<p>They will dictate much more than that, even if it is coming from a spouse, it is still very superior idea, although they do not need to follow themselves. Dictate they do the best, the goal is to dictate, nothing else is a matter, if they say it should be bigger, not smaller, than be it. It does not matter what it is, it just have to be coming from them just to show that they can control, that’s all, because they can, we voted for them, we gave them power.</p>
<p>… and we can vote them out.</p>
<p>Well we though we could in NYC. We voted for term limits twice and many were blindsided by the backroom deal to override those votes. Unfortunately, neither party could or would come up with a viable candidate brave enough to run against Bloomberg.</p>
<p>That’s true, zoose. It’s a shame that NY can’t get someone better up there.</p>
<p>You should come. I will vote for you!</p>
<p>Big cities scare me O.O</p>
<p>Although, the reason I decided politics wasn’t for me is because I have absolutely zero shut up filter. It seems like if I ever DID want to run for political office, New York might be the place to do it lol.</p>
<p>We love people with no shut up filter! Just as long as you don’t whine, you would be perfect.</p>
<p>Among other things, Bloomberg has a whiny voice.</p>
<p>The Coca Cola Company owns Minute Maid. Mayor Bloomberg should ban soda, and then mandate New Yorkers drink Minute Maid Florida orange juice daily. New Yorkers would be healthier, the soda bottler would be happy, and Florida citrus growers’ wallets would be healthier too.</p>
<p>
The corporation can only decide what to market - it’s the consumer who decides what to buy (except when regulated by the government) and therefore makes the ultimate decision. People don’t need an elected individual to tell them whether they should consume a large container of soda or not and don’t need an elected individual to tell them how to lead every aspect of their lives.</p>
<p>Whether people agree with the ‘nannyism’ (I know some people don’t like the term - but it fits this context) or not, does anyone think this law would have a significant success in its purported purpose of reducing the obesity in NYC? The application of it seems to be limited - can buy the big drink at 7-11 or the grocery store but not the fast food place? What about sit down restaurants that continually fill your drink cup? What about all the other garbage people can buy (2 burgers, 3 orders of fries, apple turnover, ice cream) on their way to buying the size-limited drink? What about just buying a 2 liter bottle of it at the grocery store or convenience store? </p>
<p>Am I the only one who uses my own brain and doesn’t buy the largest size drink available at these places? I usually (only when I frequent one of these places which is rare) order a small or medium regardless of the insignificant additional cost of the large size. I don’t order it simply because I don’t want it - not because someone passed a law making it unavailable to me. If I really wanted more liquid and was size-limited due to a ridiculous law such as this I’d just order 2 smaller sized drinks. I’m probably not the only one who can do that math. </p>
<p>If this anti-obesity effort is really where NYC wants to focus its resources then it seems it would be far more effective and more receptive to launch an education campaign rather than wielding the big stick of exerting control over people through laws. If it’s really felt that the purchasers of those large drinks have no idea what they’re doing then educate them since if they’re not educated they’ll still be able to consume the same amount through the alternatives not covered by the law.</p>
<p>It seems very silly to me since a person can always just buy two of anything or go back for seconds.</p>
<p>One of the funniest (not funny as in ha ha) thinks is the timing of this which coincides with a refusal to require bike helmets, which is another kerfluffle here. Personally, I would support a requirement that bike riders wear helmets and leave beverages to the individuals.</p>
<p>
Actually, one of the things I learned as a planning commissioner studying traffic safety is that education doesn’t work as well as using the same kind of “mind tricks” that corporations use to get people to do the dumb stuff they do, like drinking 32 oz colas. Is it a coincidence that the obesity epidemic coincided with the increase in the standard bottle of coke from 8 oz. to 12 oz, and even larger? Painting lines in the roadway actually slows traffic down more than putting up signs telling people to slow down. <a href=“http://www.ecs.umass.edu/masssafe/PDFS%20for%20Site/Speed%20Management/Passive%20Speed%20Control%20Devices.pdf[/url]”>Home - UMTC; So does using traffic cones to narrow the apparent width of the roadway (see pages 3 and 4): <a href=“http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/workzone.pdf[/url]”>http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/workzone.pdf</a></p>
<p>
Casting government regulation of business as consumer vs. government rather than government regulating business to prevent business from successfully encouraging consumers to make personally harmful decisions is another classic out of the Tobacco, Inc. propaganda handbook. The government isn’t forcing any individual to do anything. It’s just making it harder for fast food joints to nudge consumers up from the 12 oz or 16 oz drink to the more profitable 24 or 32 oz. one. As I pointed out above - that’s a conscious decision by the business, designed to increase corporate profit at the expense of individuals’ good health. The government regulation is akin to painting lines on the pavement - you can still drive as fast as you want to - but you’re less likely to make that decision without really thinking about it.</p>
<p>
The funny thing is, the people who are the most cocksure that they are impervious to manipulation are actually the preferred marks of con men - historically, doctors, airline pilots, lawyers - people who are convinced of the independence of their “own brain.” A little humility and recognition that each of us is subtly manipulated every single day helps one to back away from an ideological take on a regulation like this and see it for what it really is - a small countermeasure against the flood of corporate persuasion we all swim in every single day.</p>
<p>^^ I assure you I’m not manipulated by anyone by the availability of large containers for soda.</p>
<p>Of course not. Probably lots of people aren’t. But here’s the thing, at some point, people simultaneously, in the aggregrate, started drinking much more sugary drinks than they used to, eating much more than they used to, eating much more fatty, salty, and/or sugary foods than formerly, and overall, ingesting more calories.</p>
<p>Guess it’s not manipulation, just an odd coincidence.I wonder why that’s so. </p>
<p>It seems odd that individuals with free will seem to be collectively making similar unhealthy eating decisions. I wonder if different information, or more awareness might change that.</p>
<p>I certainly am manipulated, when the smallest cup available is a large one. I got a Diet Coke at Subway this weekend, and the smaller of the two available sizes was 21 oz. I could, of course, only fill it half full at the self service fountain, but that plain goes against human nature. Even if I did that, I’d still be influenced by the size of the cup – half of 21 oz. is more than half of 16. (No calories were at stake, but I was thinking about the caffeine.)</p>
<p>The psych major in me was thinking about this at the self-serve frozen yogurt place, too. They only have giant cups. No matter how much I consciously think about taking less than I have room for – and I do take less – I end up with more yogurt than I would if I had a smaller cup. It’s extremely difficult to avoid the influence altogether.</p>
<p>Garland, my prediction is that the 16 oz. portion limit - if it isn’t successfully torpedoed by the fast food lobby - will in fact lead to lots of people consuming less high fructose corn syrup, without actually noticing any significant change in their enjoyment of life. They won’t suffer (probably the contrary) and they won’t be tied up or thrown in jail - they’ll just accommodate a different set of assumptions about what is an “appropriate” portion size for those beverages. The only ox that’s being gored here is that of the fast food industry - and they are reacting just like big Tobacco did.</p>
<p>My guess is the same (it was kind of a rhetorical question), unless of course enough outrage can be manufactured. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The funny thing is that when government starts acting as a counterweight to big business, the howls about “nanny state” start up like a metronome. Again - probably just a coincidence. ;)</p>
<p>I know because, really, big business and things like jobs and tax revenues are the enemies of the people.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t have a problem with the ban if we didn’t have so many more serious problems</p>
<p>
Really, Zoos? Really? That’s what you take away from those comments? <sigh></sigh></p>
<p>
Yep Kluge that’s what I took away. Because that’s what you handed me. If I had waited long enough, you probably would have found a way to blame gluttony on Wall Street.</p>