Calling critics of the plan “ridiculous,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is defending his proposed ban on large-size sugary sodas. I have long been a critic of such measures, but this one is particularly presumptuous in my view. People should have a choice as to what and how much they wish to eat and drink. The ban is particularly illogical since it would simply require people to buy multiple cans of soda unless Bloomberg will next impose a drink limit for New Yorkers. You can have as many Manhattans as you want but do not reach for the super-sized soda. I am waiting for the next bumper sticker: “If Big Gulps Are a Crime, Only Criminals Will Have Big Gulps.”
I agree with critics that this is the ultimate example of the “Nanny state” where the government dictates the the proper lifestyle choices and risks for adults. I have no problem with banning sodas in school as many district have done. However, Bloomberg has decided that educational programs and warnings are not enough because adults are not meeting the expectations of the government. Bloomberg is quoted as saying “I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody’s willing to do something about it.” The solution therefore is to take away choice and to dictate Dr. Bloomberg’s diet for all citizens.
The soda ban will be introduced on June 12 at a New York City Board of Health meeting. It is expected to pass.
However, Bloomberg insists that when you are told that you cannot have that soda, “Nobody is taking away any of your rights. This way, we’re just telling you ‘That’s a lot of soda.'” Really? Sounds a lot like “you can’t have that soda.”
Honestly, if prohibition did not work for alcohol, it is likely to be even less successful for sodas. What is unclear is why Bloomberg is not also banning french fries, onion rings, and other unhealthy foods eaten in excessive quantities. How about requiring proof that a large stuffed pizza has no fewer than four persons willing to sign for it? I think people have a right to an unhealthy lifestyle. This is not like second-hand smoke that harms others. You can be around someone with a large soda and remain perfectly healthy.
There must be something to occupy the Mayor’s time beyond soda drinkers like serial killers. Forcing people to buy two ten ounce sodas rather than one twenty ounce soda is hardly a public interest triumph. However, it is not the sheer stupidity but the sheer hubris that I find remarkable about this proposed ban. Perhaps the good Mayor should stop “looking across the country” like some stern Satrap and focus on those harms that people do to others from crime to pollution.
In the meantime, I will soon issue a new bumper sticker for the soda patriots: “You Can Pry My Big Gulp From My Cold Fat Fingers.”
Source: LA Times
anon:
There a psychosis for those who insist on hanging around with people they hate. I just call it masochism.
anon:
You might actually make some sense if you weren’t so repellent. Guess it comes with being a troll.
I know Mark. I see you being a lawyer, and feel exactly the same way. 🙁
idealist, I am curious… is that because there is a law in Sweden banning a larger size, because Swedes would not buy anything larger than that (IOW, no demand), or some other reason(s)?
BTW, Why is America “gross”?
The biggest soda drink at 7-11 here in Sweden is 16 ounces.
I knew America was gross, take it as you like, but this gross is ugggghhh.
Now in boring Sweden I see only at best two obese Swedes a week. And the bikini ads and the diet headlines come out
each Spring like the violets blooming.
anon, point taken about the regulation of sugar components in soft drinks. But Bloomberg isn’t even trying to do that. He is proposing to regulate merely the size of the drink. I think this is a very slippery slope. As others have pointed out, what about alcohol, tobacco, that crazy restaurant in Vegas that dishes out 1,500 calorie burgers?
As with most issues, I still think education is the best weapon. Call me naive.
In any event, at least we found some middleground in the personal responsibility thing. And I got to laugh at your clever and very funny comments in response (the orgasm thing especially! – I am not sure there would be any males left to assist in procreation if something like that existed).
By the way Juris, in full disclosure, if you step between me and a cold Coke and a french chocolate donut, you are taking your life in your hands.
Juris,
I actually almost entirely agree with you about personal responsibility.
My problem is that this is not like red meat, eating donuts, riding motorcycles without a helmet, or wearing white after labor day, but that conceivably this is a real “exploit” of the human body by marketing pukes and sugar pushers in exactly the same notion of exploit might be used on any addicting drug, or computer hack.
Evolution taught us to love sugar but that was in an environment of food very different than today’s.
If you believe that, then there is reason to be concerned with the sugar pushers — they are motivated by dollars not by overall societal good or our own personal health and they are using a biological weakness against us.
If I could put on a Larry Niven / Spider Robinson wireheading pleasure electrode that wired directly into my brain’s orgasm center and then commit suicide through constant orgasms (much as Gene attempts to do every day in the subway) should that behavior be regulated?
If so, why not regulate the sugar component of soft drinks that are addicting?
Bloomberg truly is a nut. The guy lives in another world. A world in which he is a Father and citizens of New York are his infant children whose lives he must micromanage. All those troops from the Bronx who thought they were fighting in Afghanistan for the simply freedom to have a large Coke with that burger and fries may be in for a rude awakening when they get home.
Anon, is this really the road we want to go down in reducing calorie or sugar intake? I am willing to bet that smoking 2-4 packs of cigarettes a day is more harmful than 64 oz. of soda.
What ever happended to personal responsibility? Bloomberg is out of his mind IMO.
How many donuts will you eat everyday, or every week?
How many cokes will you drink?
http://www.dunkindonuts.com/content/dunkindonuts/en/menu/nutrition/nutrition_catalog.html?nutrition_catalog_hidden=0&nutrition_catalog_needType=Food&nutrition_catalog_selPage=1&nutrition_catalog_perPage=100
Calories in a Dunkin Donut’s Chocolate Glazed Cake Donut 370
http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm
Calories in coke:
Coca Cola
12 oz (355 ml) Can
Sugars, total: 39g
Calories, total: 140
Calories from sugar: 140*
7-Eleven 32 oz Big Gulp
(28 oz soda + 4 oz ice)
Sugars, total: 91g
Calories, total: 364
Calories from sugar: 364
7-Eleven 44 oz Super Gulp
(38 oz soda + 6 oz ice)
Sugars, total: 128g
Calories, total: 512
Calories from sugar: 512
7-Eleven 52 oz Xtreme Gulp
(45 oz soda + 7 oz ice)
Sugars, total: 146g
Calories, total: 585
Calories from sugar: 585
That’s about a cup of sugar! It’s hard to believe anyone could drink that much soda.
Coca Cola
7-Eleven 64 oz Double Gulp
(55 oz soda + 9 oz ice)
Sugars, total: 186g
Calories, total: 744
Calories from sugar: 744
Nothing more than this title can better express the hypocrisy: “Bloomberg pitches soda ban in appearance to celebrate National Doughnut Day” http://digg.com/news/politics/bloomberg_pitches_soda_ban_in_appearance_to_celebrate_national_doughnut_day
Ignoring what we know today about alcohol, aspirin, sugar consumption, and marijuana smoking, which of the above should be banned or regulated by society?
“People should have a choice as to what and how much they wish to eat and drink.”
I wish to eat horse and dog and drink alcohol in public places and consume marijuana and heroin.
“The ban is particularly illogical since it would simply require people to buy multiple cans of soda unless Bloomberg will next impose a drink limit for New Yorkers. ”
I think an economist or psychologist might tell you differently. An economist would tell you that the simple act of carrying a credit card and not carrying checks around in a wallet enlarges the economy, because having it there, very easy to use, makes it easier to use, and increases its usage.
If sugar is really addicting to the human brain, and if the human body and brain were originally incented by evolution to go after it in a world where this form of food was rare, then maybe the human body does need regulatory help to keep from over-indulging in this food addiction.
Maybe the guy on the street corner inside the 7-11 selling sugar drinks is no different from the guy on the street corner outside the 7-11 selling meth.
Difficult to know where the greatest idiocy resides, even if we hold our consideration to Bloomberg.
Difficult to consider anything advanced by the torturer of the hurricane threatened, the user of police powers against OWS, and now the claimed savior of the obese, as being anything but pushing the mayorial envelope of power.
Having trained to drink and eat ourselves to death on sugar, to then come with restrictions is as JT says a hypocritical repeat of Prohibition. Is he playing for attention and a VEEP nomination.
Wait until the doors and walls have to be torn down so that the gross obese can be brought to his doorstep to protest the limitation. Will it move his heart, or mind, when he sees the seas of basteing flesh frying in the sun?
Doubt it.
Sodas are not good for anyone. However, prohibition doesn’t work in spite of what big daddy says.
Alcohol’s a problem too. Is he going to ban “40s”? Or would rhat create a bigger shit-storm?
x
What will be banned next?
What he wants to ban is an epidemic.
Obesity and its sidekick diabetes.
This epidemic alone can destroy a nation.
The propaganda of Bullshitistan that produces what is called “food” around here is really “poison”, on many levels.
War = peace
ignorance = wisdom
food = poison
Somebody has to take these m***erf***ers down.
Problem is, it is the m***erf***ers vs. the other m***erf***ers that we have to choose between.
Like it was planned.
The broader argument is that reckless behavior resulting in obesity (or drug addiction, or tripping from untied shoelaces etc) drives up health expenses and is therefore subject to regulation.
I don’t think Bloomberg expects it to pass. He just wants to draw attention to the subject of obese kids and the Type II diabetes epidemic. That is real. If this tactic works, it’s a net good for everyone. A little hype over a doomed measure is no threat to the Republic.