Page 15 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 ... 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Big Apple Soda Ban
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 12:10AM #141
jonny42
Posts: 6,646

Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:51AM, teilhard wrote:


And there are also Laws and Regulations that curtail certain Advertising and Marketing Practices for certain particular Products, just so precisely intended to prevent HARM to Consumers ...


If Consumers were trustworthy-smart about what they buy and consume there would BE no Tobacco Companies selling their Poisons and NOBODY would drink too much Alcohol, yes ... ???


"Yes, Virginia ... " we Consumers DO need sometimes to be protected from Predatory Business Practices AND from OURSELVES ...


"HandGuns" ... DO we -- SHOULD we -- allow Children and young People unfettered Access to "HandGuns" .. ???  Of course not ... We IMPOSE certain CONTROLS ...


Jun 9, 2012 -- 2:06AM, jonny42 wrote:


Jun 9, 2012 -- 12:52AM, solfeggio wrote:


Ha.  So, then, it would be OK with them if people just started driving whenever or wherever they pleased without having to have a license?  It would be just fine if people could kill each other at will if they felt like it?  It would be great if nobody needed a university degree to get a specialised job?  Or if there were no regulations in medical schools and anybody who wanted to could just say s/he was a doctor and get away with it?





We have laws that prevent us… from harming others.   


If you want to punch yourself in the face, that's legal.  But it's not legal to assault someone else.








It's a good thing that we have elections to protect ourselves from some of our politicians.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 4:26AM #142
rabello
Posts: 19,325

Jun 10, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Cesmom wrote:


Personal choice is THAT improtant to me.


Where does it end?  How much of our lives do you think the governemnt should be controlling?  How much choice do you think we should or should not have as consumers?  Should the government be protecting consumers against everything and anything?  Where does it end?




Noboby is taking that personal choice away from anybody else.  People are free to buy as much of a bad thing as they want.  They just won't get it automatically in NYC the way they do everywhere else.


To me, the "personal choice" involved in getting 4-6 big glasses of coke to go with one's half-pound hamburger at the local sports bar, or one's Meat Lovers' Pizza at some pizza grotto just isn't so gravely important as to give carte blanche to the businesses that provide the big 4-6 big glasses of coke at one sitting, especially with the kind of mischaracterizations of what the ordinance actually does that we are seeing here.  I don't think limiting each serving sold to 16 ounces is going to set a dangerous precedent either.  


I think business has an ethical responsiblity and a moral duty to look out, first and foremost, for the well being of their customers, of their community, of the society at large, and the environment.   There was no such thing as "Supersize Me" 20 years ago, and people had personal choice, freedom to buy a six pack of coke and drink it at one meal if they so desired, and had happy lives.  I see no violation of "rights" by going back to a saner form of consumerism, one that isn't dangerous to one's health especially when the supersize me is done just so places Hooters can make more profit.


Drinking 4-6 big glasses of coke isn't healthy and certainly isn't necessary at one meal.  I don't see it as "consumers' choice" at all.   The biggest reason I'm posting here is that people keep writing as if something is being "banned".  Nothing is being "banned".  The NYC ordinance isn't controlling anything that consumers can buy and consume.  It only controls how the businesses that sell super sugary drinks can dump it on its customers.  If customers want 32 ounces of coke for one meal, they can buy 2 16 ounce glasses.  If they want or need 48 ounces of Hawaiian Punch they can can buy 3 16 ounce glasses.  They just won't get it automatically, without asking, in NYC like people can everywhere else in obesity-prone, diabetes-prone America.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 9:30AM #143
jonny42
Posts: 6,646

Jun 10, 2012 -- 4:26AM, rabello wrote:


Jun 10, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Cesmom wrote:


Personal choice is THAT improtant to me.


Where does it end?  How much of our lives do you think the governemnt should be controlling?  How much choice do you think we should or should not have as consumers?  Should the government be protecting consumers against everything and anything?  Where does it end?




Noboby is taking that personal choice away from anybody else.  People are free to buy as much of a bad thing as they want.  They just won't get it automatically in NYC the way they do everywhere else.


To me, the "personal choice" involved in getting 4-6 big glasses of coke to go with one's half-pound hamburger at the local sports bar, or one's Meat Lovers' Pizza at some pizza grotto just isn't so gravely important as to give carte blanche to the businesses that provide the big 4-6 big glasses of coke at one sitting, especially with the kind of mischaracterizations of what the ordinance actually does that we are seeing here.  I don't think limiting each serving sold to 16 ounces is going to set a dangerous precedent either.  


I think business has an ethical responsiblity and a moral duty to look out, first and foremost, for the well being of their customers, of their community, of the society at large, and the environment.   There was no such thing as "Supersize Me" 20 years ago, and people had personal choice, freedom to buy a six pack of coke and drink it at one meal if they so desired, and had happy lives.  I see no violation of "rights" by going back to a saner form of consumerism, one that isn't dangerous to one's health especially when the supersize me is done just so places Hooters can make more profit.


Drinking 4-6 big glasses of coke isn't healthy and certainly isn't necessary at one meal.  I don't see it as "consumers' choice" at all.   The biggest reason I'm posting here is that people keep writing as if something is being "banned".  Nothing is being "banned".  The NYC ordinance isn't controlling anything that consumers can buy and consume.  It only controls how the businesses that sell super sugary drinks can dump it on its customers.  If customers want 32 ounces of coke for one meal, they can buy 2 16 ounce glasses.  If they want or need 48 ounces of Hawaiian Punch they can can buy 3 16 ounce glasses.  They just won't get it automatically, without asking, in NYC like people can everywhere else in obesity-prone, diabetes-prone America.




It's the principle.   Why not make it legal to only sell mini-donuts?     Who needs full-size boxes of cereal, or gallon containers of ice cream?    Why not limit the size of everything that people consume?  "We're just here to protect you."


And what about buffets?  ("Eat all you want, but just don't take a glass of soda more than 16 ounces.  We're trying to help you with your weight." Does that make sense?)  Are they going to be the next speakeasies?


I can imagine wait staff telling diners, like bartenders, "I'm gonna have to cut you off after that french fry.   It's the law."

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 11:12AM #144
teilhard
Posts: 48,256

Again, "SeatBelt" Laws have been VERY intrusively imposed ... and they work ...


Jun 10, 2012 -- 4:26AM, rabello wrote:


Jun 10, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Cesmom wrote:


Personal choice is THAT improtant to me.


Where does it end?  How much of our lives do you think the governemnt should be controlling?  How much choice do you think we should or should not have as consumers?  Should the government be protecting consumers against everything and anything?  Where does it end?




Noboby is taking that personal choice away from anybody else.  People are free to buy as much of a bad thing as they want.  They just won't get it automatically in NYC the way they do everywhere else.


To me, the "personal choice" involved in getting 4-6 big glasses of coke to go with one's half-pound hamburger at the local sports bar, or one's Meat Lovers' Pizza at some pizza grotto just isn't so gravely important as to give carte blanche to the businesses that provide the big 4-6 big glasses of coke at one sitting, especially with the kind of mischaracterizations of what the ordinance actually does that we are seeing here.  I don't think limiting each serving sold to 16 ounces is going to set a dangerous precedent either.  


I think business has an ethical responsiblity and a moral duty to look out, first and foremost, for the well being of their customers, of their community, of the society at large, and the environment.   There was no such thing as "Supersize Me" 20 years ago, and people had personal choice, freedom to buy a six pack of coke and drink it at one meal if they so desired, and had happy lives.  I see no violation of "rights" by going back to a saner form of consumerism, one that isn't dangerous to one's health especially when the supersize me is done just so places Hooters can make more profit.


Drinking 4-6 big glasses of coke isn't healthy and certainly isn't necessary at one meal.  I don't see it as "consumers' choice" at all.   The biggest reason I'm posting here is that people keep writing as if something is being "banned".  Nothing is being "banned".  The NYC ordinance isn't controlling anything that consumers can buy and consume.  It only controls how the businesses that sell super sugary drinks can dump it on its customers.  If customers want 32 ounces of coke for one meal, they can buy 2 16 ounce glasses.  If they want or need 48 ounces of Hawaiian Punch they can can buy 3 16 ounce glasses.  They just won't get it automatically, without asking, in NYC like people can everywhere else in obesity-prone, diabetes-prone America.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 5:57PM #145
teilhard
Posts: 48,256

Try this ...


LET The Capitalist Marketeers of Super-Size Big-Gulp Sugar-Sodas sell their Five Gallon Sugar Poisons for 69 Cents each ... but charge $$$ Five Dollars TAX on each one ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 8:29PM #146
Fodaoson
Posts: 10,907

The larger the cup the more ice it contains, a 32 ounce  cup contains less than 12 oz of drink. 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 10:20PM #147
teilhard
Posts: 48,256

LOL ...


So it's REALLY a Super-Size Popsicle without a Stick ...


Jun 10, 2012 -- 8:29PM, Fodaoson wrote:


The larger the cup the more ice it contains, a 32 ounce  cup contains less than 12 oz of drink. 





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 12:02AM #148
jonny42
Posts: 6,646

Jun 10, 2012 -- 11:12AM, teilhard wrote:


Again, "SeatBelt" Laws have been VERY intrusively imposed ... and they work ...


Jun 10, 2012 -- 4:26AM, rabello wrote:


Jun 10, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Cesmom wrote:


Personal choice is THAT improtant to me.


Where does it end?  How much of our lives do you think the governemnt should be controlling?  How much choice do you think we should or should not have as consumers?  Should the government be protecting consumers against everything and anything?  Where does it end?




Noboby is taking that personal choice away from anybody else.  People are free to buy as much of a bad thing as they want.  They just won't get it automatically in NYC the way they do everywhere else.


To me, the "personal choice" involved in getting 4-6 big glasses of coke to go with one's half-pound hamburger at the local sports bar, or one's Meat Lovers' Pizza at some pizza grotto just isn't so gravely important as to give carte blanche to the businesses that provide the big 4-6 big glasses of coke at one sitting, especially with the kind of mischaracterizations of what the ordinance actually does that we are seeing here.  I don't think limiting each serving sold to 16 ounces is going to set a dangerous precedent either.  


I think business has an ethical responsiblity and a moral duty to look out, first and foremost, for the well being of their customers, of their community, of the society at large, and the environment.   There was no such thing as "Supersize Me" 20 years ago, and people had personal choice, freedom to buy a six pack of coke and drink it at one meal if they so desired, and had happy lives.  I see no violation of "rights" by going back to a saner form of consumerism, one that isn't dangerous to one's health especially when the supersize me is done just so places Hooters can make more profit.


Drinking 4-6 big glasses of coke isn't healthy and certainly isn't necessary at one meal.  I don't see it as "consumers' choice" at all.   The biggest reason I'm posting here is that people keep writing as if something is being "banned".  Nothing is being "banned".  The NYC ordinance isn't controlling anything that consumers can buy and consume.  It only controls how the businesses that sell super sugary drinks can dump it on its customers.  If customers want 32 ounces of coke for one meal, they can buy 2 16 ounce glasses.  If they want or need 48 ounces of Hawaiian Punch they can can buy 3 16 ounce glasses.  They just won't get it automatically, without asking, in NYC like people can everywhere else in obesity-prone, diabetes-prone America.








Just think of how many head injuries we could prevent if we required people to wear helmets all day long.  Or how many families we would keep together by making adultery illegal.


Do positive outcomes justify taking away freedoms?   Just think how many deaths could be prevented by outlawing cars. Sure, they help with a lot of things, like getting to work.  But is work more important than saving lives?  As a bonus, we wouldn't even have to enforce seatbelt laws.


Boating accidents?  Take away boats.  Drowning?  Make swimming illegal.  I mean, c'mon.  We're not fish!


It's about time we wake up, people, and see that the best way to protect ourselves from harm is to let people like me figure out for you how best to prolong your life.   Why?  Because I care, and because you aren't capable of figuring it out on your own.  Call me elitist, call it nanny-state, but I don't care.  You can thank me when you're babbling in the nursing home at 103.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:15AM #149
teilhard
Posts: 48,256

***In a civilized Society, yes, for the sake of Public Good and Individual Safety, there MUST be SOME Limits imposed on Personal Actions and Choices ...


It's NOT an ALL-or-NOTHING Deal, is it ... ???


Anyway, you CAN refuse to wear your SeatBelt if you wish ... but in Minnesota, you'll get a Ticket if a Cop sees you exercising your "Choice" ... 


Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:02AM, jonny42 wrote:


Jun 10, 2012 -- 11:12AM, teilhard wrote:


Again, "SeatBelt" Laws have been VERY intrusively imposed ... and they work ...


Jun 10, 2012 -- 4:26AM, rabello wrote:


Jun 10, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Cesmom wrote:


Personal choice is THAT improtant to me.


Where does it end?  How much of our lives do you think the governemnt should be controlling?  How much choice do you think we should or should not have as consumers?  Should the government be protecting consumers against everything and anything?  Where does it end?




Noboby is taking that personal choice away from anybody else.  People are free to buy as much of a bad thing as they want.  They just won't get it automatically in NYC the way they do everywhere else.


To me, the "personal choice" involved in getting 4-6 big glasses of coke to go with one's half-pound hamburger at the local sports bar, or one's Meat Lovers' Pizza at some pizza grotto just isn't so gravely important as to give carte blanche to the businesses that provide the big 4-6 big glasses of coke at one sitting, especially with the kind of mischaracterizations of what the ordinance actually does that we are seeing here.  I don't think limiting each serving sold to 16 ounces is going to set a dangerous precedent either.  


I think business has an ethical responsiblity and a moral duty to look out, first and foremost, for the well being of their customers, of their community, of the society at large, and the environment.   There was no such thing as "Supersize Me" 20 years ago, and people had personal choice, freedom to buy a six pack of coke and drink it at one meal if they so desired, and had happy lives.  I see no violation of "rights" by going back to a saner form of consumerism, one that isn't dangerous to one's health especially when the supersize me is done just so places Hooters can make more profit.


Drinking 4-6 big glasses of coke isn't healthy and certainly isn't necessary at one meal.  I don't see it as "consumers' choice" at all.   The biggest reason I'm posting here is that people keep writing as if something is being "banned".  Nothing is being "banned".  The NYC ordinance isn't controlling anything that consumers can buy and consume.  It only controls how the businesses that sell super sugary drinks can dump it on its customers.  If customers want 32 ounces of coke for one meal, they can buy 2 16 ounce glasses.  If they want or need 48 ounces of Hawaiian Punch they can can buy 3 16 ounce glasses.  They just won't get it automatically, without asking, in NYC like people can everywhere else in obesity-prone, diabetes-prone America.








Just think of how many head injuries we could prevent if we required people to wear helmets all day long.  Or how many families we would keep together by making adultery illegal.


***Do positive outcomes justify taking away freedoms?   Just think how many deaths could be prevented by outlawing cars. Sure, they help with a lot of things, like getting to work.  But is work more important than saving lives?  As a bonus, we wouldn't even have to enforce seatbelt laws.


Boating accidents?  Take away boats.  Drowning?  Make swimming illegal.  I mean, c'mon.  We're not fish!


It's about time we wake up, people, and see that the best way to protect ourselves from harm is to let people like me figure out for you how best to prolong your life.   Why?  Because I care, and because you aren't capable of figuring it out on your own.  Call me elitist, call it nanny-state, but I don't care.  You can thank me when you're babbling in the nursing home at 103.






Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 11:59AM #150
mindis1
Posts: 7,109

Jun 8, 2012 -- 9:51PM, rabello wrote:


Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:11PM, mindis1 wrote:


I’m unsure what “it” refers to in your sentence.


Anyway, shame on Bloomberg for not including this proviso in the law. He states a very specific goal for the law, and there is no reason to not make the law contingent on its effectiveness in achieving this goal.


Do you think that this law, if enacted, will show that it is effective in reducing New Yorkers’ obesity rates and calorie consumption?


I have absolute zero confidence that this law will show itself to be effective. I suspect that the issues of obesity and food consumption among Americans and others are much more complex than such a city ordinance addresses in any meaningful way.


Consider some of the reasons why such legislation might not be effective in reducing obesity rates and calorie consumption of New Yorkers. In the first place, we don’t have any evidence that it is obese people who are the primary consumers of these superlarge sugary fountain sodas--it’s entirely possible that fountain sodas are not a major source of calories consumed by the obese. In addition, or alternatively, perhaps obese/overweight people who normally consume such superlarge fountain sodas will switch to diet sodas with artificial sweeteners, then just have 3 extra doughnuts or bag of Doritos. Indeed, numerous recent studies have shown a link between obesity/overweight and diet sodas/artificial sweeteners:


To many, a tax on soda is a no-brainer in advancing the nation's war on obesity. Advocates point to a number of studies in recent years that conclude that sugary drinks have a lot to do with why Americans are getting fatter.


But obese people tend to drink diet sodas, and therefore taxing soft drinks with added sugar or other sweeteners is not a good weapon in combating obesity, according to a new Northwestern University study.


An amendment to Illinois Senate Bill 396 would add a penny an ounce to the cost of most soft drinks with added sugar or sweeteners, including soda, sweet iced tea and coffee drinks. Related to the purpose of the tax, the legislation excludes artificially sweetened and diet sodas.


"After doing the analysis, it really turns out to be the case that obese people like diet soda so much more than regular soda that you can do whatever you want to the price," said Ketan Patel, a fourth-year doctoral student in economics. "You're not going to get that much change in obese people's weight because they already drink diet soda."


www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/11...


I don’t exactly understand the desire to control someone else’s weight. Frankly, I don’t care if most Americans (et al.) are fat slobs--it only makes me look better (and smarter) when I walk into a room.




The word "it" referred to your proposal, that there be a time-limit on the regulation of what food-sellers can sell to the public.   I don't know if there's a time-limit in Bloomberg's proposal, or not.   There's already a built-in time-limit of sorts, of course.  New York City residents who want to be able to buy 32+ ounces of coke at a restaurant, a cafe, a deli, a sports bar, etc, can elect a trickle-down economics advocate as mayor to replace Bloomberg when the time comes.  Now that's the kind of "freedom of choice" I think is pertinent.


There is a study that just made it into the msm stating that the nation's obesity crisis is now becoming a national security issue.   Apparently, most of us are too fat to fight or flight.


I just hope we get universal health care in this country one day soon to help take care of all those adversely affected by unscrupulous marketeers.  It's the least a decent society could do, if it refuses to even try to do anything else. Really who needs 32 ounces of soda with a meal and in the scheme of things, how much of a burden is it , really, to ask the waitress for 2 16 ounce glasses if it's that gall darn important.



There is no rational reason to enact a law that the available evidence indicates will be ineffective in achieving its stated goal, is there?  


I was quite surprised a few years ago when I first read that about a third of American adults are overweight and more than half are overweight. I became acutely aware of the fat epidemic a couple of years ago when I saw my son’s high school graduating class, comparing it to my high school graduating class of similar size and socioeconomic traits. In my 1978 graduating class of about 50--I remember them all well, without looking at the yearbook--there was one classmate who was definitely obese, one who might have been but was probably only overweight, and one who was overweight. Interestingly all three were from fat families; all had one or more fat parents and brothers and/or sisters who were just slightly different cut-outs from the same pattern. There seemed to be a significantly larger percentage in my son’s class who were overweight. Yet, it is hard to imagine that any of them got significantly less exercise or ate a more fattening diet than I and most of my classmates did throughout our teenage years: fast food usually at least once per day; convenience store munchies. Everyone ate shit in the 70s.


There are a number of commonly prescribed drugs that are known to cause weight gain. Numerous psychiatric drugs are known to cause weight gain. In addition to the drugs that are recognized as to cause weight gain, antibiotics have been given to livestock animals for decades specifically for the purpose of fattening them up. No one knows why antibiotics cause animals to gain weight, but it is quite likely that these drugs produce a similar effect in humans.  


I just hope we get universal health care in this country one day soon to help take care of all those adversely affected by unscrupulous marketeers.



Huh? What “unscrupulous marketeers” are you talking about? What “unscrupulous marketing” have they done? What industry does more “unscrupulous marketing” than the pharmaceutical industry?




Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 15 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 ... 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook