Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

New York City to ban "sugary drinks". Options · View
Guest
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2012 6:14:50 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
1curiouscat wrote:
[quote=Dancing_Doll]

Yes, and we all saw what happened with McDonald's Healthy Choice menu /quote]

Funny you mention this. Here it not only sells well, but it grows in options. The newest addition, apple slices instead of fries for happy meals.

We have those here too. They’re also offering oatmeal for breakfasts as well as fruit and fruit juices.

Making gym memberships tax deductible won’t work either. Sure more people will join up but, they’ll do what they do now. There is probably less than half the people that attend these gyms that are there for a serious workout. I’ve been there time and time again and had/have to ask people to move off the machines. Not just one gym, several. They stand around with their arm draped on the machines talking. It’s become social hour when they go to the gym. Or the pick up hook up hour. So if it becomes tax deductible it’ll just be more people in there if they even bother to show up. If they have to have proof that they attend, they’ll get that and then just talk their way through their “workouts”.

Mazza also forgot to mention carbohydrates that turn to sugars. Try eliminating carbs and sugars from your diets. Potatoes, all pastas, breads, Then look at some vegetables that have carbs in them as well. Green beans, corn. The lists are endless and those carbs turning to sugars are just as hard to forego or eliminate as just plain sugars.
FantasyFiction
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2012 7:15:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 282
Location: the Swamps of Jersey
"those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves." --Neil Peart, "Witch Hunt"

Success is doing what you love, and doing it so well that someone will pay you for it.
http://www.lushstories.com/fantasyfiction
Guest
Posted: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:00:38 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
Sensei
Posted: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:46:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/16/2012
Posts: 467
Location: United States
Mazza wrote:


Deep. Awesome. Stolen. :)

My novel, The Society, is available now in the Kindle Store: http://www.amazon.com/The-Society-ebook/dp/B00BPF9U2I
Yuzar
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 1:57:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 101
Location: Some obscure location, United States
Thing is, this ban won't work. Prohibition never works. History has proven this.

Black & White I : My First Story
Domina I : Domina I
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:54:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States






When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
1curiouscat
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 8:15:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 9:51:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,548
Location: California
Yuzar wrote:
Thing is, this ban won't work. Prohibition never works. History has proven this.


You're right about that for sure... Criminals love prohibition. And obviously it doesn't work. I mean it's easier for teens to get pot than alcohol and pots illegal. It was for me as a teen most of the time anyway.

The difference though I think is that I don't think they are going to create a task force of untouchables to take down the "Al Capone" of large sized soda runners. I doubt any kind of enforcement will be done. I think it's more of the type of law that is there to better society, not create criminals. Kinda like that law that prohibits swearing in public. It's probably best not to cuss but that's not really enforced. Who knows what the climate was in America when that law was introduced? I do know that the climate now is fat. I just don't see how encouraging people to drink less harmful stuff is bad.

Its the outright banning of things I would take issue with. I know in some states you can't buy alcohol after a certain time or certain days. In California you can buy it whenever. If they did that in California I wouldnt feel my rights were being restricted or my freedom taken away. I would think.. Well yeah, the only people buying alcohol at 3 am are already drunk and driving around. If they aren't... Well wait until morning. What's the big deal? Now if they banned it, that's different.



LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:06:34 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:


fittingly, they're both obese. evil4
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:10:59 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
Magical_felix wrote:


You're right about that for sure... Criminals love prohibition. And obviously it doesn't work. I mean it's easier for teens to get pot than alcohol and pots illegal. It was for me as a teen most of the time anyway.

The difference though I think is that I don't think they are going to create a task force of untouchables to take down the "Al Capone" of large sized soda runners. I doubt any kind of enforcement will be done. I think it's more of the type of law that is there to better society, not create criminals. Kinda like that law that prohibits swearing in public. It's probably best not to cuss but that's not really enforced. Who knows what the climate was in America when that law was introduced? I do know that the climate now is fat. I just don't see how encouraging people to drink less harmful stuff is bad.

Its the outright banning of things I would take issue with. I know in some states you can't buy alcohol after a certain time or certain days. In California you can buy it whenever. If they did that in California I wouldnt feel my rights were being restricted or my freedom taken away. I would think.. Well yeah, the only people buying alcohol at 3 am are already drunk and driving around. If they aren't... Well wait until morning. What's the big deal? Now if they banned it, that's different.


Of course they wouldn't do that now... There's too much money involved and the drinks companies are way too powerful for that sort of action...

Besides, a law like this will only serve to make the sugary drinks even more appealing...
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:23:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,548
Location: California
Mazza wrote:


Of course they wouldn't do that now... There's too much money involved and the drinks companies are way too powerful for that sort of action...

Besides, a law like this will only serve to make the sugary drinks even more appealing...


Yeah, that's a good point. The way to make people want something more is to make it forbidden, I agree. But it's not exactly forbidden.

I don't know, this is pure speculation but I would imagine that the alcohol companies 80 years ago were pretty powerful too.

Wouldn't it be funny if a guy would have normally only drunken 20 oz of soda but instead now buys two 12 oz drinks and ends up drinking MORE soda than before? To be honest, this is the most likely scenario in my head when I really think about it. People are just dumb like that. What we should do is ban small drinks then everyone will want small ones. That would probably work better.



LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:26:58 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:

What we should do is ban small drinks then everyone will want small ones. That would probably work better.


That's actually brilliant. Then everyone will freak out that the guvmint is forcing large sizes on us. "Our founding fathers roll in their graves at this dastardly overrreach! How dare they force-feed us these mass quantities of sugary liquids! What's next, they strap us to the counter at Cinnabon and pour the rolls straight down our throats! Bring your guns to the rally, it's time to make a stand for Amurrica!"

You missed your calling, Jackie.
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:29:20 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,657
Location: My Tower, United States
LadyX wrote:


That's actually brilliant. Then everyone will freak out that the guvmint is forcing large sizes on us. "Our founding fathers roll in their graves at this dastardly overrreach! How dare they force-feed us these mass quantities of sugary liquids! What's next, they strap us to the counter at Cinnabon and pour the rolls straight down our throats! Bring your guns to the rally, it's time to make a stand for Amurrica!"

You missed your calling, Jackie.


so... we should ban veggies too! think of all the secret veggie gardens that will replace secret marijuana crops!
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:32:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,548
Location: California
LadyX wrote:


That's actually brilliant. Then everyone will freak out that the guvmint is forcing large sizes on us. "Our founding fathers roll in their graves at this dastardly overrreach! How dare they force-feed us these mass quantities of sugary liquids! What's next, they strap us to the counter at Cinnabon and pour the rolls straight down our throats! Bring your guns to the rally, it's time to make a stand for Amurrica!"

You missed your calling, Jackie.


Who knows... Maybe if I wouldn't have lost the election for student council president in 7th grade I just might be wearing a blue suit, an understated tie and an American flag pin on my lapel, reading over a speech someone wrote for me as I wait for my que to start talking in a frank and clear manner right now.



Guest
Posted: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:06:04 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
Magical_felix wrote:


Yeah, that's a good point. The way to make people want something more is to make it forbidden, I agree. But it's not exactly forbidden.

I don't know, this is pure speculation but I would imagine that the alcohol companies 80 years ago were pretty powerful too.

Wouldn't it be funny if a guy would have normally only drunken 20 oz of soda but instead now buys two 12 oz drinks and ends up drinking MORE soda than before? To be honest, this is the most likely scenario in my head when I really think about it. People are just dumb like that. What we should do is ban small drinks then everyone will want small ones. That would probably work better.


Yes, but the soda companies have many extra weapons in their arsenal..

Kiddie power: children easily persuade most parents to cave and get what they want

Advertising and product placement: the soft drinks giants are everywhere, that wasn't the case back in prohibition days.

Addiction: they already have their captive audience, so to speak... Again, I doubt it was so rife way back when...

Legality: alcohol was made illegal (is that right?) I don't ever imagine soft drinks becoming illegal, do you?

You know, that makes me wonder something... A lot of deaths are attributed to alcohol and drugs... How many deaths will we be able to trace back to not just fizzy drinks, but junk food in general?
I bet (if it hasn't already) it will soon overtake just about everything else... With the possible exception of prescribed drug deaths...

Guest
Posted: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:18:06 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
A rant I thought you'd get a kick out of.

Guest
Posted: Friday, June 08, 2012 4:09:10 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
god i love foamy.
Guest
Posted: Friday, June 08, 2012 5:56:41 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
Sprichler wrote:
god i love foamy.


So do I. His holiday rant a couple of years ago had me in stitches.
Ryario_Darkstar
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:44:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 84
Location: The Throne of the Under World
Wasnt going to post a comment on this. The side of me who wants to have a healthier life style agrees with this and the side who loves his big sodas disagrees with it, yeah Im slightly overweight my choice really but Im not anywhere near as bad as some of the people you see, I just got a lil belly going. Ive been making slightly better choices side salads instead fries some times ill have a vegitarain lunch.

Maybe if the ban of sugary drinks was aim towards children say they cant buy any more than 1 16 oz container without an adult consent untill there 13 nor could they eat in fast foods on there own. This country could see a postive change. As far as telling adults as much I dont think that will fly, after hearing that being the rebelious type I am. I bought a 52 oz every day for 2 weeks and I live in wisconsin, Im not even sure what it is I like Mnt Dew but not that much Im not even sure why I buy those big things at the movies it cuz the biggest size alway the free refill...

Maybe if there were incentive of being healthy rather than punishments for being unhealthly.... like a huge discount on medical bills, insurance ect, ect.
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:14:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
NYC Board of Health discussing banning movie popcorn and Frappucinos


I know some of you hate the term slippery slope, but here it is:

Board of Health official Bruce Vladeck suggested the ban go further and said, "The popcorn isn't a whole lot better, from the nutritional point of view."

Similarly, another member presumably took aim at beverages like Starbucks' popular Frappucino drink and said, "There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories...and I’m not so sure what the rationale is not to include those."

Also of note, the original ban of 16oz+ sized drinks does not ban refills of smaller sizes. Furthering the point that this is NOT about the health of New Yorkers but is about slowly gaining more and more control of the lives of New Yorkers.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:45:42 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
More headline hyperbole. Popcorn and frappacinos aren't getting banned, it's just the same size restriction proposals as the other sugar-water-stuff. I do realize the opposition makes this distinction irrelevant, though. As a friend of mine once commented, it's amazing how hell-bent Americans are to secure our rights to be as morbidly unhealthy as possible, but not to universal health care.

I'm not totally on board with the how we could make universal health care work (since more gun-toting rallies, misinformation, and hate speech would definitely be involved with the opposition to such, to begin with), but the truth in that observation does give me pause.

How does the refill-loophole prove the point about government's supposed power grab? If they truly wanted control, they'd either forbid the refills or truly be banning something, which they aren't.

And I'll ask this again:

LadyX wrote:


Why does Michael Bloomberg care one way or the other about control and socialist policy? How does he have a dog in that fight? I don't understand how this theory works. I mean, is the idea that fans of big-government meet up in secret, kind of like the freemasons, and discuss the ulterior motives to their legislation? How does it benefit a US Representative, or a Mayor, to extend the nanny state and restrict freedoms of people they don't know? I'm honestly confused about this.
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:49:35 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,657
Location: My Tower, United States
i'd rather they banned guns. hopefully, that's next (ducks, expecting the bullets to start flying as things really heat up in here and yes, i am serious - i am totally against things that go bang and put bullets thru people).
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:21:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
More headline hyperbole. Popcorn and frappacinos aren't getting banned, it's just the same size restriction proposals as the other sugar-water-stuff. I do realize the opposition makes this distinction irrelevant, though. As a friend of mine once commented, it's amazing how hell-bent Americans are to secure our rights to be as morbidly unhealthy as possible, but not to universal health care.

I'm not totally on board with the how we could make universal health care work (since more gun-toting rallies, misinformation, and hate speech would definitely be involved with the opposition to such, to begin with), but the truth in that observation does give me pause.

How does the refill-loophole prove the point about government's supposed power grab? If they truly wanted control, they'd either forbid the refills or truly be banning something, which they aren't.

And I'll ask this again:




Come on LX. There's not an abundance of gun violence at rallies. Hate speech? Both sides are full of it.

No, they aren't banning it in full. But banning the size. But a partial ban is still a ban against choice. It is a power grab. Bloomberg knows he can't just outright seize control of soda and popcorn. That would cause an uproar. Instead, he'll slowly nibble away at it. It sets precedent for anyone else that comes along to ban or limit something he sees as "unhealthy". Today it's soda and popcorn. Maybe next it will be 20oz ribeye steaks. Then blocks of cheese. Then full packs of cigarettes. Then 40oz beer. Then 500mg Tylenol.

Anytime government tells a person what they can and can't put in their own bodies and in what quantities it's cause for concern. I've read and heard things about 'governement should stay out of my uterus". Likewise, government should stay out of my stomach.

This is discrimination against the obese. But in our society it's ok to single out and discriminate against fatsoes and smokers.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:44:22 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
But I still don't understand a guy like Bloomberg's motivation to seize absolute control through the regulation of soda portions. I'm always hearing this rhetoric, that big-government operatives want an all-encompassing level of control over everyone in every aspect -- and I'm not asserting that it's complete B.S., but I honestly don't understand the logic mechanics behind it. How does a councilperson, or a mayor, or even a U.S. Senator, benefit from creating a police-and-nanny state? After all, once out of office (if not during), they'll be subject to this same dastardly set of lock-down regs that they put into place, right?
ArtMan
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:56:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 638
Location: South Florida, United States
Government is power and attracts those who desire to wield power over others.

Any free citizen should have the right to purchase sugary drinks if they so desire. The Founding Fathers didn't foresee the need to protect the right of dietary consumption from a tyrannical government or they would have I am sure. They did protect the right to keep and bear arms, because they had just experienced first hand, the heavy hand of a tyrannical government and had defeated that tyranny on the field of battle with the use of their own firearms.

Government whether federal, state or municipal has grown all powerful and tyrannical. How much more can we stand before we strike out to end the tyranny?

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:10:49 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
I do think it's fair to say that the group of guys that put together the US Constitution dealt with a fairly different and specific set of variables than what we have now. Not that it's by any means obsolete no longer applicable, but I don't think it should be so divinely regarded as not to ever question it, or put correct context to it's contents.

But that's another issue, I suppose.

The last thing I heard was that the flip-out over this soda proposal might well lead to it being scuttled. I'll shrug either way it goes. I just can't come around to the idea that a municipal statute limiting soda cup sizes is part of some grand scheme to turn us all into government prisoners with no freedoms of our own. Unless Bloomberg has some personal revenue gain coming as a result of this-- then I'm probably more on board.
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:17:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
But I still don't understand a guy like Bloomberg's motivation to seize absolute control through the regulation of soda portions. I'm always hearing this rhetoric, that big-government operatives want an all-encompassing level of control over everyone in every aspect -- and I'm not asserting that it's complete B.S., but I honestly don't understand the logic mechanics behind it. How does a councilperson, or a mayor, or even a U.S. Senator, benefit from creating a police-and-nanny state? After all, once out of office (if not during), they'll be subject to this same dastardly set of lock-down regs that they put into place, right?


I don't know much about Bloomberg. Nothing really other than what I've read recently. As to why his or anyone's motivations behind absolute control, I have no idea. He may truly believe he's doing the right thing. Believing he's right and actually being right aren't the same.

There are some that may conclude that all politicians are in this together. Republicans and Democrats, doing all this crap to keep us at odds. As long as the low and poorly are dependant on the rich and powerful, then things will never change. Democracy is the great equalizer. Democracy created the middle class. Without democracy we'd still be living as royalty and peasants. Where one's birth mattered above all else. That a person was destined or doomed by birth. A peasant could never overcome his station in life.

Our elected officials today want government to seize control over how business and life is conducted. They don't want to control production, as that carries too much burden. But to control HOW business works, via regulation and "safety" measures, government swoops in as the hero and savior of the masses. While allowing business to bear the burden of villain and carry all the consequences of consumers actions.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:23:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 538
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
These big government types are definitely testing the waters to see what they can ban. If this works then something else will follow soon until we are all just mindless puppets living how we are told.

ArtMan I am 100% behind you on protecting our constitutional right to bear arms. I do. I have one in my purse right now.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:34:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
More headline hyperbole. Popcorn and frappacinos aren't getting banned, it's just the same size restriction proposals as the other sugar-water-stuff. I do realize the opposition makes this distinction irrelevant, though. As a friend of mine once commented, it's amazing how hell-bent Americans are to secure our rights to be as morbidly unhealthy as possible, but not to universal health care.

I'm not totally on board with the how we could make universal health care work (since more gun-toting rallies, misinformation, and hate speech would definitely be involved with the opposition to such, to begin with), but the truth in that observation does give me pause.

How does the refill-loophole prove the point about government's supposed power grab? If they truly wanted control, they'd either forbid the refills or truly be banning something, which they aren't.

And I'll ask this again:




Americans aren't hell bent on being morbidly obese, nor on universal health care. They are hell bent on not being allowed to choose for themselves. I do realize the oppostion makes this distinction irrelevant, though.

If a person wants to eat 20oz of deep fat fried cow shit with a side of margarine sticks, washed down with 64oz of Jolt cola; then he should be able to do so anywhere anytime without someone from government denying him any of it in any portion. In my opinion, the role of government is not to make me or anyone else healthy(ier). My health is of no concern to them.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:52:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,548
Location: California
sprite wrote:
i'd rather they banned guns. hopefully, that's next (ducks, expecting the bullets to start flying as things really heat up in here and yes, i am serious - i am totally against things that go bang and put bullets thru people).


Silly Sprite, banning guns only takes the guns from the good people away. Criminals will still be able to get guns. Gun bans are really bad cause it leaves people defenseless.



Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.