Large sodas are officially banned in New York City now. What the heck is wrong with people?

[Cybercat]

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:46 PM - Edit history (4)

Well, this law was signed by a Republican (or excuse me, an "indepednent&quot , but still there should be more resistance from liberals over this since we're the ones getting tagged as responsible for this stupidity. I can't believe that anyone that fights for the right of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body would also support illegalizing the sale of soda cups larger than 16 oz. What's next, illegalizing ordering bacon on your cheese burger? Donuts can no longer be sold in a dozen? Maybe they can illegalize "harmful" pizza as well.

We need some coherence as a party and political movement here. If we're going to be for marijuana and abortion, we sure as hell should be for junk food since telling someone not to consume it is a violation of your civil liberties in regard to doing what you want with your own body. I think it would be good for the party if it were Democrats to get rid of such a moronic law that feeds directly into the conservatards' narratives on us. That way people can begin to see the truth, that the conservatives are the ones that are trying to run everyone else's lives for them.

Edit: I removed two words from the thread title. I have no idea why anyone would find that offensive, but I removed it because people are using it to distract from the point of this thread.

[Drale]

1. Actually the law does not go into effect for 6 months

thats 6 months for lawsuits and judges to take a look at the law and possible overturn it.

[Mr.Turnip]

2. Bloomberg thinks he is the greatest Nanny in the world.

Making the city look like a fucking joke all the time.

And of course the entire board votes yes since BLOOMBERG AND HIS CRONIES GET TO APPOINT ALL OF THEM.

[otohara]

70. Health Costs

For obese .... Staggering.
Sugar is the main cause ... Sodas are toxic garbage.
No need for gigantic drinks that contain 54 grams of sugar.

Drink your self sick

[CreekDog]

96. NYC doesn't look like a joke --relax, it's one rule that isn't the end of the world

i'm not in favor of the rule, but i refuse to get in a panic over it.

there are lots of rules about what can be served and what can't, there are regulations for safety and health reasons, and this may seem to push it, but it is not the end of the world.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I'm not a Libertarian.

[Mr.Turnip]

4. Nether am I but I don't want the fucking city telling me what i can and can't drink at certain place

And yeah, I buy large soda's when I go the movies I get thirsty. Is it unhealthy? Yes? Am I only doing it once in a rare while? Also yes.

Its the Government's place to educate people about healthy eating not to command it.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Ever here of smoking bans? Many here support those as a way to make people

live healthier lives.

[Mr.Turnip]

9. Of course iv heard of Smoking bans, we have a ton of smoking regulation in New York.

I personally oppose most of it.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. All I'm saying is smoking bans have withstood challenges in the courts. It has been

determined that the government (city, state, or federal) can have ban things in the interest of public health.

[Drale]

11. Smoking effects the people around you

drinking large soda's only effects you. Its completely different.

[RKP5637]

79. Exactly! Somehow this ban rubs me the wrong way. I do have this notion of

personal responsibility and the more gov. steps in and assumes that role the more irresponsible a society will become. At least the way I think about this ...

[NYC Liberal]

133. Airbags only affect you. Helmets only affect you.

The government has obligation to promote the public welfare.

[Drale]

139. I would disagree

If you are in an accident and and you are killed because you were not wearing a seating belt or a helmet that effects the other people in the accident as well. Even if you were 100% at fault in the accident, those people still have to live with the fact that they were involved in your death. The only way large sugary drinks effect you when your not drinking them is the fact that some people can not control themselves and are unhealthy therefore your insurance rates are higher.

[NYC Liberal]

142. That's really stretching.

"those people still have to live with the fact that they were involved in your death"

By that logic, people serving you huge sodas have to live with the fact that they're contributing to health problems from consuming large amounts of sugar and other unhealthy ingredients.

Look, if you want to buy two smaller sizes then you are free to do so and consume just as much. It's a deterrent that will effectively stop a lot of people from consuming more soda and sugar than they otherwise would when offered larger portions. Studies have shown that humans are very bad at regulating how much they consume. If people are presented with larger portions, they will consume more.

[Cybercat]

12. Smoking bans are about second hand smoke!

Have you ever had to second hand drink someone else's Pepsi?

[RoccoR5955]

28. Yes.

I can taste it from the carbon dioxide bubbles it spews. And I'm allergic!
They should ban colas in public period!
They're so unhealthy.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

31. Outdoor bans in public areas are ridiculous though

Anyone walking around NYC concerned about breathing in something harmful only has a fleeting whiff of diluted cigarette smoke high on the agenda if they have have... issues. Best for them to avoid large towns and cities entirely.

With that said, I would have no problem with a broad anti-litter push to get rid of butts in public areas. Not hard to carry a little ashtray for butts until you're able to can them.

I'm also cool with indoor smoking bans for the most part; I'd just have exceptions for specific smoking lounges and drinking bars if they're able to provide a separate, fully ventilated area.

Now, as for the soft drink shenanigans, it's really quite odd. If you want to focus on public health, there are many worse offenders. You could tighten the reigns on the materials that usually pass as 'meat' for starters.

[KansDem]

53. Yes...

I've had them thrown in my face when I was dating, but I generally assign those events to the category of "less than satisfactory" dates.

[jumptheshadow]

137. No, but I've had to pay taxes for the health bills

We are talking about making it a tad difficult to buy larger sizes that didn't exist years ago and that were marketed and promoted into our consciousness. What scares the industry is that, once consumers get used to the new standards, it's going to roll back decades of advertising.

[fugop]

13. Smoking bans are quite different

Secondhand smoke is an issue for those who don't want inhale right along with the smokers. You don't have secondhand soda.

[RoccoR5955]

29. Yes you do.

See my post above.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

117. No, many support them because they worry about their own lungs

If someone wants to smoke, it's their business, as long as they stay away from others.

How does someone drinking a 20 OZ soda affect other people's health?

[progressivebydesign]

15. I'm tired of paying extra insurance and taxes for people who aren't smart enuff to make good choices

There is a reason why our Country is suffering from millions of food-related diseases every year. Obesity in itself isn't always dangerous, but the accompanying diseases are. Back when the majority of Americans were fit and healthy, sodas were 8 oz, period. Burgers were McDonald's classic burger size. We went out to eat MAYBE once a week, if we were lucky. Now? People drink thinks called "big gulps" at 64 oz, and hundreds of calories, and they get sick Diabetes is skyrocketing, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. Sadly, just like the smoking laws, this stuff affects everyone, not just the person who lacks enough sense to not drink 64 ounces of sugar water, or smoke 2 packs a day.

The industry won't make the changes, in fact they continue marketing super sized foods.. even knowing that a growing majority of kids are now suffering from obesity and diseases that you would never see in a child in the past. And people keep making bad choices, regardless of the information out there. And the taxpayers and the insured end up paying for their FULLY preventable health crises.

[Iwasthere]

86. AGREE 100%

Stop the madness. Sooooo many deseases and cancers, most can be trached to fast foods and excessive sugar. Sugar is dealy, along with artificial sweetners (most). FDA does NOT have our best interest in mind, greed! Doctors are owned, and most will not discourage sugar (what happen to integrety in med profession?), in cancer wards they give out candy!!! and chocolates to fatten patients up on chemo, WTF! I know this as my sis and bro have cancer.

[a geek named Bob]

87. Sorry to hear about your sister and brther having cancer

I hope they get better soon.

[Iwasthere]

89. tHANK YOU

I have seen soooo much (cancer). decades ago when they started the low fat craze, this is when it began. Processed foods and Monsanto, imo this IS what is killing us. I can't even shop at Whole foods anymore since they let Monsanto in I am boycotting them). And I feel it is by design (I know that sounds crazy). Our bodies need fat, just need the right kind. If what you're eating has more than a couple ingredients on it then don't eat it.

[a geek named Bob]

90. My wife and I grow a fair bit of our own food

and make our own bread.

We shop at farmer's markets. Better food, lower cost, fewer pesticides.

Given my hobbies (rocketry and high voltage experiments), I'm jittery on the subject of cancer.

[Silent3]

98. Cancer has been around a long, long time

It's not like people were cancer-free until Pepsi and Pop-Tarts and Nacho Cheese Doritos were invented.

There are indeed unhealthy things is our food and our environment, things that weren't there in the past, but by and large we mostly have more recorded cancer deaths these days because we diagnose it more frequently when it occurs, and we increase our odds of developing cancer simply by living longer.

[Kali]

95. nice right wing talking points

hope you are perfect and never have anything go wrong in your life that assholes can blame on YOUR POOR CHOICES.

paying taxes that help everybody, including those not as perfect (or lucky) as ourselves is good citizenship, whining about taxes is...well, you know

[mgcgulfcoast]

20. i agree with you

[fishwax]

5. "you people"

"I can't believe that anyone that fights for the right of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body ..."

I think it's a stupid law, but that is a ridiculous comparison.

One involves potentially forcing a woman to carry a child to term, putting her physical, emotional, and financial health at risk, under penalty of law.

The other requires a person wanting more than 16 ounces of soda to make an extra trip to the concession stand, under penalty of thirst.

[Cybercat]

14. The comparsion has a point.

It's a slippery slope. That's the entire point. And if you can't uphold the logic used to rightfully defend things like the right to choose in other circumstances, you're at great risk of losing that right as well.

[a geek named Bob]

40. Slipper slope???

You actually are going to overtly name your fallacy...a slippery slope???

[Cybercat]

43. Taking away to right to eat junk food is a slippery slope in regards to other rights you may hold...

more important. If you think that's something to laugh at, I feel sorry for you.

[a geek named Bob]

44. Then we are even

as I pity your inability to show a sense of proportion...

and your meager attempts to troll.

So far, your argument - to be polite - is laughable.

[Cybercat]

51. OK

So you posting smilies to mock someone gives you a moral authority to act like a jerk? If you think an opinion like this is "trolling" go ask random people what they think about politicians telling them how much soda they can drink. Those are the people that are going to determine what party is elected into power.

[a geek named Bob]

69. actually...

I think that you are acting like a jerk, and a troll.

There are a LOT of issues with more importance than your propped up issue of freedom for big gulps.

Big gulps aren't the issue that will decide this election. If you actually think that's the make or break issue, then may I tactfully suggest that you attend a civics class, and perhaps make a point to get in touch with reality.

[Cybercat]

76. In psychology, they call what you're doing projection.

I'm allowed to make a subject about any issue I wish. You are complaining that making a post about food choices being restricted is not important, but yet you keep replying again and again on this issue. The fact you feel so strongly about the issue to keep replying and spending time on it shows you're the one who cares a lot about it.

And nope, I'm not going to stoop to your level by calling names. Using this tactic means you lost this mini-debate. All you can do is use strawmen and insults. You have no actual substance.

[a geek named Bob]

80. Actually...

you've already attempted to call names. I'm just calling you on it.

Your knowledge of pop-psychology terms is almost impressive.

You are allowed to bring up issues. I'm allowed to point out when they are silly. (Then, I'm allowed to make fun of you...)

I care a lot about winning this election. I care a lot about not having democrats linked in people's minds with tea-hatter-ry such as your facade presents.

Compared to reproductive choice, a cleaner environment, and saving the economy...big gulps don't even enter the room.


And remember, YOU were the one to raise the clarion call to save the big gulp...

[Cybercat]

83. The basis of your argument has been hyperbole, straw men, insluts, hypocrisy, etc.

Nice try. I'm not replying to you anymore. You're also not going to convince anyone of anything with that terrible attitude.

[a geek named Bob]

85. is that a promise?

and...

Insluts?

As to convincing you of anything... not my purpose on this thread. Instead, I'm laughing at someone I consider worthy of a tin foil hat.

[fishwax]

49. taking away the right to eat junk food? What does that have to do with the NYC law?

People still have the right to eat junk food. And they still have the right to drink as much soda as their bladder can handle.

[MADem]

119. No one is "taking away to (sic) right to eat junk food" though. You just have to buy it in smaller

quantities.

[fishwax]

48. I understand it has a point. But it is ineffective because it is ridiculous.

It trivializes the issue of reproductive freedom and demeans your argument against the soda law. The two situations aren't similar in terms of stakes or in terms of the philosophies behind them. Or with respect to what the "right to choose" even means. (One is an issue of bodily integrity, while the other is not.)

[HockeyMom]

6. Bring you own container

They allow refills don't they? Just fill up your larger size container. I see people all the time bring their own coffee containers. So people will now bring their own (larger) containers for soda. These stores are then not selling large CUPS of soda.

Stupid law which people will find ways to get around it.

[Mr.Turnip]

8. Many places in New York do not have free refills.

But of course businesses and people are going to find ways around this.

[progressivebydesign]

16. health laws do not permit bringing your own container. And man, if someone is that desperate...

I think they need to see a nutritionist, a shrink, or a doctor.

[progressivebydesign]

17. "You people????" really? Nice way to make your DU debut. n/t

[Cybercat]

21. The you people...

in the title refers to NYC residents. Why would you allow something this ridiculous to be passed? It gets the point across. I'm not censoring two non-offensive, non-derogatory words?

[no_hypocrisy]

18. My guess would be that "all the 'good ones' were already taken.

Under Giuliani, "quality of life" ordinances were enforced strictly. Jaywalking, drinking beer in public, offering to clean a windshield to drivers caught in traffic, littering, etc.

So when Bloomberg became mayor almost 11 years ago, he started with a smoking ban for indoor venues (clubs, stores, restaurants) and moved onto smoking outside (parks, sidewalks, beaches). Then he went for mandatory calorie tables at fastfood restaurants. And now, well, you know . . . Passing laws that deal with personal responsibility makes an executive look like he's doing something and they usually argue that they're protecting not only the public but the potential perpetrator (excuse the alliteration).

[CTyankee]

19. The sodas are NOT banned, folks! Please get this straight.

It's the large size containers. You can buy all the soda you want in smaller portions.

THAT IS ALL.

Stop being whiny babies...there are REAL civil liberties problems to work on. Get busy with them...
a lousy container of sugary water is the LEAST of our problems...

[Cybercat]

23. It's still a civil liberty...

Supporting one and not the other is hypocrisy. It also makes the Republicans look like they're the ones that care about civil freedoms to do what you want when they really don't. It's utterly ridiculous.

[Indpndnt]

41. Buying a large soda is a civil liberty? n/t

[Cybercat]

45. So...

Not being able to choose what your diet is or what food you can purchase in a free market as a product is not a right in a free society? Do you know how the average person would react to being told that a politician should be allowed to dictate what they can eat? Are you serious?

[Indpndnt]

46. You can still buy a soda. The size of that purchase in one container is not a civil liberty. n/t

[Cybercat]

50. This is going to get overturned at some point..

I just can't see how this can be constitutional. Like I said what are you going to say when they take this one step further. "You have a right to buy a cheeseburger, just not a double cheeseburger. Buy an extra patty and make it yourself." If Democrats start making arguments like this, the middle is going to abandon us in droves.

[Indpndnt]

55. Democrats? Or Bloomberg, the ex-republican? There is a huge difference.

Your argument is more than a bit ridiculous. So you should be able to order anything you want? Will you demand your civil liberties if you can't have a quadruple cheeseburger even if the restaurant doesn't make such a thing? No one is saying you can't saturate yourself with soda. Go for it.

Be an entrepreneur and manufacture 19.5 oz. cups for NYC. You'll get rich.

[Cybercat]

56. Yes they are!

There's a difference between a business choosing not to sell a double cheeseburger and the government telling them double cheeseburgers are illegal. That's what we're talking about.

It doesn't matter if Blooomberg is an Independent (he used to be a Democrat as well), because the middle tags this is a "liberal" idea and then it's used to bash us. It's reinforced by people like you that support those arguments.

[Indpndnt]

58. I think the law is ridiculous, but it's not violating anyone's civil rights.

You can still buy all the soda you want. There are no limits on your soda buying. But nothing anyone says is going to deter you, so I'm done. Have fun.

[Cybercat]

59. "There are no limits on your soda buying."

That's exactly what this is about. A law put in place that limits soda buying. I think you lost the argument right there if that's your stance.

[a geek named Bob]

71. and your argument is silly...

Big gulps are more important than
-money in politics?
-stolen elections?
-right wing domestic terror groups?
-restrictions on women's right to reproductive choice?

Cybercat, get a grip, and contact the mothership...

[Cybercat]

74. A geek named Bob can only make straw man arguments becuase he's not good at debating.

I never said anything even closely approaching that. My reasoning is fine. Small things and very incoherent messages by liberals matter. Every thread here doesn't have to be about the things you have listed. If you don't think this kind of thing makes liberals look bad, you have never been to Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa. You're next counter to that will be "don't go to NYC," but this incoherence in the message stretches well beyond New York. Although, I seriously doubt that the average NYC citizen actually supports this law at all.

[a geek named Bob]

75. sigh...

and cybercat fails to realize the idea of price/reward regarding political issues. If the people of NYC want, they can easily overturn the ban.

personally, I think your attempts to link liberals to silly issues makes YOU look bad.

Get a grip.

Us liberals have issues with a lot more riding on them, then your addiction to sugar water.

Seriously... restrictions on size of bought sugary drinks will be the thing that gets Romney elected? Get thee to a civics class! Finish school... you might learn something

(eyeroll)

[Cybercat]

81. I have more education than you most likely.

Again with the insults and straw men. I didn't say this would be an important issue in the presidential race. The forum is called Politics 2012. It's a political issue in 2012. Get over it. If someone should take a class, you need to take one on debating.

And I'm a liberal, but some self-criticism is important for any healthy political party. This entire "liberals are against food that tastes good" argument is something conservatards effectively use to beat us over the head with because it turns off the average Joe. We shouldn't give them more fuel by supporting stupid laws like this that shouldn't even logically fit in with the rest of our orthodoxy.

[a geek named Bob]

84. (eyeroll)

you heavily implied that this is the important issue.

Sugar water is a political issue?

Our orthodoxy?

combining those two statements, with your slippery slop and false equivalence...

shows you're not much of a political thinker...

As to your comments about "having more education than you" maybe so, maybe not.

Obviously logical fallacies and cheap rhetorical tricks were part of your education...

Go look up Civics on the interwebz...

You're the best laugh I've had all day!

[a geek named Bob]

91. So you are admitting that you aren't here to have an actual conversation. Interesting...

You really could learn a few things, from completing school...

"Put down the big gulp, and come out with your hands up..."

[jumptheshadow]

136. ROFL

"Don't go to NYC?"

Why, Cybercat, where are you posting from?

NYC is one of the biggest tourist draws on the planet. We have spectacular views, historically significant landmarks, beautiful architecture, entertainment, sports, arts, great restaurants, great parks...

You can eat confidently in most of our restaurants because the Health Department does regular inspections and grades them. You don't have to enjoy your dinner in a cloud of smoke because there are rules against that. You can bicycle around greater swaths of the city because the City is recognizing its role in the environment and you can walk or sit in more areas of the city because it is tipping the scales back towards pedestrians.

Has this kept people from Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa from the City? No, they have been coming here in droves, and many of their children are moving here, to one of the creative capitols of the world. This town is run by people, mostly liberals, but of all political stripes, who know how to attract visitors.

Those imaginary people from Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa you talk about who would turn down a trip to NY because they can't get a Big Gulp sound apocryphal to me.

[a geek named Bob]

42. I agree with you that your argument is ridiculous

for using false equivalence...

[CTyankee]

62. Cybercat, there is such a thing as a scale of priorities. I just don't think it is wise of us to

equate a woman's right to choose or the right to vote with the "right" to buy a large size container of soda. In fact, it is silly. This is not the hill we want to fight and die on...it really isn't...

[Cybercat]

64. The small stuff matters.

You could say the same thing about censorship laws. "It's only videogames that are being banned, not novels or newspapers." It can all snowball into bigger things. And it all makes liberals look bad if they support such laws. Having this conversation is important, because sometimes the hypocrisy needs to be pointed out so it gives us a better overall message that can't be deconstructed by the opposition. If the Daily Show can lampoon this law, it should be fair game here.

[Silent3]

25. It's still a pretty stupid law

Smoking bans are one things. Smoking effects people other than the smoker. But if I want to buy a 20. oz Diet Coke (like I just had with my lunch), who's business is that other than mind?

Why should I have to buy two separate drinks to get 20 oz., awkwardly have to carry two containers, pay more for those two than I'd pay for one 20 oz., and produce more plastic and paper waste in the process?

[RoccoR5955]

32. But I can smell it.

And I'm allergic!

[CTyankee]

65. An argument can and has been made that since drinking soda is linked with obesity, and

obesity causes life threatening illness and disease such as diabetes, there is a huge cost in terms of public health and the cost of these illnesses to society.

Besides, laws prohibiting smoking have yielded very desirable results: lower incidences of lung diseases, including cancer, and early death. 40 years ago lots more people smoked than they do today and we are healthier. I know. I quit smoking at that time and never smoked again. Today, I am eternally grateful for all that helped keep my from cigarettes.

[Cybercat]

67. You have poor will power.

I chose not to smoke. I've tried it many times, but I don't do it anymore. That was my personal decision. The government had nothing to do with. Government's place is to protect the rights of others. It's not to protect people from their selves. You could use your reasoning for anything. "Knives can be used to kill people, so let's illegalize them." Personally, I don't see a spoon only society as being beneficial. People should be allowed to fuck up. I think healthcare is a universal right, but being forced to be a vegan that only shops at the farmer's market that now exists in place of the McDonald's that was illegalized is not a free society. I think we already went through this process with the abolition of alcohol. We should learn certain things from that. The right of people that enjoy a drink once in a while out weighs the idea that alcoholics should be protected from their selves.

[CTyankee]

72. well, I chose not to smoke, too. But it was after many "tries" to quit and after it became

quite clear that smoking was odious to society and bad for your health. Smokers, once considered beautiful and sophisticated, became objects of pity, shame and even disgusting. It was all mixed together. I'm glad for the laws and glad for the societal change. I think the Mayor is trying to do the same thing with soda consumption.

Your comparison with Abolition is quite wrong. Abolition is not the same thing as the regulation of a soda size. I can drink alcohol but I don't think I can drive in my state with an open bottle of booze in my cupholder. It is illegal for me to drive with a certain level of alcohol in my bloodstream (my "container" as it were!). I can listen to music on my radio but I can't blare my car stereo to earsplitting decibels with my windows down. I can smoke in my home but not on the bus or on an airplane.

There are first amendment regulations with regard to time, place and manner that even the ACLU would not quarrel with.

[Silent3]

94. Many things are "linked"

It becomes way too much of a nanny state when mere casual linkages become grounds for denying personal freedoms, no matter what the possible benefits to those being nannied.

Using your kind of logic, puritanical sex laws could be justified on the basis of lowering the health care costs of treating sexually transmitted diseases. I'm sure that after passing such laws there'd be plenty of people telling stories about how their lives became better because the law saved them from their wicked ways.

[CTyankee]

100. your analogy doesn't work very well. Presenting kids with accurate medical information about

sexuality has been proven to work while puritanical sex laws which promote ignorance don't (I worked for Planned Parenthood of CT for many years so I do know what I am talking about).

The smoking bans were only part of my story of quitting smoking, as I said. Overall, in my case and in others, there was a combination of public health education and restrictions on smoking. I didn't like my yellowing teeth and my nicotine smelling hair and clothes. All of it together helped me.

[Silent3]

147. The analogy wasn't about parallels in efficacy

Intrusion on personal liberty doesn't become more acceptable simply because you think an intrusion does the person who is intruded upon enough supposed good to somehow justify getting your nose up in their personal business.

[CTyankee]

148. well, that's your opinion and you are free to advocate your heart out for large

containers of sugar water. I will take the advice of my wise mother who told me to "pick your battles."

[Silent3]

158. I'd advocating *against* excessive imposed nannying.

Not *for* any particular thing that some people may do, wisely or not, given reasonable personal freedoms.

[CTyankee]

159. The whole point to "pick your battles" is that you simply must put your energy into

what you cherish the most. I think more energy into women's reproductive freedom is "more bang for the buck." While I get you slippery slope argument in general, in practice I don't see myself dying on that hill of battle. Just my 2 cents here...

[RainbowUnicorn]

160. So let me get this...

You're basically admitting that Silent3 is right, but she/he is wrong because they're not talking about abortion? Am I missing something here? What happened to the ability to have opinions on the laws that are passed in our country?

[CTyankee]

161. No, I'm just saying I rank my priorities and act accordingly. People may differ on their

rankings, but I have mine. I would not accuse Silent3 of any such thing.

[Silent3]

167. Who's engaged in battle?

I'm stating my opinion of this kind of law. I'm not marching in the streets of New York. Nor am I making a slippery slope argument. I consider this law too intrusive as is, without any need for extrapolating greater intrusions.

[CTyankee]

168. I am not going to argue with you on this further. I respect your point.

Good luck!

[CTyankee]

169. I understand that. My point is that I reserve my energy for battles I am

intensively engaged in, not ones that interest me marginally or not at all. Sorry, my priorities...

[LiveNudePolitics]

97. exactly, talk about distractions!

No one can stop me from guzzling all the soda pop I want, but I can be prevented from getting contraception, abortion services, and equal pay. Oh, and even the sacred chance to cast our votes in some jeopardy in certain areas in the country.

[a geek named Bob]

99. LiveNudePolitics...

There's always somebody that crops up with this kind of "distraction"

When there's a chance of a Democratic wave.

I'll pin this sugary distraction attempt on Rove.

[LiveNudePolitics]

155. why not?

Can't stain his Character any blacker than all the visibly heinous doin's he's up to!

[a geek named Bob]

157. never thought I'd say this...

Rove makes Nixon look like a paragon of virtue and statesmanship.

[maxsolomon]

22. Get past 15 posts before you try and troll DU

This is not where the line in the sand for civil liberties gets drawn. Enjoy your stay.

[Cybercat]

24. I'm not a troll.

If you don't think people with my opinions matter, forget about every electing a president or voting majority again. If such a law was introduced at the federal level, it would be hell for Democrats.

[maxsolomon]

27. Then alert on my post and lets see

I think your opinion is minutae. If you don't like NYC's large soda ban, DON'T LIVE THERE.

[Cybercat]

33. Accusing people with vaild opinions of trolling is in itself trolling.

Removed "you people" from the title. The fact that anyone find that offensive is a bit laughable, but I did it anyways because I have a point and I don't want people launching straw-man arguments at me.

What NYC does has consequences for the party as whole. When Republicans in a certain state introduce idiotic laws do we make an argument that "you shouldn't live there." This kind of stuff does nothing to help anyone and gives people like Rush plenty of fodder to make us look stupid.

[MADem]

38. Queen Ann used "you people" when complaining to Robin Roberts -- who looked like she'd been BURNED

at the term.

"You people" is what racist white folks say to folks of other ethnicities. "You people" is what the wealthy say to the poor.

It's not a cool phrase.

[Cybercat]

47. They're just words.

Jesus Christ, stop being so easily offended. There is no possible way you could construe this thread as having anything to do with race. "You" and "people" have absolutely no connection to anything racial. Please consider context for Christ's sake.

Anyways, I removed it, which I really shouldn't have, so you can get off it already. There's a point where political correctness becomes as stupid as banning large sodas.

[fishwax]

54. Dude. MADem is simply trying to explain to you why it's unwise to use the phrase as you did here.

I doubt anyone on this thread is particularly offended at the word. But based on how it's been used in the past, it has a tendency to rub people wrong or to give the impression that the poster using it does not consider himself or herself to be "one of us" (DUers, liberals, etc.). The word has connotations in this forum that you, as a relatively new poster, may not be aware of. When people explain those connotations to you, there is no point to getting defensive--instead, appreciate the feedback, which can help you avoid unwittingly setting off a negative reaction in the future.

[Cybercat]

57. Words are words.

Context matters. I took linguistics in college. I understand how language works. I'd like to see people try to correct minorities when they use certain words in a different context. The context here had absolutely nothing to do with race. NOTHING. But I removed it, so you can stop whining already.

[fishwax]

60. I'm not whining. You seem to be, though.

Of course context matters. And I don't think anybody claimed you used it to refer to race.

Just as context matters, so does the community you're communicating with. Words and phrases will have specific connotations in some communities that they won't have in others. Understanding that is an essential component of successful and effective communication. MADem's post offered some of the reasons that this community tends to be distrustful of that phrase.

This distrust is going to be compounded by such factors as (a) its use by a relatively new poster, (b) its use to refer to DUers (as it seemed to be in your original subject line), and (c) when it is paired with a trivializing language about reproductive freedom.

I'm offering you this information with the idea that you might better understand your audience and be able to communicate more effectively at DU in the future. You are free, of course, to dismiss it as "whining" or as "political correctness becom(ing) as stupid as banning large sodas."

[Cybercat]

63. I will dismiss it, because it's ludicrous.

And you are being VERY whiny about it, which I think does mirror what is in Rush's playbook that he has effectively used to stereotype liberals for years as far as being easily offended about everything.

I explained in a post that that "you people" was referring to people that live in NYC that allowed something like this to occur with little fanfare. I'm tired of explaining that, so I removed the term. It should be a non-issue now, but you're still talking about it, which I think says more about you than me.

I didn't trivialize reproductive freedom. I vote for pro-choice politicians for crying out loud. I was just making a point about the lack of coherence in message this stuff implies that will confound people that are not super left-left liberals. Why do you think opinions on same sex marriage have changed? It's because the argument that it's no one else's damn business what you do plays extremely well with the middle (and people who are not elitist pricks in general).

You're not going to get Barack re-elected if your standard is to be against people that generally agree with you on almost everything but aren't super politically correct about every word that escapes from their mouths. Real people do not act like that.

[fishwax]

66. I'm not surprised, Cybercat.

And you are being VERY whiny about it, which I think does mirror what is in Rush's playbook that he has effectively used to stereotype liberals for years as far as being easily offended about everything.

I'm not offended, and I haven't done any whining. I've simply pointed out why the language makes people think you're here to disrupt rather than to have an honest conversation. But by all means, ignore my advice. Then double down by suggesting, as you do here, that DUers prove Rush Limbaugh right. I don't think these strategies will help you communicate effectively with your DU audience, Cybercat, but the choice is yours.

I explained in a post that that "you people" was referring to people that live in NYC that allowed something like this to occur with little fanfare. I'm tired of explaining that, so I removed the term. It should be a non-issue now, but you're still talking about it, which I think says more about you than me.

Yeah, I saw your explanation. There was nothing in the original post to suggest that, and in fact, since the content of your post moves quickly to criticism of liberals, the structure actually implied that you were talking about the audience you were addressing--DU. Perhaps just a stylistic flaw, but it really doesn't matter. I've only engaged the subject in order to give you advice that can help you get your point across without giving people the wrong idea about your motives.

[Cybercat]

68. Regardless, I removed the phrase, so I'm done replying on this offtopic subject.

[MADem]

121. You do not "understand how language works" if you double-down after being told you're stepping on

toes. You not only don't understand how language actually works in an interactive group setting, you aren't understanding how to integrate yourself into that very setting.

You're not going to win by insisting you're right, even if you did remove the thing (which suggests that you, in fact, knew you were on thin ice--so perhaps you actually do know how language works, after all, even if you won't admit it).

[MADem]

120. Words matter. "You people" is an expression by someone who believes they are superior to the people

they are addressing, quite often--and this isn't really news; it's common knowledge, and even more common lately with the Robin Roberts interview. You were wise to remove it, because one person's "political correctness" is another person's deliberate, calculated insult.

[MercutioATC]

112. Scream "Troll" at somebody that has a problem with being babysat?

I realize that there are quite a few do-gooders here that think that we need the government to enact laws to protect us from ourselves. Apparently, some of them also think that disagreeing is a litmus test for trolling.

Pitiful.

[maxsolomon]

114. This topic was beaten to death on DU when it was 1st introduced months ago

As I said, this is NOT the line in the sand for the Nanny Police State. If you don't like it, order two 16 oz. drinks and grow large. Here in Seattle, we had a multi-million dollar initiative battle to rid the city of plastic grocery bags. It failed, the city council passed a ban, and you know what? We're still free.

And, to split hairs, I said it was trollING, not that the poster was a troll.

[MercutioATC]

126. Judging from the number of posts, it's still an issue

I'll give you the split hair. You didn't call the poster a troll.

Nobody said this was the line in the sand...or even a particularly important issue in and of itself. Many feel, however, that it's one more tiny slide down that slippery slope to a nanny state.

[MADem]

26. People can bring their own container, buy two sodas, and pour the soda into the big container.

It's not the container that is outlawed, it is the PURCHASE of the large sized container that is at issue.

[julian09]

34. How about diet decaffenated soda?

[MADem]

36. The stupidity of the law is that they don't distinguish, apparently.

I don't drink much soda, but I don't drink the sugary stuff. It's too sweet for me.

[MercutioATC]

113. Actually, the stupidity of the law is that they enacted it.

Whether it's helmet laws or tanning bed restrictions or trans-fat legislation...don't pass laws to protect me from myself.

[MADem]

118. Well, I think the flip side of that is that some people don't like paying SSDI for personal

stupidity. If everyone "took good care," and did not over-indulge in things that would fuck them up, there'd be no need to protect people from themselves. But people do NOT "take good care" and they don't moderate their conduct. Then they end up with health or legal issues that the society often has to pay to resolve or mitigate.

Also, parents do stupid things. Trans-fats are HORRIBLE for you, and horrible for innocent kids who don't know any better and are fed them by parents who are, frankly, stupid.

A youngster riding on a motorcycle without a helmet is a child in danger.

Some people do need to be protected from themselves, because their conduct impacts others. Drunk drivers are a good example of this. It's all fun and games until they plow into a van-load of kids.

[MercutioATC]

122. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

How many of these indignant do-gooders do regular cardio workouts? Hell, how many of them even get regular checkups?

It's a slippery slope. Once we start legislating minor lifestyle choices, what's to prevent legislating exercise or periodic dental visits? People don't "like" paying SSDI for somebody who decides to take on a DIY home project and electrocutes themselves, but is that really something that should be regulated by law?

Again, don't pass laws to protect me from myself (drunk driving is different, it hurts other people) is a good general rule of thumb.

[MADem]

127. Naah. It's not a "slippery slope." Failing to belt your kid or put a helmet on them in situations

where that's called for is child abuse. Feeding them garbage is, too.

Some people don't get much cardio because their neighborhoods or unsafe or they live in shitty suburbs without sidewalks--a little more "gubmint intervention" in the form of crimefighting or public works would help these folks. Neighborhood shops would make a comeback if the streets were safer to walk on, but the Nanny Government needs to get involved to make that happen. People who might walk to the grocer don't want to do it on the shoulder of a busy by-way, or along streets where they might get shot by a gang member.

If universal health care was enacted and provided wellness checkups and a gym membership voucher to get a reduced rate at the gym, probably more people would have more medical interaction with a doctor or physician's assistant or nurse, and perhaps they'd be motivated to join a gym and do those regular cardio workouts. Even if they could safely walk to the store, that's a nice little workout, in and of itself, particularly on the return trip when the shopping bags add to the experience.

If people REALLY don't like "Bloomberg's Law," they'll overturn it. I think some people actually do like it, though, which is why we aren't hearing a real LOUD roar over the issue. Time will tell.

[MercutioATC]

128. Wow. You actually WANT a nanny state...

I believe there should be two criteria for a law to be enacted:

1) Does the action harm another's safety, health or life unreasonably?

2) Does the action harm another's property or financial well-being unreasonably?


If neither criterion is met, the law causes more harm than good.

[MADem]

131. I think that the will of the people is what it is. I think if a critical mass of people in a

community get off their asses and vote for something, and their wishes win the day, then they should get what they want...or what they don't want.

I don't think people should treat the laws of the land like a buffet, where they pick, choose and refuse.

If you don't care for certain laws, you need to get up off your butt, organize, and get them repealed.

It has nothing to do with "nanny state," it has to do with participating in the democratic process.

[Barack_America]

30. Foolish law. People can regulate themselves what they drink.

Serious question, what about 2L sodas? Why the distinction between what's available via the soda fountain vs. what's for sale in the fridge?

[Mr.Turnip]

35. 2L Sodas are sold at Supermarkets and the like which don't fall under the law.

However restaurant's that sell 20 Oz bottles in fridges and the like, that is prohibited.

[MADem]

37. Many companies are starting to change that 2L to 1.75L, in some markets.

And....they're charging the same price.

I buy 3L bottles at my local market. Easier for a crowd, and only five cents deposit for a goodly amount.

[richmwill]

39. I agree...

Nothing I love more than being told by a Mayor's law how much soda I can buy. (eyeroll)

[atreides1]

52. It's just grand.

Can't have a large soda...but NYPD can spy on anyone they want to!!!!

[jumptheshadow]

61. I'm having a grand old time...

...watching the contortions of the soda industry as they react to this law. They must be pumping millions of dollars into the ginormous container ban. It's fun to watch them justify how soda is simply "hydration" and how, with exercise, you can drink large sodas and be healthy, too.

I'm a person who enjoys a Pepsi every now and then. I certainly can sacrifice my 20-ounce bottles in the cause of a city's widescale efforts to change the habits of brainwashed consumers.

[SoapBox]

92. I'll ditto to you jumptheshadow...

...no wonder this thread is on FIRE.

Is it world peace? Is it starving children? Is it global warming or pollution? Is it about "division"? NO! It's about sodas!

For me, personally, I love it. I don't drink sugared or artificially sweetened beverages. I drink hot black tea (ok, I cheat and put in some skim milk), iced black tea (unsweetened), occasionally some diluted fruit juice and, water. About every 1 or 2 months, I have some Dr. Pepper at a burger joint (but when they slam down that big ass cup on the counter, I ask them to swap it for the small cup...I FILL it with ice and only fill it ONCE).

The labels on sugared or artificially sweetened beverages are terrifying. So I say, if you feel bad not getting enough from a 16 oz. cup/bottle, PLEASE, buy 2 or 3 or 4 or more...and PLEASE, express your freedoms in America by drinking ALL you can! Please do...NO one is stopping you.

BUT, don't expect me to pay your emergency room bills from any number of ailments that may be brought on OR increased from drinking all that crap and garbage, in your life.

Have a Happy Day!

[a geek named Bob]

93. also...

some place ADD sugar to the food itself... One place added sugar to chicken salad. (shudder)

[LiveNudePolitics]

101. hey, maybe the soda companies will hire

some Americans to object to the soda ban on the 'net and tv, and create some jobs? Here in NYC, when the plan was proposed, we grumbled a bit, but we seem to have gotten over it. Maybe because you still can buy big for home use, as it is not a soda ban, just a container size issue. The government has sway over the amounts of things all over the place, like smokes, liquor, and cough syrup.

[Jennicut]

73. Ha! Like banning a soda size can prevent diabetes.

I will have a little laugh about that while I inject myself 5 times a day with insulin. Bloomberg is such a nanny-stater. I love this one as much as the one about hiding formula for new mothers at hospitals. This guy is clueless. Being a diabetic, either type 1 or type 2, means watching everything you eat. Not just soda. Are we going to ban corn? Bagels? Crackers? Pasta? Watermelon? Oranges? That all spikes my sugar just as much as soda does, though at least they are not empty calories. Carbs from bread can cause weight gain just as much as soda too. Please, I think we know how to eat healthy. Many people just don't want to.

[a geek named Bob]

77. but...but...but...

sugar water is the ESSENCE of freedom!

Cybercat told me so!

Bloomberg is looking for a cheap set of votes. Folks like Cybercat are looking to make democrats look silly.

[CTyankee]

78. I agree with your statement about carbs being carbs, esp. for people with diabetes.

But I think the regulation of soda size was meant to prevent people from getting diabetic in the first place. For those people eating an orange every day would be a good thing. Large amounts of soda can never be. My husband is pre-diabetic and I watch the sugar intake in our diet. His sister has been diabetic for some time now and she has become morbidly obese, She was not obese growing up and not until she was well into her 50s.

[SoapBox]

102. And it's not just diabetes, it's obesity and other ailments...

The ban is just on the larger sized CUPS/CONTAINERS (bottles?) and NOT, repeat NOT the soda itself.

You can drink all of the beverages you want! NO ONE, is stopping you.

But, you best stop yourself. Soda is garbage.

And it's not just about diabetes...there is also obesity...man oh man, can you pack on the empty calories sucking down sugared soda. Aren't there also studies that show that the artificially sweetened drinks aren't so great for the body either?

Drink, drink, drink all you want (to those that are SO outraged) please! Thank goodness you get to bear the brunt of all the bad.

Isn't freedom in America great!



p.s. And all the silliness about banning fresh fruits and vegetables...absurd.

p.s.s. Hey CTyankee...no criticism of your post...I liked your post and just did the reply to insert the other health issues into the picture.

[Egnever]

103. Sorry but carbs are not all equal

Look into glycemic values... They are very important to someone with diabetes.

[CTyankee]

115. Of course.

[liberal N proud]

82. If you want the 20+ ounces of high fructose corn syrup, buy 2 - 12 ounce drinks.

It's not that difficult.

[Egnever]

104. If that is the case then what has this law accomplished ? Other than to fill landfills faster?

[a geek named Bob]

105. ummm...

It makes Bloomberg look like he's a caring guy? (After all, he got a lot of bad press from Occupy...)

[liberal N proud]

106. I welcome the change because it will force the industry to provide smaller portions

You go into a convenience store or deli now and all they sell is 20 oz. or larger.

I for one will appreciate being able to find the smaller sizes, it will help the willing to cut back.

It makes drinking more, a choice! Isn't that what the OP is really arguing?

[Travis_0004]

108. The stores carry what sells

If there was no demand for larger sizes, they wouldn't sell them.

Personally, I never have trouble finding 12 oz cans and 16oz bottles by me.

[liberal N proud]

116. All I ever see is the 20 oz bottles anywhere I go.

Even at work, the cafeteria only offers 20 oz bottles. By 1:00 PM, I am running for the bathroom, liquid overflow.

[MercutioATC]

123. Don't you fill your own fountain drink at a convenience store?

Just exercise the tiniest amount of self-control and fill the 20-oz. cup a little over halfway.

That said, I don't believe this covers convenience stores, only restaurants.

[liberal N proud]

124. Not every one can.

And places selling only bottled soft drinks predominantly sell 20 oz.

And I never ever refill.

[MercutioATC]

125. You don't see a problem in reducing all of us to the lowest common denominator?

Because SOME can't exercise self-restraint, the law should mandate portion sizes to us all. That makes sense?

Red meat isn't great for you, either. Should we mandate a maximum 6-ounce steak...maybe 8 ounces if you order (and eat) a green vegetable?

[liberal N proud]

129. Like I said above, you alway have the CHOICE to buy more.

Current practice forces everyone to buy the more, then since they have it, the consume it.

It's like the put in you hands and you are expected to "only consume part f it"

So that makes the question; Why should I have to buy more than I actually want? And then be subject to the temptation?

We are hooked into buying and consuming more because they know we will.

[MercutioATC]

130. That's called marketing

If I can sell a 32-ounce drink for $1.59 and a 16-ounce drink for $1.19, I'll push all of the 32-0unce drinks that I can because the extra 16 ounces of beverage cost me a lot less than 40 cents.

If somebody wants 16 ounces of beverage, they can buy the 16-ounce cup. If I'm out of 16-ounce cups (or choose not to even offer 16-ounce cups), they're free to put however much liquid they wish into that cup and pay $1.59.

However, if they WANT 32 ounces, they're getting it at less than the cost of two 16-ounce cups...and it's a lot easier to carry.


Why would anybody advocate penalizing the entire group because some people don't have the common sense or willpower to drink less (especially when they can buy as many 16-ounce drinks as they want)?


It's akin to legislating that all-you-can-eat buffets can only use 4-inch diameter plates...but you can go back to the buffet as many times as you like. People determined to overeat (or overdrink) will, it just makes things inconvenient for everybody else.

[liberal N proud]

138. Marketing - not freedom of choice

You are still free to choose to buy 32 ounces of soda, just have to buy 2 16 ounce drinks instead of the double gulp.

There was a time in America where people were thinner/healthier and a large soda was 16 ounces.

I blame in part (only in part) my obesity on these extra large soft drinks. It's the only selection so you want a soda, you buy the soda. Now that you bought it, you end up drinking the whole 20 oz of liquid high fructose corn syrup.

Yes, I agree with the move to smaller sizes and hopefully it will catch on across the nation and maybe my size will shrink too.

It does not keep me from purchasing/drinking more soda but it does not encourage it! That is the key here, the marketing has encouraged people to drink more soda because it equates to higher profit for them. It also equates to bigger waist lines and poorer health as a nation in general.

Travel the world, most places will sell 12 and 16 ounce drinks while here in America we gorge our selves on 20 oz or larger.

[NYC Liberal]

134. It's a deterrent. Most people will NOT buy multiple drinks.

How many people get those huge drinks only because they're offered at the movie theatre concession stand "for only 25 cents more"? I admit I've done it. Hey it's only a quarter, right? And when I have, I've ended up drinking more soda.

Those few who do want to buy multiple drinks so will have that freedom if they choose.

[NYC Liberal]

151. People consume dramatically more when offered more.

The vast majority of people, when offered smaller portions, eat or drink less.

It's a deterrent. It forces people to think about whether they really want more soda when they have to go back and pay for another x ounces. Those who really want to will have the freedom to do it. But most people will choose not to.

[JHB]

107. Look for "Mayor's Combo" (two 16s for the price of an old large)...

...in 5, 4, 3, 2...

[SmittynMo]

109. So let me get this right....

Wait,,,, we need the government to make a law on how much we consume? I need someone to limit the amount of intake I put in my mouth? I can't make that decision on my own? I understand the obesity issue, but if someone wants to consume 20 oz of soda, it's their right/decision, not the government. Think of all the additional trash too. Un frickin believable!!!!

Or is this some scheme to make us pay more for the same amount we would have normally consumed anyway? IE: 1.29 for a 10 oz soda x 2 = 2.58 for 20 oz, or 1.99 for 1 20 oz soda?

Doesn't anyone find this a real problem? Especially in a free country?

[a geek named Bob]

111. ...sigh...

compared to REAL issues...
-pro-choice restricting laws
-super pacs buying elections
-fracking
-global warming
-RW domestic terror violence
-general purpose crazies getting firearms
-crumbling schools
-crumbling infrastructure
-loss of the middle class
-etc...

...issues over portion size of sugar water is - at best - a distraction. At least, it's an attempt at a Rovian wedge meme.

I believe we have other, FAR more important issues to deal with...

[LiberalFighter]

110. In reality it is a stupid law.

A customer will be able to buy soda in any size container they wish. Just not in all retail places. Why aren't they banning it in convenience stores if they are really serious?

I doubt it will have the effect they claim it will have.

[NYC Liberal]

132. Your slippery-slope argument does not hold up because nothing is being banned.

Rather, serving sizes are simply being limited.

This argument sounds like one Milton Friedman or Ron Paul would make. Friedman was against most safety requirements for cars because if you want to "CHOOSE" to take that risk then you should be able to.

Most liberals believe the government has an obligation to promote the general welfare. Conservatives, libertarians, and Ron Paulities are the ones who believe everyone should be able to do whatever they want and that the governmnet has little to no interest or business in people's safety, health, or well-being.

[RainbowUnicorn]

140. Liberals aren't the same thing as North Koreans.

I can't believe someone would make the argument at this forum that the government banning junk food for the "general welfare" is "OK" and that people that disagree are Ron Paulites (WTF?). There's a difference between being a hardcore libertarian and not wanting to be babysat.

I also disagree with you saying that "nothing is being banned." Large sodas are being banned. It's obvious. This circular argument doesn't work because there is a ban (and a very silly one). You sound like you're just repeating the mayor's talking points. In fact, you are.

[NYC Liberal]

141. No, nothing is being banned.

What's being done is limiting serving sizes (at certain places).

You know, very few people would care if this were implemented as a straight tax. And yet that's basically what is being done anyway, except this is more effective. If someone wants to consume more sugar drinks then they can buy a second one. Most people won't, so it will be a sufficient deterrent. For those who really want to, they still have the freedom to drink as much as they want.

Most people getting outraged about this now will find after a few months that they don't care. There are studies showing that people eat or drink more when given a larger portion, solely because it's there in front of them. When you offer someone the "super duper jumbo-size" drink for "only 25 cents more", a lot of people will take a good deal and then they'll drink more. Don't offer the "super duper jumbo-size" drink and most people won't even notice.

While the 12-ounce can used to be the most common soda option, many stores now carry only the 20-ounce plastic bottle, which contains 2.5 servings of soda. When presented with these larger sizes, humans have a hard time regulating our intake or figuring out what a serving size is supposed to be. A 2004 study, published in Appetite, gave people potato chips packaged in bags that looked the same, but increased in size. As package size increased, so did consumption; subjects ate up to 37 percent more with the bigger bags. Furthermore, when they ate dinner later that day, they did not reduce their food consumption to compensate for increased snack calories—a recipe for weight gain.

We Americans love to get the most bang for our buck. When confronted with a 32-ounce drink for 99 cents versus a 44-ounce drink for ten cents more, the decision is easy. You’d have to be a sucker not to go big. But our ability to get the most out of our dollar doesn’t always serve us well. Value pricing, which gets us a lot more food or drink for just a little increase in price, makes sense from an economic standpoint, but is sabotage from a health standpoint. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Americans consume around 10 percent more calories than they did in the 1970s. Given no change in physical activity, this equates to around 200 extra calories per day, or 20 pounds a year.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/22175/49492-portion-size-vs-now/2#ixzz26SOBZUSJ

(Oh and that was written in May 2008, so these aren't "the mayor's talking points&quot

[RainbowUnicorn]

143. Large sodas are being banned. That's like saying a large pizza ban is not a ban on pizza.

The average person is not going to buy this kind of tortured reasoning. And it's irrelevant that the average NYC citizen will become used to it. With that same logical reasoning, you could ban rock music and I'm sure people would get "used to it" too. It's not the point.

You are recycling Bloomberg's stupid talking points to defend a stupid law. I don't even know why either. He's not even in your party. You are making liberals look bad by defending this kind of thing. Laws should be in place to protect people, but they shouldn't be in place to babysit adults that can make their own choices that only effect their own health in extremely minor ways. I think John Stewart referred to this law as, "the draconian government overreach people love, with the probable lack of results they expect."

I don't know what the next step is. Maybe Bloomberg should hire city employees to cut your steak for you, because you can't be trusted to do it yourself. We can't risk higher helathcare costs for people that choke on their own steaks after all! It's the only way, and it's for "your own good!"

[NYC Liberal]

144. And yet you have to articulate what exactly people are prevented from doing.

And why? Because people are not prevented from doing anything. You can consume as much soda as you want to. If you want to drink more then you can buy a second drink. Have at it. Most people won't though. It's not a ban. It's a deterrent against people consuming more than they otherwise would. Studies have shown that people will eat and drink more simply by having it put in front of them. If the portion sizes are larger, people will consume more. This is human biology.

If I'm "recycling Bloomberg's stupid talking points" then you're recycling the talking points of the soft drink industry. It has nothing to do with babysitting and everything to do with getting people to think about their choices. If you want more soda (at certain establishments) you'll have to get up and walk to the counter. The horror!

When all the hysteria has subsided, people will be consuming less sugary soda, and that IS the point.

[RainbowUnicorn]

145. They're prevented from ordering a large soda. Large soda is a thing. It's a ban. That simple.

Giving a restaurant a 200 dollar fine for serving a large Pepsi is ludicrous. I also like how you won't refer to the other comparison. Let's see Bloomberg ban large pizzas. I want to hear your talking points about how it's not actually a ban on pizza. It's only trying to make people think about the pizza they're ordering by forcing them to order two mediums, because they need the government to tell them the difference. It's totally ludicrous and extremely condescending.

Another thing I like about this thread is people referring to soda as "sugar water." Like the average Democrat doesn't even drink a Pepsi or Coke once in a while and we need some kind of elitist terminology to bemoan such behavior. Thank god the party isn't actually ran by these kinds of people that look down on people that don't make their own juice from turnips they bought at the farmers' market.

[NYC Liberal]

146. That wouldn't be a "ban" either.

The only think that's happening is that certain establishments are being limited in the serving sizes they can offer for certain drinks. If you want to drink more soda you are free to do so. Soda is not banned. Drinking more soda is not banned. It's essentially a tax that most people won't even end up paying because most people are simply going to drink less. Count on it. The hysterical overreactions to having to get up and walk to the counter if you want more (the horror of it all) are absurd.

What's also laughable is people's denial of basic human biology and psychology. There was a study done that gave some people a "medium"-sized bucket of fresh popcorn and others a larger bucket of stale, 2-week-old popcorn. People who were given the larger size still ate more even though they thought it tasted disgusting.

Another study showed:

In a 2006 article with Gheorghe Doros in Psychological Science, we named that phenomenon “unit bias.” We demonstrated it in a number of ways. For instance, we left pretzels in the lobby of an apartment house as free snacks for the residents. When we offered full pretzels (containing 300 calories each), people consumed 71 percent more calories than when we offered pretzels cut in half. Of course, people could take a second half-pretzel, but most didn’t.

It is not only the food portion that is subject to unit bias, but also the serving instrument or receptacle: the size of the glass, plate, or serving spoon. At other times in the same lobby, we left out a big bowl of peanut M&M’s with either a tablespoon or a quarter-cup scoop tethered to the bowl. A sign urged individuals to serve themselves as much as they wanted. With the scoop, four times as large as the tablespoon, people took 75 percent more candy. Of course, they could have dipped the tablespoon in repeatedly, but they tended not to do so.

http://danaleighton.edublogs.org/2007/04/05/effects-of-portion-size-on-eating-and-obesity/

(This was in 2006, six years before this law was ever proposed.)

In short:
-You can still buy soda.
-You can still drink as much soda as you want.

What's happening is that the psychological tricks used by the soft drink industry to prey on people and get them to pay more and drink more are being exposed and stopped. If you want to ally yourself with them, you have that right.

[RainbowUnicorn]

149. Large pizza is a thing. It would be a ban. A ban on a thing that is a certain size is still a ban.

And you are totally condescending. Stop looking down on the average person. A person that orders a Big Mac knows what it is. The nutrition information is even available to them. They don't need a study that treats them as non-thinking animals and then you casting them as the same. It's wrong when conservatives force their will on people to force them to do what they want. You're basically doing the same thing. Even if it's on a much smaller level, it is the same kind of arrogance. If this kind of reasoning, that people don't know what's good for them, was part of the Democratic platform it would be 8 years of Romney followed by 8 years of Paul Ryan by a landslide.

Education on nutrition and healthy living is good. But that doesn't justify cramming the broccoli down their throats. Adults don't need baby sitters. They can make their own choices. I'm not allying myself with anyone. I'm just not a stuck up elitist that thinks I can command other people how to live. I haven't even bought normal soda for years. I only drink diet.

[NYC Liberal]

150. You can deny basic biology and pyschology all you want, but that doesn't change

the fact that they do guide much of our behavior. Nobody is calling anyone "unthinking animals" (even though humans are animals and do have base instincts just like all other animals). The reality is that people are eating and consuming more because that's what they are presented with. If you offer someone a large portion, they consume dramatically more than they would if offered a smaller portion. Facts are facts. The soft drink industry has long taken advantage of this fact to get people to consume more of their product and thus pay more, and it's time to put a stop to it.

Once again: you are not banned from drinking soda. You are not banned from drinking as much soda as you want. Nobody is being forced to do anything. Please tell me why you think telling people if they want to drink more, they simply have to buy a refill, is such an assault on their rights. Because it's not.

Yes education is good. And this is education, and much more effective education than putting up a billboard. People are free to buy as much soda as they want. Making it so that people have to go back to the counter to order a second drink will force them to think about whether they really want that extra soda or sugar drink. I'll bet you right now that the vast majority of people will choose not go back and get that second drink.

Nobody is being commanded on how to live. Nobody is saying you can't drink 32 ounces of soda with your meal.

[RainbowUnicorn]

152. A ban on large sodas is a ban, and it's still an idea based on utter condescension.

Basically you don't think other people can make up their own minds on "portion size" so you are forcing it on them. People don't have to be forced to order two cheese burgers. If an adult wants a double cheese burger, they should be able to order a double cheese burger. They shouldn't be forced BY THE STATE to order two cheese burgers because some do-gooder nanny that is commanding their lifestyle on them expects them to think about the consequences of eating a double cheeseburger like they are still a child. An adult knows the difference and can decide accordingly.

This is not education. It's shoving your values down someone's throat by taking away their choices in the marketplace. Education is about giving people the tools to make the right choices. Taking those choices away is not education. It's casting people as unthinking animals that can't make their own decisions. That's absolutely what you're doing in every sense of the word.

[NYC Liberal]

153. Taking away choices? Not at all.

Go ahead and drink as much soda as you want. Eat as many cheeseburgers as you want. Nobody's stopping you. You want to deny basic biology and psychology. When offered more, people consume dramatically more. This has been shown over and over.

People have exactly the same choices they had before. They are free to decide whether they want to order more soda or not. Most will choose not to (there's that choice thing, which people still have). A 16 ounce serving will become the "large" size. People will order the "large" and the vast majority won't drink more.

And you're wrong: this is absolutely education. It's saying if you want more soda, you can order more soda. Nobody is stopping anyone from doing so. Education is about getting people to think, and this does just that: it gets people to really think about the choices they are making, without limiting that freedom of choice.

Not one single choice has been taken away. Before this law you could order more than 16 ounces of soda. Today...yep, you can still order more than 16 ounces of soda. Before this law I could go to a restaurant and drink 64 ounces of soda with my dinner. Today, I can do exactly the same thing.

[RainbowUnicorn]

154. Your argument is dishonest and easily deconstructed. A choice is being taken away.

Being able to choose to drink a 17 oz. soda in a 17 oz. container is a choice. Just as ordering a large pizza is a choice. Just as ordering a double cheeseburger is a choice. Acting like ordering two of a smaller size is the same choice is absolutely false. It's not the same choice. This hole in your argument is big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

A free society also isn't based on searching for funded laboratory test statistics that support your point of view. It's based on the idea that a citizen in a society should have choices. You want to take one choice, a 17 oz. drink in a 17 oz container, away from people because you are condescending and view them as inferior to you and your supposed wisdom regarding nutrition.

If you admitted you want to be a nanny for other adults you think you are superior to, that would at least be an honest argument from your stand point. Pretending that this isn't a ban and choosing the size of the container you want your soda in isn't a choice is utterly dishonest and again completely condescending.

Since there's literally no way you can reconcile your argument from that huge gaping logical hole, pretending that having a drink larger than 16 oz. in a 16 oz container is not an option being taken away by this law, I think I'm going to be done with this one. It's obvious you're backed into a corner and can't do anything but pretend something that is obviously true is not.

[NYC Liberal]

156. Your argument is now laughable to the point of absurdity.

You are desperately trying to cling to your assertion that some choice or freedom is being taken away, when that is just not the case. Stop being dishonest here. Nobody is prevented from drinking as much soda as they want. You are flipping out over a cup size. That's it. If a store or restaurant doesn't offer 32 ounce cup sizes because they want to promote health, is the store or restaurant taking away your "choice"? Are they being "nannies" to their customers? Of course not. There's no "nannying" involved.

You have the same choices you've always had, unless you can't do remedial math. In your world, 16*2 does not equal 32*1, nor does 32*2 equal 64*1. However, in the real world, 16*2 does equal 32*1 and 32*2 does equal 64*1. You're getting exactly the same amount. Tell me again that 32 ounces doesn't equal 32 ounces. If I get a 16 ounce cup of soda, drink it, then refill it and drink that -- are you really going to sit here and tell me I haven't drank 32 ounces of soda? Come on. Your argument here is completely illogical.

To recap once again:

Before the law:
-You could drink soda.
-You could buy 32oz, 64oz, or however much soda you wanted.

After the law:
-You can still drink soda.
-You can still buy 32oz, 64oz, or however much soda you want.

[jmowreader]

135. Obviously Bloomberg has stock in a company that makes these...

...which, in six months, will be the hip and happenin' style among soda-guzzling New Yorkers from Brooklyn to Queens.

You can NOT tell me no one has yet thought of selling 2-for-$2.22 16-ounce sodas in NYC yet.

[RainbowUnicorn]

162. This just in...

King Bloomberg's next legislative achievement to be a 9:00 PM bedtime for all New York City ciitizens under the age of 70. All citizens to break this bedtime will receive a $200 fine and be personally spanked by King Bloomberg.

[Iggo]

163. Buy two. (n/t)

[RainbowUnicorn]

164. for twice the price and twice the amount of paper and plastic trash.

Brought to you by your nanny, King Bloomberg.

[Iggo]

171. Not my nanny.

[rachel1]

165. It's bad for your health so why not ban it? Nobody should drink that stuff anyway

[RainbowUnicorn]

170. Maybe we should pass a law to make Rachel1 live in a bubble.

It's the only way for her to be safe. It's a dangerous world out there. We know what's best for her. Don't worry, you'll be supplied with plenty of wheat-grass juice.

[yawnmaster]

166. As not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt is illegal (in many states) because of the harm it does to...

not only the individual but society as a whole,
being obese should also have similar penalties.
A fine or a warning for the first time one is caught being obese.
A fine the second time.
And the third time one is caught being obese, they will not be allowed to eat food except with supervision, for six months.

Stiffer penalties should exist for those that habitually practice being obese.