http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/05/31/nyc-proposed-ban-on-large-sugary-drinks-drawing-mixed-reaction-from-nyers/
QuoteA proposed ban by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of large sodas and other sugary drinks is getting mixed reactions from New Yorkers.
In an effort to combat obesity, the proposed first-in-the-nation ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sweetened drinks sold at restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.
The ban, which could take effect as soon as March, would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages. Nor would it include drinks sold in grocery or convenience stores. Food establishments that don't downsize would face fines of $200."
Bloomberg says sugary drinks and sodas are largely to blame for what he calls the city's obesity epidemic, noting more than half of adults living in New York City are overweight or obese as are nearly 40 percent of public school students.
Bloomberg said Wednesday that he "thinks it's what the public wants the mayor to do."
The proposal is getting mixed reaction from New Yorkers.
"I disagree with it, because it's the right to choose. If you want to drink a Slurpee, you should be allowed to drink a Slurpee," said Jamie Sawyer, a tourist from Oklahoma.
"How can they ban it? Isn't it a private enterprise? How can they tell you that you can not sell a drink above a certain size, that's ridiculous," one man said.
"I don't agree with him at all," one man said. "He's putting too many restrictions and I don't agree with him."
"Who are you to tell us what we should or should not do," said another.
But others think it's a good idea.
"They need to downsize the drinks, especially for the young kids," one man said.
"If it's not available, people won't buy it," said another. "They'll stick to healthy things like water."
A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, Stefan Friedman, criticized the proposal as "zealous." He said officials should seek solutions that are actually going to curb obesity.
"The city is not going to address the obesity epidemic by attacking soda because soda is not driving the obesity rates," the New York City Beverage Association said in a statement. "In fact, as obesity continues to rise, CDC data shows that calories from sugar-sweetened beverages are a small and declining part of the American diet. "
The proposal requires the approval of the city's Board of Health, which is considered likely because its members are all appointed by Bloomberg.
The Bloomberg administration has tried other ways to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, an idea federal regulars rejected.
Good for him.
Land of the Free (Willy).
Anyway, nothing surprises me about American Socialism. It pervades the country.
Heard it this morning & figured it would be right up your alley, grabon.
At this rate, the NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene will become one of the world's largest paramilitary units.
Not sure what to think on this. On the one hand, Bloomberg has really gotten annoying with his new take on paternalism. On the other hand, Americans are physically degenerating into bloated whales at such an alarming rate that I can't be an absolutist when it comes to individual rights.
You don't spend enough time sleeping.
QuoteAmericans are physically degenerating into bloated whales at such an alarming rate
:yes:
Better to tax than to ban.
Quote from: Gups on May 31, 2012, 10:50:47 AM
Better to tax than to ban.
That's what he tried at first, but state legislature nixed it. I recall many sugar lobby ads on the airwaves with poor moms complaining that having to pay more for soda would really hit them in the pocketbook.
Once you soda you can't stop. Map btw?
Soda is for poor people. When I want something other than water, it's alcohol all the way baby. But most of the time, it's just water.
Retarded. Any place selling 21oz+ drinks (aside from concession stands) is likely to offer free or discounted refills anyway. He gonna ban free refills, too?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 31, 2012, 09:44:48 PM
Retarded. Any place selling 21oz+ drinks (aside from concession stands) is likely to offer free or discounted refills anyway. He gonna ban free refills, too?
Hopefully.
Well, he does have his name on the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, you know. http://www.jhsph.edu/
Got a big ol' Kim Jung Il-sized portrait hanging in the massive foyer, too. I used to gaze at it lovingly before his chopper arrived.
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2012, 09:26:44 PM
Soda is for poor people. When I want something other than water, it's alcohol all the way baby. But most of the time, it's just water.
Water is for poor people. It comes out of fucking pipes.
But it's cool, they can outlaw sugar sodas entirely if they like.
If they ever try to take away my diet sodas, then it's guerre a outrance.
If people got rid of the wheat, sugar and all those rancid vegetable oils in their diets that would cover about 90% of the current obesity epidemic.
Of course doing so means almost everything that comes in a box these days would be off the table.
My sister has developed a penchant for growing her own stuff now, and has been raising chickens. I'm surprised how much smaller "natural" eggs are, as opposed to the mega XL white industrial eggs.
The chickens are hilarious, though. Except for the time when a hungry ass hawk decided to walk right into the coop through the little coop door, and pulled one of those juicy fuckers right the fuck out. Inside the coop looked like a CSI scene, splatter patterns everywhere. Didn't know chickens don't lay eggs for a couple days due to the trauma of witnessing a homicide.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 06:18:06 AM
My sister has developed a penchant for growing her own stuff now, and has been raising chickens. I'm surprised how much smaller "natural" eggs are, as opposed to the mega XL white industrial eggs.
Those eggs also have more A and D vitamins and a much better O3 to O6 fatty acid profile. And I bet she dosen't give her chickens soybean feed.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 01, 2012, 06:29:33 AM
And I bet she dosen't give her chickens soybean feed.
Nope, they eat totally healthy.
Tell you what, though--quite a few of them would make very fine roasters. :ph34r:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 06:32:44 AM
Tell you what, though--quite a few of them would make very fine roasters. :ph34r:
Next time you visit, bring an axe. :shifty:
I could never do that. :Embarrass:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 06:40:47 AM
I could never do that. :Embarrass:
Bring a hawk then!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.mac.com%2Fwildlifeweb%2Fbird%2Fferruginous_hawk%2Fferruginous_hawk_01tk.jpg&hash=9b68e0f7646fe778173058cdd09f28b00b0c0147)
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 01, 2012, 09:08:33 AM
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
That philosophy works to a certain point. However, when the stupid are killing themselves in large numbers, practical considerations should take over, and the assumption of rationality should be dropped as unsupported in such cases.
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2012, 10:03:47 AM
At this rate, the NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene will become one of the world's largest paramilitary units.
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission will always reign supreme. It could single handedly solve the unrest in Mexico if it wasn't so busy fighting the Battle of the Booze.
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 01, 2012, 09:08:33 AM
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
You know what I love? When I put something heavy in the passenger seat and then my car freaks the fuck out because it thinks somebody didn't buckle up. I look forward to the day when my car starts narcing on me to the cops for it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 09:19:21 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 01, 2012, 09:08:33 AM
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
Yeah, that's always fun. There's supposed to be a way to disable that in my car but I've yet to figure it out. For now I just leave that seat belt buckled.
You know what I love? When I put something heavy in the passenger seat and then my car freaks the fuck out because it thinks somebody didn't buckle up. I look forward to the day when my car starts narcing on me to the cops for it.
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 01, 2012, 09:08:33 AM
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
Seatbelt laws are a pretty good example for the nanny state though.
There's literally no reason not to where a seatbelt. It takes mere seconds to put on and off. People didn't like to wear them though because they weren't in the habit of wearing them. So government makes wearing a seatbelt a requirement. People grumbled and complained, but now most people do wear their seatbelts.
Now is this law a good idea? Well on the one hand there is, like seatbelts, literally no healthy reason for someone to be drinking a 64 ounce sugary soda. But there's also no reason to be drinking a 64 ounce diet soda either. It seems like this law would hard to enforce, with too many exceptions to make it worthwhile.
But by all means - lets experiment. See what happens in NYC, and if it doesn't work, repeal it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 09:19:21 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 01, 2012, 09:08:33 AM
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
You know what I love? When I put something heavy in the passenger seat and then my car freaks the fuck out because it thinks somebody didn't buckle up. I look forward to the day when my car starts narcing on me to the cops for it.
:yes:
I'm like, bitch shut up.
I agree with Guller. Ideally, the government would not get involved in these sort of personal dietary decisions. Practically, however, so many people are making so many stupid decisions that it has become a societal problem that will only get worse if nothing is done.
Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 09:32:05 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 01, 2012, 09:08:33 AM
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
Seatbelt laws are a pretty good example for the nanny state though.
There's literally no reason not to where a seatbelt. It takes mere seconds to put on and off. People didn't like to wear them though because they weren't in the habit of wearing them. So government makes wearing a seatbelt a requirement. People grumbled and complained, but now most people do wear their seatbelts.
Now is this law a good idea? Well on the one hand there is, like seatbelts, literally no healthy reason for someone to be drinking a 64 ounce sugary soda. But there's also no reason to be drinking a 64 ounce diet soda either. It seems like this law would hard to enforce, with too many exceptions to make it worthwhile.
But by all means - lets experiment. See what happens in NYC, and if it doesn't work, repeal it.
The problem is, what constitutes not working? You can argue seatbelt laws are working: more people buckle up, there is no reason not to be doing so, etc. But then western governments are threatening the world economy by going broke, teachers are being laid off, and policing of serious crimes is underfunded.
I certainly wouldn't argue that seatbelt law enforcement is breaking the bank, but the do gooder laws add up. They also create a legal mindfield for small businesspeople. Below is a possibly exagerrated account of a guy who tried to figure out what it takes to open a lemonade stand in NYC (I guess now he soon might have to contend also with size limitations):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/24/i_tried_to_open_a_lemonade_stand_113235.html
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 09:19:21 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 01, 2012, 09:08:33 AM
Where will the nanny state stop? It should be the individual's choice to eat and drink whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Just like seatbelt laws, let the stupid kill themselves off for the good of the gene pool. Doesn't NYC have bigger problems to deal with?
You know what I love? When I put something heavy in the passenger seat and then my car freaks the fuck out because it thinks somebody didn't buckle up. I look forward to the day when my car starts narcing on me to the cops for it.
Find your cars maitenance maual online (not the crappy book in your glovebox, the one the dealer/shop use) and most have a way to reprogram it. I turned mine off. :)
On topic, you are all correct, we need more goverment involvement in our lives, what was I thinking?!
I know someday The Thought Police will take me to some good people to re-educate me at the Ministry of Love, and everything will be clear for me then. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2012, 10:03:58 AM
Below is a possibly exagerrated account of a guy who tried to figure out what it takes to open a lemonade stand in NYC (I guess now he soon might have to contend also with size limitations):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/24/i_tried_to_open_a_lemonade_stand_113235.html
John Stossel rules.
John Stossel lost his credibility with me when he did a piece on taxation that featured a 10 minute lecture by Art Laffer, with all the usual rigor Laffer Curve economics is known for. From this point on, I have to assume that anything Stossel reports on is exaggerated, hyperbolic, or selectively chosen.
Quote from: DGuller on June 01, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
John Stossel lost his credibility with me when he did a piece on taxation that featured a 10 minute lecture by Art Laffer, with all the usual rigor Laffer Curve economics is known for. From this point on, I have to assume that anything Stossel reports on is exaggerated, hyperbolic, or selectively chosen.
As I mentioned in my post he was possibly exagerrating, and I wouldn't take what Stossel writes to the bank, but I think there is some truth hiding in there.
http://gothamist.com/2012/06/02/big_soda_looks_to_battle_bloombergs.php
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgothamist.com%2Fattachments%2Fjen%2F2012_05_nannymay.jpg&hash=66f4eb630c6218fa2c8cb2affd52ad26e587445a)
QuoteBig Soda Looks To Battle Bloomberg's Ban On The Big Gulp
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's vendetta against obesity and oversized soft drinks has ratcheted up this week, with his proposed soda ban—which would prohibit city restaurants, street vendors and movie theaters from serving sodas and other sugared drinks that are over 16 ounces—igniting critics and supporters all over the nation. But Soda's not one to go down without a fight,p articularly in light of recent declines in soft drink sales,and now companies like PepsiCo and Coca Cola are pulling out their big, fizzy guns to bring the ban down.
In response to Bloomberg's proposal this week, lobbyists and researchers for the beverage industry have been looking for ways to combat the mayor's assertion that large sodas contribute to rising obesity. On Friday, groups like the American Beverage Association took out color ads in city newspapers decrying the ban, and companies like Coca Cola and McDonalds attacked Bloomberg's anti-soda initiative on Twitter. And it's not just the Beverage Barons themselves who are out to bring the ban down: today, the Center for Consumer Freedom—which lobbies on the behalf of embattled industries like fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco—took out a full page ad in the Times featuring Hizzonner dolled up in full Mrs. Doubtfire garb presiding over his "Nanny" state.
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2012, 09:26:44 PM
Soda is for poor people. When I want something other than water, it's alcohol all the way baby. But most of the time, it's just water.
I'm the same. Water, tea (lettow has ruined that), and alcohol for me.
Unlike some people, I'm open to all sorts of beverages.
I'm open to all sorts of stuff, I just don't indulge.
I really miss sodas; I will have one once a month or so. But it really is so bad for you in large quantities.*
*However, I will defend your right to the death to drink as much of it as you want!*
I had pretty much given up sodas, even diet, years back.
But lately I have been sometimes indulging in some of the stevia-sweetened sodas found at Whole Foods.
Most of them are crappy imitations, but the root beer and grape that I get actually work pretty well.
I only drink water, coffee, orange squash, tea (not often) and cider (less often still).
Can't remember the last time I had a soda.
edit:
I remember, some time last year when I was in London, I needed some caffeine quick so had a bottle of pepsi max. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 02, 2012, 12:23:22 PM
I had pretty much given up sodas, even diet, years back.
But lately I have been sometimes indulging in some of the stevia-sweetened sodas found at Whole Foods.
I've lost a bunch of weight just staying away from them, but between my blood pressure and the meds, I've had to stay away.
Conversely, because of my meds, I have to worry about dehydration a lot more, so Gatorade has become a regular staple now. Yay, Fruit Punch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 02, 2012, 12:28:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 02, 2012, 12:23:22 PM
I had pretty much given up sodas, even diet, years back.
But lately I have been sometimes indulging in some of the stevia-sweetened sodas found at Whole Foods.
I've lost a bunch of weight just staying away from them, but between my blood pressure and the meds, I've had to stay away.
Conversely, because of my meds, I have to worry about dehydration a lot more, so Gatorade has become a regular staple now. Yay, Fruit Punch.
:x Old school Lemon-Lime or Orange all the way.
Quote from: sbr on June 02, 2012, 12:38:55 PM
:x Old school Lemon-Lime or Orange all the way.
lol, Lemon-Lime still makes my stomach upset, reminds me of barfing it back up at rugby practice.
I don't have a problem with drinking 64 oz sodas. My problem is drinking a 12 oz soda, then an hour later drinking another, rinse, repeat. :Embarrass:
So 4 liters a day would be considered too much? :unsure:
Quote from: katmai on June 02, 2012, 01:26:52 PM
So 4 liters a day would be considered too much? :unsure:
Ahhhh...yea. A 12oz can is too much a day.
elevenBravo i was being a smartass, i've cut out soda and if want sweet in a drink been consuming vitamin water.
I liked John Stewart's remarks on this new ban attempt.
"Combines the draconian overreach of goverment that people hate, with the usual lack of results that people expect!" :D
Quote from: katmai on June 02, 2012, 06:05:57 PM
elevenBravo i was being a smartass, i've cut out soda and if want sweet in a drink been consuming vitamin water.
I was hoping you were :D
The pop companies can take the hit, but this'll hurt a lot of restaurants. The 10,000% markup on those big fountain pops pays for a lot of things.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2012, 09:47:51 AM
The pop companies can take the hit, but this'll hurt a lot of restaurants. The 10,000% markup on those big fountain pops pays for a lot of things.
They'd have to renegotiate supply contracts left, right, and center. If a chain even carries a 16oz, it's usually a small. The giants like McDonald's and Subway would have particular beef with this, since their supply chains are completely internalized, and it would massively disrupt operations.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2012, 09:47:51 AM
The pop companies can take the hit, but this'll hurt a lot of restaurants. The 10,000% markup on those big fountain pops pays for a lot of things.
I think you mean fast food places (which then DSB called out in his post) as most restaurants in New York aren't known for their very large drinks (outside of Dallas BBQ) nor free re-fills. :D
I thought it was rather interesting when somebody (maybe Stewart, not sure) brought up the fact that, while Big Gulps of soda would be banned, nobody's saying anything about Slurpees and Slushies, which is nothing more than frozen water and sugar. :lol:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L
QuoteBloomberg's soda ban prohibits 2-liter bottles with your pizza and some nightclub mixers
Take a big gulp, New York: Hizzoner is about to give you a pop.
Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.
Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid's birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.
They'd violate Mayor Bloomberg's new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.
Bloomberg's soda smackdown follows his attacks on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking and even baby formula.
The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including restaurants, bars and any "food service" establishment subject to letter grades.
And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.
"It's not fair. If you're gonna tell me what to do, it's no good," said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso's in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. "It's gonna cost a lot more."
And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for smaller bottles.
Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.
"I really feel bad for the customers," said Lupe Balbuena of World Pie in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.
Domino's on First Avenue and 74th Street on the Upper East Side is doing away with its most popular drink sizes: the 20-ounce and 2-liter bottles.
"We're getting in 16-ounce bottles — and that's all we're going to sell," a worker said.
He said the smaller bottles will generate more revenue for the restaurant but cost consumers more.
It will also trash more plastic into the environment.
Deliveryman Philippe Daniba said he had brought countless 2-liter bottles of soda to customers over his 19 years at the restaurant. The ban, he said, "doesn't make sense."
Industry-group officials agreed.
"It's ludicrous," said Robert Bookman, a lawyer for the New York City Hospitality Alliance. "It's a sealed bottle of soda you can buy in the supermarket. Why can't they deliver what you can get in the supermarket?"
Families will get pinched at kid-friendly party places, which will have to chuck their plastic pitchers because most hold 60 ounces — even though such containers are clearly intended for more than one person.
Changes will be made at the Frames bowling alley in Times Square, where 26-ounce pitchers are served at kids' parties, said manager Ayman Kamel.
"We're going to try to get creative," he said, noting drinks with 100 percent juice are exempt from the ban.
"We're figuring out a way to have freshly squeezed juice for the birthday parties. We might have to raise the price about a dollar or so."
Dallas BBQ at 1265 Third Ave. will retire its 60-ounce pitchers and 20-ounce glasses, manager Daisy Reyes said.
"We have to buy new glasses," she said. "We're in the process."
And if you're looking for a night of bottle service at a Manhattan hot spot, be warned: Spending $300 on a bottle of vodka no longer entitles you to a full complement of mixers.
The carafes in which mixers are typically served hold 32 ounces, and the most common mixers — sodas, cranberry juice and tonic water — will be limited. Only water and 100 percent juice will be unlimited.
"Oh, my God. Seriously?" said Lamia Sunti, owner of the swanky West Village club Le Souk Harem. "It's not like one person is going to be drinking the whole carafe. It's silly."
The rules are hard to unravel.
Alcoholic drinks and diet sodas are not subject to the ban, nor are fruit smoothies if they don't have added sweetener, or coffee drinks and milkshakes if made with 50 percent milk.
But what about drinks with small amounts of added sugar? Vendors must determine if the beverages have more than 3.125 calories per ounce.
But they should double-check their math: Violations cost $200 each.
New York Post having a field day. :D
I don't feel that bad for consumers. The whole point of the measure is to try and reign in our bad behavior by attacking the pocket book if you want to persist.
I'm bringing my box truck filled with forbidden goodies.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2013, 10:49:44 AM
I'm bringing my box truck filled with forbidden goodies.
You can still buy them at grocery stores. :console:
There went my profit. Damn you Bloomberg.
What about the disposable styrofoam container ban?
Quote from: garbon on February 24, 2013, 10:48:07 AM
The whole point of the measure is to try and reign in our bad behavior by attacking the pocket book if you want to persist.
How European.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/starbucks-balks-nyc-sugary-drink-ban-amid-confusion-202906496--politics.html
QuoteStarbucks balks at NYC sugary drink ban amid confusion over law's enforcement
The coffee giant Starbucks says it won't immediately comply with the ban on large sugary drinks set to go in effect next week in New York City, citing ongoing legal attempts to overturn the regulation and the company's belief that most of their products are not subject to the ban.
The coffee chain's announcement comes amid criticism from restaurants, bars, movie theaters, bodegas and others subject to the law. New York City officials haven't fully explained how the regulation, set to go into effect March 12, will be enforced.
"We believe that majority of our products fall outside of the ban given the ability of our customers to customize their beverage," Starbucks said in a statement to Yahoo News. "As there is still ongoing litigation regarding the regulation, we're not making any immediate changes at this time. We are evaluating which changes we may need to make to our recipes and product offerings and will be using this three-month evaluation period to make the appropriate changes for our customers and to fully comply with the new beverage restrictions."
Championed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a way to fight the city's growing obesity epidemic, the new regulation limits the sale of sugary beverages including non-diet sodas, fruit drinks, sweetened teas and other high-calorie drinks to just 16 ounces. The ban does not cover drinks that are more than 50 percent milk—a rule Starbucks believes exempts its popular Frappuccino drink, which has been criticized by health advocates for its high sugar content.
Opponents of the law, including the American Beverage Association, National Association of Theater Owners, the National Restaurant Association and other trade groups, have filed a lawsuit asking for it to be thrown out, in part because it creates an uneven playing field for businesses.
For example, while restaurants and delis regulated by the city Health Department are banned from selling large sugary drinks, a customer can still buy a 32-oz Big Gulp at 7-Eleven because the store is regulated as a market by the state of New York, not by the city.
...
:rolleyes:
Will Americans fight for the right to be fat?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2013, 04:26:49 PM
Will Americans fight for the right to be fat?
Only if they can get up off their asses ... :D
Quote from: Malthus on March 06, 2013, 04:32:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2013, 04:26:49 PM
Will Americans fight for the right to be fat?
Only if they can get up off their asses ... :D
Hang on. Give me a second...
Quote from: Malthus on March 06, 2013, 04:32:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2013, 04:26:49 PM
Will Americans fight for the right to be fat?
Only if they can get up off their asses ... :D
Here in Laramie, about a decade ago, the smoking ban in bars and restaurants idea went up for a vote. Most of the smokers I know never worked up the will to go vote against it and it passed by less than 100 votes. Their blood angried up, the smokers got a new vote the next election, but by then the realization that food and drink without clouds of smoke was actually more enjoyable meant an overwhelming support for the ban.
Hod bless apathy.
Friday night, I was getting out of my car in NYC holding a 24 oz. can of Monster. First thought: "it tastes like illegal." :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 06, 2013, 10:44:12 PM
Friday night, I was getting out of my car in NYC holding a 24 oz. can of Monster. First thought: "it tastes like illegal." :P
Except that grocery and convenience stores are exempt. :hmm:
That said, they should have reprimanded you for poor taste.
I'm gonna walk down Broadway drinking a 2-Liter of Coke, daring a cop to arrest me!
:shifty:
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 11:20:40 PM
Except that grocery and convenience stores are exempt. :hmm:
That said, they should have reprimanded you for poor taste.
It was a long day. I was falling asleep on my feet by the time I got up there. :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 11:28:59 PM
I'm gonna walk down Broadway drinking a 2-Liter of Coke, daring a cop to arrest me!
:shifty:
Fashion police?
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 11:41:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 11:28:59 PM
I'm gonna walk down Broadway drinking a 2-Liter of Coke, daring a cop to arrest me!
:shifty:
Fashion police?
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on March 06, 2013, 04:32:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2013, 04:26:49 PM
Will Americans fight for the right to be fat?
Only if they can get up off their asses ... :D
I expect they'll just roll over on this one.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 11:28:59 PM
I'm gonna walk down Broadway drinking a 2-Liter of Coke, daring a cop to arrest me!
:shifty:
You'd be just inviting a drone strike!
:nelson: Go to hell, Bloomie.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.html
QuoteJudge Halts New York City Soda Ban
A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration from banning the sale of large sugary drinks at New York City restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for a mayor who has made public-health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure.
Bloomberg should use this challenge to justify a 4th term as mayor.
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2013, 03:35:33 PM
:nelson: Go to hell, Bloomie.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.html
QuoteJudge Halts New York City Soda Ban
A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration from banning the sale of large sugary drinks at New York City restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for a mayor who has made public-health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure.
DOUBLE :nelson:
The law hath struck a mighty blow for freedom ... to be fat. :D
I bet all the fatties would be jumping from joy over this decision, if they still could.
I can jump perfectly fine, but then I'm good with 12 ounces at a time. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2013, 05:28:53 PM
The law hath struck a mighty blow for freedom ... to be fat. :D
No kidding, right? It's funny to see critics who complain about those individuals leeching the healthcare system by not exercising personal responsibility are defending their right not to be forced to exercise personal responsibility.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2013, 05:42:53 PM
No kidding, right? It's funny to see critics who complain about those individuals leeching the healthcare system by not exercising personal responsibility are defending their right not to be forced to exercise personal responsibility.
It's a good cause, but you gotta play by the rules. If this had gone through the city council, it might not even be an issue.
A 7-11 opened on my way to work where I now routinely see college aged kids buying double gulps at 9am. I'm glad we kept our freedoms to obesity and diabetes.
Cry me a river.
Two gulps isn't that much fluid. I doubt I could down a 12 oz can that quick. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 10:37:26 PM
Cry me a river.
No need. We can just have our tax monies go to footing their care. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 20, 2013, 10:38:11 PM
Two gulps isn't that much fluid. I doubt I could down a 12 oz can that quick. :hmm:
I'd throw up after drinking that. Fucking ridiculous.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_AqV7RXnp0aE%2FSJ_b24DIs4I%2FAAAAAAAAAR0%2FcW4xTUuKKWk%2Fs400%2Fsuperbiggulp.jpg&hash=248e6519e6d877e1a0493fdc144128d0de19fb10)
Apparently the double gulp shrank from 64 oz to 50 oz so it could fit in cup holders...
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 10:44:38 PM
Apparently the double gulp shrank from 64 oz to 50 oz so it could fit in cup holders...
User friendly to the auto industry. :lol: Thing is I've known people that drink two to three of those during the week. :yuk:
There has to be 400-500 calories in that thing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 21, 2013, 01:07:59 PM
There has to be 400-500 calories in that thing.
FWIW
http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm
If I'm going to eat 744 calories in one go, it's sure as hell going to be a much more pleasurable experience than downing 64 oz. of Coca-Cola.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 21, 2013, 02:09:35 PM
If I'm going to eat 744 calories in one go, it's sure as hell going to be a much more pleasurable experience than downing 64 oz. of Coca-Cola.
No kidding. Have a ribeye.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 21, 2013, 02:12:23 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 21, 2013, 02:09:35 PM
If I'm going to eat 744 calories in one go, it's sure as hell going to be a much more pleasurable experience than downing 64 oz. of Coca-Cola.
No kidding. Have a ribeye.
:mmm:
Sometimes, you just need 64 ounces of Coca-Cola.
Not every day, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2013, 02:14:45 PM
Sometimes, you just need 64 ounces of Coca-Cola.
Not every day, though.
Like when do you need that?
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2013, 02:14:45 PM
Sometimes, you just need 64 ounces of Coca-Cola.
Not every day, though.
Like when do you need that?
When you are making 16 rye-and-cokes
:lol:
I'm not saying it's a great idea, but I think the target audience for a Double Gulp is someone who does physical labour and is using that coke as a means of hydration and cheap calories.
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2013, 02:40:22 PM
I'm not saying it's a great idea, but I think the target audience for a Double Gulp is someone who does physical labour and is using that coke as a means of hydration and cheap calories.
I think the target audience is fat (or soon to be fat) people who consume soda as their main means of intaking liquid because they really like sugar.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2013, 02:40:22 PM
I'm not saying it's a great idea, but I think the target audience for a Double Gulp is someone who does physical labour and is using that coke as a means of hydration and cheap calories.
I think the target audience is fat (or soon to be fat) people who consume soda as their main means of intaking liquid because they really like sugar.
:yes:
I really am not too keen on soda, so I just down a cup of sugar and then fill up on tap water.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2013, 02:40:22 PM
I'm not saying it's a great idea, but I think the target audience for a Double Gulp is someone who does physical labour and is using that coke as a means of hydration and cheap calories.
I think the target audience is fat (or soon to be fat) people who consume soda as their main means of intaking liquid because they really like sugar.
Yep.
http://www.demilked.com/what-the-world-eats/
Thankfully with fat acceptance, Big Gulp enthusiasts won't have to feel bad about getting fat from drinking all that sugary soda.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 21, 2013, 07:05:00 PM
http://www.demilked.com/what-the-world-eats/
Those German pizzas look awful.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2013, 02:14:45 PM
Sometimes, you just need 64 ounces of Coca-Cola.
Not every day, though.
Like when do you need that?
Because it's pleasurable. Until you have to urinate.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2013, 02:40:22 PM
I'm not saying it's a great idea, but I think the target audience for a Double Gulp is someone who does physical labour and is using that coke as a means of hydration and cheap calories.
I think the target audience is fat (or soon to be fat) people who consume soda as their main means of intaking liquid because they really like sugar.
Yeah Beeb, it seems to me that the market for big Cokes is a lot bigger than just labourers. Teenagers, first and foremost.
Still, why are we overproducing food if not to get people fat? We won't let people do anything useful anymore, so what else do they have to do other than eat?
The Mexican family had like a dozen big bottles of Coke. I don't drink that much in a year.