The NY soda law

[Deathpig]

It didn't take long for the 'what next?'

 

It's time for milk and popcorn to get added to the list. Should we start a pool for what's after those? I'm thinking serving sizes of non-lean meats-- those double patty burgers and large steaks are doomed.

[Hugh 0ne]

Gheyest. Concept. Evah.

[Caveman_Nick]

Screw it. Let's start suing the restaurant industry like we have with the tobacco industry. They serve us too much sugar, fat and alcohol. It is the restaurant's fault that we are fat and have diabetes!!!

[Clubfoothead]

Screw it. Let's start suing the restaurant industry like we have with the tobacco industry. They serve us too much sugar, fat and alcohol. It is the restaurant's fault that we are fat and have diabetes!!!

 

 

Restaurants are lying about what's in their food? They should be sued then.

[Hugh 0ne]

So if you're a fat doooosh, need your 64 ounce super big gulp, and go to a Restaurant that is now only allowed to serve 16 ounce sodas, what prevents you from ordering 4 of them?

[Clubfoothead]

So if you're a fat doooosh, need your 64 ounce super big gulp, and go to a Restaurant that is now only allowed to serve 16 ounce sodas, what prevents you from ordering 4 of them?

 

 

I was guessing free refills to be the easiest solution.

[yo mama]

So if you're a fat doooosh, need your 64 ounce super big gulp, and go to a Restaurant that is now only allowed to serve 16 ounce sodas, what prevents you from ordering 4 of them?

 

A separate ban on having more than one at a time, you silly. Like China does with babies.

 

Sheesh. Do I seriously have to do *all* the thinking around here?

Edited June 13, 2012 by yo mama

[Savage Beatings]

So if you're a fat doooosh, need your 64 ounce super big gulp, and go to a Restaurant that is now only allowed to serve 16 ounce sodas, what prevents you from ordering 4 of them?

 

 

I've heard that the response to this question is, that if you have to order 4 of them, then you will think twice about it, which will help to accomplish Bloomberg's goal of urban utopia for all.

[Hugh 0ne]

I've heard that the response to this question is, that if you have to order 4 of them, then you will think twice about it, which will help to accomplish Bloomberg's goal of urban utopia for all.

 

 

Oh, so this is technically pyschological warfare that Bloomberg is wagering. Now I see. Good thing I have smart guys like you and Yo Mama around here to help me out.

[yo mama]

It didn't take long for the 'what next?'

 

It's time for milk and popcorn to get added to the list. Should we start a pool for what's after those? I'm thinking serving sizes of non-lean meats-- those double patty burgers and large steaks are doomed.

 

Not milk, Mr. Pig - milkshakes. There's a difference - one of them is colder.

[yo mama]

Oh, so this is technically pyschological warfare that Bloomberg is wagering. Now I see. Good thing I have smart guys like you and Yo Mama around here to help me out.

 

Yes. Because down deep, where our inner most thoughts are brutally honest, we all know that most fat asses are just too damned lazy to get up three times for refills.

[stevegrab]

It didn't take long for the 'what next?'

 

It's time for milk and popcorn to get added to the list. Should we start a pool for what's after those? I'm thinking serving sizes of non-lean meats-- those double patty burgers and large steaks are doomed.

 

 

But, but, the do gooders promised us there would be nothing next. Why not just outlaw the serving of meat at all, turn us into vegans.

 

This is also the first time I've seen this actually spelled out (from the linked article)

 

"Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city. It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills."

 

So I can only order a 16oz soda but have as many refills as I want. (And other than fast food places and some buffets that usually doesn't require the fat asses to get up).

[Clubfoothead]

I keep reviewing our rights and I still have not identified a person right to be as unhealthy as possible.

[stevegrab]

I keep reviewing our rights and I still have not identified a person right to be as unhealthy as possible.

 

 

Then ban the sale of all "unhealthy foods". And tobacco, and alcohol, and many of the prescription drugs. Because I haven't seen the right to consume those products enumerated either.

[Big John]

I keep reviewing our rights and I still have not identified a person right to be as unhealthy as possible.

 

The 9th amendment encapules all not explicitly stated in the constitution.:

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Clubfoothead]

The 9th amendment encapules all not explicitly stated in the constitution.:

 

 

That means the federal government cannot act. It does not limit states and localities ability to act. And the 9th Amendment does not establish being unhealthy as a right.

 

Then ban the sale of all "unhealthy foods". And tobacco, and alcohol, and many of the prescription drugs. Because I haven't seen the right to consume those products enumerated either.

 

 

Or maybe, instead of banning unhealhy foods, we just regulate them like tobacco and booze and prescription drugs ans steet drugs. Why you insist on being such an extremist over this issue I don't know. You are taking an all or nothing approach when there is middle ground.

[stevegrab]

That means the federal government cannot act. It does not limit states and localities ability to act. And the 9th Amendment does not establish being unhealthy as a right.

 

 

 

Or maybe, instead of banning unhealhy foods, we just regulate them like tobacco and booze and prescription drugs ans steet drugs. Why you insist on being such an extremist over this issue I don't know. You are taking an all or nothing approach when there is middle ground.

 

 

First off I was being sarcastic in suggesting we ban all those things, it probably would cause a riot if they even suggested it.

 

But apparently you are suggesting that regulating all those products (including red meat, sugar, presumably other unhealthy things like fat, salt, etc.) So we should regulate the size of a steak the restaurant can server? And how much salt they can put on the table? And the size of a glass of beer that can be served? You'd be ok with all of that as well? Not me. If I lived there I'd be fighting it, moving or just not spending my money there.

 

I take an all or nothing approach because these bans are idiotic, they attempt to control what people do in very limited settings and (will probably) have no real affect on what they consume. If sodas are so unhealthy, then why allow refills that still permit to drink 30-60 ounces or more? Why allow stores to sell 2L bottles, or even six packs of soda. Those are larger than 16oz.

 

I really don't get why anybody is defending these laws as being good. To me it smacks of people pretending to be concerned about something and saying "see we passed this law to stop people from doing something that isn't healthy".

 

I really don't think the government should be getting involved in this kind of stuff at all, same goes for banning the use of trans fats in restaurants. If people are so concerned about what they eat, cook it yourself, or just force the places to disclose what goes into their food and (novel idea here) LET THE CONSUMER DECIDE WHAT TO DO. Even adding additional taxes on extra large sodas would be better, but still not a good idea in my opinion. Because there will always be something next, and it may be that product you like which is targeted by the government for regulation.

 

PS I never order large sodas like that anywhere, so it really doesn't affect me (nor am I likely to eat in NYC). But it is still bad IMHO and does go down that slipper slope.

[Big Country]

It's pretty damn clear that this "ban" is nothing more than lip service and a publicity stunt that will have no real affect. I would be interested to see how many restaurants (not fast food) currently are serving sodas in larger than 16 oz. glasses.

 

With the prevalence of free refills, it seems that the normal "serving size" of the glass I see at most places is probably in the 16-20 oz. range. All this will do for establishments that serve larger serving sizes is make them refill the glasses more frequently.

 

As for fast food establishments, the in restaurant dining will likely be minimally affected, as if you have any sense of a brain (since most of these places offer the free refills, most also self serve), you already order a small and just refill it.

 

So this is clearly nothing short of an attack on the drive thru guy that orders a large drink for a road trip.

[stevegrab]

It's pretty damn clear that this "ban" is nothing more than lip service and a publicity stunt that will have no real affect. I would be interested to see how many restaurants (not fast food) currently are serving sodas in larger than 16 oz. glasses.

 

With the prevalence of free refills, it seems that the normal "serving size" of the glass I see at most places is probably in the 16-20 oz. range. All this will do for establishments that serve larger serving sizes is make them refill the glasses more frequently.

 

As for fast food establishments, the in restaurant dining will likely be minimally affected, as if you have any sense of a brain (since most of these places offer the free refills, most also self serve), you already order a small and just refill it.

 

So this is clearly nothing short of an attack on the drive thru guy that orders a large drink for a road trip.

 

 

Wow somebody else does get it, amazing

[detlef]

But, but, the do gooders promised us there would be nothing next. Why not just outlaw the serving of meat at all, turn us into vegans.

 

This is also the first time I've seen this actually spelled out (from the linked article)

 

"Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city. It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills."

 

So I can only order a 16oz soda but have as many refills as I want. (And other than fast food places and some buffets that usually doesn't require the fat asses to get up).

 

Can't believe I got drawn back into this.

 

1) meat is not bad for you, soda is. The fittest people I know eat the hell out of meat. Not only can you make a very compelling argument for why meat can be an intergal part of a healthy diet, you can actually make one that it should be an intergal part of a healthy diet. No such argument can be made for soda.

 

Simple question: If your core argument has any merit, can you not simply make it without resorting to hyperbole and continuing to show how little you actually know about the subject? There's enough wrong with the concept of a random rule regarding soda size. You don't need to basically pretend that they're not actually bad for you to begin with by comparing them to other things that you think are allegedly just as bad for you but really aren't. Bitch about the rule, but make no mistake, and I've said it a bunch already, singling out sodas is nowhere near as random as many make it out to be. Bloomberg may be off the mark in how he's going about it, but he's certainly not off the mark in going after sodas in particular. Yet you and others keep implying he is by saying "what about this?" "what about that?"

 

Oh, and then you turn around and mockingly assure me, "everyone understands that soda isn't good for you". Right after you illustrate how little understanding you actually have about the matter. No, Steve, people apparently don't. They seemingly understand that they're not good for you, but the fact that they laugh at the comparison to things like smokes and booze and try to allign them with other "foods" they think are just as bad, does, in fact, show a fundamental lack of understanding about them. At very least, a reluctance to recognize the link between them and some rather epidemic health issues in this country that certainly rival, if not surpass others that we take far more seriously.

 

2) Everyone is so hung up on the fact that you can get around this. You can get around basically every control on every mostly legal substance that you can consume, yet those somewhat random restrictions do have the desired effect on slowing down consumption. But, here's a crazy thought. If you buy a 32 oz coke (maybe because it costs barely more than the 16 oz size and "what the hell?", there's a damned good chance you're going to finish it because, well, you already paid for it and it's staring you right there. A half-finished bucket of soda. Hate to throw it away. If, on the other hand, you buy a 16 oz soda and finish it about the time you finish your meal, there's likely a very good chance that you get up and go.

 

While, again, this would not be my first choice in addressing the issue, I do believe there will be an overall reduction in soda consumption and that is not a bad thing.

 

And, again, if it's really such a silly and random rule that will have no effect on anyone, doesn't it seem like an odd thing to start evoking the founding fathers over?

Edited June 15, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

Detlef,

 

Soda may be worse for you than meat, but anything can be bad for you if you consume too much. The guy who eats almost nothing but meat and potatoes/starch (no veggies, no fruits) has a bad diet, too much meat without other things is bad for him.

 

The guy who drinks the occassional soda isn't really hurting himself. Those guys you know who eat the hell out of meat, they probably eat a balanced diet. I never meant to imply that eating any meat is bad, or that drinking any soda is good for you. But there has to be some limit where eating another 4-6 oz of red meat is not good for you, so why not limit the size of the portion in restaraunts. Do we really need a 32oz piece of prime rib, a full rack of ribs, or a half a chicken at a meal? Is it healthy to eat that much?

 

Everything with limitations and nothing in excess. I use hyperbole and other nonsense because that is how I react to the nonsense of this proposed law. Those defending it hoping it will actually change things and educate people are falling for the smoke screen that the government is using.

 

Big country is one of the few that sees this for what it is, while others seem content to let the government keep passing laws limiting what people can sell to consumers. I don't need any government telling me how large a soda is too large, I'm capable of making that decision myself. (I cannot help it that too many think soda is the new water and drink it all day long.)

 

I'm kind of surprised that somebody in the restaurant business is so willing to accept legislation that restricts what he can offer his customers. What if they said "no more chips and salsa, people just get fat stuffing their face with that and still eat a large meal." Or some other well intended dietary rule that affects your business. Would you still be defending it?

 

I cannot help it that it bothers you. Anybody with common sense should know that drinking multiple sodas everyday is bad for you.

[delusions of grandeur]

First, they came for the soda, and I did nothing because I don't drink soda.

 

Next they came for the milkshakes, and I did nothing because I don't drink milkshakes.

 

Then they came for my bacon and there was no one left to speak out for me

[Big Country]

And, again, if it's really such a silly and random rule that will have no effect on anyone, doesn't it seem like an odd thing to start evoking the founding fathers over?

 

 

Does this mean I have to put my torch and pitchfork down?

 

 

Do we really need a 32oz piece of prime rib, a full rack of ribs, or a half a chicken at a meal? Is it healthy to eat that much?

 

 

 

I trimmed a lot, but, to answer your question, it depends. While that may be more than enough for many, it may well be not enough for others (in particular individuals with very physically demanding jobs that need higher calorie intake, athletes, etc.)

 

For me, I think it comes back to you can't legislate stupid. Who knows, it may well be that the guy you see at the beach with the 6-pack abs and chiseled muscles (insert gay jokes if you must) is pounding a 2-liter of soda a day, but he is factoring that in to his caloric needs (it's highly unlikely, but I've seen it, damn you genetic freaks with super high metabolisms).

 

The problem is, most people don't have any clue (or interest) in determining what is a healthy amount of calories, FOR THEM (this whole 2000 calorie diet thing is BS, everyone is very different), and then on top of knowing what they should be getting, actually limiting themselves to that.

 

 

 

Now - here is my new approach (note, this is a joke, but I want to protect businesses as well as the little people) - To make up for the lost revenue to the soda companies, I think NY should legislate that those people that are severely underweight, have eating disorders, etc. MUST consume large quantities of soda to bring their weight up to safe levels. Now we have a "win-win". Fat people can't drink soda, and lose weight, causing less health problems. Skinny people must drink soda, a tastier weight gainer shake, causing them to gain weight and be "healthier", and the soda companies maintain their sales, thus not costing loss of tax revenue for the city and not costing loss of revenue to the companies, forcing them to layoff employees.

[detlef]

Detlef,

 

Soda may be worse for you than meat, but anything can be bad for you if you consume too much. The guy who eats almost nothing but meat and potatoes/starch (no veggies, no fruits) has a bad diet, too much meat without other things is bad for him.

 

The guy who drinks the occassional soda isn't really hurting himself. Those guys you know who eat the hell out of meat, they probably eat a balanced diet. I never meant to imply that eating any meat is bad, or that drinking any soda is good for you. But there has to be some limit where eating another 4-6 oz of red meat is not good for you, so why not limit the size of the portion in restaraunts. Do we really need a 32oz piece of prime rib, a full rack of ribs, or a half a chicken at a meal? Is it healthy to eat that much?

 

Everything with limitations and nothing in excess. I use hyperbole and other nonsense because that is how I react to the nonsense of this proposed law. Those defending it hoping it will actually change things and educate people are falling for the smoke screen that the government is using.

 

Big country is one of the few that sees this for what it is, while others seem content to let the government keep passing laws limiting what people can sell to consumers. I don't need any government telling me how large a soda is too large, I'm capable of making that decision myself. (I cannot help it that too many think soda is the new water and drink it all day long.)

 

I'm kind of surprised that somebody in the restaurant business is so willing to accept legislation that restricts what he can offer his customers. What if they said "no more chips and salsa, people just get fat stuffing their face with that and still eat a large meal." Or some other well intended dietary rule that affects your business. Would you still be defending it?

 

I cannot help it that it bothers you. Anybody with common sense should know that drinking multiple sodas everyday is bad for you.

 

Dude, you really need to stop trying to intentionally downplay the soda thing. Again, you can formulate an entirely valid stance against a llaw like this without wandering into the deep end of things you apparently don't understand.

 

Soda "may not be worse for you than meat", it's simply bad for you. Well, I suppose there are some rare instances when what someone truly needs above all others is a shot of sugar (slipping into a diabetic coma or what have you), but again, meat, by nature, nourishes you. Even things like fried chicken. If you were eating fried chicken every day and wanted to start eating healthier, you would actually have to find something to replace the fried chicken in your diet. You likely couldn't just remove fried chicken and do nothing else. Because, while not the optimal source of some needed nourishment, it does provide protein you need. So, you might switch to grilled chicken breast or something. Soda? You could just stop drinking it and you wouldn't need to go find something healthier to fill the dietary need that soda is filling, albeit poorly. It is hollow calories and nothing else. It cuffs with your blood sugar levels. It's a liquid but it doesn't hydrate you. So, it would be unfair to water to say that water could be the grilled chicken breast to soda's fried chicken, because it's not as if water does a better job than soda does of hydrating you. Water hydrates you and soda really doesn't. Do you see the difference?

 

Now, I've already mentioned that the specific tact being employed is not my first choice, so I'm not interested in going down that path much longer. So, now's where you need to stop pretending two things: 1) that, because I'm not lock step in-line with those of you who find this measure to be entirely without merit and the stupidest thing you can imagine means that I'm 100% on board with it. 2) that it could be chicken or steak or virtually any of the other things that people have brought up that should be treated the same as soda (but definately not smokes, because that's just silly).

 

That's really it. Stick with the "you can't legislate against stupid" line. It's absolutely the best one to go with here.

Edited June 15, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

So if I was dying of thirst and need liquids soda would not help?

 

Whatever, this "discussion" has gone on long enough. Saying the law is dumb and you can't legislate stupid is met with "But people don't know its bad for them, so by limiting the amount you can poor into a cup in some places we're helping."

 

I find it interesting that you come up with some very lengthy responses to my post, but the few times I've asked how you'd feel if NC (or Raleigh or whatever city your eateries are in) passed such a ban. Or others limiting the size of your servings, serving chips, size of alcoholic drinks etc. you never respond.

 

I really don't care, ban or restrict every "unhealthy' product in NYC, I'll probably never set foot in that place anyway so I don't really care. I just think it stupid, meaningless pandering. "Look at me, mayor or NYC, I'll save you all from your bad habits."

 

Now to go home and suck down several cold beers with my home made tacos.