• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

lpast said:
Bloombergs NYC...what morons...oh you cant buy a 20 ounce drink only a 16...ok gimme two 16s and ill put them in my own 40 ounce cup...
Click to expand...

this law won't pass.

its stupid, authoritarian, and is an example of Bloombergian over-reach.
 
Helix said:
yes, it did. although caffeine seems to be a better option for a cola stimulant, when considering that children often consume the beverage.

thought it was kind of a neat sign from a bygone era, though.
Click to expand...

It was.

Is cocaine, the amount that was in the original Coca Cola, really more habit forming than the caffeine that is there now? Just wondering.

and how is it that the government gets to decide anyway? Isn't outlawing cocaine in Coke really any different from telling people that they can't buy the extra large size?

Cocaine may not be a good idea, and probably neither is pot. Drinking a quart of sugared soft drink at a sitting is a bad idea for most of us as well. But the real question is, who gets to decide?

Government needs to butt out of personal decisions, IMO.
 
Excon said:
Why?
Especially when the passage of such laws were and are pushed by the big bad insurance companies.
Click to expand...

You're strongest argument against helmet safety laws is that big bad insurance companies are for them? Especially in the case of motorcycle safety, I believe it's imperative that riders be held to a certain standard to avoid costly time in the emergency room. Driving or riding is a privilege, not a right.

if the government wants to require information to be placed on the soda containers to inform the public what they are consuming, not a problem
if the government wants to prohibit a person from buying something that has the potential to harm no one but themselves, that is nanny state intrusion
Click to expand...

The government bans the sale of cigarettes, with warnings and all, to minors. I feel that even more than the current ban, perhaps that would be the right move.

Secondly, was it nanny state intrusion when New York state told the owners of bars, restaurants, and pretty much anywhere with a public area other than cigar stores that people weren't allowed to smoke in them? Perhaps, but a most excellent move nonetheless.

It is so scary that some don't want to take personal responsibility but want the govt to regulate their lives. Good grief.
Here is what I see happening. People will purchase a 16oz dring at a fast food place because the larger size is not an option. They will consume it, go up and refill it.
I got a better idea, hold people accountable for their own actions. I don't need the govt trying limit what I do.
Click to expand...

The government does hold them to their actions, when we pay for medicare bills inflated by complications due to obesity. Or when we deal with the effects of bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Secondly, the government "limits what you can do" all the time with things like speed limits or BAC thresholds in terms of drinking and driving (another example of government crackdown that has led to the fewest deaths on the road since the Truman administration by the way. Coupled with stricter government safety standards of course). These are just a few examples of course.

So when the hard tyranny comes as opposed to this soft tyranny, you'll be all for it right?
Click to expand...

No.

So do ad campaigns, post calories, even a warning label I don't care, but I don't need government to do something stupid like this....Tell me, what prohibits me from buying 2 16oz. sodas? Anything?
Click to expand...

No.

Why can't they just live their own life and leave everyone else around them alone?
Click to expand...

It seems odd to me that someone who lives in one of the most polluted parts of California would be so critical of public health measures.

LOL - the industries love it though . . . the price per measureable quantity goes up the smaller and more convenient the packaging is: no 2-liters? No 1-liters . . . profits soaring.

They must be fostering this effort. LOL . . . oh: and nevermind the landfills, yeah - nevermind the going-green and reducing packaging waste!

It won't remotely make a damned different - if I couldn't buy Dr Pepper in a large bottle I'd buy it in smaller bottles and can Whoopidee ****ing do. (in fact: I actually consume more when I have cans in the house - I consume less if I have to pour it into a glass to drink it (2 / 3-liters are more annoying, honestly) . . .and the ease of being able to get a small bottle and take it with me raises my consumption of it . . . os I don't buy cans and small bottles of it purely for this reason.
Click to expand...

2 and 1 liters will still be available. The law would only affect places like restaurants, movie theaters, and stands from what I'm aware of.

Bloombergs NYC...what morons...oh you cant buy a 20 ounce drink only a 16...ok gimme two 16s and ill put them in my own 40 ounce cup...
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ when did NYC become such a punching bag and butt of jokes that need no buildup?

As if the joke can merely be shortened to "God NYC what morons...geez greatest city in the world and trendsetter in fashion and culture what a joke"

this law won't pass.

its stupid, authoritarian, and is an example of Bloombergian over-reach.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but Mr Bloomberg cannot in any way be faulted for attempting to keep NYC on the cutting edge and prepared for a future with a city that's safer, more walkable, healthier, and frankly more and more prepared to remain a world class city.
 
Last edited:
It's all a load of bull****. Think people, think.

Calories in a New York bagel with cream cheese - 436

Calories in a 32 oz. bottle of Coke - 310

Let's watch Bloomberg tell New Yorkers, "Smaller bagels only and no cream cheese allowed."
 
Thunder said:
this law won't pass.

its stupid, authoritarian, and is an example of Bloombergian over-reach.
Click to expand...


Really, WOW I agree with thunder lol...its an absurd law...why pass a law thats unenforceable and so damn easy to get around...whats he going to have cops checking soda ounces in cups...
 
Bloomberg has GOT to go. If anyone needs to be recalled out of the entire US it is this douche.
 
People will just buy two 16oz drinks...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bloomberg has GOT to go. If anyone needs to be recalled out of the entire US it is this douche.
Click to expand...

I say let him be. For the most part, he's only ****ing up a city that would be just about as ****ed up even without him. Drive him out of there, and you risk having him seek power in some other place, that wasn't so ****ed up to begin with, where he could do some actual harm.
 
Bleumange said:
Excessive soft drink consumption in a country with one of the highest obesity statistics in the universe can objectively be seen as a bad thing.
Would you react the same way to an indoor smoking ban?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is stupid as all hell for any government to ban a product that is legal from ANY establishment period. Doesn't matter if its soft drinks or smoking or salad.
 
justabubba said:
why is he so selective regarding the prohibition of foods that are not good for you to consume
Click to expand...

It's called "baby steps". Its the national past time for those that eventually want certain things totally banned. You can see this in numerous areas. From abortion to cigarettes and now...obviously...in food.
 
Your Star said:
Not really, second hand smoke causes harm to others. You have a right to **** up your own body, but please do not **** up mine.
Click to expand...

No offense Your Star but if you go to a restaruant that is known to be a smoking establishment then it is your fault for choosing to go to that place. You do not have a right to enter into any private buisness.
 
justabubba said:
no, your right to do something stops when it intrudes on my rights
your lighting up in a public space while others object to being subjected to second hand smoke steps on the others' rights not to be intruded upon
Click to expand...

And this is where you go wrong. A privately owned buisness is not a public space. It is a private space in which the owner allows the public to come in.
 
This is a band-aid. Yes, there needs to be less empty calories consumed by Americans -- all Americans. Yes, what we drink is a great first target, but we drink what we do because the federal government subsidizes the production of corn to an insane degree. Apart from the harm this does to the environment and our economy, it harms us because due to the overabundance of corn this creates so much is used to create sweeteners that have little value for us but create massive profits for the food industry and for Big Agriculture.

What we SHOULD be subsidizing is the production of fruits and vegetables, especially locally. If a state wants to alter the behavior of its citizens regarding food, there are far better (as in more cost-effective and successful) ways to do this.

Prohibiting the sale of these large servings is skipping all the steps in between that would genuinely alter behavior, and going right for the Big Daddy Government approach that is doomed to fail.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No offense Your Star but if you go to a restaruant that is known to be a smoking establishment then it is your fault for choosing to go to that place. You do not have a right to enter into any private buisness.
Click to expand...

I should be able to go to Red Lobster with my family without having to worry about the damage someone across the room is doing to my lungs with their smoke. People do not have the right to harm my health with their bad habit.
 
Tucker Case said:
Why not? You're in North Texas, right, so how does this ban affect you?
Click to expand...

It doesn't...yet. But how long before some idiot in my state tries to do the same thing? In order to prevent that I have a right and an obligation to cry out about it now...before it comes this way.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No offense Your Star but if you go to a restaruant that is known to be a smoking establishment then it is your fault for choosing to go to that place. You do not have a right to enter into any private buisness.
Click to expand...

We all have a right to enter any private business that serves food or offers transport or overnight accommodations to the public. We all have a right to enter almost all other businesses open to the public -- the only exceptions I can think of are age restrictions for places like bars and topless dance clubs that do not serve alcohol.
 
Your Star said:
I should be able to go to Red Lobster with my family without having to worry about the damage someone across the room is doing to my lungs with their smoke. People do not have the right to harm my health with their bad habit.
Click to expand...

Let's do this debate on another thread, k?
 
Thunder said:
and yet, millions of tourists come here every year from everywhere.

I bet even you've been here a few times, or have relatives who have visited or even moved here.

Everyone loves to bash us, but they still love us. :)
Click to expand...

If bloomberg keeps this crap up no one will want to visit your crappy city. I know for a fact that I never will.
 
Your Star said:
I should be able to go to Red Lobster with my family without having to worry about the damage someone across the room is doing to my lungs with their smoke. People do not have the right to harm my health with their bad habit.
Click to expand...

Whether you should be able to go to that privately owned buisness and whether you have the right to go to that privately owned buisness are two very different things. Not to mention one is based on opinion.

I mean seriously...do you even own stock in the Red Lobster franchise? Must less in that privately owned building?
 
If they can tell you what you can or can't put in your body eating or drinking why can't they tell you no abortions?
 
Let v>0 be the desired volume and s>0 the maximum serving size sold. Then for any choice of v and s, there exists an integer n such that v<s*n and hence the proposed solution of putting an upper bound on serving size does not accomplish the goal of limiting the amount of soda people can drink.

For a small step in the right direction, I'd like to see them put up some billboards comparing pearly whites to the erosion that people have had in their teeth as a result of soda and other sugar sources.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Whether you should be able to go to that privately owned buisness and whether you have the right to go to that privately owned buisness are two very different things. Not to mention one is based on opinion.

I mean seriously...do you even own stock in the Red Lobster franchise? Must less in that privately owned building?
Click to expand...

No, but I pay tax money that goes into funding medical care for people who get cancer from second hand smoke.

Seriously, second hand smoke is dangerous, and the government is well within their rights to ban people from smoking in public buildings, because it is a danger to the other people around them, and not just themselves.
 
You need harsh laws if people can't get the message just like chewing gums are banned here cuz people spitting it all over the place and jamming train doors.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
No, but I pay tax money that goes into funding medical care for people who get cancer from second hand smoke.

Seriously, second hand smoke is dangerous, and the government is well within their rights to ban people from smoking in public buildings, because it is a danger to the other people around them, and not just themselves.
Click to expand...

OMG. Another "I pay taxes" blah blah blah. When the hell are people going to stop with that lame excuse? It seems that is the only excuse that people can come up with to support their arguements when they fail at actually supporting their arguements.

Those that get help via government in the treatment of cancer also pay taxes. Which means they helped pay for thier treatments also. Those that smoke also help pay those bills via the extra tax that is already placed on cigarettes. And those that have no problem with smoking pay taxes also. How are your taxes any different than these people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom