Originally Posted By mawnck Hmm .... good point ... >>But the liberty restricted is not the liberty of the soda-drinker. If they wish, soda drinkers can buy a 2-liter bottle of soda at the grocery for about $1.70 and pour as much of it down their throats as they wish. The liberty that is being restricted is the liberty of the soda seller to manipulate known human weaknesses to the seller's advantage and the buyer's detriment. Human beings are not reasoning machines. We are animals who have inherited certain propensities not always well-adapted to modern urban life. We evolved in conditions of food scarcity. Our bodies have adapted to store food energy against famine; our subrational minds crave sweetness. The sugary beverage industry has invested massively to understand better how to use our very human natures against us. The ever-increasing size of the standard soda serving has changed our understanding of what is and what is not an appropriate amount of sugar to consume at a sitting. The beverage industry works on Americans before they have learned to read; even before they have learned to speak. In 2010, children and teens were exposed to twice as many full-calorie soda TV ads as they were in 2008, according to a study by the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.<< <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/opinion/frum-bloomberg-soda/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The liberty that is being restricted is the liberty of the soda seller to manipulate known human weaknesses to the seller's advantage and the buyer's detriment.<< That's not really the case. It is also restricting consumers from making their OWN choices. Not to mention that this ban won't work for the intended goal. There's nothing stopping someone from purchasing multiple smaller sized cups of soda. Or a whole case to consume at home. It's especially ironic that Mayor Bloomberg also signed a proclamation making last Friday "Donut Day" in NYC. It's all theatrics.
Originally Posted By SuperDry If the concern is over sugar consumption, does it apply to diet sodas that contain no sugar?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan As pointed out in the article, it won't apply to Starbucks drinks, which can be significantly higher in fat, sugar, calories than a jumbo soda. Similar to smoking, there could be a "sin tax" on everything except fruits and veggies. Anything processed carries a tax that goes towards public healthcare costs. At least that makes some logical sense compared to uselessly banning the size of soda cups. The problems with bans of this sort is that it makes people want to dig in and push back against government overreach.
Originally Posted By dagobert Would it be an option to stop free refill so that each glass of coke has to be paid, like over here in Europe?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>That's not really the case. It is also restricting consumers from making their OWN choices. Not to mention that this ban won't work for the intended goal. There's nothing stopping someone from purchasing multiple smaller sized cups of soda. Or a whole case to consume at home.<< I don't think I've been able to say this too often, but 2oony, you're missing the point. The point is psychological manipulation. It's killing this country in a million different ways. Consumers are not making their own choices, they only think they are. If "there's nothing stopping someone from purchasing multiple smaller sized cups of soda", then what's the problem? The truth is, the sizes and price structure are all designed to make us purchase more than we would ordinarily. People would NOT purchase multiple smaller sized sodas, because there would be no psychology-based incentive to do so. You don't think this ban would work to decrease sugar consumption? I guarantee you it would. Dramatically. Eventually we're going to have to realize just how helpless we are against our own biological instincts, and start passing laws that limit this sort of manipulation. I agree with post 4 that this law isn't the best thought out thing to come down the pike, but I also maintain that it would help. As for backlash .... just another scene from We Are SO Screwed: The Musical.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The point is psychological manipulation. It's killing this country in a million different ways. Consumers are not making their own choices, they only think they are.> I'm going to call partial horse foofie on this one. Yes, it's quite true, marketers of all stripes use our own biology and/or psychology against us all the time. In the case of soda sellers, it's both. At the same time, I know I was able to cut way back on my soda consumption, just by, you know, deciding to do so. I used to drink it all the time. Now I probably have some once or twice a month, and that's it. I treat it as the liquid candy it is, and I know that if I'm drinking one, it's sort of a special treat, the same way ice cream or cake might be. And just as I like to think I can decide when I'm going to have ice cream or cake (and how much), I'd like to decide when I can drink soda also (and how much). That said, I think the proposed NYC law is well-meaning. I think it WOULD decrease sugar intake in NYC. Yet I also think it's overreach.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The point is psychological manipulation.<< I thought the point was to reduce the intake of sugary drinks. Even Mayor Bloomberg seems to not see the enormous irony of promoting "Donut Day" immediately following the launch of his anti-Big Gulp idea. I love the idea of listing calorie count on menus. I can tell you that many times now, it's made me steer away from what might have been my first selection. That's education, and I think education works better than arm-twisting in the long run. Yes, it's slower and takes time to gain traction, but that's what works best IMHO. Singling out one food product as the culprit in America's obesity problem is ineffective. But doing that and then immediately celebrating "Donut Day" on top of it is pure idiocy in action.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Would it be an option to stop free refill so that each glass of coke has to be paid, like over here in Europe?" Well, in NYC, there are many places that already do that. Actually, it was only in the last decade or so that the soda fountains started showing up in fast food restaurants. Before that, there were no free refills. At most non fast-food places in NYC, you still have to pay for each drink you order, even for iced tea.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Just do what they did with cigarettes. Don't ban it, just put a tax on it that is dedicated to health and education programs that target the effects of it.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 At what point does the Local/State/Federal Government make it mandatory for individuals to get at least 3 days of exercise per week? Someone who drinks soda but exercises 3 to 5 times a week can be in better shape than someone who doesn't drink soda but gets no exercise...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But the person who doesn't drink soda at all and still exercises three days a week is in better shape than both the others.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 But the person who doesn't drink soda at all and still exercises three days a week is in better shape than both the others.<< Sure, but will those who don't live the perfect health lifestyle be punished or worse? This "law" is walking a fine line between looking after the well being of the citizens and controlling how they live.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>At what point does the Local/State/Federal Government make it mandatory for individuals to get at least 3 days of exercise per week?<< Right about when the health care system collapses from taking care of all the fatties. Could happen. >>Actually, it was only in the last decade or so that the soda fountains started showing up in fast food restaurants. Before that, there were no free refills.<< Think about this next time you buy a LARGE soda in a restaurant that has free refills. Yeah, free will. Uh-huh. ;-)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If people paid for their own health care, then none of this would really be an issue. But since health insurance is a collective expense, with costs shared socially by premium payers or taxpayers. Very little of it is paid for directly by the consumers - most of it is paid for by all of us, collectively. When we are making decisions to consume junk food, or to smoke, or to drive drunk, we are making a decision that is very likely to create an expense that the rest of us will have to pay. It isn't really a personal choice - it is taking away an economic choice from everyone else. Every dollar I have to spend in additional health insurance premiums is a dollar that I don't have to spend at the store down the street or to save for a rainy day. Americans drink almost 40 gallons of non-diet soda per year, per capita. There is about a pound of sugar in each gallon of soda. Men should have about 1.5 ounces of sugar a day. Women should have about an ounce. Just the per capita intake of soda alone for an adult male is more than the total amount of sugar they should be getting in a year - and odds are, that isn't the only added sugar they are getting. That sugar is having huge effects on our waistlines, our diabetes rates, and our health care costs. All of those costs are being borne out by all of us. A study came out in April that showed that medical care for obese persons costs them an average of $2500 a year more than for non-obese persons. And, unlike smoking which tends to have a high mortality rate, obesity doesn't necessarily lead to early death meaning that those medical expenses continue many years longer than the medical expenses of smokers. Those medical costs affect all of us through higher premiums, higher taxes and lower benefits. Saying that it is the consumer's choice to drink 64 ounces of Mountain Dew is like saying it's the driver's choice to drive drunk or the smoker's choice to light up at his desk at work.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Those medical costs affect all of us through higher premiums, higher taxes and lower benefits. Saying that it is the consumer's choice to drink 64 ounces of Mountain Dew is like saying it's the driver's choice to drive drunk or the smoker's choice to light up at his desk at work.<< Might want to try better examples as both of the ones you chose could adversely harm others, ie. if I drink and drive I could kill others, or if I light up at work, second hand smoke could harm my co-workers. I won't do any harm to others by drinking a Super Big Gulp...
