JON STEWART CRIED over it, because it put him agreeing with Tucker Carlson.
There is no doubt New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is correct on the facts.
It’s equally onerous on American society, because even without universal health care we all pay the price for the obesity and disease sugared drinks cause. You can count the sugar grams at sugar stacks. I’ve talked about sugar many times, including when Rep. Paul Ryan refused birthday cake from Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, because Ryan doesn’t eat sugar.
But somewhere inside my libertarian veins Mayor Mike’s push is making me queasy.
There’s no doubt people who refuse to take responsibility for their own health, which includes overindulgence of sugar-packed sodas, are costing us all money.
Still…
What Mayor Mike is attempting to address can’t be solved quite this easily.
Great….Just great……1 small step for man..on giant leap toward prohibition…What’s next, speakeasies?
The argument then is this: because government funds are involved in addressing the consequences of the actions/decisions of individuals, then the power of government is to be used to modify/correct behavior of said individuals. As the health nazi Bloomberg himself said on a talk show recently, “The whole purpose of government is to improve the health of its citizens.”
Firstly, the citizens don’t belong to the government; it’s supposed to be the other way around. So far those of Bloombertg’s ilk have limited their ire and concern to those smoking fat slobs who consume fatty, sugary foods while not exercising enough. After all, the taxpayers are picking up the tab. Applying Bloomberg’s principles then, why not take the same approach to all non-essential activities that incur costs to those not partaking in such destructive (or potentially destructive) behavior.
Mountain climbing, spelunking, powerboats, sailboats, private aircraft, boy scout wilderness trips….the list is endless. Absurdity may be claimed here, but it is not; this is exactly the same principle the Bloombergs of this nation espouse non stop.
Lincoln once said that getting legislation through Congress was like shoveling fleas across a barnyard. And that is because people, much like fleas and cats, tend to have a rampant urge for individuality. Our society CAN become an Orwellian nirvana in which everyone wears boilersuits, don’t smoke, eat healthy, are thin and never wrinkled….and be miserable as hell.
I think we as Americans have become so obsessed with the longevity of life that we’ve totally lost sight of the variety of the meaning of “happiness.” Trading freedom for security and losing both applies here.
It’s stupid. And stupid is so ineffective. According to this proprosed ban, nothing bigger that a 12 ounce container. That’s it. So if you are in a fast food joint you get a 12 ounce glass, go fill it up, then once empty, go back fill it again. Stupid.
Several months ago in a comment I mentioned the most useless calories come from our consumption of soda pop. Everyone responded like I was nuts. I did advocate a maximum cup size, however, I did recommend drinks be served without ice, unless requested. Soft drinks are a terrible value for customers. A 24 oz cup with 18 oz of ice; no wonder people buy bigger and bigger portions. Also, I stated that we need to remove cup holders from cars like we removed ashtrays in cars to attack smoking. There is no difference. To reduce obesity you must go where the useless calories are. Finally, if we are serious about attacking obesity we should impose a “calorie tax” on both corporate producer of products and consumer. Business has the right to sell all the calories they wish if they are willing to pay for the privilege. And, consumers should also have the right to eat as many calories as they choose if the willing to pay for the privilege. This is allowing the marketplace to work this problem and charge the proper parties that burden society with obesity. Money is a powerful incentive to change habits.
Eureka! FINALLY, an attempt to infringe on one’s right to choose that isn’t specifically targeted at women. Now you know how we feel, Tucker Carlson’s of the world. BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!! (Insert maniacal laugh here…….)
In case anyone else out there is unaware of this development, here’s a New York Times article on the subject.
For some reason, it just doesn’t appear on any of my RSS feeds…
The ban, BTW, is on soft drinks larger than 16 ounces being served by “food service establishments”, which has a particular meaning in NYC, according to that article.
It will be interesting to see if this ban has any effect on public health in and around NYC. My guess is that it will be hard to quantify accurately, given the number of other possible variables. Still, it might be interesting. My own prejudice is that most folks who consume that much soda at once could stand to get up and get refills a little more often. While I’m not in favor of government policy replacing personal responsibility, sometimes it has to. Overconsumption of drinks that are nothing but sugar is a public health issue. To me, the thing that’s debatable is whether it will do any good. I’m all for government giving people a push in the right direction, as long as it’s based on sound science.
Cujo, one of the venues where the ban will potentially occur is at movie theaters which don’t make their profits from ticket sales but from the sale of sugar drinks. Every time I’m at the movies, went last night as matter of fact and every time without fail more people and their kids are drinking those big drinks (bigger than their heads). So it remains to be seen how those theater owners among other establishments targeted will fight this in Albany.
Exactly. And I’m a former smoker who lives in NY and I, for one, approve of the ban on smoking in certain areas. Again, for me, it’s the public health issue that trumps all.
Yes, theaters and sports venues were mentioned as businesses being affected by the ban. They can still sell soft drinks, of course. They just have to be smaller. I suspect prices for those smaller drinks will go up accordingly.
This idea presents an interesting debate and I find both sides have convincing arguments. But Mayor Mike has me scratching my head when he advocates the super-size ban based on public health, but opposes a universal bike helmut law. Both are attempts to address public health by changing behavior, whether that is a good approach or not. It seems inconsistent to me to be for one and against the other.
They are both public health issues, but they are not the same. The helmet law changes the behavior of individual bike riders. It doesn’t change the economics of buying and selling helmets all that much.
OTOH, the soft drink limitation changes the economics of selling soft drinks. The current situation for most of us, to use newdealdem1′s example of a movie theater, is to price very large drinks at a buck or so more than the small ones. The only difference in cost between vending a small drink and a large one is a few cents. There is huge profit in a bigger drink relative to a small one. The buyer also thinks he’s getting a better deal, because the per unit volume price is lower, often by a considerable amount. Unfortunately, while that’s a good deal for the vendor and the customer, the customer consuming all those extra empty calories is a potential health issue (if repeated often enough).
So, they’re different. Just labeling both “health issues” is like labeling care of veterans and buying new weapons as “defense issues” – true, but only a small part of the story.
I think maybe this was a little overblown. When you hear him talk about it he says he is simply trying to help people change their habits. He remembers when he was a kid and a soda was 12 oz. and nobody seemed to feel deprived.
I remember when I was a kid, my grandmother loved pepsi. She had cartons delivered by the local bottler. They were in tiny little glass bottles,in wooden crates. She served them in aluminum glasses with little socks on them.It was a high treat. At home it was strictly iced tea, milk or water.
Of course the only time we were in the house as kids was at mealtime and bedtime. The rest of the time we were on the move. Our parents never had to worry about us. Parenting today is so sadly different.
It’s a rare day when I consume more than 16 oz. of soft drinks, even if you count those lemonades that come out of soft drink dispensers. As someone mentioned earlier, half of what’s typically in the cup is ice, anyway.
OTOH, I know people who will consume a six pack or more a day, and I’ve know office workers who bring one of those huge plastic or foam cups, and refill them at least once a day. All the while, they’re doing nothing more strenuous than typing.
It’s probably for the caffine in office workers.
Obesity costs the American economy something like $150 billion a year.
I’m not in favor of this ban, but we have to do something, Coca Cola, Pepsi and Big Fast Food are like drug dealers, especially during times of economic hardship, with their Get More For Less junk. I’d applaud Bloomberg if he could find a way to require gym five days a week in NYC public schools, and maybe nutrition class. I think that would make a lot more sense.
“OTOH, the soft drink limitation changes the economics of selling soft drinks. The current situation for most of us, to use newdealdem1′s example of a movie theater, is to price very large drinks at a buck or so more than the small ones. The only difference in cost between vending a small drink and a large one is a few cents.”
So Cujo, are you saying that Bloomberg’s goal is to bang the soft drink makers and vendors for selling us this terrible product, as well as making us think twice about it?
“So, they’re different. Just labeling both “health issues” is like labeling care of veterans and buying new weapons as “defense issues” – true, but only a small part of the story.”
But that’s exactly what Mayor Mike is doing in pushing this legislation. Now, he may very well have an ulterior motive as he did when he pushed congestion pricing, which was sold to NYers as a way to reduce smog and greenhouse gases in NYC.
What a lovely strawman:
No. As I wrote, quite clearly, he’s changing the economics of the deal between vendor and customer to something that might lead to healthier choices.
No, he’s not. Your complaint was the he has done different things on these two issues. Clearly, he sees them being different for some reason. You’re the one who said they the same since they were both related to public health.
Bloomberg on soft drinks:
“Comparing sugary soft drinks to asbestos, he argued that the government has a responsibility to regulate how New Yorkers quench their thirst.
He believes that banning the bubbles will combat obesity, diabetes, and other health problems plaguing the people of the Big Apple.”
Councilman Greenfield on helmets:
“The best way to get killed if you’re riding a bicycle is to not wear a helmet,” Mr. Greenfield said. “We want to encourage people to be safe.”
“There’s a direct correlation between people not wearing helmets, and dying. I have yet to meet somebody who picked up a Big Gulp and just fell down on the spot and had a heart attack,” Greenfield told CBS 2′s Tony Aiello.
Bloomberg’s deputy on helmets:
“I understand there is a Council person who has promulgated this. He is not a friend of bicyclists; he is against bike lanes,” Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said of Councilman Greenfield.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, Cujo, or to set up a straw man. These are the words of the men pushing the pieces of legislation. The more I look at it, the more it looks as though Mayor Mike is opposing the helmet law because it came from a member of NYC Council who has opposed some of the bike lane projects. Now, if Mayor Mike wanted to say that he is idealistically opposed to a law that fines people for the behavior that wants changing rather than just making it more expensive, that would seem to be an argument that holds water. But I don’t hear or see him making that argument.
Councilman Greenfield != Mayor Bloomberg. They see different public health issues differently. Go figure.
I see no reason to continue this discussion.
This country needs more farmers markets with affordable prices. People need to learn how to grow things and eat healthy. There are way too many fast food places. Schools are finally starting to get their menu’s of food better and offer better food. Education is going to be key to helping people get healthy. Mayor Bloomberg has the right idea, but banning something is going to tick off people big time. More people need to drink water and milk or lemonade “homemade” or Ice Tea with less sugar.
I think both Greenfield and Bloomberg would disagree. Indeed, they do seem to disagree on public policy. I see Bloomberg’s position on sugary drinks as inconsistent with his position on helmets based on his claim that the overindulgence in sweet drinks presents a public health problem. His argument against helmets is that providing bike lanes is the way to prevent accidents and Councilman Greenfield has apparently, according to Bloomberg, been oppositional on bike lanes. Bloomberg has not presented any other argument against the helmet law.