-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New York City Approves Large Sugary Drinks Ban
- Thread starter Jhoan
- Start date
- Status
I know, things like DDT, some MSG, lOlestra. But it comes down to where you draw the line. Is it the government's job to limit access to sugary drinks? I mentioned earlier about if they should step in and put laws up against trans fats, television, etc. So many things can be bad for health. In terms of this ban, it just seems like a big inconvenience. Cups larger than 16oz are FORBIDDEN.
omg itz andre is really in trouble now.
gutter_trash
Banned
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
If you say so.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The harm I'm referring to is the harm caused to society by drinks in larger cups than 20 oz, not the harm caused by restricting them.
I'd like to see an example which is on the level of restricting the amount of soda you can buy at once. Most of those are banning drugs that can outright kill you, i.e. ephedra.
What are you even referring to with this "goal post" thing? And the topic was whether it was restrictive of your freedom, not "rights." "Rights" are legally enforceable obligations.
It's you that's trying to change the argument to whether getting your preference in drink size is a "right." Rights are a legal argument; freedom is a philosophical one.
Freezie KO
Banned
I'd love to see the Benefit-Society-O-Meter that people supporting this obnoxious law are using. Since I keep hearing how much taking away people's rights "benefits society."
It's a slippery slope, for sure, but people who take care of their bodies pay a tax for these 32oz sodas in the form of higher health insurance premiums, driven up by America's obesity problem. How is that more fair?
Kccitystar
Member
I keep seeing people regurgitate the same points in regards to this new law but whatever:
You can still buy big ass drinks here in NYC if you wanted to, it's just that with this new law the restaurants/theaters/etc cannot sell you any drink sizes beyond 16oz, although you can buy another 16oz drink or get all the refills you want at places that will allow you to have that sort of option.
Eliminating the visible option of a bigger drink size than 16oz is designed to pretty much change the public's perception of how much soda they can drink. It's like if McDonalds eliminated the Supersize option. If you didn't know it was available, you wouldn't really consider getting your meal Supersized. If the option was visibly available, just the fact alone that you have an option can change your perception of how big you want your meal to be.
I'm willing to bet that after a few months or so after this law goes into effect, the public won't overreact the way some of GAF is in this thread and realize, well, 16oz is not bad at all. Maybe I don't need to drink all that soda.
I think it's been stated before that the point of this ban is not to completely stop people from drinking massive amounts of soda (because you still can), but taking advantage of psychological biases (by adding that minor inconvenience of paying more for more soda past the new default size of 16oz/getting your ass up to refill your drink if you want more soda, like friction) to subconsciously push you into drinking less. It's why I said it was a psychological power-play than anything else earlier in the thread.
You can still buy big ass drinks here in NYC if you wanted to, it's just that with this new law the restaurants/theaters/etc cannot sell you any drink sizes beyond 16oz, although you can buy another 16oz drink or get all the refills you want at places that will allow you to have that sort of option.
Eliminating the visible option of a bigger drink size than 16oz is designed to pretty much change the public's perception of how much soda they can drink. It's like if McDonalds eliminated the Supersize option. If you didn't know it was available, you wouldn't really consider getting your meal Supersized. If the option was visibly available, just the fact alone that you have an option can change your perception of how big you want your meal to be.
I'm willing to bet that after a few months or so after this law goes into effect, the public won't overreact the way some of GAF is in this thread and realize, well, 16oz is not bad at all. Maybe I don't need to drink all that soda.
I think it's been stated before that the point of this ban is not to completely stop people from drinking massive amounts of soda (because you still can), but taking advantage of psychological biases (by adding that minor inconvenience of paying more for more soda past the new default size of 16oz/getting your ass up to refill your drink if you want more soda, like friction) to subconsciously push you into drinking less. It's why I said it was a psychological power-play than anything else earlier in the thread.
^They don't really care about the law itself (at least, I'd hope not), merely the fact that they feel the government is micromanaging their lives.
You can still buy pop. In sizable bottles, too. Seeing as this conversation is not formal, and we're debating the principles of the measure more than anything, it comes down to whether you believe the government should protect the governed by telling them no. Considering that you're not promoting anarchy, I'd say you agree. Further, you acknowledge that obesity is a problem, and that pop contributes to this problem if it's consumed in very large quantities? Then this ban on the purchase of very large quantities of pop makes sense, especially since it mostly taxes those that enjoy the now banned purchase in a manner of convenience.
Tell your neighbors to be more responsible with their sugary drinks (or lead a healthier lifestyle), maybe you'll get the 20oz+ back.
It's pop, dude. Not even just pop -- just buying a lot of it. And not even just buying a lot of it, but buying a lot of it in one container.
Not every law/restriction is an invasive overreach of government.
You can still buy pop. In sizable bottles, too. Seeing as this conversation is not formal, and we're debating the principles of the measure more than anything, it comes down to whether you believe the government should protect the governed by telling them no. Considering that you're not promoting anarchy, I'd say you agree. Further, you acknowledge that obesity is a problem, and that pop contributes to this problem if it's consumed in very large quantities? Then this ban on the purchase of very large quantities of pop makes sense, especially since it mostly taxes those that enjoy the now banned purchase in a manner of convenience.
Tell your neighbors to be more responsible with their sugary drinks (or lead a healthier lifestyle), maybe you'll get the 20oz+ back.
It's pop, dude. Not even just pop -- just buying a lot of it. And not even just buying a lot of it, but buying a lot of it in one container.
Not every law/restriction is an invasive overreach of government.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Okay, so what's your point? You misinterpreted what he was saying and you're still doing so. Its even more apparent if you actually follow the conversation occurring at that time. The context of why that particular restriction might have existed isn't any more relevant than whether McDonalds sells a 5.84 oz. cup of soda. Its still a paternalistic restriction on the freedom of citizens even if you can still buy the same amount of Coke. Moreover, the argument that you can still buy the same amount of Coke doesn't highlight why the law is good, it highlights why the law is entirely arbitrary.
I still don't get when you can just get two 16oz shits and over-ride this silly law
What? I made an analogy pointing out why putting a limit on drink sizes wasn't a limit on freedom or rights. The whole point of him posting his ridiculous response was to somehow show that it was a violation of freedoms and right, just like racism in the 50's. How is this not clear? What could possibly be confusing about that exchange?
Dude Abides
Banned
Oh man comparing a restriction on soda cup size in certain places with Jim Crow.
Restaurant smoking bans are basically the Holocaust.
Restaurant smoking bans are basically the Holocaust.
Kccitystar explained it very well. This kind of soft ban is conditioning.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Okay, groovy. Still drawing lines on what is and isn't intrusive. Glad you and others are here to let us know what is and isn't a big deal.
It's an opinion. That's all it is. In my world experience, of which is relatively little, I say that this kind of restriction is understandable and in no way proves harmful to anyone's lifestyle and/or general health. However, the potential benefits to society, if this law does in fact mitigate dangerous levels of sugary drink consumption, are desirable.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
All kinds of government restriction are understandable, if you always stick the label "it's for the common good" on it. It's the newer version of "for the children."
Depends on what you think the role of government is, too; personally I don't see anything sustainable in people running amok making moronic decisions all day, because that way lies civilizational collapse. The role of government is to manage, protect and commit to the furtherance of society. By the people, for the people? By enabling non-intrusive alterations that benefit everyone, it's fulfilling its mandate.
Err, that doesn't make sense to me, but elaborate. What is the harm and the benefit that we are comparing? Shouldn't we be comparing the harms of enacting the law, with the benefits of enacting the law?
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I don't think it's the role of government to make those kinds of judgement calls without an overwhelming mandate from the people. What you may consider to be in the best interest of society may be opposed to what I consider to be the same. When it comes down to something that doesn't hurt anybody else, like this, it's pretty clear cut that they really shouldn't be getting involved. And I don't for one second buy that nonsense about how it's going to increase everybody's premiums. Unless your life is completely free of unhealthy behaviors, all you're saying when you prop up that argument is "my unhealthy nature is MY business, yours is EVERYBODY'S." I don't accept that as a valid argument, and neither should anybody else, frankly.
Dude Abides
Banned
We draw lines on what is and isn't overly intrusive on our freedoms all the time. 65 mph speed limit = not overly intrusive. 8pm curfew = overly intrusive.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Of course. And normally, that line is most decisively drawn when the activity harms other people. Driving at unsafe speeds = harm to other people. 8 PM curfew = Harm to Denny's franchises.
Banning large drinks = mostly symbolic nonsense that helps literally nobody, but enforces government will simply because they can.
So your claim is not simply that the city is wrong in their assessment of the psychology at work regarding the ban but in fact don't even believe it in the first place, acting only to exert power "because they can"?
Dude Abides
Banned
The government requires children to receive an education whether they (or their parents) want them to or not, even though there is no direct harm to anyone else if they are uneducated. Certainly that is orders of magnitude more intrusive than requiring you to buy two sodas if you want 22 ounces.
The basis for banning large drinks is that it will reduce obesity, particularly childhood obesity, which does have social costs - ie harm to other people - even though they may be indirect and diffuse.
I think they are doing it to look like they are doing something.
My idea would be to copy the anti smoking cigarette packs.
12oz soda = pic of cavities
24oz = fat gut
32oz = diabetes!
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I have made it a point to stop responding to anybody who begins a sentence with "So, what you're saying" or "So, basically" etc. It ends up into a revolving shitstorm of multiquote and debates about the debates, rather than the topic.
I am against expansion of government legislation for the sake of cheap political points, overbearing concerns about "safety" or "for the sake of our children" or "9/11 slash War on Terror." So, no, I'm not particularly convinced this is one of the rare times that a politician has enacted some legislation "for the good of us all" and actually really, truly, thought he was helping society and in no way sought to manipulate the system for his own gain or growth of his political clout.
Lack of education harms the child directly. Not a good comparison.
So whether this actually provides any public good is irrelevant because you believe that isn't their true motivation anyway?
That was on purpose, but notice there's a question mark!
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
So, what you're saying is that you agree with Stalin????? (Notice I didn't Godwin the thread by mentioning Hitl...DAMMIT)
We can definitely relinquish all sorts of rights that would have a provable, positive impact on public health. We probably wouldn't want to support a vast majority of them, I'd wager.
Overconsumption of sugar harms children and adults. Directly.
We're not discussing rights. No one has the right to buy soda of any size, never mind a specific size. We're discussing the limiting of choices and the effect those limits have on the public good. Clearly limitations without sufficient reason are intolerable. The point here, though, is that the city has enacted this ban with a clear reason and goal in mind. That goal, in their mind, justifies the inconvenience presented by restricting cup sizes in specific places.
Now, ignoring those reasons or dismissing them wholesale because you're cynical of governments intentions doesn't mean they disappear.
Dude Abides
Banned
So does being obese.
This is a simple cost benefit analysis issue. Of course this wil not solve obesity, but it may help diminish it to some degree, probably a small degree if any. And it will provide a data point in determining whether this kind of soft effort at portion control is actually effective. Two social goods. On the other hand you have the inconvenience and added expense of being restricted to 16 oz per container in some establishments when you might want more. Certainly a restriction on freedom but a relatively minor one. So while the benefits are uncertain, the costs are correspondingly minor, and it's hard to understand why this isn't something at least worth trying in one city.
Massive amounts of sugar (Fructose specifically) is hard on the liver, so I tend to favor this law. Though I would rather the subsidies to corn cease, and taxes on sugar of any form (or fructose and glucose mixed) be used to discourage consumption and offset medical costs. If adults want to get a 32 oz diabeetus slurpy, that's fine. Most importantly, sugar drinks should be banned entirely from public schools because they are a detriment to education and health.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
And stopping the sales of larger cups will, of course, cure over-consumption habits. And getting fat as an adult is clearly on the same level as disallowing your child an education.
I am discussing rights. You say "nobody has the right to buy soda" as if the soda is the actual topic. It's the catalyst for discussion about the rights of the government. Just because they have a "clear reason and goal in mind" doesn't make it right, doesn't make it unassailable and doesn't make it something worth supporting.
As to the rest, it's clear that you're not unintelligent. You simply can't be unaware of politicians routinely using these tactics of "for the greater good" to further their own agendas. The fact that even supporters ITT are calling it mostly symbolic and have offered many ways of getting around this rule show a pretty clear cut example of how this legislation is either the product of politicizing a topic in the customary fashion (It's for the children!) or of somebody who honestly believes that people wouldn't be clever enough to buy 2 smaller sodas, should they desire to.
Exactly. It won't do anything, but it may save somebody, somewhere, at some point, some money. Not a good enough reason, in my opinion, to legislate behavior of consenting adults. You want to make a case that parents shouldn't be allowed to feed their kids gallons of sodas? Go ahead. Figure a way to legislate that so it's not ineffectual and brain-dead simple to avoid, and I'll revisit my position. Until then, not convinced.
For me, it's a ideological issue. I don't believe that the government should have the authority to control my behavior unless they are capable of proving that it has a direct, near-immediate threat to the life/liberty of someone else. We can go down the path that health decisions eventually have some effect on others, but using that logic we should just cut the crap and institute a mandatory national diet and exercise program where everything you eat and how often you exercise is strictly regulated by government bureaucrats.
We the people elect the government that either make the laws or appoints the people who suggest some laws that benefit society. That isn't their right, it's literally what we hire them to do.
But the sincerity of the stated motivation isn't important if that motivation is still valid. Whether the government is really doing it for the stated goals or not won't effect how the law works in practice.
The fact there are ways to get around the ban is almost exactly the point. The idea is many people drink all of this soda because it's readily available and easy to select, not because they actually need it. The law makes it take a little more effort to get a larger amount of soda. If it works it means consumption was less a measure of demand than it was availability. Clearly this is important information to have.
Government exists to protect rights and provide services that individuals can't feasibly provide for themselves (infrastructure, police departments, etc.). I'd argue that the most beneficial thing you can do for society is allow people a large degree of personal liberty.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Yes, and this first is always the fallback position when talking about laws. "Well, we elected them do the job." Funny how that position changes when it's a law that is personally disagreed with. I really shouldn't have to go any further into why a politicians policies can't be debated, simply because we, the people voted for them. We hire them, sure. But that doesn't mean we hire them to rule every facet of our lives, without question and without debate. That's all we're doing here.
As to the second point, that is precisely the babysitting mentality. You are right. You don't need soda. You don't need a vast amount of the things we enjoy. That really shouldn't be the basis for legislation. There is a reason supporters of this are unwilling to detail their own bad habits. I'm fairly certain there are a great many things we all do that would better off for society if they were restricted " for the greater good."
I never said any of those things.
A large degree of personal liberty doesn't mean completely free of all laws, though. A society can both have a high degree of personal liberty and be forced to buy two sodas when they want 32 ounces of coke with their steak.
I don't understand this. The discussion is regarding the justification for the law. Some say it's there, you and others argue it isn't. The main position taken on your side though seems to be little more than personal incredulity. It isn't justified simply because it will never work. Why won't it work? Because it won't work.
Again the question is is the trade-off justifiable. The inconvenience is very slight and the potential benefits are valuable. Certainly more valuable than the effort required to fill your cup again.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
It won't work because time and time again, we've found that attempting to legislate away human desires to indulge in excesses as adults is futile. Prohibition, the war on drugs, various food laws that have been repealed, etc. But that's a minor aside. I'm not disagreeing that childhood obesity isn't something we should tackle. But as this rule seems roundly aimed at the behaviors of adults, saying it's "for the children" is flat out false. Most kids aren't buying 40oz at restaurants with their debit cards. They are eating at public schools - something that is actually directly under the control of the government.
The main issue, as you correctly pegged it, is whether or not the trade off from further intrusive legislation (and whether it is or isn't that) is worth something we've pretty much all agreed is ineffectual at best.
Honestly, we've just gotten to the point where we're repackaging the same "I disagree with you" sentiments in different verbiage paper. We're spinning our wheels here. Suffice it to say, I'm against this.
Exactly.
kame-sennin
Member
Good article. What this article points out is that fast food companies know this will affect consumption in a very real way. That's why they're fighting it so hard (and pushing a bullshit argument about freedom). The research shows that the larger portions people are offered, the more they will consume. Obese consumers are a boon to the fast food industry, but not to society. I'm no fan of Bloomberg, but he made the right call here.
flippymittens
Banned
Yes it is, it is a very poor substance to ingest and leads to a plethora of health issues.
Society- The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
By the very definition of society humans living is not bad for society.
"Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent."
"Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after." -
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
Yes when given an addictive dangerous substance
So we should sell poison and guns because a few people might get them illegally?
Not really
How is that me wanting government to control everything?
Addiction to a dangerous substance is serious.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked