NYC plans to ban sales of sugary drinks over 16 ounces

[AmPat]

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]

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!

[linda22003]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?