<p>"If the mayor were to ban 32-ounce mugs of beer at Yankee Stadium after a number of D.U.I. arrests — and, indeed, there are limits to drinking at ballparks — we would not be hearing his nanny tendencies. (And certainly most non-smokers, at least, are ecstatic that smoking in public places — including Central Park — is increasingly forbidden.) No one questions the prohibition on the use of SNAP for tobacco and alcohol. And that’s because we accept that these things are not food.</p>
<p>So perhaps we ask: What, exactly, is food? My dictionary calls it “any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.” That doesn’t help so much unless you define nutritious. Nutritious food, it says here, “provides those substances necessary for growth, health, and good condition.”</p>
<p>A soft drink has some essences of life in it - water and sugar (if non-diet). Both are essential things needed by the body. If you were lost in the desert or on a lifeboat with no other food or water a stash of giant soft drinks could sustain you much longer than if you didn’t have access to those drinks. </p>
<p>I can’t believe this mayor would try to do something as controlling of others as this even though it’s likely to be very ineffective and fraught with holes in the goal of preventing obesity (it’s far more complex than just drinking soda from a large container). I especially can’t believe anyone would support him in taking on the role of their mother. </p>
<p>I don’t drink sugared sodas at all (too much sugar for me), or sugared coffee (or any coffee) or sugared teas (or any tea) or fruit juices other than freshly squeezed and don’t buy the large soft drinks even in diet either but if someone wants to do that then they should be permitted to.</p>
<p>I don’t drink soda or any other sugary beverage.</p>
<p>I violently object to prohibition, though. Of anything.</p>
<p>Okay, I do support smoking bans when, and only when, other people are forced to inhale your smoke. If you want to stink up your own home and kill yourself, that’s your business.</p>
<p>Let’s legalize drugs and stop filling our prisons with people “guilty” of pseudo crimes.</p>
<p>I think this has been the subject of a lot of cheap shots and misrepresentation. It’s just a way to make people think about what they’re doing. That’s bad? I put this in the same category as requiring fast food stores to post the dietary (i.e., caloric) data of their offerings and various other informative regulatory steps. Nothing has been banned. There’s no “nanny” here telling you what you can and can’t do. You can suck down that cola until you float away in a diabetic stupor - you’ll just have to be aware of how many pints of cola you’re drinking. And drinking sodas - even “zero calorie” sodas - has been linked to obesity, which is a serious current health epidemic. <a href=“Süßstoff-Verband e.V. - Startseite”>Süßstoff-Verband e.V. - Startseite; [Drink</a> More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight?](<a href=“http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight]Drink”>Weight Loss & Diet Plans - Find healthy diet plans and helpful weight loss tools) Specifically, increased portion sizing over the past 30 years has aggravated that trend.
</p>
<p>Information is good. Criticizing government for imposing regulations designed to make people aware of the unhealthy choices they make - for the most part, virtually unconsciously - isn’t witty and isn’t making a brave stand for “freedom.”</p>
<p>I think Mayor Bloomberg should be praised for taking a truly courageous action – with little or no prospect for personal benefit from doing it.</p>
<p>We’re banning plastic bags around here - and I think that’s great! Pity the poor plastic bag industry. (Rwanda banned them five years ago - and they didn’t all die as a result.) </p>
<p>We ban the eating of endangered species. Don’t like it? Too bad. And we ban the sale of all kinds of things that the FDA believes aren’t safe to eat. Well, drinking 64 ounces of soda isn’t safe. But it is not being banned. </p>
<p>The above is a bit of a misrepresentation - the ban is for drinks over 16 oz.</p>
<p>I’d guess most of the supporters of this are trying to not protect themselves, since of course they know better than to ingest a sugared drink from a large cup, but to protect those other dim-witted fools who don’t know any better and therefore need the government to protect them from themselves.</p>
I’m not much of a soda drinker, but when given a choice between a small for $1.49, a medium for $1.89, and a large for $1.99, I’m much more likely to order the large. Or as this person says: “get a large, it’s only a few cents more.” [How</a> much does a medium soda cost at Jack in the Box? - Yahoo! Answers](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/question/index?qid=20100507104856AAJEmS9]How”>http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/question/index?qid=20100507104856AAJEmS9) I knew a fast food store owner once who explained to me that the most expensive part of a soda was the cup. The store owner’s cost for the soda is less than a penny an ounce, so by making the larger size more attractive, they make more money.</p>
<p>So I guess I’m just like most people. And I don’t resent the government putting a simple regulation in place which makes it harder for big corporations to prey on my (admitted) weaknesses in a way that makes them money and makes me less healthy. Especialy since, if I really want more than 16 oz. there’s nothing stopping me from ordering two. (I remember ordering four or five burgers at a time from McDonalds back in the day before Big Macs and Quarter Pounders. It’s actually really easy to do.)</p>
<p>I also recognize the classic “Tobacco, Inc.” spin on sensible regulations - attack any government regulation which makes it harder for big business to profit off of individuals, even by selling them stuff that’s harmful to them, and attack the people who support those efforts by accusing them of elitism. The classics never get old. :D</p>
<p>As a matter of principle, I like politicians who attempt to protect the public good. If I don’t like what they do, I don’t vote for them. If folks don’t like Bloomberg for protecting the public interest, let 'em vote for someone else. I see no principled reason why corporations should be given the unelected right to make these kinds of decisions for us.</p>
<p>When does it become a private matter (you hurting only yourself) versus a public matter (contributing to the rapidly growing medical care costs that are shared in many ways, from taxes to pay for socialized medical insurance for the >65 to most insurance being sold to groups which are, on average, not very healthy – PPACA / “Obamacare” does not really change this one way or the other)?</p>
<p>It would be a lot more clear cut if everyone self-paid his/her own medical care. However, some non-trivial medical risks are so expensive that only the very wealthy can self-pay without needing any insurance at all for catastrophic costs.</p>
It’s not always black and white what constitutes “the public good”. People who die younger leave their social security money (and everything else) to the rest of us. :)</p>
<p>True, Sylvan. But they generally require all kinds of expensive end of live care before hand. So they still cost us!</p>
<p>I was talking to an otherwise sensible relative of mine, who characterized this as “the worst thing Bloomberg has ever done!!!” All kinds of trouble in the police department, harassing and such, plenty of other big problems in NYC, but this is “the worst!” When I called her on it, she did get a little abashed.</p>
<p>I am so tired of the “nanny state” rhetoric. Nothing gets people up in arms like a threat to buy all their soda in one big cup.</p>
<p>Beginning of…I cannot say, I will be stoned forever…but I am not surprised a bit, very logical step…licking ---- of superiors, expecting favors,…all very familiar, they all study the history, especially “red” history, here I said it, the storm is coming my way.</p>
<p>The city of New York is falling apart. Crime is up, infrastructure is crumbling, kids aren’t getting educated, traffic is out of control, and SODA is what this everloving moron is interested in? The man makes me physically ill. I don’t ever wish anything bad on anyone, but I hope nothing particularly good ever happens to the revolting little ■■■■■.</p>
<p>Didn’t he just celebrate national donut day and something else equally ironic? I forget the second one but it was also hypocritical. Anyone remember?</p>
<p>Yes he did jym. He also supports the hot dog eating contest in Coney Island and is a well-known glutton, himself.</p>
<p>It’s really all about the fact that he is a judgmental snot-face who is disgusted by fat people. There are some very serious problems in this city right now and the last thing he needs to be focusing on is soda. In addition to the other reasons, elected officials from other parts of the city are understanding the subtext of his campaign and aren’t pleased. It’s a ridiculous distraction from important issues and is also divisive.</p>