People react badly to change. I suspect this is an effective health measure, which of course will complete our becoming Maoist China.
I can imaging the horror of the posters here to the 'war on tobacco', if they weren't already accustomed to it - if the US were just now introducing 'not allowing television ads for tobacco products', if the measures to remove (often sponsored by cigarette companies) smoking from television shows were just now being made - we'd hear anguished screams about the 'end of free speech and freedom and capitalism', how the only legitimate measure is an information sheet (not rquired to be on the cigarettes).
Yet, when a large majority of the American people smoked - and such 'information' did little for years to counter the advertising - those measures were effective.
And freedom survived in this country.
People don't like to admit human nature. There's a reason advertisers say, 'SHOW THEM USING THE PRODUCT IN THE AD'. Show the drink being drunk, the food being eaten, and the smile by the person after doing so - and why the war on tobacco banned showing the smoking of cigarettes even if people held them in their hand. It's a sort of monkey-like 'people see the behavior and mimic' fact of human nature the ideologues claiming 'just give people some information' don't want to admit about people.
That yes, seeing a pretty girl next to a beer is what actually makes people buy the beer.
Their ideology doesn't do almost anything to address the problems. But their good little ideologues and think blaming the people is adequate as a solution.
Cue the slippery slope fallacies by these people when any effective measures are done, however actually limited they are.
Save234
Exactly, whats scary is yhat more and more elected officials deem to think we are thier subjects not bosses
Obviously the solution to consuming to many chemicals is to start drinking diet soda :\
EDIT: And also since real sugar soda is generally considered superior tasting how exactly would selling it decrease consumption of soda?
It seems to me that some people have an unnatural hatred of HFCS as being "unnatural"
While I agree it's an unreasonable law, you've highlighted one of the issues that prompted it. Drinking that extra 16 oz of a regular cola is not just 50 calories, but around 200 calories. It's like drinking an extra candy bar, That's really one of the big problems here; too many people simply don't realize just how fattening sugared drinks are. I think the solution is education rather than arbitrary limits on drink size, but education is hard and still lets people make their own decisions.
While I agree it's an unreasonable law, you've highlighted one of the issues that prompted it. Drinking that extra 16 oz of a regular cola is not just 50 calories, but around 200 calories. It's like drinking an extra candy bar, That's really one of the big problems here; too many people simply don't realize just how fattening sugared drinks are. I think the solution is education rather than arbitrary limits on drink size, but education is hard and still lets people make their own decisions.
2L soda is not a novelty size.
This is a worthless law that will have no impact on obesity whatsoever and was borne of an addiction by Bloomberg and whomever supports this effort to nit pick stupid shit to exercise power over others.
Anybody outside of NYC looks sardonically upon this, but somehow the air in NYC is such that many of its inhabitants think this is actually good policy. That a person can still get a couple of fat slaps of pizza but will probably drink 50 calories less is rabidly idiotic. If Bloomberg is going to dictate over his little fiefdom, he should it right. Ban fast-food, shut down all the restaurants, that'll lower obesity for you. Drink sizes is just noise, hence the limitless mockery Bloomberg has received over this.
Do you mean two liter? You realize that is not affected by this ban, right?
I think on the whole, yes, they will drink a little bit less, with the net impact on obesity literally immeasurable. Bloomberg is supporting this not because he believes it will work but for political points; he thought it was an easy target. A far greater benefit to health would be banning alcoholic beverages in all of NYC but he won't even try that.Actual research on the issue shows that consumption of sugary sodas does in fact lead to higher obesity rates. You appear to be conceding that people will drink less soda because of this regulation, so that's pretty much the end of it there.
God bless. Without NYC I just don't know where the rest of the world would be.People frequently attack public initiatives that happen in places like NYC and California...before emulating them a few years later.
Well really this is always the case isn't it? People are for states rights until the state tramples what they like.I would have thought that people were all for local government, but apparently they are only for it when it does something they like.
Yes, it is affected: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L
Unless the rules have since been changed/reinterpreted to debunk that.
I think on the whole, yes, they will drink a little bit less, with the net impact on obesity literally immeasurable. Bloomberg is supporting this not because he believes it will work but for political points; he thought it was an easy target. A far greater benefit to health would be banning alcoholic beverages in all of NYC but he won't even try that.God bless. Without NYC I just don't know where the rest of the world would be.Well really this is always the case isn't it? People are for states rights until the state tramples what they like.
I don't live in NYC, thank God. If it wants to do this by all means. But it won't stop me mocking it.
Actual research on the issue shows that consumption of sugary sodas does in fact lead to higher obesity rates. You appear to be conceding that people will drink less soda because of this regulation, so that's pretty much the end of it there.
People frequently attack public initiatives that happen in places like NYC and California...before emulating them a few years later. Regardless, unless you live in NYC this has no effect on you. I would have thought that people were all for local government, but apparently they are only for it when it does something they like.
Do you mean two liter? You realize that is not affected by this ban, right?
The rest of your post is just evidence free speculation. Actual research on the issue shows that consumption of sugary sodas does in fact lead to higher obesity rates. You appear to be conceding that people will drink less soda because of this regulation, so that's pretty much the end of it there.
People frequently attack public initiatives that happen in places like NYC and California...before emulating them a few years later. Regardless, unless you live in NYC this has no effect on you. I would have thought that people were all for local government, but apparently they are only for it when it does something they like.
Because once these ideas are institutionalized they become legitimate in the eyes of many people. For those of us not wanting the nanny state that is enacted in places like California or NYC to arrive in our localities. We attack it there and hope to stamp it out before it spreads like a cancer.
So you're in favor of trying to force your preferred policy on a region that you don't live in because you are afraid that people who live in your region will look at the results and like them.
I'm sorry, but that's a terrible argument.
If this passes, can this be precedent to ban sales of more than 1 big mac/whopper at a time? No one can eat more than one steak. Cheese pizzas must be lesser than 14". All of these lead to obesity. Long island iced teas can max out on 2 shots, no more.
This is a ridiculous law and I'm appalled that social liberals are supporting such overreach from the Government.
Note that cigarette consumption was reduced mainly through education and ad campaigns, and targeted bans rather than silly partial bans like this. No one even knows if this will really affect obesity rates.
I am in favor of pushing my preferred policy in a region that I dont live within because once that policy is enacted, it becomes legitimate to many of the drones back where I live. Like or not like has little do with it. They see it as ok now for govt to tell us that doing X is going to be illegal. It is a perfectly sensible argument.
Right. You want to force other people to live the way you want because you are worried that people in your area will see it and like it.
Right. You want to force other people to live the way you want because you are worried that people in your area will see it and like it.
I totally understand your reasoning, I just think that it is awful. It also betrays conservative principles of local governance. You can't argue for local control and then abandon it as soon as a locality does something you don't like.
Of course they will go after that next. Why wouldnt they? An authoritarians job is never done. There is always something else to regulate\ban.
True. In fact I propose the following to be addressed:
http://fast-food-nutrition.findtheb...-Breakfast-with-Hotcakes-Regular-Size-Biscuit
Clearly having so many hot cakes is the problem. No more than 1 hotcake per big breakfast.
But why just obesity? Let's attack more such problems. non-monogamous, unprotected sex with multiple partners increases the risk of STIs. In order to ensure public health, you can have only one sex partner every year. If you need more, you must apply for permits and prove use of condoms to a Government agent. The max partners you have per year is capped at .... 4.
Says the person arguing in favor of the government regulating behavior. Do you not see the irony in your statement?
Oh please. If the nanny state policies that were enacted in NYC or California stayed there I'd laugh and say look at those fools telling people they cant eat x and drink y. But that shit spreads to the center of the country where I live. And when it arrives there is little chance of stopping it.
It doesnt betray my ideals of small non-intrusive govt. Ultimately that is where I hang my hat.
And why does it spread? Because people like the results. You're saying you're afraid of people being exposed to new ideas, which is awful.
If you are fine with forcing your ideals on others, don't complain when they force theirs on you.
Because there are authoritarians within govt? And when they see what nanny-state crap people will put up with they will bring it here.
My ideals of letting people make decisions for themselves vs some wanna be dictator? You poor poor people of NYC that other like minded people may stop this nanny-state policy. I bet the oppression of letting people make a decision for themselves is just awful
So your argument is "so that we can protect the ability of people to make decisions for themselves, these people cannot be allowed to make decisions for themselves".
Now who is the authoritarian?