NYC Soda Ban... banned!

UncleBob

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
So, the Great Soda Ban of New York City was struck down in court.

Was it really an overstep in government authority?
Was it just because the law was poorly written?

Bloomy says he plans to appeal... will he win?
 
It was a poor idea to begin with since a tax bring in a lot of revenue and would cause people to think twice about buying soda. They should've met half way and started taxing larger sizes, since that seems to be a better idea than going all out.
 
Think of the FATTIES with no self control. The court just made them FAT for life by not regulating what they could drink.

xlarge.jpg

(ty to gawker for the pic)
 
Completely Unconstitutional. People have the right to their bodies. I highly doubt it even had a real effect. Many people do not realize that today it might be a large soda and tomorrow it will be books which puts the government in the negative light.
 
The law was pretty ridiculous with the way it was enforced (largely due to what the city can regulate versus the state). I can't get anything larger than a 16oz drink at McDonald's, but I can get a 50oz Double Gulp from the 7/11 next store. Or, hell, I could just sit in McDonald's and get my free refills, or if I was feeling really ingenious, just order two 16oz drinks and pour them into a water bottle I brought.

I do think obesity is a problem in this country, particularly among children, but I don't really think this was going to do much to contribute to a solution. It wasn't going to make people realize that they shouldn't gorge on sugary drinks, just piss them off that they were being inconvenienced. The focus should be on improving nutritional education. Don't force people to eat healthier, provide them with the information so they can make informed decisions about their eating habits.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Completely Unconstitutional. People have the right to their bodies. I highly doubt it even had a real effect. Many people do not realize that today it might be a large soda and tomorrow it will be books which puts the government in the negative light.[/QUOTE]
God, I hope this is a joke...
 
Obesity is indeed a problem in this country, and on the flip side over 50 million Americans go hungry each and every day. It is a solvable problem, but with attitudes like people did this to themselves, and letting people starve is a deservable entitlement, it's going to take a lot of work.

Nutritional education would help a lot, but too bad the funding for such a thing will be killed on the floor.
 
If people knew how much their tax money is subsidizing and funding the fatties health issue brought upon by their decision, people would be happier with the ban..

I think it was the way it was presented... If healthy people knew how much their tax monies was being wasted cause someone decided to turn themselves into fat asses, I think most people would be supportive of the issue.

You know its funny cause all the same repukes and some dems who call this ban stupid and unconstitutional and scream FREEDOM of choice with their bodies are the ones more then happy to throw a pot smoker in prison and ruin their lives with legal nonsense.. Go figure
Also the same repukes who are more then happy to tell a woman you can't choose to have a abortion..

WTH !!! is that
 
[quote name='granturismo']Think it was a good idea. The soda companies make a lot of money giving out unhealthy crap.[/QUOTE]

Freedom and free will must be terrible ideas in your opinion then.

People are accountable for their own decisions. Bloomberg can FOAD.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The people most upset about the ban? People who want things decided at the state and local level.[/QUOTE]

Point being? If Bloomberg felt so confident about it he should have gotten it on the next ballot to be voted on. Bloomberg's actions are no different from Obama or Feinstein. They clearly think the people are too stupid to make their own choices.
 
[quote name='Calipso']

People are accountable for their own decisions. .[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if people lived each on their own island and never interacted with anyone....

meanwhile in the real world.


[quote name='Cantatus'] provide them with the information so they can make informed decisions about their eating habits.[/QUOTE]


hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The people most upset about the ban? People who want things decided at the state and local level.[/QUOTE]

True - but look how easy it was to challenge the law and get it overturned.

Meanwhile, the PATRIOT Act...
 
I'm reading through Michael Moss' "Salt Sugar Fat" right now.

The notion of the "informed consumer" is, due to the food industry, as real as the Loch Ness Monster.

You think you're informed? Tell me about the contents of a bottle of "Simply Orange" orange juice, and correctly identify its parent company.

Try to answer the above (to yourself, of course, I already know the answer) by only looking at the bottle. Then use google to see if you're correct.
 
Oddly enough, I knew who Simply Orange's parent company was - but that was due to an article I read on them some time ago. I'm sure most consumers don't know that.
 
[quote name='Calipso']Freedom and free will must be terrible ideas in your opinion then.

People are accountable for their own decisions. Bloomberg can FOAD.
[/QUOTE]

If something is branded in a certain way, advertised a lot and tastes relatively good it is of course going to be snapped up. But if it's really large unhealthy, not advertised correctly, lots of information not given then these companies are technically taken advantage of it's consumer.

Drugs and gambling are banned in many places. So how can you say freedom and free would be terrible in my opinion. Not what im saying at all.

You drink soda it is bad for you it makes you want to eat more you're not always aware what you're actually drinking. If you don't regulate certain industry's you allow people to be manipulated. I think banning unhealthy junk that does nothing much for anyone isn't a bad thing......
 
[quote name='Calipso']Freedom and free will must be terrible ideas in your opinion then.

People are accountable for their own decisions. Bloomberg can FOAD.



Point being? If Bloomberg felt so confident about it he should have gotten it on the next ballot to be voted on. Bloomberg's actions are no different from Obama or Feinstein. They clearly think the people are too stupid to make their own choices.[/QUOTE]


We have made it so people DON"T have to be accountable anymore. Have kids while your broke? No problem, here's some tax payer money. Drink yourself to near death and have no savings? No problem, here's 911 and hospitable services that will work basically for free for you. Is it more heartless to perpetuate these behaviors by subsidizing them, or to just say "lie in the bed you made, fatso." There's an interesting theory that some of the extremists Muslim groups are using the generous entitlement programs of Europe and the US to not only weaken the economy, but to bolster their numbers thru multiple births in a household subsidized by tax money. It's really an ingenious way to over take a gov't. Pay for your own subjugation.
 
[quote name='egofed']We have made it so people DON"T have to be accountable anymore. Have kids while your broke? No problem, here's some tax payer money. Drink yourself to near death and have no savings? No problem, here's 911 and hospitable services that will work basically for free for you. Is it more heartless to perpetuate these behaviors by subsidizing them, or to just say "lie in the bed you made, fatso." There's an interesting theory that some of the extremists Muslim groups are using the generous entitlement programs of Europe and the US to not only weaken the economy, but to bolster their numbers thru multiple births in a household subsidized by tax money. It's really an ingenious way to over take a gov't. Pay for your own subjugation.[/QUOTE]

go home, you're drunk.
 
You know, I had an uncle once who was an alcoholic. I say had an uncle, because he eventually died after being forced into a hospital after decades of drinking. He had no money and lived with my grandfather. The only hospital that would take him was the medical college nearby. I'm thankful that they took him at the very least, it's just too bad he didn't get help sooner.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, fuck you ego.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know, I had an uncle once who was an alcoholic. I say had an uncle, because he eventually died after being forced into a hospital after decades of drinking. He had no money and lived with my grandfather. The only hospital that would take him was the medical college nearby. I'm thankful that they took him at the very least, it's just too bad he didn't get help sooner.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, fuck you ego.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry your uncle made such poor life decisions, Clak. Maybe your FAMILY and his FRIENDS should have sacrificed a bit more to help him realize his destructive behavior.... no, better to rely on the forced "charity" of strangers.:roll:
In other words, fuck you and your dumbass dead uncle.;)
 
[quote name='egofed']I'm sorry your uncle made such poor life decisions, Clak. Maybe your FAMILY and his FRIENDS should have sacrificed a bit more to help him realize his destructive behavior.... no, better to rely on the forced "charity" of strangers.:roll:
In other words, fuck you and your dumbass dead uncle.;)[/QUOTE]

You're a fucking scumbag asshole.

:applause: For being so amazing. I bet your parents are so proud of you and your life decisions to be the biggest shithead on Earth. Maybe if your FAMILY and FRIENDS sacrificed a bit more to help you be a decent person and realize you're a piece of shit....no, maybe nothing could help the fact you are what you are.
 
I'll own it and say I reported that post. For as many utterly tactless things as we say to each other, egofed's post is beyond the pale.

So, unlike other posters on the vs forum, if you get the post deleted and/or a temp ban, I was the one who reported you.

But let's not kid ourselves, you're not dohdough or RvB, so nothing will happen at all in the first place.
 
"You should step up and help your family." = tactless.
"Everyone else should be forced by law to help random strangers." = Liberal.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"You should step up and help your family." = tactless.
"Everyone else should be forced by law to help random strangers." = Liberal.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the delivery has something to do with mykevermin's complaint.
 
Considering that he was responding to a post where someone said "**** you", if what you say is indeed the case, then the complaint is one-sided.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Considering that he was responding to a post where someone said "**** you", if what you say is indeed the case, then the complaint is one-sided.[/QUOTE]

I don't know where the line is drawn on CAG. I'd agree that saying "**** you" to someone is tactless as well, though egofed's entire post is unnecessary. He could've made his point much better.

I think this entire thread is getting needlessly heated and off topic.
 
Two users have earned temporary silences for not knowing the difference between making a point and being hateful and disruptive to the CAG Community. Posts have been deleted.

VS players -
Keep it on track and in some way civil. Adding "F-you" comments doesn't earn you a lot of happy points with the mods.
 
lol.... It was getting good too.

When I read about the ban I thought it was ludicrous, it's all about personal choice. If the government was so worried about our health they could start with the whole food industry. Smoking and drinking are by far more concerning than the regulations of soda pop. Somebody mentioned taxing, don't people in that city get taxed too much to begin with?
 
[quote name='guinaevere']Two users have earned temporary silences for not knowing the difference between making a point and being hateful and disruptive to the CAG Community. Posts have been deleted.

VS players -
Keep it on track and in some way civil. Adding "F-you" comments doesn't earn you a lot of happy points with the mods.[/QUOTE]

I don't think reversing someone's disrespectful comment back to them in a way they could understand is hateful or disruptive. I saw what they said to someone and thought it was beyond disrespectful so I said something to them about it. I'm new here but I don't comment very often because I notice there are a lot of rude members here. But that comment someone said about someone's drunk uncle who is deceased was beyond out of line. I think the person had a right to say fuck you to them.

There was only one person that I think was obviously being hateful and disruptive to the community. If saying something against them doesn't earn happy points with the mods, I guess I feel bad for the mods.
 
bobbeh strikes again!

At least the temp bans were more "even-handed" this time, but it's still lop-sided.

I missed all the action cause I'm busy with FF13-2. Fun game!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"You should step up and help your family." = tactless.
"Everyone else should be forced by law to help random strangers." = Liberal.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Wow, you're such a showstopper too, you know that? What a lovely and inaccurate rendition of what happened.

Let me correct that for you.
"fuck YOUR DEAD UNCLE" = tactless
"fuck YOU FOR BEING AN ASSHOLE" = honest
"I AM GOING TO RUN & GET A MOD BECAUSE I AM AN ATTENTION WHORE." = Bob.

Real smooth, Uncle Bob. I guess today was a good day for you, you weren't the uncle being cursed out and you're not dead either.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']Two users have earned temporary silences for not knowing the difference between making a point and being hateful and disruptive to the CAG Community. Posts have been deleted. [/QUOTE]

Thanks for this; it's good to see the mods take it seriously. Hopefully they learn from this..
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Gambling laws are bull****. If it's so horrible, then why does virtually every state have a state-ran gambling program?[/QUOTE]

They are not bull anything. They're pretty much extremely strict and regulated or banned all over America. There are still casino's around and of course Las Vegas is huge but overall it is difficult to gamble in the US, where as in some other countries it is widely encouraged.

I think banning gambling is also a good idea. By definition of odds and how they work, people are prone to addiction and always more likely to lose, it's just a cash cow that milks people. Poker is acceptable as it's usually people vs peope and skill is involved, and lottery is not usually going to make someone go bankrupt, but slots, casino type, and sports betting isn't good at all.

By your logic why not legalize cocaine if it's all about choice?
 
[quote name='granturismo']They are not bull anything. They're pretty much extremely strict and regulated or banned all over America. There are still casino's around and of course Las Vegas is huge but overall it is difficult to gamble in the US, where as in some other countries it is widely encouraged.

I think banning gambling is also a good idea. By definition of odds and how they work, people are prone to addiction and always more likely to lose, it's just a cash cow that milks people. Poker is acceptable as it's usually people vs peope and skill is involved, and lottery is not usually going to make someone go bankrupt, but slots, casino type, and sports betting isn't good at all.

By your logic why not legalize cocaine if it's all about choice?[/QUOTE]

I know a few people that spend $100 of a near minimum wage paycheck a week on scratch tickets and lottery tickets.

You can't protect people from themselves.
 
[quote name='mkultra']I think the person had a right to say fuck you to them.[/quote]
The only thing is, Clak made the "**** you" comment before ego said anything negative about his uncle. Ego's comment was a direct reply to Clak's initial hostile comment.

[quote name='dohdough']bobbeh strikes again![...]
I missed all the action cause I'm busy with FF13-2. Fun game![/QUOTE]

DD won't see this, as he has me on ignore - but someone should give DD some direction here. It was not I who reported any posts. DD can thank Myke and Clak, as they both said they were reporting posts. Feel free to tell DD that he should actually know what he's talking about before he makes comments.

[quote name='mkultra']"I AM GOING TO RUN & GET A MOD BECAUSE I AM AN ATTENTION WHORE." = Bob.[/QUOTE]

Not at all what happened. So much for your "accuracy".

[quote name='granturismo']I think banning gambling is also a good idea. By definition of odds and how they work, people are prone to addiction and always more likely to lose, it's just a cash cow that milks people. Poker is acceptable as it's usually people vs peope and skill is involved, and lottery is not usually going to make someone go bankrupt, but slots, casino type, and sports betting isn't good at all.[/QUOTE]

People get addicted to the lottery. I've seen it and there's a reason why various states have their versions of the "Play Responsibly" campaign. Most lottery tickets even have phone numbers listed for people who feel they need help.

And yes, I favor legalizing cocaine.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I know a few people that spend $100 of a near minimum wage paycheck a week on scratch tickets and lottery tickets.

You can't protect people from themselves.[/QUOTE]

I am sure there's a few but it's a lot more rare. I've worked in a casino. The mentality from the top is to get people hooked. It's even encouraged to let people win or try to give something at first just to create that buzz to make them want to feel it again, because after that they'll always be searching or that buzz and trying to recreate that big win and will lose so much more.

It's all one big manipulative cycle of deceit under the guise of just a good time. And so often people lose so much from it, including relationships etc etc. It's not the people doing it who are uneducated or misinformed they are just victims of the game of the cycle, the people defending the casino's right to do it under ''freedom of choice'' to me are the fools. As they simply don't understand how things work properly.

We are humans not robots, humans have weaknesses and some people try to exploit those, stopping them people from doing so is not wrong.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']


People get addicted to the lottery. I've seen it and there's a reason why various states have their versions of the "Play Responsibly" campaign. Most lottery tickets even have phone numbers listed for people who feel they need help.

And yes, I favor legalizing cocaine.[/QUOTE]

Like i said above, there's probably a few but in terms of numbers a lot less and usually less extreme than other gambling most of the time. But the fact that people do get addicted to something they're so unlikely to win should really be an indicator to you how many get addicted to other stuff where they win more often even if less cash.... Blackjack you win constantly but not much so you have to gamble more, and if you're down take big risks and all it takes is 1 moment of madness and you can be screwed for months or years.

You can write a book on safe gambling, once you're there doing it for awhile you cannot control what takes over 95% of the time, it is extremely difficult for some people to walk away. Is where i disagree on the word choice, some people want to walk away they hate it, but they keep doing it, that's an addiction. And that's why these laws need to be there. It's why banning it is a good idea.

Do you also agree with those payday loans? where you can get 200 bux and end up paying 700 bux and if not on time suddenly 2,000 bux. They are designed to target people struggling, who if they need a loan for 200 bux, will inevitably struggle to pay it back...then get huge debts due to a silly loan. You can say it's their choice, but they're encouraged, advertised to do so, they need it, it's simple to not quite understand what you're getting yourself into.

Your logic is just a scammers dream. Freedom of choice has limitations, take it too far and it's simply dangerous and irresponsible viewpoint.
 
[quote name='granturismo']By your logic why not legalize cocaine if it's all about choice?[/QUOTE]

winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm curious why those who decry Bloomberg for reducing soda portion sizes (can we stop calling something that isn't a "ban" a "ban"? thanks.) feel about actual products being banned, like narcotics.

Why can't I legally indulge in my heroin habit? It's just personal responsibility, right?
 
It is a ban. It specifically bans cup and serving sizes over a certain limit from being sold.

You can indulge in your habit. As long as you legally obtain the funds to support it, legally purchase it, and indulge in your own home I'm perfectly fine with your habit. As of right now you can't legally ruin your body, but I wouldn't mind if you legally could do it. I also then would support your health insurance drug testing you and dropping you if you fail the test so the costs wouldn't be passed on to the rest of us.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm curious why those who decry Bloomberg for reducing soda portion sizes (can we stop calling something that isn't a "ban" a "ban"? thanks.) feel about actual products being banned, like narcotics.

Why can't I legally indulge in my heroin habit? It's just personal responsibility, right?[/QUOTE]

The soda ban was just an arbitrary and half-baked law to begin with. I also wouldn't compare it to heroin.

You don't want people having grenades — does that mean you ban sticks and stones as well?
 
[quote name='dohdough']At least the temp bans were more "even-handed" this time, but it's still lop-sided.[/QUOTE]Don't speak when you don't know the details. One instigated, and one retaliated. They both were silenced, but for different terms.



And if you all keep bringing up their discussion, we're gonna wind up right back there. Drop it and get back to passive-aggressively hating each over soda and personal liberties. Seriously guys.
 
[quote name='ID2006']The soda ban was just an arbitrary and half-baked law to begin with. I also wouldn't compare it to heroin.

You don't want people having grenades — does that mean you ban sticks and stones as well?[/QUOTE]

It's a freedom of choice comparison, why the argument has no basis when you factor in a trillion other elements.

Banning soda seems extreme but the idea behind it is logical and i support. Obesity is a huge issue and soda is in part responsible for this...So we either let 7 yr olds continue to weigh 150 pounds or begin to take measures to combat it.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']As of right now you can't legally ruin your body.[/QUOTE]

I can't do it with a syringe, no, but I can do it with a supersized Combo #4.

What's the difference?

[quote name='ID2006']I also wouldn't compare it to heroin.[/QUOTE]

And why not. Is soda "nutrition"?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm curious why those who decry Bloomberg for reducing soda portion sizes (can we stop calling something that isn't a "ban" a "ban"? thanks.) feel about actual products being banned, like narcotics.

Why can't I legally indulge in my heroin habit? It's just personal responsibility, right?[/QUOTE]

Legalize the heroin. Might as well... people in my neck of the woods get just as fucked up off of methadone (legal).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done
Back
Top