[Capitán Peligroso]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregi...r=1&emc=na

"New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity."

It will be interesting to see if this makes any notable impact at all in the local obesity rates. This strikes me as being a pretty paternalistic way of doing this. I would prefer to see them go the pigouvian (tax) route (people respond to incentives) rather than just prohibit sales altogether. Discuss...

[Brian]

as much as i hate fat people banning large sodas is ridiculous

[HiFlo]

if he were to tax it, it would be a tax on the lower class only. Rich people don't drink extra large sodas from fast food restaurants, at least not when I lived in NYC

unfortunately sugary drinks are only part of the problem with all the sordid fast food joints, movie theater popcorn, convenience store trash, etc.

[Basil Ransom]

I agree that the way he did it is probably not ideal, but I fully endorse it anyway. It will bring attention to the fact that sugar is a huge contributor to obesity. Honestly, people won't believe sugar is bad until they have a thousand government bureaucrats telling them it is. And in terms of regulation, it happens all the time that one city, state or country gets ballsy and imposes a novel law, and then a suite of government bodies elsewhere do something similar soon after.

It doesn't "ban large sodas" entirely, it prohibits their sale in certain places, where people would usually drink the soda immediately. Capitan, I wonder if Bloomberg chose this ban instead of a tax, because if it were a tax, he knew all the liberals would start crying, "but this is a tax on the poor!" Which is true. So he takes away people's ability to choose, in order to avoid charges of profiteering from the poor.

I was surprised to see this:

Quote:

Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years.

So there are some people paying attention.

Quote:

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages;

A bit of a cop-out there.

Quote:

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make drinking soda less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but it died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.

Seriously, what the fuck? The government is owned by the people who want you to be fat, lazy and addicted to sugar.

It will be interesting to see how businesses respond. Sodas are a huge profit-maker, so vendors may have to increase costs elsewhere.

[babelfish669]

Suck it starbucks.

If all sugar-added drinks were banned in the United States you would see 10-20 pounds drop off 90% of the population within a few months.

[Basil Ransom]

Another thing: I read a couple comments on the piece about how this is "going too far." This is another prime benefit of this legislation. Even if I agreed it was "going too far," it will make more moderate legislation in the same vein seem more reasonable, than if this legislation had never come about.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book - you posit something *very* extreme, and then you trot out something less extreme, and the latter comes off as a lot less 'out there,' as reasonable even.

The shitty packaged food companies own the government when it comes to regulating these matters. The only way to mount an effective fight is to rack up a few notable successes first. I can't think of a better way to start.

I love the people who start talking about freedoms when say, the idea of a sugar tax comes up. I never knew this country was so full of freedom fighters. Wait 'til they hear about false rape accusations, police brutality, rape in prisons, hate speech laws, sexual harassment laws... oh wait, they don't give a shit about those things, because they don't actually care about freedom. As if the ability to buy a 64 oz. big Gulp for pennies is the pinnacle of human existence, the embodiment of the dreams the Founding Fathers had for this country.

[Capitán Peligroso]

(05-31-2012 12:56 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Another thing: I read a couple comments on the piece about how this is "going too far." This is another prime benefit of this legislation. Even if I agreed it was "going too far," it will make more moderate legislation in the same vein seem more reasonable, than if this legislation had never come about.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book - you posit something *very* extreme, and then you trot out something less extreme, and the latter comes off as a lot less 'out there,' as reasonable even.

The shitty packaged food companies own the government when it comes to regulating these matters. The only way to mount an effective fight is to rack up a few notable successes first. I can't think of a better way to start.

I love the people who start talking about freedoms when say, the idea of a sugar tax comes up. I never knew this country was so full of freedom fighters. Wait 'til they hear about false rape accusations, police brutality, rape in prisons, hate speech laws, sexual harassment laws... oh wait, they don't give a shit about those things, because they don't actually care about freedom. As if the ability to buy a 64 oz. big Gulp for pennies is the pinnacle of human existence, the embodiment of the dreams the Founding Fathers had for this country.

That was a pretty righteous rant, BR.

[solo]

(05-31-2012 12:56 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book - you posit something *very* extreme, and then you trot out something less extreme, and the latter comes off as a lot less 'out there,' as reasonable even.

I've written about this technique previously (not on rvf though), but I haven't been able to find out what it's called. Anyone knows? Also I wonder if/how it can be applied to game...

(05-31-2012 12:56 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

I love the people who start talking about freedoms when say, the idea of a sugar tax comes up. I never knew this country was so full of freedom fighters. Wait 'til they hear about false rape accusations, police brutality, rape in prisons, hate speech laws, sexual harassment laws... oh wait, they don't give a shit about those things, because they don't actually care about freedom. As if the ability to buy a 64 oz. big Gulp for pennies is the pinnacle of human existence, the embodiment of the dreams the Founding Fathers had for this country.

This argument is no good IMO since it's easy to counter with "the FF just wanted freedom for the people and the government/anyone else to stay away from their lives, regardless of how absurd they might seem to other people. What you propose goes against freedom. Who should decide what's reasonable, can't you see it's a snowball effect?
Personally I would just be blunt and say that a sugar regulation would increase my health and happiness as there would be more healtyh food and less very fat girls, that's why I support it.

[jmoney29]

Golden Mean. The strategy is to create two extremes so that the person creating them can create a compromise that includes elements from both sides that support that persons agenda, tax rev, etc in this instance.

[j r]

(05-30-2012 11:48 PM)babelfish669 Wrote:  

Suck it starbucks.

If all sugar-added drinks were banned in the United States you would see 10-20 pounds drop off 90% of the population within a few months.

Yes. And if you ban drugs and prostitution, you would see those things disappear within a few months...

[Surreyman]

(05-31-2012 12:56 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

64 oz. big Gulp

Can you really buy that in America?! Just looked it up, that's 1.8L!

Seriously, who would buy something like that?

Also, if you made it illegal to buy huge drinks, the fat fuckers buying them could just buy several smaller drinks instead. Although I suppose it would send the message of how excessive that level of consumption is.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-31-2012 12:26 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  

Seriously, who would buy something like that?

   

[el mechanico]

Big cup holders are a selling point for cars to girls. Lots of them. Go look at a new SUV.

BMW: Worst cup-holders. You should see girls fumbling with their drinks in my ride...Sorry babe. Throw it out.

[assman]

How about we just stop the corn subsidies so that the price of everything containing high fructose corn syrup will go up?

No, that would cost less, require fewer laws and fewer government employees. Terrible idea. Let's have government tell people how to live their lives instead.

[Basil Ransom]

(05-31-2012 02:12 PM)assman Wrote:  

How about we just stop the corn subsidies so that the price of everything containing high fructose corn syrup will go up?

No, that would cost less, require fewer laws and fewer government employees. Terrible idea. Let's have government tell people how to live their lives instead.

Actually, there are huge tariffs on sugar, so if you removed those too, I don't think the manufacturing cost of soda would go up. And besides that, the price of soda is much higher than the cost to make it, so a rise in the price of ingredients, within reason, might not lead to price increases.

I've heard the strategy I mentioned called 'triangulation,' but I'm not sure if that's the correct term.

[Tigre]

(05-31-2012 05:12 AM)solo Wrote:  

I've written about this technique previously (not on rvf though), but I haven't been able to find out what it's called. Anyone knows? Also I wonder if/how it can be applied to game...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-th..._technique

[kosko]

On a City level this is the best they can do. I agree with this 100% even though I would prefer a tax. Bans don't really work and as bizarre as it sounds for people to be smuggling soda drinks undercover all one has to do is stock up if they shop in a suburb outside the City. As far poor people this does indeed limit what they can buy but what cheaper alternatives will be taking Sodas place? I am in favor of this though because obesity and fat people put a strain on City health services which everybody has to pay for.

But he is indeed playing political poker. You push your heavy hand and then are happy breaking in the middle even.

I can't buy this freedom non-sense tho. Freedom to be a corporate whore? I have choices but refused to buy into advertising to drink that garbage. Its not called freedom to drink and eat yourself to a early death that's just called being a fool.

[Timoteo]

One of Bloomberg's earliest moves was getting sugary drinks out of school vending machines. He's been a tireless health warrior, whether you agree with his methods or not. He's gone after trans-fats, smoking and now sugar. I believe he contemplated going after salt also. NYC is one of the fattest cities in the world, and is a major fast food culture. He has to do something. It may sound selfish, but I don't have a problem with any of the things he's gone after. I'm not a soda drinker (I may have the occasional jones for a cola, but that's it), I don't smoke, and LOVE that I can go out now and not have to endure smoke all around me. It only helps me that restaurants have to cook in healthier oils. Bloomie does a good job of dispelling the freedoms issue in the NYTimes article. You can still buy soda - as much as you want. But it will cost you more to drink it IF you want to guzzle a certain amount in one sitting. A few years ago McDonald's eliminated the SuperSize, and it didn't kill them.

[johnwu]

(05-31-2012 04:26 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Bans don't really work and as bizarre as it sounds for people to be smuggling soda drinks undercover all one has to do is stock up if they shop in a suburb outside the City.

I just had a perverse image of fatties trafficking their beloved large sized drinks.

I actually hope that this ridiculousness failure at reform continues, let the fatties multiple!
Relative fitness for the win.

[porscheguy]

(05-31-2012 12:30 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:26 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  

Seriously, who would buy something like that?

The smug pride of this beast is what I find most bothersome about this picture.

50 years ago, Coca-Cola from a vending machine came in 8oz bottles. Then it jumped to 12oz cans. Then we got 16oz bottles. And now 20oz bottles are standard. So in the course of 50 years, the portion size became 2 1/2 times larger while the average American has seen an 80% decrease in the amount of physical activity they engage in.

I don't like Bloomberg. But something has to be done.

[MikeCF]

She's proud to be an American, where as least she knows she's free [to drink 100 ounces of sugar water].

[Kona]

Aren't fat people just going to buy 2 sodas once the ban is in place?

Aloha!

[assman]

(06-03-2012 05:42 PM)Kona Wrote:  

Aren't fat people just going to buy 2 sodas once the ban is in place?

Exactly. When was the last time government prohibition reduced desire for the prohibited item? Look at the AR15 market - it really took off after the AWB expired, and then it EXPLODED under Obama. People want what they are told they can't have.

Or, from another perspective, does a woman putting a little bit of food on her plate, then going back for seconds and thirds, result in weight loss relative to her just putting all she is going to eat on the plate at once?

All we are going to get out of this is increased government expenditure, and eventually taxes, to enforce this new law. Fatties still gonna get their drink on.

[assman]

Health panel talks about wider food ban

I'm sure the nanny-statists here will be pleased.

[jdelisi]

I live in nyc/nj and because of this ban I see less and less fat people every day.

NOT!!!!