PDA

View Full Version : NYC plans to ban sales of sugary drinks over 16 ounces



RedGrouse
05-31-2012, 02:50 PM
NYC plans to ban sales of sugary drinks over 16 ounces
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/nyc-plans-to-ban-sales-sugary-drinks-over-16-ounces/#ixzz1wRCC0qou

Michael Bloomberg is at it again.


Dr. Manny: I support Bloomberg ban on supersize sodas
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/31/dr-manny-support-bloomberg-ban-on-supersize-sodas/

Another statist.

Bailey
05-31-2012, 03:02 PM
For the love of pete...

FlaGator
05-31-2012, 03:40 PM
Big Brother is watching your waist line.

NJCardFan
05-31-2012, 10:40 PM
Mother, may I have a large Coke?

Mother Nanny State: No!

Odysseus
06-01-2012, 12:16 AM
Big Brother is watching your waist line.

It's not big brother, it's sugar daddy.

Okay, so instead of ordering a large coke, people will order a medium and a refill. Or is Bloomberg planning to ban refills, too?

linda22003
06-01-2012, 09:34 AM
It's not big brother, it's sugar daddy.

Okay, so instead of ordering a large coke, people will order a medium and a refill. Or is Bloomberg planning to ban refills, too?

Nope, in an interview last night, he specifically said that's fine. I think 64-ounce drinks full of sugar are absurd, but people should decide that for themselves.

NJCardFan
06-01-2012, 10:54 AM
Nope, in an interview last night, he specifically said that's fine. I think 64-ounce drinks full of sugar are absurd, but people should decide that for themselves.

So why am I being denied a 64oz unsweetened iced tea? Not a drop of sugar in that. Nope, this is nanny statism at it's worst.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 11:02 AM
So why am I being denied a 64oz unsweetened iced tea? Not a drop of sugar in that. Nope, this is nanny statism at it's worst.

You can still get that. The ban is on large sizes of sugared carbonated drinks. It's not on other high calorie sweet drinks like milkshakes, which is a "whole 'nother" issue.

AmPat
06-01-2012, 11:28 AM
I hope somebody creates a market with 17 oz cups and sells them in The People's Rebublik of NYC. It could be decorated with Herr Bloomberg's Mug sporting his Brownshirt attire.

Bailey
06-01-2012, 11:41 AM
You can still get that. The ban is on large sizes of sugared carbonated drinks. It's not on other high calorie sweet drinks like milkshakes, which is a "whole 'nother" issue.

I could be wrong but why do I get the feeling you don't think this is a bad idea or an idea that's worth much concern?

AmPat
06-01-2012, 11:48 AM
I could be wrong but why do I get the feeling you don't think this is a bad idea or an idea that's worth much concern?
She is a N. Eastern "Conservative." That means she doesn't really know how to be agains't ALL instances of Nanny-Statism wherever it crops up.

Odysseus
06-01-2012, 12:06 PM
Nope, in an interview last night, he specifically said that's fine. I think 64-ounce drinks full of sugar are absurd, but people should decide that for themselves.

So, he's not preventing people from drinking 64-ounce drinks, he's just making it annoying. Does that mean that 2-liter bottles of soda can't be sold, either? For that matter, if I order a rum and coke in a highball glass, is the city saying that the coke must be rationed but that the rum is okay? Is Bloomberg simply trying to get the City Council to bring back term limits by making his third term such a nuisance that nobody will ever want to elect anyone for more than two?


You can still get that. The ban is on large sizes of sugared carbonated drinks. It's not on other high calorie sweet drinks like milkshakes, which is a "whole 'nother" issue.

Sounds discriminatory to me. We're all made out of carbon, to some degree, and as a Carbon-American, I demand my rights! :evil-grin:

linda22003
06-01-2012, 12:16 PM
No, 2 litre bottles can be sold - supermarkets and convenience stores are exempted from the law. After all, a 2 litre bottle can last for several servings; in our house it would last for months and would have to be thrown away because we don't drink that crap. Again, that's OUR decision, not the nanny state's.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 12:19 PM
I could be wrong but why do I get the feeling you don't think this is a bad idea or an idea that's worth much concern?

That's because you don't read carefully. In my first post I specifically said that people should decide for themselves. I also post in a calm tone rather than a "hair on fire" tone, which may also confuse you as to my opinion.

Bailey
06-01-2012, 12:25 PM
That's because you don't read carefully. In my first post I specifically said that people should decide for themselves. I also post in a calm tone rather than a "hair on fire" tone, which may also confuse you as to my opinion.

Thats my fault but I didnt read your first post, coming into the middle of the thread like that.

Zathras
06-01-2012, 12:44 PM
You can still get that. The ban is on large sizes of sugared carbonated drinks. It's not on other high calorie sweet drinks like milkshakes, which is a "whole 'nother" issue.

And once Bloomberg finds out that there are other drinks out there with more calories due to sugar than sodas you can bet they're next on his hit list.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 12:45 PM
Thats my fault but I didnt read your first post, coming into the middle of the thread like that.

That's okay. We got that cleared up.

Bailey
06-01-2012, 12:56 PM
That's okay. We got that cleared up.

just out of curiosity how many liberties do they have to take before your "hair will be on fire"?

linda22003
06-01-2012, 01:00 PM
Sorry to be too calm. If you want hair on fire, I recommend Mike 128's thread on the same subject. He's absolutely FULL of.... um.... righteous indignation.

AmPat
06-01-2012, 01:25 PM
Sorry to be too calm. If you want hair on fire, I recommend Mike 128's thread on the same subject. He's absolutely FULL of.... um.... righteous indignation.
Calm but concerned would be acceptable. Do you find this to be a typical liberal over reach or not? Along the continuum from No Salt/sugar/meat/light bulbs/toilets/ etc, etc, to stay out of my bathroom and kitchen do you fall? Where is your comfort level?

I don't believe allowing for ANY encroachment into my bedroom, kitchen, or bathroom is anywhere in the Constitution or was a topic of discussion with the founding fathers.
At what point will alarm bells go off for you?

linda22003
06-01-2012, 01:30 PM
Calm but concerned would be acceptable. Do you find this to be a typical liberal over reach or not? Along the continuum from No Salt/sugar/meat/light bulbs/toilets/ etc, etc, to stay out of my bathroom and kitchen do you fall? Where is your comfort level?



Okay, I can go with calm but concerned. I don't like any nanny-stateism. If anything on your list raises my blood pressure, it would be the light bulbs!

AmPat
06-01-2012, 01:45 PM
Okay, I can go with calm but concerned. I don't like any nanny-stateism. If anything on your list raises my blood pressure, it would be the light bulbs!

Agreed!

Odysseus
06-01-2012, 02:44 PM
No, 2 litre bottles can be sold - supermarkets and convenience stores are exempted from the law. After all, a 2 litre bottle can last for several servings; in our house it would last for months and would have to be thrown away because we don't drink that crap. Again, that's OUR decision, not the nanny state's.

Okay, so a supermarket or convenience store can sell a 2 liter bottle of soda, but can a pizzeria? Are they allowed to deliver it, or do they have to divide it up into single-serving bottles?

C'mon, doesn't this strike you as just a little bit, well, stupid?

Janice
06-01-2012, 03:00 PM
If the nitwits in NY allow Bloomberg to keep instituting mandates like this it opens the door for future 'Tammany Halls' and such to dictate just about anything. How you can or cannot cook, what you can or cannot eat or drink, where and when you can or cannot smoke and on and on. And ... it sets a bad example for statist democrats who want this power on the federal level.

Liberalism is a fatal disease. Woe to the host that gets infected.

RedGrouse
06-01-2012, 07:52 PM
If the nitwits in NY allow Bloomberg to keep instituting mandates like this it opens the door for future 'Tammany Halls' and such to dictate just about anything. How you can or cannot cook, what you can or cannot eat or drink, where and when you can or cannot smoke and on and on. And ... it sets a bad example for statist democrats who want this power on the federal level.

Liberalism is a fatal disease. Woe to the host that gets infected.

Bloomberg is a crook. New Yorkers are allowing this to go on.

Chuck58
06-01-2012, 09:51 PM
This is the type of stuff that annoys the hell out of me with northeast so called conservatives. I'm subjected to visiting that area, Maine and NH and occasionally the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts and I have yet to find a real what I call conservative.

I've read here and in other places that there's a vast gulf between northeast conservatives and southern and western conservatism. You can't really understand it though unless you experience it first hand. To them, I'm a right wing radical. To me, they're liberals.

Janice
06-01-2012, 10:39 PM
Liberalism is a fatal disease. Woe to the host that gets infected.

Hmm, I like that. Think Im goin to use it.

Dan D. Doty
06-02-2012, 03:45 PM
Big Brother is watching your waist line.

... Big Brother can kiss my ass instead.

AmPat
06-03-2012, 10:40 AM
Bloomberg specials: 16 oz drinks with pre-packaged sugar packets attached to them. I would stick the stupidity of this nanny Statism in DUmberg's face.

Articulate_Ape
06-03-2012, 02:52 PM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m50b9kn9Av1qcs12f.png

Odysseus
06-03-2012, 03:58 PM
The problem with NYC is that compared to what the Democrats offered, Bloomberg was the best option. Hopefully, Ray Kelly will run for mayor next time around. He's an adult, who treats others like adults.

ThinkingBig
06-03-2012, 08:26 PM
How about just stopping all publicly supported medical treatment for type II diabetes?

In fact, anyone whose body mass is 20% higher than it should be - BMI 30, they are barred from public hospitals and doctors offices.

And employers should not have to provide health care for obese people.

Apache
06-03-2012, 08:46 PM
How about just stopping all publicly supported medical treatment for type II diabetes?

In fact, anyone whose body mass is 20% higher than it should be - BMI 30, they are barred from public hospitals and doctors offices.

And employers should not have to provide health care for obese people.

You are so dense, I bet a blackhole would lose a battle with you...


Go play in traffic :evil-grin:

Gina
06-03-2012, 08:52 PM
How about just stopping all publicly supported medical treatment for type II diabetes?

In fact, anyone whose body mass is 20% higher than it should be - BMI 30, they are barred from public hospitals and doctors offices.

And employers should not have to provide health care for obese people.

Mayor Bloomberg? Is that you?

Odysseus
06-03-2012, 11:38 PM
How about just stopping all publicly supported medical treatment for type II diabetes?

In fact, anyone whose body mass is 20% higher than it should be - BMI 30, they are barred from public hospitals and doctors offices.

And employers should not have to provide health care for obese people.

Please don't give Bloomie any more ideas.

RobJohnson
06-04-2012, 01:34 AM
https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/562470_3437870261895_1124659021_32733724_147095857 0_n.jpg

AmPat
06-04-2012, 03:10 AM
How about just stopping all publicly supported medical treatment for type II diabetes?

In fact, anyone whose body mass is 20% higher than it should be - BMI 30, they are barred from public hospitals and doctors offices.

And employers should not have to provide health care for obese people.
I'll make you a deal: First, we shut off ALL public assistance for anybody that is able bodied. We cut all entitlement expenditures for any person who failed to graduate from high school. We charge full market price immediately for all welfare housing. We stop food stamps immediately for anyone who has been on them for 6 months.

Still wanna play child?:rolleyes:

linda22003
06-04-2012, 08:47 AM
How about just stopping all publicly supported medical treatment for type II diabetes?

In fact, anyone whose body mass is 20% higher than it should be - BMI 30, they are barred from public hospitals and doctors offices.

And employers should not have to provide health care for obese people.

There's some discussion of making healthcare premiums higher if you're obese. Obesity is one indicator for Type II diabetes, but it's not cut and dried. My husband has always been normal weight, works out like crazy, and really watches his glucose because diabetes runs in his family. So far he has dodged the bullet, but if he ultimately gets it it won't be because he's been packing in the doughnuts and Big Gulps.

Gina
06-05-2012, 04:38 AM
There's some discussion of making healthcare premiums higher if you're obese. Obesity is one indicator for Type II diabetes, but it's not cut and dried. My husband has always been normal weight, works out like crazy, and really watches his glucose because diabetes runs in his family. So far he has dodged the bullet, but if he ultimately gets it it won't be because he's been packing in the doughnuts and Big Gulps.

I'm sure TB either doesn't care or doesn't believe you. He's prejudiced against fat people (what a lousy democrat) and only wants personal responsibility to apply if you're fat, otherwise I'm sure he's ok with govt being the mom.

He's a maroon.

Odysseus
06-05-2012, 09:16 AM
There's some discussion of making healthcare premiums higher if you're obese. Obesity is one indicator for Type II diabetes, but it's not cut and dried. My husband has always been normal weight, works out like crazy, and really watches his glucose because diabetes runs in his family. So far he has dodged the bullet, but if he ultimately gets it it won't be because he's been packing in the doughnuts and Big Gulps.

Here's the thing that people don't get about insurance: Imagine that you go to a Vegas casino, and put $100 down on a bet that you will contract a disease within a month. The house will look at the odds and decide whether to take the bet. If you get the disease, they pay out a huge sum, based on the odds. If you don't, they let you bet again next month. Now, replace casino with insurance company and odds with actuarial tables and you understand the process. An insurance company is there to pool resources from people who are betting that someday, they will incur a disease or condition that requires a payout. Now, if everybody ends up winning at the same time, the house goes broke. If everybody cashes in at the same time, the insurance company cannot meet all payouts. This, BTW, is the problem with Social Security, which is touted as an insurance program, but is thought of as a pension. When it was established, only a certain percentage of people lived to collect, but as longevity increased, the program became insolvent because the odds had changed, but the rules of betting and paying out hadn't. Fixing Social Security requires adjusting the odds so that the house isn't paying out to every person placing a bet (and to people who aren't, which is another issue), or you reconfigure it as a pension system by privatizing accounts.

In the case of health care, increasing the premiums (bets) for the same benefits (payouts) based on actuarial data (odds) is just common sense. If someone like your husband has a genetic predisposition towards diabetes, but maintains a lifestyle that combats it, then the company should take both factors into account, calculate the odds and adjust his premiums accordingly. This rewards his good behavior (i.e., there is an economic incentive for it) but takes his initial risk factors into account.


I'm sure TB either doesn't care or doesn't believe you. He's prejudiced against fat people (what a lousy democrat) and only wants personal responsibility to apply if you're fat, otherwise I'm sure he's ok with govt being the mom.

He's a maroon.

Yes, but maroons must be dealt with, or they end up defining the debate. Even Bugs Bunny understood this. That's why the proper response to a troll is, "Of course you know, this means war!"

Gina
06-05-2012, 09:30 AM
He's also a nincom




poop.

http://http://www.hark.com/clips/nsvdjzkfdz-what-a-maroon
http://www.hark.com/clips/rykgldscfm-this-means-war

:biggrin-new:

linda22003
06-05-2012, 09:55 AM
Yes, but maroons must be dealt with, or they end up defining the debate. Even Bugs Bunny understood this. That's why the proper response to a troll is, "Of course you know, this means war!"

Or this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReA4Zvy8Zwk

Odysseus
06-05-2012, 11:55 AM
Or this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReA4Zvy8Zwk

Not without dinner and a movie first.

linda22003
06-05-2012, 12:57 PM
Not without dinner and a movie first.

Did you watch it? The editing is phenomenal!