Nyc Mayor Aims To Ban Super Sized Sodas And Sugary Drinks.

[Akheia]

Way to mis-characterize an air bag, mwc. That was charming. I think you knew what I meant.

 

They didn't leave the paint identical but just inconvenient for the painter to access. They fundamentally altered the product and how it could be used (with explicit exceptions that included labeling). Is this last what you're suggesting they do with sugary drinks?

 

Maybe that's not a bad idea. Soda that is formulated to have less sugar/HFCS is inevitable if the supports for the production of those substances are removed (not to mention if the number of studies supporting its harmfulness become too overwhelming for even the non-libtard twats in charge), and it'll be interesting to see what happens to the drink then. One can still buy sassafras-flavored drink mixes (god, I love that shit) that apparently tastes like the real thing but doesn't contain the harmful ingredient itself, to return to a previous example someone used. Maybe a reformulation would be better than a size limit.

 

At the moment, fast food seems like a pretty predatory business. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the average consumer to be savvy about the industry's various sneaky tricks and psychological warfare, and a big part of why that is relies upon the simple fact that government allows them to hide and distort information and run glaringly manipulative ads. This is a game played with such a stacked deck it's ridiculous. So far the US government has seemed far more interested in protecting the interests of that industry. I'm wondering at what point it becomes glaringly obvious to everybody that maybe, just maybe there should be some protections for consumers instead. It makes me a "libtard twat," apparently, to fight against continuing predation by the food industry upon consumers. Okay. I'll wear that if it makes Paine and the rest of y'all happy. But it seems like these dizzyingly large drinks are just a symptom of the foodservice industry's long-standing practices of exploiting governmental subsidies to create a need via massive advertising, then fill it at the expense of the health of its consumers--and they sure as shit won't care if their product hurts people. This "oh wow consumer choice roolz" starry-eyed naive mindset is nice, but it doesn't take into account these practices. If the food industry didn't constantly work to deceive and manipulate, if it were a fair fight, I might be totally on board. But I know better. My question remains: at what point do those predations require reining-in, and how would you non-libtard twats do it?

 

PS: Ouro, do you have evidence for your claim that the proposed ban would affect small businesses over larger ones? It seems like it's aimed way more at fast-food giants than smaller restaurants. Their profit margins on soda would be a lot less extreme.

[Exevolt]

I don't think people should drink so much soda but as OP had said it's the consumers choice.

[florduh]

Advertising is designed to sell products. Vendors offer products desired by the consumer. Those desires are shaped by the culture and advertising. None of this should be news.

 

Here's the problem: When you favor banning a product you must take the position that you know what's good for other people and they don't. You must assume that you can see through the evil advertising and recognize an evil agenda while others are not savvy enough to see the Truth. You must define the bulk of the population as incapable of making good decisions without your help, sort of the way the church views people. Sorry, that just rubs me the wrong way - it's a reflex.

[RankStranger]

Akheia- I would advise you not to argue with MWC. I consider myself to be pretty good at both debating and trolling- and MWC always manages to make a fool of me. So I just hide whenever that guy comes around.

[Ouroboros]

SO when is the NYC mayor gonna turn NYC to a communist state?

Or Nazi.

 

One thing I remember shocked me when I read about Hitler and Nazi Germany, he pushed hard for healthy lifestyles and food. He was trying to social engineer people to eat healthy, like more vegetables, outlaw smoking, etc. There's this certain kind of people (control freaks) who want to tell other people how to live, and they're everywhere. The danger is when they come into power.

[Ouroboros]

PS: Ouro, do you have evidence for your claim that the proposed ban would affect small businesses over larger ones?

The ban itself. It's banning the restaurants, diners, etc to limit the soda. It doesn't address the big corn farming industry. Like Vigile said, NY doesn't have that mandate to affect the farming industry. The whole idea with the law is to limit the sale of soda at the eateries. The majority of eating places are privately own by smaller companies. Some large ones, like McDonalds etc, exists, but if you start walking down the streets of NY and look at the different restaurants, they're not any big chains or part the lobby industry.

 

It seems like it's aimed way more at fast-food giants than smaller restaurants. Their profit margins on soda would be a lot less extreme.

It's aimed to all eateries. Perhaps you only have fast-food joints in your area, but I remember from last time I was in NY that most restaurants were names I've never seen before. And if you watch some food channel programs, you can learn about some of these places' history. Most of them are mom&pop shops.

[Ouroboros]

Akheia- I would advise you not to argue with MWC. I consider myself to be pretty good at both debating and trolling- and MWC always manages to make a fool of me. So I just hide whenever that guy comes around.

Yes. MWC tends to put me in place too (except for when we misunderstand each other).

[Yrth]

Curious: Is there anyone here who would object to mandatory warning labels on excessively sugary food and drink? And maybe something like this at the counter:

[RankStranger]

Akheia- I would advise you not to argue with MWC. I consider myself to be pretty good at both debating and trolling- and MWC always manages to make a fool of me. So I just hide whenever that guy comes around.

Yes. MWC tends to put me in place too (except for when we misunderstand each other).

 

And he isn't even rude about it- that's what really gets to me.

[Ouroboros]

Curious: Is there anyone here who would object to mandatory warning labels on excessively sugary food and drink? And maybe something like this at the counter:

I would most definitely not object at all. Educating and informing the consumer is the way we must continue trying. I know it never worked with cigarettes or tobacco, but I feel we must avoid the alternative of banning everything.

[Ouroboros]

And he isn't even rude about it- that's what really gets to me.

He can when he wants to.

[MrsRoper]

It's too bad any of this stuff has to go to the law books. What would be good is if the corporate food makers actually cared about the health of the communities they serve and not just making money only. They should police themselves and make all the soda sizes smaller. The big cups are just ridiculous (uh, except for my Dunkin Donuts coffee). Fast food sodas should be the same size they were in the 70s. It's a treat!! Not a necessity.

[Vigile]

It's aimed to all eateries.

 

You think so? I really doubt eateries in NYC sell 60oz sodas. Probably most of them sell 8oz like the ones in Europe -- which is why I always order a 0.5l beer because those tiny little soda bottles are just a silly joke.

 

I still don't think this ban will have any real effect on anyone, and really I see both Akheia and others here as all having made a valid point or two. It just seems some are arguing from a position of principle where she is arguing from a position of pragmatism.

 

At the end of the day, what NYC does isn't going to have a great effect on the laws in the rest of the country -- here's a fun one; if you are worried that the laws in NYC will influence lawmakers in the rest of the country, aren't you defeating your own argument, which is that people should be free to make up their own mind's? -- and at least they aren't doing anything unconstitutional here and are representing majority opinion (of their constituents, not the country), which is kind of rare for governments these days.

[mcdaddy]

Our liberties are destroying the health care system. Well, we may go into an economic depression partly due to enormous health care costs, but at least I can get my 40 oz in one cup and not two.

 

We had the chance and we blew it.

 

Don't take away sugary drinks etc, just make people have to pay extra, to offset added healthcare costs due to obscene consumption.

 

Just my op.

[Yrth]

Curious: Is there anyone here who would object to mandatory warning labels on excessively sugary food and drink? And maybe something like this at the counter:

I would most definitely not object at all. Educating and informing the consumer is the way we must continue trying. I know it never worked with cigarettes or tobacco, but I feel we must avoid the alternative of banning everything.

I wouldn't object either, but a mandatory warning label is an imposition on sellers' freedom, so I thought there might be a few folks here who would take exception to it.

 

Did cigarette warnings fail? I don't know any smokers who don't understand that they're hastening natural death by smoking. *Sorry, that was half-rhetorical -- I guess what I was trying to say is that, like Vigile pointed out, warnings are not a practical way to change behavior. Especially when folks will do things like this:

[Ouroboros]

At the end of the day, what NYC does isn't going to have a great effect on the laws in the rest of the country -- here's a fun one; if you are worried that the laws in NYC will influence lawmakers in the rest of the country, aren't you defeating your own argument, which is that people should be free to make up their own mind's? -- and at least they aren't doing anything unconstitutional here and are representing majority opinion (of their constituents, not the country), which is kind of rare for governments these days.

I think you missed my point then.

 

Besides, this is not a law that was voted in. He only needs the approval of the health board that he assigned.

 

Whatever. I presented my opinions.

[Ouroboros]

Our liberties are destroying the health care system. Well, we may go into an economic depression partly due to enormous health care costs, but at least I can get my 40 oz in one cup and not two.

 

We had the chance and we blew it.

 

Don't take away sugary drinks etc, just make people have to pay extra, to offset added healthcare costs due to obscene consumption.

 

Just my op.

I hear a lot about these obscure "costs" in health care. Exactly what and where are these costs happening? (Think about that this law is a law for city of NY, by the mayor, not the governor or state. And he's not the president of any insurance company. So which cost is it mayor Bloomberg responsible for?)

[Ouroboros]

I wouldn't object either, but a mandatory warning label is an imposition on sellers' freedom, so I thought there might be a few folks here who would take exception to it.

Sure. But it's more of an information/education of the public, like the smoking and alcohol warnings we have here in California.

 

Did cigarette warnings fail? I don't know any smokers who don't understand that they're hastening natural death by smoking.

Well, they fail in the sense that few are discouraged. But they at least achieve people to be aware of the dangers. Agree. Most smokers know what the warnings say. The problem is that some don't believe the warnings to be true.

 

*Sorry, that was half-rhetorical -- I guess what I was trying to say is that, like Vigile pointed out, warnings are not a practical way to change behavior. Especially when folks will do things like this:

So an ineffective law is better? When it's proven to be ineffective, the law/ban must be expanded, until next health enemy #1 is declared and the next war on xyz is on. (Probably fried food next.)

 

We're being banned to health because that's what's best for us. (sarc)

 

I've seen those commercials. One point here, just a little side note, most of them are elderly in that commercial. So I'm not sure if people who smoked since the 50's are indicative of how people in their 20's today, with current warnings, make their choices. I suspect kids know more about the risk.

 

In 30 years from now, we'll have even a longer list of all the crap we were not supposed to do today, and it will be banned and outlawed. The only way to get healthy is to eat the government approved nutrition pills, and nothing else.

[Vigile]

At the end of the day, what NYC does isn't going to have a great effect on the laws in the rest of the country -- here's a fun one; if you are worried that the laws in NYC will influence lawmakers in the rest of the country, aren't you defeating your own argument, which is that people should be free to make up their own mind's? -- and at least they aren't doing anything unconstitutional here and are representing majority opinion (of their constituents, not the country), which is kind of rare for governments these days.

I think you missed my point then.

 

Besides, this is not a law that was voted in. He only needs the approval of the health board that he assigned.

 

Whatever. I presented my opinions.

 

Perhaps I missed your point.

 

I would argue, however, that a pretty good case could be made that the mayor is fulfilling a voter mandate in this instance. I haven't seen any polls, but I have a fairly good idea how New Yorkers respond to these types of issues and this lines up pretty well with similar laws passed in the city in recent years.

 

I don't like the legislation of morality and social engineering laws they are passing there either, but I do think they are getting the type of government representation they voted for there, which isn't such a raw deal in this day and age. If these types of laws (laws that encroach on personal decisions) should be unconstitutional, then perhaps there is a new amendment that should be floated. I'd probably support it.

[Ouroboros]

I would argue, however, that a pretty good case could be made that the mayor is fulfilling a voter mandate in this instance. I haven't seen any polls, but I have a fairly good idea how New Yorkers respond to these types of issues and this lines up pretty well with similar laws passed in the city in recent years.

They're frogs in boiling water.

 

http://www.latimes.c...5,0,63260.story

NEW YORK -- New Yorkers oppose Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to crack down on the sale of super-sized sugary sodas, but despite their displeasure with his latest effort to improve the city's health, they still seem to like the mayor, according to a new poll.

 

I don't like the legislation of morality and social engineering laws they are passing there either, but I do think they are getting the type of government representation they voted for there, which isn't such a raw deal in this day and age. If these types of laws (laws that encroach on personal decisions) should be unconstitutional, then perhaps there is a new amendment that should be floated. I'd probably support it.

I think we're all screwed regardless.

 

But I have to be able to voice my opinion about these things. I feel like I'm being attacked for disliking a dumb law that won't work. So whatever.

[Yrth]

I wouldn't object either, but a mandatory warning label is an imposition on sellers' freedom, so I thought there might be a few folks here who would take exception to it.

Sure. But it's more of an information/education of the public, like the smoking and alcohol warnings we have here in California.

 

Did cigarette warnings fail? I don't know any smokers who don't understand that they're hastening natural death by smoking.

Well, they fail in the sense that few are discouraged. But they at least achieve people to be aware of the dangers. Agree. Most smokers know what the warnings say. The problem is that some don't believe the warnings to be true.

 

*Sorry, that was half-rhetorical -- I guess what I was trying to say is that, like Vigile pointed out, warnings are not a practical way to change behavior. Especially when folks will do things like this:

So an ineffective law is better? When it's proven to be ineffective, the law/ban must be expanded, until next health enemy #1 is declared and the next war on xyz is on. (Probably fried food next.)

Quite right, an ineffective law is just as bad. Like I said on page one, we need an incentive-oriented overhaul of the current system.

 

This seems like more of the beginning of a new sin tax -- classify it as a financial disincentive. I'm not opposed to that in principle, but it doesn't seem very effective when its limited to big gulps.

[Vigile]

But I have to be able to voice my opinion about these things. I feel like I'm being attacked for disliking a dumb law that won't work. So whatever.

 

You shouldn't feel attacked by me. As far as I'm concerned this is just a friendly discussion. I've simply offered an alternative viewpoint here, which is in no way an attack. I largely agree with you, I just don't see this as a watershed issue; rather a local one that doesn't really affect anyone in a meaningful way.

 

 

There was one bright spot for Bloomberg in the poll results: Respondents in the borough of Manhattan favor the soda ban by 52%. In the city's other four boroughs -- the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island -- support for the ban ranged from 37% to 44%.

 

Here's where you get these types of do-gooder type laws in places like NY and CA. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of voters per district. I'd bet there are higher turnouts in Manhattan. Just a guess.

[Ouroboros]

Quite right, an ineffective law is just as bad. Like I said on page one, we need an incentive-oriented overhaul of the current system.

Yes. Exactly how... I don't know.

 

It seems like American politics is too much about whips and not enough carrots.

 

This seems like more of the beginning of a new sin tax -- classify it as a financial disincentive. I'm not opposed to that in principle, but it doesn't seem very effective when its limited to big gulps.

Well, this ban isn't a tax. And I think I read somewhere about the problem of a soda tax too, but I do feel more willing to accept a soda tax than a ban.

[Vigile]

Question, what makes this law worse than much more prevalent dry county laws and laws that limit times when alcohol can be sold. Those laws too are social engineering laws that reflect contemporary community values. Isn't part of the reaction here that New Yorkers -- or at least those in Manhattan -- support legislation that strongly disagrees with your own personal values?

[MrsRoper]

Instead of city laws about soda, the FDA should regulate sugar like they do alcohol & label it better. They could create a super sexy surgeon general warning.