62 replies to this topic

[Simbi Laveau]

http://www.npr.org/b...man?ft=1&f=1014

The ban passed ,8-0 .If no one knows this,the panel that passed it,were hand picked by fuhrer bloomberg .He does everything that way btw .
I'm thinking of calling a lawyer,because as a citizen,this violates my civil rights .

Yeah really . I'm so done putting up with this ahole .

It's supposed to go into affect in march of 2013 .
Everyone will just buy soda at the supermarket,and sneak it in . I know I will .

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 14 September 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[Simbi Laveau]

http://www.boweryboo...bergs-soda-ban/

Yeah,that

[Render]

I don't understand why ppl would have to buy sodas in supermarkets and sneak them in.

Nobody is banning sugary drinks as a whole right? They're simply banning the overly large containers.

Also, from the article:

Quote

"Initial studies have shown an association between getting soda out of schools and declining BMI in those schools, which could help make the idea more acceptable eventually," she says.

So, knowing about this correlation...isn't it worth just trying it?

[and then]

Render, on 14 September 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I don't understand why ppl would have to buy sodas in supermarkets and sneak them in.

Nobody is banning sugary drinks as a whole right? They're simply banning the overly large containers.

Also, from the article:
So, knowing about this correlation...isn't it worth just trying it?

I think the issue is less about the good he intends and more about his heavy handed way in trying to accomplish it.  I also think it's a bit more sinister in that I think such laws are the beginning of preparing people for the mindset that if you "do something unhealthy" whatever they might define as such, then the gubmint can exclude you from an overburdened healthcare system.  Watch for it.

[iNvRG]

It's more about choice than anything else. He has always been about banning anything and everything he feels is "wrong". Give him a piece of cake and he'll end up taking the whole cake.

[A Shadow]

I always brought my own soda to the movies

[preacherman76]

Render, on 14 September 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I don't understand why ppl would have to buy sodas in supermarkets and sneak them in.

Nobody is banning sugary drinks as a whole right? They're simply banning the overly large containers.

Also, from the article:
So, knowing about this correlation...isn't it worth just trying it?

Like and then said, its not relevent what his intentions are. What is relevent is the very slippery slope he just sent this state down. If he can ban this, he can ban anything deemed unhealthy.

Personaly I think this may be just a slight of hand trick. They are probably doing something 10 times as worse, and are using this as a distraction.

There is no way a court upholds this ruling though, not even in NY. I would be surprised if a law suit wasnt already filed.

[Kafkaesque]

Once people accept, they can be trained to the habit of acceptance.

Soda can be unhealthy if drinken in large quanities, and we all know this.

Like and then said, I am more concerned with the manner he decided to pursue this - and to have it pass flawlessly.

I agree that we have become a gluttonous society, and I will not deny that there is a proportionate strain on our health care system by those who make unhealthy food choices. Does that mean I should make it a fineable, offensive, and illegal gesture to punish the people for possession - if I am mayor? I cannot say, it is a hard choice. Many people will react accordingly to how their nature is; some will claim illegality, and others will probably be docile.

As for me? I'll keep close eyes on how this develops.

[preacherman76]

Notice he hasnt tryed to ban ciggaretts. To much tax revenue to ban something that actualy kills people.

[Simbi Laveau]

Cigarettes are ten times more unhealthy ,as,soda.They don't put any sort of restrictions on it,because of the taxes they impose on us here.
I think a pack of cigarettes in ...14$ in nyc ? I think so .
The issue with sugared drinks,is high fructose corn syrup .THATS what causes all the real issues ,but no one will ban that,and its in so many more things than drinks .
Diet soda contains salt,carcinogens ,and no one wants to put limits on that.
When I drink a soda,I like the 20oz bottle. If I drink a 16 oz,I feel short changed somehow,so I open another one ,and I usually finish it .So I end up drinking 32oz,instead of 20 .

Let's use hotdogs as an example.
They're fatty,have chemicals,and processed beef.
Theoretically,they're not good for us,and raise medical costs .
So now we can only eat half ....
Would you let anyone tell you,you can only eat half your hotdog ?

What about places with a fountain . You fill your own .
How do they monitor who only fills their large cup with diet ?
Are they kidding ?
What will they do to enforce it ? Install cameras in all delis,that are govt monitored .
Wwhhheereee does this end ?
Hes our of control .
The city is DONE .

This is nonsense,and money is behind it somewhere . First they tried to tax the drinks,and that didn't work,so now they want us to buy two instead of one,so they get twice the taxes.
Fuhrer does nothing,unless it makes him money .
There is already talk of legal action,as soda companies do not take this sitting down .
People will just bring their own containers .

I ordered a case of Mexican coke today ,and that's what I'mdrinking from now on .
Real sugar ,and I drink as much as I want ,as I'm filling up my own .thermos ,and taking it with me .
We HATE him .The city is sick of fuhrer and his reich .
If Christine Quinn thinks we will elect her,so we can have another 6 years of this,shes nuts .

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 14 September 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[Render]

and then, on 14 September 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I think the issue is less about the good he intends and more about his heavy handed way in trying to accomplish it.  I also think it's a bit more sinister in that I think such laws are the beginning of preparing people for the mindset that if you "do something unhealthy" whatever they might define as such, then the gubmint can exclude you from an overburdened healthcare system.  Watch for it.

preacherman76, on 14 September 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Like and then said, its not relevent what his intentions are. What is relevent is the very slippery slope he just sent this state down. If he can ban this, he can ban anything deemed unhealthy.

Personaly I think this may be just a slight of hand trick. They are probably doing something 10 times as worse, and are using this as a distraction.

There is no way a court upholds this ruling though, not even in NY. I would be surprised if a law suit wasnt already filed.

Yeah I understand. There is more and more talk of banning and raising prices on certain stuff deemed unhealthy. Not only in the US. Ppl are starting to feel more and more controlled by this immense obsession of food lately.
It's just so hard to find the middle ground you know. In one way I think "well ok, maybe it could be beneficial for health and stuff", on the other hand i think "I don't want politicians to think they can eventually take away my access to butter."

But what is there to be done then about all the weight issues? Is it not the right thing to send a message that it's not all that good to drink superlarge containers of sugary drinks?  Even though most here say it's not about that from Bloomberg...does it really matter what Bloomberg is thinking? Isn't the result of possibly less overweight ppl more important?

Are there any valid proposals without banning stuff or raising prices unreasonably high?

[Eldorado]

preacherman76, on 14 September 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Notice he hasnt tryed to ban ciggaretts. To much tax revenue to ban something that actualy kills people.

Or alcohol... again.  lol

I can remember a time when governments used to warn citizens about silly behaviour and bad habits... and if you ignored the advice, on your own head be it.  Looks to me like we are half-way down a road where the warnings have become threats.  I don't like that.

As my Granny used to say, "There's a helluva difference between askin' and orderin'".

[Lilly]

IMO you just can't legislate healthy behaviour. People have to come to the decision to live healthy on their own.

[Mr Right Wing]

iNvRG, on 14 September 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

It's more about choice than anything else. He has always been about banning anything and everything he feels is "wrong". Give him a piece of cake and he'll end up taking the whole cake.

What is the health impact in terms of cost due to fizzy drinks?

The US has an obesity problem. In addition too much sugar rots teeth and causes diabetes. Is it right to therefore ban the stuff?

I would say no as its a violation of peoples freedoms. Therefore different approach should be take such as a fizzy drinks tax. The tax should be set at a level that generates enough revenue to cover the health costs caused by them.

[Eldorado]

Mr Right Wing, on 14 September 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

What is the health impact in terms of cost due to fizzy drinks?

The US has an obesity problem. In addition too much sugar rots teeth and causes diabetes. Is it right to therefore ban the stuff?

I would say no as its a violation of peoples freedoms. Therefore different approach should be take such as a fizzy drinks tax. The tax should be set at a level that generates enough revenue to cover the health costs caused by them.

A Fat Tax should be introduced.  To pay for the "extra wear and tear" on public paths, benches etc.  A penny for every ounce you are overweight.

(I'd love to see politicians debating a Fat Tax)  *chuckles*