U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:13 AM
 
Location: DC/Brooklyn, NY/Miami, FL
1,178 posts, read 2,796,851 times
Reputation: 391

Advertisements

Thanks a lot bloomberg

A Bloomberg-style soda ban for D.C.?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:22 AM
 
8,747 posts, read 17,631,760 times
Reputation: 4168
Hopefully it spreads across the country and the world. We had similar discussions and shouts of "freedom" with the equally powerful cigarette/tobacco industry who don't care about you or me, just their profits. If you want to put out products that are having a substantially negative impact on our health, and don't care to change or acknowledge the harm you are doing because you are so focused on money, then the government has a duty to protect its citizens and take action. And that's exactly what Bloomberg has done and other representatives who care about their constituents will do.

At the end of the day, the soda industry will protect its profits under the guise of "freedom", and when you get fat and diabetic from all that soda, they will say "that's your problem" and government has to take care of you, not pepsi.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 08:53 AM
 
594 posts, read 1,565,072 times
Reputation: 332
In order for there to be a soda ban, there must be a ban on soda. There is no such thing happening in New York.

But to the point, seeing that Obamacare (or something like it) is probably going to become an inevitable fact of life within the next 5-10 years, I think stuff like this is necessary to keep the bill at least somewhat manageable for those of us who actually pay taxes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
2,895 posts, read 5,668,360 times
Reputation: 2177
Like I've said before; Bans are rooted in authoritarianism. And that's why I'm fundamentally against this and other types of bans.
Banning large sodas isn't smart, practical or useful.
As we all know people can just go ahead and buy a ton of smaller size sodas and still consume as much as prior to the ban introduction.

If our so-called representatives wanted to curb consumption they would put a tax across the board for a specific product, regardless of its size.

Clearly this is a cosmetic fix as to pretend they’re actually doing something.
A band-aid fix when you need stitches.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:22 AM
 
8,747 posts, read 17,631,760 times
Reputation: 4168
Banning large sizes is no different than Pepsi not offering a 90 oz soda. Is that a ban? No..they are choosing not to offer it based on what's best for them. The government is doing the same, determining a size that they believe is best for citizens. Nothing more.

You are welcome to buy 20 small sodas....just like you are able to buy 10 packs of cigarettes still. The purpose of both is social changes, and they do work, as evidenced by the rapid decline in cigarette consumption across the city and country. IT WORKS.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, NJ
1,603 posts, read 3,989,190 times
Reputation: 1843
Being unhealthy, overweight, and obese goes a lot further than a large soda.

How about individuals that eat fastfood each week or eat chips, cake, candy, on a daily basis ?

They should just introduce the fat-tax law once and for all ... There you go. If people want to be overweight and unhealthy, that is their issue. You can not force them to conform. They'll just buy 2 or 3 sodas, and that gets them around 1 super size.

It's the same for people who smoke. I can't stand all those anti-smoking commercials. If people want to smoke, that's their prerogative.

Perhaps health insurance companies should put them in a different category, and give the healthier folks a break on premiums.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:42 AM
 
920 posts, read 2,160,063 times
Reputation: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImCurlybelle View Post
Being unhealthy, overweight, and obese goes a lot further than a large soda.

How about individuals that eat fastfood each week or eat chips, cake, candy, on a daily basis ?

They should just introduce the fat-tax law once and for all ... There you go. If people want to be overweight and unhealthy, that is their issue. You can not force them to conform. They'll just buy 2 or 3 sodas, and that gets them around 1 super size.

It's the same for people who smoke. I can't stand all those anti-smoking commercials. If people want to smoke, that's their prerogative.

Perhaps health insurance companies should put them in a different category, and give the healthier folks a break on premiums.
Totally agree with you! I hate the scare tactics they are doing with the anti-smoking commercials.
It's really disgusting and disturbing to watch those graphic cancer pics. I'm not even a smoker.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:44 AM
 
8,747 posts, read 17,631,760 times
Reputation: 4168
You are correct that you cannot force anyone to eat healthy, but you can encourage it, make it more difficult to have an unhealthy lifestyle (through taxes for example), and make those unhealthy choices more healthy (like removing transfats, lowering sodium etc)...all of which Bloomberg has done or proposed.

So at the end of the day I don't like banning softdrink sizes, or highly taxing cigarettes, or reducing sodium content, but as you stated, you cannot make people do anything so you have to accomplish these goals other ways. This is how we accomplish them.

PS- those commercials are not "scare tactics"..it is the reality for a substantial number of smokers. Is it better to be EDUCATED about the repercussions of smoking, or simply show fabulous, beautiful, young, happy, successful people in ads smoking cigarettes without a care in the world? No problem with that?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
2,895 posts, read 5,668,360 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
Banning large sizes is no different than Pepsi not offering a 90 oz soda. Is that a ban? No..they are choosing not to offer it based on what's best for them. The government is doing the same, determining a size that they believe is best for citizens. Nothing more.

You are welcome to buy 20 small sodas....just like you are able to buy 10 packs of cigarettes still. The purpose of both is social changes, and they do work, as evidenced by the rapid decline in cigarette consumption across the city and country. IT WORKS.
LoL. Following that logic they should keep banning till the only size available is 1oz.
Ban cigarrettes boxes till they come with only 1 or 2 cigarrettes!

What reduced cigarrette consumption, sobro, was how HEAVILY cigarrette sales were taxed.
In addition to an aggressive informational campaing, letting smokers know of the potentially harmful effects of smoking.
This is a what these politicians should do if they really cared about reducing soda consumption.
Tax it and inform people of its health effects.
Banning sizes is just cosmetic politics.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, NJ
1,603 posts, read 3,989,190 times
Reputation: 1843
Those anti-smoking commercials make me want to gag. And, smokers DO NOT care.

I'm in healthcare. I have patients that have lung cancer and COPD. They can't go without oxygen. YET, quite a few say, "I wish I had a cigarette".


The smoking commercials bother non-smokers more than they do smokers.

We have a patient right now who had weight loss surgery TWICE now, that's 2 times the insurance company has paid for it .... he went from 687 pounds to 444 in 2 months and guess what ! 9 months later, he still in the hospital, and he is GAINING weight. No lie. To think an insurance company covered that twice is outrageous to me. He orders out all his meals, and patient rights prevents us from stopping it. It's alarming. It's slow suicide.

You can not change someone, or help someone who does not want to be helped.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:21 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top