Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Government Politics Science

Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple 1141

Posted by timothy
from the big-brother-controls-the-fridge dept.
An anonymous reader writes "NYC residents may soon be unable to buy big gulps. In an effort to curb obesity, New York City's Mayor Bloomberg is seeking a ban on oversized sodas in restaurants, movie theaters and stadiums officials said on Wednesday. 'Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the U.S., public health officials are wringing their hands saying, "Oh, this is terrible,"' Mayor Bloomberg said. 'New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple

Comments Filter:
  • Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drafell (1263712) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:32AM (#40166295)

    Seems like a pretty redundant ban to me. Most places offer free refills on soda...

    • by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:43AM (#40166445) Homepage Journal
      ...for people to leave NY.

      I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).

      Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.

      Are people so fucking stupid now...they cannot fathom that behavior such as drinking a ton of sugared beverage a day....to wash down nothing but greasy, fat laden burgers...will make them fat? Even if it is the case....why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?

      Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?

      I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.

      Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?

      • by IceNinjaNine (2026774) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:50AM (#40166581)

        Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?

        Watch the movie Idiocracy [imdb.com]. It's coming, and I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. I'll paraphrase something that I once read (can't come up with a cite, sorry): "I say we take the safety labels off of everything and let nature work itself out."

      • by Jaysyn (203771) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `todhsals+nysyaj'> on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:56AM (#40166669) Homepage Journal

        Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?

        If only it worked like that. Unfortunately, the dumber they get the more they breed. And they always do so before the heart attack or cancer gets them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dishevel (1105119)

          If you quit giving them medical care, checks for their children, welfare, food stamps we would be better off.
          I am not saying that we make them starve. But how about we go back to big colorful fake money looking food stamps.
          That way there would be a bit of stigma attached. More incentive to get a fucking job.

        • by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:38AM (#40167403) Homepage

          Yup, that little boy that bangs his head on the wall for fun, He will breed at least 2-3 spawn before the 100+IQ person even get's laid once.

          The stupid are outbreeding the smart 5 to 1.

      • ...for people to leave NY.

        I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).

        Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.

        Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?

        • by tnk1 (899206) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:20AM (#40167053)

          Having lived in the state, it's pretty clear that even people in the City can't tell the difference. I am convinced that they believe that Albany is actually somewhere in Manhattan... in a slightly less prestigious neighborhood than City Hall.

        • Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?

          Yes, and I also know the difference between a state [wikipedia.org], meaning a first-level political subdivision, and a state [wikipedia.org], meaning the entity with a monopoly on violence.

      • by khr (708262)

        I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY

        Yeah, the Onion [theonion.com] had an interesting article about the mass exodus from New York City just a couple of weeks before I moved to it.

      • by milkmage (795746) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:23AM (#40167107)

        "why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?" ... who do you think paid for this?

        http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-10/news/31320495_1_fire-department-rescue-crews-hazmat [nydailynews.com]

        "It took the combined efforts of police, fire department, Hazmat unit and EMTs to finally get a 600-pound man in need of medical attention out of his Pennsylvania home." our tax dollars pay for EMS. Fire, Police and Hazmat (WTF hazmat)... it's not like this was a 20 minute call either. they had to CUT THE HOUSE AWAY to get the kid out.

        600 lbs.. I weigh 160. Imagine having me wrapped around your gut almost 4 times over.

      • by MacGyver2210 (1053110) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:36AM (#40167371)

        Mod this guy up. It is ridiculous that the most sanguine point I have seen yet is being modded as flamebait. Perhaps /. is so addicted to soda they can't handle the truth?

        Well here it is: Soda, in huge quantities is bad for you. It is not the government's responsibility to save people who - of their own volition - knowingly destroy their bodies with huge quantities of sugar or fat. This is contrary to natural selection and even common sense.

        If someone wants to get so fat that they become impotent and are repulsive/can't physically reproduce, please let them. Evolution works if you leave it the fuck alone. Stop protecting the stupid and evil, and let them get what they deserve.

        "That guy ran into traffic, got hit by a bus and was killed!" - "Well I see no other option than to ban buses!"

    • Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tronbradia (961235) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:45AM (#40166489)
      It's a nudge. The law will induce people to drink less soda even though people are allowed to drink as much soda as they want. A variety of studies have shown that people's eating behavior are highly impacted by serving size.
      • Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alphatel (1450715) * on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:55AM (#40166657)

        It's a nudge. The law will induce people to drink less soda even though people are allowed to drink as much soda as they want. A variety of studies have shown that people's eating behavior are highly impacted by serving size.

        Don't worry more nudges to come.
        Next the city will levy fines on all 8-slice pizzerias. A new mandate will dictate they be cut into 16 slices to reduce the amount of fat consumed by New Yorkers.

        Thank god for the law-by-fiat of the Mayor and his self-appointed Health Dept. No need for a City Council when you can just bypass them.

    • Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:49AM (#40166551) Journal
      In the imaginary humans-are-rational-animals land, I'd agree with you.

      Empirically, I'd strongly suspect that only relatively strong tugs of either appetite or repletion drive most people to either get a refill or discard a partially full cup. You just sort of suck on the straw until the fluid stops coming out, without thinking about it much, across a surprisingly large set of cup sizes.

      The consumer psychology research people seem to consistently be able to pull hilarious stunts in changing the amounts people eat just by changing their cutlery, or using different sized plates, or changing whether or not the waiters clear away used dishes in an 'all-you-can-eat' scenario...
    • Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by aeortiz (1498977) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:50AM (#40166577)

      Its basic psychology, if given larger containers, people consume more.

      Cornell University did a study in a Philadelphia movie theater with stale popcorn. Given the larger containers, people still ate more of it, even though it was like eating styrofoam.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16053812 [nih.gov]

      • Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by David_Hart (1184661) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:03AM (#40166793)

        I wonder if this cultural, learned, or genetic behavior?

        The reason why I ask is because I find the serving sizes for just about everything in the US to be too big. I grew up in Canada and moved to Boston about 12 years ago. I find that, when I go out to eat, I usually have food left over. I sometimes get flack from my friends about wasting food, but the way I see it is that I stop eating when I've had enough. I never continue to eat just to clean off the plate. The same applies to soda and other drinks.

        So, for me, serving size doesn't matter, I simply stop when I've had enough.

        • So, for me, serving size doesn't matter, I simply stop when I've had enough.

          You're lucky. For me, fullness doesn't matter. I simply must empty the plate.
      • Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by operagost (62405) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:10AM (#40166903) Homepage Journal
        You can't read too far into this study. Many people don't want to waste food because they either grew up in a poor household or were taught not to waste by their parents (the "starving kids in Africa hyperbole"). If given a big bag of popcorn, they might try to finish it even if they don't like it because they feel a need to not waste food. Not everyone is just a glutton.
  • Educate first. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:34AM (#40166305)

    Instead of banning something entirely (this is still a "free" country, right?), lets just educate consumers on what they're putting into their bodies. For example, if you want to buy a 64 oz. soda, you live in America, you get your big ass soda. However, put the nutrition info on the cup so you, at the very least, can learn that 64 oz. of Pepsi contains 800 calories, about 1/3 recommended daily intake, and 224 grams of carbs, about 3/4 recommended daily intake. That's disgusting and the problem is nobody realizes how disgusting that is.

    • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:43AM (#40166461) Journal

      That's math, and as everyone knows math has no relation to daily life. Why do they even try to teach us that useless crap?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by archen (447353)

        I was about to say the same thing. Those numbers probably don't mean much to most people. If they don't know, the only way for that to happen is to give them context - basically a public health bulletin on what your dietary intake should be, and how this is bad, blah blah blah. You put too much text on it and people won't read it. You put arbitrary numbers on it and people don't know what they mean. Either way people don't care, or you're preaching to the choir. If people wanted to be educated, they wou

    • by Eponymous Coward (6097) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:25AM (#40167147)

      Education doesn't work and the recommended daily intake numbers have more to do with politics than nutrition.

      Every single person ordering 20+ ounces of soda knows that water would be a better choice.

      This is a regulation of vendors, not consumers. I predict that within 20 years, the executives of major food companies will start facing scrutiny and lawsuits in the same way that tobacco executives did a few years ago. If current trends continue, the damage that companies like Coca Cola and McDonald's are doing will dwarf anything that the tobacco companies did.

    • Re:Educate first. (Score:4, Informative)

      by berashith (222128) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @12:00PM (#40167885)

      there is another huge problem with what parts of this subject we choose to educate about. Apparently diet sodas are given an exemption here. The amount of healthy that you receive from a diet soda is pretty much nil. Every time I have seen a mention of these types of laws, they always say the full sugared versions are the problem that need to be taxed or banned, but then allowing diet will just have everyone switch to a giant diet soda, and there will be very little gained. If you want to increase health, drink water, not any form of soda.

  • Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:35AM (#40166327)

    The nanny state is here!

    Let us know how it goes, NYC!

  • by DigiShaman (671371) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:37AM (#40166371) Homepage

    Just you wait. This whole thing will blow over once he gets his cut from the sugar and corn lobbyists. Then, he will say it was all an unpopular misunderstanding and how he really cares to make NYers voice be heard. Oh, and he really cares about your health too. Win win win all the way for that man.

  • by Taibhsear (1286214) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:40AM (#40166405)

    If "that's what the public wants the mayor to do" then the public wouldn't be buying ginormous sized beverages and thus there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The fact that they are buying the large sodas means the public wants it. I can see slapping a warning on the side of the containers that say "Hey fatty, you keep drinking this much crap and you're going to die from diabeetus," but a ban seems to infringe on peoples' freedom of choice. (Unlike the bans on foie gras, there's no one torturing corn plants to make the soda.)

  • Carbonated? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by macraig (621737) <[mark.a.craig] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:40AM (#40166407)

    Sooo... JUST carbonated soft drinks? Does that mean he's banning beer, too? The phrase "beer gut" didn't just arbitrarily appear in dictionaries. What about those "fruit juices" spiked with fructose, the nicotine of food additives?

    What a hypocrite.

  • So... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:41AM (#40166427) Journal
    Any bets on how much hand-wringing about 'big government' 'nanny state' and 'paternalism' there will be now that Bloomberg is targeting large sodas rather than the terrifying marijuana, assassin of youth? [villagevoice.com]

    I honestly don't much care for either reefers or Fructose-Extreme Big-Gulp Edition; but I find it endlessly curious how mere time seems to change perception of given public health and public safety crusades. Some city tells smokers to do it outside, or restarauants to cut down on their trans-fats, on pain of some paltry fine and the editorialists are ready to tell you that fascism has finally come to America; but the ones that get hunted down by actual cops and sent to real jail? Apparently not a concern...
  • by argStyopa (232550) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:44AM (#40166481) Journal

    When our society seemingly turns to government to protect us from the consequences of our stupid decisions*, eventually we end up with a government that is going to want to control our every decision. It makes sense in a world where the government subsidizes your health care, that the government gets a voice in your unhealthy choices.

    *to wit:
    - I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
    - I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
    - I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
    - I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
    - I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
    - I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"

    It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.

    Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.

    As they would say in Firefly: "Nee mun doh shr sagwa".

    • by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:11AM (#40166909)

      *to wit:
      - I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
      - I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
      - I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
      - I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
      - I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
      - I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"

      Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I feel that you are way off-base on some of the justifications for the programs you deride.

      Government support for programs like daycare are for the good of the child, not the parent (though the parent may benefit as a byproduct). It is not the child's poor decisions that landed him with shitty parents, and the child should not be condemned to a miserable upbringing. The same thought process that leads to public education is what leads to things like child subsidies.

      Addiction programs are not for the good of the addict, but for the good of society. Addicts spread disease and crime. If someone wants a ticket to a rehab center, that's a bargain for society.

      The mortgage default situation was caused in part by the government's 30-year mortgage programs. While there is probably some merit in an argument that government should not have gotten into housing in the first place, they are there now and need to clean up their mess. If renegotiating mortgages is a cost-effective way to clean up, then pragmatically I have to support it.

      Too big to fail is a similar situation. I'm not willing to watch the entire economy completely melt down just to uphold an ideal. The government had to step in, and where the criticism should be aimed is at the politicians for not having the capacity to correct the underlying problems. If it's any consolation, the stockholders of the bailed-out banks took a serious bath. If you were the unlucky stockholder of Citibank in 2007, your stock is now worth about 5% of what it was. Bank seizure would not have really changed things much for the stockholders, and the government would have been stuck with their toxic assets. Instead, the government made a small profit...

    • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:12AM (#40166931)

      So let's hear your solutions...

      -I had unprotected sex, I should go get a clothes hanger stuck in me in some back alley, and die of an infection if it doesn't work
      -I had kids I can't support, they should be forced to live a life of squalor and misery for my mistake
      -I'm an addict, I should continue to spiral downwards until I die in the streets
      -I made shitty choices and now I'm poor, I should be forced to turn to crime to avoid starvation
      -I have a $25,000/year job but can't afford my mortgage, the government should watch the entire economy go down in flames rather than help me out
      -I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investment, the government should stand aside while others suffer horribly for my actions. Meanwhile I'll retire in luxury, since I've already collected millions in bonuses.

      The government's job is to promote the common good. That sometimes means helping people who've made mistakes. You seem to be more interested in making people suffer for them. I wonder if your tune would change if you or someone you cared about ever slipped up. But no, that would never happen. You don't make mistakes. You're a god.

    • What a Vapid Post (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eldavojohn (898314) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nhojovadle]> on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:24AM (#40167131) Journal
      I think your cause and effect logic is deeply flawed.

      I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion

      The government does not propose to pay for abortion because people should be able to have sex. The logic arises from studies conducted [wikipedia.org] that suggest that legalized and subsidized abortion results in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime. While you might debate that, the reasoning is that it's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to have a criminal interred on and off for life. Are you against taxpayer dollars being used to teach contraception in schools? What about tax dollars to hand out free condoms to those most at risk? Subsidizing abortions is a step further in that direction. It is not designed to give people the ability to have sex without protection.

      I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them

      Are you aware of what a "dependent" is on a tax form? Again, it's cheaper for society to issue welfare and food stamps than to deal with the societal harms that come from malnourished children and the state assuming control over a child. What exactly is your ideal scenario in this case? That we have street urchins that occasionally die in our streets? That we have social services taking care of tens of thousands more children?

      I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment

      Again, you seem to imply that the government is being lobbied by the addicts. Instead it is the cost/benefit of dealing with addicts that have already developed dependencies on illegal addictive substances. You implement awareness programs with taxpayer dollars and the final unfortunate step is helping these people control their addictions so they're not mugging or killing people for money. A lot of these people have to support their habits with crime. Our jails are already overcrowded so the alternate step is to try to treat them and keep them from engaging in such behavior. Again, what is your ideal scenario? That you shake your finger at an addict and say "Welcome to the school of hard knocks, now go beat someone for money for your habit so you can spend the rest of your life in jail where I can pay more money for you to live."

      I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life

      Right, because everyone who is poor is poor because of shitty life choices and they should starve for those choices. We have the ability to provide them basic food and subsidize their housing but your ideal scenario is what exactly? You do know that they do not live like kinds and queens?

      Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.

      If the alternative is crime ridden neighborhoods, I'll take a little bit of a nanny state. You people that demand one extreme over the other are really annoying and short sighted. Did you know that buildings have to make fire code in order to be constructed? God, what a nanny state we've found ourselves in! Why aren't we working to remove any sort of building and safety codes? PROTIP: A happy medium exists somewhere in between the extremes. When society's total cost is drastically lower to implement a nanny state law, we start to weigh the pros and cons.

    • by Dripdry (1062282) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:29AM (#40167231) Journal

      While what you mention is somewhat true, what you fail to mention is the opposite: The eras before we created a social net were horrifying by today's standards. One bad crop season, or loss of a job, or getting on the wrong person's bad side could easily leave you a starving wretch (can still happen, but less common).

      Also, it's not government that's running a lot of this, it's corporations. I'm sure the corn lobby is loosening up as their dollars are less effective than the military and IP racket these days, and Biggie B (as his friends call him) in teh Big Apple has to do something to make him look good after all this police nonsense and Occupy.

      Look, I don't disagree with you that government, in some ways, is getting its mitts on some things it shouldn't. However, maybe looking at what risks government should cover and what they shouldn't ought to merit consideration, not just making a statement implying that you're somehow superior because you happened to be in the right circumstances to make "good" life choices (I assume, though I may be wrong). Check out stuff on the sociology of deviance, I suspect you'll find the subject infuriating to what sounds like your fairly uncompassionate world view (this does not include too big to fail. we can all agree that was pure crime)

      BTW..... why don't we worry about the incredible amount of money spent blowing up brown people and spying on and jailing our own citizens before we start moralizing and saying we shouldn't help our Fellow Man because of "blah-di-blah" and then quoting a stupid fucking TV show that too many people worship anyway.

    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:49AM (#40167621) Homepage

      It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.

      Yeah, I mean, look at all these people who want to be cushioned by society. Like NYC banning soda. Or NYC having a health department that makes sure there are no rat feces in your food. I mean, let that be between me and the restaurant. If there's a restaurant that has rat feces in it, I just won't go there anymore. You don't need a health department.

      And then they have laws that are prevent landlords from kicking deadbeats out of their apartments. Like, who cares that you've lived in your apartment for 20 years, the price of rent has gone up old lady! You can find another place to live. Just live within your means!

      Oh, and let's not forget about the fire department. I mean, if you don't want to install sprinklers and other fire protection in your apartment building, that's your own fault, and you're the one who's going to burn alive. If you want to live in an apartment with sub-standard fire protection, that's your choice. We should all do our own research before you buy into these things.

      Don't even get me started on the police. They're always butting into everyone's business. I know, you're going to say, "But what if I get robbed?!" That's why guns need to be legal. We should all be settling these matters ourselves. And traffic lights? Why does the government feel the need to get involved in how I drive my car?

      This is all just the nanny state running amok. Look, I test all of my kids toys to make sure the manufacturer isn't using lead-based paint. I do all my own scientific research on the medical procedures I undergo, so I don't need Mr. Government telling me which treatments are effective. I built a bunker under my house and I have a small arsenal in there-- I don't need your nanny-state army to protect me. We should all just go our own way.

    • by bigtrike (904535) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:50AM (#40167633)

      It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV. I would, in fact, support free abortions. I'd rather have someone irresponsible abort a kid that they can't afford to take care of instead of being robbed by that kid or having taxpayers pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for his prison time.

      The problem is that we're all connected and unless you want to be responsible for providing your own roads, drinking water, electricity and defending your compound that is unsafe to leave, we need at least some level of government and socialization. Medical care in that world seems kind of pointless, as you would have no great methods of contacting a provider (no eminent domain to build a network of telephone wires, radio waves would be useless without a central body to set up channels), and they might not be able to reach you quickly through a patchwork of private roads. And you'd better hope you have something worth bartering for care without a nanny state to set up and maintain a common currency. But at least there would be no government to steal your money for taxes or control your actions...just robbers, pirates, criminals.

      I'm not saying the government should encourage people to be lazy by any means, just that there are indirect benefits to providing some services.

  • there's two definitions of freedom:

    the teenager definition "i can do whatever i want with no concern for the consequences"

    the adult definition "i can do anything i want that doesn't harm someone else"

    for example, the "right" to speed is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager will never crash their car and hurt an innocent driver who had the ill fortune of sharing the road with the idiot

    the "right" to smoke is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager only exhales pure filtered air in the face of fellow pedestrians and housemates and doesn't raise the healthcare insurance costs of anyone else

    likewise, the "right" to mainline fructose is freedom according to a teenager, see healthcare argument above

    please note: the term "teenager" in the context of this comment is a mental function measurement independent of chronological age. there are plenty of chronological teenagers who are mental adults and morally mature, and there are 40 year old gasbags who still define freedom according to a mental teenager's definition

  • by mapkinase (958129) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:49AM (#40166565) Homepage Journal

    Banning plastic bags in LA was one of them, now NYC banning soda...

    NYC ban is a disgrace epitomizes nanny state transition US is undergoing, stomping at elementary liberties: including a freedom to eat whatever I want, and private transaction between consenting adults: not about selling drugs, not about exchanging sexual favors, Taliban literature, arms, bombs or anything else, just an item of food.

    Where are all the Niemoller loudmouths?

  • by Paul Carver (4555) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:52AM (#40166607)

    This seems like it goes too far. I'd rather just see a ban on mandatory soda purchases. All those places that require you to buy a big gulp the moment you enter the door and refuse to allow you to leave until you've drunk it.

    Oh, wait, you mean there aren't any places like that? We're only talking about banning voluntary purchases? Well we don't need the government to do anything in that case. If "the people" want to stop voluntary purchases they can do that themselves with no government effort or expense at all.

    Mission accomplished! Good job mayor.

  • by Marrow (195242) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:53AM (#40166615)

    Its interesting that the bad food is so cheap, in part, because the ingredients are subsidized by the US government. In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you. Or the pricing structure makes it too expensive.
    Not only that, but farmers are going out of business trying to grow stuff that is good to eat. They are not eligible for the subsidies. So they learn to grow stuff that is bad for us instead. Its also greatly slanting the system towards huge factory farms.

    If he wants to fix something, put a high state tax on Federal farm subsidies. And put the proceeds towards opening markets for healthy foods. Level the field.

  • by sacdelta (135513) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:02AM (#40166775)

    Please! Take action so we don't have to take responsibility for our own lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to think for ourselves.

    A better solution may be to force anyone who complains about how this type of thing negatively impacts them to take a class in self control.

  • by Cajun Hell (725246) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:10AM (#40166895) Homepage Journal
    TL;DNR but I can tell you, this would never happen in an Android market.
  • by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:19AM (#40167039)
    Want to curb consumption of high fructose corn syrup? You can start by removing all government subsidy of the corn industry.
  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @11:21AM (#40167077) Homepage Journal
    Welcome to the world of second class citizenship, Chunk.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...