391 replies to this topic

[Square]

Ditkaless Wonders, on 06 July 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

I did not see a thread about the foolish arrogance of a nanny state turning into a several page debate on nutrition.

I'm going to wait 5 more pages and find a way to bring Tebow into the discussion.  

[bpwallace49]

Detlef. Vs. ice1

Thunderdome.  Two men enter.  One man leaves


Winner gets a big gulp of coke.  


Go.

[stevegrab]

I really missed this discussion while I was gone on vacation

And for the record I drank mostly water, some gatorade, lemonade and the occassional soda (sometimes exceeding that scary 16oz limit).

I still say
- yep people eat poorly, drink too much soda, eat too much fast food, not enough fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains
- passing a law that limits soda sizes in restaurants in NYC will have virtually no affect on that, particularly since it will only affect a small percentage of the population

All the other lengthy debates about nutrition and so on are pretty unimportant. You either think its ok for the government to pass silly laws like this or you don't.

Arbitrary and random, Detlef has said that himself several times. And this wouldn't be his first choice. Yet somehow he thinks this will have some significant impact on people's health.

[detlef]

stevegrab, on 11 July 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

I really missed this discussion while I was gone on vacation

And for the record I drank mostly water, some gatorade, lemonade and the occassional soda (sometimes exceeding that scary 16oz limit).

I still say
- yep people eat poorly, drink too much soda, eat too much fast food, not enough fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains
- passing a law that limits soda sizes in restaurants in NYC will have virtually no affect on that, particularly since it will only affect a small percentage of the population

All the other lengthy debates about nutrition and so on are pretty unimportant. You either think its ok for the government to pass silly laws like this or you don't.

Arbitrary and random, Detlef has said that himself several times. And this wouldn't be his first choice. Yet somehow he thinks this will have some significant impact on people's health.

1) Apparently the preferred choice among many here of dealing with the growing issue of obesity is to inform and wait it out.  Which is fine.  Yet, based on the discussion here, plenty lack a fundamental understanding of the topic and, what's worse, some feel compelled to make an effort to actually downplay the dangers of our massive consumption of sugar.  To ignore the unique health hazzards overconsumption of refined sugar present.  So, with that in mind, a debate on nutrition seems entirely important.  I mean, if we're going to "inform and wait it out", shouldn't we actually stop pretending that it's not a big deal?  Or is everyone really just advocating "ignore and wait it out".

2) Don't twist my words.  I look at the effect that other random restrictions on certain substances have had on demonizing them and how that could have a role in the fact that abuse of those substances is in decline.  To me, that suggests that this might not be as stupid or ineffective as many think.  Yet you and so many others feel the need to portray that as a ringing endorsement.

[LordOpie]

Anyone who thinks that this law is reasonable has demonstrated how our govt got to where it is today.

I'm not saying those people are right or wrong, but I am saying that it's short-sighted to suggest that the entity know as the US Govt had the ambition of becoming large and powerful to a micromanaging level. Yes, individuals in the govt want power and control, but it's the fault of The People as to why our govt is the way it is, not the govt itself.

I'm just rambling cuz my 18yo nephew thinks our govt is somehow evil and wants a revolution to bring it down. I tried to explain to him that a revolution would only kill innocent people cuz The People who live will only cause our Govt to get back to where it is today, at some point.

[stevegrab]

detlef, on 11 July 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

1) Apparently the preferred choice among many here of dealing with the growing issue of obesity is to inform and wait it out.  Which is fine.  Yet, based on the discussion here, plenty lack a fundamental understanding of the topic and, what's worse, some feel compelled to make an effort to actually downplay the dangers of our massive consumption of sugar.  To ignore the unique health hazzards overconsumption of refined sugar present.  So, with that in mind, a debate on nutrition seems entirely important.  I mean, if we're going to "inform and wait it out", shouldn't we actually stop pretending that it's not a big deal?  Or is everyone really just advocating "ignore and wait it out".

2) Don't twist my words.  I look at the effect that other random restrictions on certain substances have had on demonizing them and how that could have a role in the fact that abuse of those substances is in decline.  To me, that suggests that this might not be as stupid or ineffective as many think.  Yet you and so many others feel the need to portray that as a ringing endorsement.

I'll try to deal with my own weight issues and expect others to do the same. I don't execpt (or want) the government to start deciding what foods/drinks can be served and in what sizes.

Some people get that simple concept, others seem to think we all need to have a plan to deal with the obesity problem. The discussions of various health and nutrition topics in this thread has been informative. But the basic fact still remains, the very narrow focus of this law (NYC only, sodas in restaurant only, etc.) means it will have very limited affect on the problem. Besides, the demonizing of some things can make them more attractive and more heavily consumed. Look at teenage drinking and recreational drug use.

[westvirginia]

LordOpie, on 11 July 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks that this law is reasonable has demonstrated how our govt got to where it is today.

I'm not saying those people are right or wrong, but I am saying that it's short-sighted to suggest that the entity know as the US Govt had the ambition of becoming large and powerful to a micromanaging level. Yes, individuals in the govt want power and control, but it's the fault of The People as to why our govt is the way it is, not the govt itself.

I'm just rambling cuz my 18yo nephew thinks our govt is somehow evil and wants a revolution to bring it down. I tried to explain to him that a revolution would only kill innocent people cuz The People who live will only cause our Govt to get back to where it is today, at some point.

Yeah, in 200 more years maybe...  

[Azazello1313]

detlef, on 11 July 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Or is everyone really just advocating "ignore and wait it out".

I haven't read this whole thread, but I can tell you what I would advocate.  and that is "what I eat or drink is none of your f*cking business."

Libertarianism: the radical notion that other people are not your property.  you and any other food puritans out there should look into it sometime.

seriously, if we as a society really start parsing out what other people should or should not put in their mouths in the interest of "the public health", it's pretty logical that booze has to be one of the first things to go.  I would think it's pretty clearly in your personal and professional interest to recoil like hell from this sort of nonsense.  or do you actually trust the 21st century temperance movement to waltz right up to the point where you'd like them to draw the line but stop right there and go no further?

[Ditkaless Wonders]

"There ain't no end to doing good."

- Captain "Redlegs" Terrell

  - The Outlaw Josie Wales

[detlef]

Azazello1313, on 17 July 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

I haven't read this whole thread, but I can tell you what I would advocate.  and that is "what I eat or drink is none of your f*cking business."

Libertarianism: the radical notion that other people are not your property.  you and any other food puritans out there should look into it sometime.

seriously, if we as a society really start parsing out what other people should or should not put in their mouths in the interest of "the public health", it's pretty logical that booze has to be one of the first things to go.  I would think it's pretty clearly in your personal and professional interest to recoil like hell from this sort of nonsense.  or do you actually trust the 21st century temperance movement to waltz right up to the point where you'd like them to draw the line but stop right there and go no further?

I'm certainly not going to fault you for not reading the whole thread, that's for sure.  But, had you done so, you wouldn't have bothered bringing up most of what you said, because I've already addressed those several times over.

Honestly, at least you admit to not having followed the therad and are just jumping in.  Many others have posted throughout and just pretend that I'm saying things I'm not when they raise arguments like you just did.

[Azazello1313]

detlef, on 17 July 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

I'm certainly not going to fault you for not reading the whole thread, that's for sure.  But, had you done so, you wouldn't have bothered bringing up most of what you said, because I've already addressed those several times over.

Honestly, at least you admit to not having followed the therad and are just jumping in.  Many others have posted throughout and just pretend that I'm saying things I'm not when they raise arguments like you just did.

yeah I just read the first and last page of the thread.  I'm sure your bullchit got much more nuanced and intricate in between.

[stevegrab]

Law goes into affect March 12.  Was reading some about it today, and saw that soda's larger than 16oz in convenience stores are NOT included in the ban. So somehow those sodas are better for you than the ones in a restaurant. I can understand not counting a 2L bottle of soda at the grocery store, since you generally consume those later, and they're not bought to drink all at once. But the last report I read also said the 2L bottle of soda delivered with your pizza is banned as well. The pizza shops have to switch to selling packages of cans/bottles (no larger than 16oz each). A quote from the article I was reading
"It’s ludicrous,” said Robert Bookman, a lawyer for the New York City Hospitality Alliance. “It’s a sealed bottle of soda you can buy in the supermarket. Why can’t they deliver what you can get in the supermarket?”

Hmm, also see that pitchers of soda will no longer be allowed, didn't think of that one before.


Just a stupid law. The intent may be good, but the execution is horrible and severely flawed.

Didn't even think about this, one place noted they'll have to buy new glasses as the ones they use were 20oz, and those are now against the law.

[keggerz]

stevegrab, on 25 February 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Law goes into affect March 12.  Was reading some about it today, and saw that soda's larger than 16oz in convenience stores are NOT included in the ban. So somehow those sodas are better for you than the ones in a restaurant. I can understand not counting a 2L bottle of soda at the grocery store, since you generally consume those later, and they're not bought to drink all at once. But the last report I read also said the 2L bottle of soda delivered with your pizza is banned as well. The pizza shops have to switch to selling packages of cans/bottles (no larger than 16oz each). A quote from the article I was reading
"It’s ludicrous,” said Robert Bookman, a lawyer for the New York City Hospitality Alliance. “It’s a sealed bottle of soda you can buy in the supermarket. Why can’t they deliver what you can get in the supermarket?”

Hmm, also see that pitchers of soda will no longer be allowed, didn't think of that one before.


Just a stupid law. The intent may be good, but the execution is horrible and severely flawed.

Didn't even think about this, one place noted they'll have to buy new glasses as the ones they use were 20oz, and those are now against the law.

but you can buy pitchers of beer!

[Joessfl]

keggerz, on 25 February 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

but you can buy pitchers of beer!

So, pitchers of soda are banned because of the potential to drink a pitcher in one sitting, but you can buy a pitcher of beer?   So allowing a consumer to buy a pitcher of beer, the government is saying they assume you will drink it in one sitting, but go ahead?  

My head hurts.

[Clubfoothead]

You shouldn't drink a pitcher of either.

:KISS:

[Ice1]

State Judge Rejects Law.

No surprise,

http://blogs.wsj.com...-city-soda-ban/

Edited by Ice1, 11 March 2013 - 02:43 PM.

[stevegrab]

Of course Bloomberg will fight it. https://twitter.com/...200427066683393   The majority of response to that are "let it go, stop wasting money".

I was reading about this on another forum and somebody asked if sporting events were subject to the same limits, and the response was yes. The reasoning given (from a person in NY), was interesting.

"What it comes down to is whether the establishment receives a letter grade from the city, i.e. whether it is under the purview of the city health department. The only reason that grocery stores and convenience stores were exempted is because the state health department has that authority, not the city, and the state didn't want to go along with the ban. I found this out a couple of days ago from an article I read, and before that, I had no idea why it didn't apply everywhere."

So basically the ban only applies to places where NYC has authority. It isn't that they think buying a 2L soda (over 60 oz) at the grocery or convenience store is ok, its that they have no authority there and the state of NY had more common sense (didn't go along with their law).