-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Sugary Drink Ban
- Thread starter biggie
- Start date
that's the thing though, blarajan. morality, public safety, what's good and bad - it's all subjective. and those illegal drugs still cause just as many problems. their ban isn't deterring stupidity. the comparison is viable enough, in that it compares the banning of one substance to avoid certain harmful ends to another substance, obviously less rampantly dangerous or fatal that can also lead to harmful ends, even if they're not as pronounced and graphic as death, or near enough.
banning larger quantities of soda is not going to save people from obesity. they will just spend more money to sate their fix.
the government is meant to protect the people and rule them as justly and as equally as they possibly can, but our government probably fulfills that role in the most embarrassing fashion. it's cute that new york is trying to ban soda, and even more adorable that people are getting upset about it. it's just a clusterfuck of the big man telling the little man what to put into his body. unfortunately, people would rather bitch about the government telling them what they should and should not do instead of having the sense to take good care of themselves before their rights are infringed upon.
banning larger quantities of soda is not going to save people from obesity. they will just spend more money to sate their fix.
the government is meant to protect the people and rule them as justly and as equally as they possibly can, but our government probably fulfills that role in the most embarrassing fashion. it's cute that new york is trying to ban soda, and even more adorable that people are getting upset about it. it's just a clusterfuck of the big man telling the little man what to put into his body. unfortunately, people would rather bitch about the government telling them what they should and should not do instead of having the sense to take good care of themselves before their rights are infringed upon.
Ummm... this is not an effort to increase awareness regarding obesity. It is a ban on all sugary drinks over 16 ounces in the city of New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html
And Fishy, I totally agree with you. I can't see how anyone could champion a person's right to drink whatever soda they want without championing their right to use whatever drug they want. However, there is the issue of drug involved accidents that harm other people that doesn't nearly apply to sugary drinks. Unless I guess you count truck drivers going into a diabetic coma while hauling a tanker full of nitroglycerin on a crowded highway. Or people spilling a 72 ounce soda all over their pants and careening through a crowd of schoolchildren.
And why do you think they're setting a size limit (read: not a ban) on sugary drinks? It isn't the physical size difference that's going to make people healthier. A 16 oz soda is still bad for you. The association with soda as something so bad for you it has to be regulated is supposed to make people reconsider what/how much they consume.
Yes, if you provide something cheap, people will buy it. In some cases, being able to sell something cheap is the result of an industrial process or policy that can be harmful to various groups of people, which is where regulations come in.
Yes, if you provide something cheap, people will buy it. In some cases, being able to sell something cheap is the result of an industrial process or policy that can be harmful to various groups of people, which is where regulations come in.
no, but a truck driver can easily cause such destruction by drinking alcohol. or any person on the planet, but it still boggles my mind that alcohol is so readily accepted and legalized when other drugs that can cause just as much harm are not.
4 people died in Libya, a country we recently invaded. The federal government is already dealing with the issue and have already sent marines to the country, but you want the municipal government in New York to stop everything its doing to somehow deal with Libya?
Not only that, you want the New York government to somehow tackle high gas prices, social security, terrorism and the drought at the same time.
What, pray tell, is your opinion on alternative energy-powered cars or a carbon tax, which are probably our best options to deal with the gas prices and the drought respectively?
What do you think the municipal government in New York could do about social security?
And most importantly, more people die from obesity in a single day than die from terrorist attacks in years. And New York has its priorities backwards?
Probably would get hated on for nitpicking, but:
When you say more people die from obesity than terrorism, that's not really fair. Obesity in and of itself doesn't kill anyone: it's the related symptoms + diseases that do. And how do we know how much of the obesity actually led to the disease? It's statistical knowledge that obesity leads to higher chances of such-and-such, but it becomes all shady from there. How do we know how much of the death was actually contributed by the obesity-linked disease? How do we know how much soda contributed to the obesity?
We don't know.
If we were to talk about leading causes of death in that way we might as well talk about nature as 'leading source of death.'
I agree that US cares way too much about terrorism, just that obesity caused by soda isn't killing millions like you make it out to be. You make poor decisions, drink lots of soda to the point your health significantly deteriorates because of it--you probably woulda died because of another poor decision anyways.
When you say more people die from obesity than terrorism, that's not really fair. Obesity in and of itself doesn't kill anyone: it's the related symptoms + diseases that do. And how do we know how much of the obesity actually led to the disease? It's statistical knowledge that obesity leads to higher chances of such-and-such, but it becomes all shady from there. How do we know how much of the death was actually contributed by the obesity-linked disease? How do we know how much soda contributed to the obesity?
We don't know.
If we were to talk about leading causes of death in that way we might as well talk about nature as 'leading source of death.'
I agree that US cares way too much about terrorism, just that obesity caused by soda isn't killing millions like you make it out to be. You make poor decisions, drink lots of soda to the point your health significantly deteriorates because of it--you probably woulda died because of another poor decision anyways.
just calling bullshit on this post; healthy alternatives such as milk or orange juice actually contain more calories than the likes of coca cola.
47 calories per 100ml of orange juice
49 calories per 100ml of semi-skimmed milk
41 calories per 100ml of coca-cola
'affront to your health' indeed. There's more to healthy eating than calorie-counting.
Fishy, I really love soda. I LOVE IT. I drink a lot of soda every day, but i've never overdosed and killed myself, or gone on a soda-induced rampage and damaged things/hurt people, and when i go weeks without drinking it, i don't undergo crippling or fatal withdrawal symptoms. Soda use doesn't cause permanent brain damage, i've never /heard/ of a case of soda depleting seretonin in the brain to cause clinical depression (if you go and say "you might be depressed because you're overweight" then i plead with you to chop off your own hands first). As for alcohol, it being legal is mostly because they wanted to be able to tax it (see: 18th and 21st amendments)
One last thing: drinking soda ≠ being fat, people. I drink lots and lots of soda, but i make other lifestyle choices that are better for me, and I'm 6'3" and 140 lbs. I don't want the government freaking telling me what i can and can't buy. If I want a big gulp then /god damn/ i should be able to drink a big gulp.
One last thing: drinking soda ≠ being fat, people. I drink lots and lots of soda, but i make other lifestyle choices that are better for me, and I'm 6'3" and 140 lbs. I don't want the government freaking telling me what i can and can't buy. If I want a big gulp then /god damn/ i should be able to drink a big gulp.
To be fair, Big Gulps are found at 7-11 stores, which are classified as convenience stores. Convenience stores are 'conveniently' outside of the ban, along with supermarkets.
In regards to billymills, I do not think that mattj is seriously condoning that the New York City government allocate their resources to fight terrorism abroad but there are still other issues that should be concentrated way before tackling the 'massive threat to our health' that large sodas cause. Why not try to limit the crippling state debt? Or the still-high levels of unemployment? Or God forbid the massive homelessness problem?
In regards to billymills, I do not think that mattj is seriously condoning that the New York City government allocate their resources to fight terrorism abroad but there are still other issues that should be concentrated way before tackling the 'massive threat to our health' that large sodas cause. Why not try to limit the crippling state debt? Or the still-high levels of unemployment? Or God forbid the massive homelessness problem?
Pwnemon, have you considered that your excessive consumption could be contributing to your being dangerously underweight? If you're getting a good portion of your daily calories from soda as you seem to imply, then it sounds like you're filling up on empty calories and neglecting some dietary essentials. Honestly, you have the BMI of a ballerina, it's probably best if you don't play the 'i drink plenty of coke and I'm just fine!' card because while drinking lots of soda =/= fat, the actual formula is more like 'drinking lots of soda = unhealthy' and your BMI of 17.5 enforces that.
Unless you're a girl in which case I apologise (but you could still stand to gain a few pounds, missy!)
Unless you're a girl in which case I apologise (but you could still stand to gain a few pounds, missy!)
That's the important distinction, and it being "okay" for alcohol doesn't give drugs a green light as well. You can't harm another person through excessive soda drinking (unless like someone cries over your morbid obesity but there are other problems with that / it's indirect etc) like you can drug intake, so even if you're willing to disregard everything I said, that distinction still stands, and the comparison still doesn't work. A more proper comparison is to say that anyone who supports this law also supports government limitations on fast food, ice cream, cake, candy sizes, etc. New York bans the Big Mac? Read more...
For the record, I am incredibly not okay with the societal stance on alcohol, but that's neither here nor there.
So then everyone forgot these still exist.
While I agree with what you're saying Lee, BMI shouldn't be used as an indicator of health. It just doesn't take a lot of factors into account, like in this case if Pwnemon has a slender frame he mightn't be underweight at all if you check %BF or whatever.
On topic, that's a bit mad. I don't agree with the people saying "why can't New York tackle other problems instead" though; just because they've (presumably) debated and deliberated over this doesn't mean they also aren't trying to address other issues. On the other hand, I've no idea how America or New York work so take that with a grain of salt.
Regardless of the law being made, the attention that the city brings to the health problems surrounding soda will hopefully cause people to be more aware of their intake.
I also believe that the ban won't really change much, just buy another drink if you deem it necessary. If you are worried about money, drink water. Its healthier and less expensive. Water also doesn't fuel your caffeine addiction, which can lead to a healthier lifestyle overall.
I also believe that the ban won't really change much, just buy another drink if you deem it necessary. If you are worried about money, drink water. Its healthier and less expensive. Water also doesn't fuel your caffeine addiction, which can lead to a healthier lifestyle overall.
Because vending machines definitely serve milk and orange juice at my school. That's completely normal. And since when did I say calories from soda were vitally important to my health(all I said was zero-calorie drinks along with diet drinks)? I'm annoyed because I want to drink Coca-Cola but I have to drink the tasteless, "healthy" alternative.
(Also, by the way, my school doesn't serve even semi-skimmed milk, it serves skim milk only, a change introduced this year. I haven't even tried any orange juice considering I hate oranges, but I don't believe the little things they offer are even a full serving)
But the fact of the matter is I'm going to drink the soda anyway, and I don't need, nor want, diet or no calorie drinks, especially since they contain artificial sweeteners and the like. If we're going to start banning things for being unhealthy, governments should definitely try to eliminate alcohol and tobacco before saying how we should eat. It's an "affront to my health" because it forbids me from making my own choices about my standard of eating and my way of living. I never said it was "good health," but setting a limit on everyone violates their right to choose their own health. Drinking a soda, no matter the quantity, hurts no one but the drinker's weight if in excess (not getting into any psychological problems that may branch into family or friends of said person, which is a relatively minor issue compared to this action being taken).
I am capable of eating healthily, and there's nothing wrong with having what people consider unhealthy (like large amounts of soda) if you still consume everything you need nutritionally and exercise relative to how much you eat.
I'll take my chances with 100 calories of sugar before I will artificial sweeteners giving me cancer and shit.
This regulation is obviously a statement more than anything of substance, since hey it's not really doing anything to restrict anyone's sugary drink intake. Buy another one. Almost all restaurants give free refills on soft drinks if you're eating in. At best, you'll have a person here or there that doesn't have an extra five ounces of soda in their cup that they'll convince themselves to finish before the ice melts and waters it down, after having already quenched their thirst. Some of them may contemplate the matter. But it ain't stopping them from consuming the same amount as they otherwise would if they really feel like it.
That said, it's not the government's right nor responsibility to be doing shit like this and I imagine it'll be a pain in the ass for local area businesses to comply with the regulation. "Well gee, I guess these large cups are just going to have to sit here!" There are ways to increase awareness that don't involve passing unconstitutional laws and regulations or dicking with normal business operations.
Also BMI is a fucking joke and what the hell is the local NYC government supposed to do about federal matters like terrorism and high gas prices?
This regulation is obviously a statement more than anything of substance, since hey it's not really doing anything to restrict anyone's sugary drink intake. Buy another one. Almost all restaurants give free refills on soft drinks if you're eating in. At best, you'll have a person here or there that doesn't have an extra five ounces of soda in their cup that they'll convince themselves to finish before the ice melts and waters it down, after having already quenched their thirst. Some of them may contemplate the matter. But it ain't stopping them from consuming the same amount as they otherwise would if they really feel like it.
That said, it's not the government's right nor responsibility to be doing shit like this and I imagine it'll be a pain in the ass for local area businesses to comply with the regulation. "Well gee, I guess these large cups are just going to have to sit here!" There are ways to increase awareness that don't involve passing unconstitutional laws and regulations or dicking with normal business operations.
Also BMI is a fucking joke and what the hell is the local NYC government supposed to do about federal matters like terrorism and high gas prices?
there are also bigger problems than two dudes getting married. priorities, right?
anyway, i'm curious to know how most of the opponents of this regulation feel about seat belt laws.
jesus tapdancing christ, that's got nothing to do with how unhealthy Coke is, if you drink enough ORANGE JUICE the same thing will happen.
There are a million issues more important to New Yorkers than this sugary drink ban nonsense. No one but the Mayor and a minority of health nuts support this law. Most New Yorkers find it completely unnecessary. Human rights, like the right to marry, are far more important than this ban.
I oppose them. I always wear a seatbelt, but who am I to tell someone else to be safe. As long as they're not putting anyone else aside from themselves in danger, let them do what they want. Personally, I'm fine with requiring minors to wear seatbelts and infants to ride in a car seat though, because they can't legally consent, and if their parents aren't willing to protect them I am.
mattj said:
What about the fact that somebody has to clean up after a traffic accident, and it's your tax money that's paying for it?
If I remember correctly, we count a big traffic accident (as in, the car has to be towed away afterwards) as costing society around $1 million here in Norway. Twice or thrice that if there was a fatality. The road is closed (or blocked off for other people), rescue personnel are summoned, somebody has to remove the wreckage, the body, and if necessary, start an investigation. Each traffic-related death costs society lots of money, not to mention the grief of friends, family and coworkers.
This, at least, is the approach the Norwegian government and media takes to seatbelt laws. Is it any different in the US? Over here, it's more like "Your suffering hurts us all in the long run, so we must help you not suffer" than "Your suffering is your own fault and your own problem", as can be perceived from stories from the US. We see it as better for everybody if the amount and severity of traffic accidents (or obesity) is reduced, and society as a whole accepts that. I understand it can be perceived as a "for the greater good" mentality, forced upon you by the government, but I think it works. What is the American stance on such things?
There is no unified American response; otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate. In general, there's gonna be two competing camps here in the States. The progressives and liberals hold, basically, with the Norwegian response, so i don't really need to expand there. On the other side of the line, the conservatives and libertarians believe that if you want to be retarded then by golly it's your right to be retarded, and the government shouldn't interfere with aspects of our lives that aren't related to the running of the country. Personally, i hold with the latter of the two groups.
Actually, the topic of seat belt laws brings up an interesting point I believe. Seat belt laws pretty much forced car manufacturers to make safer cars with seat belts and air bags, yada yada yada. In the future could "bans" like this force soda companies to make more healthy soda? Thoughts?