D
Deleted member 20415
Unconfirmed Member
I'm a populist democrat along with the best of them, but you're telling me poor people can't drink water or tea? The only drink option for poor people is soda? come on!
Judge strikes down NYC sugary-drinks size rule (Politico)
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
I'm a populist democrat along with the best of them, but you're telling me poor people can't drink water or tea? The only drink option for poor people is soda? come on!
Valkyr Junkie
Member
I can see that argument for fast food, but not sugary drinks. Last I checked tap water is still cheaper than any kind of soda, and perfectly drinkable from any municipal source.
Neuromancer
Member
That was part of the whole nanny state aspect of this law. You could always get back up and get more soda, but the government was making you feel bad about it.
empty vessel
Member
It's a shame the judge decided to single-handedly thwart the betterment of his society.
We should ban alcohol too. It leads to so many crimes that plague our society and costs hundred of millions of dollars in damages for tax payers in this county. So many deaths caused by drinking and driving.
While the idea behind it is good (flip the psyche games around so people ingest less junk drinks) I doubt how effective it was going to be in practice, especially as most people probably just filled the whole thing up with ice and had effectively less drink anyway.
But maybe it'll start scaring the corporations into shrinking themselves if Bloomberg's idea LOOKS to catch on.
But maybe it'll start scaring the corporations into shrinking themselves if Bloomberg's idea LOOKS to catch on.
I know you're not serious because we actually have very strick laws around serving alcohol. You can go to jail for serving someone who is visually intoxicated, for example. Also every state in the country has a tax on beer, liquor and wine already.
Everyone wants to make society more healthy, but this law would in no way help achieve that goal. The only solution is education.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Which seems to assume that in the absence of government "nanny" influence people are making un"nannyd" decisions.
Or maybe we could stop subsidizing corn products in this country. We could also give a damn about providing people with preventative care and nutrition classes for anyone with Universal Healthcare so that people can make informed decisions about what they put in their body.
And it's a shame the article was so damn short. Is the ruling posted online anywhere?
You can apply my logic to anything only so you can make slippery slope arguments.
For example, freedom to own a car is one thing, but should you be free to drive a car that doesn't pass emission standards set by the government?
The beverage industry will continue to cry "freedom" because they appeal to ignorant patriotism.
Do you care about my access to affordable healthcare?
Or do you care about my freedom to smoke cigarettes?
Host Samurai
Member
good. Bloomberg has been going on a banning spree as of late. Now he wants to ban happy hour in NYC. Fucking dictator
I'll admit to being a fan of soda, but I fully support this.
The best way to get people to stop drinking it is to make it cost more.
Where I live, you can get a 2L of store brand soda for like 69 cents. That's cheaper than water.
empty vessel
Member
I think it would help achieve that goal by reducing aggregate sugar consumption in the city.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/129784002
entremet
Member
da fuc
I think this was a rumor, bud. Bar/restaurant owners would not take it lol.
I sure do. Hopefully better education would make you not want to smoke cigarettes. Education is the only solution.
Education is not a solution when people don't want to be educated.
PflargBlarg
Member
The argument against sin tax via poor people is ridiculous. I'm perfectly capable of affording all kinds of energy drinks, and vitamin waters, and who knows what, but I just drink water because I know it's better for me.
And, water out of the tap is the cheapest drink there is.
And, water out of the tap is the cheapest drink there is.
Maybe, but I'm not so sure it would. I have a feeling people would just buy two sodas instead of one. If they don't understand (or care about) the health risks, banning only specific sizes will do very little.
Then why the arbitrary number?
By drinking an inordinate amount of sugar water at one time?
This didn't work for alcohol and thankful it doesn't work with soda.
Walk me through the economics of this one. What's wrong with drinking water? Are you to tell me that pop is a more feasible and integral drinking solution to low income families than water?
The obesity epidemic is some real ass shit and complacent attitudes are fittingly keeping us from solving it. Large swaths of people are addicted to terrible food and it is crippling the health of this country. Further, misinformation on how to actually take care of one's body is rampant, and food companies willfully mislead the population in order to maximize sales.
These hand-wavy "educate the population" dismissals do not simply address the issue. A genuine culture shock is needed. Or technology which relegates our natural metabolic functions to obsolescence.
You think that it will have no impact on consumption if someone is forced to buy another or carry around more than one? I don't think there's any question that making it less convenient to drink more than 16 ounces in a sitting will reduce the number of people who choose to do so.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm...not actually sure how this addresses what I said. I swear this isn't an insult, I just don't get the connection between my point about uninfluenced decisions (or the lack thereof) and what you said.
Yep, very true. Most of the coverage has been on the impact against the consumer, when really this is an issue for business owners. The ban would prohibit many businesses from selling certain types of drink containers. Small businesses in particular would likely have the hardest time complying and have the most troublesome financial burdens associated with it:
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Sure it is. I sneak cans in to the movies all the time.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
thats not why the judge struck it down.
So you'd rather ban a substance that is not inherently harmful (but can be abused) than teach people how to enjoy it safely? How far does this hand-holding have to go before we draw a line? Should we ban meat consumption? I'd argue that is is much worse for our society than soda.
The problem with your argument is that logically is doesn't stop until everything remotely harmful is banned.
I definitely think it would have some impact. But it is the logical equivalent of putting a band-aid on a severed limb.
Moral Panic
Member
When they reduced paracetamol packet sizes in the UK, deaths dropped. Why can't the same apply to Soda, which although not as harmful, when abused leads to significant negative effects to your health.
Ha. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Educators have their funding cut on a yearly basis. They have more children in their classrooms and less resources with which to teach them.
On the other hand, beverage companies and snack companies increase their marketing budget on a yearly basis, and hire scientists to formulate more addictive products. They spend hundreds of billions of dollars on billboards, radio ads, television ads, online ads, and celebrity endorsements.
On top of all of that, you believe soda is not inherently harmful. That's just the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Even if people moderated their soda consumption - which is impossible because cola drinks are specially formulated to bypass the natural satiation mechanisms of the human brain - they'd still be consuming (most likely) HFCS. HFCS is basically poison.
But I've seen more commercials promoting its inclusion in our diet than commercials advising me to avoid it.
26 million Americans have diabetes.
79 million Americans have pre-diabetes.
This is an epidemic, and your solution is to tell children with undeveloped prefrontal cortices that something is bad for them and expect them to make the right decision?
Good luck with that.
gutter_trash
Banned
can buy 5 pizzas but cannot buy 2L bottles of soda = ???????
Messofanego
Banned
Corrupt politicians take effective bills and ruin them so they cease to be effective. After that, the bills are either not signed in to law because they're full of loopholes or else they're passed for a brief time only to be struck down later.
jamesinclair
Banned
Fuck the activist judge.
Bloom is appealing right?
Bloom is appealing right?
It isn't meant to completely solve obesity in NYC.
GremlinFool
Member
So use the revenues collected into expanding a tax credit for low-income people. Besides, a lot of research demonstrates that cigarette taxes aren't as regressive as people think, that it causes a dramatic shift in consumption behaviors. Given that cigarettes are significantly more addictive than soda, one should expect the elasticity of demand to be greater for soda, resulting in avoidance of perverse behavior AND less regressivity.
I was for the soda ban, but I think a dramatic tax on soda is the best course of action.
People underestimate the power of temporal behavior inconsistencies and irrationality. Sometimes, people need the government to internalize the externalities (massive healthcare costs) AND internalities (obesity for the individual) for the betterment of society.
The awareness/education on this front is already ongoing. It simply isn't sufficient.
Oh, you definitely can. Social Security is one example. Amortized tax refunds are another. But you certainly have to do them right.
People do not respond well to simply being told "don't do that," as this law is an example of. If you frame the choice right, though, you can get people to do things without them really knowing you pushed them in to it.
That's certainly how marketing works, and I hope the government cajoles people in this way more often in the future. It's important to remember that people do not make independent choices and that what choices we perceive as "our own" are heavily influenced by our peers and, yes, by marketing.
You can't educate everyone on everything.
Lead paint/radon/carbon monoxide/black mold/trans fats/second hand smoke/household chemicals/safe food handling/prescription drug abuse/alcohol abuse/illegal drug abuse/fire safety/second hand smoke/etc.
There's only so much room to educate the public before everyone stops paying attention.
Lead paint/radon/carbon monoxide/black mold/trans fats/second hand smoke/household chemicals/safe food handling/prescription drug abuse/alcohol abuse/illegal drug abuse/fire safety/second hand smoke/etc.
There's only so much room to educate the public before everyone stops paying attention.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'd support increasing the taxes on pop (it's not called soda, north east/western losers) drinks; I don't support an outright ban on large pops though, that certainly strikes me as unconstitutional and stupid.
Poor people drinking less pop strikes me as a good idea, and means tax payers pay less to for their dental and health coverage. That strikes me as a conservative view of this issue but unsurprisingly most conservatives refuse to see it that way. They'd rather complain about a nanny state and government overreach while also complaining about wasting money on social Welfare. You lower your social Welfare obligations by promoting healthy eating/drinking. People should be able to drink whatever they want (hence my disagreement with Bloomberg) but I have no problem with offering monetary incentives to encourage people to drink healthier stuff.
Poor people drinking less pop strikes me as a good idea, and means tax payers pay less to for their dental and health coverage. That strikes me as a conservative view of this issue but unsurprisingly most conservatives refuse to see it that way. They'd rather complain about a nanny state and government overreach while also complaining about wasting money on social Welfare. You lower your social Welfare obligations by promoting healthy eating/drinking. People should be able to drink whatever they want (hence my disagreement with Bloomberg) but I have no problem with offering monetary incentives to encourage people to drink healthier stuff.
Deified Data
Banned
I think the size ban was silly, though I thought it was a pointless thing to oppose considering it didn't actually regulate the beverage itself. Similarly I'm not all that upset at seeing it opposed. Take away the hysterics from both sides and the issue is actually pretty bland.
The Faceless Master
Member
one more for the good guys!
Monocle
Member
People in this country are far, far too uneducated, impulse driven, and indifferent to be entirely responsible for their own health. I have no problem with laws that help curb extreme overconsumption, especially if they'd only affect people who make highly questionable dietary choices. If freedom is a 4000 calorie daily soda intake, you're objectively better off without that degree of freedom. The slippery slope arguments are bullshit. Uncle Sam isn't going to start planning your menus for you just because there's a law that prevents you from ruining your health with liquid sugar. If you had to supersize all five of your Diet Cokes today, you could probably use a little help.
The NYC ban was too inconsistent to be effective, but it was probably better than nothing.
The NYC ban was too inconsistent to be effective, but it was probably better than nothing.
Ha. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Educators have their funding cut on a yearly basis. They have more children in their classrooms and less resources with which to teach them.
On the other hand, beverage companies and snack companies increase their marketing budget on a yearly basis, and hire scientists to formulate more addictive products. They spend hundreds of billions of dollars on billboards, radio ads, television ads, online ads, and celebrity endorsements.
On top of all of that, you believe soda is not inherently harmful. That's just the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Even if people moderated their soda consumption - which is impossible because cola drinks are specially formulated to bypass the natural satiation mechanisms of the human brain - they'd still be consuming (most likely) HFCS. HFCS is basically poison.
But I've seen more commercials promoting its inclusion in our diet than commercials advising me to avoid it.
26 million Americans have diabetes.
79 million Americans have pre-diabetes.
This is an epidemic, and your solution is to tell children with undeveloped prefrontal cortices that something is bad for them and expect them to make the right decision?
Good luck with that.
You really need to be more critical of what you read.
Deified Data
Banned
Where then do we draw the line? A great many things in life are dangerous. Where do you stand on the safety versus happiness spectrum?
I don't even disagree with you, not entirely. Many will, however, and they'll probably have good grounds to do so.
GremlinFool
Member
This doesn't affect anyone's livelihood. You can still drink soda if you want. But, as with all market externalities, you'll have to pay extra for it. That's how a real economy functions.
- Status