• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Sugary Drink Ban

What this isn't going to do is stop people from buying lots of soda.

What this is going to do is have Restaurants finding loopholes to be classified as supermarkerts, and others that can't having "amazing 2 for 1 deals" on 12 oz drinks.

Does this solve the problem? No.
Should they be trying to solve the problem? No.
Are you now allowed to sell a higher amount of alcohol in one container than soda? Yes.

So basically this is one of the most failure laws ever.
 
All I can say is that I hate limits on food, as we should be able to make our own decisions. Speaking as someone who's extremely underweight, it's an affront to my health to replace products with "healthy" (read: a reduced amount of) food.

Similar to this, my school has vending machines, but they only serve diet or 0 calorie drinks (and water). It's just sad.
 
The reason why they ban these sugary drinks and not alcohol (which is pretty much worse), is that the government can tax alcohol and make revenue from it. Its the same reason why they don't crack down as hard on cigarettes as they could, because they make revenue from the tax.
 
Killah said:
I'm not upset about the ban of sugary drinks, I'm upset about the ban itself. This could set precedent for the government to ban whatever they want, on the grounds of "it's unhealthy!" or "it's for your own good."
Click to expand...

This is the primary aspect of the ban I have a problem with. I'm honestly not the biggest sugary drink consumer, but I'll be damned if I want the government telling me how much of a LEGAL SUBSTANCE I'm allowed to purchase at once. This does nothing to curb the practice of ingesting these beverages, as people can simply buy 2 or more smaller size beverages. It's just another example of the government trying to play parent and get more involved in the daily lives of its citizens.
 
Burn Jack said:
What are you eating to need more than 16oz of soda with your meal? Sand?
Click to expand...

Lol, idk, its probably different for you....but in my country when you go out to eat you usually just buy one big soda when you eat somewhere. Maybe that wasn't the best example, but I was just trying to show that its to make profit, not just keep new yorkers healthy.
 
who cares about this law, i only drink 15 oz of soda a sitting so i obviously have no chance of becoming obese
 
I may not be a soda drinker, but I see what they are trying to do. Sodas have little nutritional value anyways, so it shows NYC wants people to live healthy lifestyles.
 
I support this ban in it's entirety.

You guys should find something else to drink (like water). Yes the government has no right to do this but it's only a fucking soda, you guys can live.
 
It's hard to say how I feel about this. On one hand sugar-laden drinks are really bad for you and I can't understand how anyone could drink them. They are a very significant cause of obesity and related health issues. It's hard for me to believe this will be very effective at preventing obesity/diabetes/etc though. Aren't refills on soda at most restaurants free? And like the article mentioned people don't go to movie theaters enough to the point where what they eat or drink there will significantly influence their overall diet. I guess that leaves fast food places where people don't eat in as being the only instance where this really does anything. I am optimistic that this may raise people's awareness regarding soft drinks though. Just hearing that in the news that they're so bad for you they're starting to be regulated may cause people think more about not drinking them.


I noticed a lot of people feel this is an example of the government interfering somewhere it shouldn't be allowed to. I think it's important to realize that there are tons of regulations regarding the food industry. Most of these protect consumers from food contents that are dangerous to their health. Regulations usually aren't economically favorable to manufacturers/processors, and sometimes drive the need for new technologies. However it's hard to say that this is just the government caring about the publics well-being.

Some people may say being fat/unhealthy is their own choice and should remain so, but that's wrong. The rising rate of obesity and related diseases put a huge economic stress on our country. Health care costs are an obvious example, but you have to consider the costs of decreased productivity resulting from diseases/disorders, as well as the need to accommodate them.

So basically:
-I don't think this will do much but raise awareness/maybe be a decent start
-Obesity is a very serious problem on multiple levels
-People shouldn't be surprised when the government tries to regulate an industry that physically and economically harms the rest of the country (I argue that obesity is partially a result of the success of some corporations in the food industry)
 
I think people are overreacting a bit. They are not banning sodas outright, so I think it is a bit misguided to complain about regulating what consumers want to get, since, like many people mentioned, what's stopping them from just buying multiple small ones? In addition, I might be a bit biased, but I think the New York government is a bit more competent, and the slippery slope of OHMIGAWD BAN EVERYTHING is an easy response, but not necessarily a valid threat. Banning the upper extremes of soda sizes is not that major at all and was done after deliberation and discussion I'm sure. I'm comfortable in saying people elsewhere (and New York, themselves) do not have the guts to attempt something similar to this for other goods any time soon, or at least until the effects of this law have time to be seen. You can claim that it might lead to more rampant banning and government intervention in the future, but you don't know. What if this law ends up being extremely successful? It works well and people grow to accept it. Both of us are just speaking from gut feelings, and we simply cannot predict the future spot-on.

The point of this law is NOT to directly help reduce health problems. As was also mentioned, a ban on ALL sodas would be necessary to achieve that. This is more as a deterrent. A tax would also work well. I believe since Obama raised the tax on cigarettes to over a dollar per pack, rates of smoking have declined. There are 3 million less smokers now than before he signed the law, despite the population increasing. In addition, smoking rates in teens have dropped 10%, which may also be attributed to education and greater awareness (LOL like our country is effective at informing the public...).

In reality, the best they can achieve in terms of directly affecting consumption and health (and I do believe they can achieve it) is consumers buying the next largest drink size and simply ending there. All of those complaining that people can simply buy more, that is, of course, true. But I think most people would just pop in a store, grab a bottle, take it and leave, finish, and be done with it. We are all likely to just finish what we have in front of us, and unless we're feeling particularly gluttonous, we won't expend energy to get more. But for the average person, this law will help subconsciously reduce their intake. Those who are simply addicted to the sodas and must drink lots of it are not the main targets of this law.

And as for those of you who so adamantly claim that AH FAT PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB KILL YOURSELF YOURSELF, there is a psychological aspect of it that is simply impossible for you (I'm assuming as an average person) to fathom. Not long ago, there was a trainer obsessed with fitness who gained loads of weight and tried to take it off to understand what his clients were feeling. I don't need to regurgitate what he found, but the gist of it is that sometimes it simply takes more than a "little motivation" to get back into shape. It consumes your whole being and makes it extremely impossible to break out of the depression. But that was not my main point. My main point is that people at unhealthy weights take a massive toll on our nation's healthcare system (massive in multiple senses of the word, including the obvious pun as well as the sheer rates of obesity, which are mortifying). The healthcare system simply is struggling to keep up with the problems of the country, and every little step needs to be taken to work towards a better future.

So I took a bit too long spitting this out, but Cobraroll earlier and the poster above do a much better job touching on the consequences of our nation's obesity epidemic, so please pay attention to them instead!

AAAH LOOK AT ME I SUPPORT BIG GOVERNMENT
 
extremist muslims are burning down embassies and killing american citizens

and new york is worried about 20 oz cokes
 
Is anyone here in favour of the measure?

Also I'm not entirely sure what coke bans and extremist muslims have in common, I'm sure mattj will explain, but if he can't, could we please stay on topic.
 
I can see both sides of the argument, but

Pro: I can agree with the reducing healthcare costs in the same vein as massive negative warnings on packs of cigs.

Con: After dealing with more and more restrictions in food at my high school, food can get real shitty real fast. But yeah haha ScarfWynaut makes the best point, it happened In a chain of voting but maybe some Industrial lobbying happened along the away.
 
I don't really oppose or condone the law, but I'll just say that it has been scientifically proven that people would much rather order one large meal/soda than two smaller ones. It's a psychological thing, you feel like less of a fat person. Look it up or just think about it for ten seconds -- I assure you it is true.

Therefore -- it's not a fair argument to say "people still have the ability to buy many small drinks." It's less likely that they will do so as a direct alternative to buying a larger drink.
 
Samuel L. Jesus said:
It's hard to say how I feel about this. On one hand sugar-laden drinks are really bad for you and I can't understand how anyone could drink them.
Click to expand...

Cause they are fucking delicious.

Scepticallistic said:
since, like many people mentioned, what's stopping them from just buying multiple small ones?
Click to expand...

You must be some sort of multi-hand freak of nature.

You stupid people in support of this really want America to eat healthier?

Fucking make your shit tasting healthy food cheaper and tastier; don't fucking cripple your competition with invasive laws like lazy fucks.

God damn.
 
billymills said:
Also I'm not entirely sure what coke bans and extremist muslims have in common, I'm sure mattj will explain, but if he can't, could we please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

???

there are bigger problems in the world than banning sugary drinks

i thought it was pretty self evident but i guess i could spell it out for you

You see, we live in a world with high gas prices, social security running out, a presidential election at hand, terrorism, we're currently in a drought here in the US. Banning sugary drinks ought to be way, way back on the back burner. New York really has their priorities out of order.

Does that help?
 
We really need to look at both sides of this. I am personally incredibly opposed to this law, but there are some goods to it, which I will touch upon first. The primary positive of this law is the intention. While there are DEFINITELY incredible monetary benefits towards reducing the rate of obesity, which is honestly what probably drove this bill, its intention is still to reduce rates of obesity. Which is good, and we really can't say anything other than that. A government measure that is meant to do something good can never be bad (lol); only the implementation can suck, which it does here, and I'll get to that. The other good that this law does is it makes New Yorkers think, which is surprisingly difficult to do with just Eat Healthy slogans. When you have to choose between changing part of your life to be healthy, or changing part of your life because it's now really expensive, the latter is more likely to happen. Before, when going to a fast food joint and seeing the $1.85 16 oz soda and the $2.10 32 oz soda, you're damn right I (in general, I don't live in NY) would go for that 32 oz (and because I love soda but whatever). Cheaper? More drink? MORE SATISFACTION. Now without the 32 oz as an option, it's still just as possible to get that satisfaction, just at a higher cost. It comes with the thought "do I really need to drink another one?" The answer will almost always be no. In that regard, this law succeeds.

But the implementation fucking sucks. The intentions of the law are good and one of the ramifications indicates success out of it. Fine. But it's not something the government should, or can do. This is something I see out of many of the supporters, in general. "I SUPPORT BECAUSE SODA IS BAD FOR YOU." This post outlines this the best:

Faint said:
I support this ban in it's entirety.

You guys should find something else to drink (like water). Yes the government has no right to do this but it's only a fucking soda, you guys can live.
Click to expand...

This is the perfect example of a supporter of the idea solely for health reasons but is still a complete dumb fuck about the actual issues. In fact, in this post, Faint even recognizes that "the government has no right to do this." That in itself is the root of the problem. The government does not have the right to make decisions regarding a legal substance for us. The government makes laws, yes. In that respect, it is telling us what to do, so as to not do something illegal. In this respect, it's legitimately telling us we can't drink soda in excess! Why would that even be okay, for the government to make the decision of what harmless substance we can consume? (okay it's obviously not harmless if you drink a bunch but I mean immediately harmless) Extending this law from soft drinks would leave the government capable of regulating all unhealthy products in our lives. Fuck, Oreos aren't good for you? Make a law where Oreo packages must have half as much as they normally do. You can still have the same amount...just buy two! Cut the servings on everything. French fries? Halve it. Foot long subs getting awful? You must by two 6-inches and foot longs are illegal. This cutting serving sizes extends in this regard and can for every facet of our consumption. It's a stupid overreaching of government power.

What should be happening is the government devotes its resources to better healthy initiatives. Possibly taxing unhealthy foods a little more? It does the same thing really--make you pay more for soda, but being less fucking stupid about it. Or in my opinion, as LonelyNess put it, spending money and resources to educating the public better, making health class in schools less of a joke, make healthier options more readily available (fast food salads?????????????!!!!!!!!!!), reduce the price of healthy options, etc. Of course I'm going to fucking McDonalds for lunch when I can buy three burgers for half the price of a salad. Healthy food is expensive due to the sheer amount of government subsidies in corn (ie, HFCS and feed for animals). Maybe extending subsidies into the production of healthier options?

There are a variety of things that can be done to maintain the intent of this law but make it less fucking stupid. As it stands, this law is fucking stupid.
 
Outlaw said:
Cause they are fucking delicious.



You must be some sort of multi-hand freak of nature.

You stupid people in support of this really want America to eat healthier?

Fucking make your shit tasting healthy food cheaper and tastier; don't fucking cripple your competition with invasive laws like lazy fucks.

God damn.
Click to expand...

I don't read this forum often enough to tell if you're sarcastically mocking the opposition or actually serious. But yeah don't expect a serious response when your argument is basically "Hurr this tastes good which is all that matters and the oppressive government has no right to tell me otherwise."

And mattj- this isn't a ban on sugary drinks. It's an effort to increase awareness regarding obesity which actually isn't just a petty issue that should be put way on the back burner. Besides, it's not like this is the only thing happening in New York, let alone it's top priority.
 
anyone who opposes this law should also oppose any drug ever being illegal.

let people give themselves diabetes via sugary goodness, or death via drugs.

anyone with half a brain will avoid those types of irresponsible and careless ends.

though if drugs were to be legalized, of course there would still be repercussions for using drugs irresponsibly or in a fashion to harm other people, much like you can be arrested for drinking and driving. the point is, people should have the freedom to ingest whatever they want, and barring potential side effects that can affect other people in a dangerous fashion, mandating those substances should not be allowed.
 
Samuel L. Jesus said:
I don't read this forum often enough to tell if you're sarcastically mocking the opposition or actually serious. But yeah don't expect a serious response when your argument is basically "Hurr this tastes good which is all that matters and the oppressive government has no right to tell me otherwise."
Click to expand...

Do you not see well or have a reading deficiency?

My argument is, if you provide a cheaper, tastier alternative people will choose it. It doesn't matter if its healthier or not, though for the point of this topic it would probably be better if it was. Just like people would choose alternative energy if it were cheaper and had competitive efficiency.

It's fucking science man.
 
Fishy said:
anyone who opposes this law should also oppose any drug ever being illegal.

let people give themselves diabetes via sugary goodness, or death via drugs.

anyone with half a brain will avoid those types of irresponsible and careless ends.

though if drugs were to be legalized, of course there would still be repercussions for using drugs irresponsibly or in a fashion to harm other people, much like you can be arrested for drinking and driving. the point is, people should have the freedom to ingest whatever they want, and barring potential side effects that can affect other people in a dangerous fashion, mandating those substances should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

Uh..? "Anyone who opposes a government impeding upon an individual's personal decision to choose regarding a substance that can admittedly harm you in excess, but even still with possibly limited effects depending on the rest of your dietary habits, and will never really harm you at one go, must also oppose the the illegal status of substances that (generally) are incredibly easily to get addicted to, can fuck up or even kill an individual with a single misuse, and can lead, depending on your personal experiences with and affects by drugs, to the harm of other people?"

This post is not meant to lead this thread to discuss illegal drugs now; there's already a drug discussion thread, and I'm not in any way trying to insult someone that uses drugs recreationally. I'm just saying this is an awful awful awful comparison, seeing as excessive soda and drug use can't be compared due to the vast differences in their short term effects and long severe long term effects (and yes, drinking a lot of soda in the long run can be significantly less severe due to your other health habits and the way you maintain your body...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top