Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the big-brother-controls-the-fridge dept.

Medicine 1141

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Get a refill.. (5, Insightful)

Drafell (1263712) | about 2 years ago | (#40166295)

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

Re:Get a refill.. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#40166329)

I thought "big gulp" was soda to go.

(disclaimer: I'm not American)

Re:Get a refill.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166401)

Yes, however, they offer discount refills (not free... ...yet). There's also likely enough 7-11s in NYC that you can just go from one to the next without being thirsty.

I'd just offer to include 2 free refills with the biggest legal size for an extra $0.50, redeemable at any 7-11. Who knows, idiotic laws like this make people band together, you might just find that all corner stores will cross-promote refills. This might end up making sugary soda easier to get.

Re:Get a refill.. (4, Informative)

milkmage (795746) | about 2 years ago | (#40166707)

it is.. but it's a specific offering by 7-11 (convenience store chain)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven [wikipedia.org]
Among 7-Eleven's offerings are private label products, including Slurpee, a partially frozen soft drink introduced in 1967,[15] and the Big Gulp introduced in 1980[15] that packaged soft drinks in large cups ranging in size from 20 to 64 US fluid ounces (0.59 to 1.9 liters).

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double_big_gulp.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Re:Get a refill.. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40166437)

Now you'll just have to get up 4 times for refills during a movie, instead of just hitting the bathroom once.

Re:Get a refill.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166469)

First world problems. What a bitch they can be. However will your fat ass handle getting up 4 times!!!

Re:Get a refill.. (3, Funny)

lxs (131946) | about 2 years ago | (#40166641)

I would be very annoyed if your fat ass got up four times during the first half of the movie.
The guy sitting next to you.

Yet another reason.... (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#40166445)

...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?

Re:Yet another reason.... (5, Insightful)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | about 2 years ago | (#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."

Re:Yet another reason.... (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 2 years ago | (#40166669)

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:Get a refill.. (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40166463)

Exactly, lol. That's why they instead need to mandate that whenever you press the button for a non-diet drink at any soda fill up station, it needs to say "You fat ass." That would be much more effective.

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

tronbradia (961235) | about 2 years ago | (#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.. (2, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#40166587)

It's a nudge, but nothing to do with curbing eating habits and much more to do with getting people used to government intervention in their every day life.

Re:Get a refill.. (1)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#40166679)

It's a nudge, but nothing to do with curbing eating habits and much more to do with getting people used to government intervention in their every day life.

As long as the government is intervening in their every day life by providing a safety net for their irresponsible decisions, how is this a bad thing?

Re:Get a refill.. (4, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#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.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166533)

Refills will be banned next!

Re:Get a refill.. (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#40166647)

Eating will be banned shortly after that. All nutrition will be provided by sanctioned health care workers only, via tube or IV.

Re:Get a refill.. (2)

Ndkchk (893797) | about 2 years ago | (#40166545)

Think of the calories you'll burn walking to the counter! Those pounds will just melt away!

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

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40166551)

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.. (4, Informative)

aeortiz (1498977) | about 2 years ago | (#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.. (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | about 2 years ago | (#40166675)

Coming soon: full time video channel of Mayor Bloomberg 'looking at things' - with weeping (unfat, of course) girls in the background. Spiffy uniforms to follow.

Re:Get a refill.. (1)

milkmage (795746) | about 2 years ago | (#40166677)

by and large, these places don't offer free refills
movie theaters
sports venues

occasionally you'll find a restaurant, but usually fast food ...who the hell needs a 64oz vat of carbonated beverage anyway?

know it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166299)

Why don't you ASK YOUR PEOPLE what they want you to do... and don't just open your fat mouth.

Re:know it all (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#40166421)

> Hello. My name is Eliza [nlp-addiction.com]. How may I help you?
* know it all
> Ahh. Please continue...
* Why don't you ASK YOUR PEOPLE what they want you to do...
> Do you really believe I don't ASK my PEOPLE what they want me to do?
* and don't just open your fat mouth.
> Why are you concerned about my fat mouth?

I think Eliza may have you cornered on this one, AC.

(For the record, the recommendation originates from the NYC Health Department, and Bloomberg points out that you can still easily carry two smaller drinks.)

How is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166301)

If I want to be 330lbs and buy a 64 oz soda, who the hell is he to tell me I cant? This is america, dammit. Soda is my religion.

Re:How is this legal? (4, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40166381)

It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.

Re:How is this legal? (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 years ago | (#40166433)

It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!

That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.

Re:How is this legal? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#40166559)

Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government. But most people never seem to remember that, maybe because most of the people who will end up paying the most are either the rich (right now, and note I'm not saying this is a bad thing, necessarily, it just makes it a lot easier to get behind government spending when it isn't coming out of your pocket) or the young (later, when the country is $100 trillion in debt, which obviously is a bad thing).

Re:How is this legal? (2)

andydread (758754) | about 2 years ago | (#40166589)

This is the most alarmist rubbish i've seen on Slashdot today. LOL@ governmet taking over your health care. Yeah death panels and all lol. If you are referencing the Affordabe Healthcare Act then that is not free health care you have to pay. The emergency room freeloaders will now have to pay their way rather than me paying for their healthcare. I think i like it that they are forced to pay for their own healthcare thank you very much.

the last remaining acceptable bigotry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166603)

I don't particularly want my insurance rates going up to have to pay for obesity-related health problems.

And 46 O.Z. of corn-syrup goo is a bit EXTREEEEEEEEME! [outsidethebeltway.com]. Drink water, lardass [economist.com].

Re:the last remaining acceptable bigotry (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#40166701)

Obese people actually cost less to care for than fit people. Why? They don't live as long, and they tend to die suddenly, rather than over a protracted period.

Re:How is this legal? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#40166447)

Just out of curiosity, how do you know everyone who drinks soda also want's free healthcare?

Re:How is this legal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166455)

Fatties die young, "healthy" refuse to die and instead spend years collecting social security and living in nursing homes. But you know, why let a little thing like that get in the way of insulting people, right? While we are at it, black people are more likely to suffer from several expensive diseases, should we deny them health care as well or have laws against them having more children? You are an idiot.

Re:How is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166515)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a large chunk of the US completely hate the prospect of Obamacare as it was "Socialist"?

Re:How is this legal? (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#40166547)

its legal because people like me who rarely go to the doctor and dont have these problems support it because we don't want to pay for your endless supply of drugs, sleep aids and other nonsense

Re:How is this legal? (4, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#40166555)

Soda is not my religion.

It is my addiction though.

I've switched over time from 128oz of Mountain Dew a day to a pair of 12oz Mountain Dew Throwback cans a day. I still end up occasionally bowing to the fountain soda in the combo meal at lunch time, but I've also started bringing my lunch four out of five days a week.

With no other changes, no increase in exercise, no major effort other than to bring to eat only what I want to carry around with me in a cooler, I've lost weight. When I have the wherewithal to keep to it (it's hard and I have to occasionally get lunches out when I get tired of cold cuts) it works well, saves me money, and helps me to live better.

We're addicted to food. Unlike most addictions, we can't simply stop eating though. We're surrounded by food that used to be special occasion food. Deserts, deep-fried foods loaded with spices, an overabundance of meats. How the hell are you supposed to eat right when there are almost no options to eat right?

I'd restrict the cup size. I wouldn't go 16oz, probably more like 24. I would ban free refills once one has left the premises. If you're in the restaurant you can continue to get your free refills like normal. If you're at a convenience store, either you bring your own cup to get more than 24oz, or if the store allows it, you drink your drink and refill on the spot.

A simple ban on fast food joints and convenience stores selling cups larger than a certain size will do a lot to curtail it, and won't restrict patrons from larger cups if they bring their own cup.

Bullshit (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40166303)

I would think the public prefers education more than legislation... Could be wrong though

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166315)

Education costs too much. Easier to get the government to tell people what they can and can't do, unquestioned.

Now, tell me, which political party am I talking about?

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166429)


Re:Bullshit (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40166351)

People already know that soda is unhealthy. They just don't care. Reminds me of Dennis Leary talking about cigarettes... same basic idea.

"There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!" You fucking dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, ok!? They're a drug, we're addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*"

Re:Bullshit (2)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#40166617)

Except Leary actually quit smoking for quite some time, and didn't restart until it proved an easy habit to resume amidst personal tragedy.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166359)

>I would think the public prefers education

The public are idiots. Why do you think they are fat in the first place.
Do you think they don't know that a pint of sugared water is going to make them fat?

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166393)

They elected this guy to two terms, then repealed the term limit and elected him to a third.

I mean, I think this idea is idiotic, but I'm not in his electorate (or jurisdiction), so whatever. If New Yorkers wanted a different guy they had ample opportunity to pick one.

The public are sheep (2)

mitchy (34242) | about 2 years ago | (#40166431)

I would think the public prefers education more than legislation... Could be wrong though

What's the new saying? Something like "Democracy triumphed over communism. Corporations triumphed over democracy."

"The public" are sheep. They have been programmed, propagandized and beaten into being sheep. If "the public" were not sheep, then a vast majority of modern problems wouldn't exist.

That's the main problem - or maybe a better way to phrase the question is, "why did it get so bad that a mayor had to step in to take matters into his own hands?" One word answer, and here's the hint: (makes baaa baaa sound)

Re:Bullshit (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#40166491)

You are wrong. Just like how many parents want the government to raise their kids rather than having to bother with it themselves.

Educate first. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Educate first. (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40166461)

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:Educate first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166507)

Fast food and other chain restaurants are required by law to post calorie information on menus in NYC.

People have the information, they just don't care. Further 'education' will be ineffective.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166319)

Why would the government get to decide how fat I get to be?

Seems like that should be my choice.

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 years ago | (#40166485)

Why would the government get to decide how fat I get to be?

Seems like that should be my choice.

If the government is paying for your health care, that choice is no longer yours.

Nanny State (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40166327)

The nanny state is here!

Let us know how it goes, NYC!

Re:Nanny State (1)

IrquiM (471313) | about 2 years ago | (#40166487)

People are just too stupid to live a healthy and balanced life without someone watching over them! Nanny states are needed!

Re:Nanny State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166621)

Really, why not move to Cuba then jackass? Hopefully Bloomberg will declare himself king of NY, get Snake Bliskin out of retirement and get to banning other human activities like sex, etc.

We know better than you (2)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | about 2 years ago | (#40166339)

... how to live your life. That's why we're infallible and immortal.

Re:We know better than you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166519)

you're a fool

if 200 yrs ago someone came and said "wash your hands" after taking a crap, an idiot would have given that same reaction as yours

Re:We know better than you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166671)

... how to live your life. That's why we're infallible and immortal.

So whose side are you mocking, again, theirs or ours? Your snide remark isn't narrowing it down at all...

Libertarians wouldn't do this to you (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166345)

When a libertarian wants to do something, he does it without bothering anyone
When a liberal wants to do something, they make everyone do it

When a libertarian doesn't want to do something, he quietly doesn't do it
When a liberal doesn't want to do something, they make it so no-one may do it

Think about that next time you post some anti-libertarian trash on Slashdot. We just want to let you do what you want to do (unless you want to ban people from doing things, I guess that we won't let you do).

Re:Libertarians wouldn't do this to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166391)

Yeah, but I'm sick of subsidizing the health care costs of these fatties that want their giant sodas.

It's a setup for a kickback (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#40166371)

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.

Who buys pop at these places anyways? (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 2 years ago | (#40166387)

The prices for a pop at a restaurant or movie theater is all about gouging the customer.

I'd rather buy a $0.69 two liter pop at Aldis than a $6.50 12 oz at a movie theater.

Then again, since these places make their money off suckers, maybe they'll raise their rates on their other goods,

hmm (2)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about 2 years ago | (#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? (3, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

How about some evidence (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 2 years ago | (#40166423)

Shouldn't there be some kind of actual evidence that big sodas per se are what's making Americans fat before we start banning them? Is he saying that every fat person drinks big gulps?

Re:How about some evidence (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#40166549)

No, he's not saying every fat person drinks big gulps. But you would be an idiot to think that the consumption of non-nutritious, calorie-laden soda doesn't lead to obesity. Especially when a 64-oz Coke is 750 calories which is around 1/2 to 1/3 of what a person should be taking in in calories and a high number of people drink more than one of them in a day combined with probably some high calorie meals. Excess caloric intake is what leads to weight gain unless you would like to present some evidence to the contrary.

Re:How about some evidence (1)

NardoPolo88 (1417637) | about 2 years ago | (#40166651)

I think you're on to something. So when they order 3 cheeseburgers and 2 large fries it must be that 64oz diet coke that made them fat.

Re:How about some evidence (4, Interesting)

swb (14022) | about 2 years ago | (#40166663)

That a large cup of non-diet soda contains a large quantity of sugar/HFCS is not up for debate, this is an established fact.

That sugars produce an insulin response is not up for debate and has been scientifically established for nearly 100 years. That insulin is the primary hormonal driver of fat accumulation has been scientifically established since the 1960s.

We know this and have known this for for nearly 50 years. It's less open to debate than evolution, and that's a closed subject.

Banning is probably the wrong approach from an economics perspective, and the details are poor, too -- allowing juice? That's like saying smoking menthols is better than smoking non-menthols. Metabolically there is zero difference, and in many ways juice is much worse due to the fructose content.

Re:How about some evidence (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about 2 years ago | (#40166695)

I'm rather dubious this is going to do anything. Everything we drink other than absolutely pure water has calories. Juice (grape for example) is horrible with it's natural sugars (40g) and high calories (170) at even tiny sizes (8 fluid ounces). About the only thing 'safe' to drink is water with it's minor amount of sodium (typically) and no calories or sugars. Good forbid we even want to drink light beer (103 calories, 14mg of sodium, 0.3g of sugar, 12 fl oz), though it may be sort of healthier for you depending on how you look at it....

So... (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40166427)

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...

Oversized? (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40166435)

At the local Kwik Trip (it's like a northern US 7-11 but way nicer) they have a 56 oz "Mega Buddy" drink which is one up from the "Big Buddy" and "Best Buddy" :-P The difference is, over half their choices of things to put in it are diet or low calorie. I fill up on the 0 calorie Lipton Peach Tea or 5 calorie per serving Minute Made Light. And sometimes I am definitely THAT thirsty. So banning big drinks is idiotic. You can drink all you want of something relatively healthy. In fact, drinking a lot IS healthy.
What does piss me off is Burger King. I went there and decided to get a drink with my meal and they basically don't carry anything I'd drink. I'm thirsty as hell and I'm forced to drink one of their awful choices. I'm not a Pepsi or Coke guy and beyond that, they had nothing diet. That's what they should ban, if anything (and I don't think they should ban anything, fatties should make their own damn decisions. If someone's going to drink 800 calories because they don't think diet tastes good enough, they deserve the consequences).

Re:Oversized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166569)

Alright, keep drinking your peach tea with "0 calories" but copious amounts of artificial sweeteners. That'll do you one well down the line.

Whatever would we do if... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166449)

People actually decided to take responisbility for their own weight? If you're fat don't complain, stop buying yourself large sodas and fast food, it's the consumer's fault not the company's.

'bout time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166459)

tired of seeing fatsos with cute faces. if they all slimmed down, there'd be more attractive women around

Somebody didn't get their monthly check (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 2 years ago | (#40166473)

Coca Cola and Pepsi Co. must have slipped up and forgot the mayors monthly stipend.

And what exactly did we expect? (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 2 years ago | (#40166481)

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".

in before the "freedom!" mel gibson imitators (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#40166495)

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

What the public want? (1)

Afty0r (263037) | about 2 years ago | (#40166499)

I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.

If the public wanted that, they would either buy smaller drinks, or drink less of the drink... the fact that they're not would indicate they DON'T want the mayor to do anything...

This infringes on FREEDOM! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166517)

Why'd we even bother fighting the war on terrorism!

Random Searches (2)

heidkamp (653609) | about 2 years ago | (#40166531)

Mayor Bloomberg also announced that police would be "stop and frisk"ing individuals with a BMI over 30 to search for contraband oversized sodas.

Re:Random Searches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166599)

TSA already does this to people carrying sodas in the gate area. (The screeners, not the people being stopped, have been reported as having BMIs over 30.)

Torn (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#40166553)

On the one hand, I hate being told what to do. On the other hand, the "small" drink at the movie theater is about 4 times the size I actually want do drink.

This is on par with other moronic bans (2, Insightful)

mapkinase (958129) | about 2 years ago | (#40166565)

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?

Just a first step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166575)

Why don't we take this a step further and add a "calorie tax". This would actually create incentive for companies to reduce portion sizes and create healthier recipes. Implement some sort of sliding scale that would discourage the types of food that lead to too much calorie consumption. You could also discourage the proliferation of process packed goods by exempting "raw" foods like fruits and vegitables, most butcher cuts of meat, fish, etc. It would probably also be a good idea to exempt semi-processed food ingredients like cooking oil, flour, hell even sugar. (How much sugar do you eat in a day that came as crystalized sugar in a bag? Unless you cook a lot- Probably none!) A situation where a prepared cake is heavily taxed,but the ingredients to make said cake are not is exactly the sort of scenario that I think would be a good idea.

On a tangent, It would probably also be a good idea to stop massively subsidizing the corn industry, because all they seem interested in doing is making a whole lot of HFCS to sell as cheap high calorie sweetener. We're literally using our own tax dollars to make ourselves fat.

Soda Rights Forever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166593)

They can pry my Big Gulp from my cold, puffy, bloated, dead hands!

first they came for KKK (1)

mapkinase (958129) | about 2 years ago | (#40166595)

then they came for anti-Semites, then they came for Taliban supporters, and when they came for soda drinkers, everybody was so involved in following zillion channels on the internet to choose from, that nobody gave a damn about it.

Why not just ban mandatory soda purchase (4, Insightful)

Paul Carver (4555) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Watch the "Weight of the Nation" (4, Insightful)

Marrow (195242) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

And how will this stop food abusive parents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166633)

The real problem is food obsessed parents. I grew up in such a household and the worst part is not having any say in what when down my own throat. Even when I knew I shouldn't eat so much or eat something healthier, I couldn't. On one side there was "I PAYED FOR ALL THIS FOOD SO YOU WILL EAT EVERY LITTLE BITE BEFORE IT GOES BAD!... bitch bitch bitch bitch" and on the other side was "Oh, you want to go on a diet? Only girls diet. So that means you are sick homosexual."

It wasn't until I finally moved out of that abusive environment that I was able to lose weight.

Simply banning "jumbo" sizes won't fix this.

Inconvenient Facts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166637)

8oz of Coca-Cola Classic has only 97 calories. Compare with other supposedly healthier choices that would not be banned:
8oz orange juice: 100 calories
8oz low fat yogurt: 250 calories
8oz chicken breast meat: 400 calories
8oz 80% lean ground beef: 616 calories
8oz french fries: 741 calories

What kind of an idiot can possibly think that banning sodas will fix the obesity problem?

How about installing water fountains? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166645)

Most overweight people I know drink diet pop (that's soda for the rest of you). Now that may use that to wash down a Snickers or two, but they still buy diet pop. So the Big Gulp is being unfairly targeted. That being said, I think diet pop is just as bad for you as sugar and HFCS based pop.

In my opinion, the disappearing public water fountain has contributed more to people drinking soda pop instead of water than any Big Gulp ever has. It's just obscene to spend $2.00 for 16 oz. of tap water just because it's bottled when a Big Gulp is, what, 64 floz or 128 floz. If cities would provide clean and accessible water fountains, they might see a decrease in people drinking soft drinks. And dog owners, just because you kiss your dog, it doesn't mean it's sanitary to let it drink from a water fountain.

The other misconception is that obesity can be linked to a particular food group. Being obese myself, I know that I like food in general, including vegetables. I eat a too much of those, too. I didn't take my health seriously until I went to a doctor who was quite frank and now I'm losing weight. Until then, I thought I was eating okay but now I realize my perception of my food portions were out of wack and maybe that's something that you can blame on a Big Gulp. But not just the Big Gulp.

I think most obese people don't seek medical attention out of embarrassment which is something most obese people suffer through in their daily lives. Universal healthcare in the U.S.A. would go further in solving this problem.

Not needed in NYC! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166683)

If you have ever been to NYC, you'll see that the obesity epidemic is not nearly as visible there as in the suburbs. People actually *walk* to get places in NYC, and therefore get exercise whether they planned to or not. And you actually have options as to what to drink in NYC. It is much easier and socially acceptable to have good lifestyle habits in the city.

Here in the suburbs, we have no sidewalks and it is near suicide to consider walking or bicycling on the roads. All the "restaurants" are crappy pizza joints with your choice of Coke or Pepsi or Gatorade (sugar, sugar, or sugar). I have to drive 10 minutes away to find a safe place to walk or bike, and have to have a gym membership in order to get any meaningful exercise. I'd love to live in a city, any city.

I'm starting a petition... (1)

tryptogryphic (1985608) | about 2 years ago | (#40166685)

...to have a law passed that people be responsible for their own food choices and decisions made in their own lives.

Excuse me Mr. fucking Bloomberg...what if I want to be obese that's the WHOLE POINT OF FREEDOM. I am getting sick to fucking death of all these inane moronic laws being considered / passed to protect people from evolution pruning out the crap from the human gene pool.

Not form the US (1)

KraxxxZ01 (2445360) | about 2 years ago | (#40166687)

but from what I've heard NYC obesity problem is non-existent compared to some other places in US. This looks more like an attempt to lower the doses and up the prices (with the excuse of lower revenue due to this ban).

Americans Want Less Freedom (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#40166693)

If there's one basic principal engrained on the American psyche it's "Do what Authority says" We've all seen how well Prohibition and the War on Drugs turned out and everyone is always complaining about the inordinate amount of rights the founding fathers have given them and constantly going on and on about how they hope Congress or the State will do something about that. I mean really, how many rights does one need. Personal choice is something not everyone should have a right to have.

So yes, Mayor Bloomberg is absolutely spot on when he says Americans want to be told what to eat and drink. In fact, I don't think it's enough. He should create a Food Safety Administration to audit every household's weekly meal plan, inspect fridges for contraband and give the lady of the house some tactile pleasuring.

The should just make standard soda sizes (1)

brainzach (2032950) | about 2 years ago | (#40166705)

The only problem I have now is that a medium size sodas at fast food restaurants are now ridiculously huge. A medium soda used to be between 16 and 20 ounces, but now it is closer to 32.

There should be some standard that specifies that specifies the size of what a medium soda should be so drinking 32 ounces of sugary soda isn't considered the new normal. If someone wants a bigger soda, let them order a large or super sized but a medium should be a average sized portion for a healthy person.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account