This is why I am against socialized medicine, once government is paying for you, they pretty much have a right to dictate how you live and what you can and can't eat.AstylahAthrys said:
What do you think of a ban on larger size drinks?
- Thread starter SeeIn2D
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would start a fucking war! I may lose, but I'd lose with a 12 oz Porter house in my stomach, and a smile on my face. They may take my life, but they'll never take [Dramatic Pause] MY STEAK!Dimitriov said:
Stupid Idea...what gives people the right to think the can control the size of my drink...fuckers and their power trips
I think the size of drinks should be standardised and people familiarised with the amount of drink they are getting, but apart from that, no. They can buy a f***ing large drink if they want to, the offer for a medium or small was there.
I have joined into this debate at a fairly late stage so please forgive me if I seem to be repeating what has already been said, but, it seems to me that the core of the issue is not really the debated health issues relating to the drink or ingredients thereof, the education levels of the consumer or even the simple convenience of such a product. Personally, I feel the heart if the argument is as simple as "people do not like to be told how to live their lives".
Also, it would appear to me that the availability of sugar free or "zero" alternatives has been somewhat skimmed over by this debate. Why not, rather than a simple ban on high sugar drinks, perhaps a push towards promoting low or no sugar alternatives might be the way forward?
Also, it would appear to me that the availability of sugar free or "zero" alternatives has been somewhat skimmed over by this debate. Why not, rather than a simple ban on high sugar drinks, perhaps a push towards promoting low or no sugar alternatives might be the way forward?
My issue is the aforementioned "we decide what is healthy and good for you, you can't be trusted to do it for yourselves" mentality.
Have we shown the ability to stop people from killing themselves (and others) with Methamphetamines?
Nope.
But now, because of the obesity problem, let's make an Expensive, Futile Gesture which does *nothing* to help with the problem it claims to and actually *costs* money because it has to be enforced.
Know what it *does* do, though? It gives a Precedent to make other rulings 'for your own good' down to the soda I drink and chips I eat.
Have we shown the ability to stop people from killing themselves (and others) with Methamphetamines?
Nope.
But now, because of the obesity problem, let's make an Expensive, Futile Gesture which does *nothing* to help with the problem it claims to and actually *costs* money because it has to be enforced.
Know what it *does* do, though? It gives a Precedent to make other rulings 'for your own good' down to the soda I drink and chips I eat.
You do know the law only applies to restaurants right? McDonalds, Wendys, KFC. It doesn't apply to convenience stores due to NYC's clusterfuck of regulations, so you can still go to the Kwik-E mart Mart and get a 64oz big gulp. That's the biggest issue it seem, pretty much makes the law pointless and it's essentially a joke. No one besides the mayor and his staff is taking it seriously.TestECull said:
While I don't think it needs a law, it IS a problem, albeit a socio-cultural one. American society needs a lot of things to change - get out of the Middle Ages and stop getting married at age 18; stop eating and drinking crap that makes you feel lethargic, slow and ultimately dead; stop mistaking social for socialist; stop encouraging religious fundamentalism... and so much, oh so much more.
Alas, you can't regulate these things. You need to change people's ideals and mindset from the ground up, only then can this be successful.
Alas, you can't regulate these things. You need to change people's ideals and mindset from the ground up, only then can this be successful.
Well there's the problem right there! It's like the healthy diet dilemma: If a burger is cheaper, costs less, available near-instantly and can be eaten while travelling, why go and eat a salad?Dosbilliam said:
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.VanTesla said:
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/20th-gangsters.html
and those are just the famous ones.
I'm on the "the government shouldn't tell me what to do with myself" side of this debate. However, I do think that the government could enforce something like improved information on these drinks, for example they could require each cup to have something like the nutritional facts of an average soda on them. And none of this misleading serving size bull****. Tell me how much of X,Y, and Z is in the entire cup. I doubt most people actually do the math to figure it out.
Of course, the government could also stop creating the problem instead of trying to stop solving it. Do you think that huge sodas would be as highly consumed if the government stopped subsidizing the corn production of huge farm corporations? No, they wouldn't. Even someone in an Econ 101 class could tell you that.
Now I know that the mayor of NYC doesn't have that kind of authority, but if not drinking all this soda is really in the interest of the people, the government should stop those subsidies. Too bad there is too much cronyism for that to ever happen.
TL;DR With respect to this, the government's role is to inform, not mandate. Even then, the government is causing the problem in the first place.
Of course, the government could also stop creating the problem instead of trying to stop solving it. Do you think that huge sodas would be as highly consumed if the government stopped subsidizing the corn production of huge farm corporations? No, they wouldn't. Even someone in an Econ 101 class could tell you that.
Now I know that the mayor of NYC doesn't have that kind of authority, but if not drinking all this soda is really in the interest of the people, the government should stop those subsidies. Too bad there is too much cronyism for that to ever happen.
TL;DR With respect to this, the government's role is to inform, not mandate. Even then, the government is causing the problem in the first place.
the only thing I found on this matter is just a correlation between soda and osteoporosis. That's all it is, a correlation. Not a causation.Kyrinn said:
Also, I don't get the notion of "empty calories". A calorie is a unit for energy, just like Joule is. You can't have, for example, an "emtpy" second, can you? A second, Calorie, a meter are just units of things.
O.T I can see why they would ban it. 2 Liters isn't going to do anyone any good. People who buy them probably aren't doing much exercise either, but it's their right to be fat. So to ban it, it goes a little bit far.
It's a dieting term rather than a scientific dietary term, referring to calories that you take in via food and drink that serves no nutritional purpose.RustlessPotato said:
In the modern lifestyle, finding sufficient calories to survive is not a problem. Indeed it's the OPPOSITE problem, healthy living today requires finding the nutrients you need to survive, without taking in TOO MANY calories and turning into a lump of lard
So, while an apple for example actually has a fair amount of calories, it also comes packed with vitamins - ie for the calories you "spent" from your daily intake, you got something worthwhile out of them. By contrast, a soda has no nutritional value whatsoever, a 2 litre gulp will consume almost HALF your daily calorie intake (For a typical, semi-sedentary person), making it much harder to go through your day without taking in too much...
The fundamental problem, and why they felt the law is nessecary, is quite simply that people are somewhat in denial about these simple mathematical facts of life. At the end of the day your body mass is a simple equation. If energy in is greater than energy out, you get fat... nothing more, nothing less, therefore to stay healthy you need to balance both values.
- Your lean and healthy European friend.
Defining precisely who is harmed by a personal habit becomes a lot fuzzier when social influence is considered. Claiming that people are rational enough to evaluate a drug or bad habit purely on its own merits and ignore whether or not their peers are doing it is frankly contradicted by quite a number of studies. Whether or not politicians should legislate over habits like these, or whether or not soda is a serious public health menace is a bit more up in the air. It's certainly going to be more effective than just another thing high school kids ignore in their federally mandated Health class.darkbshadow said:
As to the "they'll just buy more" argument, try googling the bottomless soup experiment. To summarize, researchers in a restaurant had some special bowls which secretly piped in soup to replace what the customers had consumed. The ones who kept getting their soup secretly refilled (despite on average eating 73% more) thought that they were eating less and felt no less sated than the people whose bowls were normal. That suggests that there are strong external cues that determine hunger, not the simple amount of food that is eaten.
Chances are, customers will go in and order a medium size not because it's called medium or by how many ounces but by it being the middle of three sizes. Or order the largest one because they feel especially thirsty, not because they feel like their thirst is just about right for 32 oz of soda. And they won't feel full or will feel guilty about wasting food unless they finish it. It's not unreasonable from the studies that I've seen to think that banning the largest sizes will reduce soda consumption as a whole.
But, personally, I'm also leery of morally based legislation saving people from themselves. People are often quite bad at being rational, but politicians working on the behalf of everyone usually end up being worse. Soda is widely considered unhealthy, but there's a hell of a lot of other things out there that compete pretty well with it that don't have its bad reputation (like Starbucks coffee.) Unfortunately, laws last longer than moral panics; they should be carefully examined before they're ratified.