PDA

View Full Version : NYC seeks ban on sugary drinks



mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 08:08 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/york-mayor-bloomberg-propose-ban-sale-large-sugary-035357237--sector.html

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 08:27 AM
can government get any dumber?

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 08:29 AM
can government get any dumber?

Nothing the gov't tries surprises me anymore.

pghin08
05-31-2012, 09:02 AM
can government get any dumber?

Dude, that's a dangerous question to ask, because the answer will almost always be yes.

Star_Cards
05-31-2012, 09:17 AM
this is ridiculous. I get that the government should help people become healthier, but banning certain things isn't the way to do it. The amount of soda that some people drink is bad, but they have the right to do so if they choose. It's not the governments place to restrict this sort of thing.

If they want to impact childhood obesity they need to do things like education and promote physical activity.

pghin08
05-31-2012, 09:27 AM
this is ridiculous. I get that the government should help people become healthier, but banning certain things isn't the way to do it. The amount of soda that some people drink is bad, but they have the right to do so if they choose. It's not the governments place to restrict this sort of thing.

If they want to impact childhood obesity they need to do things like education and promote physical activity.

Yeah, they'll try to ban sugary drinks, but how about making a Physical Education class every day mandatory in schools?

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 09:27 AM
this is the same guy who banned food donations to the homeless because the government wouldn't be able to check the salt, fat, and fiber content of the food.

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 09:37 AM
Yeah, they'll try to ban sugary drinks, but how about making a Physical Education class every day mandatory in schools?


Wont happen. Too much like right.

duane1969
05-31-2012, 09:48 AM
I heard this on the radio this morning. They are saying that it is a ban on super-sized drinks http://www.kpho.com/story/18663785/nyc-could-ban-super-sized-soft-drinks

Personally, I find the idea that government officials find it to be within the scope of their job description to get involved in this type of thing to be alarming and extremely irritating.

I find it alarming because it concerns me that politicians deify themselvesand think that because they are an elected official that they have some sort of right to meddle in the daily lives of people. Everytime I open a news website I see more and more evidence of government officials feeling that they have the right to infringe upon the rights of citizens, and as citizens we have given them this opinion. We condone them strip-searching us before we can get on a plane, why wouldn't they assume that they can tell us what size of drink we can have?

I find it irritating because it seems that more and more politicians do not know their role (yes, I invoked the spirit of The Rock on that one). Politicians seems to have lost the concept that they were elected to make our cities safe, get drugs off of the street, ensure that our children have a solid education, fix the economy, improve unemployment, maintain good international relations, etc. I do not want or need a politician to tell me what size of soft drink I should be having. That is not his business!

I have said this before and I will say it again. Politicians are not doing their jobs. Until they have fixed the economy, until our students are the top students in the world, until the crime rate is at 0, until the unemployment rate is at 0, until the poverty rate is at 0, until drug trafficing within our borders is non-existant, until corruption within the government is eliminated, until the national defecit is reduced to a logical and managable level, then doing ANYTHING else is a failure to do their job.

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 10:27 AM
I heard this on the radio this morning. They are saying that it is a ban on super-sized drinks http://www.kpho.com/story/18663785/nyc-could-ban-super-sized-soft-drinks

Personally, I find the idea that government officials find it to be within the scope of their job description to get involved in this type of thing to be alarming and extremely irritating.

I find it alarming because it concerns me that politicians deify themselvesand think that because they are an elected official that they have some sort of right to meddle in the daily lives of people. Everytime I open a news website I see more and more evidence of government officials feeling that they have the right to infringe upon the rights of citizens, and as citizens we have given them this opinion. We condone them strip-searching us before we can get on a plane, why wouldn't they assume that they can tell us what size of drink we can have?

I find it irritating because it seems that more and more politicians do not know their role (yes, I invoked the spirit of The Rock on that one). Politicians seems to have lost the concept that they were elected to make our cities safe, get drugs off of the street, ensure that our children have a solid education, fix the economy, improve unemployment, maintain good international relations, etc. I do not want or need a politician to tell me what size of soft drink I should be having. That is not his business!

I have said this before and I will say it again. Politicians are not doing their jobs. Until they have fixed the economy, until our students are the top students in the world, until the crime rate is at 0, until the unemployment rate is at 0, until the poverty rate is at 0, until drug trafficing within our borders is non-existant, until corruption within the government is eliminated, until the national defecit is reduced to a logical and managable level, then doing ANYTHING else is a failure to do their job.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

Star_Cards
05-31-2012, 10:36 AM
Yeah, they'll try to ban sugary drinks, but how about making a Physical Education class every day mandatory in schools?

to me phy ed everyday would be great. sometimes it's a good thing to teach these sorts of everyday things to kids. nutrition would be good as well... although I know for some families they don't have the means to eat properly. still doesn't mean they can't be taught.

it sort of reminds me of when I got done with drivers ed and my dad asked me if I could change a tire. I said I didn't know how. he was baffled that they wouldn't teach something simple like this to all kids in drivers ed. Sort of similar in teaching proper maintenance of one's body to kids.

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 11:54 AM
I thought phys ed was already required.

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 12:08 PM
I thought phys ed was already required.


In most systems it is only required for a semester. When I was in high school it was required for 1 year. I took it my freshman year to satisfy my requirement and my senior year as an elective. The coaches just threw the basketballs at us and we had open gym for an hour. It was fun but we didn't learn anything about healthy eating or well being.

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 12:12 PM
In most systems it is only required for a semester. When I was in high school it was required for 1 year. I took it my freshman year to satisfy my requirement and my senior year as an elective. The coaches just threw the basketballs at us and we had open gym for an hour. It was fun but we didn't learn anything about healthy eating or well being.

I guess you're right. We had PE 7-9 and none in 10-12.

duane1969
05-31-2012, 12:32 PM
In most systems it is only required for a semester. When I was in high school it was required for 1 year. I took it my freshman year to satisfy my requirement and my senior year as an elective. The coaches just threw the basketballs at us and we had open gym for an hour. It was fun but we didn't learn anything about healthy eating or well being.

You are confusing Health and Phys Ed. Two different subjects.

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 12:44 PM
You are confusing Health and Phys Ed. Two different subjects.


Yeah I forgot about health class. I forgot that I took it my junior year of high school. I don't reacall them teaching anything about healthy eating. I could be wrong because it was such a long time ago. :thumb:

Star_Cards
05-31-2012, 12:49 PM
I thought phys ed was already required.

we had PE from grades 1-6 once a week. Then we had it from 7-8 one semester per year, everyday a week. From 9-12 I think we had it 2 or 3 semesters, every day for the full 4 years.

We did have recess in elementary school everyday. It's actually much more important to learn proper nutrition than it is exercising. They both have a place, but if you workout everyday and still eat bad food you really aren't getting anywhere.

pwaldo
05-31-2012, 04:41 PM
Yeah, they'll try to ban sugary drinks, but how about making a Physical Education class every day mandatory in schools?

You can't make kids do anything they don't want to. Especially kids of this generation. Outside of the government forcing you to eat what they tell you and somehow forcing people to exercise you aren't going to get people in shape.

Now you have more food options and more ways to exercise and yet people are fatter. It is the culture and you aren't going to change that by banning this and banning that.

People need to realize that in the last 50 years or whatever year you want to go back that regular people lost the ability to process the simplest things in life. Now instead of having adults they are aged like adults but still act like and have the brains of kids. Whatever happened has been a total all around failure that needs to be overhauled.

American society was able to churn out human beings who were able to operate a normal life without needing help from anybody else or the government. Now people can't even do the most fundamental things correctly without help. It is almost like the IQ of everyone dropped 100 points in a generation.

andrewhoya
05-31-2012, 05:15 PM
They should ban artificial dyes first.

theonedru
05-31-2012, 11:56 PM
The government feels the need to intervene because people are too irresponsible to do it for themselves or their families. Parents who feed their kids garbage like this on a REGULAR basis are so horrible I cannot fathom word for it ( eating junk every once in a while is fine, but we overdue it) Just look around at the fat parents or the fat kids or worse the families and see that something has to be done. its not hard to make a few changes for a healthy fit lifestyle I know I as that 270ish pound fat pig who lived that sad life of fast food and high fat sugar filled crap I can't even call food. I opened my eyes to reality and now I am a much healthier 175ish for it and hopefully can get down to a slimmer 165-170ish. If I can do it there is no excuse for anyone else (with the odd medical exception)

AUTaxMan
06-01-2012, 08:54 AM
The government feels the need to intervene because people are too irresponsible to do it for themselves or their families. Parents who feed their kids garbage like this on a REGULAR basis are so horrible I cannot fathom word for it ( eating junk every once in a while is fine, but we overdue it) Just look around at the fat parents or the fat kids or worse the families and see that something has to be done. its not hard to make a few changes for a healthy fit lifestyle I know I as that 270ish pound fat pig who lived that sad life of fast food and high fat sugar filled crap I can't even call food. I opened my eyes to reality and now I am a much healthier 175ish for it and hopefully can get down to a slimmer 165-170ish. If I can do it there is no excuse for anyone else (with the odd medical exception)

there is no excuse. that's why the government should not intervene. people need to accept personal responsibility for their decisions. the government does not need to be a nanny for the citizenry.

duane1969
06-01-2012, 11:11 AM
The government feels the need to intervene because people are too irresponsible to do it for themselves or their families.

That doesn't make it the government's right to involve itself in the daily lives of citizens. What makes some politician so special that he/she has the right to dictate how other people live their lives? Why not ban tobacco too? More people die from tobacco related illnesses than from drinking too much soda.

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 01:00 PM
I agree with all of you. It's not the government's place to tell you what you can and cannot consume. Before you know it they will be trying to stop me from smoking ______!! What do you mean that is illegal??? Where was the uproar? I must have missed it.

Edit: Mentioning that word may be a TOS violation so I took it out.

theonedru
06-01-2012, 01:55 PM
there is no excuse. that's why the government should not intervene. people need to accept personal responsibility for their decisions. the government does not need to be a nanny for the citizenry.

But their health bills become an unnecessary burden on society, and why should my tax $'s go toward then maintaining this horrid lifestyle...

tpeichel
06-01-2012, 02:12 PM
But their health bills become an unnecessary burden on society, and why should my tax $'s go toward then maintaining this horrid lifestyle...

Your taxes shouldn't go to pay for the healthcare of so many Americans that choose to live unhealthy lifestyles and suffer the consequences.

A good start to reducing cost-shifting would be to repeal Obamacare and even better, repeal EMTALA.

mrveggieman
06-01-2012, 02:21 PM
But their health bills become an unnecessary burden on society, and why should my tax $'s go toward then maintaining this horrid lifestyle...


Why is it you have a problem with overweight people's health care becoming a unessary expence on society but you have no problem with people who contract AIDS or having welfare babies being a burden on society? :confused0024:

theonedru
06-01-2012, 02:30 PM
Why is it you have a problem with overweight people's health care becoming a unessary expence on society but you have no problem with people who contract AIDS or having welfare babies being a burden on society? :confused0024:

Because that is not the issue in this thread....

themanishere
06-01-2012, 02:50 PM
People speak of wanting others to accept more personal responsibility, but really, when is that going to happen? Likely never. There's a fundamental disconnect between the reality of this view and those of freedom.

AUTaxMan
06-01-2012, 04:05 PM
People speak of wanting others to accept more personal responsibility, but really, when is that going to happen? Likely never. There's a fundamental disconnect between the reality of this view and those of freedom.

The reality is that it is not the government's place to ensure that people are healthy.

theonedru
06-01-2012, 04:10 PM
The reality is that it is not the government's place to ensure that people are healthy.

Your right in a way I guess, Let them die young, less of them reproducing . It's just natural selection stepping in removing and the weak from the gene pool.

themanishere
06-01-2012, 04:13 PM
The reality is that it is not the government's place to ensure that people are healthy.

I know...

It's just funny how so many people speak of acceptance of responsibility as a sort of expectation, as if it were anywhere near likely.

shrewsbury
06-01-2012, 05:01 PM
there are fat people who do the triathlon, how many of you could make it?

and how many fat people are on welfare? i would guess not all, so you aren't paying for it.

but we can pay for smoking, drinking, drugs, and other things that lead to bad health, but not pepsi???????

and you can still just buy two or more and get the more, this isn't stopping anything

duane1969
06-01-2012, 05:14 PM
But their health bills become an unnecessary burden on society, and why should my tax $'s go toward then maintaining this horrid lifestyle...

Then there needs to be bans on other more concerning health issues first. There needs to be a ban on tobacco first (sorry habs). Smokers and smoking related illnesses are a major strain on the healthcare system and a top cause of death among Americans. Targeting soft drinks while ignoring other more pressing and dangerous health issues is just plain stupid. But nobody would stand for a ban on tobacco. Toss out the idea of banning cigarettes sold in packs larger than 10 and see how big of an uproar you get.

And as shrewsbury pointed out, this ban is even more stupid because it doesn't stop you from buying more product, it just stops you from buying it in large single-servings. What next? A ban on how many soft drinks you are allowed to buy per day?

shrewsbury
06-01-2012, 05:22 PM
nice post!

MadMan1978
06-01-2012, 05:38 PM
Guys can we post real P&R topics to debate? this is just foolish altogether

shrewsbury
06-01-2012, 08:10 PM
it's real and it is political

theonedru
06-02-2012, 06:04 PM
Then there needs to be bans on other more concerning health issues first. There needs to be a ban on tobacco first (sorry habs). Smokers and smoking related illnesses are a major strain on the healthcare system and a top cause of death among Americans. Targeting soft drinks while ignoring other more pressing and dangerous health issues is just plain stupid. But nobody would stand for a ban on tobacco. Toss out the idea of banning cigarettes sold in packs larger than 10 and see how big of an uproar you get.

And as shrewsbury pointed out, this ban is even more stupid because it doesn't stop you from buying more product, it just stops you from buying it in large single-servings. What next? A ban on how many soft drinks you are allowed to buy per day?

totally agree

MadMan1978
06-02-2012, 06:07 PM
it's real and it is political
It may be ral by IMO no where near Political at all...

What gives it power and energy to be news is people over reacting to it.

andrewhoya
06-02-2012, 08:28 PM
Then move it, you're a mod in this section.

theonedru
06-02-2012, 09:01 PM
Its absolutely political, yes silly and ridiculous but political none the less. I see an elected body looking to vote upon something that impacts a wide consultancy ... How can that not be political

duwal
06-04-2012, 06:10 PM
It may be ral by IMO no where near Political at all...

What gives it power and energy to be news is people over reacting to it.


how exactly is a mayor making a decision that will effect the majority of their city NOT considered political??? :suspicious:

MadMan1978
06-10-2012, 03:43 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/223980_326171254124120_1905679831_n.jpg

pghin08
06-11-2012, 08:43 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/223980_326171254124120_1905679831_n.jpg

Lol, that's funny.

Star_Cards
06-11-2012, 11:09 AM
There was a segment on the daily show a few days after this because while NYC is banning these large sodas they also want to decriminalize an ounce or less of marijuana to where it's no longer an misdemeanor. He was pointing out the irony that if both passed the fine of possessing an ounce of pot would be $100 and the fine to a restaurant for selling a soft drink larger than 16 oz would be $200. seems odd to me.