New York Soda Law

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It will help because at least people will get extra exercise walking to and from the soda fountain. Sure they're still consuming the same amount of life draining syrup, but at least some of the extra activity will help cancel it out.

ChristopherEccleston2-thumb-550x380-97548.jpg


Really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cute Tink
Upvote 0

Chris81

Servant to Christ
Jun 2, 2010
2,782
292
Iowa
✟11,860.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's estimated that diabetes in the US costs us $174 Billion dollars/yr. (Source). That's hardly the only obesity-related medical complication.

Alright, I see where you are coming from. Sickness due to obesity leads to loss of productivity and increased medical costs.



Umm... Because the laws say it is. The Constitution gives the federal gov't the right to regulate interstate commerce, and I'm sure if you looked through state constitutions and other municipal charters, you'd find similar language all over the place. Regulating the economy is one of the core functions of gov't.

The original intent of the commerce clause was to prevent States from imposing any kind of burden upon commerce that is interstate, meaning commerce that moves from one state to another. This all with the intent to insure regular free flow of commerce between states without burdens of tolling, irregular taxing schemes, or irregular highway width or rail systems.

As for States or municipalities regulating commerce within their own jurisdiction, you're right, they can regulate economic commerce as directed by their laws and via consent of the people. However, I never made the argument that this law was unconstitutional, merely unreasonable.

This is one of those laws that will have little effect in reducing obesity, will be burdensome to business and the consumer, and will be difficult to enforce. I can just imagine New York City creating the Municipal Regulatory Soda Enforcement Agency. This law wouldn't seem so bad if the people of New York had voted yes to restrict the size of soda beverages. Instead Major Bloomberg just made an executive order to enforce the law.

Medicare and Medicaid are public insurance programs, which are partly funded by state & local money.

Okay that is true. I guess my main point is that healthcare costs are managed primarily through insurance companies. They take the risk related to the expense of increased obesity-related illnesses and I would say that it is the insurance company that have a vested interest in establishing health requirements and set premium charges for coverage. The government does provide coverage in the form of Medicare and Medicaid but as a libertarian I don't believe the government should be in that business or assume that risk.

Your diet isn't being regulated. Commercial packaging is being regulated.

The whole intent of the law is to regulate one's diet indirectly through the regulation of soda size requirements. Of course it won't work, because people are not easily manipulated.

Yeah, that's fine, but you've bought into the libertarian myth that the consequences of an individual's poor choices don't extend beyond that individual. It's not true. Increased medical expenses, strained medical care capacity, and lost productivity affect all of us. I pay for jumbo's soda habit despite the fact that I go to the gym 6 times a week and eat chicken breast and salad all the time.

Yes, each individuals decisions effects the overall economy of a society. However, historically there have always been negative societal costs due to health issues. Some have been resolved through government intervention and others through free enterprise.

There are somethings that should be left alone. Consider prohibition, it was meant to solve a real problem related to health hazards caused by the consumption of alcohol. Unfortunately it lead to a huge organized crime problem in America. We repealed prohibition but the health problems related to alcohol still exists.

It did. But they also had a 64 oz waved in their face for only 25 cents more. Now they won't have that temptation.

Not really, the law does not cover convenience stores. He can still get his 64 oz. Big Gulp if he pleases.

In any case, are people just captive to their own temptations or do you think we are capable of making rational decisions for our own sake. If the 64 oz. Big Gulp is such a great temptation why am I not buying one every time I buy gas? Why are you not drinking one everyday yourself?


It may, but I suspect that people will just reduce their consumption.

Why would people change their habits do to a law? People hate being told what to do by the government. More than likely people will consume more drinks to spite the government.


More than likely you'd drink all of it.

No, I tend to throw away food and drink after my appetite is satisfied.

It doesn't matter how free you are if your will is easily manipulated.

I guess I have no more capacity to make a decision for myself than a plant. Thank god, I have the government to tell me what to do?


But you're ok with corporation manipulation that doesn't have your best interest at heart?!?

-Dan.

Sure, I can always turn off the TV if I don't want to see a commercial. I can't necessarily ignore the government when it enforces new laws.
 
Upvote 0

Chris81

Servant to Christ
Jun 2, 2010
2,782
292
Iowa
✟11,860.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It will help because at least people will get extra exercise walking to and from the soda fountain. Sure they're still consuming the same amount of life draining syrup, but at least some of the extra activity will help cancel some of it out.

Lol

Under the law they can still go to the convenience store and by their 64 oz Big Gulp soda. They just can't buy a big soda when they go to a restaurant or movie theater.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
None of this will matter because the law will be a total flop.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688108-2/#post61400567

Nobody addressed the actual statistics I posted prior, so I figured I'd repost them ;)

The CDC botched their original estimate on the cost and cause of death stats the originally published and admitted it later.

CSPI in cooperation with CDC set the bar so low for what's considered obese & overweight that it makes the problem seem much worse than it actually is.

When CSPI lobbied to get SuperSize, Biggie Size, and King Size removed from the big 3 fast food chains, the obesity stats didn't go down over the past 8 years, they've gone up.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,937
Baltimore
✟551,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
None of this will matter because the law will be a total flop.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688108-2/#post61400567

Nobody addressed the actual statistics I posted prior, so I figured I'd repost them ;)

The CDC botched their original estimate on the cost and cause of death stats the originally published and admitted it later.

Heart disease and diabetes are related to obesity.

Regardless, even if these problems don't outright kill people, they cause expensive health problems. It wouldn't surprise me if death was actually cheaper.

-Dan.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Heart disease and diabetes are related to obesity.

Regardless, even if these problems don't outright kill people, they cause expensive health problems. It wouldn't surprise me if death was actually cheaper.

-Dan.

Yeah, but if you check the figures I provided, not that many people are actually obese. They're setting the bar so low at a 30 BMI for obese and 25 BMI for overweight that it's easy to boost the percentages and create a scare.

If you take a person who's 5 foot 10 inches and 175 pounds, they would be counted in the 'overweight' category. As I mentioned before at 6 foot 2, 190 pounds, I'm in that category.

Is a person who's 6 foot and 220 pounds really a huge burden on the healthcare system?

Most of the "facts" about weight that are fed to us (no pun intended) are myths.

According to an article published by encyclopedia britannica (provided by Case Western school of medicine)...

Studies do show that the relative risk of death among obese people with a Body Mass Index (BMI) at the highest end of the scale (BMI 40) is significantly higher than normal weight people, however studies show that the relative risk of death among overweight people with a BMI of 25-30 is the same as in normal weight people.

The "obesity epidemic" stats they're feeding us are based on the 30 BMI as the standard of obese.

So yes, while there are 36% of Americans with a BMI of between 25-30 (which as I established above doesn't create any greater health risks), the percentage of American's in the actual risk range of BMI 40+ is only 2.1% according to the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

And even in the BMI 40 category, there are still people who aren't obese
dave-batista-3.jpg



...hardly an "epidemic" worth creating expensive legislation over.
 
Upvote 0

HalfoffSale

Newbie
Aug 28, 2011
796
24
✟8,607.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
because people are not easily manipulated.


I'm on board with the rest of what you're saying, but I'm going to have to stop you on this one. People are extremely easy to manipulate. I mean, the entire advertising industry is built around it. Pick up a Psych book sometime.


Edit to add:

In fact, larger cups in one of the major reasons attributed to the success of McDonalds.

But the soda makers don’t deserve credit for the invention of supersizing. That distinction belongs to a man named David Wallerstein. Until his death in 1993, Wallerstein served on the board of directors at McDonald’s, but in the fifties and sixties he worked for a chain of movie theaters in Texas, where he labored to expand sales of soda and popcorn — the high-markup items that theaters depend on for their profitability. As the story is told in John Love’s official history of McDonald’s, Wallerstein tried everything he could think of to goose up sales — two-for-one deals, matinee specials — but found he simply could not induce customers to buy more than one soda and one bag of popcorn. He thought he knew why: Going for seconds makes people feel piggish.

Wallerstein discovered that people would spring for more popcorn and soda — a lot more — as long as it came in a single gigantic serving. Thus was born the two-quart bucket of popcorn, the sixty-four-ounce Big Gulp, and, in time, the Big Mac and the jumbo fries, though Ray Kroc himself took some convincing.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/foodinc/omnivores.php

It does bring up an interesting question. Thusfar people have mostly considered the freedom of choice, but could something like this qualify as manipulation?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
There is nothing in this law forcing anybody to do anything, so your suggestion that I may be for forced behavior modification is incorrect.

However it is a great idea to teach kids these things of which you speak. I also recommend that people learn to cook food and cut down on restaurant eating in order to have more control over their sugar, salt and fat intake. All of these things must be used with some physical exercise.
Well, making vendors change their selection is making them do something. However, in your same vein, we could not force them to do this, but simply limit their choices by law until it's a natural choice. How about then?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

George Orwell.

Nah, the left favors Brave New World over 1984.

The World State's motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY.

Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!

Every one belongs to every one else.

Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one. Even Epsilons are useful. We couldn't do without Epsilons. Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one.

"But I like the inconveniences."
"We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably."
"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
 
Upvote 0

Chris81

Servant to Christ
Jun 2, 2010
2,782
292
Iowa
✟11,860.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm on board with the rest of what you're saying, but I'm going to have to stop you on this one. People are extremely easy to manipulate. I mean, the entire advertising industry is built around it. Pick up a Psych book sometime.


Edit to add:

In fact, larger cups in one of the major reasons attributed to the success of McDonalds.



Michael Pollan's <em>The Omnivore's Dilemma</em>: A Republic of Fat (Excerpt) | Food, Inc. | POV | PBS

It does bring up an interesting question. Thusfar people have mostly considered the freedom of choice, but could something like this qualify as manipulation?

Ah, you make a good point. I don't know if it is the just merely the offering of bigger sizes at a slightly higher price that persuades people to buy bigger or the salesmanship that takes place at the movie concession stand. My mind is always set on buying the medium sized pop but in the past I have been persuaded by the people at the concession stand to buy the larger pop because it is much bigger and only slightly more expensive. They can be very persuasive and determined to get you to buy a bigger pop.

However, that tactic no longer works on me. You buy the bigger pop, you drink half of it, get sick and throw it away. Now if I buy a pop at a concession stand, it is only the medium size. I get the quantity of pop I want and save money.

These days, I will to the grocery store buy all the goodies I want before hand and smuggle it in. This is very effective in the winter, you can hide a lot of goodies in your coat.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,937
Baltimore
✟551,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yeah, but if you check the figures I provided, not that many people are actually obese. They're setting the bar so low at a 30 BMI for obese and 25 BMI for overweight that it's easy to boost the percentages and create a scare.

If you take a person who's 5 foot 10 inches and 175 pounds, they would be counted in the 'overweight' category. As I mentioned before at 6 foot 2, 190 pounds, I'm in that category.

BMI has known flaws - it works best for people of average size, but as you've pointed out, it overstates obesity for very athletic people. It does the same for very tall people, because tall body sizes don't scale by the same proportions that the formula uses. I'm 6'5" and it puts my ideal body weight around 180 lb, which is silly. IIRC, it also understates obesity for very short people (I could be wrong about that).

But for average people, it's a decent guideline. A person who weighs 175 @ 5'10" has a gut. It's not a huge, disgusting gut, but it's a gut.

Is a person who's 6 foot and 220 pounds really a huge burden on the healthcare system?

Huge? No, probably not, but it's definitely non-zero and it's unnecessary. I was 225 for several years and peaked at 235, and I could see it starting to have an effect on my health. For one thing, my knee hurts much less now that I weigh less.

Studies do show that the relative risk of death among obese people with a Body Mass Index (BMI) at the highest end of the scale (BMI 40) is significantly higher than normal weight people, however studies show that the relative risk of death among overweight people with a BMI of 25-30 is the same as in normal weight people.

Your first link isn't working, but going off your summary of it, that's only an increased risk of death. That doesn't mention an increase in medical expenses for treatable conditions.

And even in the BMI 40 category, there are still people who aren't obese
dave-batista-3.jpg

How many people look like pro wrestlers?

-Dan.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,937
Baltimore
✟551,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
In fact, larger cups in one of the major reasons attributed to the success of McDonalds.
Michael Pollan's <em>The Omnivore's Dilemma</em>: A Republic of Fat (Excerpt) | Food, Inc. | POV | PBS

THANK YOU! That is exactly what I've been talking about (in this thread and in others on the topic). People will eat more if it's put in front of them, and they're more inclined to just consume one serving, regardless of how big it is. From that link:

One might think that people would stop eating and drinking these gargantuan portions as soon as they felt full, but it turns out hunger doesn’t work that way. Researchers have found that people (and animals) presented with large portions will eat up to 30 percent more than they would otherwise. Human appetite, it turns out, is surprisingly elastic


It does bring up an interesting question. Thusfar people have mostly considered the freedom of choice, but could something like this qualify as manipulation?

Of course it's manipulation.

-Dan.
 
Upvote 0

dollarsbill

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2012
6,676
147
✟7,746.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
New York City has recently passed a law restricting the sale of soda beverages to no larger than 16 oz. in all restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters.

Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks | Healthland | TIME.com

Does anyone else think this is insane? This is nanny state taken to the extreme ! No doubt that drinking too much soda can be bad for your health but shouldn't those decisions be left to the individual?

The following link is a really fun piece of satire; However it does raise a serious question of how New York really does intend to enforce this law:

New York City Criminals Finding Ways to Enjoy 32oz & Larger Sodas[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]GlossyNews.com
Hello world government.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chris81

Servant to Christ
Jun 2, 2010
2,782
292
Iowa
✟11,860.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
THANK YOU! That is exactly what I've been talking about (in this thread and in others on the topic). People will eat more if it's put in front of them, and they're more inclined to just consume one serving, regardless of how big it is. From that link:






Of course it's manipulation.

-Dan.


I think the preoccupation to eat everything on your plate is an aspect of primarily the western culture. In many other part of the world, meals are served communally among family, friends, and guests. People don't have single plates of food all to themselves. The meal is shared. You also don't try to eat everything that is served, because it would reflect poorly on the host.

I have noticed that those that eat everything on their plate, no matter the portion size, tend to come from family backgrounds where they were taught to clear the plate as a child.

I doubt that all people are somehow inclined to eat everything that is put in front of them because of their biology. Instead the root of consuming more than we can eat is likely the product of a western mindset. If one frees themselves of this mindset, it is likely they are free of the temptation to consume portions beyond which brings satisfaction.
 
Upvote 0

mattyoung

Member
Oct 15, 2006
115
1
Sydney
✟7,787.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Chris81 said:
New York City has recently passed a law restricting the sale of soda beverages to no larger than 16 oz. in all restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters.

Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks | Healthland | TIME.com

Does anyone else think this is insane? This is nanny state taken to the extreme ! No doubt that drinking too much soda can be bad for your health but shouldn't those decisions be left to the individual?

The following link is a really fun piece of satire; However it does raise a serious question of how New York really does intend to enforce this law:

New York City Criminals Finding Ways to Enjoy 32oz & Larger Sodas[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]GlossyNews.com

Have you seen the size of the average American?!
I'm not saying that here in Australia it's any better, but seriously, it's not a bad thing!
 
Upvote 0

dollarsbill

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2012
6,676
147
✟7,746.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Have you seen the size of the average American?!
I'm not saying that here in Australia it's any better, but seriously, it's not a bad thing!
It's not a bad thing that Big Brother can tell us what we can drink? Or what size fries we can order? Big Brother is alive and global.
 
Upvote 0

mattyoung

Member
Oct 15, 2006
115
1
Sydney
✟7,787.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
dollarsbill said:
It's not a bad thing that Big Brother can tell us what we can drink? Or what size fries we can order? Big Brother is alive and global.

"Big Brother" is your government who is concerned with your health!
They have obviously tried to TELL you that what you are doing is harmful this is just the next step.
Let's compare it to smoking: there was a time when you could smoke anywhere, now it has been limited to certain areas. Eg: not being allowed to smoke indoors.

Edit: If you desperately want another soft drink, purchase another one!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dollarsbill

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2012
6,676
147
✟7,746.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Big Brother" is your government who is concerned with your health!
They have obviously tried to TELL you that what you are doing is harmful this is just the next step.
Let's compare it to smoking: there was a time when you could smoke anywhere, now it has been limited to certain areas. Eg: not being allowed to smoke indoors.
And we're too ignorant to choose? Are politicians more healthy than the rest of us? Corrupt? Yes. Healthy? No.
Edit: If you desperately want another soft drink, purchase another one!
And that should be my choice. As should be buying a large drink.
 
Upvote 0