Big Bloomberg

[Travis]

I only drink diet myself too. Which is odd since commercials assure me that doing so must have turned me into a woman like two years ago.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I'm not sure why people don't just drink diet soda anyway. It tastes pretty good these days, and I even prefer it to the thick syrupy regular stuff.

You must not have ever tried Coke Zero. It's liquid cardboard. Yuck.

[tomwaits]

Originally Posted by SezMe

You must not have ever tried Coke Zero. It's liquid cardboard. Yuck.

My drink of choice currently is Diet Dr Pepper, but I like Coke Zero! You think it's too thick?

[SezMe]

No, not too thick. I just don't like the taste at all. Oh, well, to each his own.

[Puppycow]

I can't stand the taste of diet soda either. Not the new stuff, not the old stuff.

When I want a diet beverage I usually go with good ol' H2O or Oolong tea.

[tyr_13]

I normally can't stand the taste of regular pop. The exception is the eight ounce ones in glass bottles, probably because there isn't enough of it for me to get sick of the sugar. I don't like frosting either.

[BStrong]

I'm not even a Good American.

I drink no soda. No beer. No liquor.

Water primarily, some coffee, iced tea (real) now and then, wine now and then.

[Ray Brady]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Originally Coke came in 6.5 oz. bottles, then 12 oz. cans.

Yes, but neither of those could be recapped. If I buy a 20 oz bottle of soda, I can keep it in my bag all day, having a swig whenever I'm thirsty. If I buy a 12 oz can, I've got to drink the whole thing at once.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

What else is new? He's been campaigning aggressively for gun control well beyond the bounds of NYC forever, notably in his recent Superbowl ads... The guy isn't interested in staying in his lane.

Civil liberties, anyone?

At least he instituted propped free speech cages for protesters at the 04 republican convention.

[applecorped]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...929974394.html

"A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration from banning the sale of large sugary drinks at New York City restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for a mayor who has made public-health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure.
The city is "enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations," New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided one day before the sales limits would have taken effect. The city's chief counsel, Michael Cardozo, pledged to "appeal the ruling as soon as possible."
In halting the rules, Judge Tingling noted that the incoming sugary drink regime was "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences" that would be difficult to enforce with consistency "even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole."

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by SezMe

You must not have ever tried Coke Zero. It's liquid cardboard. Yuck.

You just haven't put enough bourbon in it.

[grunion]

We used to drink soda in our house but about two years ago we tried to phase it out. When we went out to restaurants I would offer the kids a dollar if they ordered water instead of soda (and we both benefited.) Then we outright banned it, both at home and when eating out. At first the kids put up a fuss but now they are happy with water.

[Gazpacho]

First they came for the big gulps and I said nothing, because people can do just fine without them.

Originally Posted by Brainster

Is this really the sort of thing that government should be concerning itself with?

You mean ... policy?

[The_Animus]

Soda is just the first item being targeted. It was chosen because it has huge amounts of sugar and provides no nutritional value. This is why soda is banned but not donuts or snapple (yet).

I think both sides have valid points and don't really feel strongly one way or the other but seeing as most people here are against the "ban" I'll play the other side.

This "ban" doesn't actually ban soda, which is why I use the quotes. It's a limit on the amount you can purchase and consume at any one time. As it stands bars can refuse to sell you alcohol if you order too much in too short a time or appear too drunk due to health (and cleaning puke) concerns. How is this different from limiting how much soda you can buy at one time for health concerns? *Note* I believe that the bartenders are required by law to cut people off who have had "too much" but I'm not certain.

Further, what makes this regulation drastically different than any other? Requiring a warning on cigarettes or banning smoking in bars comes to mind.

Finally, I understand that how much soda you drink is a personal choice, but often those personal choices have consequences on everyone else. For instance, in Wisconsin, binge drinking costs taxpayers over $2billion a year in healthcare, court, and other costs. The tax revenue from alcohol is less than ~$80million. To simplify that is ~$2 from the taxpayer for every single binge drink.

For many people addiction is common and impulse control is poor. It is their own fault, but saying that doesn't solve anything and leaves all the poor consequences for society to deal with. If regulation would result in better health, lower costs to the taxpayer, and still allows people to use and enjoy the product then what's so bad about that?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Polaris

You just haven't put enough bourbon in it.

I remember reading recently that a study showed mixed alcoholic drinks with diet soda were "worse" for you than mixed drinks with regular soda. Apparently the sugar in the real stuff kept it in the stomach longer, so the alcohol would enter your system more slowly.

But the study was seriously flawed, because that's not "worse".

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

This "ban" doesn't actually ban soda, which is why I use the quotes. It's a limit on the amount you can purchase and consume at any one time.

But it isn't even that. You can still buy and consume as much as you want. You just have to buy it in multiple containers, which is wasteful and expensive. And stupid.

Quote:

As it stands bars can refuse to sell you alcohol if you order too much in too short a time or appear too drunk due to health (and cleaning puke) concerns. How is this different from limiting how much soda you can buy at one time for health concerns?

There are externalities to getting overly drunk in public (from drunk driving to puking on the sidewalk) which do not apply to how drunk you get in the privacy of your own home. But the only externalities associated with drinking too much soda apply just as much whether it's consumed in public or at home. And you can't regulate home consumption of either soda or alcohol.

Quote:

Further, what makes this regulation drastically different than any other? Requiring a warning on cigarettes or banning smoking in bars comes to mind.

The equivalent of a warning label on cigarettes would be a warning label on sodas, not a ban on sodas over a certain size. And the ban on smoking in bars is because of the externalities associated with smoking at that location. Again, there's nothing about public consumption of soda which is any worse than private consumption of soda.

Quote:

For many people addiction is common and impulse control is poor. It is their own fault, but saying that doesn't solve anything and leaves all the poor consequences for society to deal with. If regulation would result in better health, lower costs to the taxpayer, and still allows people to use and enjoy the product then what's so bad about that?

For starters, it's unlikely that this will have any effect on people with actual compulsive behavior. It's trivial to circumvent, it just costs a bit more. Second, it's intrusive, and that is a bad thing in its own right. The costs of compliance matter, but they aren't going to be calculated, because the city doesn't have to pay them. Third, the particular rules here are complex and arbitrary, with massive loopholes (sweetened latte isn't restricted in size), and certain aspects will likely even backfire (for example, people often add more sugar to drinks they sweeten themselves than is in drinks that come pre-sweetened). Fourth, it assumes a philosophical position about the role of government which I think is stifling and ultimately counter-productive: that the state should be a nanny taking care of you, and that you should depend upon it to do so.

And fifth (though somewhat related to the previous point): I'm an adult, I can decide for myself what to drink, so **** off, Bloomberg.

[The_Animus]

I like your comment about private/public consumptionc compared to drinking/smoking. Good point.

I do think that the ban would reduce overall consumption. I think some people buy the larger sizes
because why not get another 16 Oz for a quarter of the price? There are studies that show larger portion sizes result in higher consumption if there is more in front of you, you just keep drinking/eating till its gone.

Will some people just buy 4 16Oz bottles? Absolutely. But I think far more would just reduce consumption.

But I pretty much only drink water anyway so it wouldn't affect me.

[phantasmagoria7]

Personally, I rarely even drink soda. I mainly drink water.

As far as wanting to fight obesity goes, banning large soda drinks seems somewhat superficial to me. Do you really think a fat person actually willing to drink such a colossal drink at a cafe is going to control their dietary habits at home simply because their favorite cafe no longer serves large soda drinks?

Perhaps it's a good sentiment? But it's not really going to do much of anything. Plus, I personally adhere to the idea of "My body; My choice"

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And fifth (though somewhat related to the previous point): I'm an adult, I can decide for myself what to drink, so **** off, Bloomberg.

^This.