Support NeoGAF

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Okey dokey.... You chose the denial/damage control route, well played.

Do you have surveys or evidence suggesting it's cost that is causing people to quit? It's still amazing the difference between NY and PA cig prices. It has to be why Wawa started putting limits on the amount of cartons people could buy at once. You could get a pack of Marlboro Reds for half the price in PA that you can in New York. The ability to resell them allows for some nice, though illegal, profit margins. Truthfully I think the PA number is too high as I've seen $5 range, so the margin may be even more.

EDIT: Didn't see the report on the last page. Interesting and if you think of it is death by regulatory restrictions. The economy most likely isn't helping too.

 

[KingGondo]

You could argue though that getting people ids (while bullshitty for it's stated goal) can be used to help more people open banking accounts, enroll for public aid and servies, and other benefits that they can't access now. People really should have enough id provided to them for no cost and help in obtaining it so they can complete any basic background check/request (of course if you want Security Clearance its different). Perhaps people should help others make the most of a bad situation. I mean getting people enrolled in public services because of a voter id law would be a hilarious unintended side effect that would drive some of the people pushing voter id nuts.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to you.

But there are absolutely people out there who think this ban is a bigger threat to a free society than the new wave of voter ID laws.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

This is pretty awesome.

Now let's ban liquor. Alchohol makes you fat and is harmful to your body and in fact, unlike soda, can cause harm to other people.
So liquor and beer next, please!

You've never driven after pounding a 2 Liter have you?

 

[scorcho]

too many slippery slopes here. i'm impressed by the lack of fascism or Hitler being used, so bonus blood glucose monitoring systems for everyone!

This is pretty awesome.

Now let's ban liquor. Alchohol makes you fat and is harmful to your body and in fact, unlike soda, can cause harm to other people.

So liquor and beer next, please!

a. you can still drink sweet, sweet soda at home or out in the town within NYS.
c. the US has gone through prohibition once, i think. PBS had a docudrama on it the other night that looked B-O-R-I-N-G.

 

[Open Source]

Great question for this thread. Interested to see if the people against the ban will even touch it.

But like you said, it shows we dont mind the companies telling us how much is "appropriate" to drink, but when the government does it, there is an uproar.

If people wanted smaller, they would sell smaller. Or people would ask them not to fill it up all the way. Or would not drink all of it.

I really don't see how it's a great question.

 

[Eidan]

It's not how it does, obviously. That's why we have things like gay marriage bans and the war on drugs. It certainly should work that way though.

It's also why we have things like smoking bans, safety regulations, and drunk driving laws. Like I said, public health is the government's concern.

 

[Pinzer]

Ugh, now were going to have to suffer through a Daily Show segment on this...

 

[Plywood]

Now sell the rest of them with pictures of kidney stones attached to the bottle/can.

 

[Almighty]

That's not how a government does or should work.

I disagree.

If it doesn't harm anyone else then the government should keep out of it. For example I agree with public smoking bans because second hand smoke does harm others. Soda though doesn't pass the same test. No matter how much I drink someone else is not going to be put at risk from it.

As far as i am concerned if it only effects me and has no risks of me harming others then a good government should stay the hell out of my business.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

To be clear, I wasn't referring to you.

Fair enough, I just didn't like the implication it's only something people on the right are bothered by.

But there are absolutely people out there who think this ban is a bigger to a free society than the new wave of voter ID laws.

Oh no doubt about that.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

To be clear, I wasn't referring to you.

But there are absolutely people out there who think this ban is a bigger to a free society than the new wave of voter ID laws.

You and your comparisons to voting laws.....
This is equivalent to giving people in NYC only 4/5 of a vote compared to the rest of the U.S.

too many slippery slopes here. i'm impressed by the lack of fascism or Hitler being used, so bonus blood glucose monitoring systems for everyone!

I slipped in one "fascism" a little earlier.

 

[BassForever]

If you're going to ban something it needs to be all the way or not at all. If soda is such a danger then it should simply be banned period, if you can't straight face argue that then there shouldn't be a ban.

 

[Eidan]

OMG. stop it, okay. we're not even arguing the same point. yes i agree that drinking less soda is better for you. yes i agree not having larger size sodas will result in less calorie consumption. but that won't matter when you're eating a 900 calorie baconator sandwich at wendy's and drinking 2-3 refills of a small soda.

You agree with me then that's there's no problem with this law if it's accomplishing the goal of reducing the level of consumption of soft drinks. If you think other foods should face similar limits, I think you should write Bloomberg. I'm not even kidding.

 

[Sub_Level]

What's better

- People not doing something bad because they're not allowed to under a law that may or may not change in the future

or

- People not doing something bad because they're educated about the risks and are smart enough to make a rational decision

 

[scorcho]

I slipped in one "fascism" a little earlier.

you don't get a monitor then

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

You agree with me then that's there's no problem with this law if it's accomplishing the goal of reducing the level of consumption of soft drinks. If you think other foods should face similar limits, I think you should write Bloomberg. I'm not even kidding.

Why not have one standard government-issued diet that we all have to eat?

you don't get a monitor then

Damn. you're hardcore.

 

[DrForester]

 

[Parallacs]

I'm enjoying this thread if only because I find myself agreeing with many posters whom I often disagree with. Nice change of pace

True that. Gaf is admittedly very liberal, so political threads become too one sided. It's good to see the pro/cons pretty evenly split and is making healthy debate.

 

[Andrew.]

Wawa

Duuuuuuude. Why'd you have bring that place up? I miss it so much.

 

[Open Source]

You have to also consider the political viability of such measures, and also whether they're even necessary. Fatty food itself isn't a problem. Regular consumption of it, and large portions of it are. Mandating a reduction in portion size for foods not only has a better chance of becoming a law, but it helps achieve improved health outcomes.

It's a problem for the individual consuming it. Why is this the government's business?

Are you saying the end justifies the means? Let's come up with some other good examples of how the government can improve health outcomes by imposing restrictions on personal behavior that has no effect on others...

How about mandatory daily exercise? Mandatory salad? Mandatory vitamin supplements? Restrictions on how long you are allowed to stay indoors at a time, since lack of sun-triggered Vitamin D production is very bad for you.

 

[Davidion]

Well then almost everything you said is irrelevant to what I said and impossible to respond to.

Everything I said is relevant. That you suggest that there's a restriction of any choice of remote significance is a complete non-factor and particularly useless given that choices have been made for you in terms of available servicing sizes from the get go by other parties.

that doesn't even make sense. last time i check I didn't elect corporations to make laws on my behalf. so when a corporation doesn't make an item that i want, i don't get angry.

And you don't elect public officials to make laws on your behalf, you elect them to make laws on behalf of the public in general. Deal with it.

If people wanted smaller, they would sell smaller. Or people would ask them not to fill it up all the way. Or would not drink all of it.

I really don't see how it's a great question.

Oh hey, look, if you want more soda, then just go and get another one.

Problem solved.

From those scaremongers at Associated Press:

Oh I almost missed this. What does this show other than the fact that people don't read?

 

[Eidan]

As far as i am concerned if it only effects me and has no risks of me harming others then a good government should stay the hell out of my business.

I didn't want to get into this, but there is also the costs that obesity and its related diseases have on overall health care costs in the country.

 

[Open Source]

Oh hey, look, if you want more soda, then just go and get another one.

Problem solved.

Oh hey, look, if you want a voter ID, then just go and get one. Inconvenience? Not our problem.

 

[rCIZZLE]

It's also why we have things like smoking bans, safety regulations, and drunk driving laws. Like I said, public health is the government's concern.

Drunk driving laws, safety regulations, and smoking bans (in public places) all protect people from lifestyle choices that others have made. That's the governemtn's concern... not telling me what I'm allowed to consume or how I'm allowed to consume it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Duuuuuuude. Why'd you have bring that place up? I miss it so much.

Because it's hard not too being back in PA. I missed them so much while in NY and Newark. 7-11 just isn't that good.

 

[Open Source]

I didn't want to get into this, but there is also the costs that obesity and its related diseases have on overall health care costs in the country.

Right. And if government is footing the bill...it's in the government's interest to make sure its citizens are as healthy as possible (and then die as fast as possible after that).

A powerful argument against government-paid health care. Well done.

 

[Eric C]

So if you wanted a 100oz drink before, you could grab your 100oz cup and fill it up right?

actually yes you can.

100 oz cups exist.

They have even larger 128 oz ones too

 

[Davidion]

Oh hey, look, if you want a voter ID, then just go and get one. Inconvenience? Not our problem.

Did you just, without any shred of irony, eject the mind-blowing stupidity out of your keyboard that the extra steps it takes to get a voter registration card is of the same fundamental significance and as difficult as buying another soda?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Did you just, without any shred of irony, eject the mind-blowing stupidity out of your keyboard that the extra steps it takes to get a voter registration card is as fundamental and as difficult as buying another soda?

Depending on what ID you have to produce the scale of difficulty greatly varies. Also producing id to vote and registering to vote are both different things. That said no way is it easier than buying a soda, unless you get driven to the place to do it and pay no cost.

 

[Eidan]

Why not have one standard government-issued diet that we all have to eat?

Not politically viable, necessary, or practical. And this point is silly. At the end of the day this law STILL allows anyone to consume as much shitty food as they want.

It's a problem for the individual consuming it. Why is this the government's business?

Public health is government's concern, for social and financial reasons.

Are you saying the end justifies the means? Let's come up with some other good examples of how the government can improve health outcomes by imposing restrictions on personal behavior that has no effect on others...

If you want to drown in 7-Up, you still can. The law doesn't prevent it.

How about mandatory daily exercise? Mandatory salad? Mandatory vitamin supplements? Restrictions on how long you are allowed to stay indoors at a time, since lack of sun-triggered Vitamin D production is very bad for you.

Are these natural extensions of a law that limits the size of soft drinks that can be served in certain places to you? Do you also believe seat belt laws ban the use of cars?

 

[Davidion]

Depending on what ID you have to produce the scale of difficulty greatly varies. Also producing id to vote and registering to vote are both different things.

And what kind of difficulties and rights-changing experience does getting a soda scale into?

 

[Open Source]

Did you just, without any shred of irony, eject the mind-blowing stupidity out of your keyboard that the extra steps it takes to get a voter registration card is as fundamental and as difficult as buying another soda?

Nope.

Rather, it is the idea that inconvenience itself is a limitation on freedom.

 

[Cagey]

I wish I could write the headlines for the NY Post's coverage of this tomorrow.

Example... SUGARY SLOPE: FIRST SODAS, WHAT'S NEXT?

 

[Open Source]

Not politically viable, necessary, or practical. And this point is silly. At the end of the day this law STILL allows anyone to consume as much shitty food as they want.



Public health is government's concern, for social and financial reasons.



If you want to drown in 7-Up, you still can. The law doesn't prevent it.



Are these natural extensions of a law that limits the size of soft drinks that can be served in certain places to you? Do you also believe seat belt laws ban the use of cars?

Jesus.

The goal of soda ban is to make people more healthy. If that is a legitimate jsutification for government involvement, then those other things I listed are also legitimate government involvement.

The goal of a seat belt mandate is to make people safer while driving. How is banning cars going to make people safer while driving? It's an awful analogy. A better analogy would be if seat belt mandate, then texting ban.

 

[Almighty]

I didn't want to get into this, but there is also the overall costs that obesity and its related diseases have on overall health care costs in the country.

True and I am not fully against the idea of a tax. It would also probably be more effective getting people to cut back as well.

I guess to sum it up I have no problem with the government saying if you want to drink, eat, or smoke things that cause others to have pay more to take care of you we are going to have a tax on those items. If it is done right.

It's the idea of the government out right telling me that they know better and I can't have something that only bring harm to me and no one else. That annoys me. I am an adult I don't need a nanny.

 

[Davidion]

Nope.

Rather, it is the idea that inconvenience itself is a limitation on freedom.

Yes I'll remember that the next time my freedom is limited by not being able to buy a packet of gum with 7 pieces instead of 6.

You might want to try tempering ideas with some semblance of actual practicality and pragmatism next time.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

And what kind of difficulties and rights-changing experience does getting a soda scale into?

Did you read the second sentence you omitted in your quote?

 

[Tacitus_]

actually yes you can.

100 oz cups exist.

They have even larger 128 oz ones too

A soda cup that's almost 4 liters? What the fuck, I've seen beer kegs smaller than that.

 

[rCIZZLE]

Everything I said is relevant. That you suggest that there's a restriction of any choice of remote significance is a complete non-factor and particularly useless given that choices have been made for you in terms of available servicing sizes from the get go by other parties.

In 6 months, when I go to a theater in NYC I'll either have to get a smaller soda than I want, have to sneak in bottles to make up the difference, or make multiple trips to the counter. No choice fills the void of the old one which was large drink with large popcorn. Sure, it's not a huge change in my lifestyle but it's annoying that this change has to happen at all.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Yes I'll remember that the next time my freedom is limited by not being able to buy a packet of gum with 7 pieces instead of 6.

You might want to try tempering ideas with some semblance of actual practicality and pragmatism next time.

Your freedom is limited by voting douchebags like Bloomberg into office.

 

[Open Source]

True and I am not fully against the idea of a tax. It would also probably be more effective getting people to cut back as well.

I guess to sum it up I have no problem with the government saying if you want to drink, eat, or smoke things that cause others to have pay more to take care of you we are going to have a tax on those items. If it is done right.

It's the idea of the government out right telling me that they know better and I can't have something that only harms me that annoys me. I am an adult I don't need a nanny.

I'd be all for changes in health insurance premiums based on how high your (voluntary) health risks are.

I'm not for government limits on how many risks you can take with your health, whether it's eating, playing sports, playing starcraft 24 hrs a day, having unprotected sex, etc.

 

[Red Blaster]

how come the fans of the Garbage Old Party weren't shitting their pants over FREEDOMZ in the voter suppression in Ohio thread

 

[Eidan]

Jesus.

The goal of soda ban is to make people more healthy. If that is a legitimate jsutification for government involvement, then those other things I listed are also legitimate government involvement.

The goal of a seat belt mandate is to make people safer while driving. How is banning cars going to make people safer while driving? It's an awful analogy. A better analogy would be if seat belt mandate, then texting ban.

One of your examples was mandating how long people can stay indoors. Stop acting as if you listed examples that are in any way comparable to what this law actually does.

 

[bengraven]

You've never driven after pounding a 2 Liter have you?

I can't drive after drinking a 2 liter because apparently you become a massively obese person after one gulp.

 

[Davidion]

Did you read the second sentence you omitted in your quote?

You mean the one that you edited in after the fact and has no bearing on anything we're discussing?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Jesus.

The goal of soda ban is to make people more healthy. If that is a legitimate jsutification for government involvement, then those other things I listed are also legitimate government involvement.

The goal of a seat belt mandate is to make people safer while driving. How is banning cars going to make people safer while driving? It's an awful analogy. A better analogy would be if seat belt mandate, then texting ban.

Except seat belts and texting effect others. Texting on the road doesn't just injury the texter and the same with the seat belt , accidents can be worsened...say loosing control and being flung around the car and not being able to recover it before it hits someone. This isn't the case with soda.

 

[Open Source]

Yes I'll remember that the next time my freedom is limited by not being able to buy a packet of gum with 7 pieces instead of 6.

You might want to try tempering ideas with some semblance of actual practicality and pragmatism next time.

Ever heard the phrase "it's the principle of the thing"?

 

[windz]

Brb ordering 2 mediums.

 

[derder]

This is pretty awesome.

Now let's ban liquor. Alchohol makes you fat and is harmful to your body and in fact, unlike soda, can cause harm to other people.

So liquor and beer next, please!

I'd be OK with banning the sale of liquor bottles greater than a fifth to consumers.

 

[Davidion]

In 6 months, when I go to a theater in NYC I'll either have to get a smaller soda than I want, have to sneak in bottles to make up the difference, or make multiple trips to the counter. No choice fills the void of the old one which was large drink with large popcorn. Sure, it's not a huge change in my lifestyle but it's annoying that this change has to happen at all.

There we go. There's the seed for all of the outrage, an annoyance. YOu'll have to excuse me if I don't really consider that any kind of a meaningful influence when thinking about ways to try to improve public health.

Also, your annoyance is no more than mine when I have to lug a giant canister of drink and popcorn when I just wanted small manageable sizes. Tough shit all around.

Your freedom is limited by voting douchebags like Bloomberg into office.

Hahahaha, not familiar with New York mayors I see.

Ever heard the phrase "it's the principle of the thing"?

I have, I've used it, and it's been a useless justification for any kind of policy making about something as small as food size availability, whatsoever.