16 oz. Soda Ban Approved By NYC Board of Health

Yeah, tell that to the people who want to tax the other unhealthy stuff. Quite frankly, that's the precedent, and it's not going to change.

Okay, I'm gonna try this again in a way that will hopefully not get thumped.

There are a large number of voluntary, unnecessary actions people engage in that can create additional healthcare expenses. Listening to loud music or shooting firearms can cause hearing impairment. Playing certain sports put you at an increased risk for injury. Having sex risks you getting an STD or becoming pregnant; I guarantee you, if people stopped having children, we'd save a lot more on health care costs than if people just ate healthier.

Do you support banning all those things? If not, why do you draw the line there and not elsewhere?

Nope.

But If I like soda, there's nothing wrong with me drinking it.

Or having a Mc Heartattack.

If Healthcare costs are such a concern, should the government start intervening with other things that cause potential harm and therefore health risks?

The government already has started to intervene. Look at the smoking taxes/bans and alcohol taxes. Soda and junk food is just next on the list, because they're just as bad for you, if not worse.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:17:36 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

& Exactly my point. Face it, there are just some of us that like this vague thing called freedom and get pissy when people start trying to take it.

Bloomberg and his cronies already shafted us with all these cameras and stupid surveillance crap post 9/11. Sodas?

Dumbass needs to leave office so we can vote in an intelligent mayor who'll overturn it. Simple enough.

That's right DG, the government has intervened. As in, poked it's nose where it didn't belong.

The government has not taken meaningful steps to help. And people are starting to see the bullshit rhetoric and this "we only want to help" crap for what it is.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:20:08 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Starship: Do you support the heavy taxation on alcohol? If so, you're being really hypocritical.

I personally support the alcohol taxes, and I very much support soda taxes.

Edit: I see your edit. Unfortunately, it's too late to do anything about it. I'm almost positive that the people who dislike this aren't going to suddenly start talking about repealing the restrictions on that stuff either.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:23:07 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

I personally support the legalization of narcotics, so you can imagine how I feel about soda bans.

Also, I maintain that the world would be a lot better off if everyone just stopped having children, but I'm not about to force that decision on society.

Hypocritical? Hardly. I like booze, but I don't like smoking. I do support the ban on smoking in certain public areas. I don't like the taxes on either.

I get that you support taxes on those things. That's your right. I don't. It's not your place or the government's to order me to take care of myself.

Because I can assure you, you do NOT want to see the shit show if we all decide to get on a soapbox and start policing each other.

You don't jog daily? Tax hike on you. You fry your chicken instead of baking it? Tax hike. You stand in front of the microwave when it's running? Tax hike. You jaywalk? Double tax hike.

Obamacare wasn't nearly as stupid and had actual benefits, and there are plans to get it repealed even if Obama gets reelected.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:36:36 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Well, that's a slippery slope argument. Besides, there's already laws against jaywalking, and regulating microwaves so there's miniscule leakage, and I don't think those are terrible either.

What does that have to do with anything? You lost me there.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:28:03 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Well, with jaywalking, if you walk in front of someone's car and get hit, you're probably gonna damage their vehicle, so it'd be illegal whether or not we outlaw self-harmful behavior.

Slippery Slope is a real phenomenon. And you'll see that I'm not against regulating things. I like regulations.

I want the government acting to actually help people. Not just charge them more money with no discernible benefit.

The point is people are getting fed up with the government saying "We're doing this for your own good", and yet the only good seems to be increased money and power for those who already have it.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:32:05 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Maxima: doing "something" is a great idea. How do you propose to make healthier food cheaper/easier to acquire without tax subsidies and taxing unhealthy food, though?

Raven, however you feel about giving the human race a slow extinction, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You can't make a good point about benefits for various actions by comparing them to one that's only even on the table because you ignore the gigantic non-monetary cost it has for almost everyone except you. Your opinions on ending childbirth add nothing on-topic to this discussion, and further attempts to insert them in such a fashion in this thread or any other in OTC will be dealt with accordingly.

Wrong question Midget. I laid out how you combine taxes WITH actual policy changes.

Like I said, bitch at health insurers to give discounts to people who join gyms. Tax Burger King, but then use the revenue to offset the sky-high Whole Foods prices. Offer tax credits (like the ones the city gives to movie productions) to gyms that open in low-income areas.

You know, actually help people.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:35:32 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Which I agree with.

But good luck getting it past the health insurance and fast food lobbies.

Good luck with that. I've been arguing for smoking cessation help for years now, and it's always been "Well, they can just stop doing it".

Likewise, with junk food, people can just stop eating it, so I have officially run out of sympathy.

edited 14th Sep '12 11:38:55 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

No one gives a shit what you eat or how fat you want to make yourself. Where the line is being drawn is when fast food companies start actively promoting obviously and ridiculously unhealthy eating habits in order to milk some fat bastard right up until they drop of heart failure before they're 50.

Third time I've said this, now.

I agree that the main focus should be on making healthy food cheaper, more available and easier to prepare.

Otherwise, people will still go for fast food even if it's more expensive if they don't have time to make it, or can't get it.

Not everyone has time to search for cheap, healthy food then take out the time to make a meal. It would be nice if it was so, but it's not.

On the actual topic, I don't really think this law was well thought out. People who want more soda will simply get more, or go to a store to buy it. This is barely a minor annoyance. I personally don't even like soda. I prefer tea.

Sensitive gums and acid don't mix well.

Exactly my point Midget. Fuhrer Bloomberg could rattle his saber for that cause, but it would involve taking on the lobbies and corporations. Y'know, the people that sign his check.

So like most cowardly politicians he decides to make a show of helping the people, while still being in bed with the rich fucks who continue to step on the people for profit.

That's why I have no respect for his rhetoric and need him out of City Hall. Now.

If it annoys people enough, it probably will get him booted out of office whenever reelection happens.

But unless they go further with the forcible healthy food measures, no one will care quite that much.

It's only a minor inconvenience, really.

Agreed Matues. But that's not the thing people are responding to. Much like Obamacare, the truth is that the Bloomberg Decree, doesn't really change what the status-quo already was.

What people are reacting to is the patronizing rhetoric. The "We're doing this because gosh-darn it, we're serious about your health!"

Then you turn around and notice there're no organic stores in "the ghetto." You notice that insurance keeps going up. You notice another fucking McDonald's being built, but the Mom-and-Pop deli place can't stay open.

People don't like having their intelligence insulted, something that politicians have made an art form out of.

the thing is though.. a lot of people really are uneducated enough to buy into the rhetoric of" "food gestapo, how dare you tell me to not eat this fat filled burger!"

Yep, that's the knee-jerk reaction.

What I remember of my dorm mart, produce was available, but tended to cost about twice as much in cash or meal points as entire boxes of junk food. You had enough points per week for about half of your food to actually be healthy stuff.

Which was hilarious, because this was a hippie college where people spooged over anything with "organic" in the name.

edited 14th Sep '12 1:02:51 PM by Pykrete

Yeah, because it'd be such a good idea to say people can't have anything they don't need to live, for fear that it will be misused in a negative way.