jamiethekiller wrote: i don't want to have rising healthcare because some fat slob wants to drink 64oz double gulps everyday.

You dont want to pay for others' healthcare, or you want to control your neighbors' diets if you do?

Could have sworn Jamie was fat too.

First they came for the cigarettes,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the king size candy bars,
and I didn't speak out because I'm more of a "chips and salsa" guy.

Then they came for our 16+ oz sodas,
and I didn't speak out because I don't drink soda.

Then they came for my cheeseburgers and beer,
and they said "why are so many smart people here all of a sudden pretending that our diets aren't now, and have long been, shaped significantly by public policy at the federal and state level - that the food we currently have access to, its content and form factors, aren't and haven't been subject to the whims of law & regulation for generations?"

I don't find this law particularly offensive, like jh i am nervousthough when you start legislating behavior to protect health. This isn't like the trans fat cooking oil where it was simply restaurants cutting corners for a few bucks, this is banning arguably Pepsi and Coca Cola's biggest profit maker. We'll see.

Just read that it's only in movie theaters, food-carts & restaurants.

Lets also stop pretending we're talking about real food here. Sugary soda drinks have very little in common with actual food or beverages. It's edible and consumable, I suppose, but it shouldn't be referred to colloquially or for legislative purposes as food.

Read Pepsi's annual report this year and they are well aware this type of legislation and public perception is coming. It's their annual report so it could be complete BS, but I think they're gaining a conscious and attempting to make healthier food primarily b/c of public pressure and legislation. So, good on us.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Youseff wrote:Much of NYC doesn't have a real grocery store in their neighborhood. They only have bodegas which specialize in cheap, horrible food. Limiting the availability of one of the worst causes of obesity, which is giant, sugary beverages is a good thing. Also, you can't really get bagels in these places.

Yup. Same in North Philly.

And the cheapest food is usually the most processed and worst for you. The peppers and broccoli are expensive, but the snack foods come dirt cheap. The opposite should be the case. Where I'm at now charges ridiculous amounts for junk food, but the veggies are affordable in comparison.

Read/Watch Fast Food Nation. There are reasons for it.

Werthless wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote: i don't want to have rising healthcare because some fat slob wants to drink 64oz double gulps everyday.

You dont want to pay for others' healthcare, or you want to control your neighbors' diets if you do?

got me

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Could have sworn Jamie was fat too.

i am. but i'm an in shape fat person!

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Ah yes, the many parallels between soda and mind altering drugs. How could I have forgotten?

in the simplest form of they're both bad for you and can harm others around you type parallel.

jamiethekiller wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Ah yes, the many parallels between soda and mind altering drugs. How could I have forgotten?

in the simplest form of they're both bad for you and can harm others around you type parallel.

liquefied, synthetic fructose is unbelievable bad for you. the FDA has never even established a safe daily level of consumption for "sugar"

Werthless wrote:First they came for the cigarettes,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the king size candy bars,
and I didn't speak out because I'm more of a "chips and salsa" guy.

Then they came for our 16+ oz sodas,
and I didn't speak out because I don't drink soda.

Then they came for my cheeseburgers and beer,
and they said "why are so many smart people here all of a sudden pretending that our diets aren't now, and have long been, shaped significantly by public policy at the federal and state level - that the food we currently have access to, its content and form factors, aren't and haven't been subject to the whims of law & regulation for generations?"

if only they'd come for your keyboard

The Nightman Cometh wrote:i am nervous though when you start legislating behavior to protect health.

practically every statute carries some aspect of what you're nervous about with it

drsmooth wrote:empty cup must be worn as a hat for minimum 60 minutes following consumption

Already do that

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

drsmooth wrote:empty cup must be worn as a hat for minimum 60 minutes following consumption

Already do that

PiP, this is even better

"may purchase a beverage of 64 oz capacity or greater, provided it is worn as a hat during consumption"

The Nightman Cometh wrote:i am nervous though when you start legislating behavior to protect health.

Seatbelts, DUIs, speed limits, cell phones while driving, motorcycle helmets... all statutory methods of protecting the health of citizens. And while three of those examples protect third parties from harm, two of them only impact the person whose behavior is being modified.

traderdave wrote:Obesity is a problem because Americans are L-A-Z-Y. Turn off Jersey Shore and/or American Idol, put down the iPad or iPhone 13, get up off the fucking couch and take a walk once in a while.

When I was a kid, we used to walk 2 miles to hang out under the train trestle and smoke cigs & drink beer.

(for reals)

The Nightman Cometh wrote:i am nervousthough when you start legislating behavior to protect health.

Life is easier when you have complete trust in government. Work on that.

false dichotomy alert.

There are many choices between allowing the government to have some sensible regulation of unhealthy behavior and "complete trust of government."

Is it ok if I trust government regulation based on sound scientific research?

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:i am nervous though when you start legislating behavior to protect health.

Seatbelts, DUIs, speed limits, cell phones while driving, motorcycle helmets... all statutory methods of protecting the health of citizens. And while three of those examples protect third parties from harm, two of them only impact the person whose behavior is being modified.

I'm not sure how relevant legally or policy wise the distinction is, but the seat belt and motorcycle (and bicycle) helmet laws are things where the user only has to fuck up once to potentially die.

If you're getting a hot dog from a street cart and grab a 20 oz Coke with it, you're not putting your short term health at risk unless you have some other medical condition already in place.