vowing to make it a reality if he’s elected mayor.

Though the Democratic mayoral nominee has spent much of his campaign bashing Bloomberg, he promised Friday to “aggressively” fight to make Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks a reality.

“I’m not ever afraid to disagree with Mayor Bloomberg when I think he’s wrong ... But I believe the mayor is right on this issue,” he said. “We are losing the war on obesity ... It’s unacceptable. This is a case where we have to get aggressive.”

The mayor’s effort to bar restaurants, theaters and food courts from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces was blocked by a judge last spring who ruled the mayor had abused his authority when he pushed the ban through the Board of Health he appointed instead of the City Council.

On Thursday, the state’s highest court agreed to consider the case but de Blasio said he’ll look for ways to stop New Yorkers from downing huge sugary drinks — even if the city loses in the courts.

“We’d have to look at the specifics with our own lawyers, and figure out the mechanics, but there’s no question I want this rule to go forward,” de Blasio said Friday.


Sigh. I doubt most New Yorkers will base their vote on whether they'll be able to buy gigantic sugary drinks, but I disagree with de Blasio here as much as he's a more populist guy than Mayor One Percent Bloomberg. What happened to MY BODY, MY CHOICE?
102 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bill de Blasio vows to make Mayor Bloomberg's big soda ban a reality (Original Post) alp227 Nov 2013 OP
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #1
What choice is being taken away? NYC Liberal Nov 2013 #9
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #15
it's about adjusting a dysfunctional environment. KittyWampus Nov 2013 #18
Good... Tikki Nov 2013 #2
Great news. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #3
To those who think we can outlaw obesity customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #4
Do you also disagree with NYC's ban on trans-fats? DanTex Nov 2013 #5
I can quote you all kinds of "science" customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #8
Actually, no, the science does not support discrimination against gay or lesbian people. DanTex Nov 2013 #10
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore that customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #12
This clearly has nothing to do with discrimination or bigotry. It is a public health measure. DanTex Nov 2013 #14
How have all those things worked out? customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #24
Wow, so you really are a full-on Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman libertarian. No regulations at all. DanTex Nov 2013 #28
I'm a sugar addict who is actively working to eat better and control my addiction, but I can tell liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #45
Most people aren't sugar addicts. DanTex Nov 2013 #53
that's why there are different sizes. If you want a small get a small. If you want a large get a liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #59
It's not a ban on drinking, it's a ban on selling. DanTex Nov 2013 #64
how much of my life do want to control? Why not let the republicans tell us who we're allowed to liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #66
Again with the preposterous analogies... DanTex Nov 2013 #69
You are doing a great job on keeping the focus on the issue. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #75
Just because some people have peddled junk science NYC Liberal Nov 2013 #11
So, if a current theory of science customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #13
Except nothing is being banned. No choice is being removed NYC Liberal Nov 2013 #39
It starts out that way customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #52
What is the "current theory of science" on being gay? morningfog Nov 2013 #49
That it's a normal expression of human sexuality customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #56
Legislation has been effective in reducing smoking. morningfog Nov 2013 #58
Because being denied a Big Gulp at 7/11 is exactly like outlawing sex Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #60
Are you seriously comparing sexual orientation with public health issues? uppityperson Nov 2013 #16
I'm talking about human nature customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #25
Drinking soda is not human nature in the same way sexual orientation is human nature Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #31
In my original response customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #67
You really want to dig deeper with your comparision of drinking a small soda and outlawing sex? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #71
Sexual orientation and drinking large soda is in no way comparable. Now you also seem to be uppityperson Nov 2013 #42
Did you really just compare drinking soda to being gay? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #19
What I compared customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #27
Sorry, serving soda in a smaller cup is nothing like banning a sexual orientation Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #33
It is incredibly absurd, and that is being generous. morningfog Nov 2013 #50
And here's the hated "Double Gulp" warrant46 Nov 2013 #37
Its 64 Ounces !! warrant46 Nov 2013 #38
Fun fact: NYC residents have one of the highest life expectantly rates in the USA JaneyVee Nov 2013 #29
How is obesity like homosexuality? morningfog Nov 2013 #48
Attempting to legislate away customerserviceguy Nov 2013 #81
Banning handguns is a horrible example. DanTex Nov 2013 #90
Good. There is no "ban"; it's a limit on portion sizzle. NYC Liberal Nov 2013 #6
So how do you feel about the ban on trans-fats in NYC? DanTex Nov 2013 #7
how do you justify having the government tell me what I can or cannot do? Illinoischick Nov 2013 #22
The government does that all the time. DanTex Nov 2013 #23
Using that argument binds you Union Scribe Nov 2013 #30
Quite the opposite. DanTex Nov 2013 #32
And I've yet to see any benefit. Union Scribe Nov 2013 #34
People consume less when it's readily available. That's the point. DanTex Nov 2013 #35
Drug warriors do not argue for regulation, they argue for criminalization Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #40
+1 daleanime Nov 2013 #65
Oh my, how many fallacious comparisons have I SEEN here! alp227 Nov 2013 #43
Do you support the FDA regulating the safety of your food? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #26
Seeing as how (artificial) trans.fats are unnecessary and generally dangerous at any dose, sir pball Nov 2013 #91
Good post. That's the first rational response I've gotten here. DanTex Nov 2013 #92
I'm good with regulations of inherently harmful substances or behaviors, sir pball Nov 2013 #93
I disagree with him but I am still voting for de Blasio. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #17
It exposes an ugly side of him seveneyes Nov 2013 #20
Hmm... pro-creationism, pro-gun, anti-DeBlasio... DanTex Nov 2013 #36
Hmmm...reading comprehension, pro-facts, anti-nanny for adults seveneyes Nov 2013 #41
Not this shit again... Throd Nov 2013 #21
Oh boy, here we go again!!! Beacool Nov 2013 #44
As much as I like the guy, I think he got it wrong here.....nt AverageJoe90 Nov 2013 #46
From what I could tell, most people thought Bloomberg was an asshole for pushing it badtoworse Nov 2013 #47
Well, Sarah Palin certainly thought that. DanTex Nov 2013 #62
I've lived in the New York area my whole life and work in Manhattan. badtoworse Nov 2013 #63
DeBlasio is ahead by some 30-40 points in the polls. DanTex Nov 2013 #70
Doesn't mean DeBlasio won't look like an ass if he pusges it badtoworse Nov 2013 #99
Really? Not a single person? That's quite an insular group of right-wing buddies you've got. DanTex Nov 2013 #100
You'd be surprised the broad spectrum of people you meet when you work in Manhattan badtoworse Nov 2013 #101
Umm... I live in Manhattan. I know just how broad the spectrum of people here is. DanTex Nov 2013 #102
so being liberal means you get to tell people what they are allowed to eat huh? What's next? liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #72
NYC banned trans-fats in restaurants. How do you feel about that? DanTex Nov 2013 #73
Way to lecture a NYer about NY. Union Scribe Nov 2013 #78
Umm... I live in Manhattan. DanTex Nov 2013 #88
Good! Obesity is an epidemic, like tobacco use. I say go for it. morningfog Nov 2013 #51
even with all the shaming, and taxes my father in law smoked for years. Right up until he had liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #79
Anecdotes notwithstanding, smoking and smoking related deaths have decreased. morningfog Nov 2013 #89
Not the smartest thing to say this close to the election. MADem Nov 2013 #54
Priorities, priorites, priorities. Glad he has everyone's health and welfare in mind. adirondacker Nov 2013 #55
who is stopping you from downing 2 sodas? La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2013 #57
Ok. So they ban anything larger than 16 ounces. Vashta Nerada Nov 2013 #61
Lots of ways around the ban. n/t PoliticAverse Nov 2013 #68
Nothing stops them from getting refills, that's not the point Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #95
False equivalency. Vashta Nerada Nov 2013 #96
STD treatments and diabetes treatments both use resources that could be used for something else Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #97
We all have a shared obligation to help others live more healthy lives. FarCenter Nov 2013 #74
I'm sorry, but I don't need you to help me live a healthier life. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #76
Nope. You still get to own your own addiction. You can still buy a two liter Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #82
What a bozo Politicalboi Nov 2013 #77
"More aggressive." What if the ban on large drinks fails to reduce Skip Intro Nov 2013 #80
I hope he also combines the initiative with public health campaigns along the lines Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #83
Let me ask you - Skip Intro Nov 2013 #85
The government is not restricting how much soda you can drink.. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #86
SCIENTIFIC evidence also shows that restaurant soda consumption isn't the problem. sir pball Nov 2013 #94
There are other ways this could be tackled. David__77 Nov 2013 #84
thank you for saying that in the right order. Most people want to tax unhealthy food to discourage liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #87
On a personal level I'm all for trying to get people to drink 16oz of soda or less with a meal Arcanetrance Nov 2013 #98

Response to alp227 (Original post)

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
9. What choice is being taken away?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:35 PM
Nov 2013

You are free to consume as much as you want. But studies have shown when people are offered larger portions, they consume more.

Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #9)

Tikki

(14,539 posts)
2. Good...
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 05:54 PM
Nov 2013

Sounds like he'll be a Mayor who won't be afraid to show he cares about his constituents.


Tikki

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
5. Do you also disagree with NYC's ban on trans-fats?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:31 PM
Nov 2013

It's not "outlawing obesity", it is a public health measure based on science.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
8. I can quote you all kinds of "science"
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:34 PM
Nov 2013

that was used to justify discrimination against gay and lesbian people.

My point, which you seemed to miss, is that we fail mightily when we try to regulate human nature, and not just criminal behavior.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
10. Actually, no, the science does not support discrimination against gay or lesbian people.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:37 PM
Nov 2013

But it is telling that you can't come up with an argument against the soda ban less preposterous than comparing it to anti-gay bigotry. Is that really your best?

You ignored my question. How do you feel about the trans-fat ban? Is that also "discrimination"?

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
12. Sorry, didn't mean to ignore that
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:44 PM
Nov 2013

I would not label the trans-fat ban as discrimination, but I would label it as possible folly. People have the right to choose what they eat or drink. Educating people to stay away from "bad" things is probably your best bet for success in trying to deal with what you perceive to be failings of human nature.

Yes, that's why I made the comparison, it's all a matter of "what I do is good, what you do is bad" that formulates the basis of the most widely ignored laws anywhere. It simply doesn't work, and it undermines respect for the laws in general.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
14. This clearly has nothing to do with discrimination or bigotry. It is a public health measure.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:53 PM
Nov 2013

How about food inspections, are you opposed to those? Is it wrong for the government to tell me I can't buy a piece of food because it's after the "expiration date"? What if I'm willing to roll the dice to get a lower price?

What about medical licenses. If I to get want surgery from a used car salesman, should I have that choice?

Are you in favor of legalizing all drugs? And making all pharmaceuticals available without prescriptions? Including things like global anesthetics and paralytics?

If you answered "no" to any of those questions, you might want to reconsider, and realize that this is a more nuanced issue than you give it credit for.

This is not about morality, it is about health. It's not saying that drinking big sodas makes you a bad person. It also doesn't ban drinking a lot of soda.

What it does is prevent vendors from making profit by selling harmful substances in large quantities. And, for the record, the NYC trans-fat ban is not widely ignored at all. It is widely followed, because restaurants don't want to lose their licenses. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/health/nyc-fat-ban-paying-off/

There is no reason to believe that any stores or vendors in NYC are going to ignore the big soda ban either. This isn't regulating a personal activity, it is regulating a commercial activity.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
24. How have all those things worked out?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:43 PM
Nov 2013

Food inspections? Yeah, they almost always work. And you can buy something past an expiration date, it's a self-enforced system that tries to get people to trust a product they see on a shelf with an expiration date. Sometimes they mean squat.

As for medical licenses, it's a way for the "guild" to protect itself. By using government to retain the power of the prescription pad, the doctors get to be the gods of our society. I should be able to go to any practitioner I choose, and it's my duty to educate myself about who to trust. Besides, how few doctors lose their licenses? We have tons of malpractice attorneys out there, it's all about milking the public on both sides.

As for drugs, hey, you're in my wheelhouse. I would hope that the consequences of the war on drugs would make you see that people always want to find some way to get a buzz. Remember the roaring success of Prohibition?

As for trans-fats, anyone who doesn't mind them can go to Jersey. When cigarette sales to 18-20 year olds are banned in NYC, it will just increase the traffic in them from across the bridge. I'm a lifelong nonsmoker, and I do believe the science that cigarettes are indeed bad for people, I also see the absolute folly in trying to ban them.

Gay and lesbian people fought junk science with education. Can't we do the same thing with all the things that you want a nanny state for?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
28. Wow, so you really are a full-on Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman libertarian. No regulations at all.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:48 PM
Nov 2013

Unfortunately, that doesn't work in the real world. Food inspections, medical licenses, prescription drugs, etc. are helpful and necessary government regulations.

You missed the point with your comment that people can avoid the trans fat ban by going to New Jersey. People don't actually do that, because nobody really has a burning desire to eat tons of trans fats. The result of the regulation is that New Yorkers consume less trans fats, which is a good thing. And the result of the big soda ban will be that New Yorkers will consume less sugary drinks, which is also a good thing. Yeah, people can still order five smalls if they want to, but most people won't.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
45. I'm a sugar addict who is actively working to eat better and control my addiction, but I can tell
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:19 PM
Nov 2013

you all a ban like this would make me want to do is walk down the sidewalk holding a great big huge personal cup from my house with Dr. Pepper in it. I'm so sick of people trying to make me eat better. You cannot make anyone do anything.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
53. Most people aren't sugar addicts.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:42 PM
Nov 2013

Which is why portion size affects consumption, as studies have documented over and over again. It might not affect you, but it will affect a lot of people.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
59. that's why there are different sizes. If you want a small get a small. If you want a large get a
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:47 PM
Nov 2013

large. That's what freedom to chose is all about. When I want a soda and yes I do still drink soda from time to time I get a small. That does not mean those who want a large shouldn't be able to. Personally I love the 7.5 oz Dr. Pepper cans at the grocery store. Most of the time if I want a soda that is what I get. My husband doesn't drink soda but he loves sweet tea. He doesn't drink them often but when he does he gets a large, and he should have the freedom to do that.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
64. It's not a ban on drinking, it's a ban on selling.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:58 PM
Nov 2013

It prevents restaurants, food carts, and movie theaters from making profit by selling harmful substances in large quantities. If you really want to drink 2 liters of dr pepper, nobody is stopping you.

Are you opposed to laws requiring that cars be equipped with seat belts? How about building codes? Food inspections? Are there any public health/safety measures you approve of? Does your worldview have any room at all for health and safety regulations or does "freedom" trump everything?

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
66. how much of my life do want to control? Why not let the republicans tell us who we're allowed to
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:04 PM
Nov 2013

have sex with? Don't even try to compare me to a libertarian. People have tried calling me that before for daring to criticize President Obama. I don't care if you think I'm a libertarian or not. I know who I am and I don't believe that people have the right to tell me how to eat. You cannot bully me into thinking differently. If fact, I'm done arguing with you. I'm going to get me a plate of broccoli, a couple of slices of apple and a few pieces of Halloween candy. Would you like to take my candy away too or just tax it? Well go ahead and tax it because I can tell you right now I will eat whatever the hell I want to no matter the tax, no matter the ban.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
69. Again with the preposterous analogies...
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:12 PM
Nov 2013

Drink size limits compared to regulating who you can have sex with? Really? Like I said upthread, I still haven't come across a single intelligent argument against this regulation. I'm sure it's possible to make one, but all I've seen is libertarian nonsense.

Again, nobody is forcing you to eat broccoli or not drink soda. They are just preventing people from selling harmful foods in large quantities in certain locations, based on extensive studies showing that people consume more when portions are larger. I'm sure you'll find a way to drink as much sugar as you want, if only out of spite, but most people aren't die hard Ayn Rand acolytes, and they'll end up drinking less soda and being healthier because of it.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
75. You are doing a great job on keeping the focus on the issue.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 12:25 AM
Nov 2013

The thoughtless cries of "my body, my choice" reject the science that reveals this is a public policy health issue.

Study after study has shown a clear link to portion size and over-indulgence.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
13. So, if a current theory of science
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:45 PM
Nov 2013

supports something related to human nature, it's effective to enforce it in law?

That's my point, which the "we can regulate you away from bad things" people seem to miss.

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
39. Except nothing is being banned. No choice is being removed
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:26 PM
Nov 2013

Individual portion sizes are being reduced. Drink all the soda you want. This simply reduces motivation. People CAN get another soda, or a refill. Most won't. Those who really want to, still can.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
52. It starts out that way
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:41 PM
Nov 2013

Remember when a cop just gave you a warning about seat belt use? Then it became a "secondary infraction", meant only to be tacked on to the first infraction that you were pulled over for. Then it became a primary violation by itself.

Again, I wear seatbelts religiously, and I personally believe in their effectiveness, but laws about them do little for compliance. Education is the key, and I was educated well on them back when I took driver's ed over four decades ago.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
56. That it's a normal expression of human sexuality
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:43 PM
Nov 2013

Eating too much is also an expression of a human behavior.

I'm hoping that people here can see that it's just as much folly to change human behavior and desires through legislation as it was to try to stamp out various sexual behaviors (including heterosexual ones) by outlawing them.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
58. Legislation has been effective in reducing smoking.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:46 PM
Nov 2013

I see this much closer to that than being gay. For one, smoking and drinking are choices you make. That is not the case with sexual orientation.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
25. I'm talking about human nature
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:45 PM
Nov 2013

People do what they want to do, despite the laws about those things. It really doesn't matter how many in a society think some ordinary human behavior is bad or evil, if folks want to do it, they'll find a way.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
31. Drinking soda is not human nature in the same way sexual orientation is human nature
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:58 PM
Nov 2013

People drink soda largely because it is available and marketed to them, they don't drink it because it is a part of human nature to do so.

You are right that people are going to find a way to drink soda, but I don't know what your point is because this law is not meant to prevent people from drinking soda, it is only meant to reduce the quantities that people drink. People can still get as many refills as they want even under the law, they just have to be served in a smaller cup. So yes, they will find a way to do it as you say they will because the law is not meant to stop them from doing it, there is no ban on soda there is only a regulation on the size of the cup.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
67. In my original response
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:08 PM
Nov 2013

I didn't say that "drinking sugary soda is the same thing as engaging in previously banned sexual behaviors", I tried to say that using legislation to 'cure' obesity would be as effective as trying to 'cure' homosexuality by banning certain practices and behaviors associated with gay and lesbian sexuality. As you may know, those things were banned for heterosexuals, too. Lawrence vs. Texas built upon privacy decisions first decided in Bowers vs. Hardwick, which affirmed that states did not have the right to intrude in the bedrooms of straight people.

We look foolish as a society when we partially ban anything. I've waited around many a Southern supermarket on a Sunday to buy local beer to take home with me, because it wasn't 12 noon quite yet. I was buying a legal product that I was old enough to drink, but because I really was supposed to be in church at that time, I was deprived of the opportunity to timely make my purchase and get back on the road for home. Stupid to have that law, wasn't it?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
71. You really want to dig deeper with your comparision of drinking a small soda and outlawing sex?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:23 PM
Nov 2013

I don't care if you are opposed to the large soda ban, you have every right to be opposed. Please don't think you are helping your argument any by pretending having to drink out of a smaller cup is in any way comparable to outlawing gay sex however because quite frankly you are embarrassing yourself.

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
42. Sexual orientation and drinking large soda is in no way comparable. Now you also seem to be
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 09:58 PM
Nov 2013

Saying there should be no laws since "if folks want to do they'll find a way".

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
19. Did you really just compare drinking soda to being gay?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:07 PM
Nov 2013

If there were actually a ban on obesity proposed you might have a point, but nobody has proposed banning obesity. They have proposed limiting the size of sugary beverages that can be sold at restaurants which would reduce obesity, but it does not ban obesity. To compare this to banning people from being gay is absurd, people are born gay, nobody is born with a 64 oz. cup of soda in their hand that they are required to drink in order to live a normal life.

I am not necessarily saying I support the ban, I see valid arguments both for and against it, but to compare regulating soda sizes with regulating sexual orientation is absurd.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
27. What I compared
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:48 PM
Nov 2013

was trying to use the law to coerce people into doing something that those in control think they should not do. I'm not comparing the behaviors, only the method used to control the behaviors.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
33. Sorry, serving soda in a smaller cup is nothing like banning a sexual orientation
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:05 PM
Nov 2013

No one is being stopped from drinking soda, it will just be served in smaller cups. To say that is the same thing as banning a sexual orientation is absurd.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
81. Attempting to legislate away
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:23 AM
Nov 2013

obesity is like attempting to legislate away homosexuality.

We passed all kinds of laws to stop gay and lesbian behavior, and we didn't let them marry. It didn't work, and it won't work with obesity, either. It's not that the behaviors are the same, it's the reaction to them that is the same.

Why is that basic concept so hard for folks to understand??? If I said that banning handguns was the same thing as banning heroin, I'm not saying that handguns and heroin are the same thing, just that the act of banning them both has a similarity.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
90. Banning handguns is a horrible example.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 11:40 AM
Nov 2013

In countries where handguns are banned or tightly regulated, the homicide rate is far lower than in the US.

And that's hardly the only example of government regulations improving public health and safety. The trans-fat ban in New York resulted in less consumption of trans-fats. Smoking regulations have resulted in significant reductions in smoking. Auto safety regulations have resulted in people driving safer cars. Food inspections result in a safer and more reliable food supply. The list goes on. And there is no reason to doubt that the big soda ban will result in less consumption of soda in New York.

Knee-jerk libertarians can never get past the idea that all bans or regulations are fundamentally the same, and so they reflexively insist that they will all fail and "freedom" will prevail. But the evidence is not on your side.

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
6. Good. There is no "ban"; it's a limit on portion sizzle.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:33 PM
Nov 2013

Nothing in the law prevents people from getting a refill, or ordering two sodas.

You might say, so what's the point? The point is that studies have shown that when people are offered larger portions, they consume more. Offer people smaller portions and they will consume less soda -- without actually preventing them from doing so.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
7. So how do you feel about the ban on trans-fats in NYC?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:33 PM
Nov 2013

You can still buy all the sugary drinks you want, just not in enormous sizes. How this is some infringement on "freedom" is beyond me.

Illinoischick

(35 posts)
22. how do you justify having the government tell me what I can or cannot do?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:25 PM
Nov 2013

What happened to our premise of choice? i do not want the government to tell me I can or cannot have an abortion, nor do I want them to tell me what to buy.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
23. The government does that all the time.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:37 PM
Nov 2013

It tells you who you can pay to get surgery from. It tells you how fast you can drive. It tells you what food you can buy, and what food doesn't meet health and safety standards. It tells you what kind of building you can build and where. It tells you that you can't buy a car without seatbelts. And so on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3963173

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
30. Using that argument binds you
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:56 PM
Nov 2013

to saying that all such regulation is correct. You've brow-beaten and stuffed words in the mouths of multiple people in this thread, insisting that if they object to this regulation they're lawless libertarians. Taking such an absolutist position means you support all regulation done in the name of a person's health, including all drug laws and, yes, abortion restrictions.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
32. Quite the opposite.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:02 PM
Nov 2013

My opinion is that every regulation should be considered in terms of its costs and its benefits. I still haven't heard a serious argument that the costs of the big soda ban outweigh the benefits. It's all hyperbole about "MY BODY MY CHOICE". The fact of the matter is, sugary drinks are about as unhealthy a food substance as exists, and they are consumed more when readily available in large portions. On the other hand, the costs of a ban on large sodas are minor -- if 64 oz of dr pepper is what you live for, you can still have it, just not in a single container from a restaurant, movie theater, or street vendor. Comparing not being able to sell large sodas to homophobia and abortion bans is beyond ludicrous.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
34. And I've yet to see any benefit.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:10 PM
Nov 2013

Everyone is careful to point out that you can drink as much soda as you want; that it isn't a ban. Maybe you've never seen anyone get a refill in a restaurant before, but I certainly have. This is a pointless bit of finger wagging that frankly is idiotic in a political campaign. Sidling up to the right wing stupidity Bloomberg represents does not serve him any more than this rule would serve the citizens of New York.

And assuming that anyone invoking the issue of choice is being hyperbolic is just the type of condescension that is behind the rule. The drug warriors argue the same way, that regulations are all there for the public safety and if you doubt that we might as well pack up the FDA and let you eat shit, literally. Very disingenuous. People are not talking about basic safety practices. They are talking about nebulous and seemingly arbitrary reaches into their consumer habits. Especially such a half-hearted reach, which is not so much an outrage but an eye roll and shake of the head.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
35. People consume less when it's readily available. That's the point.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:15 PM
Nov 2013

This isn't speculation, it's been studied. Portion size is important. Consumer habits are important. The fact the people still can drink the same amount of soda doesn't mean that they will. Again, if it's readily available in large portions, people consume more. Are there many (any) nutrition or public health experts that disagree with this?

I evaluate this along similar lines to the trans-fat ban that is widely seen as a good thing, except among libertarian crazies. I'd welcome an intelligent argument against it -- I personally don't think it's a big deal either way -- but all I've heard is libertarian nonsense.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
40. Drug warriors do not argue for regulation, they argue for criminalization
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:48 PM
Nov 2013

In fact quite ironically the people calling for an end to the drug war are the ones that advocate regulation of drugs, most of them want drugs regulated and distributed in a safe manner rather than through the unregulated black market. It is the drug warriors that oppose regulation of drugs as they advocate a system that makes real regulation impossible.

There are no "soda warriors" calling for anyone to be imprisoned for drinking soda, if there were then believe me, I would oppose the criminalization of soda every bit as much as I oppose the criminalization of marijuana. Regulation is not the same as criminalization however, therefore your comparision to drug warriors does not work.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
43. Oh my, how many fallacious comparisons have I SEEN here!
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:02 PM
Nov 2013

Comparing obesity to homosexuality, now comparing selling soda to being a doctor?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
26. Do you support the FDA regulating the safety of your food?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:46 PM
Nov 2013

Or would you be OK with the food you eat being contaminated with large amounts of fecal matter? I am not using hyperbole when I say this, the FDA really does regulate the amount of feces that can go into your food. Believe me there is more of a problem with fecal contamination than most people realize even with the FDA, but before the FDA it was even worse. Before the FDA you would not believe the shit, quite literally shit, that people were eating. The FDA already regulates what you eat, do you want them to stop regulating it?

By the way I am undecided on whether the restrictions on soda sizes are warranted or not, I think both sides have some compelling arguments both for and against the regulations. I just think it is important that people understand that there are already regulations in place that restrict what we eat and most people would not want to do away with those regulations.

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
91. Seeing as how (artificial) trans.fats are unnecessary and generally dangerous at any dose,
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 11:52 AM
Nov 2013

I'm fine with that. While soda, especially HFCS based, isn't exactly a health food, it also isn't actively negative in any amount at all. There's the crux of the issue for me - the former is regulating a provably harmful, useless substance; the latter is essentially trying to legislate behavior. I rarely drink the stuff so the issue is more or less irrelevant to me, but all in all I much prefer the Are You Pouring On The Pounds campaign instead of this naked nanny-state-ism.

Serious question - how about restrictions on burger patty sizes? NYC has some pretty big honkin' slabs of ground beef (ours are 10oz, which is more or less normal in the city these days) - would you be OK with legally limiting it to 4 or 6oz instead? Ain't nobody going to argue that 3/4 lb of red meat with 20% saturated fat is in any way necessary or healthy. Probably even less so than a 24 ounce soda. You can always order two, if it's your fancy. And fries, a typical pile at a restaurant here is damn near two whole potatoes worth of empty starches..

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
92. Good post. That's the first rational response I've gotten here.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 12:29 PM
Nov 2013

Unlike other examples people have brought up (like anti-gay laws), restrictions on burger patty sizes or saturated fat content are a good analogy. And no, I would not be in favor of that.

I don't fully agree with you about trans-fats. They are not poisons, they are just extremely unhealthy. They are also not useless. Fast food chains wouldn't use them if not for advantages in flavor and/or cost.

However, more important than the details is the fact that there is a continuum, from trans fat bans to big gulp bans, to big pattie bans. Where to draw the line requires weighing pros and cons. Simply yelling "freedom" or "my body" or "nanny state", as other people in this thread have done, is useless and silly, since everyone except for the most extreme Ayn Rand devotees would agree that some (in fact a lot) of government regulation is necessary in many aspects of life.

As far as soda ban versus pattie ban, the reason I'm OK with sodas is twofold. First, large sugary drinks have been singularly identified as a significant contributor to obesity and health problems, and the fact that portion size affects consumption patterns is well documented. Second, I don't believe that reducing the maximum drink portion to 16 oz is a very serious imposition on freedom or lifestyle choices.

Obviously, eating large greasy burgers is also highly unhealthy, but I would find limitations on meat portions to be a bigger lifestyle imposition. New Yorkers particularly would be up in arms, since food and dining is a very big part of NYC culture. Also, while sugary drinks are a clear culprit that is easy to isolate, regulating food would be more problematic and arbitrary IMO. For example, why meat and not pizza? Are carbs or fats the real enemy? Etc. But nobody disagrees, and the research is very persuasive, that sugary drinks are uniquely harmful.

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about, because in the end it's a judgement call. What I disagree with is the libertarian hyperbole, comparing this to anti-gay bigotry, or insisting that this is a first step towards having to report your calorie count to the government every night before bed.

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
93. I'm good with regulations of inherently harmful substances or behaviors,
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:17 PM
Nov 2013

e.g. cigarettes or trans-fats (I'm a chemist-chef; I know they're great for maintaining texture and moisture in commercial products and that they aren't outright *toxic*, but at the same time they satisfy no biological needs and are at best neutral in small amounts, unequivocally harmful in larger quantities), but I'm not so much in favor of what does amount to a behavioral restriction even if it is a easy "justifiable" target like soda - I'll cheerfully admit it's a lot easier to drink an extra 700 calories instead of chowing it down, but IMO that's something that should be fixed by educating people and getting them to adopt both better eating and living habits.

And, of course, while the vat-o-cola at Taco Bell is a fat, juicy, low-hanging apple, it's almost the least important one to be targeting:

More than one-half of sugar-drink kilocalories (52%) are consumed in the home. Of these sugar-drink kilocalories, the vast majority is purchased in stores (92%), and just over 6% is purchased in restaurants or fast-food establishments. Of the 48% consumed away from home, 43% are purchased in stores, 35.5% in restaurants or fast-food establishments, and 1.4% in schools or day-care settings. Over 20% of sugar-drink kilocalories consumed away from home are obtained in other places such as vending machines, cafeterias, street vendors, and community food programs, among others.
(CDC)

At the end of the day, ~20% of "sugar-drink kilocalories" are from restaurants. Let's say that a 16-oz limit cuts that consumption by 1/3 (which in NYC is probably a generous assumption, 80% of places offer refills) - that nets a 7% reduction in SDKcals. And now that the soda ban is in the courts, it's costing real money, an amount that would probably be as effective in reducing consumption if it were spent on education and advertising instead.

I suppose one could mandate nothing bigger than single 20oz bottles in stores...I suspect that would slash consumption levels by half or more - though I doubt you or most others would actually support that (Well...I bet somebody on here would).

Thanks for the reasoned reply, I'd much rather spend a few minutes thinking and actually writing instead of just hurling around jingoism.
 

seveneyes

(4,631 posts)
20. It exposes an ugly side of him
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:13 PM
Nov 2013

There is no valid justification for his power play and actions in this matter. It's an insult to any free thinking person. Yet another fact of life in the big city I guess. No thanks.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
47. From what I could tell, most people thought Bloomberg was an asshole for pushing it
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:27 PM
Nov 2013

I'm amazed that be Blasio (or anyone else) would want to touch it.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
62. Well, Sarah Palin certainly thought that.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:53 PM
Nov 2013

I don't know if she's representative of "most people", but then again people in NYC tend to be liberal, probably different than most people you know.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
63. I've lived in the New York area my whole life and work in Manhattan.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:57 PM
Nov 2013

I don't need Sarah Palin to tell me what New Yorkers are thinking. People were laughing at Bloomberg.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
70. DeBlasio is ahead by some 30-40 points in the polls.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:16 PM
Nov 2013

Maybe New Yorkers aren't quite as conservative as you and your group of friends...

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
99. Doesn't mean DeBlasio won't look like an ass if he pusges it
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 01:28 PM
Nov 2013

I have yet to meet one person who anything good to say about it. This is about a nanny state controlling every aspect of your life. I never thought that was a progressive value.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
100. Really? Not a single person? That's quite an insular group of right-wing buddies you've got.
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 02:03 PM
Nov 2013

I'd recommend maybe branching out and getting to know some progressives, but on the other hand, if you truly believe that regulations on soda sizes are somehow controlling "every aspect of your life," then you're really not going to have too much in common with the non-FOX-news crowd.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
101. You'd be surprised the broad spectrum of people you meet when you work in Manhattan
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 02:59 PM
Nov 2013

Lots of them are progressive and they didn't want Michael Bloomberg telling them how much soda they can have. The consensus was that Bloomberg was a jerk for pushing it. Many, in fact, were calling him the "Soda Jerk" over it. IIRC, some of the local papers even picked up the Soda Jerk theme.

DeBlasio will in all likelyhood win, but he'd be pretty stupid to read that a mandate to limit soda sizes.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
102. Umm... I live in Manhattan. I know just how broad the spectrum of people here is.
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 04:41 PM
Nov 2013

In fact, the only thing I haven't come across is a person so insulated from the diversity here here that they (claim to) never have met anyone who disagrees with Sarah Palin about NYC's public health measures. People here, while generally progressive, have varied views about a lot of Bloomberg's policies, from bike lanes to stop and frisk to education and so on. The soda ban is no exception. Some people support it, others oppose it.

Oh, and the paper that called him "Soda Jerk" was the NY Post. Gee, what a shock that that's your local paper of choice...

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
72. so being liberal means you get to tell people what they are allowed to eat huh? What's next?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:31 PM
Nov 2013

Will we ban meat? Make everyone become vegetarian because that is what is healthy and because that is what is best for them? Controlling people's lives is what the republicans do. Why don't you leave that to them? You are going on ignore. bye bye.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
73. NYC banned trans-fats in restaurants. How do you feel about that?
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:36 PM
Nov 2013

And the government already tells stores and restaurants what they are allowed to sell as food. Are you opposed to food and health inspections? Where does the libertarian looniness end?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
88. Umm... I live in Manhattan.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 07:33 AM
Nov 2013

NYC is generally a very progressive city, but it's also a very diverse city in all regards, which is why you'll also find plenty of right-wingers like badtoworse here.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
51. Good! Obesity is an epidemic, like tobacco use. I say go for it.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:39 PM
Nov 2013

Go until the courts make you stop.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
79. even with all the shaming, and taxes my father in law smoked for years. Right up until he had
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:04 AM
Nov 2013

a quadruple bypass. Now he has quit. People will quit when they are ready to quit. Those of us who are addicted to sugar and are overweight will also quit when we are ready. Nothing health nuts try to make us do will work. We will get healthy when we are ready to get healthy. It's just a way for health nuts to feel good about themselves and feel superior to others. Well do whatever feels good but in reality you're not really accomplishing what you think you are accomplishing.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
89. Anecdotes notwithstanding, smoking and smoking related deaths have decreased.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:15 AM
Nov 2013

And that is a good thing, and it is due to policy changes.

This isn't even a ban on sodas. It is just a restriction on how much you can buy at one time. If someone wishes to, they can still drink as much as they want. But, this restriction on size will help overall.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
54. Not the smartest thing to say this close to the election.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:42 PM
Nov 2013

People like big drinks. The reality is that getting rid of the "sugary" drinks also gets rid of the giant "diet" drinks that are favored by a large segment of the population--they aren't going to keep a set of Big Gulp cups around just for the diet soda.

There are bigger fish to fry. This is a stupid windmill to tilt at, IMO.

 

Vashta Nerada

(3,922 posts)
61. Ok. So they ban anything larger than 16 ounces.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:50 PM
Nov 2013

So what would stop people from getting refills on those beverages?

BTW, if they want to fight obesity, why don't they just attack HFCS and ban that?

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
95. Nothing stops them from getting refills, that's not the point
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:40 PM
Nov 2013

The government isn't trying to stop people from consuming soda, in any amounts. What they're trying to do is make it SLIGHTLY less convenient to consume large amounts of soda, because studies show that many people won't make that second trip for a refill, but would drink all of the soda they bought initially.

It's the same logic behind passing out condoms on college campuses. Yes, students COULD buy their own, but often they don't. So if you make it super convenient for them to get condoms by passing them out on the way to class, they will be more likely to use them.

 

Vashta Nerada

(3,922 posts)
96. False equivalency.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 03:16 PM
Nov 2013

I don't see how passing out condoms (which prevent STDs and pregnancy) can be the same as banning large sodas, which make our asses a little fatter.

Going on a crusade to ban large soft drinks is silly and pointless.

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
97. STD treatments and diabetes treatments both use resources that could be used for something else
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 03:21 PM
Nov 2013

Making it a little less convenient to drink large amount of sodas in one sitting reduces diabetes just like passing out condoms reduces STDs and pregnancy.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
76. I'm sorry, but I don't need you to help me live a healthier life.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 12:30 AM
Nov 2013

This is my battle. No one can fight my addiction but me. Making drugs illegal hasn't stopped people from being addicted to drugs. Banning 16 oz sodas will do nothing to prevent people from becoming addicted to sugar.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
82. Nope. You still get to own your own addiction. You can still buy a two liter
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:42 AM
Nov 2013

bottle and suck it down whenever you want.

So, no. Nobody is going to help or force you live a healthier life.

What the ban does is reduce intake in those who would be quite satisfied with a smaller drink if there wasn't the inducement to upsize their choice of beverage.

It is based on sound scientific studies that have been replicated over and over and over again.

People WILL supersize their drink for 25 cents more. If the option isn't available, the vast majority of people will consume a reasonable sized drink and that will be that... no going back for seconds or refills.

Nobody is stopping you from doing so.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
77. What a bozo
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 12:51 AM
Nov 2013

So this is really important is it.
Beer will make you fatter, so why not get rid of beer, or only allow people to buy 2 at a time. Are these people for real. This is so important somehow. One would think he would ban booze from public events, now that would be important.

Skip Intro

(19,768 posts)
80. "More aggressive." What if the ban on large drinks fails to reduce
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:11 AM
Nov 2013

obesity rates? What's the next, slightly (?) more aggressive action he will take?

What other personal decisions does he want the government to make for the individual's own good?

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
83. I hope he also combines the initiative with public health campaigns along the lines
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:58 AM
Nov 2013

of drunk driving and cigarette smoking. Both have been curtailed with regulation and public awareness.

I used to be able to smoke in airplanes, airports, bus and train stations, elevators, restaurants, bars, city parks, my work place... nearly everywhere.

Now I am restricted to the curb.

I don't mind. Smoking is, after all, a public health issue.

There is solid science behind portion control. Large plates filled to the brim and most people will eat until they pop. Smaller plates with reasonable portions and most people will eat until they are satisfied.

Offer people the opportunity to supersize for 25 cents more and many will take it. Remove that option and most people will be satisfied with the one serving and not go back for more.


Skip Intro

(19,768 posts)
85. Let me ask you -
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 02:14 AM
Nov 2013

would you have a "government approval button" in your home, or car or workplace, that you could press throughout the day that would tell you what you should or shouldn't be doing at any given moment?

Do you want to have to ask the government for permission on every personal decision?

On what size drink you can have?

That is at once scarily intrusive and hugely insulting. How dare these people that work for me have the audacity to assume I'm too stupid to make my own decisions?

Personally, I don't need the government telling me when I've had enough Pepsi.

Btw, smoking is illegal in many public places because second-hand smoke presents a danger to others.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
86. The government is not restricting how much soda you can drink..
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 02:20 AM
Nov 2013

you can drink to your hearts content.

They are restricting available portion sizes in specific venues. They are restricting the size because SCIENTIFIC evidence shows that doing so reduces consumption because SCIENTIFIC evidence shows that most people are satisfied with the smaller portion when not induced to take in more.

There is nothing stopping you from getting refills or going for seconds.

Nothing.

More likely than not, 2nd hand smoke is a detrimental to health. So are power plants and automobiles. I live on a busy street in San Francisco. Our front window sills are filled with black grit in a matter of days even when we haven't opened the windows. Our back windows, on the other hand, which face nothing but gardens, are grit free and collect nothing but dust.

So, we are breathing in all that grit but I don't see anyone clamoring to restrict traffic from public places.

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
94. SCIENTIFIC evidence also shows that restaurant soda consumption isn't the problem.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:21 PM
Nov 2013
More than one-half of sugar-drink kilocalories (52%) are consumed in the home. Of these sugar-drink kilocalories, the vast majority is purchased in stores (92%), and just over 6% is purchased in restaurants or fast-food establishments. Of the 48% consumed away from home, 43% are purchased in stores, 35.5% in restaurants or fast-food establishments, and 1.4% in schools or day-care settings. Over 20% of sugar-drink kilocalories consumed away from home are obtained in other places such as vending machines, cafeterias, street vendors, and community food programs, among others.

(CDC)

At the end of the day, ~20% of "sugar-drink kilocalories" are from restaurants. Let's say that a 16-oz limit cuts that consumption by 1/3 (which in NYC is probably a generous assumption, 80% of places offer refills) - that nets a 7% reduction in SDKcals. I bet spending the money it's going to take to ram this through the courts (if it can be done) would make a bigger dent if it were poured into (no pun intended) programs like this.

Or just ban anything larger than a single 200z bottle, stores included.

David__77

(23,220 posts)
84. There are other ways this could be tackled.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 02:12 AM
Nov 2013

Food with poor nutritional value or unhealthful qualities is cheaper than comparable food that is not. Just as government establishes subsides for energy efficiency, it could do so for healthy food.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
87. thank you for saying that in the right order. Most people want to tax unhealthy food to discourage
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 02:23 AM
Nov 2013

people from eating unhealthy food. All this does is make sure poor people can't afford any food at all. Creating subsidies for healthy food would be much better.

Arcanetrance

(2,670 posts)
98. On a personal level I'm all for trying to get people to drink 16oz of soda or less with a meal
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 04:57 PM
Nov 2013

But that being said I don't see it working. To really see a change in the obesity level is gonna take action above limiting soda consumption at at food places and such. There needs to be education maybe n the form of a real nutrition class for kids offered in schools

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bill de Blasio vows to ma...