They start with drinks and then they finish with a dress code.
@catstemplar2 - They started with cigarettes, and everyone was OK with that.
No more sugary drinks? You can have water, and black coffee. Unprocessed cranberry and orange juice. Unsweetened tea and lemonade. Oh and milk. Plain white milk. Thats it.
but you can carry a gun? can you imagine – ‘put down the sugary drink’ swat teams… twinkies and ho-ho’s shall be next!
Apparently, it is only restaurants and the fine is only $200, so I am sure if that is per month, most places might pay the price, considering they would gain more in revenue selling more soda, instead of less. While I dont think this needs to be done, I think 16oz is reasonable, especially since most resaurants refill. I think this will impact fast-food, especially drive-throughs the most.
I wonder what happened to “my body, my choice”
Dictating people’s choices about health was a bad idea from the start, banning smoking was the first step and it is all downhill from here. Who knows – in five years there could be a mandatory gym schedule and you could be fined for cavities?
What a joke!!
They are trial running this feature of Obama Care to see how much control over our diets they can exert without causing riots. I’ll bet New Yorkers just lie down and take it.
terrifying.
@justfinethanku - @BoulderChristina - Banning smoking in public is a world of difference. The point wasn’t to stop people from smoking, rather to stop other people’s second hand smoke from annoying the crap out of us who don’t wish to smoke or inhale second hand smoke, not to mention the service industry who were getting sick from it. People don’t have the right to get others sick. Smoke gives me a headache and my eyes water and my nose runs.
This is silly. Don’t they have bigger issues to look after?
@TiredSoVeryTired - but allowing smoking in a private business should the right of the property owner and not the government, much like smoking in your own private residence. If you OWN the property you should be able to use it as you please. I can understand and would support a ban on smoking in government buildings and on government property.
@TiredSoVeryTired - I hate indoor smoking, too. I really do – I feel terrible the next day after being in an environment like that. I also feel for the service workers, so I wasn’t hell bent against the measure to ban it, except for the fact that it is a business owner’s right (Like JustFineThankYou mentioned) and the inevitable limit pushing that would come next, like this. Honestly I am surprised it took this long, I thought maybe I was wrong to be concerned.
I don’t want the gov’t to regulate my life so minutely that I have to worry about them being involved in my body, that’s all.
That’s just silly. I don’t imagine it’ll last long.
Drink beer. And wine. Shot of whiskey, jigger of gin. You could sneak your own red pop in in a wine bottle and get bottle service.
If government-funded healthcare is a reality, then the government has every right to dictate our health-related conduct. It’s the same principle as with any service a person uses that is provided by a corporate body; there are terms of service involved that the user has to uphold, which is in effect a voluntary agreement to restrict behavior. Thus what the government is doing here is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of a government-run healthcare system. I’m not trying to argue that government-run healthcare is necessarily a good thing, but rather, that the move to regulate food options is consistent with the idea that government can do a better job of keeping our health in line than we can.
@QuantumStorm - Exactly. That’s one of my big issues with the government taking over our health care. If we hand that over to them, we’re basically subjecting ourselves to whatever rules they wish to impose on us when it comes to what we consume.
This reminds me of a time in college this overweight girl was at our apartment for someone’s birthday and she had TWO heaping plates of food….and cut herself a ginormous slice of cake …walks into our kitchen and opens our fridge (keep in mind I have no idea who this girl is)….and looks at me and says “what? you don’t have DIET Coke?”
Point being, people aren’t going to lose weight cuz they are drinking 8 less ounces of soda.
Am I the only one who doesn’t take issue with this or think it’s silly? Sodas are full of high fructose corn syrup, which some very intelligent people have argued is toxic to our body. Our bodies can’t metabolize high fructose corn syrup properly, so once consumed …. a portion of it will always be stored as fat. Sodas and many other drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup are definitely contributing to the obesity problem in the U.S.
I think this is a decent step in the right direction.
@light_blue_fables - The government isn’t there to make these kinds of decisions for us. The government’s job is to protect us from other people and to notify us of the dangers when new information is acquired. Then we have to be adults and make up our own minds about what risks we choose to take.
@TiredSoVeryTired - The restrictions on smokers border on ridiculous sometimes. Sure, it’s ok to ban it from certain venues (restaurants, for example) and of course office buildings of any sort. But then there’s the “15-20 feet away from any outside door” rule. And I even heard that they were trying to ban smoking from certain sidewalks or something like that. Come on now. Out in the open? If someone is smoking on the street, and it bothers you, move a couple feet. Banning smoking outdoors (even though it’s certain limited areas) is ridiculous.
@QuantumStorm - Exactly! If we accept government run health care, then laws regarding what we may or may not eat or do are the next logical step. WHY DOESN’T ANYONE GET THIS, aside from a handful of people on xanga? Oh right. Too busy worrying about where babies can or can’t eat, and homosexuals being brought into the fold of “acceptable” people.
Not just borderline. Very obscene. Incredibly obscene, even. Terrifying and worrisome.
What do you expect from liberalism?
I’d be happier if he banned smoking. I can’t stand walking through people’s clouds every time I have to walk down the street. There’s no point to not smoking anymore.
based on the comments of this discussion it would make more sense to ban alcohol. not only is there an immediate detrimental effect, but it also affects others. of course we all know what would happen if the government tried to take people’s alcohol away. this should be interesting to watch.
@lanney - do you see that happening in our society?
@QuantumStorm - can you demonstrate that any other nations with government-funded health care have banned foods publicly? otherwise, the slippery slope argument fails.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I never said they HAD to. What I said is that this sort of ban is perfectly consistent with the notion of government-funded health care.
@WaitingToShrug - Just like if we let the gays get married, then we’ll have people wanting to marry ducks and other animals! Makes perfect sense!
@QuantumStorm - This still doesn’t make much sense.. I mean, it’s more of a scare tactic than anything, don’t you think? Could you explain how those two things are consistent so we can be on the same page here, because as of now, I don’t get it.
@QuantumStorm - High fructose corn syrup is banned in Europe, Q, just so you know.
For example, when we use Xanga, we have to agree to a Terms of Service. This ToS tells us what we can and cannot do with our Xanga accounts. It limits our behavior in certain ways. Likewise, with the government limiting our behavior in terms of dictating what food we can and cannot consume, is only a logical extension of the government providing us healthcare. See where I’m going with this? It’s not a scare tactic at all, but rather, a logical next step for the government to take with healthcare. @WaitingToShrug - Didn’t France also ban ketchup in their schools? And foie gras?
@Saridactyl - Excuse me? No, I never said that, and that’s not consistent with my argument at all. You know what IS consistent?
WHEN did gay marriage become illegal? Would the answer be something like, “When we asked the government to step in and start licensing people’s relationships”? And just so you know, because your tone sounds as if you think that I am anti-gay marriage, I am not. I think it’s hideous that a consenting relationship between two adults is likened to bestiality and pedophilia. I’m also pro- legal polygamy, in case you’re interested in learning the difference between a libertarian and a Republican.
@WaitingToShrug - My tone does not express that I think you’re against gay marriage, I’ve never talked to you about how you feel about gay marriage. And besides, this isn’t about gay marriage. What I meant was that you’re saying that if government-funded health care is implemented, then it only logically leads to people being told what they can and cannot eat. Much like people who feel that if we legalize gay marriage, people will want to marry animals. Both of those ideas lack logic and are informal fallacies. That was my point.
As for knowing the difference between libertarians and republicans, I certainly do. I’m not sure how my sentiment expressed above somehow implies that I don’t. But for the record, I don’t like ANY political party BECAUSE I know the differences between them.
@Saridactyl - Do you not understand the concept of conditions on “gifts”? Or budgeting? I can give you some examples, if you like. But first, imagine how stupid the government would have to be to take on the cost of every person’s health care in the face of rising rates of obesity, diabetes (2), and heart disease without any attempts at all to prevent those (largely lifestyle related) conditions.
So, examples. How about, parents offer to pay for their child’s car insurance, with the condition that he not get any traffic tickets. Or how about, I chose to take on the responsibility of my dogs’ health care, therefore, I only let them eat extremely healthy food, and I take them out for exercise. Or, how about, your country takes on the cost of healthcare for millions of already unhealthy people. To keep costs down, they make unhealthy substances illegal and put into place age cut-offs for certain procedures, regardless of that patient’s wishes (so as not to waste money on someone who doesn’t have much time left anyway).
@light_blue_fables - HFCS is incredibly unhealthy, but it’s not the government’s job to legislate what we consume. I choose not to drink soda, eat grains or processed food, and I’m healthier for it, but that doesn’t mean that I should make you eat the way I do. Unless I pay for your doctor visits- then I get to make up your diet however I think is best. (And if it’s the US government, I’m probably wrong about what’s healthy.)
Yep, first it’s the sugary drinks, next it’s the titty bars.
This reminds me, too, of overtaxing cigarette smokers. Same line of thinking. Yes, it’s disgusting, especially since *diet* (poison) sodas are not included, and also, look around you – people who are of desirable weight are less seen drinking diet soda and eating salads than overweight people. At least, that is what I see. As Americans, we should all be free to pick our (legal) poisons. And as with cigarettes, I can’t help but think of the severe bias that excludes alcohol from overtaxation or even banning public places (restaurants, bars) from serving ANY alcohol. There is a law for “drunk in public”, yet public places can sell alcohol, and bars are where you go get drunk and have a good time. We can give lip service all day to our outrage at drunken drivers and pickled livers, but the fact is that America considers alcohol to be sacred.
It is a bunch of BS. That is all.
@QuantumStorm - @WaitingToShrug - the ban on HFCS is based on it being made from corn that is genetically modified, not that it’s a sugar and, therefore, unhealthy.
@QuantumStorm - and i disagree, simply because no other country has made that connection. besides, we already have government-run health care (Medicaid and Medicare) for decades no and no bans were put in place for people using those programs.
@light_blue_fables - HFCS can be considered toxic…but it is toxic in the same way table sugar is toxic. Both are actually bad for you…and ideally, there is no dietary reason to ever add sugar (or salt) to anything we eat. (Nutrion-wise, we get plenty of glucose and sodium anyways. Of course, things would taste gross but that’s another issue.). We can metabolize HFCS just fine…(like many other things we eat) it metabolizes differently than sugar…but not by much. Fructose metabolizes differently than pure glucose (the sugar we actually need/use) I think HFCS is something like 55-60% fructose…but sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose anyways. Both HFCS and sugar will readily be converted to fat…but eventually you can metabolize all of it. (People might be more inclined to limit their sugar intake if it was called Fairly High Fructose White Stuff).
My issue with the ban isn’t really based upon principle really. The fact is, governments regulate a lot of stuff already. There are lots of things we can’t just eat/use. The government regulates tons of chemicals that need to be absent or minimized in our foods and products for our own safety. We can’t just get raw unpasteurized milk…or eat dolphin, or horse. And some other things we can’t eat because they are endangered species or its considered unethical. Chilean sea bass and foie gras are slowly disappearing from menus in CA (despite their deliciousness….which btw, I’m not happy about.) So I get that the government can regulate things…and even foods…which it already does (that most people don’t really think about on a day to day basis.) My issue is that a ban on soda (or the size of it…even more ridiculous) has no significant purpose or effect. As noted above, HFCS isn’t all that different from sugar. Its ridiculous to think drinking 4-8 less ounces of soda whilst filling up on tons of all kinds of sugar, saturated fats, chemicals, and junk foods. Its silly that I can only have 16 ounces of coke….but can order a triple patty bacon cheeseburger and fries with extra salt and a 64 oz milkshake (milkshakes aren’t limited due to being a dairy product…despite having obscene amounts of sugar (and fat)) and manually stick in an extra dozen packets of table sugar….. but coke? 16 OUNCES ONLY!
I think the mayor and city would be better off trying to educate the public on nutrition and HFCS (and sugar!) and everything else and find ways to promote healthier lifestyles. Its a slow and steep uphill battle…but over time people begin to become more aware. (Heck…even talking about this issue reminds me I need to drink less soda!) At least its better than limiting freedom for the sake of something so silly and impractical.
I thought it was right for cigarettes and I think this is right. I also thought it was right to ban pop and candy machines in school. The epic proportions of obesity are definitely a national security issue at this stage of development. This is nothing and most will not even notice these minor changes but the public health of the overall citizens will improve greatly. Americans are too fat and who better then the government of America to solve these things. Every generation gets fatter and these trends must be reversed.
@light_blue_fables - Does it matter? Just because something happens to be the wiser choice doesn’t mean we have the right to force people to make it. If we’re not free, what good is our health?
@wizexel22 - I should have been clearer. I’m not disagreeing. I’m sharing.
Sorry!
Let’s not forget that liberals limited the size of the tank behind your toilet. That was a fine backup in case the water shut off during an emergency. Not any more.
Easy to get around the limit. Buy two drinks. Duh.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. The logic of such a ban isn’t dictated by its prevalence but rather the result of the government effectively applying a “terms of service” on a service (healthcare) it is providing to its people. And here is a list of other food bans, some of which are for health reasons: http://www.delish.com/food-fun/banned-food
@Unstoppable_Inner_Strength - I absolutely hated having to walk through smoke in order to enter some buildings. Yes, I totally agree with banning it near the main entrance of a building. Why should I have to walk through a cloud of smoke? I shouldn’t have to. As to banning it on the streets, I agree that does seem rather silly until you notice all the nasty cigarettes butts everywhere. I wouldn’t ban it on the street, but I’d like to see heavier fines for littering in general.
Comments (54)
They start with drinks and then they finish with a dress code.
@catstemplar2 - They started with cigarettes, and everyone was OK with that.
No more sugary drinks? You can have water, and black coffee. Unprocessed cranberry and orange juice. Unsweetened tea and lemonade. Oh and milk. Plain white milk. Thats it.
but you can carry a gun? can you imagine – ‘put down the sugary drink’ swat teams… twinkies and ho-ho’s shall be next!
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/05/31/new-york-city-plans-to-ban-sale-large-sugary-drinks/
Apparently, it is only restaurants and the fine is only $200, so I am sure if that is per month, most places might pay the price, considering they would gain more in revenue selling more soda, instead of less. While I dont think this needs to be done, I think 16oz is reasonable, especially since most resaurants refill. I think this will impact fast-food, especially drive-throughs the most.
I wonder what happened to “my body, my choice”
Dictating people’s choices about health was a bad idea from the start, banning smoking was the first step and it is all downhill from here. Who knows – in five years there could be a mandatory gym schedule and you could be fined for cavities?
What a joke!!
They are trial running this feature of Obama Care to see how much control over our diets they can exert without causing riots. I’ll bet New Yorkers just lie down and take it.
terrifying.
@justfinethanku - @BoulderChristina - Banning smoking in public is a world of difference. The point wasn’t to stop people from smoking, rather to stop other people’s second hand smoke from annoying the crap out of us who don’t wish to smoke or inhale second hand smoke, not to mention the service industry who were getting sick from it. People don’t have the right to get others sick. Smoke gives me a headache and my eyes water and my nose runs.
This is silly. Don’t they have bigger issues to look after?
@TiredSoVeryTired - but allowing smoking in a private business should the right of the property owner and not the government, much like smoking in your own private residence. If you OWN the property you should be able to use it as you please. I can understand and would support a ban on smoking in government buildings and on government property.
@TiredSoVeryTired - I hate indoor smoking, too. I really do – I feel terrible the next day after being in an environment like that. I also feel for the service workers, so I wasn’t hell bent against the measure to ban it, except for the fact that it is a business owner’s right (Like JustFineThankYou mentioned) and the inevitable limit pushing that would come next, like this. Honestly I am surprised it took this long, I thought maybe I was wrong to be concerned.
I don’t want the gov’t to regulate my life so minutely that I have to worry about them being involved in my body, that’s all.
That’s just silly. I don’t imagine it’ll last long.
Drink beer. And wine. Shot of whiskey, jigger of gin. You could sneak your own red pop in in a wine bottle and get bottle service.
I like drinking some bear, but I hate smoking.
PDF splitter, PDF split
@godfatherofgreenbay - Definitely
This is hardly surprising.
If government-funded healthcare is a reality, then the government has every right to dictate our health-related conduct. It’s the same principle as with any service a person uses that is provided by a corporate body; there are terms of service involved that the user has to uphold, which is in effect a voluntary agreement to restrict behavior.
Thus what the government is doing here is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of a government-run healthcare system. I’m not trying to argue that government-run healthcare is necessarily a good thing, but rather, that the move to regulate food options is consistent with the idea that government can do a better job of keeping our health in line than we can.
@QuantumStorm - Exactly. That’s one of my big issues with the government taking over our health care. If we hand that over to them, we’re basically subjecting ourselves to whatever rules they wish to impose on us when it comes to what we consume.
@QuantumStorm - Agreed.
This reminds me of a time in college this overweight girl was at our apartment for someone’s birthday and she had TWO heaping plates of food….and cut herself a ginormous slice of cake …walks into our kitchen and opens our fridge (keep in mind I have no idea who this girl is)….and looks at me and says “what? you don’t have DIET Coke?”
Point being, people aren’t going to lose weight cuz they are drinking 8 less ounces of soda.
Am I the only one who doesn’t take issue with this or think it’s silly? Sodas are full of high fructose corn syrup, which some very intelligent people have argued is toxic to our body. Our bodies can’t metabolize high fructose corn syrup properly, so once consumed …. a portion of it will always be stored as fat. Sodas and many other drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup are definitely contributing to the obesity problem in the U.S.
I think this is a decent step in the right direction.
@light_blue_fables - The government isn’t there to make these kinds of decisions for us. The government’s job is to protect us from other people and to notify us of the dangers when new information is acquired. Then we have to be adults and make up our own minds about what risks we choose to take.
@TiredSoVeryTired - The restrictions on smokers border on ridiculous sometimes. Sure, it’s ok to ban it from certain venues (restaurants, for example) and of course office buildings of any sort. But then there’s the “15-20 feet away from any outside door” rule. And I even heard that they were trying to ban smoking from certain sidewalks or something like that. Come on now. Out in the open? If someone is smoking on the street, and it bothers you, move a couple feet. Banning smoking outdoors (even though it’s certain limited areas) is ridiculous.
@QuantumStorm - Exactly! If we accept government run health care, then laws regarding what we may or may not eat or do are the next logical step. WHY DOESN’T ANYONE GET THIS, aside from a handful of people on xanga? Oh right. Too busy worrying about where babies can or can’t eat, and homosexuals being brought into the fold of “acceptable” people.
Not just borderline. Very obscene. Incredibly obscene, even. Terrifying and worrisome.
What do you expect from liberalism?
I’d be happier if he banned smoking. I can’t stand walking through people’s clouds every time I have to walk down the street. There’s no point to not smoking anymore.
based on the comments of this discussion it would make more sense to ban alcohol. not only is there an immediate detrimental effect, but it also affects others. of course we all know what would happen if the government tried to take people’s alcohol away. this should be interesting to watch.
@lanney - do you see that happening in our society?
@QuantumStorm - can you demonstrate that any other nations with government-funded health care have banned foods publicly? otherwise, the slippery slope argument fails.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I never said they HAD to. What I said is that this sort of ban is perfectly consistent with the notion of government-funded health care.
@WaitingToShrug - Just like if we let the gays get married, then we’ll have people wanting to marry ducks and other animals! Makes perfect sense!
@QuantumStorm - This still doesn’t make much sense.. I mean, it’s more of a scare tactic than anything, don’t you think? Could you explain how those two things are consistent so we can be on the same page here, because as of now, I don’t get it.
@QuantumStorm - High fructose corn syrup is banned in Europe, Q, just so you know.
@Saridactyl - Well think of it this way…
For example, when we use Xanga, we have to agree to a Terms of Service. This ToS tells us what we can and cannot do with our Xanga accounts. It limits our behavior in certain ways.
Likewise, with the government limiting our behavior in terms of dictating what food we can and cannot consume, is only a logical extension of the government providing us healthcare. See where I’m going with this?
It’s not a scare tactic at all, but rather, a logical next step for the government to take with healthcare.
@WaitingToShrug - Didn’t France also ban ketchup in their schools? And foie gras?
@flapper_femme_fatale - See @WaitingToShrug ’s comment
@Saridactyl - Excuse me? No, I never said that, and that’s not consistent with my argument at all. You know what IS consistent?
WHEN did gay marriage become illegal? Would the answer be something like, “When we asked the government to step in and start licensing people’s relationships”? And just so you know, because your tone sounds as if you think that I am anti-gay marriage, I am not. I think it’s hideous that a consenting relationship between two adults is likened to bestiality and pedophilia. I’m also pro- legal polygamy, in case you’re interested in learning the difference between a libertarian and a Republican.
@WaitingToShrug - My tone does not express that I think you’re against gay marriage, I’ve never talked to you about how you feel about gay marriage. And besides, this isn’t about gay marriage. What I meant was that you’re saying that if government-funded health care is implemented, then it only logically leads to people being told what they can and cannot eat. Much like people who feel that if we legalize gay marriage, people will want to marry animals. Both of those ideas lack logic and are informal fallacies. That was my point.
As for knowing the difference between libertarians and republicans, I certainly do. I’m not sure how my sentiment expressed above somehow implies that I don’t. But for the record, I don’t like ANY political party BECAUSE I know the differences between them.
@Saridactyl - Do you not understand the concept of conditions on “gifts”? Or budgeting? I can give you some examples, if you like. But first, imagine how stupid the government would have to be to take on the cost of every person’s health care in the face of rising rates of obesity, diabetes (2), and heart disease without any attempts at all to prevent those (largely lifestyle related) conditions.
So, examples. How about, parents offer to pay for their child’s car insurance, with the condition that he not get any traffic tickets. Or how about, I chose to take on the responsibility of my dogs’ health care, therefore, I only let them eat extremely healthy food, and I take them out for exercise. Or, how about, your country takes on the cost of healthcare for millions of already unhealthy people. To keep costs down, they make unhealthy substances illegal and put into place age cut-offs for certain procedures, regardless of that patient’s wishes (so as not to waste money on someone who doesn’t have much time left anyway).
@light_blue_fables - HFCS is incredibly unhealthy, but it’s not the government’s job to legislate what we consume. I choose not to drink soda, eat grains or processed food, and I’m healthier for it, but that doesn’t mean that I should make you eat the way I do. Unless I pay for your doctor visits- then I get to make up your diet however I think is best. (And if it’s the US government, I’m probably wrong about what’s healthy.)
Yep, first it’s the sugary drinks, next it’s the titty bars.
This reminds me, too, of overtaxing cigarette smokers. Same line of thinking. Yes, it’s disgusting, especially since *diet* (poison) sodas are not included, and also, look around you – people who are of desirable weight are less seen drinking diet soda and eating salads than overweight people. At least, that is what I see. As Americans, we should all be free to pick our (legal) poisons. And as with cigarettes, I can’t help but think of the severe bias that excludes alcohol from overtaxation or even banning public places (restaurants, bars) from serving ANY alcohol. There is a law for “drunk in public”, yet public places can sell alcohol, and bars are where you go get drunk and have a good time. We can give lip service all day to our outrage at drunken drivers and pickled livers, but the fact is that America considers alcohol to be sacred.
It is a bunch of BS. That is all.
@QuantumStorm - @WaitingToShrug - the ban on HFCS is based on it being made from corn that is genetically modified, not that it’s a sugar and, therefore, unhealthy.
@QuantumStorm - and i disagree, simply because no other country has made that connection. besides, we already have government-run health care (Medicaid and Medicare) for decades no and no bans were put in place for people using those programs.
@light_blue_fables - HFCS can be considered toxic…but it is toxic in the same way table sugar is toxic. Both are actually bad for you…and ideally, there is no dietary reason to ever add sugar (or salt) to anything we eat. (Nutrion-wise, we get plenty of glucose and sodium anyways. Of course, things would taste gross but that’s another issue.). We can metabolize HFCS just fine…(like many other things we eat) it metabolizes differently than sugar…but not by much. Fructose metabolizes differently than pure glucose (the sugar we actually need/use) I think HFCS is something like 55-60% fructose…but sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose anyways. Both HFCS and sugar will readily be converted to fat…but eventually you can metabolize all of it. (People might be more inclined to limit their sugar intake if it was called Fairly High Fructose White Stuff).
My issue with the ban isn’t really based upon principle really. The fact is, governments regulate a lot of stuff already. There are lots of things we can’t just eat/use. The government regulates tons of chemicals that need to be absent or minimized in our foods and products for our own safety. We can’t just get raw unpasteurized milk…or eat dolphin, or horse. And some other things we can’t eat because they are endangered species or its considered unethical. Chilean sea bass and foie gras are slowly disappearing from menus in CA (despite their deliciousness….which btw, I’m not happy about.) So I get that the government can regulate things…and even foods…which it already does (that most people don’t really think about on a day to day basis.) My issue is that a ban on soda (or the size of it…even more ridiculous) has no significant purpose or effect. As noted above, HFCS isn’t all that different from sugar. Its ridiculous to think drinking 4-8 less ounces of soda whilst filling up on tons of all kinds of sugar, saturated fats, chemicals, and junk foods. Its silly that I can only have 16 ounces of coke….but can order a triple patty bacon cheeseburger and fries with extra salt and a 64 oz milkshake (milkshakes aren’t limited due to being a dairy product…despite having obscene amounts of sugar (and fat)) and manually stick in an extra dozen packets of table sugar….. but coke? 16 OUNCES ONLY!
I think the mayor and city would be better off trying to educate the public on nutrition and HFCS (and sugar!) and everything else and find ways to promote healthier lifestyles. Its a slow and steep uphill battle…but over time people begin to become more aware. (Heck…even talking about this issue reminds me I need to drink less soda!) At least its better than limiting freedom for the sake of something so silly and impractical.
I thought it was right for cigarettes and I think this is right. I also
thought it was right to ban pop and candy machines in school. The epic
proportions of obesity are definitely a national security issue at this stage of
development. This is nothing and most will not even notice these minor changes
but the public health of the overall citizens will improve greatly. Americans
are too fat and who better then the government of America to solve these things. Every generation gets fatter and these trends must be reversed.
@wizexel22 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dBnniua6-oM
@light_blue_fables - Does it matter? Just because something happens to be the wiser choice doesn’t mean we have the right to force people to make it. If we’re not free, what good is our health?
@light_blue_fables - Um…I don’t think you read my post.
@wizexel22 - I should have been clearer. I’m not disagreeing. I’m sharing.
Sorry!
Let’s not forget that liberals limited the size of the tank behind your toilet. That was a fine backup in case the water shut off during an emergency. Not any more.
Easy to get around the limit. Buy two drinks. Duh.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. The logic of such a ban isn’t dictated by its prevalence but rather the result of the government effectively applying a “terms of service” on a service (healthcare) it is providing to its people. And here is a list of other food bans, some of which are for health reasons: http://www.delish.com/food-fun/banned-food
@WaitingToShrug - I think femme is right about HFCS being banned not for health reasons. See here: http://www.livestrong.com/article/464851-why-is-high-fructose-corn-syrup-banned-in-europe/
@Unstoppable_Inner_Strength - I absolutely hated having to walk through smoke in order to enter some buildings. Yes, I totally agree with banning it near the main entrance of a building. Why should I have to walk through a cloud of smoke? I shouldn’t have to. As to banning it on the streets, I agree that does seem rather silly until you notice all the nasty cigarettes butts everywhere. I wouldn’t ban it on the street, but I’d like to see heavier fines for littering in general.