Thread: Super-sized sugar drink ban

Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw

No.
This bill won't pass (IMO), but if it did we'd see the "Whack-A-Mole" principle in effect: Any reduction (unlikely) in health care cost would be offset by the increased cost of regulation & enforcement.

I guess it's an experiment then since this has never been tried. Moeghoul makes a good point on cig regs. Are the costs of implementing cig taxes directly offset by increased cost of administering the cig regs and enforcement of those regs? If so, that could be a way to prove your point.

Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw

No doubt the container is the bulk of the cost of a low-cost beverage. In many under-developed countries you pay more for take-away drinks than drinking them on premises.

I wonder if companies like "Solo" contribute to Bloomberg's campaign? This seems like a great way for them to increase sales.

Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw

This Bloomberg initiative is obvoiusly about portion-control, so why is it limited to sugared beverages only? As mentioned above, this is slippery-slope terrain.

Not sure...maybe its because sugary drinks are a big contributor to obesity? Or maybe it's low cost high calorie sugary drinks that are seen as a big problem when it comes to obesity?

Bloomberg is a boss who has studied productivity his whole life. he hates the 4am last call because it costs him productive hours. bloomberg and google, sony, and the other big companies do breakfast at 7 and dinner and 7 to keep people at their desks longer. And I'm sure they watch their premiums and realize that obesity costs them a lot of money in health care.

DBT says no measurable benefit, but I disagree. Bloomberg instituted the toughest anti-smoking laws in the country and smoking dropped a lot. So did tax revenue on cigarettes, but that's a loss mike will take. He really does care about people's health. It's in a weird ass and heavy handed way and deserves ridicule, but whatever. People shouldn't drink this crap. People need water, basically. It's weird to legislate behavior, but hopefully the behavior will change. I dunno. It's fucking weird, but kind of ultimately makes no difference in my life, unless it turns into 1984 duh duh duh...

anyway maybe it will cost the city less money AND OUR FREEDOM down the road.

just kidding OR NOT

Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw

This bill won't pass (IMO), but if it did we'd see the "Whack-A-Mole" principle in effect: Any reduction (unlikely) in health care cost would be offset by the increased cost of regulation & enforcement.

It's not about enforcement - it's about social engineering. It worked with smoking. Nobody made smoking illegal. They made it harder to do. It worked - far less people smoke today than they did 20 years ago, when smoking bans were similarly ridiculed.

I think it's interesting that this was proposed by a guy whom many Republicans hoped would run for POTUS against Romney.

Originally Posted by Tippster

It's not about enforcement - it's about ocial engineering. It worked with smoking. Nobody made smoking illegal. They made it harder to do. It worked - far less people smoke today than they did 20 years ago, when smoking bans were similarly ridiculed.

I get your point but the analogy with smoking bans is false - there is no second-hand effect for soft-drink consumption. In addition, the impact on smoking rates would be less if there had been no enforcement, so there is a definite relationship there. Tobacco companies were forced to display health warnings on their products, and bars/restaurants were forced to ban smoking in their establishments.

I get what he's trying to do, but I would think eliminating free refills would do more to change consumer behavior than eliminating large cups.

About the smoking thing. I think it was making them so goddamn expensive moreso than not being able to do it in bars. Afluent people will smoke if they want to. They'll go outside. The poor people who can't afford $12/pack of cigarettes aren't going out anyway. How about we make shitty soda $6/12oz. Maybe then these fat fucks will lay off their diet coke.

It stands to reason, using Bloomberg's logic, that the enormous rise in consumption of sugared coffee drinks would be the next target:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1592894.html

Here's some irony I just thought about this morning. Mayor Bloomberg has an official pro-choice stance, standing up for women's reproductive rights. Sooooo....he's pro-choice about letting women do what they want with THEIR bodies (when it comes to aborting their kids), but ISN'T "pro-choice" about letting us men do what we want with OUR bodies, not even letting us drink a Big Gulp, and even talking about getting rid of large drinks and popcorn at movie theatres. Does this make Mayor Bloomberg a raging sexist (anti-man)? Appears to be. Hmmmm...

I'm gonna use a pro-choice argument here and say "Stay out of my stomach, Mayor Bloomberg! It's MY body. I'll do what I want!"

If he's pro-choice on abortion, then why shouldn't he be pro-choice on food. He's already taken away trans-fats and salt! Unless!...he has something else in mind, like..like...oh...my....God...



No WONDER he wants us so healthy! It's all so clear now!

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

Here's some irony I just thought about this morning. Mayor Bloomberg has an official pro-choice stance, standing up for women's reproductive rights. Sooooo....he's pro-choice about letting women do what they want with THEIR bodies (when it comes to aborting their kids), but ISN'T "pro-choice" about letting us men do what we want with OUR bodies, not even letting us drink a Big Gulp, and even talking about getting rid of large drinks and popcorn at movie theatres. Does this make Mayor Bloomberg a raging sexist (anti-man)? Appears to be. Hmmmm...

I'm gonna use a pro-choice argument here and say "Stay out of my stomach, Mayor Bloomberg! It's MY body. I'll do what I want!"

If he's pro-choice on abortion, then why shouldn't he be pro-choice on food. He's already taken away trans-fats and salt! Unless!...he has something else in mind, like..like...oh...my....God...



No WONDER he wants us so healthy! It's all so clear now!

Following this logic if you're pro-choice on abortions then you need to be pro-choice on everything...thus legalize all drugs too...correct?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Following this logic if you're pro-choice on abortions then you need to be pro-choice on everything...thus legalize all drugs too...correct?

Yup. Why not? It's THEIR bodies. If a person has a right to kill an unborn baby, because "it's their body," then why not let it truly be their body, letting them do as they please, whether that be junk food or even drugs?

For the record, I'm personally not pro-choice. I'm just using that logic on behalf of Mayor Bloomberg. I think if he's going to be intellectually consistent, then he shouldn't be telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. Let me get this straight, Mr. Bloomberg. Having an abortion = ok (pro-choice), but drinking a 32 oz. Big Gulp = bad (not "pro-choice")? He's obviously ok with one type of choice which actually ends a life, but is trying to crack down on another type of choice, which is only POTENTIALLY harmful to one's self. I fail to see his logic on this one.

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

Yup. Why not? It's THEIR bodies. If a person has a right to kill an unborn baby, because "it's their body," then why not let it truly be their body, letting them do as they please, whether that be junk food or even drugs?

For the record, I'm personally not pro-choice. I'm just using that logic on behalf of Mayor Bloomberg. I think if he's going to be intellectually consistent, then he shouldn't be telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. Let me get this straight, Mr. Bloomberg. Having an abortion = ok (pro-choice), but drinking a 32 oz. Big Gulp = bad (not "pro-choice")? He's obviously ok with one type of choice which actually ends a life, but is trying to crack down on another type of choice, which is only POTENTIALLY harmful to one's self. I fail to see his logic on this one.

Personally I wouldn't want a woman I impregnated to have an abortion...but then again, it's not my body and not my choice, so personally I might be pro-life, as a practical position I'm pro-choice because I think individuals should be allowed to decide. Now, on the sugary drink ban I agree with you...if Bloomberg wants to be consistent then he should allow people to choose what they put in their bodies. The only issue I have with this is that it affects others because they drive up healthcare costs being fat lazy fucks...how about just taxing the shit out of larger sized beverages? Instead of banning outright.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Personally I wouldn't want a woman I impregnated to have an abortion...but then again, it's not my body and not my choice, so personally I might be pro-life, as a practical position I'm pro-choice because I think individuals should be allowed to decide. Now, on the sugary drink ban I agree with you...if Bloomberg wants to be consistent then he should allow people to choose what they put in their bodies. The only issue I have with this is that it affects others because they drive up healthcare costs being fat lazy fucks...how about just taxing the shit out of larger sized beverages? Instead of banning outright.

If there were a free market, insurance companies could charge fat, unhealthy people more and everyone wouldn't have to pay for it. Once the gov is involved, it's just a steady slide to tyranny.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

If there were a free market, insurance companies could charge fat, unhealthy people more and everyone wouldn't have to pay for it. Once the gov is involved, it's just a steady slide to tyranny.

Totally...charge the shit out of old people too since they get sick more often....and if you recovered from cancer you should be charged more too...oh wait, that already happens. rad free market system.

The ban isn't about pro-choice in regards to abortion, it's about health and having sexy babes to look at and impregnate.

New York Soda Ban Approved - Board Of Health OKs Limiting Sale Of Large-Sized, Sugary Drinks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1880868.html

Wow I'm pretty shocked that went through so easily. Glad I don't drink that shit. I just stick to beer, gin, water, coffee and milk

Teah, I just drink a six pack of 12oz bottles instead of quarts, keeps it legal that way

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

City of Chicago too...no Happy Hour.

They've got a pretty rad Murder Hour tho - it lasts all weekend!