Gulp! NYC Mayor Proposes Super-Sized Soda Ban.

[Toontown]

So, If I do not want free health care, and I am not obese but I would still like the big soda, why are you bothering me? Why am I being punished for other people's problems?

For the same reason that you are being punished by higher taxes to pay for the health care of sugar-water guzzlers. You were born in the wrong universe. It's tough for you.

On the bright side, you can still procure all the sugar water you can carry. In smaller bottles. Still a tough universe though. Goddamn tough universe.

 

[Daald]

For the same reason that you are being punished by higher taxes to pay for the health care of sugar-water guzzlers. You were born in the wrong universe. It's tough for you.

On the bright side, you can still procure all the sugar water you can carry. In smaller bottles. Still a tough universe though. Goddamn tough universe.

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

ETA:

How does the bright side solve the problem of obesity. All you have left is the incovenience in the end. You might like silly laws but since I have a say as well, my opinion is that it is stupid.

 

[Toontown]

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

It's a tough universe, but not that tough*. Especially with many fat votes hanging in the balance. They say politics is the art of the possible, but in the case of the obesity epidemic, it doesn't look like anything much is possible.

*Not that tough right away, but in the long run, brutally tough. The bill for excessive sugar-water guzzling will come due. Everything has a price. Everything. The amusement park illusion is just that. Illusion. Fun while it lasts, then the Reaper appears.

 

[Xulld]

Because it costs only 30% more to get twice as much. It's the same reason I have tubs of spare plumbing fittings, electrical parts, etc. in my garage.

Not for a soda you are not going to drink it doesn't, and if you are going to, then this changes nothing.

If someone wanted to buy soda in bulk they get multiple 2 liters which are unaffected by this change.

 

[maxpower1227]

Frankly, it amazes me that anyone can drink this amount of liquid at a time anyway.

I can accept the arguments that the government should not ban the sale of obscenely-large sodas, but would it be alright for them to at least require reasonable sizes to be sold as well? It's gotten to the point where the smallest soft drink a person can buy at many restaurants is 20 oz. If the food industry wasn't trying to give us all diabetes by cramming more and more soda down our gullets, there would be no nanny state legislation for anyone to suggest.

 

[Modified]

Not for a soda you are not going to drink it doesn't, and if you are going to, then this changes nothing.

Well, you're just wrong. Most people will buy more food/drink than they want if they perceive it as a bargain, and once they buy it they will eat/drink all of it if possible, well beyond the amount they "wanted". This may not be true in a grocery store situation, but it is at a gas station, movie theater, restaurant, etc. People will also fill up on bread at a restaurant, even though they know the entree they ordered will be too much for them on its own, because they don't like waiting to eat and the bread is free, then they will stuff themselves trying to finish that entree. People will also clean their plate because throwing out food is perceived as wasteful, but stuffing yourself with food you don't need that will end up as fat is not.

I don't agree with the ban, but I don't see how anyone could go through life and not notice these things.

 

[Toontown]

The fatties will 'win', loosely speaking. They have the numbers now. 35.7% obesity among those of voting age. That's a powerful voting bloc, and they all want the same thing - carbs!

And the carbs must be packaged in ever larger globules. Two liter sugar-water bottles are no longer sufficient. Cheese puffs must now come in giant sacks.

It's inevitable, like an avalanche in progress. The fatties will not change to suit the country. The country will change to suit the fatties - and then promply collapse from the national equivalent of a heart attack.

Perhaps the most chilling example of the grim trend is the motorized shopping cart, not so long ago unheard of, now ubiquitous and likely to run over your toes if you're not careful.

 

[Cain]

Problem is... if you create a single-payer universal health-care system, then people will be less likely to needlessly die.

 

[Cain]

Not for a soda you are not going to drink it doesn't, and if you are going to, then this changes nothing.

If someone wanted to buy soda in bulk they get multiple 2 liters which are unaffected by this change.

It somewhat surprises me to see this argument over and over again. The law targets stupid people who generally fail to even take their own long-term interests into account. How many times have I seen people throw away their drink with a third still in the container?

 

[mumblethrax]

Man, you know what I could go for? Exactly 27 ounces of Coca Cola.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

ETA:

How does the bright side solve the problem of obesity. All you have left is the incovenience in the end. You might like silly laws but since I have a say as well, my opinion is that it is stupid.

We tried that. It got voted out becuase no one liked soda taxes. (Speaking as somoene who usually has 3 or so mountain dews a night to stay awake, I find this a really dumb idea. But eh.)

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

The problem is your thinking about the issue in a manner that makes you think their thought process is , " I loves me some sugar, 30 ounces! Yee haw, i can get even fatter!"...

No, I'm not.

I'm just interested in whether the critics who claim that consumers would buy two 16 oz. sodas to make up for the lack of a 24 oz. option are basing this assertion on real statistical data or on their own conjecture. I'm asking this out of real curiosity.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The fatties will 'win', loosely speaking. They have the numbers now. 35.7% obesity among those of voting age. That's a powerful voting bloc, and they all want the same thing - carbs!

And the carbs must be packaged in ever larger globules. Two liter sugar-water bottles are no longer sufficient. Cheese puffs must now come in giant sacks.

It's inevitable, like an avalanche in progress. The fatties will not change to suit the country. The country will change to suit the fatties - and then promply collapse from the national equivalent of a heart attack.

Perhaps the most chilling example of the grim trend is the motorized shopping cart, not so long ago unheard of, now ubiquitous and likely to run over your toes if you're not careful.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

Why else would someone order the largest drink if not that they were thirsty enough to drink it, and why else would there be a problem that needs fixed if the folks who buy the biggest cup, did not drink it all?

Other posters have addressed this, but I will point out that this is essentially an argument from incredulity.

Being skeptical about this seems contradictory.

Contradictory to what? Skepticism? If asking for evidence for a positive claim is contradictory to skepticism then I guess I'm not skeptic.

No, they just stop back through another drive thru once there drinks are extinguished, in half the time.

Fair enough, but the point of my asking was to be directed to the evidence showing that this is the case. Can you direct me to your evidence for this claim?

 

[Cain]

Man, you know what I could go for? Exactly 27 ounces of Coca Cola.

**** you, I wish I posted that. I preferred exactly 12 oz. before my preferences changed to 20 oz.

 

[Kaylee]

<snip>

... the larger part of the problem is that corn is so cheap it's practically free, and food manufacturers load HFCS into everything, more as a bulk filler than as a sweetener. Sugar was actually once used that way when it was cheap, but to a lesser degree. So even if the idea that HFCS may be worse for your health than sugar has not been disproven, the real issue is the quantity being used in foods. But no one wants to address that issue since corn subsidies are apparently sacrosanct. Telling Americans to use less corn has about the same effect as telling us to use less gasoline.

Telling Americans or telling American agribusiness and food manufacturers?

 

[Kaylee]

So, If I do not want free health care, and I am not obese but I would still like the big soda, why are you bothering me? Why am I being punished for other people's problems?

But, most of us want health insurance, and the cost of our medical care and health insurance premiums is affected by whether all of us as a group take steps to stay healthy.

We know that there is a direct connection between how much sugar we eat and the likilihood that we will get diabetes, vascular problems and cancer as a result.

If we actually do end up getting a national health plan it's probably inevitable that there will be more attempts to curtail the amount of sugar in our food as a way to help keep health costs under control.

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

Click on anyone of the links in my OP. Mayor Bloomberg's first attempt was to do precisely that -- have a tax placed on sugary drinks. This would have needed to have been approved on the state level and it failed due to heavy lobbying by the fast food and soft drink businesses. PepsiCo even threatened to move their headquarters out of New York State if the sugar tax passed. The state legislators caved-in.

Per the articles, limiting the size of soft-drinks sold in restaurants, fast-food places and other "food-service establishments" seems to be the only thing that Bloomberg can do that doesn't require the cooperation of the NYS legislature or of the federal government. (Bloomberg wanted to ban soft-drink purchases with food stamps but the federal govt refused to go along with that restriction. ) But limiting the size of soft-drinks was not the mayor's first choice.

The bill for excessive sugar-water guzzling will come due.

Not if the corporations continue to have their way. I think that is the problem. In the US, big business has much more power over government than the voters.

AFAICT, most voters think that a sugar tax where the funds raised are spent on health care is a fair way to cover increased costs due to unhealthy choices. But the fast foods and soft drinks companies are absolutely against anything that may interfere with their profits.

Although the large corporations' upper managements just have a small percentage of the votes they still have more influence through lobbyists and political contributions and I don't know of a way to work around that problem considering the way our political system is currently set up.

 

[LTC8K6]

**** you, I wish I posted that. I preferred exactly 12 oz. before my preferences changed to 20 oz.

So now you have to bring your own big cup or travel mug, buy a small 8oz drink, and a medium 12oz drink, and pour them in your cup.

 

[LTC8K6]

Problem is... if you create a single-payer universal health-care system, then people will be less likely to needlessly die.

So adjust the premiums on the free health care according to BMI then.

Premiums are already adjusted for all sorts of things.

This way, overweight folks pay their share of the cost of the extra free health care they tend to require.

Smokers would pay extra as well.

Diabetics, kidney dialysis patients, etc.

All those whose health care costs a lot more than an average healthy person in their age bracket, would pay more in premiums.

If you use the free insurance more or less, your premiums would be adjusted up or down. It could be adjusted each year, based on your requirements.

 

[Cain]

So adjust the premiums on the free health care according to BMI then.

Premiums are already adjusted for all sorts of things.

This way, overweight folks pay their share of the cost of the extra free health care they tend to require.

Smokers would pay extra as well.

Diabetics, kidney dialysis patients, etc.

All those whose health care costs a lot more than an average healthy person in their age bracket, would pay more in premiums.

If you use the free insurance more or less, your premiums would be adjusted up or down. It could be adjusted each year, based on your requirements.

I probably would have agreed with this kind of thinking when I was nine: "it's not fair -- he got one chocolate chip more than me!!" Well, today I think poor health is punishment in itself.

Now I have heard of Swedes moderately pissed when they see some fat **** choking down meatballs, or just standing in a line, breathing hard. Good lord, is there anything worse than hearing a grossly obese man breathe? It's not even hot out!

Anyway, health-care ought to be rationed by consequences/needs rather than ability-to-pay. Apply a junk food tax like cigarette, alcohol, and gas taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if some behavioral economist finds that taxing the activity each time someone engages in it is more effective in deterring behavior than premiums adjusted at the end of the year.