Here He Goes Again: Bloomberg Set To Ban All Sugary Drinks Over 16 Ounces

Here He Goes Again: Bloomberg Set To Ban All Sugary Drinks Over 16 Ounces [cbslocal.com]

"............ Mayor Bloomberg, who is set to propose a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces everywhere, all across the city."

-------------

Really? This is supposed to "fight obesity"?

Maybe they should increase the price of fattening fast food and push the proceeds over to lower the price of fruits, vegetables etc.. or even increase the price of healthcare based on fitness, BMI, fat % etc.., and the discount those that are physically fit.

Just like cigarettes they love to tax any vice, but almost fear touching say McD or Burger King etc.. IMO many of these companies are a prime reason for childhood obesity. That and parents that allow their children to sit inside and play video games all day.. Reward the healthy and punish the lazy or is that again the Democratic motto?

We are genetically programmed to consume sugary foods so self control is a very hard thing for most people, and it's even harder for kids. I don't think it will work but easy access to junk food is a big problem.

Quote from ikonoklast : We are genetically programmed to consume sugary foods so self control is a very hard thing for most people, and it's even harder for kids. I don't think it will work but easy access to junk food is a big problem.

How about self control is the problem? This is silly - government thinks that 16 oz is appropriate for YOU to consume, so if you want more, you'll just have to buy multiples I guess. Next up is fast food - no more than 7 fries for you per day.

Quote from Dr. J : How about self control is the problem? This is silly - government thinks that 16 oz is appropriate for YOU to consume, so if you want more, you'll just have to buy multiples I guess. Next up is fast food - no more than 7 fries for you per day.

Personal responsibility and self control can solve the obesity crisis in theory but good luck getting the average joe to practice it. I think it's more practical and effective to deal with things as they are instead of how things should be.

Sure. I mean it's not like people have self control or anything. We're powerless to eat whatever fatty, sugary thing is put in front of us so really, the product itself is to blame. Cleanly wash the responsibility off our hands.

Must resist urge to rail against nanny state!

Quote from Dr. J : How about self control is the problem? This is silly - government thinks that 16 oz is appropriate for YOU to consume, so if you want more, you'll just have to buy multiples I guess. Next up is fast food - no more than 7 fries for you per day.

As you said, people can buy as much as they want. So really the government isn't inhibiting you from eating the quantity you want or deciding what is appropriate. This is more of a financial deterrent for consumers since vendors usually charge less when you buy in bulk but now wouldn't be able to since those bulk quantities would be illegal.

Quote from bridgeburner : Sure. I mean it's not like people have self control or anything. We're powerless to eat whatever fatty, sugary thing is put in front of us so really, the product itself is to blame. Cleanly wash the responsibility off our hands.

I am not suggesting that we are powerless and have no self-control but using it as an end all to all our problem is not practical. Personal responsibility CAN solve a lot of problems but getting people to actually practice it is not easy. Maybe I am just cynical.

My father has diabetes from decades of drinking soda pop and ice cream in enormous quantities.

There was little limit from my parents on eating this stuff when I was a kid. I am fortunate that I discovered exercise that I enjoy, otherwise I'd likely have diabetes, too.

Sometimes there is a strong case for a kick in the pants from the government.

Quote from ikonoklast : I am not suggesting that we are powerless and have no self-control but using it as an end all to all our problem is not practical. Personal responsibility CAN solve a lot of problems but getting people to actually practice it is not easy. Maybe I am just cynical.

The problem is that it's not the governments place to make people eat/drink healthy. The government's control of food and beverage should stop after making sure that it isn't poison.

Quote from bridgeburner : The government's control of food and beverage should stop after making sure that it isn't poison.

You don't think the Govt has any role in food preparation standards? Or livestock conditions? They shouldn't promote a healthier alternative to something when one is available?

Quote from vivahate : You don't think the Govt has any role in food preparation standards? Or livestock conditions? They shouldn't promote a healthier alternative to something when one is available?

Promoting is one thing, banning is quite another. It ceases being promotion and moves into coercion in this case.

Quote from bridgeburner : The problem is that it's not the governments place to make people eat/drink healthy. The government's control of food and beverage should stop after making sure that it isn't poison.

Problem is, Medicare is going to shoulder the burden.

Reasonable regulation could prevent huge expenses.

Pragmatism trumps your "not the government's place" ideology.

Quote from andyfico : Promoting is one thing, banning is quite another. It ceases being promotion and moves into coercion in this case.

It's not banned; still available. Just a little more expensive.