2016 Postmortem

NYC Liberal

(20,453 posts)

153. Taking away choices? Not at all.

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:14 PM

Sep 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

171 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Large sodas are officially banned in New York City now. What the heck is wrong with people? [View all] Cybercat Sep 2012 OP

Actually the law does not go into effect for 6 months Drale Sep 2012 #1

Bloomberg thinks he is the greatest Nanny in the world. Mr.Turnip Sep 2012 #2

Health Costs otohara Sep 2012 #70

NYC doesn't look like a joke --relax, it's one rule that isn't the end of the world CreekDog Sep 2012 #96

I'm not a Libertarian. sinkingfeeling Sep 2012 #3

Nether am I but I don't want the fucking city telling me what i can and can't drink at certain place Mr.Turnip Sep 2012 #4

Ever here of smoking bans? Many here support those as a way to make people sinkingfeeling Sep 2012 #7

Of course iv heard of Smoking bans, we have a ton of smoking regulation in New York. Mr.Turnip Sep 2012 #9

All I'm saying is smoking bans have withstood challenges in the courts. It has been sinkingfeeling Sep 2012 #10

Smoking effects the people around you Drale Sep 2012 #11

Exactly! Somehow this ban rubs me the wrong way. I do have this notion of RKP5637 Sep 2012 #79

Airbags only affect you. Helmets only affect you. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #133

I would disagree Drale Sep 2012 #139

That's really stretching. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #142

Smoking bans are about second hand smoke! Cybercat Sep 2012 #12

Yes. RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #28

Outdoor bans in public areas are ridiculous though Mutiny In Heaven Sep 2012 #31

Yes... KansDem Sep 2012 #53

No, but I've had to pay taxes for the health bills jumptheshadow Sep 2012 #137

Smoking bans are quite different fugop Sep 2012 #13

Yes you do. RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #29

No, many support them because they worry about their own lungs ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #117

I'm tired of paying extra insurance and taxes for people who aren't smart enuff to make good choices progressivebydesign Sep 2012 #15

AGREE 100% Iwasthere Sep 2012 #86

Sorry to hear about your sister and brther having cancer a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #87

tHANK YOU Iwasthere Sep 2012 #89

My wife and I grow a fair bit of our own food a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #90

Cancer has been around a long, long time Silent3 Sep 2012 #98

nice right wing talking points Kali Sep 2012 #95

i agree with you mgcgulfcoast Sep 2012 #20

"you people" fishwax Sep 2012 #5

The comparsion has a point. Cybercat Sep 2012 #14

Slipper slope??? a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #40

Taking away to right to eat junk food is a slippery slope in regards to other rights you may hold... Cybercat Sep 2012 #43

Then we are even a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #44

OK Cybercat Sep 2012 #51

actually... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #69

In psychology, they call what you're doing projection. Cybercat Sep 2012 #76

Actually... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #80

The basis of your argument has been hyperbole, straw men, insluts, hypocrisy, etc. Cybercat Sep 2012 #83

is that a promise? a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #85

taking away the right to eat junk food? What does that have to do with the NYC law? fishwax Sep 2012 #49

No one is "taking away to (sic) right to eat junk food" though. You just have to buy it in smaller MADem Sep 2012 #119

I understand it has a point. But it is ineffective because it is ridiculous. fishwax Sep 2012 #48

Bring you own container HockeyMom Sep 2012 #6

Many places in New York do not have free refills. Mr.Turnip Sep 2012 #8

health laws do not permit bringing your own container. And man, if someone is that desperate... progressivebydesign Sep 2012 #16

"You people????" really? Nice way to make your DU debut. n/t progressivebydesign Sep 2012 #17

The you people... Cybercat Sep 2012 #21

My guess would be that "all the 'good ones' were already taken. no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #18

The sodas are NOT banned, folks! Please get this straight. CTyankee Sep 2012 #19

It's still a civil liberty... Cybercat Sep 2012 #23

Buying a large soda is a civil liberty? n/t Indpndnt Sep 2012 #41

So... Cybercat Sep 2012 #45

You can still buy a soda. The size of that purchase in one container is not a civil liberty. n/t Indpndnt Sep 2012 #46

This is going to get overturned at some point.. Cybercat Sep 2012 #50

Democrats? Or Bloomberg, the ex-republican? There is a huge difference. Indpndnt Sep 2012 #55

Yes they are! Cybercat Sep 2012 #56

I think the law is ridiculous, but it's not violating anyone's civil rights. Indpndnt Sep 2012 #58

"There are no limits on your soda buying." Cybercat Sep 2012 #59

and your argument is silly... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #71

A geek named Bob can only make straw man arguments becuase he's not good at debating. Cybercat Sep 2012 #74

sigh... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #75

I have more education than you most likely. Cybercat Sep 2012 #81

(eyeroll) a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #84

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #88

So you are admitting that you aren't here to have an actual conversation. Interesting... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #91

ROFL jumptheshadow Sep 2012 #136

I agree with you that your argument is ridiculous a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #42

Cybercat, there is such a thing as a scale of priorities. I just don't think it is wise of us to CTyankee Sep 2012 #62

The small stuff matters. Cybercat Sep 2012 #64

It's still a pretty stupid law Silent3 Sep 2012 #25

But I can smell it. RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #32

An argument can and has been made that since drinking soda is linked with obesity, and CTyankee Sep 2012 #65

You have poor will power. Cybercat Sep 2012 #67

well, I chose not to smoke, too. But it was after many "tries" to quit and after it became CTyankee Sep 2012 #72

Many things are "linked" Silent3 Sep 2012 #94

your analogy doesn't work very well. Presenting kids with accurate medical information about CTyankee Sep 2012 #100

The analogy wasn't about parallels in efficacy Silent3 Sep 2012 #147

well, that's your opinion and you are free to advocate your heart out for large CTyankee Sep 2012 #148

I'd advocating *against* excessive imposed nannying. Silent3 Sep 2012 #158

The whole point to "pick your battles" is that you simply must put your energy into CTyankee Sep 2012 #159

So let me get this... RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #160

No, I'm just saying I rank my priorities and act accordingly. People may differ on their CTyankee Sep 2012 #161

Who's engaged in battle? Silent3 Sep 2012 #167

I am not going to argue with you on this further. I respect your point. CTyankee Sep 2012 #168

I understand that. My point is that I reserve my energy for battles I am CTyankee Sep 2012 #169

exactly, talk about distractions! LiveNudePolitics Sep 2012 #97

LiveNudePolitics... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #99

why not? LiveNudePolitics Sep 2012 #155

never thought I'd say this... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #157

Get past 15 posts before you try and troll DU maxsolomon Sep 2012 #22

I'm not a troll. Cybercat Sep 2012 #24

Then alert on my post and lets see maxsolomon Sep 2012 #27

Accusing people with vaild opinions of trolling is in itself trolling. Cybercat Sep 2012 #33

Queen Ann used "you people" when complaining to Robin Roberts -- who looked like she'd been BURNED MADem Sep 2012 #38

They're just words. Cybercat Sep 2012 #47

Dude. MADem is simply trying to explain to you why it's unwise to use the phrase as you did here. fishwax Sep 2012 #54

Words are words. Cybercat Sep 2012 #57

I'm not whining. You seem to be, though. fishwax Sep 2012 #60

I will dismiss it, because it's ludicrous. Cybercat Sep 2012 #63

I'm not surprised, Cybercat. fishwax Sep 2012 #66

Regardless, I removed the phrase, so I'm done replying on this offtopic subject. Cybercat Sep 2012 #68

You do not "understand how language works" if you double-down after being told you're stepping on MADem Sep 2012 #121

Words matter. "You people" is an expression by someone who believes they are superior to the people MADem Sep 2012 #120

Scream "Troll" at somebody that has a problem with being babysat? MercutioATC Sep 2012 #112

This topic was beaten to death on DU when it was 1st introduced months ago maxsolomon Sep 2012 #114

Judging from the number of posts, it's still an issue MercutioATC Sep 2012 #126

People can bring their own container, buy two sodas, and pour the soda into the big container. MADem Sep 2012 #26

How about diet decaffenated soda? julian09 Sep 2012 #34

The stupidity of the law is that they don't distinguish, apparently. MADem Sep 2012 #36

Actually, the stupidity of the law is that they enacted it. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #113

Well, I think the flip side of that is that some people don't like paying SSDI for personal MADem Sep 2012 #118

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone MercutioATC Sep 2012 #122

Naah. It's not a "slippery slope." Failing to belt your kid or put a helmet on them in situations MADem Sep 2012 #127

Wow. You actually WANT a nanny state... MercutioATC Sep 2012 #128

I think that the will of the people is what it is. I think if a critical mass of people in a MADem Sep 2012 #131

Foolish law. People can regulate themselves what they drink. Barack_America Sep 2012 #30

2L Sodas are sold at Supermarkets and the like which don't fall under the law. Mr.Turnip Sep 2012 #35

Many companies are starting to change that 2L to 1.75L, in some markets. MADem Sep 2012 #37

I agree... richmwill Sep 2012 #39

It's just grand. atreides1 Sep 2012 #52

I'm having a grand old time... jumptheshadow Sep 2012 #61

I'll ditto to you jumptheshadow... SoapBox Sep 2012 #92

also... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #93

hey, maybe the soda companies will hire LiveNudePolitics Sep 2012 #101

Ha! Like banning a soda size can prevent diabetes. Jennicut Sep 2012 #73

but...but...but... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #77

I agree with your statement about carbs being carbs, esp. for people with diabetes. CTyankee Sep 2012 #78

And it's not just diabetes, it's obesity and other ailments... SoapBox Sep 2012 #102

Sorry but carbs are not all equal Egnever Sep 2012 #103

Of course. CTyankee Sep 2012 #115

If you want the 20+ ounces of high fructose corn syrup, buy 2 - 12 ounce drinks. liberal N proud Sep 2012 #82

If that is the case then what has this law accomplished ? Other than to fill landfills faster? Egnever Sep 2012 #104

ummm... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #105

I welcome the change because it will force the industry to provide smaller portions liberal N proud Sep 2012 #106

The stores carry what sells Travis_0004 Sep 2012 #108

All I ever see is the 20 oz bottles anywhere I go. liberal N proud Sep 2012 #116

Don't you fill your own fountain drink at a convenience store? MercutioATC Sep 2012 #123

Not every one can. liberal N proud Sep 2012 #124

You don't see a problem in reducing all of us to the lowest common denominator? MercutioATC Sep 2012 #125

Like I said above, you alway have the CHOICE to buy more. liberal N proud Sep 2012 #129

That's called marketing MercutioATC Sep 2012 #130

Marketing - not freedom of choice liberal N proud Sep 2012 #138

It's a deterrent. Most people will NOT buy multiple drinks. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #134

People consume dramatically more when offered more. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #151

Look for "Mayor's Combo" (two 16s for the price of an old large)... JHB Sep 2012 #107

So let me get this right.... SmittynMo Sep 2012 #109

...sigh... a geek named Bob Sep 2012 #111

In reality it is a stupid law. LiberalFighter Sep 2012 #110

Your slippery-slope argument does not hold up because nothing is being banned. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #132

Liberals aren't the same thing as North Koreans. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #140

No, nothing is being banned. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #141

Large sodas are being banned. That's like saying a large pizza ban is not a ban on pizza. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #143

And yet you have to articulate what exactly people are prevented from doing. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #144

They're prevented from ordering a large soda. Large soda is a thing. It's a ban. That simple. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #145

That wouldn't be a "ban" either. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #146

Large pizza is a thing. It would be a ban. A ban on a thing that is a certain size is still a ban. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #149

You can deny basic biology and pyschology all you want, but that doesn't change NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #150

A ban on large sodas is a ban, and it's still an idea based on utter condescension. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #152

Taking away choices? Not at all. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #153

Your argument is dishonest and easily deconstructed. A choice is being taken away. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #154

Your argument is now laughable to the point of absurdity. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #156

Obviously Bloomberg has stock in a company that makes these... jmowreader Sep 2012 #135

This just in... RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #162

Buy two. (n/t) Iggo Sep 2012 #163

for twice the price and twice the amount of paper and plastic trash. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #164

Not my nanny. Iggo Sep 2012 #171

It's bad for your health so why not ban it? Nobody should drink that stuff anyway rachel1 Sep 2012 #165

Maybe we should pass a law to make Rachel1 live in a bubble. RainbowUnicorn Sep 2012 #170

As not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt is illegal (in many states) because of the harm it does to... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #166