Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Big Apple Soda Ban
Show More
Loading...
Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 1, 2012 10:20 AM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:01AM, Estacia wrote:


Is this topic about soda or prositution?


--------------------------------------------------


" If Crazy comes towards you, cross the street".





In fact this topic is about Mayor Bloomberg's proposed law banning the sale of any drinks that contain sugar in all resturants and movie theatres that are larger than 16 oz.


This proposed law is nor about banning the sale in movie theatres and resturants of two or more drinks that contain sugar.  


This proposed law is not about the restricting the sale of drinks of any size or quanity outside of movie theatres and resturants or about the sale anything else that a person may purchase wether it is women or men for sex or drugs or other foods.  


Putting aside for the moment the sale of anything other than what the proposed law does seek to restrict and the motivations and intent of Mayor Bloomberg I would like to ask if those who support this law think that banning the sale of single servings of drinks containing sugar. 


How effective do you think that this law will be in reducing obesity?


Because I honestly do not think it will be that effective.  I do not think it will be effective enough to warrant the passage of this law.  


By The Way does anyone know what the penalties will be if this is made a law?  


 


 


 


   


 

Flag farragut July 1, 2012 11:59 AM EDT

"In fact this topic is about Mayor Bloomberg's proposed law banning the sale of any drinks that contain sugar in all resturants and movie theatres that are larger than 16 oz"


 


I would expect that all the restaurants and movie theaters in N.Y. are larger than 16 oz.

Flag rabello July 1, 2012 2:51 PM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:01AM, Estacia wrote:


Is this topic about soda or prositution?


--------------------------------------------------


" If Crazy comes towards you, cross the street".




I have to admit that I am pretty shocked at how upset people are over a city ordinance that doesn't even affect them, and about something as petty as trying to put some limits on the unhealthy volumes of non-nutritious drinks sold at public facilities and get some sanity back into people's eating habits.  


It appears that the consensus here is that marketing professionals should have carte blanche in what they can "sell" to the public, without consideration for the publica health and safety, regardless of the socialised cost for personalized gain.   Well, we do live with Trickle Down economics.


However, the answer to the question posed by Truechristian can be found in one of the links provided by IBDC:



"Given the global incidence rates of overweight and obesity are on the rise, particularly among children and adolescents, it is imperative that current public health strategies include education about beverage intake," write the researchers. "Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda and fruit drinks should be discouraged, and efforts to promote the consumption of other beverages such as water, low-fat milk, and small quantities of fruit juice should be made a priority."


To paraphrase Bloomberg's plan in his interview with Fareed Zakaria, his plan is one "effort" to "promote the consumption of other beverages" besides the nonnutritious sugar drinks, "(making)" nutritious drinks such as those lised "a priority", in an effort to "discourage consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda and fruit drinks.


To which I would add: in a world where much of the population dies from malnutrition, starvation and lack of potable drinking water much less jugs of soda, there is no reason for Americans to be so gluttonous and wasteful, just because marketting professionals have decided they should be.   And that, of course, doesn't even take into account the cost to the taxpayers for those on lifetime disability because of the carte blanche sellers are granted. 




Flag Cesmom July 1, 2012 4:08 PM EDT

Jun 27, 2012 -- 3:51PM, rabello wrote:


How about some answers to some of the many questions (points) raised by Charikleia?


Here are some of them, highlighted to make it easier to answer and discuss each.


Jun 26, 2012 -- 2:34AM, CharikIeia wrote:


.....the obesity rate of 36% or so in the USA proves, it doesn't work this way (letting people decide for themselves).


Costs to the public health system are spiralling out of control.


1. What would you propose to combat that?


2. Do nothing, as in the past?


3. Let Medicare apply to only non-obese patients?




Jun 26, 2012 -- 2:34AM, CharikIeia wrote:


It's easy to blame the obese for being obese.


But laying blame at their doorstep doesn't reduce costs to taxpayers yet.


Bloomberg's measure doesn't do that either, and I therefore consider it a weak attempt at best - it very much goes into the direction of "let the obese cure themselves by making the dangerous choices for them more expensive".


But at least it draws some attention to a real social problem.


4. Not "big bad nanny state" (the leisure time preoccupation of decadent libertarians with their obscene fantasies about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Obama) - but OBESITY.




Also the one about:


5. Privatized benefit but socialized cost....what do we want to do about that?


Instead of mantras, buzz words, P&M'g, scolding and hyperbole




All of this can be addressed without unnecessary restrictions.  The best way to combat obesity is by allowing consumers to make informed choices.  If the state wants to regulate businesses to battle obesity, regulate them by requiring nutritional information to be readily available at restaurants and prominently displayed at the drink dispenser in the local 7-11l.  Those kinds of regulations make sense and aren't restricting anyone (business or consumer), but still forcing responsibility onto the business.


No one is suggesting that nothing be done to combat obesity.

Flag CharikIeia July 1, 2012 5:24 PM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 4:08PM, Cesmom wrote:


The best way to combat obesity is by allowing consumers to make informed choices.



On what evidence do you base that fairy tale from la-la-land?


If one thing does NOT work for sure, it's information campaigns.


Make a test: in the supermarket, just count the number of obese or overweight people who read lists of ingredients. Five fingers will suffice, based on my own counting experience.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 1, 2012 8:55 PM EDT

 


Jul 1, 2012 -- 4:08PM, Cesmom wrote:


The best way to combat obesity is by allowing consumers to make informed choices.



On what evidence do you base that fairy tale from la-la-land?



What evidence is there that banning the sale of sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants of drinks that are larger than 16 ounces will reduce the obesity rate in New York City? 


Is it from North Korea? 


Obesity is not a problem in North Korea.  


Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:24PM, CharikIeia wrote:


If one thing does NOT work for sure, it's information campaigns.



I think that the information campaigns against smoking was effective in reducing smoking cigarettes.  


Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:24PM, CharikIeia wrote:

 


Make a test: in the supermarket, just count the number of obese or overweight people who read lists of ingredients. Five fingers will suffice, based on my own counting experience.




That could be because they have not been convinced by the campaigns.  


I guess that "campaigns" using "gimmicks"  to.......drink sugary drinks works but "campaigns" to get them to stop do not work. 


Have you counted how many people who are not obese read the labels? 


Do you think it is more than five? 


What do you recommend should be done about the obese people who shop in supermarkets? 

As I posted earilier I have not seen one recommendation that the banning of the sale of sugar drinks of any size will reduce obesity in New York City.  


I did post what was recommended in post 415.  


But I guess those people were from "la la land".  Undecided

Flag Erey July 1, 2012 11:32 PM EDT

Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


 


So education is doing SOME good.  I am sure we might hope for better results. 


and a different article stated that obesity rates for adults have been flat since 1999


And over 85% of americans are trying to lose weight by cutting back on sugar and portion sizes.


calorielab.com/news/2011/05/20/weight-lo...


So there!  Americans are NOT dummies and are at least aware of what they can do to lose weight. 

Flag teilhard July 2, 2012 12:14 AM EDT

LOL ...


It seems to be about The Soda "Pimps" ...


Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:01AM, Estacia wrote:


Is this topic about soda or prositution?


--------------------------------------------------


" If Crazy comes towards you, cross the street".





Flag Cesmom July 2, 2012 10:04 AM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Erey wrote:


Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


 


So education is doing SOME good.  I am sure we might hope for better results. 


and a different article stated that obesity rates for adults have been flat since 1999


And over 85% of americans are trying to lose weight by cutting back on sugar and portion sizes.


calorielab.com/news/2011/05/20/weight-lo...


So there!  Americans are NOT dummies and are at least aware of what they can do to lose weight. 




Wow!  You mean we actually have brains and don't need our government to protect us from ourselves?  That's a pretty crazy concept you're throwing out there, Erey!  ;-)

Flag Cesmom July 2, 2012 10:05 AM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:24PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 4:08PM, Cesmom wrote:


The best way to combat obesity is by allowing consumers to make informed choices.



On what evidence do you base that fairy tale from la-la-land?


If one thing does NOT work for sure, it's information campaigns.


Make a test: in the supermarket, just count the number of obese or overweight people who read lists of ingredients. Five fingers will suffice, based on my own counting experience.




On what evidence do you possibly think that Bloomberg's fairy tale ideas are going to do any good?  

Flag CharikIeia July 2, 2012 10:31 AM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Erey wrote:


Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


So education is doing SOME good.



Non sequitur.


Obesity rates likely are down because people in the crisis don't afford so much food any more.

Flag Cesmom July 2, 2012 10:36 AM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:31AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Erey wrote:


Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


So education is doing SOME good.



Non sequitur.


Obesity rates likely are down because people in the crisis don't afford so much food any more.




That's a ridiculous notion.  Everyone knows that high carb, high fat foods are cheaper than healthy foods.  If it were all about the financial crisis, people would be getting fatter not thinner.

Flag mytmouse57 July 2, 2012 1:44 PM EDT

When the famine hits, fat people will have the best chance of survival. 


Drink more soda. 

Flag Erey July 2, 2012 2:18 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:31AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Erey wrote:


Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


So education is doing SOME good.



Non sequitur.


Obesity rates likely are down because people in the crisis don't afford so much food any more.




no sequitur my (not so fat) ass!  Bull shite!  are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay? 



 

Flag Erey July 2, 2012 2:28 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:05AM, Cesmom wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:24PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 4:08PM, Cesmom wrote:


The best way to combat obesity is by allowing consumers to make informed choices.



On what evidence do you base that fairy tale from la-la-land?


If one thing does NOT work for sure, it's information campaigns.


Make a test: in the supermarket, just count the number of obese or overweight people who read lists of ingredients. Five fingers will suffice, based on my own counting experience.




On what evidence do you possibly think that Bloomberg's fairy tale ideas are going to do any good?  




Bloomberg is on record for saying he does not believe this soda size limit will do anything in regards to obesity.  It is a statement for him, not much more than that.


And yes information campaigns work well.  Increased breastfeeding for one, lots of things to do with babies like side sleeping, etc.  Teeth flossing, americans.  Americans make alot more efforts to exercise than they used to do because exercise (esp for women) was not the thing.  The list is endless. Don't litter, spay and nueter your pets 


 




 

Flag CharikIeia July 2, 2012 5:33 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Cesmom wrote:


Everyone knows that high carb, high fat foods are cheaper than healthy foods.  If it were all about the financial crisis, people would be getting fatter not thinner.



I'm not so sure about this.


If one thing works for sure in society, it is the law of demand.


Less money to spend, less things will be bought.


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?



We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?

Flag jane2 July 2, 2012 6:25 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Cesmom wrote:


Everyone knows that high carb, high fat foods are cheaper than healthy foods.  If it were all about the financial crisis, people would be getting fatter not thinner.



I'm not so sure about this.


If one thing works for sure in society, it is the law of demand.


Less money to spend, less things will be bought.


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?



We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




I suppose there are "welfare queens". Two generations ago I did social casework in the Southern Tier of New York State. I had no "welfare queens" in my caseload of about 120 families, mainly on ADC. I worked with mothers on how to best use "surplus food". My mother was a certified public health nurse and she too worked with mothers on nutrition; she worked in Albany County.


Most middle and upper-middle class youngsters in the US drink very few soft drinks. Some even have their preferred brand of bottled water. We chuckle at the sort of people who order "Big Gulps". I first heard about them on a morning talk show hosted by a right-winger who appeals to "red necks" about 20 years ago. All of this was in the Atlanta area. (I do like many aspects of living here.)


Many of us have been aware of the mainly Republican penchant for a dumbing down the populace. When I was teaching in NYS in the 60s even our "slow" children were taught to think. I don't think that still obtains in many schools.


 




 

Flag Erey July 2, 2012 6:48 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Cesmom wrote:


Everyone knows that high carb, high fat foods are cheaper than healthy foods.  If it were all about the financial crisis, people would be getting fatter not thinner.



I'm not so sure about this.


If one thing works for sure in society, it is the law of demand.


Less money to spend, less things will be bought.


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?



We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




 


Your welfare queen quip would be relevant if it were just ladies on welfare that are obese.  We all know this is not true.  Obesity is higher in the lower income groups than the upper income groups but that is about all we can say.  Other than that it hits all groups, thats the problem isn't it?  It hits black welfare queens and asian accountants and not a few people one might call wealthy.  Even Oprah, often ranked the wealthiest self-made woman has some problem with the chub.  I don't believe she drinks soda.   


And yes, I don't think it is a huge leap for low income ladies to figure out how to maximize their own health. 

Flag Erey July 2, 2012 6:59 PM EDT

speaking of soda here is a fun quote from Andy Warhol:


 


"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it."

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 2, 2012 10:16 PM EDT

 


Jul 1, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Erey wrote:


Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


So education is doing SOME good.




Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:31AM, CharikIeia wrote:

 Non sequitur.


Obesity rates likely are down because people in the crisis don't afford so much food any more.




What doesn't follow from the evidence is that the rate of obesity declined because of a drop in the wealth of the consumers.   


The article from the link did not conclude that the drop in the rate of obesity was due to a drop in wealth. 


For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.  


There is no evidence that the premise, that a drop in wealth is likely to be the cause in the drop in obesity.   


However if your premise is true and your conclusion is therefore also true.  Then a further drop in wealth would produce a further drop in the obesity rates.  


North Korea is one of the poorest countries on the planet.  North Korea has  


 




 

Flag rabello July 3, 2012 12:39 AM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?




We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




Thank you, Charikleia.  It's not about "dummies" or "stupid" people.  It is about unhealthy people who happen to live in a country that has chosen to have no national health care and, if the Tea Partying Republicans are any indication, ready and willing to have another Civil War over providing health care to all Americans using precious tax dollars.


 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Erey wrote:


Your welfare queen quip would be relevant if it were just ladies on welfare that are obese.  We all know this is not true.  Obesity is higher in the lower income groups than the upper income groups but that is about all we can say.  Other than that it hits all groups, thats the problem isn't it?  It hits black welfare queens and asian accountants and not a few people one might call wealthy.  Even Oprah, often ranked the wealthiest self-made woman has some problem with the chub.  I don't believe she drinks soda.   


And yes, I don't think it is a huge leap for low income ladies to figure out how to maximize their own health. 




It's not about the "ladies" who are obese, whether it's a "black" single mother on welfare and medicaid or an "asian" accountant with one of the cadillac plans.  It's about the cost obesity-related illnesses that affect the society, at large, across the board, in either higher insurance premiums or increased charges for medical care received, and also the amount local, state and federal government has to spend using precious tax dollars to cover those costs for those without health care plans, which is more than 40 million Americans. 


Time to stop harping about soda and look at the bigger picture, I think.


***


Just a little over one month ago, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) presented a study at a conference, which stated that if current trends continue, up to 43% of American could be obese by 2030, with 11% of them being morbidly obese.   Also stating that if substantive public health efforts are not undertaken, now, things are going to get worse.  They also provided statistics that showed in 1960, 19% of Americans were obese, compared to 36% today, and showed that the obesity epidemic started in the go-go 80s. 


***


The single biggest reason obesity rates in children may have stablized is that so many schools across the country removed soda machines, snack machines, snack bars, and stopped serving things like bread sticks and marinara, in a clear violation of the students' individual rights, I presume.   Also, as Charikleia stated, parents buying less crappy snack food like pizza pockets for the kids to snack on when they get home.   That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of obese kids & young adults out there, still buying 42 ounce "Large" sugary drinks when they're out there on there own.

Flag Erey July 3, 2012 12:47 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:39AM, rabello wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?




We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




Thank you, Charikleia.  It's not about "dummies" or "stupid" people.  It is about unhealthy people who happen to live in a country that has chosen to have no national health care and, if the Tea Partying Republicans are any indication, ready and willing to have another Civil War over providing health care to all Americans using precious tax dollars.


 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Erey wrote:


Your welfare queen quip would be relevant if it were just ladies on welfare that are obese.  We all know this is not true.  Obesity is higher in the lower income groups than the upper income groups but that is about all we can say.  Other than that it hits all groups, thats the problem isn't it?  It hits black welfare queens and asian accountants and not a few people one might call wealthy.  Even Oprah, often ranked the wealthiest self-made woman has some problem with the chub.  I don't believe she drinks soda.   


And yes, I don't think it is a huge leap for low income ladies to figure out how to maximize their own health. 




It's not about the "ladies" who are obese, whether it's a "black" single mother on welfare and medicaid or an "asian" accountant with one of the cadillac plans.  It's about the cost obesity-related illnesses that affect the society, at large, across the board, in either higher insurance premiums or increased charges for medical care received, and also the amount local, state and federal government has to spend using precious tax dollars to cover those costs for those without health care plans, which is more than 40 million Americans. 


Time to stop harping about soda and look at the bigger picture, I think.


***


Just a little over one month ago, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) presented a study at a conference, which stated that if current trends continue, up to 43% of American could be obese by 2030, with 11% of them being morbidly obese.   Also stating that if substantive public health efforts are not undertaken, now, things are going to get worse.  They also provided statistics that showed in 1960, 19% of Americans were obese, compared to 36% today, and showed that the obesity epidemic started in the go-go 80s. 


***


The single biggest reason obesity rates in children may have stablized is that so many schools across the country removed soda machines, snack machines, snack bars, and stopped serving things like bread sticks and marinara, in a clear violation of the students' individual rights, I presume.   Also, as Charikleia stated, parents buying less crappy snack food like pizza pockets for the kids to snack on when they get home.   That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of obese kids & young adults out there, still buying 42 ounce "Large" sugary drinks when they're out there on there own.




You have decreed (in a very bossy manner) that this THREAD IS ABOUT THE COST OF OBESITY TO SOCIETY.  When at first (untill you ran that argument into the ground) it was about the effectiveness or according to Bloomberg himself the very dubious effectiveness of this kind of thing having any effect whatsoever on the obesity rate. 


So OK we can discuss the cost to society of obesity.  Fine, obesity is expensive.  Not as expensive as say smoking or hard drug use but yes it costs.


If Bloomberg himself has said this is not going to effect obesity why are you holding out so fiercely that it will?   And what in the hell do you have against public education on the subject?  Why do you have such a low opinion of the self determination and intelligence of common people?    And further, since Mayor Bloomberg himself does not hold alot of hope for this kind of law enforced size control what do you suggest?  Why will your suggestion work better or be superior to educational efforts?

Flag rabello July 3, 2012 1:42 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


You have decreed (in a very bossy manner) that this THREAD IS ABOUT THE COST OF OBESITY TO SOCIETY.  When at first (untill you ran that argument into the ground) it was about the effectiveness or according to Bloomberg himself the very dubious effectiveness of this kind of thing having any effect whatsoever on the obesity rate. 




You are, once again, misrepresenting what I have argued on this thread.   Not once, did I say it was about the "effectiveness" of Bloomberg's plan.   I didn't say because I don't know if it will be effective, or not -- and nobody else posting here knows, either, btw -- but there's a good chance that it will help some, if not a lot of people....just like making cigarettes more expensive and harder to imbibe helped a lot of people quit smoking.  In my world view, even a few helped is worth it, especially when what is being sold isn't necessary or healthy to begin with.


What I DID say is that a) people who sell things to the general public have a moral obligation to make sure what they are selling and the amount that they are selling isn't going to harm the people buying their product, and that b) nobody needs a 42 ounce sugar drink to wash down their meat lovers pizza, and that c) obesity-related illnesses are costing EVERYBODY in this society, even those asian accountants with cadillac insurance plans.


But I have known from the beginning, you just weren't getting my point -- probably because you don't want to.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


So OK we can discuss the cost to society of obesity.  Fine, obesity is expensive.  Not as expensive as say smoking or hard drug use but yes it costs.




Who says it's not as expensive?  Not public health officials.  More of our health care dollars go for obesity-related illnesses than either smoking-related illness or illness related to drug abuse.   A lifetime of disability is more expensive, in all categories, than an acute illness brought on by smoking or using drugs.  That's just fact.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


If Bloomberg himself has said this is not going to effect obesity why are you holding out so fiercely that it will?  




Never did.  Like I said, you never did get it after 22 pages of discussion.  It's "affect" not "effect" btw.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


And what in the hell do you have against public education on the subject? 




You still haven't said a single word about how "public education"  is going to work, nor have you said who's going to pay for it.   The word "public" implies precious tax dollars....do you favor using precious tax dollars to pay for your still undefined "public" education program?  And no, I'm not going to pay you for justifying your own positions on a discussion board.  Either you have an idea of what you're talking about or you don't.  Ebon did it and gave an excellent description, alas we still come back to who is going to pay for it?


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


Why do you have such a low opinion of the self determination and intelligence of common people? 




Why do you think that is even an issue at play here?  Have you never seen the drive up lines at the fast food joints?  Have you never seen that the majority of customers at such places are teenagers and young adults without parents to tell them what to buy or to pay for them?  Have you never seen kids and young adults, chugging down a huge glass of pop in a place that gives free "bottomless" refills. 


Why "in the hell" can't you see that it's about a public health issue instead of your typical judgments?


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


And further, since Mayor Bloomberg himself does not hold alot of hope for this kind of law enforced size control what do you suggest? 




His plan, as he said, is an effort.  I can see a reason for such an effort, in a city wehre MORE THAN 50% OF MINOR-AGED CHILDREN ARE OBESE. You can't.  OK. so what should society do about a situation where more that half the kids are dangerously overweight?  However, I do not understand what you are asking, based on the way your question is worded.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


Why will your suggestion work better or be superior to educational efforts?




Why would your suggestion to provide some un-funded kind of "public" education do what it has not been able to do as of yet?  Why would doing nothing but leaving it up to the consumers work better or be superior?  Don't you agree that sellers have a moral responsiblity to make sure the products they sell to the general public (meaning, for example, kids who ALREADY have diabetes) are safe and that the amount they sell to the general public is safe.  Don't you agree that children, especially have a right to expect the stuff that is sold to them won't hurt them?  Don't you agree that society should take care of the medical costs of the sick and disabled?   Or....do you think sellers should get carte blanche and people should be forced to live in the "bed they made" with their bad choices and die yount?

Flag Erey July 3, 2012 2:08 AM EDT

First, I am going to need a source that shows that more than 50% of the kids in NYC are obese.  Because that is above the national average - way, way above.  In fact, I am pretty sure you are being hyperbolic on the subject.


 


I don't think every time a young person chugs a bunch of soda it is a moral and social crisis.  I think you are really losing perspective here.  Were you a kid?  Did you never dig into junk food and soda?  Has that gallon of soda you drank with your buddies in high school ruined your health now?  Because if it has you are the only person that can say as much.  MOSt people, most thin people have enjoyed periods of over indulgence.  Most thin people really, really liked soda and french fries when they were kids and went for it every chance they got.  They went on to live relatively healthy lives.  Mind your own business and stop judging young people for ........being young!


 


Moral obligation  TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE CONSUMING THE PROPER AMOUNT!!!!!  Who the hell is going to declare what is proper?  Are you in favor of reducing the size of liquor bottles, no more liter size vodka bottles?  No more kegs of beer, no more large pizzas, no more family size boxes of Oreo cookies (I have been burned by that more than once).  For that matter, no more buying liters of soda?


Maybe you are just big in throwing around the term "moral obligation"?   So is this your solution?  Just radicaly alter how food and drinks might be sold?     Hey, maybe we can force retailers of processed foods to only sell high calorie items to people that appear to be of the appropriate weight?  You know, "I am sorry Sir, but you are too fat to buy this bag of candy."  Or "I can sell you this large pizza Miss but since you look a little puffy please be sure to not eat more than one slice in a sitting"     You know let's make buying processed foods as complicated as purchasing perscription medication.  A "professional" will make proffesional decisions on dispensing the food item and give advice on how it should be consumed? 


 


You know Rabello, if you think kids drinking soda is such a crisis of society then I am sure we can come up with a few dollars to spend on a public education campaign.  After all, such campaigns do exist and are funded from different sources.  I hear Bloomberg is a very rich guy, maybe he can float a few campaigns?  Just don't ask him to fund anything warning consumers on the dangers of eating too much processed meat (hot dogs).


 


All joking aside, I personally do think it would be a worthwhile effort to educate people on super sizes and really help them think about making those kinds of decisions.  Super sizes are not going anywhere.  You can be moraly outraged all damn day and it will not make them go away.  Ordering from a menu that features different sizes and a cost savings when you buy in volume is something that everyone faces and I personally have not seen any efforts focused on helping people with that. 

Flag CharikIeia July 3, 2012 3:19 AM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


What doesn't follow from the evidence is that the rate of obesity declined because of a drop in the wealth of the consumers.   


The article from the link did not conclude that the drop in the rate of obesity was due to a drop in wealth. 



The article didn't conclude anything about reasons, it just speculates about them.



For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.  



Wrong. Maybe it's time to follow a course in basic logic, TRUECHRISTIAN.

Flag rabello July 3, 2012 3:26 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 2:08AM, Erey wrote:


First, I am going to need a source that shows that more than 50% of the kids in NYC are obese.  Because that is above the national average - way, way above.  In fact, I am pretty sure you are being hyperbolic on the subject.




Did you read the article linked in the OP?  Apparently not.  Oh well.  No need to discuss any further.


The rest of your latest, off-topic screed is too much personal insult and attempt to humiliate, and too little reasonable analysis, to deserve comment, except to say:


There are 40 million people without health insurance in this country, and those in your political party want to deny them coverage for medical care, and deny public funds for Big Government Programs (such as anti-obesity educational programs -- just look at how members of your political party clobber Michelle Obama for her efforts in that regard -- for conditions that often are related to what they eat and drink. You and Bloomberg are the Republican social darwinists, not me.  What say you about REAL social problems, other than your rage over kegs of beer and large pizzas? 

Flag Girlchristian July 3, 2012 8:34 AM EDT

Here are the stats given in the article:


A document outlining the proposal said it was aimed at fighting an epidemic of obesity, citing public health statistics showing that 58 percent of New York City adults and nearly 40 percent of city public school students are obese or overweight.


It's not over 50% of school aged children are overweight, but it is a high number. That said, I still don't agree with Bloomberg's initiative as even he doesn't have confidence in it working and I see no reason to create laws just to try something, especially laws that limit an individual's freedom.

Flag mytmouse57 July 3, 2012 10:14 AM EDT

It still say, it's inactivity, not diet. 


When I was a kid, we gulped soda and wolfed down candy bars too.


But, in the summer, we were either on our bikes or walking/running around all day long. We burned calories as fast, or faster, than we consumed them. 


Now, kids plant their ass in front of an X-Box all day long. 

Flag Cesmom July 3, 2012 10:54 AM EDT

I think it's a combination of exercise and diet.  


There are people on this thread basically claiming that consumers are unknowing victims of smooth marketing schemes to get them to buy a Big Gulp, and in the same breath, pretending that education and disclosure of nutritional information would not be beneficial.  Talk about a contradiction!  Wow.


Flag mytmouse57 July 3, 2012 10:58 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Cesmom wrote:


I think it's a combination of exercise and diet.  


There are people on this thread basically claiming that consumers are unknowing victims of smooth marketing schemes to get them to buy a Big Gulp, and in the same breath, pretending that education and disclosure of nutritional information would not be beneficial.  Talk about a contradiction!  Wow.





Well, there is this thing called parenting.


You know, when you actually pay attention to what your children are consuming, and maybe allow them to enjoy sugary treats, without over-indulging. 


I'm just saying...

Flag Girlchristian July 3, 2012 10:59 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 10:14AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


It still say, it's inactivity, not diet. 


When I was a kid, we gulped soda and wolfed down candy bars too.


But, in the summer, we were either on our bikes or walking/running around all day long. We burned calories as fast, or faster, than we consumed them. 


Now, kids plant their ass in front of an X-Box all day long. 





I agree. We didn't drink much soda as it was a Friday night 'treat' but we did eat sugary cereals and snacks sometimes. However, once we got our homework done we were made to go outside and "get the stink blown off us" as my dad always said. Sitting in the house watching tv or playing video games all night was not allowed. In the summer, we'd go outside after we got our chores done and stay outside until we were hungry.

Flag mytmouse57 July 3, 2012 11:07 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 10:59AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 10:14AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


It still say, it's inactivity, not diet. 


When I was a kid, we gulped soda and wolfed down candy bars too.


But, in the summer, we were either on our bikes or walking/running around all day long. We burned calories as fast, or faster, than we consumed them. 


Now, kids plant their ass in front of an X-Box all day long. 





I agree. We didn't drink much soda as it was a Friday night 'treat' but we did eat sugary cereals and snacks sometimes. However, once we got our homework done we were made to go outside and "get the stink blown off us" as my dad always said. Sitting in the house watching tv or playing video games all night was not allowed. In the summer, we'd go outside after we got our chores done and stay outside until we were hungry.




Well, it comes down to parenting too.


I try to lead by example. And it varies, kid-to-kid. 


My two oldest boys, now youg adults, aren't as active as I would like them to be. They aren't all muscle and sinew, as I was at that age, but they're not obese either. I'd like to think that's partly because I got them intersested in physically active things when they were little.


With my step-daughters, it's not an issue. The 5-year-old is a little ball of fire, and you can't get her to sit still... LOL. The teenager is into sports and hunting, so she's motivated to eat right and work out anyway. 


My step-son is a little bit more of a hard case. He leans toward being an inactive home-body, and not making the best food choices. I'm tempted to go all drill seargent on him, but I think that would just be counter-productive. So, I try to invite him along on excursions, make it fun, and have things like fruit for snacks when we're out there. 

Flag mindis1 July 3, 2012 12:15 PM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 10:20AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

 


By The Way does anyone know what the penalties will be if this is made a law?  



$200 per violation. 


Jul 1, 2012 -- 10:20AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


How effective do you think that this law will be in reducing obesity?


Because I honestly do not think it will be that effective.  I do not think it will be effective enough to warrant the passage of this law.  



I believe the law will be entirely ineffective at reducing New Yorkers' obesity rate.  Earlier in the thread, I linked to this article about a study that shows that obese people usually drink diet sodas:  www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/11...  


I think it is absurdly overly-simplistic to think that this law will reduce New Yorkers' obesity rate. 

Flag mindis1 July 3, 2012 12:20 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:28PM, Erey wrote:


Bloomberg is on record for saying he does not believe this soda size limit will do anything in regards to obesity.  



Where did he say that?  The thing Rabello quoted on page 2 of this thread indicates that the goal of the ordinance is to reduce New Yorkers’ obesity rates. And there is a similar statement in the official proposal that I saw at the website of the mayor.


Why does not he want to enact this ordinance, if not for the purpose of reducing New Yorkers’ obesity rates?




Flag mindis1 July 3, 2012 12:22 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:19AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.  



Wrong. Maybe it's time to follow a course in basic logic, TRUECHRISTIAN.



Huh?  What is wrong with what TrueChristian said?

Flag rabello July 3, 2012 12:31 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Cesmom wrote:


I think it's a combination of exercise and diet.  


There are people on this thread basically claiming that consumers are unknowing victims of smooth marketing schemes to get them to buy a Big Gulp, and in the same breath, pretending that education and disclosure of nutritional information would not be beneficial.  Talk about a contradiction!  Wow.





Nobody has said "education" and disclosure of nutritional information would not be beneficial, so it's not a contradiction to expect sellers to sell things to the general public that won't harm them.   Why not both?  We already have some educational programs in place, and places already posting nutritional stats about the foods they sell.  How's that working out?


So far, besides Ebon, none of the critics have said how they think this educational program is going to work -- I'll say it again, look at how much flak Michelle Obama is getting for her very tepid and benign efforts in this field -- and more importantly, who's going to pay for this educational program?  Local taxes?  States are already strapped.  Federal taxes?? Talk about making anti-government conservatives and libertarians even more angry!!  They were ready to shoot people, particularly the President, over the very idea of using taxes to provide health care to all Americans.  Plus,  how are the people in charge of these creators of this educational program going to overcome the influence of sugar and corn lobbies, the restauranteers' lobby?  It's easy to come up with ideas that will, ulitmately, not become reality, which is the same thing as doing nothing.  A bit harder to come up with ideas that will have some teeth to them


Talking about nostalgia for the good ole days when some of us, anyway, could eat whatever sweets we wanted and drink gallons of pop or koolaid and stay our skinny selves.   Of course, back then the national obesity rate was under 20%!!! So....what changed between the good ole days and now?

Flag Cesmom July 3, 2012 12:39 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:31PM, rabello wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Cesmom wrote:


I think it's a combination of exercise and diet.  


There are people on this thread basically claiming that consumers are unknowing victims of smooth marketing schemes to get them to buy a Big Gulp, and in the same breath, pretending that education and disclosure of nutritional information would not be beneficial.  Talk about a contradiction!  Wow.





Nobody has said "education" and disclosure of nutritional information would not be beneficial, so it's not a contradiction to expect sellers to sell things to the general public that won't harm them.   Why not both?  We already have some educational programs in place, and places already posting nutritional stats about the foods they sell.  How's that working out?


I believe Char referred to it as a fairy tale idea.


So far, besides Ebon, none of the critics have said how they think this educational program is going to work -- I'll say it again, look at how much flak Michelle Obama is getting for her very tepid and benign efforts in this field -- and more importantly, who's going to pay for this educational program?  Local taxes?  States are already strapped.  Federal taxes?? Talk about making anti-government conservatives and libertarians even more angry!!  They were ready to shoot people, particularly the President, over the very idea of using taxes to provide health care to all Americans.  Plus,  how are the people in charge of these creators of this educational program going to overcome the influence of sugar and corn lobbies, the restauranteers' lobby?  It's easy to come up with ideas that will, ulitmately, not become reality, which is the same thing as doing nothing.  A bit harder to come up with ideas that will have some teeth to them


Nutritional facts are not prominently displayed or readily available at many restaurants.  Requiring them to be prominently displayed and/or readily available wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.  It would cost the business.  I would think you would be on board with that idea.


Talking about nostalgia for the good ole days when some of us, anyway, could eat whatever sweets we wanted and drink gallons of pop or koolaid and stay our skinny selves.   Of course, back then the national obesity rate was under 20%!!! So....what changed between the good ole days and now?


As has already been noted by others, lack of activity comes heavily into play as well.





Flag rabello July 3, 2012 12:46 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 11:07AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Well, it comes down to parenting too.




That's fine.  Who would disagree with that?


But what about all those kids who don't have parents who can guide them, whether it's due to some sort of disability they have, themselves, or lack of knowledge, or basic lack of parenting skills?  What about these kids who lack the guidance you provide?


It appears that the consensus, here, is to just let them suffer with lifetime disabilities and ailments, courtesy of the bed their parents made for them.


What has not been stated yet, by the majority of critics, even though the question has been asked many times by now, do these children get to have the public pick up the "tab" through SSI, medicaid, food stamps, on a lifetime basis if need be?   And if the answer to that is "yes" and the states are already strapped for cash and going under (NYC is on the verge of bankruptcy, once again), does the state have any right to at least try to lower costs to their populace for out-of-control health costs? 


I would have liked to see some ideas from the critics regarding the answers to these questions, rather than snark, bawling out, personal insult, and rage over something that doens't even affect them personally. 


Apparently, the consensus view is that marketeers should have carte blanche to sell whatever they want, and it is soley up to the consumer to protect themselves and their kids, and if they make the wrong choice, it sucks to be 'them".  Society has no obligations.  Like Thatcher said, there is no such thing as a society.  Okee Dokee.

Flag rabello July 3, 2012 1:00 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:39PM, Cesmom wrote:


I believe Char referred to it as a fairy tale idea.




I can't speak for her but I believe she referred to it as a fairy tale idea because it won't work to convince people to avoid what is right in front of them for the taking.  Just like telling people about the dangers of cigarettes, including photos of diseased lungs and adults who can't breathe didn't convince people to give up smoking.  What succeeded in convincing a majority of Americans, over a long period of time, to give up smoking was to make it prohibitively expensive and regulate it to the extent that it became difficult to find a place to smoke outside of one's own home.    Those regulations were met with the same kind of derision we are seeing now for the very idea of regulating what sellers can push onto the most vulnerable of consumers.



Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:39PM, Cesmom wrote:



Nutritional facts are not prominently displayed or readily available at many restaurants.  Requiring them to be prominently displayed and/or readily available wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.  It would cost the business.  I would think you would be on board with that idea.




I don't have a problem with it.  I doubt Charikleia does, either.  I don't think it is THE answer, though, and I don't think it'll ever be mandated by law because of the influence of the sugar and food lobbies and the big business lobbies.



Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:39PM, Cesmom wrote:



As has already been noted by others, lack of activity comes heavily into play as well.




Which is why physical education in schools is mandated, maybe by now some states have cut out a PE requirement.  Regardless, I would expect conservatives and libertarians to be against such regulation of children's activity levels, to be consistent and retain credibility.  It should be personal choice, and government should have no business making kids take PE or play sports, especially on the public dime.  If they turn out to be disabeled for life from it, it's the personal choice they made.  That, at least, is how I see the claim should go.

Flag Erey July 3, 2012 3:10 PM EDT

You can't reduce sugar consumption in the same way you reduced cigarettes.


 


First, everyone loves sugar.  You take someone who has been removed from society their whole lives and never had anything with sugar in it, offer them sugar and they will be delighted.  People love to video tape their babies first taste of sugar because it is such an expression of shock and pleasure.   Nobody, nowhere wants to give up sugar, we all want it at least occaisionaly.


 


Counter that with cigarettes, the first experience with cigarettes is one of disgust, you have to work hard to devlop a smoking habit becuase it is so unpleasant.  Counter that with other people find the smell of smoke on you unpleasant and don't want to be around you while you are smoking. 


Ex smokers don't want to smoke you are never going to get ex sugar eaters who don't want to eat sugar. 


If you waned to tax sugar I suppose you could and that might somehow reduce the amount of sugar consumed.  However I don't think we are there yet and I don't support that measure.  I would support ending the subsidy on corn which would make HFCS more expensive and therefore rise to it's natural price. 


 


People who can't take responsibility for themselves and become obese, I am sorry for them but I really don't want to make it against the law to be obese.  Also, people who have very little going on upstairs might not have very many pleasures and really just like to eat.  NOr do I want a bunch of sanctimonious liberals making it their business to harras the hell out of businesses that sell soda or fat people.  Part of living in an open society with personal freedoms is you get people who have lifestyles you don't approve and you just have to live with it.


 


Also, I disagree with Rabello that fat people or not fat but soda drinking young people are really our business.   Now that food is cheap and plentiful and easily available we are going to have more fattness.  That is just the way it is, unless you want to radicaly change society (I don't ).


 


Now if people exercise, even if they are fat if they are fat and fit they typically don't have the health concerns that innactive people experience.   Exercise really and truly is the health tonic. 

Flag CharikIeia July 3, 2012 5:01 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:22PM, mindis1 wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:19AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.  



Wrong. Maybe it's time to follow a course in basic logic, TRUECHRISTIAN.



Huh?  What is wrong with what TrueChristian said?



Follow the mentioned course to find out! Here a pertinent online lesson:


academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/1/14...


I am not surprised that you, too, show a gap here, mindis...

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 3, 2012 5:45 PM EDT


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


What doesn't follow from the evidence is that the rate of obesity declined because of a drop in the wealth of the consumers.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:19AM, CharikIeia wrote:

 


The article from the link did not conclude that the drop in the rate of obesity was due to a drop in wealth. 



I





Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:19AM, CharikIeia wrote:


The article didn't conclude anything about reasons, it just speculates about them.



I agree that the article did not conclude that the reason for the drop in obesity rates had anything to do with "education".




Nor did the article....speculate-conclude that the obesity rates were down due to a crisis in the economny that led not being able to buy as much food.  


Your speculation is a NON-SEQUITAR.  


However the article did state that traditionally those childern who were from low-income familes had HIGHER rates of obesity.  Therefore it does follow that lowered incomes due to an economic crisis will NOT have an effect on lowered obesity rates.  




For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.



 


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:19AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Wrong. Maybe it's time to follow a course in basic logic, TRUECHRISTIAN




I have been wrong before.  But not this time.  Following the advice of the immoral Ayn Rand to "Check Your Premises" 


I looked up Non-Sequitar


"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)


I repeat, if your premise that the crisis in the economny is the cause of lowered obesity because people are unable to buy excessive  food that causes obesity then it follows that the more income that is lost the lower the obesity rates will be.  


What is as of yet a Non-Sequitar is the the criminalization of selling sugar drinks that are larger than 16 oz.  sold in movie theaters or resurants  in NYC will have any significant drop or any drop at all in the rate of obesity in either minors or adults.   


There are no recommendations by nutritionist or public health officals, or studies that I am aware of that say it this law will accomplish what it is set out to accomplish.


The president of the United States must be 35 years of age or older. (True Premise)Elizabeth Taylor is president of the United States.(False Premise) So, Elizabeth Taylor must be 35 years of age or older.


Not true because Elizabeth Taylor, is not, nor ever was the President of the United States. 


 


 



"If Elizabeth Taylor is president of the United States, then Elizabeth Taylor must be 35 years of age or older. Elizabeth Taylor is president of the United States.(False Premise)  So, Elizabeth Taylor must be 35 years of age or older." 


Not true because Elizabeth Taylor, is not, nor ever was the President of the United States.


But "IF" she was the President of the United States, THEN if would be logically follow the conclusion that Pres. Elizabeth Taylor MUST be 35 years or older. 


The president of the United States must be 35 years of age or older. Barrack Obama  IS president of the United States. So, Barrack Obama MUST be 35 years of age or older.


--or--


If Barrack Obama is president of the United States, then Barrack Obama must be 35 years of age or older. Barrack Obama IS president of the United States. So, Barrack Obama must be 35 years of age or older.


Both statemensts are logically valid because both premises are true. 


 


 


 

Flag mindis1 July 3, 2012 7:36 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 5:01PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:22PM, mindis1 wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:19AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.  



Wrong. Maybe it's time to follow a course in basic logic, TRUECHRISTIAN.



Huh?  What is wrong with what TrueChristian said?



Follow the mentioned course to find out! Here a pertinent online lesson:


academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/1/14...



I understood TC’s statement as merely expressing this fact (from your link):


Validity is a guarantee of a true conclusion when the premises are true . . .


Which was evidently his point.


The syllogism used at your link is this:


The president of the United States must be 35 years of age or older.


Elizabeth Taylor is president of the United States.


So, Elizabeth Taylor must be 35 years of age or older.


The argument is valid but not sound, that is, at least one of the premises is false. The fact that this particular conclusion happens to be a true statement about Elizabeth Taylor has nothing to do with the validity of the argument. One cannot deduce a true conclusion from a false premise. Right?


The soundness of an argument is a result or function of the argument’s validity. One cannot have a sound argument without having a valid argument.


A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.


www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


I do not really understand the point of the brief page you linked to. It seems the only reason one would be noting that even an invalid argument can enjoy a true statement as its conclusion would be for first-year logic students who are trying to figure out how to check the validity of an argument. Second-year students are not confused about issues of validity and soundness.  One can always check validity of a syllogism with a Venn diagram.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 5:01PM, CharikIeia wrote:

I am not surprised that you, too, show a gap here, mindis...



Why do you say that? You have never known me to assert either an invalid or unsound argument, have you? You have never pointed out where I have asserted either an invalid or false conclusion in any of the many arguments that I have articulated. Right?

Flag rabello July 3, 2012 11:29 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:10PM, Erey wrote:


NOr do I want a bunch of sanctimonious liberals making it their business to harras the hell out of businesses that sell soda or fat people. 




Ummm.....Bloomberg is a conservative Republican


(but his asking food sellers to sell reasonable and rational portions isn't "harrassing 'the hell'" out of them.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:10PM, Erey wrote:


Part of living in an open society with personal freedoms is you get people who have lifestyles you don't approve and you just have to live with it.




You mean like lifetime disability payments through the Social Security system, and lifetime medical care through the medicaid program....right?


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:10PM, Erey wrote:


Also, I disagree with Rabello that fat people or not fat but soda drinking young people are really our business.  




Yep, just Maggie Thatcher and her bosom buddy Ronald Reagan said, there's no such thing as society, just individuals.  Yesirree. 


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:10PM, Erey wrote:


Now that food is cheap and plentiful and easily available we are going to have more fattness.  That is just the way it is, unless you want to radicaly change society (I don't ).


Now if people exercise, even if they are fat if they are fat and fit they typically don't have the health concerns that innactive people experience.   Exercise really and truly is the health tonic. 




So, since you know more than the public health scientists and scientists with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), who just recently warned us how the obesity epidemic in this country is going to increase medical costs for all of us, with a projected 43% of Americans being obese by 2030, please explain the jump in obesity from 19% in 1960 to 36% in 2010, and possibly to 43% by 2030, and how we are going to deal with it?  The scientists you are ignoring have ideas....do you?

Flag CharikIeia July 4, 2012 2:44 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 7:36PM, mindis1 wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 5:01PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:22PM, mindis1 wrote:


Jul 3, 2012 -- 3:19AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.  



Wrong. Maybe it's time to follow a course in basic logic, TRUECHRISTIAN.



Huh?  What is wrong with what TrueChristian said?



Follow the mentioned course to find out! Here a pertinent online lesson:


academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/1/14...



I understood TC’s statement as merely expressing this fact (from your link):


Validity is a guarantee of a true conclusion when the premises are true . . .


Which was evidently his point.



Well, MY point is: If you use exact terminology, use it exactly.


If your point is fuzzy and requires some socialising / implicit streamlined thinking (your "evidently" is a telltale sign for this), then you needn't use exact, well-defined, explicit language.


The statement the true Christian made war false, plain and simple.


For a conclusion to be true, the premises can be anything. They need not be true. Which is exactly, literally, unequivocally, undeniably what the true Christian claimed.



Jul 3, 2012 -- 5:01PM, CharikIeia wrote:

I am not surprised that you, too, show a gap here, mindis...



Why do you say that?



It gets too personal here.


Let me ask you to be a friend, then we can talk about it in private messages :-)

Flag CharikIeia July 4, 2012 3:01 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 5:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


I agree that the article did not conclude that the reason for the drop in obesity rates had anything to do with "education".



Fine to establish an agreement here.



Nor did the article....speculate-conclude that the obesity rates were down due to a crisis in the economny that led not being able to buy as much food.  



Correct, and I never claimed it did. It was purely my own speculation.



Your speculation is a NON-SEQUITAR (sic!).



Maybe. It's hard to apply strict logical standards to the real world. If we did, we'd have to concede that even the law of gravity may not hold everywhere and always, and that by arguing from mere limited human observation, one cannot conclude truth of the law.



However the article did state that traditionally those childern who were from low-income familes had HIGHER rates of obesity.



Indeed.



Therefore it does follow that lowered incomes due to an economic crisis will NOT have an effect on lowered obesity rates.



Non sequitur on your part now.


From a positive association between poverty and obesity in the past, we cannot draw any causal conclusion about what will happen when more people get poor. It could be a lot of things.


E.g., there may be a common cause "low self command" which in the past led to both an inclination to become obese and to lower money-making capability, resulting in the observed association. When people now get poor because of the recession, this does not mean they lack self-command, and they therefore may not have a higher tendency to become obese - making for an overall lower obesity rate among the poor. Just one example for a possible mechanism...


Why not follow that darn course and get your logic right?

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 4, 2012 10:55 AM EDT

 


Jul 3, 2012 -- 5:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


I agree that the article did not conclude that the reason for the drop in obesity rates had anything to do with "education".



Fine to establish an agreement here.



Nor did the article....speculate-conclude that the obesity rates were down due to a crisis in the economny that led not being able to buy as much food.  



Correct, and I never claimed it did. It was purely my own speculation.



Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:01AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Your speculation is a NON-SEQUITAR (sic!).



Which speculation are you referring too? 


 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:01AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Maybe. It's hard to apply strict logical standards to the real world. If we did, we'd have to concede that even the law of gravity may not hold everywhere and always, and that by arguing from mere limited human observation, one cannot conclude truth of the law.



It is reasonable to conlude that due not only the vast number of obeservations of the universe that it is very, very, very, very, very, very, likely that the law of gravity "probably"  does exist everywhere in the universe. Or at least the macro-universe. 


While the law of gravity has and does exist in the macro-universe in the past and in present it is reasonable to conclude it is very,very, very, probable that is will exist in the future. 


However the article did state that traditionally those childern who were from low-income familes had HIGHER rates of obesity.


This establishes the "probabilty" of the law of gravity is true. 


It is true enough for me not to jump naked off  a sixty story building.  


 



Indeed.



Therefore it does follow that lowered incomes due to an economic crisis will NOT have an effect on lowered obesity rates.




Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:01AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Non sequitur on your part now.


From a positive association between poverty and obesity in the past, we cannot draw any causal conclusion about what will happen when more people get poor. It could be a lot of things.


E.g., there may be a common cause "low self command" which in the past led to both an inclination to become obese and to lower money-making capability, resulting in the observed association. When people now get poor because of the recession, this does not mean they lack self-command, and they therefore may not have a higher tendency to become obese - making for an overall lower obesity rate among the poor. Just one example for a possible mechanism...


Why not follow that darn course and get your logic right?




I agree. There may be other reasons besides the reccession that has led to the drop in the rates of obesity.   The "speculation" that it does is overly simplistic.  


However since it is reasonable to conclude from the evidence that poverty was A factor in the past that in obesity in lower income people it reasonable to conlude that it will be probalbly be  A factor , but NOT the ONLY factor in the future. 


Is Mayor Bloomberg's proposed law to ban the sale of drinks that contain sugar and are larger than 16 oz from movie theaters and resturants in NYC logical?  


Because as far as I can tell there are numerous NON-SEQUITORS involved in the proposed law.  


Flag mindis1 July 4, 2012 11:29 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 7:36PM, mindis1 wrote:


One cannot deduce a true conclusion from a false premise.  



Did I say that? And bolded it? Oh, no!


One can deduce a true conclusion from a false premise. The Elizabeth Taylor/President syllogism is an example. What I was thinking was something like this:


P1: All buildings are 40 stories tall.


P2: The Empire State Building is a building.


C: Therefore, the Empire State Building is 40 stories tall.


The argument is valid, and the conclusion is false. The conclusion is false because P1 is a false statement. And somehow from such an example, in my not-entirely-sober state last night, I made that unequivocally false statement, and bolded it! Yikes!!  OK, no more wine for me before 5 o'clock.  

Flag Cesmom July 4, 2012 12:03 PM EDT

Not that public awareness could become viral or change public perception or anything...from Facebook...



Flag rabello July 4, 2012 12:48 PM EDT

Jul 4, 2012 -- 10:55AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Is Mayor Bloomberg's proposed law to ban the sale of drinks that contain sugar and are larger than 16 oz from movie theaters and resturants in NYC logical?  




It's not illogical.  You made it through childhood and early adulthood without mega-sized glasses of supersugary drinks, didn't you?  


What do you think society should do about the fact that 3x as many people are obese/overweight today than there was 30 years ago, before the "greed-is-good/more-is-better" Reagan Revolution, which also taught people that the scariest thing on earth was somebody from the government "showing up" to "help"?

Flag rabello July 4, 2012 12:58 PM EDT

Jul 4, 2012 -- 12:03PM, Cesmom wrote:


Not that public awareness could become viral or change public perception or anything...from Facebook...






Lets just hope everybody in America sees that blurb on Facebook AND recognizes the correct significance of the message, assuming they see this on Facebook.


Similar depictions of junk food hasn't afffected patronage of McDonalds/Burger King/Wendy's/Jack in the Box/KFC/Der Weinerschnitzel/Arby's/ETC -- or in what these establishments sell or serve to the general public.  

Flag Ebon July 4, 2012 7:49 PM EDT

Jul 4, 2012 -- 12:48PM, rabello wrote:

What do you think society should do about the fact that 3x as many people are obese/overweight today than there was 30 years ago, before the "greed-is-good/more-is-better" Reagan Revolution, which also taught people that the scariest thing on earth was somebody from the government "showing up" to "help"?



Can't help much with undoing the Reagan "Revolution" (which was really just a return to the oldest philosophy of all) but here's an idea: Levy an additional tax on fast food companies. Why not? We tax other things society frowns upon, like cigarettes and booze, why not fast food? Sure, it's radical and I'm not even sure it would work (I'm just spitballing ideas here) but maybe we need something radical. We need to move fast food from an everyday staple to a once-in-a-while food. While we're at it, let's get rid of the subsidy on growing corn, most of which gets turned into HFCS. And you guys so need proper labelling. I need to be able to look at the side of my cup and know exactly how much sugar it has in it, I need to be able to pick up a bag of chips, look at the back and know exactly how much fat it has in it.


As I see it, there would be two main groups opposed: The fast food lobby would hate it for obvious reasons and the kneejerk anti-government types would hate it because they'd hate almost anything the government did. The problem with doing something about public health in the States is that you don't have an overarching body responsible for overseeing the public health. Here, the NHS has loads of information on losing weight. I could walk into my doctor's office tomorrow and get all kinds of advice including a personalised diet and excercise plan if I wanted one. But because you don't have such a unified structure, getting good information to people is much more difficult.


Do your schools teach home economics? That's what cooking decent meals would come under. Here, it's been rolled into PSE (Personal & Social Education, essentially what's needed to be a decent member of society and isn't covered by the other subjects). Educating the public needs to start young so let's start it in schools. I think learning how to cook decent healthy meals is something that could be done in schools. If schools don't have the facilities to do it, they could partner with a local culinary college. Maybe we'll discover a few great chefs of the future that way.


Maybe the state could subsidise community gyms and swimming pools. Encourage people to excercise by making it cheaper. While we're at it, pick out specific groups that could be catered for like a couple of hours especially for swimming with your kids or a couple of hours that are women only.


I'm just trying to think outside the box here (and I just know someone is going to claim that leaving consumers to do what they like is really outside the box), just throwing ideas out.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 4, 2012 8:15 PM EDT

 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 10:55AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Is Mayor Bloomberg's proposed law to ban the sale of drinks that contain sugar and are larger than 16 oz from movie theaters and resturants in NYC logical?  




Jul 4, 2012 -- 12:48PM, rabello wrote:


It's not illogical.  You made it through childhood and early adulthood without mega-sized glasses of supersugary drinks, didn't you?  



I didn't ask if was "illogical", I as if it was "logical."


However since according to Chak a syllogism with two false premises can have a valid(but not "literally true")conclusion. 


So once again I request either you or Chak to construct a syllogism that would lead to a valid conculsion involving Bloombers proposed law.  


You can use one false premise and one true premise, or two false premises or better yet two true premises.  


 


   


 


An yes I did make it through childhood and early adulthood without sugar drinks more than 16 oz being sold in movie theaters and resturants.  But it does not follow that if I could by sugar drinks in resturants or movies theaters that I would have been obese when Ichild or early adult.  That would be  "speculation".  


 



Jul 4, 2012 -- 10:55AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


What do you think society should do about the fact that 3x as many people are obese/overweight today than there was 30 years ago, before the "greed-is-good/more-is-better" Reagan Revolution, which also taught people that the scariest thing on earth was somebody from the government "showing up" to "help"?



I think that we should find out what is the cause of the increase in obesity. 


I think that we should find out what has caused the drop in obesity rates. 


I think that until we do find those things out we should follow the recommendations of public health officals and nutritionist. 


None of which involves making a it illegal to sell sugar drinks that are larger than 16 ounces in movie theaters and resturants. 


Upon further study, I do agree that a valid(but not "literally true")conclusion can be made if one or both premises are false. 


"What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:


All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green."

As I posted before, I have been wrong in the past and apparently was wrong now.  


The literal truth is that Soccrates was neither green, nor a cup.  


 




Flag rabello July 4, 2012 8:59 PM EDT

You seem to like making things more complicated than they are, TRUECHRISTIAN, by cluttering up the discussion with a bunch of off-topic but manufactured condundrums.


It something is "not illogical" then what is it?


However, "not increasing" is not the same thing as "decreasing."  And the scientists with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) say the obesity rates have levelled off but are not decreasing.  They estimate that health care costs to society will top $500 Billion dollars by the year 2030.


So, the question is why has the obesity rate levelled off (not decreased)?   Charikleia SPECULATES that it's because with the recession, people are eating out less, and are therefore, not eating as much fatty foods and drinking super sugary drinks in the mega-sized portions that restaurants serve.  That is eminently logical reasoning.   I added the speculation that the obesity rate among school aged children has leveled off because schools have cleaned up their acts when it comes to selling junk food to kids in the cafeteria, in snack bars and in vending machines.  


Either one of these speculations are more likely to be true than the assumption that people suddenly started paying attention to nutritional advice and are ignoring what is put right in front of their faces when they're eating out, dumping half the food they paid for into the trash because they suddenly know it's not good for them.  


What remains speculation is the idea that the obesity rate is "decreasing" instead of "leveling off" and won't spike once the recession is over.


I have to assume that since you and I made it through childhood and young adulthood without jugs of sugar drink, today's young people are no different and don't need it, either, and will make it without, too.  42 ounces is more that a fourth of a gallon by the way.  Does anybody need to drink a fourth of a gallon at one sitting?  Well, the merchants think so.

Flag rabello July 5, 2012 12:58 AM EDT

Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:49PM, Ebon wrote:


Can't help much with undoing the Reagan "Revolution" (which was really just a return to the oldest philosophy of all) but here's an idea: Levy an additional tax on fast food companies. Why not? We tax other things society frowns upon, like cigarettes and booze, why not fast food? Sure, it's radical and I'm not even sure it would work (I'm just spitballing ideas here) but maybe we need something radical. We need to move fast food from an everyday staple to a once-in-a-while food. While we're at it, let's get rid of the subsidy on growing corn, most of which gets turned into HFCS. And you guys so need proper labelling. I need to be able to look at the side of my cup and know exactly how much sugar it has in it, I need to be able to pick up a bag of chips, look at the back and know exactly how much fat it has in it.


As I see it, there would be two main groups opposed: The fast food lobby would hate it for obvious reasons and the kneejerk anti-government types would hate it because they'd hate almost anything the government did. The problem with doing something about public health in the States is that you don't have an overarching body responsible for overseeing the public health. Here, the NHS has loads of information on losing weight. I could walk into my doctor's office tomorrow and get all kinds of advice including a personalised diet and excercise plan if I wanted one. But because you don't have such a unified structure, getting good information to people is much more difficult.


Do your schools teach home economics? That's what cooking decent meals would come under. Here, it's been rolled into PSE (Personal & Social Education, essentially what's needed to be a decent member of society and isn't covered by the other subjects). Educating the public needs to start young so let's start it in schools. I think learning how to cook decent healthy meals is something that could be done in schools. If schools don't have the facilities to do it, they could partner with a local culinary college. Maybe we'll discover a few great chefs of the future that way.


Maybe the state could subsidise community gyms and swimming pools. Encourage people to excercise by making it cheaper. While we're at it, pick out specific groups that could be catered for like a couple of hours especially for swimming with your kids or a couple of hours that are women only.


I'm just trying to think outside the box here (and I just know someone is going to claim that leaving consumers to do what they like is really outside the box), just throwing ideas out.





You have some great ideas, Ebon.  They would be difficult to get passed though.   We do have labelling on packaged foods; how much people read those labels, and understand them, is the great unknown.  There is no such information on the foods we get at restaurants, although some do publish the data.  Again, who knows how many people look any of it up, or understand what they read.   I am not aware of any such labelling on drinks we get at any restaurant, although the contents are provided on bottled drinks.  That's where you find stuff like dyes, sodium, citric acid, HFC.


I would support taxing the fast food restaurants, even if they do pass that increase to their bottom line onto the consumer.   Perhaps a more expensive Whopper with Cheese and accompanying quarter gallon of pop would succeed at converting such foods from everyday to once in awhile.   There are a lot of family restaurants and things like sports bars and bakery restaurants that serve giant-sized glasses of supersugary drink and provide the free "bottomless" refills, so these would have to be taxed, too, in order to have any effect for ordinary people.


We do have the CDC and the NIH from which those who are interested can get nutritional and dietary information; not sure if it's comparable to your NHS.  And no, we don't have anything like PSE in schools; I don't even know if PE (phys ed) is required anymore, so many schools have cut back on extracurriculars, esp with the No Child Left Behind cannard.  I certainly agree with you that nutrition and cooking and competent shopping and sensible eating-out SHOULD be taught in schools, and that there should be community-based programs that sponsor sports for kids. 


You saw the angst the very idea of providing health care coverage to more Americans (the Affordable Care Act isn't even close to providing "universal" health care, not by a long shot) caused to Americans worried about "Big Gubmint" but "leave my social security and medicare alone!!"   I don't think any of these ideas could ever get passed in today's political climate, which is why people like Bloomberg (interestingly enough, a Republican) come up with other ideas to try to avoid disaster for his almost-bankrupt city.


Thank you, btw, for the good ideas you've shared here.  There are no easy answers.  But once a person carries those fat cells, they are there forever, unless they liposuction them out.  The cells just get smaller when one loses weight.  That's why it's better not to gain the fat to begin with -- something, I think, young people aren't going to take too seriously.

Flag arielg July 5, 2012 8:50 AM EDT

In Brazil ( I think it is an idea that comes from Korea) there is a  very popular cafeteria style restaurant system that charges food by weight.  You choose from a wide variety of foods and at the end of the line they weight what you got.  Much better than the "all you can eat" or fixed price type of thing which encourages waste cand overconsumption.


 Drinks don't have to be  an exception. Big sizes encourage overconsumption because one doesn't pay for the difference. (It is subsidized by those who drink less) People would be more judicious if they had to pay for it. I would much prefer something like this  than outright ban on  large sizes.


 


 

Flag Girlchristian July 5, 2012 9:25 AM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 12:58AM, rabello wrote:


Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:49PM, Ebon wrote:


Can't help much with undoing the Reagan "Revolution" (which was really just a return to the oldest philosophy of all) but here's an idea: Levy an additional tax on fast food companies. Why not? We tax other things society frowns upon, like cigarettes and booze, why not fast food? Sure, it's radical and I'm not even sure it would work (I'm just spitballing ideas here) but maybe we need something radical. We need to move fast food from an everyday staple to a once-in-a-while food. While we're at it, let's get rid of the subsidy on growing corn, most of which gets turned into HFCS. And you guys so need proper labelling. I need to be able to look at the side of my cup and know exactly how much sugar it has in it, I need to be able to pick up a bag of chips, look at the back and know exactly how much fat it has in it.


As I see it, there would be two main groups opposed: The fast food lobby would hate it for obvious reasons and the kneejerk anti-government types would hate it because they'd hate almost anything the government did. The problem with doing something about public health in the States is that you don't have an overarching body responsible for overseeing the public health. Here, the NHS has loads of information on losing weight. I could walk into my doctor's office tomorrow and get all kinds of advice including a personalised diet and excercise plan if I wanted one. But because you don't have such a unified structure, getting good information to people is much more difficult.


Do your schools teach home economics? That's what cooking decent meals would come under. Here, it's been rolled into PSE (Personal & Social Education, essentially what's needed to be a decent member of society and isn't covered by the other subjects). Educating the public needs to start young so let's start it in schools. I think learning how to cook decent healthy meals is something that could be done in schools. If schools don't have the facilities to do it, they could partner with a local culinary college. Maybe we'll discover a few great chefs of the future that way.


Maybe the state could subsidise community gyms and swimming pools. Encourage people to excercise by making it cheaper. While we're at it, pick out specific groups that could be catered for like a couple of hours especially for swimming with your kids or a couple of hours that are women only.


I'm just trying to think outside the box here (and I just know someone is going to claim that leaving consumers to do what they like is really outside the box), just throwing ideas out.





You have some great ideas, Ebon.  They would be difficult to get passed though.   We do have labelling on packaged foods; how much people read those labels, and understand them, is the great unknown.  There is no such information on the foods we get at restaurants, although some do publish the data.  Again, who knows how many people look any of it up, or understand what they read.   I am not aware of any such labelling on drinks we get at any restaurant, although the contents are provided on bottled drinks.  That's where you find stuff like dyes, sodium, citric acid, HFC.


If a person chooses to ignore labels and eat whatever they want then that is their right and you, frankly, can't do anything about that. If more people wanted nutritional information at restaurants and demanded it, then it would happen. Outside of demand from the customer, the easiest way to get restaurants to put out nutritional information would be to incentivize them to do so (tax credit, etc...) rather than punish them for not doing so.


I would support taxing the fast food restaurants, even if they do pass that increase to their bottom line onto the consumer.   Perhaps a more expensive Whopper with Cheese and accompanying quarter gallon of pop would succeed at converting such foods from everyday to once in awhile.   There are a lot of family restaurants and things like sports bars and bakery restaurants that serve giant-sized glasses of supersugary drink and provide the free "bottomless" refills, so these would have to be taxed, too, in order to have any effect for ordinary people.


Why wouldn't we tax the consumer just as we do with cigarrettes and alcohol? What makes food/drink so special that we tax the seller rather than the consumer? If someone wants to eat at BK, why is it that you don't expect them to pay the higher tax, but if someone wants to smoke cigarrettes you do?


We do have the CDC and the NIH from which those who are interested can get nutritional and dietary information; not sure if it's comparable to your NHS.  And no, we don't have anything like PSE in schools; I don't even know if PE (phys ed) is required anymore, so many schools have cut back on extracurriculars, esp with the No Child Left Behind cannard.  I certainly agree with you that nutrition and cooking and competent shopping and sensible eating-out SHOULD be taught in schools, and that there should be community-based programs that sponsor sports for kids. 


Here is one article that states that most schools don't require PE, healthland.time.com/2011/12/07/childhood...; however, reading other articles it looks like many of them stopped requiring it prior to NCLB.


When I was in school PE was required in the lower grades, but not in high school (which is when kids start buying more of their own food) and Home Economics was required to graduate high school, but that was many many years ago.


I agree that PE should be required from K-12 and so should home economics, but the problem then comes in paying for it. IMO, taxing fast food and 'junk' food (although that needs to be defined better), the idea stated in the article, would work. In my state, the tax money from cigarrette smokers goes to fund low cost health care. It's feasible that the tax money from fast food and 'junk' food could go to the schools to offer PE and HE.


You saw the angst the very idea of providing health care coverage to more Americans (the Affordable Care Act isn't even close to providing "universal" health care, not by a long shot) caused to Americans worried about "Big Gubmint" but "leave my social security and medicare alone!!"   I don't think any of these ideas could ever get passed in today's political climate, which is why people like Bloomberg (interestingly enough, a Republican) come up with other ideas to try to avoid disaster for his almost-bankrupt city.


Sometimes to get an idea passed, it's how one presents it.


Thank you, btw, for the good ideas you've shared here.  There are no easy answers.  But once a person carries those fat cells, they are there forever, unless they liposuction them out.  The cells just get smaller when one loses weight.  That's why it's better not to gain the fat to begin with -- something, I think, young people aren't going to take too seriously.


Unfortunately, it's part of being young to not take that stuff seriously. One of the good and bad things about the young is that they think they're invinsible and tend not to listen to authority.




IMO, the best way to fix the issue IS education along with a tax on consumers that purchase fast food and 'junk' food...similar to how we've been able to decrease the number of smokers.

Flag rabello July 5, 2012 1:28 PM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 8:50AM, arielg wrote:


In Brazil ( I think it is an idea that comes from Korea) there is a  very popular cafeteria style restaurant system that charges food by weight.  You choose from a wide variety of foods and at the end of the line they weight what you got.  Much better than the "all you can eat" or fixed price type of thing which encourages waste cand overconsumption.


 Drinks don't have to be  an exception. Big sizes encourage overconsumption because one doesn't pay for the difference. (It is subsidized by those who drink less) People would be more judicious if they had to pay for it. I would much prefer something like this  than outright ban on  large sizes.


 



Yes, that has already been suggested on this thread and completely ignored.  Those who WANT the 42 ounce glass of sugary drink and/or free "bottomless" refills DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY for what they consume.   They believe in the complete opposite of "supply and demand."   Meanwhile, those who only want an 8 ounce glass of coke (those don't exist anymore unless you're asking for orange juice), have to get an 18 or 24 ounce cup that is called "small" and pay more for it than they would 8 ounces, and then either drink it all because they paid for it, or dump it down the sink even though they paid for it, and help contribute to the pollution of the nation's waterways and ultimately the oceans, themselves.  All this so a seller doesn't have to carry any additional responsibilities over and above profiteering.


When you think about it, what you are suggesting would be the practical effect of what Bloomberg is proposing.   Nothing is actually being banned, but if a person wants more than 16 ounces, they pay for the additional ounces.  Sounds completely fair to me, especially when the addtional ounces aren't good for people.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 5, 2012 1:45 PM EDT

 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


You seem to like making things more complicated than they are, TRUECHRISTIAN, by cluttering up the discussion with a bunch of off-topic but manufactured condundrums.



I disagree.  


What I have been attempting to do is try and prevent manufactured condundrums.    


This thread is about the law proposed by Mayor Bloomberg to ban movies theaters and resturants only from selling a jug of drinks that contain sugar and  is larger than 1/8th of a gallon-16 ounces  to both adults and children.  


 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


It something is "not illogical" then what is it?



If something is not illogical then it is logical.  


However that does not mean it is "true".  


 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


However, "not increasing" is not the same thing as "decreasing." 



That sounds logical.Wink


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


 And the scientists with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) say the obesity rates have levelled off but are not decreasing.  They estimate that health care costs to society will top $500 Billion dollars by the year 2030.



So let's use the CDC as a source of information about obesity


If the rate of obesity stays at the current rate they speculate that by the year 2030 the cost to society will top $500  billion a year if the rate of obesity continues to rise to a rate of 42% by 2030 .  It says the rate of increase, is decreasing.  


"The big  headlines you see in this paper are that we predicted by 2030, obesity rates  will increase 42%, which is significantly less than the 50 plus percent.  It's greater than a zero percentage  increase.  For severe obesity, people  roughly 80 pounds or more overweight, we are predicting an increase of double from  roughly 5% today to 11% in the future.   Basically, one of the things we say in the story is because of the  rising prevalence estimates and growing population, there's going to be roughly  32 million obese adults in the U.S. by 2030.   That would mean an increase of $550 billion in total between now and  2030 due to rising cost of obesity.   Another way to think about that number is if we could keep obesity rates  flat or if they were flattening, we would save $550 billion.  So, those are the main take–home points in  the paper.  Now, what I would like to do  is stop and entertain as many questions as you have and try to clarify  questions or differences between these or other implications of the study."


 


 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


So, the question is why has the obesity rate levelled off (not decreased)?   Charikleia SPECULATES that it's because with the recession, people are eating out less, and are therefore, not eating as much fatty foods and drinking super sugary drinks in the mega-sized portions that restaurants serve.  That is eminently logical reasoning. 



Did the CDC "SPECULATE" as to why the rate of increase has decreased? 


Did the CDC "SPECULATE" that the decreased rate of increase was " because with the recession, people are eating out less, and are therefore, not eating as much fatty foods and drinking super sugary drinks in the mega-sized portions that restaurants serve. ".


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:

 


That is eminently logical reasoning.



So is


"All cups are green.Socrates is a cup.Therefore, Socrates is green."


I would be willing to bet more than a dollar either premises are not true. 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


  I added the speculation that the obesity rate among school aged children has leveled off because schools have cleaned up their acts when it comes to selling junk food to kids in the cafeteria, in snack bars and in vending machines.  



That sounds "eminently logical" but is it "true"?


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


Either one of these speculations are more likely to be true than the assumption that people suddenly started paying attention to nutritional advice and are ignoring what is put right in front of their faces when they're eating out, dumping half the food they paid for into the trash because they suddenly know it's not good for them.  



I speculate that it is more likely to assume that there was a combination of things that have led to a decrease in the increasing rate of obesity. 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


What remains speculation is the idea that the obesity rate is "decreasing" instead of "leveling off" and won't spike once the recession is over.



I agree that it is speculation that the rate of obesity has anything at all to do with the recession. 


However it is "eminently logical" that it will. 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


I have to assume that since you and I made it through childhood and young adulthood without jugs of sugar drink, today's young people are no different and don't need it, either, and will make it without, too.



Yes you and I did make through our childhood and through young adulthood without drinking a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks.  We also made it through our childhood and young adulthood by not drinking large sized jugs of sugary drinks and small sized jugs or super-sugary drinks.


I will agree that not onl todays young children, and young adults don't "need"(?)" to buy a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants but neither do older adults. After all, when I was a child-young adult older adults didn't "need"(?)" to buy a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants.


But does it follow that since no human being "needs(?)"   to buy a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants that it should be a crime to sell one?  


By the way, if this becomes a law why is it that only the "seller" is a criminal?


It is "eminently logical" that it takes both buyer and seller to commit this crime.  And the buyer does inititate the crime.  


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


  42 ounces is more that a fourth of a gallon by the way.  Does anybody need to drink a fourth of a gallon at one sitting?  Well, the merchants think so.




By the way 16 ounces is 1/8th of an gallon.   


 Who     established the standard that people "needs" to buy only one large  jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants at a time?


Was it the CDC?  




 

Flag rabello July 5, 2012 1:54 PM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


If a person chooses to ignore labels and eat whatever they want then that is their right and you, frankly, can't do anything about that. If more people wanted nutritional information at restaurants and demanded it, then it would happen. Outside of demand from the customer, the easiest way to get restaurants to put out nutritional information would be to incentivize them to do so (tax credit, etc...) rather than punish them for not doing so.




I have to wonder why you believe that.  Do you really think young people are going to stop long enough to "demand" that nutritional information be published and then make decisions based on that information?    You must also be unaware that it took more than 20 years of the kind of activism that you apparently reject just to get the food labelling that we do have mandated, over and above the objections and megabucks of the lobbies that control local, state and federal governments.  


So much for "demand."   Your prescription ultimate leads to doing nothing and your prescription punishes people.   Ebon's (and cesmom's) idea doesn't "punish" anybody.


If it were up to Republicans, businesses would get so many tax credits just for doing the right thing, they (businesses) wouldn't be paying ANY tax, at all, and therefore wouldn't be contributing to the upkeep of the nation that benefits them.



Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:



Why wouldn't we tax the consumer just as we do with cigarrettes and alcohol? What makes food/drink so special that we tax the seller rather than the consumer? If someone wants to eat at BK, why is it that you don't expect them to pay the higher tax, but if someone wants to smoke cigarrettes you do?




Where did I say that I only "expect" smokers to pay higher tax.   I said a long time ago, and more than once, that I agree with Charikleia, there should be a consumption tax on sugar.  I am not a Republican; therefore I am not "anti-tax".   The comparison to social policies that helped reduced smoking to social policies that could help reduce obesity was rejected, out of hand, early on this thread, and not by me (or Charikleia).


Ebon can correct me, here, but I think he suggested taxing the business and not the patron in order to make the idea more acceptable to anti-tax conservatives.   I already said, the businesses would just pass their increased cost to their customers, meaning that it would be the customers' who ultimately are paying for the tax FOR the business that serves them junk food and drink.


I can never understand why people's arguments, here, get so twisted, so quickly, all the time.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Here is one article that states that most schools don't require PE, healthland.time.com/2011/12/07/childhood...; however, reading other articles it looks like many of them stopped requiring it prior to NCLB.


When I was in school PE was required in the lower grades, but not in high school (which is when kids start buying more of their own food) and Home Economics was required to graduate high school, but that was many many years ago.


I agree that PE should be required from K-12 and so should home economics, but the problem then comes in paying for it. IMO, taxing fast food and 'junk' food (although that needs to be defined better), the idea stated in the article, would work. In my state, the tax money from cigarrette smokers goes to fund low cost health care. It's feasible that the tax money from fast food and 'junk' food could go to the schools to offer PE and HE.




Yes, none other than the American Medical Association agrees with you, that there should be a consumption tax on sugar, and that funds derived from such tax should be used for educational programs for minor-aged children, programs which would include PE. 


That suggestion was dismissed, outright, early on in this discussion, here.



Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:



Sometimes to get an idea passed, it's how one presents it.




There is no way that you can credibly argue that it was Democrats who presented heatlh care for more (if not all) Americans who presented it badly.   The true colors of the anti-tax, anti-poor, anti-social safety net, anti-universal health care, tea-partying Republicans (who claim to be "libertarians") were clearly "presented" by the Town Howls they held, complete with props like racist signs, nooses, monkey dolls and real semi-automatic weapons. 


Their "presentation" made both Republicans and Liberatarians look really bad.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Unfortunately, it's part of being young to not take that stuff seriously. One of the good and bad things about the young is that they think they're invinsible and tend not to listen to authority.




Which is just one more reason for society, at large, to take up the mantle, so to speak, just like teilhard tried to argue early in this thread -- to deaf ears, of course -- instead of standing by, doing nothing, muttering bromides all the time, based on an ideology that solves nothing.  At least Bloomberg is making an effort, which is surprising to me since he of the Republican ideology.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


IMO, the best way to fix the issue IS education along with a tax on consumers that purchase fast food and 'junk' food...similar to how we've been able to decrease the number of smokers.




Well, that's what I've been saying pretty much all along.  I never said "no" education, just that education, which we already have, isn't the only solution.  I also said that people who want more should just pay for more, by tax and purchase price of a second drink, or third drink, and why that causes just spitting rage is really unbelieveable.

Flag rabello July 5, 2012 2:48 PM EDT

I will need more time to address your entire post than I have now, TRUECHRISTIAN, but for now I'll say this in response to that:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


I disagree.  


What I have been attempting to do is try and prevent manufactured condundrums.   





All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green."
 

is a manufactured conundrum that isn't based on reality. 


This is more realistic:



-- Eating out where restaurants started routinely serving oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink has been linked to a significant increase in obesity in America, helping to create a veritiable "obesity epidemic".


-- Since the recession hit, people are eating out less frequently than they did prior to the recession


-- Therefore the recession is linked to a leveling off of the obesity rates, but this may only be a temporary trend that will be reversed once the recession is over, if restaurants continue to serve oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink.




In this respect, Charikleia's initial observation, that the plateau in obesity rates currently being reported is most likely due to a modification in people's behavior more than anything else is reasonable and logical.  And of course, she can correct me if I am misrepresenting what she meant when she made that noncontroversial observation way-back-when.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


This thread is about the law proposed by Mayor Bloomberg to ban movies theaters and resturants only from selling a jug of drinks that contain sugar and  is larger than 1/8th of a gallon-16 ounces  to both adults and children.  




Nothing is being "banned."  People who want more will pay for more, which is eminently fair.  This will ultimately have the effect of making people actually think a little bit about what they are buying and what they are consuming.  Plus, it will help businesses meet their obligations to "do no harm" to their patrons, altho I realize businesses are not required to take a businessman's version of the Hippocratic Oath -- maybe they should be required since their track record doesn't inspire confidence or trust.


Jumping to:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


By the way, if this becomes a law why is it that only the "seller" is a criminal?




This isn't about criminal behavior,  It is merely about violating an ordinance which would involve a warning and/or a fine, if the business is even caught, which would depend on the business being reported.


But the seller is the one at "risk" because it is the seller who is selling something harmful to the population, at large, in volumes that cause harm, to the general public, without regard to whom he, the seller, is selling to, which would, of course, include the most vulnerable segments of that general public, when he doesn't even need to be selling something harmful in volumes that cause harm.


For a seller to say "not my concern or my problem if that fat kid buying my 42 ounce coke has diabetes" is a total cop-out on the part of the profit-seeker



Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:



 Who     established the standard that people "needs" to buy only one large  jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants at a time?


Was it the CDC?  




No, it was the profit-seekers running businesses that decided to start selling unhealthy-sized portions of fatty and sugary foods to their patrons, which is a practice long decried by public health officials, and was the brainchild of some employee of a movie theatre who figured out he could get movie patrons to buy more in a single supersized serving in one transaction....quite cyncial of restauranteers to pick up that strategy which makes sense in a movie theatre but makes no sense in a restaurant where one has a personal waiter/waitress at his/her command.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 6, 2012 5:27 PM EDT

 


I will need more time to address your entire post than I have now, TRUECHRISTIAN, but for now I'll say this in response to that:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


I disagree.  


What I have been attempting to do is try and prevent manufactured condundrums.   





All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
 

Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:

 

is a manufactured conundrum that isn't based on reality. 



But it is based on logic.  It is a logically valid statement that isn't based on reality. 


I was discussing logic with Chak.   I confused "truth in reality"  with "logical valid" statements. 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


This is more realistic:


 


-- Eating out where restaurants started routinely serving oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink has been linked to a significant increase in obesity in America, helping to create a veritiable "obesity epidemic".


-- Since the recession hit, people are eating out less frequently than they did prior to the recession


-- Therefore the recession is linked to a leveling off of the obesity rates, but this may only be a temporary trend that will be reversed once the recession is over, if restaurants continue to serve oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink.




I would agree that it is more "realistic", more likely to be true, more likely to be a fact, more plausible, more probable, than Socrates being factually-really true either Socrates was either  green or a cup. 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


 


In this respect, Charikleia's initial observation, that the plateau in obesity rates currently being reported is most likely due to a modification in people's behavior more than anything else is reasonable and logical.  And of course, she can correct me if I am misrepresenting what she meant when she made that noncontroversial observation way-back-when.



Assuming that you have interpretated Chak's intial speculation correctly, why is it most likely that the cause is due to the recession?  


There could be reasons for the change that are "most" likely to be the reason for the change of haibits.  What she oberserved was a drop in the rate of increase.   What led her to conclude that the "most likely" reason was the recession? 


 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


This thread is about the law proposed by Mayor Bloomberg to ban movies theaters and resturants only from selling a jug of drinks that contain sugar and  is larger than 1/8th of a gallon-16 ounces  to both adults and children.  




 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


Nothing is being "banned."  People who want more will pay for more, which is eminently fair.



What IS being "banned" is the sale of drinks containing sugar that are larger than 16 oz. 


It might be "eminently fair" if there was evidence that the sale of such drinks was the cause of the increase in obesity.  But from what I have seen, so far there is no such evidence or recommendations by the CDC to do what this law is intended to do. 


 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


  This will ultimately have the effect of making people actually think a little bit about what they are buying and what they are consuming.



That is speculation without evidence.  


 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


  Plus, it will help businesses meet their obligations to "do no harm" to their patrons, altho I realize businesses are not required to take a businessman's version of the Hippocratic Oath -- maybe they should be required since their track record doesn't inspire confidence or trust.



What about the responibilty of the patrons to DO NO HARM TO THEMSELVES? 


I do not know what the sizes or the cost of drinks containing sugar are nowadays in theaters and resturants. 


However I am willing to bet more than a dollar that the smallest size is not 42 ounces.  


It is the responsiblity of the patron to NOT HARM THEMSELVES by buying a 42 ounce sugar drink.


Jumping to:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


By the way, if this becomes a law why is it that only the "seller" is a criminal?




 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


This isn't about criminal behavior,  It is merely about violating an ordinance which would involve a warning and/or a fine, if the business is even caught, which would depend on the business being reported.



Breaking an ordinace is a crime.  It isn't a felony, a seller won't be sent to jail, but it is a criminal misdeamor. 


The distinction between ordinace and law is one without much of a difference. 


Help me understand why the "seller" should be the "only" one to be fined for breaking the "ordinance" ?


Since both broke the oridinance both should be fined! 


It would seem "eminently fair"  that the buyer should be fined more than the seller because it was the buyer who intiated the breaking of the ordinance. 


 


 


 

Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


But the seller is the one at "risk" because it is the seller who is selling something harmful to the population, at large, in volumes that cause harm, to the general public, without regard to whom he, the seller, is selling to, which would, of course, include the most vulnerable segments of that general public, when he doesn't even need to be selling something harmful in volumes that cause harm.



They buyer is the one who is putting themselves at risk.   The buyer is buying without regard to the harmful effects.   The buyer doesn't need to buy the drink.  


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


For a seller to say "not my concern or my problem if that fat kid buying my 42 ounce coke has diabetes" is a total cop-out on the part of the profit-seeker



For a buyer to say "I want a coke  that is larger than 16 ounces, that I do not "need" but want to buy anyway and to put the responisblity on the seller is a total cop out.  To say that it is not the responibility the "buyer" to make intelligent choice is a cop out!  


 



Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:



 Who     established the standard that people "needs" to buy only one large  jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants at a time?


Was it the CDC?  




No, it was the profit-seekers running businesses that decided to start selling unhealthy-sized portions of fatty and sugary foods to their patrons, which is a practice long decried by public health officials, and was the brainchild of some employee of a movie theatre who figured out he could get movie patrons to buy more in a single supersized serving in one transaction....quite cyncial of restauranteers to pick up that strategy which makes sense in a movie theatre but makes no sense in a restaurant where one has a personal waiter/waitress at his/her command.



So if it makes since in a movies theater and not in a resturant, then the sales should by banned only in resturants. 

If there was only one size of sugar drink being sold at movie theaters and or resturants and that size was 42 ounces then I would agree that there is a problem.  


I agree that at a resturant it is the buyer who "commands" the waiter/waitress.  The waiter/wairess "obeys" the command of the "buyer".  


The buyer has the opition to command the "waiter/waitress" to bring him/her what he-she "wants". If the "buyer" commands the waiter/waitress to bring a sugar drink then the waitress/waiter does not have the option to decide that the fat buyer doesn't "need" a sugar drink.  


The fat buyer also as the option not to buy a sugar at all, of any size.   The fat buyer could buy orange juice or water or something to drink that does not bring them harm.  


I find it difficultan cynbical to believe that the fat buyer has no idea that he can consume as much sugar drinks as he commands and that it is not contributing at least in part to his being fat. 


 

Flag Ebon July 10, 2012 6:43 PM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:54PM, rabello wrote:

Ebon can correct me, here, but I think he suggested taxing the business and not the patron in order to make the idea more acceptable to anti-tax conservatives. 



That was part of it. The other part was that it amounts to the same thing either way since the company would just pass the taxes along to the consumer. Even teh tax on smokes isn't direct. You buy a pack of smokes, the taxes are included in the money you hand over to the retailer and the taxes are taken from the merchant. Taxing fast-food/drinks would work much the same way. The idea is just that, if your Whopper costs an extra dollar (for example, I have no idea how much a Whopper costs in the States), then you might think twice about it or save it for another day.


I'm not anti-fast food. I have no interest in shutting down Burger King (although maybe McDonalds) but eating this stuff every day is the problem. I love fast-food but I know it's bad for me so I only eat it once a month, my little treat to myself.

Flag Mlyons619 July 10, 2012 6:49 PM EDT
Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 10, 2012 8:29 PM EDT

Rabello 


I went to the movies this Sunday to see the new Spiderman movie.    


When the movie was over I saw the menu at the snack-fat counter.  


The menu did not give the size of the sugary drinks in ounces.   Instead it listed the calories.  


Large sugary drinks cost $5.50 and  1020 calories. 


Medium sugary drinks costs $5.00 and had 880 calories. 


Small sugary drinks costs $4.50 and had 640 calories. 


Large Popcorn cost $8.80 and had 950 calories. 


Medium Popcorn cost $7.00 and had 830 calories.  


Small Popcorn cost $6.00 and had 410 calories.  


The calorie count did not include butter(?)which the buyer could add themselves at a condiment counter.  


Large Candy costs $4.50 and had between 490 and 1150 calories.  


Regular Candy costs $3.50 and had between 340 and 540 calories.  


They also sold other crap there like hot dogs and nachos and cheese but I didn't copy them down. 


The General Admission price to see the movie was $13.00. 


The snack bar was doing a pretty good business.  


Much of the income from movie theaters is generated from the snack bar.  To the degree that the movie theater loses income from sales at the snack bar is the degree that the price of admission will increase.   


P.S.   nycbeveragechoices.com/


       www.votervoice.net/Core/core.aspx?Screen...

Flag Ebon July 10, 2012 8:40 PM EDT

Jul 10, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Mayor Bloomberg's Soda Ban Proposal v New Yorkers


Or


Hand's off my Big Gulp...



Yeah but this is a country where Jon Stewert and Stephen Colbert could assemble a huge rally for, essentially, being funny. California has shown that law made on public whim makes for really bad laws.


Jul 10, 2012 -- 8:29PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

I went to the movies this Sunday to see the new Spiderman movie.



Off-topic but how was the movie in comparison to the Tobey Maguire ones?


When the movie was over I saw the menu at the snack-fat counter.  


The menu did not give the size of the sugary drinks in ounces.   Instead it listed the calories.  



That's great. I encourage that kind of public information.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 11, 2012 8:37 AM EDT

 


Jul 10, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Mayor Bloomberg's Soda Ban Proposal v New Yorkers


Or


Hand's off my Big Gulp...



Yeah but this is a country where Jon Stewert and Stephen Colbert could assemble a huge rally for, essentially, being funny. California has shown that law made on public whim makes for really bad laws.


Jul 10, 2012 -- 8:29PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

I went to the movies this Sunday to see the new Spiderman movie.



Jul 10, 2012 -- 8:40PM, Ebon wrote:


Off-topic but how was the movie in comparison to the Tobey Maguire ones?



The movie that at saw was incidental and not important. To compare and discuss them would be off topic.  I will just say that I liked this movie more because the special effects were better/  


When the movie was over I saw the menu at the snack-fat counter.  


The menu did not give the size of the sugary drinks in ounces.   Instead it listed the calories.  



Jul 10, 2012 -- 8:40PM, Ebon wrote:


That's great. I encourage that kind of public information.




But the question is will it help to reduce obesity and diabeties.  


Apparently Bloomberg  and his supporters does not think it does.    

Flag solfeggio July 11, 2012 5:17 PM EDT

Well, as the Lord Mayor of the City of London, Boris Johnson, recently wrote in The Telegraph: 'It would be fair to say that Americans have issues with eating.'  But, so do the Brits.


Obesity costs billions and shortens lives.  So, as Mayor Johnson hastens to add: 'New York and London have responded in much the same way.  We all champion  healthier eating; we sing the praises of vegetables; we wag our fingers at cheeseburgers; we extol the benefits of exercise.'


Now, as Johnson continues, Bloomberg is asking the New York Health Board to approve a ban on soft-drink cups larger than 16 ounces.  And he bases his reasoning on the fact that humans generally eat what is put before them.  If you put a smaller portion before them, they will eat (or drink) less.


It makes sense.


Nevertheless, so far, as might be expected, the proposal has been the butt of jokes on TV shows, even though it is true that Bloomberg's smoking ban was also laughed at - until it was shown to work.


To quote Johnson: 'We should pay tribute to the continuing boldness of the mayor of New York...Bloomberg for President!'


www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/b...


 


 


 

Flag Sacrificialgoddess July 11, 2012 5:31 PM EDT

You know, I would think the businesses would love this. I mean, people wouldn't likely drink less soda, but the businesses would be able to sell more cups.

Flag mytmouse57 July 11, 2012 6:21 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Sacrificialgoddess wrote:


You know, I would think the businesses would love this. I mean, people wouldn't likely drink less soda, but the businesses would be able to sell more cups.




Don't forget the ice mongers. 

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 12, 2012 8:08 AM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:17PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, as the Lord Mayor of the City of London, Boris Johnson, recently wrote in The Telegraph: 'It would be fair to say that Americans have issues with eating.'  But, so do the Brits.



I don't know how "clueless" the Brits are or the New Zealanders or the rest of the obese people on the planet are, but if those in "America" are "clueless"  it is because they do not take the time to read the labels on the products they buy .   In America the products list the calories and the ingredents. 


Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:17PM, solfeggio wrote:


Obesity costs billions and shortens lives. 



No one disputes this fact. 


What is in dispute is why and what to do about it. 


Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:17PM, solfeggio wrote:


 So, as Mayor Johnson hastens to add: 'New York and London have responded in much the same way.  We all champion  healthier eating; we sing the praises of vegetables; we wag our fingers at cheeseburgers; we extol the benefits of exercise.'



And yet despite the fact that "we all(politicans)


Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:17PM, solfeggio wrote:


Now, as Johnson continues, Bloomberg is asking the New York Health Board to approve a ban on soft-drink cups larger than 16 ounces.  And he bases his reasoning on the fact that humans generally eat what is put before them.  If you put a smaller portion before them, they will eat (or drink) less.



Or it makes sense to reason that you buy smaller portions or not eat all that is put before you.


On the rare occasions that I dine out and I am served a large portion of food, I will eat my fill and if there is food left over I will either not eat it, or request a "doggie bag" and take it home.


 


Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:17PM, solfeggio wrote:


It makes sense.



What makes sense is for people to do what I do when I buy food, wether at a store or a shop. 


 


Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:17PM, solfeggio wrote:


Nevertheless, so far, as might be expected, the proposal has been the butt of jokes on TV shows, even though it is true that Bloomberg's smoking ban was also laughed at - until it was shown to work.



Were people making jokes about the proposals to restrict smoking in public places in New Zealand? 


Because I don't recall many jokes being made in America even before it was shown to work. 


 


Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:17PM, solfeggio wrote:


To quote Johnson: 'We should pay tribute to the continuing boldness of the mayor of New York...Bloomberg for President!'


www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/b... 




It is refreshing to hear praises for a very, very wealthy capitialist and member of the 1% from a socialist of the 99%! 


It just goes to show that not all capitlalist are "vultures"  who want to exploit the 1%.


  


Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The older I get, the less I like soda anyway.


I like 7-Up or Sprite when I'm sick with the flu. Other than that, it just has no appeal.


Ice cream remains my food vice.




When I was younger I liked soda more than I do now.  


When I do drink soda now I mostly drink plain soda and mix it with orange juice for flavor, or I drink ginger ale(Canada Dry).


My "vice" is that I am lazy and hate to exercise.   I used to like to play paddle ball and handball unitil I blew out my knee.   My other "vice" is that my metabolism shifted down to third gear at age forty.  



 

Flag Jcarlinbn July 20, 2012 9:00 PM EDT

moved from Hot Topics Zone

Flag Cesmom July 24, 2012 3:31 PM EDT

As I've said before, I think Bloomberg's attempt to control what businesses sell to willing consumers is absolutely ridiculous and over the top.


But...I will say one thing for the guy...he's certainly brought more attention to the issue.

Flag Idbc July 25, 2012 12:09 PM EDT

Howdy


Bloomberg says that he is not preventing people from drinking as much soda as they choose to buy. 


He is saying that if a person wants to buy two sodas that equal more than 16 ounces they are free to do so under this regulation-law.   


But at the places that Bloomberg wants to ban the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces people do have the choice to buy sodas that are 16 ounces.  


They are not being forced or restricted from buying a 16 ounce soda.  


If those places sold only sold sodas that were LARGER than 16 ounces then a law-regulation should be passed to require those places to sell 16 ounce sodas!  


 

Flag Ekdikos August 25, 2012 12:56 PM EDT

I saw this thread and couldn't resist -tried to skim through to the present (heh, "present"), but may have missed some things.



Have we mentioned the fact that this big-brother stuff has been steadily moving this way for a long time? How many here were on the "omg seatbelt laws" thread? Really, despite the differences, they are too similar in concept to have different opinions, unless you delve into some quacker's logics... Each controlling your behavior for both "your own good" and "the good of the whole." which is all the social contract is to begin with, right? Don't wanna sign the contract: go be a hermit, yes?


As a matter of fact, I can imagine a future where candy bars are sold in dime bags and there is a new confectionary bust every week... I mean, really, is it all that much different? Sugary substances stimulate dopaminergic neurons -the very definition of addicting. Perhaps the only reason sugar isn't considered "cocaine lite" is because we've all developed a tolerance for it (have you seen little kids on this stuff -especially when their parents normally restrict... If that isn't cracked out, I don't know what is... www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMYBRzStzo).


How can we really separate victimless "crimes" down an arbitary middle of what is socially acceptible and what is not? Simply, arbitrarily... Personally, controlling substances like sugar, caffeine, alcohol, sex, nicotine, Δ9-THC, LSD, DMT, and the list goes on, seems to be a time honored tradition, and one that we completely support until it comes to a vice we partake in ourselves.


Yes, I've read all about the cost in health care and all that, but if that is the first thing that pops in your head after reading the above paragraph, you've missed the point -it wasn't really about supporting the legalization of "victimless crimes," but more about the hypocracy involved in decided which or what...


Honestly, though, I'm not really certain how I feel about such regulating laws... Or drug laws in general, or any "crime" that has no definable victim beyond the consentual. On the one hand, I definitely like retaining personal freedoms and, you know, indulging in my nicotine and caffeine and so on... But, on the other hand, we don't really know what is good for us, in general, and myself included. Most of us are programmed like the "stupid" monkeys and rats, slapping the orgasm button until we pass out -instant gratification, distorted weighting of consequences based on temporal locality (distant consequences carry less weight than present ones, even though eventually the distant one's get here and are then huge... like type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or kidney failure), and defending our choices even to the point of smoking cigarettes through our tracheostomy tubes.


The question "but should we be allowed" is, I think, a basic question without much solid stuff behind it... Something to be treated as an axiom to be accepted or rejected, but never argued over (though, its implications can be argued till the cows come home, ha, so perhaps the stance on that should be cleared up before moving on...)

Flag NATAS August 26, 2012 8:07 PM EDT

Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


I saw this thread and couldn't resist -tried to skim through to the present (heh, "present"), but may have missed some things.



Have we mentioned the fact that this big-brother stuff has been steadily moving this way for a long time? How many here were on the "omg seatbelt laws" thread? Really, despite the differences, they are too similar in concept to have different opinions, unless you delve into some quacker's logics... Each controlling your behavior for both "your own good" and "the good of the whole." which is all the social contract is to begin with, right? Don't wanna sign the contract: go be a hermit, yes?



Is it a fact that the seat belt laws have saved lives and reduced injuries? 


Yes it has been mentioned that we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother.   


 The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  


 


Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


As a matter of fact, I can imagine a future where candy bars are sold in dime bags and there is a new confectionary bust every week... I mean, really, is it all that much different? Sugary substances stimulate dopaminergic neurons -the very definition of addicting. Perhaps the only reason sugar isn't considered "cocaine lite" is because we've all developed a tolerance for it (have you seen little kids on this stuff -especially when their parents normally restrict... If that isn't cracked out, I don't know what is... www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMYBRzStzo).



Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


How can we really separate victimless "crimes" down an arbitary middle of what is socially acceptible and what is not? Simply, arbitrarily... Personally, controlling substances like sugar, caffeine, alcohol, sex, nicotine, Δ9-THC, LSD, DMT, and the list goes on, seems to be a time honored tradition, and one that we completely support until it comes to a vice we partake in ourselves.



But there is no such thing as a victimless crime.    If there is a crime there is a victim.  


Those poor souls who buy supersized, supersugary drinks are the victims of evil, selfish capitialist who don't give a flying fluch about those who are addicted to sugar.  They are only concerned with making profits.  


Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Yes, I've read all about the cost in health care and all that, but if that is the first thing that pops in your head after reading the above paragraph, you've missed the point -it wasn't really about supporting the legalization of "victimless crimes," but more about the hypocracy involved in decided which or what...


Honestly, though, I'm not really certain how I feel about such regulating laws... Or drug laws in general, or any "crime" that has no definable victim beyond the consentual. On the one hand, I definitely like retaining personal freedoms and, you know, indulging in my nicotine and caffeine and so on... But, on the other hand, we don't really know what is good for us, in general, and myself included. Most of us are programmed like the "stupid" monkeys and rats, slapping the orgasm button until we pass out -instant gratification, distorted weighting of consequences based on temporal locality (distant consequences carry less weight than present ones, even though eventually the distant one's get here and are then huge... like type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or kidney failure), and defending our choices even to the point of smoking cigarettes through our tracheostomy tubes.


The question "but should we be allowed" is, I think, a basic question without much solid stuff behind it... Something to be treated as an axiom to be accepted or rejected, but never argued over (though, its implications can be argued till the cows come home, ha, so perhaps the stance on that should be cleared up before moving on...)




So the problems are:   


Who draws the line?  


Where should the line be drawn? 


What is the line that is being drawn?  


 


 




 

Flag Ekdikos August 27, 2012 5:47 PM EDT

Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


Is it a fact that the seat belt laws have saved lives and reduced injuries? 


Yes it has been mentioned that we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother.   


 The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  


 



Agreed on the first point, but that was more a question of whether or not people saw it was the same "type" of legistlation, big-brother-y and without clear nonconsentual victims. No doubt limits on sugary sweets would also increase life-quality and ultimately save lives, though not in quite as flashy ways as seatbelt laws -and I would see this as the tenative first steps toward controlling unhealthy food distribution.


Just for the record, if there could be some sort of guarantee that it would stay "big-brother" without the real danger of becoming an "evil, all-consuming overlord", I'd be all for big brother. And while the "slippery slope" is technically a fallacy, that one form of something necessarily implies a stronger form, power is a special subcase, like money or physical matter, where more tends to "want" more, attract more, etc.


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


But there is no such thing as a victimless crime.    If there is a crime there is a victim.  


Those poor souls who buy supersized, supersugary drinks are the victims of evil, selfish capitialist who don't give a flying fluch about those who are addicted to sugar.  They are only concerned with making profits.




The contention about the validity of a term like "vicimless crime" depends on the definitions you want to use for each word. If you prefer to define  "crime" as simply "wrongdoing" and "victim" as "one negatively affected by wrongdoing", then there would be no such thing as "victimless crime", since the only way to judge "wrongdoing" is by its negative effects... Now, if by "crime" we mean simply "illegal" and by "victim" we mean "a negatively affected, non-consenting person (or living being, if you rather) or one not of legal consentual age" then there are most certainly "victimless crimes." There are probably other ways to define each yielding subtle differences in if or what could be defined as "victimless crimes", but I think that expresses the point, and I'm pretty sure the primary dictionary definitions leave room for "victimless crime".


Also, taxpayers are not victims of the "victimless crimes", they are victims that it is a crime, and there is a difference. "Driving drunk" is not the same as "being drunk" -especially if you are "chillin" at home. In a similar vein, forcing people to pay for jail space for drug users does not make taxpayers "victims" of the drug users, because that is an effect of the legislation, not the action. Even if drug use leads to stealing (which is most definitely not the case for many illegal drugs and many drug users), drug use is not stealing... Besides, then bills would also have to be illegal, because they can lead to stealing as well. And if making your family sad is illegal, then becoming a plumber or interracial marriage should also be illegal, because quite a few families would be sad over these things... And there are many other categories people try to shoe-horn into the "victim" category, when they just don't really fit.


Unfortunately, as with a lot of these threads and issues, there are underlying considerations. As previously mentioned, which should be of higher importance, the individual or the group? Can a person be said to own their own body, their own life, and what does that mean? But also, what is the role of government to its people? Is government supposed to be a "big-brother" type, helping us with our choices and punishing us for bad ones, or is government supposed to be the grease and insurance that we act in expected ways to each other and come together in the common defense? The answers to these questions dictate the subsequent answer to questions like this thread addresses.


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


So the problems are:   


Who draws the line?  


Where should the line be drawn? 


What is the line that is being drawn?  


 



Yeah, who knows? I do find it funny that while on the one hand I wouldn't mind sugar becoming a controlled substance and am enough of a sheeple to appreciate the legislation forcing me to be a healthier person (or, at least have to work much harder at staying the same), on the other hand I am fiercely supportive of individualism and mostly opposed to the concept of "victimless crime", despite the fact I have very little interest in most of the vices associated with them.

Flag NATAS August 28, 2012 8:23 PM EDT

 


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


Is it a fact that the seat belt laws have saved lives and reduced injuries? 


Yes it has been mentioned that we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother.   


 The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  


 



Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Agreed on the first point, but that was more a question of whether or not people saw it was the same "type" of legistlation, big-brother-y and without clear nonconsentual victims. ]quote]


Give me an example of a "crime" in which there is "clearly" no victim. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:

 


No doubt limits on sugary sweets would also increase life-quality and ultimately save lives, though not in quite as flashy ways as seatbelt laws -and I would see this as the tenative first steps toward controlling unhealthy food distribution.



The question to what degree the quality of life would improve, how many lives would be saved, and would this warrant a law that would restrict the individuals rights and liberty? 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Just for the record, if there could be some sort of guarantee that it would stay "big-brother" without the real danger of becoming an "evil, all-consuming overlord", I'd be all for big brother. And while the "slippery slope" is technically a fallacy, that one form of something necessarily implies a stronger form, power is a special subcase, like money or physical matter, where more tends to "want" more, attract more, etc.


Just for the record there is no way of "guranteeing"  that Big Brother will not become an "evil, all powerful overload".  


 


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


But there is no such thing as a victimless crime.    If there is a crime there is a victim.  


Those poor souls who buy supersized, supersugary drinks are the victims of evil, selfish capitialist who don't give a flying fluch about those who are addicted to sugar.  They are only concerned with making profits.




Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


The contention about the validity of a term like "vicimless crime" depends on the definitions you want to use for each word. If you prefer to define  "crime" as simply "wrongdoing" and "victim" as "one negatively affected by wrongdoing", then there would be no such thing as "victimless crime", since the only way to judge "wrongdoing" is by its negative effects... Now, if by "crime" we mean simply "illegal" and by "victim" we mean "a negatively affected, non-consenting person (or living being, if you rather) or one not of legal consentual age" then there are most certainly "victimless crimes." There are probably other ways to define each yielding subtle differences in if or what could be defined as "victimless crimes", but I think that expresses the point, and I'm pretty sure the primary dictionary definitions leave room for "victimless crime".



By crime I mean something that is wrong by the standards of law.  


Some that is wrong, something that negatively effects someone else but is not "illegal" is immoral-unethical, it may be "commonly" called a crime, but not legally.  


In "legal theory" all crimes are immoral-unethical and have "victims">  


 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Also, taxpayers are not victims of the "victimless crimes", they are victims that it is a crime, and there is a difference.



I agree.  However, it could be argued that people who are arrested and incarcerated for a crime that does have a victim should either pay for their incarcarated or be made to do work which will pay for their incarceration.  


 People being arrested and incarcerated for being drunk or under the influence of a drug to "prevent" other people from being "victims". 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


"Driving drunk" is not the same as "being drunk" -especially if you are "chillin" at home. In a similar vein, forcing people to pay for jail space for drug users does not make taxpayers "victims" of the drug users, because that is an effect of the legislation, not the action. Even if drug use leads to stealing (which is most definitely not the case for many illegal drugs and many drug users), drug use is not stealing... Besides, then bills would also have to be illegal, because they can lead to stealing as well. And if making your family sad is illegal, then becoming a plumber or interracial marriage should also be illegal, because quite a few families would be sad over these things... And there are many other categories people try to shoe-horn into the "victim" category, when they just don't really fit.



What incarceration does is to prevent people from being victims of people who do something that causes victims.   That is a legimate function and duty of "big brother-government.  


The problem with the "War on Drugs"  is the same as the problem with the "War on Alcholol" aka "Prohibition".   We had sense enough to end that "Un-Winnable" but not to end "The War on Drugs".  I am not saying that drug sales should be made legal, but it should be decriminalized. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Unfortunately, as with a lot of these threads and issues, there are underlying considerations. As previously mentioned, which should be of higher importance, the individual or the group?



Unfortunately there are no easy, no simple answers.  


The problem is finding a balance between individual rights and liberty and the collective rights of socieity.  


Where to draw the line, where to find the balance. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


 Can a person be said to own their own body, their own life, and what does that mean?



Yes I think that a person does, at least to a degree owns there own life and body.  


I am a single man. I have no wife or children.   I have a greater degree of freedom and liberty over my life than a married man who does have a wife and children.  A married man has less freedom and liberty over his "own life" than I do because he has a wife and perhaps children. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


 But also, what is the role of government to its people?


 Is government supposed to be a "big-brother" type, helping us with our choices and punishing us for bad ones, or is government supposed to be the grease and insurance that we act in expected ways to each other and come together in the common defense? The answers to these questions dictate the subsequent answer to questions like this thread addresses.



Again the legimate concern of government is to protect its citizens and to provide security from enemies both foreign and domestic and to provide the maxium amount of liberty and freedom possible.  


Much of the duties of our government is enunciated in the Constitution. 


Where to draw the line between the government being "Uncle Sam" and "Father Sam" is what is difficult and complex.    


 


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


So the problems are:   


Who draws the line?  


Where should the line be drawn? 


What is the line that is being drawn?  


 



Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Yeah, who knows?



It is easier to ask the questions than to give the answers!


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


 I do find it funny that while on the one hand I wouldn't mind sugar becoming a controlled substance and am enough of a sheeple to appreciate the legislation forcing me to be a healthier person (or, at least have to work much harder at staying the same), on the other hand I am fiercely supportive of individualism and mostly opposed to the concept of "victimless crime", despite the fact I have very little interest in most of the vices associated with them.




If there is no problem with making sugar a controlled substance, then what about "salt".  


I don't know if salt is "as dangerous" as sugar, but it is a serious problem.   


Let's say for the sake of argument that sugar is more of a problem, that it is made a controlled substance and as a result salt is more of a health problem.   


Wouldn't it be logical and  reasonable to make salt a controlled substance because it is now more dangerous to the health of the people in socieity?  


From what I understand the resistance to the ban on selling "super large", "super sugary" drinks in NYC is increasing.  


Not being in favor of this law, and being a pessimistic cynic I think this law will pass.  


The problem with that I have is not only with the law itself but how it is being made a law.  


 




 

Flag Erey August 28, 2012 11:33 PM EDT

Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 

Flag Ekdikos August 29, 2012 12:28 AM EDT

NATAS : Well, if I read correctly, then we are primarily in agreement, except for a few certain isolated statements...


Aug 28, 2012 -- 8:23PM, NATAS wrote:


Give me an example of a "crime" in which there is "clearly" no victim.


...


By crime I mean something that is wrong by the standards of law. 


Some that is wrong, something that negatively effects someone else but is not "illegal" is immoral-unethical, it may be "commonly" called a crime, but not legally.  


In "legal theory" all crimes are immoral-unethical and have "victims">  




I'm not certain if you were indicating you ascribe to "legal theory" by the last statement, but I do not. Law != morals/ethics... Not to say they cannot overlap, but there are too many examples to bother with which show, clearly, that laws can sometimes be the immoral or unethical force.


Here is an example of a victimless crime: prostitution. 


And even if you do believe there are some victims of prostitution itself, by making a good or service illegal, you de facto create a black market for it, and all the evils that entails. Some might be dissuaded by the "illegal" status, but the ensuing dark cloud is, in most cases, way worse than the original problem ever was (prohibition is a great example of that). One case in point: sex slave trade, which would be at least partially stymied by the drop in clientele who opted for the now legal alternatives (unfortunately, wouldn't help the child slave trade so much, until brothels started "specializing", perhaps utilizing midgets?)


Another (sometimes related) example of a victimless crime: oral sex, or sodomy. No, it isn't generally enforced, but it is still illegal in many places, technically even between consenting, married partners.


Aug 28, 2012 -- 8:23PM, NATAS wrote:


I am a single man. I have no wife or children.   I have a greater degree of freedom and liberty over my life than a married man who does have a wife and children.  A married man has less freedom and liberty over his "own life" than I do because he has a wife and perhaps children.




Just an observation: is a blank canvas more free than a painted one? I think that is a category mistake, because a blank canvas has more potential, but a painted canvas has that potential realized. Not to say the goal of life is to get a wife and kids (unless you follow the biological imperative), but rather that making choices and commitments do not "limit" your freedom, rather they bring a potential into realization- the "total amount" of freedom hasn't changed... and with the wife and kids example, the option to leave is still always there (sometimes that is the only thing that keeps some men going, ha ha!)... I just mean, you shouldn't be afraid of commitment as some great loss; it is more of a trade (of potential for realization)... The same is true of career, hobbies, skills and endeavors of all types...




yeah, other than that, I think we are in semi-perfect agreement.

Flag Ekdikos August 29, 2012 12:32 AM EDT

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 




Yeah, thats pretty quackers... Not familliar and not going to look it up, but unless it has something directly to do with the colostrum, I'm guessing Bloomberg didn't get enough of mommy's t**...

Flag NATAS August 31, 2012 12:33 PM EDT

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 





What Bloomberg is trying to do is to "encourage" women to breast feed. 


Breast feeding is "supposed" to be better for the health of the infant.  


What Bloomberg wants to do is to stop hospitals from giving "free" infant formula. 


He wants to ban advirtisements for infant formula in hospitals.  


He does not want infant formulas to be treated like presecriptions.   So far as I know a mother can "buy"  infant formulars and give them to their infants either in the hospital or when they are home.  


It is my understanding that breast milk is better, more healthy for an infant than formula. 


It is my understanding that breast feeding has a negative effect on the looks of a women's breast.  


My understanding is that those who oppose this....encouragement are, women who do not like to be "told" what to do.   Women (and men) who think that breast feeding has a bad effect on the appearance of their breasts and of course the companies that are make the infant formulas. 


So long as a woman has a choice I have no problem with this....encouragement.  


Why do you think it is that women do NOT want to breast feed? 


 

Flag Cesmom August 31, 2012 2:10 PM EDT

Aug 31, 2012 -- 12:33PM, NATAS wrote:


Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 





What Bloomberg is trying to do is to "encourage" women to breast feed. 


Breast feeding is "supposed" to be better for the health of the infant.  


What Bloomberg wants to do is to stop hospitals from giving "free" infant formula. 


He wants to ban advirtisements for infant formula in hospitals.  


He does not want infant formulas to be treated like presecriptions.   So far as I know a mother can "buy"  infant formulars and give them to their infants either in the hospital or when they are home.  


It is my understanding that breast milk is better, more healthy for an infant than formula. 


It is my understanding that breast feeding has a negative effect on the looks of a women's breast.  


My understanding is that those who oppose this....encouragement are, women who do not like to be "told" what to do.   Women (and men) who think that breast feeding has a bad effect on the appearance of their breasts and of course the companies that are make the infant formulas. 


So long as a woman has a choice I have no problem with this....encouragement.  


Why do you think it is that women do NOT want to breast feed? 


 




Sounds like Bloomberg, once again, wants to control what businesses (in this case, hospitals) offer to their customers (in this case, patients).  He needs to realize he's not GOD.


I've never heard of breast feeding having a bad effect on the appearance of a woman's breasts.  I've had 3 kids...tried to breastfeed one...was not successful.  I was very appreciative of the coupons and free products I received at the hospital.  Apparently, Bloomberg enjoys inconveniencing people for his own amusement.

Flag Erey August 31, 2012 2:32 PM EDT

Aug 31, 2012 -- 12:33PM, NATAS wrote:


Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 





What Bloomberg is trying to do is to "encourage" women to breast feed. 


Breast feeding is "supposed" to be better for the health of the infant.  


What Bloomberg wants to do is to stop hospitals from giving "free" infant formula. 


He wants to ban advirtisements for infant formula in hospitals.  


He does not want infant formulas to be treated like presecriptions.   So far as I know a mother can "buy"  infant formulars and give them to their infants either in the hospital or when they are home.  


It is my understanding that breast milk is better, more healthy for an infant than formula. 


It is my understanding that breast feeding has a negative effect on the looks of a women's breast.  


My understanding is that those who oppose this....encouragement are, women who do not like to be "told" what to do.   Women (and men) who think that breast feeding has a bad effect on the appearance of their breasts and of course the companies that are make the infant formulas. 


So long as a woman has a choice I have no problem with this....encouragement.  


Why do you think it is that women do NOT want to breast feed? 


 




Natas, please


He wants to keep the formula where mothers can't get it - at will.  When a mother asks for formula she is to be lectured by the nurse that breast feeding is best and formula is not as good.  If she still wants the formula after being shamed by the nurse then she can have it.


Sounds like making formula a controlled substance to me.


 


I breast fed both of my kids, it was very difficult to do but I did it.  Some women have it pretty easy with breast feeding and some women have it very hard.  Many, many women perhaps most women have it hard to a varying degree.


My advice for all soon to be new mothers is to:  Take the damn free formula, TAKE IT!!!  Even if you plan to breast feed exclusively there is a very decent chance that at some point in the next few days you will be in pain with bloody nipples, no sleep a hungry baby who is not sleeping and you will be feeling like a complete loser.  When that happens you can give the baby to your partner to feed some formula.  Then both mother and baby can get some much needed sleep and try again in a few hours.  Trust me, this happens to the best and most dedicated new mothers. 

Flag NATAS August 31, 2012 11:01 PM EDT

 


Aug 31, 2012 -- 12:33PM, NATAS wrote:


Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 





What Bloomberg is trying to do is to "encourage" women to breast feed. 


Breast feeding is "supposed" to be better for the health of the infant.  


What Bloomberg wants to do is to stop hospitals from giving "free" infant formula. 


He wants to ban advirtisements for infant formula in hospitals.  


He does not want infant formulas to be treated like presecriptions.   So far as I know a mother can "buy"  infant formulars and give them to their infants either in the hospital or when they are home.  


It is my understanding that breast milk is better, more healthy for an infant than formula. 


It is my understanding that breast feeding has a negative effect on the looks of a women's breast.  


My understanding is that those who oppose this....encouragement are, women who do not like to be "told" what to do.   Women (and men) who think that breast feeding has a bad effect on the appearance of their breasts and of course the companies that are make the infant formulas. 


So long as a woman has a choice I have no problem with this....encouragement.  


Why do you think it is that women do NOT want to breast feed? 


 




Natas, please


Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Erey wrote:


He wants to keep the formula where mothers can't get it - at will.



Why does he want to keep formulat where mothers can't get-at will?


Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Erey wrote:


  When a mother asks for formula she is to be lectured by the nurse that breast feeding is best and formula is not as good.  If she still wants the formula after being shamed by the nurse then she can have it.



Do you know wether or not breast feeding is or isn't better than formula? 


Or is it just a mttter of the opinon of who you ask?


Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Erey wrote:


Sounds like making formula a controlled substance to me.



My understanding of the "legal" defination of a controlled substance is something that requires a prescription.


It is my understanding that if a woman is having difficulty with breast feeding then she can get formula at the hospital. 


There is no plan, yet to stop the sales of infant formula outside the hospital....yet. 


  


 


 


I breast fed both of my kids, it was very difficult to do but I did it.  Some women have it pretty easy with breast feeding and some women have it very hard.  Many, many women perhaps most women have it hard to a varying degree.


My advice for all soon to be new mothers is to:  Take the damn free formula, TAKE IT!!!  Even if you plan to breast feed exclusively there is a very decent chance that at some point in the next few days you will be in pain with bloody nipples, no sleep a hungry baby who is not sleeping and you will be feeling like a complete loser.  When that happens you can give the baby to your partner to feed some formula.  Then both mother and baby can get some much needed sleep and try again in a few hours.  Trust me, this happens to the best and most dedicated new mothers. 






Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:10PM, Cesmom wrote:


Sounds like Bloomberg, once again, wants to control what businesses (in this case, hospitals) offer to their customers (in this case, patients).  He needs to realize he's not GOD.



I would be satisfied if he didn't think he was Napolean.   He is a short little runt who is more than a tad bit authoritian for my taste. 


 


Sounds like Bloomberg, once again, wants to control what businesses (in this case, hospitals) offer to their customers (in this case, patients).  He needs to realize he's not GOD.


Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:10PM, Cesmom wrote:


I've never heard of breast feeding having a bad effect on the appearance of a woman's breasts.



This is something I have "heard" about.  I do not know if it true or a myth.  


 


Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:10PM, Cesmom wrote:


  I've had 3 kids...tried to breastfeed one...was not successful.  I was very appreciative of the coupons and free products I received at the hospital.  Apparently, Bloomberg enjoys inconveniencing peBople for his own amusement.




I can certainly understand your being grateful and appreciative of the "free" products and the coupons.  However my momma taught me that nothing in life is "free". 


I think what he "enjoys" his throwing his dimunitive weight around and doesn't care wether it inconviences people.


I didn't realize that breast feeding could be a bloody pain in the nipples. 


But I guess this could be the case, especially when a infant starts teething! Cry


I have had the impression of mother-child bonding-madonna. 


    I saw a program awhile ago about some women who breast feed their children as late as five and six years old. 


 


 


I've never heard of breast feeding having a bad effect on the appearance of a woman's breasts.  I've had 3 kids...tried to breastfeed one...was not successful.  I was very appreciative of the coupons and free products I received at the hospital.  Apparently, Bloomberg enjoys inconveniencing people for his own amusement.



Flag Estacia September 14, 2012 2:04 AM EDT

As humans we have choices and the right to make them. This "soda ban" is riduiculas (sp)


Flag Stardove September 15, 2012 2:57 PM EDT

Health Panel Approves Restriction on Sale of Large Sugary Drinks

Seeking to reduce runaway obesity rates, the New York City Board of Health on Thursday approved a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, street carts and movie theaters, the first restriction of its kind in the country.

Guess what the people want doesn't matter in NYC.

Bloomberg Soda Ban: Majority of New York City Opposes Ban Designed to Fight Obesity Crisis

Well before it was approved by the city's Board of Health on Thursday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s infamous soda ban proposal hung heavily over New Yorkers this summer. Come March of next year, large sodas and sugary drinks over 16 ounces will no longer be sold at restaurants, street carts, and concession stands. But for those who worry the end of Big Gulps is the beginning of big government — fear not.

While the ban’s approval could be cause for panic — one New York Magazine headline shrieked “You Have Six Months to Suck Down Giant Sodas, Starting Now” — for most of us, it’s old news. Bloomberg has long since established a precedent of sweeping public health proposals: requiring calorie counts on menus, banning trans fats, limiting salt intake, discouraging smoking, and even urging new mothers to breastfeed. As with each of these, it came as no surprise when the Bloomberg-appointed members of the Board of Health passed the latest ban.


Continued at both links. 


Has Big Brother taken over in NYC?

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN September 15, 2012 9:12 PM EDT

The food Furher has won!   


What is the low life piece of filth Herr Bloomberg's next decree going to be?    


 

Flag Collin237 September 30, 2012 7:18 PM EDT

Banning supersize drinks will not make anyone healthier. What would make people healthier -- and I don't know how Bloomberg could've missed this -- would be to require supersize drinks to be half water.

Flag Idbc February 3, 2013 11:02 AM EST

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/23...


NAACP sues against Bloomberg’s big-soda ban


Some opponents of New York Mayor Michael  Bloomberg’s move to ban large, sugary drinks have started making the  argument that it just may be a racial infringement.


Proponents of the law say the ban is necessary because of the obesity  epidemic, but the New York branch of the NAACP  and the Hispanic Federation have  joined in a lawsuit to try to stop the rule from taking effect March 12.


The federal Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention report that obesity rates are higher than  average among blacks and Hispanics. The groups say in court papers that the soda  rule will harm minority businesses and “freedom of choice in low-income  communities.”


The opposing groups say delis and corner stores owned by minorities will  suffer a disadvantage compared with big grocery chains. Supermarkets and many  convenience stores, such as 7-Eleven, aren’t subject to the new rules.


“This sweeping regulation will no doubt burden and disproportiinonally impact  minority-owned businesses at a time when these businesses can least afford it,” they said in court papers.


Mr. Bloomberg’s New York has  successfully instated mandatory calorie counts in chain restaurants and banned  trans fats in efforts to curb obesity."


Mayor Bloomberg and his proponets of this ban do not deny that this ban will dispropotionately affect minority bussiness. 


They think it is the right thing to do because minorites have higher rights of obesity than majorities.  The rates of obesity are not equal between majorites and minority populations. 


Therefore it is right that minority bussinesses should suffer a loss of money, profits. 


Or to rephrase it in more polemically, the greedy Black and Hispanic, small time capitilist should bite the bullet.  That they are being racist because they want to harm their races in the pursuit of profits by selling drinks with excessively containers of drinks containing sugar


 


 


 

Flag Stardove February 3, 2013 11:12 PM EST

IDBC, Thanks for the update. And here I thought this What's Hot had been put to bed.  Wink


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Flag Bunsinspace February 6, 2013 8:02 PM EST

BS"D


I agree with the NAACP.  I have been off soda and sugary drinks for over a year and have made it my lifestyle but it has not affected my weight in any way, shape or fashion.  Soda is dangerous for some people, like cigarettes and alcohol but we decided as a nation that prohibition was not a workable solution. 

Flag Stardove March 11, 2013 9:30 PM EDT

I see a thread has already begun saying a state judge has said no to the ban. 


Power to the soda drinkers of NY.  Tongue Out


Beliefnet says this thread is still hot!  Here's another bump.  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Flag rincon4567@comcast.net March 31, 2013 2:20 AM EDT

Mar 11, 2013 -- 9:30PM, Stardove wrote:

I see a thread has already begun saying a state judge has said no to the ban. 


Power to the soda drinkers of NY. 

Beliefnet says this thread is still hot!  Here's another bump.  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Tongue OutAre they Crazy? they cannot tell people what to drink??? WHAT"S GOING TO Be Next if they ALLOW THIS to HAPPEN!

Flag MAXTECH May 1, 2013 8:49 AM EDT

Jun 1, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Roodog wrote:


news.yahoo.com/york-mayor-bloomberg-prop...

Really people, does New York really have to do this?
I can imagine NYPD taking kids in for possessing a six pack or a liter of soda.


It adds new meaning to a "Coke Bust"




THE WHOLE IDEA is to keep people thinking in backwards manner. For instance, endless numbers of gun related deaths occur per month, however not much about this is exposed via media. Meanwhile, if the deaths are small in number, and involve spectacular Hollywood like entertaining effects, then it will make it into the news hour.


In turn this allows an "Acceptable" number of daily deaths, and insures that this "Acceptable" number of daily deaths is kept on going, but out of sight.


THE WHOLE IDEA is to keep people focused upon the less important and in some cases upon the insignificant.


The nasty part is why this is being done. It keeps people NOT in touch with reality.

Flag Roodog June 23, 2013 9:24 PM EDT

Two inmates in Riker's Island discussin why they're there :



Inmate#1: "They caught me with a gram of coke."

Inmate #2: "They caught me with a liter of Pepsi!"Surprised

Flag Stardove June 24, 2013 1:42 AM EDT

I hear the mayor of NY City now wants to stop people on SNAP (food stamps) from using them for soda and candy.  Not sure what all he would want on his you can't use SNAP to get these items.


I had a friend who after brain tumors were removed needed financial help for a while, because he couldn't work after his surgery.  He has now passed away.  But at the time he bought everything he needed to make home made wine. He had a fine wine still set up and made some kick butt wine.  Two glasses were one too many.  Sealed

Flag Idbc July 31, 2013 10:52 AM EDT

Jun 24, 2013 -- 1:42AM, Stardove wrote:


I hear the mayor of NY City now wants to stop people on SNAP (food stamps) from using them for soda and candy.  Not sure what all he would want on his you can't use SNAP to get these items.


I had a friend who after brain tumors were removed needed financial help for a while, because he couldn't work after his surgery.  He has now passed away.  But at the time he bought everything he needed to make home made wine. He had a fine wine still set up and made some kick butt wine.  Two glasses were one too many.  Sealed




In NYC it is illegal to buy either soda, candy or any alcoholic bevaNYrages with food stamps. 


The NY state appellate court as ruled against Mayor Bloombergs command.  


www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=ps...
 

Flag Stardove June 26, 2014 10:20 AM EDT

Well two years later the soda ban is officially dead!


City Loses Final Appeal on Limiting Sales of Large Sodas

The Bloomberg big-soda ban is officially dead.

The state’s highest court on Thursday refused to reinstate New York City’s controversial limits on sales of jumbo sugary drinks, exhausting the city’s final appeal and handing a major victory to the American soft-drink industry, which bitterly opposed the plan.

In a 20-page opinion, Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. of the New York State Court of Appeals wrote that the city’s Board of Health “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority” in enacting the proposal, which was championed by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

The decision most likely will be seen as a significant defeat for public health advocates who have urged state and local governments to actively discourage the consumption of high-calorie beverages, saying the drinks are prime drivers of a nationwide epidemic of obesity.

Two lower courts had already ruled against the city, saying it overreached in attempting to prohibit the purchase of sugared drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces, about the size of a medium coffee cup. By a 4-to-2 vote, the justices upheld the earlier rulings.


Continued at the link.

Flag teilhard June 26, 2014 10:35 AM EDT

"When Big Sodas are 'outlawed,' only Outlaws will have Big Sodas ..."

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook