• 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

He shouldn't have just banned 32oz drinks. How does one expect that to make any difference when people can use free refills or buy two 16oz drinks?

Instead of only partially fixing the problem he should build on this law.

Since the first two times I explained it haven't sunk in, I'll explain it a third time in the hope that "Third times a chime"

Many of these restaurants bundle 32oz drinks in a meal that is discounted. With this ban, people will no longer be able to get the 32oz drink at the discounted price. If they want 32oz's of drink, they will have to buy an additional 16oz drink at the full price. While some people may do this, common sense suggests that some won't. This means that less of these sugary beverages will be consumed.

That's the difference
 
He shouldn't have just banned 32oz drinks. How does one expect that to make any difference when people can use free refills or buy two 16oz drinks?

Instead of only partially fixing the problem he should build on this law.

Perhaps he could legalize pot, and then send the pot cops to make sure people don't consume too many calories.

Pot, after all, has no calories at all.
 
Perhaps he could legalize pot, and then send the pot cops to make sure people don't consume too many calories.

Pot, after all, has no calories at all.

LOL, yeah, the two measures really don't seem to work well together do they. You can get baked but you can't buy a Big Gulp.
 
Since the first two times I explained it haven't sunk in, I'll explain it a third time in the hope that "Third times a chime"

Many of these restaurants bundle 32oz drinks in a meal that is discounted. With this ban, people will no longer be able to get the 32oz drink at the discounted price. If they want 32oz's of drink, they will have to buy an additional 16oz drink at the full price. While some people may do this, common sense suggests that some won't. This means that less of these sugary beverages will be consumed.

That's the difference

I dunno, why not just leave them alone and let them buy whatever the hell they want, instead of trying to create an out of control nanny state?

Now, that would be common sense.

Seems to me that common sense would dictate that New York--city and state--has bigger things to worry about than whether, or not, someone has a large Coke with their junk food. These laws are the most assinine in the history of mankind.
 
Perhaps he could legalize pot, and then send the pot cops to make sure people don't consume too many calories.

Pot, after all, has no calories at all.

It just has carcinogens, oh well...the nanny staters don't like smoking, either. Dammit!!!!
 
He shouldn't have just banned 32oz drinks. How does one expect that to make any difference when people can use free refills or buy two 16oz drinks?

Instead of only partially fixing the problem he should build on this law.

Why do you think he knows what is better for you than you do? If this keeps up we won't have any personal choice left.
 
Smoking went down.... to a point. There are still LOTS of people who smoke. Many have gone to roll-your-own, or cigars or pipes which are not as heavily taxed yet. Those who were going to quit over price mostly already have. Those who remain aren't likely to quit, but simply engage in tax-avoidance behaviors like rolling your own cigs at 1/3rd the price. Tax that and they'll find another way around it.

I've noticed a lot more young people smoking in recent years than was the case about a decade ago... wonder if it has anything to do with the societal demonization of tobacco, leading it to be one of those "alluring taboo" items. :shrug:


Bottom line... it isn't government's business to make healthy decisions FOR me. If it were, they'd send me a menu every week and tell me that was what I had to eat. You want that?
Also of note, the states, typically blue ones that love all the sin taxes such as NY are among the states which are broke. They thought they were clever and could bring in huge revenue but ended up hurting themselves twice. So few smoke the taxed cigs plus the loss of revenue from convenient stores that make less money due to the loss of sale of cigs which were once one of their biggest selling items. The higher NY taxes its people, the less money it has.
 
Also of note, the states, typically blue ones that love all the sin taxes such as NY are among the states which are broke. They thought they were clever and could bring in huge revenue but ended up hurting themselves twice. So few smoke the taxed cigs plus the loss of revenue from convenient stores that make less money due to the loss of sale of cigs which were once one of their biggest selling items. The higher NY taxes its people, the less money it has.

Note that many red states are also in financial straits, and NYS is far from broke.

ANd cigarettes have never been a major source of revenue for convenience stores.
 
Which brings up a point I'm sure the nannies in NY haven't considered. By asserting that government has the right to ban what they consider self-destructive behavior, it opens the door for insurance companies to do the same. New form letter: "We're sorry Mr Johnson, but we are declining to cover your recent bypass operation. It has come to our attention that you regularly consume Ring Dings as a dessert and we have determined these are bad for your heart and that you contributed significantly to your heart problem by your eating habits. [see Section 400c of your policy fine print clause]".
 
Which brings up a point I'm sure the nannies in NY haven't considered. By asserting that government has the right to ban what they consider self-destructive behavior, it opens the door for insurance companies to do the same. New form letter: "We're sorry Mr Johnson, but we are declining to cover your recent bypass operation. It has come to our attention that you regularly consume Ring Dings as a dessert and we have determined these are bad for your heart and that you contributed significantly to your heart problem by your eating habits. [see Section 400c of your policy fine print clause]".

Nothing is being banned

Why don't read the article and learn the facts?
 
Nothing is being banned

Why don't read the article and learn the facts?

The post applies either way. The local government is asserting legal interest in the eating habits of it's residents. Not much of a stretch for the insurance companies to emulate that behavior.
 
The post applies either way. The local government is asserting legal interest in the eating habits of it's residents. Not much of a stretch for the insurance companies to emulate that behavior.

IOW, the facts don't matter. You're right even when you get the facts wrong :roll:
 
Acid erosion can take decades to manifest and is different than run of the mill cavities.

The strength of the enamel affects development of both. If I weaken my enamel enough via erosion, cavities will be a sign of that and it would also indicate that I would need to stop drinking pop. I have a built in erosion detector because of that.

It's possible that you have some oddly base chemistry in your mouth, but I wouldn't bet your purty smile on it

I brush multiple times a day (at least twice, but usually three times) using baking soda toothpaste, so there is likely to be a cancellation effect.

I'm not worried about it all that much. If it happens, sucks to be me.
 
The strength of the enamel affects development of both. If I weaken my enamel enough via erosion, cavities will be a sign of that and it would also indicate that I would need to stop drinking pop. I have a built in erosion detector because of that.



I brush multiple times a day (at least twice, but usually three times) using baking soda toothpaste, so there is likely to be a cancellation effect.

I'm not worried about it all that much. If it happens, sucks to be me.

I think we need the government to step in and take responsibility for your teeth.

/sarcasm
 
(1) Why do you think he knows what is better for you than you do? (2) If this keeps up we won't have any personal choice left.

(1) The problem is that I never said that.

(2) That would be hyperbole.
 
Back
Top Bottom