Update: As of 3/11/2013, Judge ruled to halt Bloomberg's banning of large sodas

frostythepoptart said:
You sound ridiculous. You think the government gives a damn about peoples health. Where is the ban on cigarettes ?
You think people are children and need their hand held, from kindergarten until they retire apparently.
You also sound naive and foolish because if you admit that it won't change unhealthy people from being unhealthy what is it accomplishing? Maybe they should limit how many movies you can purchase in a year because you shouldn't be wasting time.
Or how your internet usage runs and you only access educational pages for the majority of the day. I can't believe people don't see the ridiculousness of the government telling us how much we can and can't use what we want to purchase.
Click to expand...

There may not be a ban on cancer sticks, but there is a heavy tax. Maybe that's the answer to America's obesity. Tax all junk food including candy, regular soda, etc. Like cigs, the tax money would be used to educate the public. I just don't want my taxes to pay for someone's bad eating habits and health probelms. Medicare/Medicaid is already taking a major hit.
 
frostythepoptart said:
You sound ridiculous. You think the government gives a damn about peoples health. Where is the ban on cigarettes ?
You think people are children and need their hand held, from kindergarten until they retire apparently.
You also sound naive and foolish because if you admit that it won't change unhealthy people from being unhealthy what is it accomplishing? Maybe they should limit how many movies you can purchase in a year because you shouldn't be wasting time.
Or how your internet usage runs and you only access educational pages for the majority of the day. I can't believe people don't see the ridiculousness of the government telling us how much we can and can't use what we want to purchase.
Click to expand...

I do think the government cares about people's health. I'm not cynical enough to think that the government wants it's own citizens dead.

With that being said, I don't think getting people to lead healthy lives is as easy as flipping a switch. It starts with education about what is good and not good for you and it requires a change in lifestyle. While this ban on large sodas may not lead to much actual change, I think it's symbolically a good move. If I were Bloomberg, I'd go even harder and institute a high sugary drink tax.

The naive one is you. There are powerful lobbyists that petition the government so as to keep these products out there. The lobby for corn, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. It's real.

I don't buy your slippery slope argument.
 
Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban will cause New Yorkers to poison themselves with more aspartame

Mike Adams
Natural News
Sept 14, 2012

Ah, the hilarity of the nanny state knows no bounds, it seems. Especially not in New York City, where Mayor Bloomberg oversaw a large-sized soda ban that just became law. The really hilarious part of the law? It does not apply to aspartame-laced “diet sodas” which, by any honest measure, are far more toxic to your health than regular sodas made with HFCS.

HFCS may cause diabetes and obesity, but aspartame causes neurological damage and early-onset Alzheimer’s. But that’s just what New York needs, it seems: A wave of crabby soda-drinking senior citizens who are half blind and can’t remember where their apartment building is located. (Or has that already happened?)

That the New York city health board actually thinks diet soda is healthier than regular soda is a sad, sad commentary on the state of nutritional ignorance in NYC. So under this nanny state plan, citizens will be pushed to consume more neurotoxic aspartame — gee, what a brilliant plan! Why not ban vitamins, too, and just force everybody to take a daily chemotherapy pill and call it a “public health initiative?”

Soda prohibition will only create a new black market

I’m mesmerized by the arrogance of nanny state governments that think they can alter reality via decree. Bloomberg and the entire city health board somehow believes they will magically make people healthier by taking away their choice. So instead of actually educating New Yorkers about the dangers of HFCS and phosphoric acid — two of the primary health-destroying ingredients in sodas — they pull a nanny state / police state fast one and criminalize the selling of those sodas.

This, of course, will only create a black market in high-capacity sodas. So now, instead of people buying their sodas at legitimate establishments with relative compliance with public health regulations, they’re going to be buying “contraband” sodas in dark alleys where crime runs rampant. This is the upshot of all such prohibition laws by any government: economic transactions that used to be above the board are now driven underground. (Marijuana, see?)

Before long, tyrants like Bloomberg will dutifully announce “there is a crime wave of illicit soda sales taking place!” and therefore the city needs to create a soda prohibition task force to hunt down soda sellers and infiltrate their operations.

Yep, it’s time to declare the “War on Soda” … kind of like the War on Drugs, except even more of a waste of taxpayer money.

Then we’ll see the NYPD hiring “undercover soda buyers” to infiltrate soda selling establishments, posing as regular customers. They’ll ask for — OMG! — a “13 oz. soda” and see if the vendor actually serves it up. If they do, they’re arrested on the spot and processed as a soda criminal. Because, you know, they’re obviously a danger to society and need to be taken off the streets, right?

You see, the problem with creating new laws is that you then criminalize an entire segment of the population; then you need law enforcers to hunt those people down and “process” them with fines or criminal penalties. So instead of gaining public health, the city actually loses public freedom and creates a new crime enforcement overhead paid by taxpayers.

A nation with the most laws has the least freedom

The more laws you create in any jurisdiction, the less freedom you have remaining. Laws always have good intentions, of course, but they also have unintended consequences (such as driving people to drink more aspartame).

Such is the problem with trying to micromanage everybody from a centralized government: You can never successfully shape their behavior to your liking because people are individuals and they want to make up their own minds about things. Even if they do stupid things like drinking a Big Gulp soda sweetened with genetically modified corn syrup tainted with mercury. Yeah, it’s STUPID beyond belief, but it’s still their choice.

With this soda ban, Mayor Bloomberg is treating the citizens of New York like stupid little children. Or even like house pets. “Bad soda drinker! Bad!” It is a silly, dignity-crushing stance for any government to take, and it only breeds contempt among the People who increasingly see their local government “rulers” as power-hungry maniacs trying to micro-manage every little detail of their private lives.

What’s next? Is Bloomberg gonna pull a Singapore and ban chewing gum, too?

Or how about banning “dirty thoughts?” That could be a real windfall for the prison industry system.

Mark my words: In a year, New York’s obesity problem will be WORSE

The really hilarious realization in all this is that banning large sodas won’t make a bit of difference in the city’s obesity problem. A year from now — or five — you’re going to have even more cases of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

And why is that? Because most of these diseases are caused by nutrient deficiencies. Banning diet soda does nothing to get people more vitamin D, selenium, zinc or magnesium — the things that help prevent chronic degenerative disease. Diabetics, in particular, usually lack chromium, magnesium and vitamin D.

Banning people from buying large sodas does not magically make people take up exercise or consume fresh fruits and vegetables. You can’t legislate people to want to be healthy, especially when half the people writing and passing these laws are obese, cancer-ridden desk jockeys in desperate need of a colon cleanse.

Look, society is SICK. Disease is rampant. The food supply is toxic. People are eating themselves to death with GMO, HFCS, MSG, aspartame and more. But that’s mostly because huge food corporations dominate the legislation process and the poisons they put into the foods never get questioned.

Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t question aspartame, MSG or GMO. Neither did Michelle Obama with her newly-release grocery shopping guide. There’s never any real talk about the real poisons in your food. Instead, it’s just this watered-down nanny state mish-mash of pure political bunk.

I don’t drink soda, but that’s because I’m an intelligent person who doesn’t wish to poison my body with phosphoric acid and mercury-laced HFCS. I don’t need some silly government mandate to tell me that soda is poison. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

I also don’t smoke marijuana, don’t eat bacon and don’t drink coffee. But again, that’s my choice. I don’t believe any one group of people has the right to tell another group of people what they can eat, drink or smoke. So why do we bow down, lick boots and surrender our freedoms over these things to the government?

Folks, if you live in NYC, you need to leave anyway. Not due to Bloomberg’s silly nanny state initiatives, but because the city will become a death zone in the coming economic collapse. NYC is the absolutely last place you want to be when it all comes down.

Maybe Bloomberg should just ban financial collapses, huh? That’s the ticket!
 
frostythepoptart said:
Boys Noize said:
The answer is YES, people, including those in government, SHOULD be concerned with the effects of overconsumption of sugar. This legislation might not change a damn thing but it's a step in the right direction. I'd propose much more radical measures if we were really talking about caring about health but people in this thread would get crazy about their "freedoms."
I do agree with you that it starts with education and changes in lifestyles. I agree with almost everything you've said on the topic. I'd rather the government cut subsidies to corn producers and give subsidies to those that produce healthy vegetables.
Click to expand...

You sound ridiculous. You think the government gives a damn about peoples health. Where is the ban on cigarettes ?

You think people are children and need their hand held, from kindergarten until they retire apparently.

You also sound naive and foolish because if you admit that it won't change unhealthy people from being unhealthy what is it accomplishing? Maybe they should limit how many movies you can purchase in a year because you shouldn't be wasting time.

Or how your internet usage runs and you only access educational pages for the majority of the day. I can't believe people don't see the ridiculousness of the government telling us how much we can and can't use what we want to purchase.
Click to expand...

cmon now you know the tobacco industry has had a STRONG lobby in washington, otherwise smoking would be banned a long time ago.

i fully understand people's opposition to the bill, but i don't hear people complaining about the wiretapping federal bill that got voted for renewal this week...they don't need a warrant to spy on you. but people care more about soda it seems :rolleyes


also i prefer that term RESTRICTION because BAN implies that you can't drink that amount of soda. you can, you just need to buy 2, but that guilt might set in, which is the whole idea of this legislation right?

now someone check me, but im pretty sure you get free refills on a lot of the places you'd order the drinks from anyways. fast food chains and all restaurants i've ever been too refill for free.


sugar+drinks.jpg


the largest soda has enough calories to equal a healthy home cooked meal...you haven't eaten yet and you get a drink like that?

when was the last time you drank a gigantic *** soda anyways? if u don't drink it by the gallons like that stop complaining.
 
sreggie101 said:
cmon now you know the tobacco industry has had a STRONG lobby in washington, otherwise smoking would be banned a long time ago.
i fully understand people's opposition to the bill, but i don't hear people complaining about the wiretapping federal bill that got voted for renewal this week...they don't need a warrant to spy on you. but people care more about soda it seems
eyes.gif

also i prefer that term RESTRICTION because BAN implies that you can't drink that amount of soda. you can, you just need to buy 2, but that guilt might set in, which is the whole idea of this legislation right?
now someone check me, but im pretty sure you get free refills on a lot of the places you'd order the drinks from anyways. fast food chains and all restaurants i've ever been too refill for free.
sugar+drinks.jpg

the largest soda has enough calories to equal a healthy home cooked meal...you haven't eaten yet and you get a drink like that?
when was the last time you drank a gigantic *** soda anyways? if u don't drink it by the gallons like that stop complaining.
Click to expand...
When I went to the movies a couple weeks ago. I felt so disgusted that it was just a medium and I drank that much.
 
I haven't followed this closely enough. I drink soda maybe once every 2 weeks and never in large quantities and I just find this whole thing a bit ridiculous.

I most definitely agree something needs to be done about our country's eating/drinking habits but I don't think this is anywhere near the answer. Like I said, I haven't read up on it but if it says you can't buy a soda over...20 ounces, can't people just buy 2 12 ounce sodas? Yes, likely a higher cost...but isn't that also creating more waste, unless you expect those people to find the recycling can instead of just tossing them out?
 
If MA is one of the leanest states in the USA.... than i cant imagine what it must be like down south. lmao.. there fatty fat fats everywhere here to me. But Ehhh... i think the more fast food restaurants need to limit people.
 
NYC IS THE TEST SITE OF THE ELITE.... IF THEY WANT TO RUN A MICK ON SOMETHING THEY TEST IT HERE FIRST... I DONT DRINK SODA MAYBE 1 OR 2 TIMES A MONTH BUT WHEN I GO TO A MOVIE AND ORDER A TUB OF POPCORN I WOULD LIKE TO DRINK ON A SODA FOR THE DURATION OF MY MOVIE..

THE COMMENTS IN HERE ARE FUNNY... MOST CITIZENS "OBEY" , AND BLOOMTURD KNOWS THE PUBLIC WONT STAND UP FOR THEIR BASIC RIGHTS... HE PROBABLY BOUGHT STOCK IN SEVERAL BEVERAGE COMPANIES KNOWING THEY WILL HAVE TO DOUBLE UP ON BOTTLES THEREFORE MAXIMIZE THE PROFITS IN THE LONG TERM...

NO 20 SODA IN THE FEMA CAMPS... GET READY
 
blackngold1z said:
Fatties are just going to buy 2 drinks instead of one.
Click to expand...
Exactly which will ultimately cost more money. This isn't about our health it's about them making more money. Haven't u guys noticed even at fast food restaurants the cup sizes keep getting smaller but yet the prices go higher. Not to mention its usually 70% ice.
 
devildog1776 said:
NYC IS THE TEST SITE OF THE ELITE.... IF THEY WANT TO RUN A MICK ON SOMETHING THEY TEST IT HERE FIRST... I DONT DRINK SODA MAYBE 1 OR 2 TIMES A MONTH BUT WHEN I GO TO A MOVIE AND ORDER A TUB OF POPCORN I WOULD LIKE TO DRINK ON A SODA FOR THE DURATION OF MY MOVIE..
THE COMMENTS IN HERE ARE FUNNY... MOST CITIZENS "OBEY" , AND BLOOMTURD KNOWS THE PUBLIC WONT STAND UP FOR THEIR BASIC RIGHTS... HE PROBABLY BOUGHT STOCK IN SEVERAL BEVERAGE COMPANIES KNOWING THEY WILL HAVE TO DOUBLE UP ON BOTTLES THEREFORE MAXIMIZE THE PROFITS IN THE LONG TERM...
NO 20 SODA IN THE FEMA CAMPS... GET READY
Click to expand...
20 oz is a regular sized soda.'


QFT
 
In country that doesn't have socialized medicine. this is strange to me. If you want to kill your self on soda, go ahead.
 
hombrelobo said:
If you can't control your consumption of bad food, then go have a heart attack and die. Why is it anyone else's problem?
Click to expand...

Bc before that heart attack, costly medication, surgeries, evaluations, etc. could be from gov't-funded healthcare, which is taxpayers' burden.

Many see it this way and I don't particularly disagree.
 
GetYaShinebox said:
hombrelobo said:
If you can't control your consumption of bad food, then go have a heart attack and die. Why is it anyone else's problem?
Click to expand...

Bc before that heart attack, costly medication, surgeries, evaluations, etc. could be from gov't-funded healthcare, which is taxpayers' burden.

Many see it this way and I don't particularly disagree.
Click to expand...

So does tobacco but I can still walk in the store buy whatever quantity of it then smoke myself into oblivion.
 
SpaceLemonkush said:
Pig Love said:
Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban will cause New Yorkers to poison themselves with more aspartame


Folks, if you live in NYC, you need to leave anyway. Not due to Bloomberg’s silly nanny state initiatives, but because the city will become a death zone in the coming economic collapse. NYC is the absolutely last place you want to be when it all comes down.
Maybe Bloomberg should just ban financial collapses, huh? That’s the ticket!
Click to expand...

:lol:
Click to expand...
:wow:

:rofl:
 
I can't believe people are stupid enough to agree with the idea that soda is making people fat, unhealthy, and dependent on medication. :rolleyes
 
frostythepoptart said:
I can't believe people are stupid enough to agree with the idea that soda is making people fat, unhealthy, and dependent on medication.
eyes.gif
Click to expand...
Its one thing to be against the ban to force soda limitations.

Its just ignorant of modern medicine and damn near every study on nutrition to say something as asinine as you "can't believe people are stupid enough to agree with the idea that soda is making people fat, unhealthy, and dependent on medication."

You CAN NOT be serious.

CAN.

NOT. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom