So is water in that context but that doesn’t mean it isn’t needed by your body and is essential for life. A soda is mostly water.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that for most people drinking water instead of soda would be healthier but that applies to many other substances as well including alcohol, coffee, etc. </p>
<p>It’s downright ironic to me that the large cupped soda is banned from the same place people are buying hot dogs and pretzels.</p>
<p>The proposed popcorn ban - more stupidity. Am I the only one who has ever bought the more economical/volume larger popcorn size and shared it with whoever I was at the movies with? A full size shared among 3 vs a half size per individual? I think sharing happens a lot. They don’t know how the item is being used. What about a half size popcorn smothered in butter vs a large popcorn with no butter? Which is worse for you?</p>
<p>Here’s what really puzzles me–this whole issue couldn’t be more trivial, from both sides, yet this is the issue that Bloomberg could go down for??? This is a city that, under his watch, harasses minorities to an unprecedented degree, especially with stop-and-frisk routines, and whose police department is renowned for beating up non-violent protesters and squelching dissent, and yet what gets to people is the threat to big a$$ soda cups–I mean, beat people up, make life a daily hell for young black men just trying to get through their day, sure, no problem, but you’ll have to pry my half-gallon of sugar water from my cold dead hands.</p>
<p>That’s what’s nuts about this to me, that even sensible people like cptofthehouse see this as the ultimate losing issue–and she’s probably right.</p>
<p>^^ The cup-size ban is all over the news but the harassing of minorities you indicated isn’t - at least I haven’t seen it (as a non-NYer). People react to what they hear about.</p>
<p>The cup-size ban is threatening normally expected personal liberties and it’s something everyone can identify with since almost everyone buys drinks and food and most can see that this is the tip of the iceberg on these controls being imposed upon them (popcorn, bigger sized candy bars, ice cream sales, restaurant food, the list for potential control is endless).</p>
<p>Harassing anyone, whether a minority or not, is a much bigger issue, of course. People shouldn’t be harassed. I’d ask what that one’s about but I’m sure it’d totally hijack this thread.</p>
<p>This is part of the issue with this and one that zoosermom indicated - this is a major distraction from where energies would be better focused. Not only will it likely be very ineffective in achieving its goal, the mayor and his staff are having to spend time on this issue rather than the harassment of minorities issue or any other important issues.</p>
<p>The reason is gets people so riled up is because it is so ludicrous. We have so many other problems that he ignores despite much begging and THIS is what he focuses on. It’s like a sick joke.</p>
<p>A policeman recently shot to death an unarmed 18-year old. The officer appeared in court today to be arraigned. Other officers showed up to support him and cheered as the young man’s parents sat in the courtroom and cried. </p>
<p>I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT SODA FROM THE MAYOR AT THIS TIME. When he has solved every other problem facing this city, THEN he can talk about soda.</p>
Ah, yes! The famous “camel’s nose” argument. “If they ban cigarette advertising on TV, the next thing you know, you’ll be forced to watch government propaganda 24/7!”</p>
<p>Folks: the one who is overreacting isn’t the mayor. It’s people like those here who equate a very modest regulation into the next step on the slippery slope to totalitarianism. </p>
<p>It’s a good regulation. It doesn’t impinge on personal liberties in any significant way. It calls people’s attention to decisions they’re making (generally without thinking about them) effectively and unobtrusively. Less high fructose corn syrup will be consumed as a result. A modest step will have been taken towards lessening the trend to greater obesity in this country. Does it cure cancer? No. Does it solve crime, racism, poverty, war or spousal abuse? No. It’s just a modest regulation designed to address a very real problem in an appropriate and reasoned way.</p>
<p>Zoosermom: No mayor will ever solve every problem facing New York. Not Jesus, not Superman, not the great spaghetti monster. If you insist that this problem be ignored until all others are solved you’re just saying you don’t want any problem addressed other than the ones you choose. But he was elected - you weren’t. Should the city ignore jaywalking? How about littering, or graffiti? My opinion is that if a good idea comes up to address any civic problem it shouldn’t be shunted aside just because more intractable problems haven’t been “solved” yet.</p>
<p>Kluge, as you said earlier, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should have stuck with that because you’re contributing nothing worthwhile to the conversation.</p>
<p>Garland and I don’t agree on this issue but we are both aware of the roiling unrest in this city right now and are both very worried about it. And as you and I both said, you are not informed on the mayor of a city in which you don’t live.</p>
<p>
And this is so silly as to be beneath you. The Specific number of ounces in a privately-purchased beverage is not a civic problem, intractable or otherwise.
What is a civic problem is the sight of scores of police cheering the death of someone’s child. </p>
<p>It’s not a question of being elected or not being elected. Aside from the fact that Bloomberg’s latest “election” will go down in history as truly bizarre and unique. It’s a matter of seriousness and accountability. Also on the fact of Mr. Bloomberg’s personal sensibility and aversion to fat people.</p>
<p>kluge - We don’t fit into the nice handy little categories, manipulated by the big evil corporations or the equally evil 'right, as you purport. You try to pigeon-hole anyone who doesn’t agree with your views, usually in a condescending way. Sometimes you should just read the statement without trying to fit it into any of your pre-conceived ideas of why we happen to have reached our conclusions. You might be surprised to learn we can reach various conclusions all on our own.</p>
<p>Regarding the tip of the iceberg - not only is it logical to conclude that it would be the tip of the iceberg given what action is being taken to achieve the particular goal, but they’ve already started with the talk about other product container bans. Do you seriously think there’s no intent to go beyond the soda container size ban?</p>
<p>Harassment of young men of color is big news here. “stop and frisk”. I think I can honestly say I have had more conversations about that than the soda ban. People I know, including me, think it is silly, but dont seem to be spending much energy discussing it. </p>
<p>I’m in education, we’ve been complaining about Bloomberg for years!</p>
<p>GCMom, did you see the pictures of Ramarley Graham’s parents weeping in the courtroom today while cops hooted and hollered? A truly sickening disply that should have brought condemnation from both Bloomberg an Kelly.</p>
<p>For myself, I hope it IS the tip of the iceberg. I’d love to ban plastic grocery bags. I’d like to see cancer labels on all foods containing significant amounts of nitrates (I’d work toward banning them, but public education is a great first step, or “tip of the iceberg”). I’d like all GMO foods labeled - and give consumers choices. I’d like to see all soda machines out of public schools. I’d like to ban all alcohol advertising within 500 feet of school.</p>
<p>Needless to say, some folks would disagree with me. That’s why we have elections.</p>
<p>Mini, I would totally support your labelling, informing separating dangerous substances from schools. But absolutely not banning products from consenting adults.
I am a healty woman who exercies and eats an excellent diet. But every once in a while I really enjoy that large caramel salt milkshake and that’s next up on the health department’s ban list. Also large coffee/tea with milk. I can support not buying those things with food stamps but beyond that, mind your own business.</p>
<p>So Bloomberg didn’t propose banning anything. What’s the big deal?</p>
<p>There are all kinds of foods that were regularly eaten 100 or even 50 years ago which are now banned for human consumption. Thank heavens! My mother used to make me eat lungen stew. (Beef lungs.) Now banned! See, there is a God! My father, if he was alive today, would likely be miffed (but maybe they killed him! ;)) </p>
<p>I’m heavily, strongly in favor of banning things that aren’t good for us. All kinds of pesticide sprays that used to give us cancer. Asbestos in ceiling tiles. Lungen stew! </p>
<p>I wonder if Bloomberg will be insisting that Cristal only be sold in standard bottles as opposed to Magnums and Jereboams? Don’t his health concerns extend to the elite as well?</p>
<p>“I’m not a fan of busybodies. I also wonder what the parents in Africa who have lost their children to malaria think of the pesticide bans.”</p>
<p>You don’t know much about the effectiveness of pesticides in dealing with malaria, so I’ll let that pass.</p>
<p>What Bloomberg is hoping to ban is the individual sale of quantities of soda above 16 ounces. He is not banning soda. He is not banning the sale of more than 16 ounces of soda. He is banning container sales of more than 16 ounces (which I think is a fabulous idea!) </p>
<p>I hope he takes on nitrites in hotdogs next. </p>
<p>(what do you know about caramel milkshakes? Educate me, please.)</p>
Why do you thnk imposing your preferences on others is a good thing? Don’t you have enough to do (and I know you do) of your own? Bloomberg will never attemp to ban anything to do with hot dogs. Didn’t you know he is the biggest fan of the utterly revolting hot dog eating contest at Coney Island?</p>
<p>What would you like to know about caramel milkshakes? The health department wants to ban large milkshakes. I think they have a lot of better things to worry about. Like bedbugs.</p>