What do you think of a ban on larger size drinks?

[M-E-D The Poet]

You guys do know anything above 0.5 liters is considered crazy by europeans right?

the largest I've seen is 0.7 at burger king and people look at me funny when I buy that one

So because Europeans might not like it, we shouldnt do it? Seriously? You know how much shit you would catch if you said "well Americans wouldnt like it, so (insert country/geographical area)shouldnt do it"? But thats not the point of my post


This is. I want the 40 oz fucking cup because I want more fucking pop AT A LOWER GODDAMN PRICE!!! What you are doing is forcing buisnesses to go against the wishes of their consumers, driving away buisness (and through that, tax revenue through lost profits), and ultimately trying to play mommy to a city of 8 million people. And yes, a large does cost you less than a small because you get more bang for your buck. Even a medium (32 oz at BK where I work) is cheaper, and THAT would be "illegal" under Nanny ODumbass' proposed plan.

no because we've realized it's sick to drink such amounts

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

I think it's bullshit and anyone who supports such things shouldn't be allowed near a lawbook with anything capable of editing it.


First of all soda is NOT unhealthy. Drinking too much of it is what causes problems. This is the case with everything you can possibly drink. You can cause problems drinking too much water, too much milk, too much OJ. A can or two of coke a day is not going to make you fat, give you diabeetus, and burden the system.


Secondly, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES! The people are perfectly capable of making the healthy choice if they want to. They clearly don't. They clearly want to choose the tasty one instead. LET THEM!


Fucking hell...god I sound like a republican, but for fuck's sake people stop trying to run everyone else's lives! If I want a double gulp that fucker had best be 64oz. That's what I'm paying for, that's what a double gulp is, that's what I had best be getting. If the government thinks that's wrong oh well, they can go fuck themselves. My body my rules.

Indeed sir! I agree completely!

Anyways, reading some other people's posts, I think that a way to counter obesity would be proper teaching by parents and teachers to tell kids when so much is too much. If kids can figure out what's healthy when they're young, those kind of things wouldn't happen. Also, if the parents don't constantly buy unhealthy crap.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

So as people may or may not know outside of NYC, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is proposing a ban on larger sizes of sugary drinks in places like 7eleven and McDonalds. I personally absolutely agree with this. I think that if people are gonna be unhealthy and make choices that like get a free refill of the 2 liter hyper gulp or whatever they sell at 7eleven then they should be limited by the government. I also think that if people are gonna constantly have to go to the emergency room for heart attacks then the government who will usually be paying for it has a right to try to limit things like drink sizes.

How about instead of banning, the impose a larger tax? Say, costing 200% more for larger drink sizes than smaller ones.

Banning it is just extreme.... and people will complain about it. A lot.

but with a buttload of tax, people would complain anyway. there's no escaping the whiners.

I suppose the difference in my mind is that..... if there is a larger tax the restaurants can still sell it, freedom of choice and yadi yada. But if it's banned, you can be fined/go to jail for selling someone a soft drink that is too large... and that is just kinda silly.

If soft drinks causes more tax money to be used, to due hospital bills, then it should cost more to cover for that.

your point. i see it. but how much would a 5 litre coke cost with 200% tax

5 litre was an exaggeration. you know what i mean.

I hope you guys understand that imposing taxes are really not that good of an idea, albeit somewhat effective. The government shouldn't stand to profit from their people's mistakes.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Oh, it's 'if it doesn't solve everything by itself, I'm going to pretend it doesn't make any difference' again. I've seen that before. Why cut your calories if you can't cut all of them? With one easy pill? Also, you should learn maths from taking the pill because school is a drag

No, it's a case of it literally solves nothing. You're allowed to buy two drinks that equal up to the same size. With the idea being that people will see they are ordering two and be like oh wow that's a lot of soda. Like they are so fucking stupid now that they can order the singular giant drink and not realize that? But somehow at the same time so not stupid that they will somehow realize their habits because of this dumb initiative?

Lets go over a few things:

1) Prohibition never works. It led to the first big rise of organized crime in the US. The drug trade has grown by leaps and bounds since it was made illegal. And the Russian Mafia got it's start selling vegetables and fruits in the USSR, that collective farmers were banned from growing.

2) You can't hold everyone's collective hands. Adults have to be allowed to make their own decisions and mistakes(as long as those mistakes pertain only to them.) That's what freedom means.

As Jon Stewart says: "It combines the draconian government over-reach people love with the probable lack of results they expect."


Also I find this hilarious. Because I always argued against the government being able to tell you what you put in your body, be it drugs or anything else. I would point out that often the damage that drugs can cause is eclipsed if not completely overshadowed by the damage that food can cause(when overeaten.) So keeping that in mind: 'why don't we make a law banning hamburgers and requiring everyone stick to a healthy diet, or be thrown in prison?' And everyone always(ignoring the pretty much spot on comparison and actual point) calls me ridiculous and says that would never happen "'cus that's just crazy." And yet here it comes.

 

[Superior Mind]

Dammit I am free to be manipulated by pricing and business models to consume as much of a company's product as they can possibly ram down my throat! I fight to protect the right to act and be treated like the human garbage disposal unit that I am!

That being said I get the argument that people should be able to drink as much soda as they want. My argument to that would be that it is up to the community or the Government to correct an environment where people are over-consuming to such an alarming degree that it is impacting negatively on others. No-one is stopping people from consuming as much as they want but if you're not presented with an over-large bucket of chemicals and sugar then you are less likely to consume an over-large bucket of chemicals in sugar.

I don't know anyone who would intentionally decide to consume 2 litres of sugary fizzy beverage at once. This is less about restricting an individual's rights and more about regulating industry to make sure they're not poisoning the populace.

How does me drinking a large soda effect the populace? And people aren't brains was they can tell how much soda they're going to get wen they buy it.

Well if someone is silly enough to drink bucket loads of soda on a regular basis they'll get fat. And the fatter people get the more unhealthy they get. This can and has become a burden on the health system in the same way smoking has. Not only that but when you get the mega fatties you have to actually take their extreme girth into account with other things. I have to give my bus seat up for a fatty because they'r legs can't hold up their own girth. Buildings have to be re-planned with wider doorways and bigger seats, things need to be reinforced all at a cost. These are extreme examples sure, but it is what is happening.

I didn't understand your second sentence entirely. I think you're saying that people are smart enough to know how much they're drinking so they won't guzzle things indiscriminately. Supposedly taking away two litre jugs of syrup water is just going to make someone buy two one litre jugs. Certainly nothing's stopping them from doing this, they're smart, they know how to work the system. Thing is they're not and they don't. If someone is offered a mega pail of sugary chemicals for a price that suggests that it's a far better deal than buying the slightly smaller pail of chemicals they will buy the bigger one. I'll give an example:

Say you're given two options. One cup is one litre and costs $2. The other cup is two litres and costs $3. Our brains are smart enough to calculate that if we buy the bigger cup we're getting a full 100% more beverage for only 50% more price. Regardless of whether we even want two litres we're going to be inclined to go with the bigger cup. They do it at places like McDonalds with the whole super-size thing. "Pay only an extra fifty cents and we'll give you twice as much soft drink and salted potato strips." We think "We'll I'm already spending $5.50 or whatever and an extra fifty cents would give me all that extra stuff totalling only one sixth of my total bill!". So we go for it. We end up spending more for bigger quantities of a product we don't even want.

People aren't always dumb but we can be easily manipulated.

And I can appreciate that people don't like the nanny state trying to protect themselves from themselves. I get that. I say if someone's dumb enough to stick their dick in a power socket then that's their fucking right. But when people are too stupid and greedy to protect their own health to the extent that my healthcare is impacted negatively or I have to stand up on a bus because some fat fuck doesn't have the leg muscle to support their own torso then I do think it is the role of the community to step in to identify and fix a potential problem.

What health system, we don't have universal healthcare, if u mean insurance then that's a risk you took when you signed up, choosing to buy insurance doesn't entitle you to dictate other people's health. Also people can become obese due to medical conditions so all your reinforced this and that might be neccesary anyway.

Also I was saying people know when they're buying very large sodas, they just choose to.

I'm a New Zealander, we get healthcare. But regardless of whether you have public healthcare, severely overweight people and the load, (har har,) they add is going to take resources away from other places they may be needed.

You are right though, people can become obese through medical conditions. Thyroid problems and Chushing's Syndrome are causes of obesity, it is estimated that they are at play in a whole 1% of all cases of obesity. One lonely percent. Some can be genetically predisposed towards becoming obese but this doesn't mean they will, it just means a higher risk. Generally though it's just caused by too much eating of too much crap which is itself, (in part,) caused by a number of social factors but I won't go into that. Suffice to say if we ate better there'd be fewer fatties and less of a need to have to accommodate fatties.

As to your last point, I get that people know what they're buying. Or they think they do. Thing is if they weren't offered a gargantuan bucket of fizz they wouldn't want nor buy a gargantuan bucket of fizz. How often to you go to the shop and buy several cans of Coke and down them one after the other? How often do you opt to take the biggest soft drink cup size because it's the biggest being offered? Limiting giant soft drink cups isn't getting in the way of anyone's right to drown themselves in syrup-water if that's what they want to do, it's just limiting a retailer's ability to manipulate people to consume more. If you created a system where retailers could be encouraged to manipulate people to consume less wouldn't that be beneficial?

 

[ntw3001]

No, it's a case of it literally solves nothing. You're allowed to buy two drinks that equal up to the same size. With the idea being that people will see they are ordering two and be like oh wow that's a lot of soda. Like they are so fucking stupid now that they can order the singular giant drink and not realize that? But somehow at the same time so not stupid that they will somehow realize their habits because of this dumb initiative?

Lets go over a few things:

1) Prohibition never works. It led to the first big rise of organized crime in the US. The drug trade has grown by leaps and bounds since it was made illegal. And the Russian Mafia got it's start selling vegetables and fruits in the USSR, that collective farmers were banned from growing.

2) You can't hold everyone's collective hands. Adults have to be allowed to make their own decisions and mistakes(as long as those mistakes pertain only to them.) That's what freedom means.

As Jon Stewart says: "It combines the draconian government over-reach people love with the probable lack of results they expect."

Also I find this hilarious. Because I always argued against the government being able to tell you what you put in your body, be it drugs or anything else. I would point out that often the damage that drugs can cause is eclipsed if not completely overshadowed by the damage that food can cause(when overeaten.) So keeping that in mind: 'why don't we make a law banning hamburgers and requiring everyone stick to a healthy diet, or be thrown in prison?' And everyone always(ignoring the pretty much spot on comparison and actual point) calls me ridiculous and says that would never happen "'cus that's just crazy." And yet here it comes.

1: This is not related to prohibition. Prohibition was the absolute ban on the production and sale of alcohol. What this is is a limit on the maximum volume of a single beverage. You'll notice, of course, that such laws already exist, and have done for a very long time with no issues. Prohibition may not work, but weights and measures laws are going strong. You can order forty shots of vodka, but you can't get it in a pint glass. Nobody cares.

2: How is this 'holding everyone's hands'? Nobody's telling you what you can buy; they're telling companies what they can sell. This, again, is not new. You can still buy as much Coke as you want. So where's the 'freedom' issue? Your right to drink your body weight in fizzy drinks is absolutely intact. Untouched. I'd say problem solved, but that would necessitate that some problem had existed.

So, the whole 'government telling us what we can eat' argument doesn't really have much foundation. I realise a lot of people, especially in the USA, have a massive boner for 'feeling oppressed', but there's just... nothing. No basis for that boner. It's structurally unsound.

Oh, and the first paragraph: The plan is not that people will order two and find it overwhelming. It's that they'll order one. They ordered one before, they'll order one now, and they'll still have more Coke than they needed. The people who order two because they're bitter and bloody-minded will vastly outnumber those who order two because they actually want to have that much to drink. Then they'll get bored, then they'll order one. If not, who cares? They have the freedom to do what they like, because their freedom hasn't been restricted in any way whatsoever. Unless you're genuinely fretting about your freedom to have a really big cup.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

1: This is not related to prohibition. Prohibition was the absolute ban on the production and sale of alcohol. What this is is a limit on the maximum volume of a single beverage. You'll notice, of course, that such laws already exist, and have done for a very long time with no issues. Prohibition may not work, but weights and measures laws are going strong. You can order forty shots of vodka, but you can't get it in a pint glass. Nobody cares.

Prohibition is a ban on the sale of anything, not just alcohol. And yes this isn't prohibition, it's stupider and just as ineffective. You're going to have to show me the laws your referring to, because I seriously doubt that anyone gives a shit about what size container people serve vodka in. I'm sure most bars will tell you to bugger off because you're being dumb, but 'illegal' is not the same as 'businesses don't do it.' And weights and measures laws are for standardization of sale sizes, not for limiting them. Eg, if you buy a large drink they are all supposed to be close to the same weight/measurement so that the purchaser isn't getting shafted. It's a legal way of promoting equity, not banning things.

2: How is this 'holding everyone's hands'? Nobody's telling you what you can buy; they're telling companies what they can sell.

This is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long, long time. Do you not understand simple logic? If you take out one side of the equation then you have effectively taken out the other half. If you prohibit what people can sell, then other people obviously can't buy it. You have just taken the long way around to banning people from buying something. Stop playing the semantics game. Zero product means that zero people can buy it, means that the government just told us we can't buy something.

This, again, is not new. You can still buy as much Coke as you want. So where's the 'freedom' issue? Your right to drink your body weight in fizzy drinks is absolutely intact. Untouched. I'd say problem solved, but that would necessitate that some problem had existed.

Yes, its a completely ineffectual law, but it still bans something arbitrarily. Removing your right to just order a single large cup is still removing a right. And banning the sale of a drink size is still banning it. Just because the lawmakers left a giant glaring loophole that renders the law useless, does not make it any less of a ban. All it does is make it a needless extra piece of paperwork, that at best does absolutely nothing, and at worst costs taxpayers more money to enforce.

So, the whole 'government telling us what we can eat' argument doesn't really have much foundation.

'Here it comes' is a future tense meaning that it almost looks like we are headed that way. This bill is not banning what we can eat. It's banning what we eat on/in/out of, which is even more arbitrary and insane.

I realise a lot of people, especially in the USA, have a massive boner for 'feeling oppressed', but there's just... nothing. No basis for that boner. It's structurally unsound.

Pointing out that this law is retarded, is not the same as feeling oppressed. But regarding actual oppression, if you think the average US citizen isn't: then you're pretty blind. I can think of hundreds of wide ranging examples of oppression of US citizens. Just because we have it better than 95% of countries, does not make oppression any less existent, nor does it mean we should ignore it and stop attempting to limit it.

Oh, and the first paragraph: The plan is not that people will order two and find it overwhelming. It's that they'll order one.

That's called social engineering, and it has a bad connotation attached to it for a reason.

They ordered one before, they'll order one now, and they'll still have more Coke than they needed.

How do you know how much coke they needed? What about people with gigantism who are 9 feet tall. This may come as a shock to you, but different people have different caloric and sugar intakes; because people come in different sizes.

The people who order two because they're bitter and bloody-minded will vastly outnumber those who order two because they actually want to have that much to drink. Then they'll get bored, then they'll order one. If not, who cares?

You're vastly underestimating how fat Americans are.

They have the freedom to do what they like, because their freedom hasn't been restricted in any way whatsoever.

Free(Adj): Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

Am I allowed to order an extra large soft drink? No. Then my freedom has been restricted no matter how small.

Am I as a business owner allowed to sell an extra large soft drink? No. Then my freedom has been restricted no matter how small.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

They ordered one before, they'll order one now, and they'll still have more Coke than they needed.

How do you know how much coke they needed? What about people with gigantism who are 9 feet tall. This may come as a shock to you, but different people have different caloric and sugar intakes; because people come in different sizes.

Lol. You have that the wrong way around I'm afraid - some people are supersized *because* they drink their sugar water

And I can't say I've ever met anyone with gigantism, let alone one who's 9 ft tall, so I don't think they really need to be genuinely considered - at least, they can speak up for themselves, rather than be used as a strawman argument

Am I allowed to order an extra large soft drink? No. Then my freedom has been restricted no matter how small.

Am I as a business owner allowed to sell an extra large soft drink? No. Then my freedom has been restricted no matter how small.

You know, whinging about your freedoms being infringed "no matter how small" really sounds petty. I hate to break it to you, but noone has ever lived in a world where none of their freedoms were ever infringed, noone except the super-rich, perhaps..

There can be subtler ways in which these really bad habits affect society as a whole, not just monetarily e.g. alcohol related violence - aren't victims of it having *their* "freedom not to have the shit beaten out of them" infringed? And one person eating like ten people isn't exactly ethical when it comes down it - there's no such thing as a free lunch. And don't companies that market excessive quantities of crap to consumers, dimwitted or otherwise, have an ethical responsibility not to profit at the expense of the health of the greater society in which they exist? Shareholders may not give a shit about the American public's health, but everyone else should.

 

[VanTesla]

Pop in general is bad for you so I rarely drink it. I think its stepping on peoples rights, but people are stupid and don't know or care what they put in their mouths... Honestly think if they ban that then they should keep going and ban cigarettes and alcohol...

Yea... Don't give them any ideas. Remember what happened the last time alcohol was banned in the US? Al Capone, "Baby Face" Nelson, and these guys.

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/20th-gangsters.html

and those are just the famous ones.

Oh Iknow all to well about that lol. Ofcorse what I meant was to be sarcasm. Maybe I did not do a good job of relaying that and it's kinda hard for me to do so online. Still in a perfect world it would be swell, but this is reality and banning goods usualy have a worse impact than legalizing it with restrictive laws attached. Alcohol during the prohabition being the perfect example and marijuana being a good modern example in that it still being illegal. I am not for marijuana beyond medical purposes, but it's better to be legal and cut on the drug cartels and dealers cash flow, also it's less deadly than cigarettes and alcohol when it comes to long term health effects...

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Lol. You have that the wrong way around I'm afraid - some people are supersized *because* they drink their sugar water

We are not talking about fat. We are talking about legitimately large people.

And I can't say I've ever met anyone with gigantism, let alone one who's 9 ft tall, so I don't think they really need to be genuinely considered

Oh well if you haven't met them, then we shouldn't consider their well being or ease of life.

Do you use that argument for everything? 'I can't say I've ever met anyone who has been raped, so I don't think they really need to be genuinely considered when coming up with laws that effect them.'

at least, they can speak up for themselves, rather than be used as a strawman argument

Go back to whatever shitty website or university 'taught' you what a strawman argument is, and tell them they need to try again. He made the argument that no one needed that much sugar intake. I pointed out that there are plenty of people who could drink that much soda and have it effectively be the relative size to them as a small soda is to most people. That's called a direct argument against a point he made; which is the exactly opposite of a strawman.

You know, whinging about your freedoms being infringed "no matter how small" really sounds petty.

You know, 'whinging' is not a word. And randomly attributing whining to someone is not making an argument. Even if it were accurate, it's changing the subject away from actual argumentation, to perceived tones that have nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of an idea. Which is a tactic used by people when they are losing arguments.

I hate to break it to you, but noone has ever lived in a world where none of their freedoms were ever infringed

Oh that's good that you corrected me, because I totally said that and you didn't randomly attribute it to me at all. Hey, tell me what a strawman is again, buddy?

There can be subtler ways in which these really bad habits affect society as a whole

I agree. Like people who don't go to bed on time, then they are tired in the morning and they drive while tired. I mean that can kill people. That's why the government should have mandated bedtimes. Because people don't know whats good for them unless they work in the government and then they know whats good for people. That's why we need laws for this stuff. Because if we don't make laws for the obvious and inane, how will people ever figure things out?

not just monetarily e.g. alcohol related violence - aren't victims of it having *their* "freedom not to have the shit beaten out of them" infringed?

Yes, and the alcohol is what beat them up. Not the person irresponsibly drinking and hitting them. It's the alcohol. People are never responsible for their actions.

I always hate it when a 5-HT1a receptor malfunctions and makes some poor guy commit murder. That's why I advocate jailing faulty 5-HT1a receptors and any serotonin's that failed to prevent the aggression. Because that's the real problem.

And one person eating like ten people isn't exactly ethical when it comes down it

Yes it's amoral, meaning neither moral nor immoral(I felt I had to tack that last bit on to the sentence. Because given the rest of your post and your confusion with even the most obvious of logical fallacies: it's highly likely you have no idea what amoral means, and would have probably confused it with immoral. So I felt compelled to help you out there, no need to thank me, it was as much for my sanity as it was for your education.) And things that are amoral are things that do not need laws about them, it's a waste of paper and of time. If someone is so terrible at life that they can't handle eating food that wont kill them, then guess what? They are going to ruin their life some other way, because that's how inept they are.

there's no such thing as a free lunch.

I find your usage of the phrase here hilarious. Because it firstly is really not what TINSTAAFL is actually making a point about, at all. And secondly because TINSTAAFL is commonly a phrase used in argument by libertarians(Friedman and Heinlein) for pro libertarian pro extreme freedom stances.

And don't companies that market excessive quantities of crap to consumers, dimwitted or otherwise, have an ethical responsibility not to profit at the expense of the health of the greater society in which they exist?

No, they don't. Because companies aren't people. The supreme court is retarded for saying otherwise, as is anyone who un-ironically agrees with them. And people do not have ethical responsibilities that inherently come with a position nor with birth either. They accept those responsibilities or they do not based on their world view. And if their world view says that they should sell high quality products, pay their employees well/give them benefits, then they will do so; because they make that responsibility for themselves. And I can name plenty of very successful companies that follow that practice(Starbucks, UPS, Whole Foods to name a few.) If they do not put that responsibility on themselves, then they will fire employees en mass for small increased profits(IBM, most banks ), aggressively buy up and destroy companies for profit(General Motors, Electronic Arts) and they will always find tons of loopholes to get around whatever laws you make. If you do not like what they are doing, then it is your decision whether or not to buy into their products. Because no matter what they do, without customers, there can be no product. And the people who bought products from shitty companies have just as much 'responsibility' for the results of that, as the companies themselves.

The answer isn't more laws. The answer is personal responsibility. No one wants to accept personal responsibility anymore. It's always the alcohol that did it, the food companies that made people fat, the government that isn't doing enough to educate the children. No one says, I'm a bad person and I drink to excess knowing that I become violent when I do, and then I beat people up, but I keep doing it every night because I lack self control. No one says, I make bad choices and eat food that I know isn't healthy for me, and that's why I'm fat. No one says, hey maybe I should try sitting down with my kids and reading to them so that they aren't idiots. They just run around blaming everyone else, and demanding that other people fix their problems. And that's what this is.

And no, this is not an argument for everyone does everything for themselves. There's a huge difference in scales between being the 21st century Renaissance man, and being enough of an adult to make your decisions for yourself, and to be able to decide that hey maybe I shouldn't have that giant coke.; And people who legitimately have glandular problems can take medication for it. Of course the people who most vocally say they have glandular problems when they are overweight are usually the ones who don't actually have them. Because it's just another convenient excuse for being fat, without accepting the responsibility for ones actions.

Feel free to respond but unless I check later tonight, I will be busy with work and then vacation, and will thus not be responding to anything said to me for at least a month.