16 oz. Soda Ban Approved By NYC Board of Health

It's about both. My statement that this is an infringement on personal choice is an observation of the facts. The people arguing for this law are stating outright that it's an infringement on personal freedom. So please don't act as if this is a question of 'perception'.

You've proven that this ban will affect soda purchases. Congratulations; but...nobody was arguing that point. We know this will have some effect on soda consumption; the question is "but why are you affecting soda consumption?" The answer that's been thrown out is "We're trying to combat obesity" at which point every single statement I made stands.

It amazes me that Moderators have an issue with me, but statements like this go by without comment.

Again Tomu, you are not actually responding to the points actually being made. You are probably correct in your statement about the marginal impact of this legislation. Once again, this wasn't in dispute.

Your statement that the cost is marginal is an opinion. Now I freely agree with you that my statement that civil liberty is of the utmost importance and must be infringed upon only in the very gravest of circumstances is likewise an opinion. Considering the people who founded the country considered it a pretty big deal, you'll forgive me if I don't lose sleep if you find it "bombastic".

The difference here is that this law and people who defend it didn't try to peddle it with "Well guys, we're interfering with your lives for a marginal benefit". Because then, there'd be no way to justify it.

So instead, it was "We're interfering with your lives because we're serious about your health". Well then, you have to expect people to call you out on that.

I don't know Tomu, reading your argument about limiting consumption size, it seems to be compatible with a generic item and not just sodas. Is there a reason why it won't work with some other item? Perhaps that will provide some insight.

And perhaps the disagreement is that you and Starship value "freedom of purchase" differently.

Well, for my own part, the divide between myself and Tomu, and really both sides of this issue is "My freedom is too important to be interfered with" vs. "Your health and the health of those around you is too important to be interfered with".

And, contrary to Morven's accusation, I don't begrudge somebody for feeling the way they feel about it. Some people like the socialist model, other like myself are more libertarian.

I'm saying however that when you do try to justify infringing on my personal choices, the justification has to be legitimate. Saying "we're aiming for public health" while not actually addressing the obstacles to public health comes of as...well...a load of shit.

The argument that Tomu is making (being the economics guy that he is) is that poor health is an externality in and of itself. That is, it has very real costs for society at large, and as such it's proper for government to step in and maybe do something about it.

MAYBE. That's the key.

But, at that point it stops being an issue of morality and it starts being an issue of utility. That is, does this measure combat the externality of poor health without widespread negative effects? And we can debate that! Personally, I think this isn't the way to go about things. I personally think that urban design is a much bigger factor in terms of obsesity...but it's a valid debate to have.

Well, that's part of it-the rest of it is as described below.

I don't really think "the freedom to have a bigger cup when purchasing soda" is a meaningful freedom.

You're infringing on the market-but the only reason why markets are supposed to be perfect is that consumers are supposed to be rational decision makers. When we can meaningfully point out cases wherein consumers are not rational decision makers, there's some room for introducing legislation that compensates for this.

If the majority of people ended up buying two 16 oz sodas, then the hypothesis would be disproven-people do, in fact, rationally decide to purchase 32 oz of soda, and the ban should be repealed. But freedoms are about meaningful decisions-if you're not making a rational decision, then I can't see how that's a meaningful one.

As for how that logic couldn't apply to anything and everything, well, I guess the point is that you should set the bar fairly high in regards to what constitutes "irrational behavior." And we can argue about where the line is, and indeed, the line can be argued that this law is already across the line. For instance, we tax cigarettes-do we want to remove vice taxes? You can make the argument that we should. You can also make the argument we shouldn't.

I'm okay with that argument-in fact, I think that it's even plausible in this case. What I'm not okay with is the portrayal of soda consumption in 32oz containers as being portrayed as some kind of fundamental human right. It's an inconvenience surely, but no more so than being forced to wear your safety belt.

Basically, the costs/benefits analysis approach should be used in anything that doesn't constitute "major human rights" issues. But, "major human rights" issues is an extraordinary claim, with regards to arguing that a costs/benefits analysis approach is ill suited. Ergo, extraordinary evidence is required.

edited 18th Sep '12 9:31:17 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

I think the reason New Yorkers see it as a rights infringement is because restrictions on products is treated similar to censorship of books. It's a popular product, and as long as the substance is not substantially harmful (like cocaine found in Coca-Cola), it should be left to customers. But this law from what I read so far isn't too restrictive.

edited 18th Sep '12 10:00:16 AM by Trivialis

Well, the argument there is that it is substantially harmful. There have been proposals to classify sugar as a toxin given how detrimental it is in large amounts. The problem I have with it is that they aren't also banning things like packaged pastries that have 600+ calories (and nobody is fooling anyone with that "it's 2 servings" BS).

It's not that the principle is wrong, but that it's applied inconsistently.

edited 18th Sep '12 10:02:28 AM by Fighteer

The pastries should be packaged in two separate containers to clearly show "This is two servings."

It's about psychological impacts. Although, I guess there isn't anything to stop stores from just offering to sell two 16 oz sodas at a specific bargain.

edited 18th Sep '12 10:01:44 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

You've got to do something first. And if you're doing something new in politics then for many different reasons, it is normally best to try incremental changes (some things are best done in quantum leaps though).

edited 18th Sep '12 10:04:14 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

Also, I guess you could make the argument that if the reasoning was applied consistently, then it would send packaging costs through the roof on a lot of items, and that might drive some small businesses out of business, and we can't do that in this economy and whatnot?

Incidentally, I absolutely love those 600 calorie packaged pastries. But I had to stop myself from buying them because of how awful they are for me. Buying honey buns and the like in smaller individual packages lets me snack on them and not get such a massive sugar load.

I'll say this: we aren't doing people any favors by offering them the "freedom" to become morbidly obese.

edited 18th Sep '12 10:08:31 AM by Fighteer

When you've opened two packages instead of one, you have my permission to dine.

My problem with "I don't find this freedom necessary" is that, yeah, of course you don't. Until it is something personally important. Make no mistake, we all have them. I personally haven't been a soda drinker for about five years now, so I too could go "I don't see the big deal."

But I know that if I remain silent about this, it'll only be a matter of time before it is something that matters to me. Slippery Slope, you say? No, I say history. That is why to avoid freedom being taken by those who have the power to do so, we make you justify why you're taking that freedom.

That's why people aren't feeling this ban. There is no justifiable reason to do it. Every one of its aims can be accomplished in ways that make more sense.

x4. Made of Forum Win.

edited 18th Sep '12 10:18:46 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Slippery Slope is a fallacy for a reason. The bottom line is, unless you can actually look at the reasoning behind this decision, and put the SAME reasoning behind another decision, then it's not valid.

For instance, Fighteer talked about the pastries. If you said "First they come for our sodas, next they come for our pastries!" then you'd be right-that would be applying the standard consistently.

I know this doesn't apply to soda that often but what about buying those pastry packs to share them with others? If you ate an entire box of donuts for yourself that would be terrible for you and a horrible idea. If you bought a box of donuts with the intention of every member of your family getting a doughnut over three days that would be wiser and cheaper than buying each doughnut individually.

That line would hold water if there weren't historical precedents of governments using all sorts of allegedly benevolent motives to control the populace.

edited 18th Sep '12 10:23:01 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

I think a much better argument is that, consistently applying the logic requires firms to be able to package their goods separately. That's expensive and, more importantly, since firms are often national, it means that packaging isn't just handled regionally. Twelve individually packaged donuts-to emphasize the point that "Hey dude, these aren't all part of a single meal" would have real economic costs. But I don't think anyone wants to outright ban the practice of selling twelve donuts as part of a single purchase.

Likewise, it occurs to me-without a thirty two oz beverage, how will couples stick two straws into one cup and adorably drink from it together?

I don't think a credible argument has been made to that end.

edited 18th Sep '12 10:26:19 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Now you're just being cheeky.

Also, no, I actually do think "couples can't be cute together" to be part of the costs/benefits analysis and yes, that actually does factor into the equation.

Fighteer brought up pastries as an example of applying this principle consistently. Donuts are a pastry. Pointing out that this argument can't be universally applied.

And also isn't the definitely of a toxin that it's harmful IN SMALL DOSES. I'm pretty sure that's what my ecology teacher said.

I honestly have no idea what passes for "credible argument" in your sphere Tomu.

I kind of wish they'd just have a tax on beverages over 32 oz, but that would be a tax on the poor and the stupid.

And we already have that-it's called the lottery.

Make a thread with the title "what constitutes a credible argument" then?

edited 18th Sep '12 10:37:46 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Do you guys have reasons why historical consistency and precedents should or should not apply here?

Calling slippery slope a fallacy doesn't help without an explanation why this case isn't a slope. We need an argument one way or another to see why a pattern will develop or not; otherwise we can't bring that up at all.

The implication behind slippery slope is that there's no reason to presume that the historical evidence suggests that this specific instance would lead to another specific instance that would be deemed unacceptable.

It would help if we had an example of a specific legislation that this legislation would lead to for instance, and specific historical evidence that shows a similar path.

Well a cup of soda is usually intended as a single person meal. The exception is at amusement parks where it a big soda is bought as something the whole family can drink, so they aren't constantly stopping for a drink. But honestly this is a rather flexible criteria not something than can have an objective criteria.