• 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!

NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

I have only one thing to say about my gravy fries....

From my cold, dead, greasy hands. :mrgreen:

That ain't gonna be a problem if you keep eating gravy fries. Come on man, you ain't getting younger.
 
I'd always intended to see NYC sometime. Empire State Building, Central Park, all that.


Well, I guess I never will, now.

I refuse to patronize such an idiotic petty tyranny with my tourism dollars.

So you will not visit the Empire State Building because you cannot bring your "Big Gulp", well join the rest of humanity no one can bring such items in the elevator. You may, however, buy something to drink on the main floor. Your excuse not to visit NYC is over some nutty proposal to limit the size of a soft drink that can be refilled as many times as you wish. This sounds like an excuse, maybe you are a little frightened to visit the big city, there is no shame in that. Do not despair I would be happy to show you around town and I know of many folks who would be happy to provide you with a "Big Gulp".

So what I am offering is to meet you there and take you on a tour. Your tourism dollars will be well spent and Bloomberg will not see a cent of it. The people I know do not pay taxes and I travel the back roads of NYC so I do not even pay tolls. It would be a true DP adventure....:mrgreen:




No friend of mine>>>>>>
littlest-dictator-tpc-i4182.jpg
 
This is seriously idiotic. I can't even fathom the lack of reasoning that exists in this debate.

I think it should be passed.

Let'em pass the laws and let the rest of us see what the results are.

If the results suck then the rest'll have more ammo in case this spreads.
 
Bloomberg is just trying to go out with a bang.

Once he's gone in 2014, the new Mayor will remove a lot of his stupid laws.
 
Heres the point all this miss's. No matter how noble a thought is to stop obesity, you have to put it in its perspective.
A nutritional expert went on a donut diet to prove that the age old theory calories in calories out are the only way to lose weight. He consumed 1800 calories per day in twinkies and Crispy Cremes and he lost 27lbs in 10 weeks.
You can eliminate any one thing like big soda or any group of several things and it just will not workm, until the people your targeting have less calories in than calories going OUT...simple. Bloomberg is a tool who once again is looking for attention.

I forgot to include at the conclusion of the 10 week donut diet, not only did he lose 27lbs, but his total cholesterol went down and his ration of good to bad cholesterol improved...go figure...I read this the other day in my WebMD subscription that comes to my email daily, Im going to look if I still have it

Ok I found it...:)

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
 
Last edited:
Public sector abuse at its finest.

If you really want to tackle the obesity pandemic in this country, private sector can do it better. For instance, insurance companies can outright refuse coverage of people whose BMI is over a certain percentage.

Weed out the fatties.
 
IMO what this really is is just an attempt to build awareness of the issue nationwide. It's the same thing as when San Francisco banned happy meals. What they're really trying to do is to get people everywhere to think about whether it is really a good idea to feed that stuff to their kids. And it's successful. Oddly, I lived in San Francisco during the happy meal ban and now I live in New York. In both cases, the people were fine with it. Really they didn't care either way. They're both wealthy cities. Not a lot of super jumbo sodas or happy meals were being consumed in either place anyways. That isn't the point. The point was getting the national media talking about it.

I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but something needs to change with portion sizes in the US. It really is totally out of control. I used to travel to Europe for work a lot. If I was there for a couple weeks, consistently, the first few days I'd feel a little hungry because the portions were smaller. But I'd get over it pretty quick. And guess what, people there are much, much, skinnier. Then I'd come back and the first thing you're struck by is how fat everybody is. It really is kind of startling when you leave and come back. And for a few days I'd feel like I had too much food after every meal. But then I'd get used to that again and resume fattening up.... And the portions here are getting bigger and bigger every year. The health care costs created and the impact on our quality of life are enormous. We do need to do something. Maybe not bans, but something needs to change.
 
Bloomberg wanted to raise taxes on the big sugary drinks, but I believe the State said "no".
 
IMO what this really is is just an attempt to build awareness of the issue nationwide. It's the same thing as when San Francisco banned happy meals. What they're really trying to do is to get people everywhere to think about whether it is really a good idea to feed that stuff to their kids. And it's successful. Oddly, I lived in San Francisco during the happy meal ban and now I live in New York. In both cases, the people were fine with it. Really they didn't care either way. They're both wealthy cities. Not a lot of super jumbo sodas or happy meals were being consumed in either place anyways. That isn't the point. The point was getting the national media talking about it.

I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but something needs to change with portion sizes in the US. It really is totally out of control. I used to travel to Europe for work a lot. If I was there for a couple weeks, consistently, the first few days I'd feel a little hungry because the portions were smaller. But I'd get over it pretty quick. And guess what, people there are much, much, skinnier. Then I'd come back and the first thing you're struck by is how fat everybody is. It really is kind of startling when you leave and come back. And for a few days I'd feel like I had too much food after every meal. But then I'd get used to that again and resume fattening up.... And the portions here are getting bigger and bigger every year. The health care costs created and the impact on our quality of life are enormous. We do need to do something. Maybe not bans, but something needs to change.

All of that being true teamosil....the end all do all is what people put in their mouth...and NO one nor any law can control that.
 
teamosil said:
IMO what this really is is just an attempt to build awareness of the issue nationwide. It's the same thing as when San Francisco banned happy meals. What they're really trying to do is to get people everywhere to think about whether it is really a good idea to feed that stuff to their kids. And it's successful. Oddly, I lived in San Francisco during the happy meal ban and now I live in New York. In both cases, the people were fine with it. Really they didn't care either way. They're both wealthy cities. Not a lot of super jumbo sodas or happy meals were being consumed in either place anyways. That isn't the point. The point was getting the national media talking about it.

I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but something needs to change with portion sizes in the US. It really is totally out of control. I used to travel to Europe for work a lot. If I was there for a couple weeks, consistently, the first few days I'd feel a little hungry because the portions were smaller. But I'd get over it pretty quick. And guess what, people there are much, much, skinnier. Then I'd come back and the first thing you're struck by is how fat everybody is. It really is kind of startling when you leave and come back. And for a few days I'd feel like I had too much food after every meal. But then I'd get used to that again and resume fattening up.... And the portions here are getting bigger and bigger every year. The health care costs created and the impact on our quality of life are enormous. We do need to do something. Maybe not bans, but something needs to change.

I don't think any parent is under the delusion that feeding their kids a Happy Meal is healthy, or that you can't get obese from Coca-Cola and Oreos.

I doubt that "raising awareness" is a useful tool, because I imagine the populace is very aware. One problem I've noticed is that the cheapest foods are the foods that tend to be the worst for you. You can get a Little Debbie candy bar or brownie for 50 cents, or you can get an apple (maybe, and not in a vending machine).

At McDonalds, you can go get a Big Mac, fry, and drink for 5 bucks, or you can go to Subway and have a footlong veggie sub (no drink) for 5 bucks that's guaranteed to not fill you up as much.

Want to lower the obesity rate? Subsidize and bring down the costs of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and healthy foods. Don't ban things that Big Brother deems is "bad from you" from his lofty perch.

I prefer allowing for people to make better decisions, not taking that decision power away from them.
 
I don't think any parent is under the delusion that feeding their kids a Happy Meal is healthy, or that you can't get obese from Coca-Cola and Oreos.

I doubt that "raising awareness" is a useful tool, because I imagine the populace is very aware. One problem I've noticed is that the cheapest foods are the foods that tend to be the worst for you. You can get a Little Debbie candy bar or brownie for 50 cents, or you can get an apple (maybe, and not in a vending machine).

It isn't about giving people a piece of information they didn't have before, it is about getting people to think about it. Like right now you and I are sitting here having a conversation about what kinds of foods are healthier and what foods are less healthy. That's the point of it. Remind people to think about what they eat.
 
It isn't about giving people a piece of information they didn't have before, it is about getting people to think about it. Like right now you and I are sitting here having a conversation about what kinds of foods are healthier and what foods are less healthy. That's the point of it. Remind people to think about what they eat.

I think we all understand the purpose, the debate is whether its of any value to write laws to try and make people think. I dont think Bloombergs soda law is going to that at all
 
I think we all understand the purpose, the debate is whether its of any value to write laws to try and make people think. I dont think Bloombergs soda law is going to that at all

It is though. You and I are thinking about how healthy the things we eat are right now.
 
It is though. You and I are thinking about how healthy the things we eat are right now.

Yes, you and I are, but you and I id bet a donut are already healthy eaters and we are on a discussion forum :)
Personally I do not think the big gulp ban will change a single bad eating New Yorkers mind...but hey...I really hope im wrong this time
 
Yes, you and I are, but you and I id bet a donut are already healthy eaters and we are on a discussion forum :)
Personally I do not think the big gulp ban will change a single bad eating New Yorkers mind...but hey...I really hope im wrong this time

I actually eat terribly unhealthy stuff. I'm part of the target audience for the awareness raising :)

I think stuff like this has some effect. It's like advertising. Everybody thinks that what they purchase is rarely, if ever, affected by ads. But when they go to the store, more often than not, they buy the products they have seen the most ads for. McDonalds and Coca-Cola spend over a billion dollars each per year advertising. Asparagus... I don't think I can remember ever seeing an advertisement for a asparagus. Think of this like a pretty big advertising campaign for asparagus.
 
This is seriously idiotic. I can't even fathom the lack of reasoning that exists in this debate.

Do you deny the effectiveness of the buy-in-bulk marketing technique? Buying in bulk within retail outlets encourages over-consumption.
 
Do you deny the effectiveness of the buy-in-bulk marketing technique? Buying in bulk within retail outlets encourages over-consumption.

Some people view it as a big savings on necessities that you use daily by buying in bulk.

Ive been a member of warehouse clubs for a long long time...

I buy bulk....Papertowels, Papier eau de twoilette..Napkins...Coffee...porkchops, big bags of frozen chicken and fish and salmon and I save a fortune over super market prices and I dont have to run to the store nearly as much....Its no different buy a 2lbs of cookies in sams club and eating like a pig...or buying two 1 lb boxs of cookies in Publix and eating like a pig.
Everyone thats for this law seems to think that suggestion is going to override eating disorders..and lack of discipline....its not and it never has and never will.
 
I do not think this ban would stand judicial review as it runs contrary to the Commerce Clause where Local governments "can't pass laws that do impose burdens on the free flow of commerce between states, only congress can.

"The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
 
Some people view it as a big savings on necessities that you use daily by buying in bulk.

Ive been a member of warehouse clubs for a long long time...

I buy bulk....Papertowels, Papier eau de twoilette..Napkins...Coffee...porkchops, big bags of frozen chicken and fish and salmon and I save a fortune over super market prices and I dont have to run to the store nearly as much....Its no different buy a 2lbs of cookies in sams club and eating like a pig...or buying two 1 lb boxs of cookies in Publix and eating like a pig.
Everyone thats for this law seems to think that suggestion is going to override eating disorders..and lack of discipline....its not and it never has and never will.

You are talking about a wholesale club. Retail bulk buying marketing techniques encourage over-consumption, this is simply a matter of fact. There is a clear distinction between buying bulk chicken breast and a 64oz mountain dew.
 
I actually eat terribly unhealthy stuff. I'm part of the target audience for the awareness raising

I think stuff like this has some effect. It's like advertising. Everybody thinks that what they purchase is rarely, if ever, affected by ads. But when they go to the store, more often than not, they buy the products they have seen the most ads for. McDonalds and Coca-Cola spend over a billion dollars each per year advertising. Asparagus... I don't think I can remember ever seeing an advertisement for a asparagus. Think of this like a pretty big advertising campaign for asparagus.

So banning activities is like ads? Lol? That is seriously dumb.

Do you deny the effectiveness of the buy-in-bulk marketing technique? Buying in bulk within retail outlets encourages over-consumption.

Lets ban it! Bloomberg always needs an excuse for going out in his superman outfit.
 
Lets ban it! Bloomberg always needs an excuse for going out in his superman outfit.

If you want to reply to my comment, then by all means.
 
If you want to reply to my comment, then by all means.

Tell me the worth of your comment? Who cares if it encourages people to act dumb? I see nothing wrong with it.
 
Tell me the worth of your comment? Who cares if it encourages people to act dumb? I see nothing wrong with it.

My comment stems from implementing social cost-benefit analysis. We ban bulk sale of ephedra based products because.... people do dumb ****.
 
I do not think this ban would stand judicial review as it runs contrary to the Commerce Clause where Local governments "can't pass laws that do impose burdens on the free flow of commerce between states, only congress can.

"The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

No, it would. What you're referring to is called the "dormant commerce clause". As you say, it prevents states and local governments from putting burdens on the free flow of commerce. But, that isn't going on here. The types of burdens they look for are things that discriminate in favor of local products over out of state products or things that make the actual flow of commerce problematic. For example, if you have 49 states that require that trucks have mud flaps and one state that prohibits trucks from having mud flaps, then that one state is causing a massive hassle for interstate shipping, so that would violate the dormant commerce clause. If NYC had banned sodas from out of state, but allowed in state sodas or something, that would certainly be a dormant commerce clause problem. But, without discrimination or an impediment to the actual process of interstate commerce, it isn't. States are definitely allowed to decide what products are banned for health reasons and whatnot.
 
Back
Top Bottom