[POLL] Bye-Bye Super Size: NYC Plans Ban on Big Sodas

Walden Macnair May 31, 2012 at 08:44 pm

How you folks think this is a progressive idea is beyond me, Bloomy is much more of a fascist than a progressive. No one that I know of, on either side of the aisle thinks this is a good idea with the exception of Bloomy. The same mayor that spent millions of dollars on bicycle lanes that no one uses and who closed times square to traffic even though it now takes forty minutes to drive from river to river, now thinks he can make the 32 ounce cup illegal but forgets that you can still fill a 16 ounce cup twice.
What next Bloomy ,Weight limits to wear bathing suits at the beach?

Evan Schwartz May 31, 2012 at 08:57 pm

you know what... you conservatives are right. a ban on large containers is ridiculous. What we need to do is rid the shelves of these obscenely sugar rich, diabetes inducing drinks altogether. Simply put...they're dangerous. Unfortunately, that would take nothing less than an act of god. So let's do nothing but watch America get fatter and sicker When exactly did doing something becomes less than doing nothing ?

Evan Schwartz May 31, 2012 at 09:02 pm

I think you've confused your Asian countries... Communist China is already "takin' us to school". Hell, they own us.

Cadeyrn May 31, 2012 at 09:56 pm

"Simply put...they're dangerous." Who helps you liberals out of the house each morning? And do you go thru your day in constant contact with a shrink? I've never seen such trembling over a bottle of soda.

Scott Petricig May 31, 2012 at 09:57 pm

I think this plan is ridiculous. I only support the smoking ban - I should not have to be subjected to poisonous cigarette smoke in public places. But how does drinking a large soda have any effect directly on anyone else? I'm not hurting anyone but myself if I drink a 32-oz soda (which, by the way, I try not to do). A 20-oz soda seems like a perfectly reasonable size to me, and an 8 or 12 oz would not be enough for me. I think the smaller sizes are just a way for the soda companies to make more money by selling more of their product. In fact, smaller size bottles/cans would create more waste because people would just buy more bottles/cans. I know Bloomberg is concentrating on places that serve cups of soda, but I just figure this is all part of a similar debate.

Mary Y. May 31, 2012 at 10:05 pm

This IS SO STUPID!!! Complaining that people are so BIG/obese but, yet Gym class is being removed from school curriculum nationwide. Taking away sugar, salt, fat, etc. is not the factor it is the LACK of movement/activity!!!!!

Evan Schwartz May 31, 2012 at 10:11 pm

I'm not scared of the soda... hell, I don't even drink it. What scares me is the the ever rising healthcare costs of treating the victims of the mega food industry... The Big Gulp sucking, 33.9% of Americans who can't seem to control what they put in their mouths... Yay ! America is #1 at something (#1 fattest country in the history of mankind) Hooray for the USA...

George Datino May 31, 2012 at 10:38 pm

Mr. Schwartz,
Please except my sincerest apologies that my argument didn't meet your standards and you found it silly. Maybe next time, I can send you my comment first and if you would be so kind, you can review it so I don't embarass myself again making silly arguments here in a public forum.

Ross Revira May 31, 2012 at 10:39 pm

Comments have blamed the government, schools, food industry and beverage companies for obese Americans but fail to blame the real culprits, those same obese people or the parents of the obese children. Wake up America and stop blaming someone or something else on a problem that is caused by you. If all tax paying Americans are to underwrite the medical costs of people who partake in unhealthy lives then the government must protect those same taxpayers with policies that make the the offending people pay for their actions. When there are no consequences for negative behavior it will never stop.

Evan Schwartz May 31, 2012 at 10:56 pm

Go Ross ! Conversely we can reward the people that make healthy choices... how about tax breaks for people with a BMI under 25 ? After all, they're not burdening the healthcare system the same way.

DrinkUpWideRides May 31, 2012 at 11:04 pm

Ridiculous. People will just buy two 16 ounce sodas. All this will do is create more waste. If people don't get how destructive drinking this crap is at this point, let them drink as much as they want, because they are going to anyway. This is pure foolishness.

Aintthatascam June 1, 2012 at 03:02 am

Bloomberg is just making an ideological comment. He claims to be an independent but for sure a closet Dem / Liberal. Let's see, trans fats used for frying, wasn't that banned in NYC? Then, oh yes, calories on the donut and other menus, (probably off 10-15%) but don't limit how many you can buy. They tell you the estimated calories, but not most importantly,the fat or sugar content. So now, ban the evil supersized soft drinks. Heck, I go to the local fast food joints once every two weeks or so, I get up and refill my soda at least once. I guess in the City it's not self serve?
As for most of you praising the Mayor, you are just following suit. You should put down 50 shades of grey and get out there and see the jobless / homeless people in this country (not just in Richchester) and stop worrying about intruding on people's rights to make a choice.

J Philip Faranda June 1, 2012 at 12:45 pm

George Datino is correct. Why don't they ban greasy food instead.
This is nanny state nonsense.

John Taggart June 1, 2012 at 02:45 pm

This should go down great with the people who have to work or be outside in the heat. The ones who get the supper big gulp and fill it half with ice and half with soda and keep it nearby while their out in the heat. These people also tend to burn alot of calories, the sugar in a soda or the carbs in a big mac and need the fluids nearby. These food laws are nanny and not every one sits at a desk all day worried about their weight.
How about a mandatory excersize program. 20 minutes every morning to be done in front of your computer so you can be monitored by web cam at the ministry of health. Uncompliant people will be punished.

DT June 1, 2012 at 03:52 pm

@Evan. It's not a silly argument. The point is that soda was targeted because they think they can get away with it at this time. Don't doubt for one minute that once they are done with salt, trans-fats, soda, etc... they'll get around to ice cream, burgers, fries, etc... They know that there will be less resistance to incremental changes than there would be to doing it all at once.

DT June 1, 2012 at 05:03 pm

Note that the threshold mentioned in the article is 25 calories per 8oz, which should include just about everything except water and 'diet' drinks (juice, coffee (unless you drink it black/no-milk/no-sugar), etc...). They carve out an exemption for diet drinks (maybe they were bought out by 'Big Diet Beverage'! <sarcasm>), but since artificial sweeteners are not good for you either, the unintended consequences of that are likely to increase artificial sweetener consumption. Why is he unfairly targeting one industry (soda) when so many other things are equally bad for us. History shows us that central planning by corruptible bureaucrats doesn't work, yet some continue to desire a benevolent dictator to make decisions for us.
Remember that carbohydrates are just complex sugars (polysaccharides instead of monosaccharides and disaccharides), so why not ban rice, breads, cereals, grain, etc... It's all sugar. As for justifying these laws with the argument that tax payers have to pick up the resulting health care costs, that's an argument against government run health care (except for the very needy). We turn everybody into their neighbor's keeper if we are funding their expenses. Using that argument, should anybody receiving tax-payer subsidies (entitlements, etc...) be allowed to spend money on non-essentials (Cell Phones, Jewelry, entertainment, etc...) much less soda, since we've socialized the costs? I think we can agree on getting rid of all government subsidies :-)

Scott Petricig June 1, 2012 at 05:22 pm

Hmm why doesn't the government help to make it EASIER and CHEAPER to eat/drink healthy, along with provide education so those of us who aren't great in the kitchen or who don't want to spend half of their time researching nutrition can be healthy? Empower us! I do NOT eat or drink healthy, and most of the reasoning is that it's cheaper and easier to eat and drink stuff that is not healthy. I live on my own and so planning a nutritious diet is just not reasonable with the way things are. It probably doesn't help that I just don't enjoy foods that are healthy - maybe put some money into research to make food/drink healthier while also making it taste good?!

Francis T McVetty June 1, 2012 at 09:16 pm

There's a difference?

Francis T McVetty June 1, 2012 at 09:21 pm

Healthy foods are EXPENSIVE! Foods that are "bad' for you are CHEAP. Now if the government or the private sector can reverse that, we could all eat healthy.

Theresa June 1, 2012 at 09:42 pm

Oh please, that's ridiculous.

Francis T McVetty June 1, 2012 at 10:09 pm

Theresa, show me where I'm wrong with my statement. A burger costs $1.00, a salad $2.00 for example.

Theresa June 1, 2012 at 10:52 pm

Are you eating at McDonald's everyday?
I don't eat out much, and I brown bag it for the kids. It takes effort to prep meals, but it's way more economical and eating healthy isn't expensive. I can cook a good dinner for a family of 6 for under $15. Maybe even under $10.

soxgirl4620 June 1, 2012 at 11:34 pm

@ Theresa...what are you cooking for 6 people under $10?? Meatloaf and mac and cheese?? Protein, fast carb, slow carb (meat and 2 veggies) will cost more than that! Hell, it costs $10 just to buy chicken enough for 6 people....
It's poor choices and a lack of exercise that is making people fat...that and those poor choices are less expensive and quick...

Cadeyrn June 1, 2012 at 11:51 pm

Nah ... wasn't confusing Asian nations. Just think that NK has it all over China in the public-display contest. Where else can you get a few million people to cry on cue for the death of a dog?

Cadeyrn June 1, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Soxgirl ... don't go there!

Theresa June 2, 2012 at 12:16 am

Where do you buy your chicken? from the Colonel?

Aidan June 3, 2012 at 02:07 pm

There's not a soul with a brain who thinks Bloomberg's a republican. Not one.

Patricia June 4, 2012 at 03:39 pm

A closet Dem / Liberal? I am pretty certain that liberals do not want government making personal decisions for them...however if you are a republican / conservative, I can see how you would be embarrassed by this Bloomberg decision. Republicans do impose their righteous ideas on people when it works for them.

Walden Macnair June 4, 2012 at 05:11 pm

What the food cost is irrelevant. The question is, does the government have the right to limit portion size? The answer should be, no. You can walk into a restaurant and order a dozen fried chicken wings, a main course of steak, french fried potatoes, macaroni and cheese, bread and butter and a slice of cake bigger than your head for desert and then wash it down with three beers but, if you choose to drink a 20 oz bottle of coke, you're breaking the law! Come on Mayor, you've really jumped the shark on this one.

Francis T McVetty June 4, 2012 at 08:56 pm

Those righteous ideas do work for most of us. It is only the godless creatures that really complain. Doing the RIGHT thing is always the way to do things. Taking money from others and giving that money to others is wrong. From those who have to those who don't. Didn't work for the USSR and it won't work here. The government has and will continue to control your lives with its every action if we don't put an end to them doing it. This is a republic, not a socialist state!!! With the likes of people like Barrack Obama that is what we have to look forward to. He has been raised as a socialist. Any question about that can be answered by not only his actions but the people he hangs around with. It is time for our country and its citizens to be self reliant and NOT dependent on the government. It has worked all along until a few years ago. When in our history has there ever been 50% of the population being dependent on the government? We are becoming like Europe, just as the president wanted. If he wants to live like a European, then when he is defeated in November, he can move to Europe. I'm sure they will receive him with open arms.