I think it's weird that people are acting like this is some infringement upon liberty. Unless I'm missing something, if you want 32oz of soda, just buy 2 16oz containers. Nobody is saying you can't drink as much soda as you want. What they are doing is changing the packaging of the product to make it more likely that people will drink less.

Patrick Henry is rolling over in his grave.

Is there anyway this can HELP the soda industry? Since people wouldn't be able to buy in bulk as easily? Or is that crazy?

MoBettle wrote:Is there anyway this can HELP the soda industry? Since people wouldn't be able to buy in bulk as easily? Or is that crazy?

I don't think it's really going to stop people from buying in bulk. You can still get a 2 liter bottle of Pepsi from a grocery store.

Seems it would hurt fountain soda suppliers as it will cut back on the amount people go through. Probably be an annoying one time cost for some restaurants which use glasses larger than 16 ozs for its sodas to increase stock in smaller glasses. I don't know if Pepsi and Coke sell 16 oz bottles, but if not they're going to have to design them if this passes. I've seen the half liter size bottles before, but they're .9 ozs too big.

Here's an idea. Bloomberg can go to PepsiCo or Coke or whoever the hell he wants to, he can take that stupid picture of him with the sugar packets in front of him and say:

"Hey let's take a look here. Look at all these sugar packets." In a 20oz soda, you know you're finishing the whole damn thing. If you had a 12 oz, you'd probably finish it. For some reason when people get a 20, they're gonna finish it. It's habit to finish it almost. Nobody would leave the last 8 ounces or 7 ounces or whatever. So Bloomberg walks down to Pepsi and says "hey guys, maybe we can experiment here with cutting the sugar. What's a 20oz bottle, about 70g of sugar these days? Let's cut it to 45 or 40 and see how it tastes. And then the 12oz cans, which are what, about 45-46g themselves, let's try to cut them to 25-30. And if Pepsi says "LOL, GTFO" then Bloomberg gets back on the plane to New York and goes to sleep. No need to do what he's doing.

We can have an honest conversation about lobbying the companies to cut back the sugar. Hell, I think I looked at the back of an Orange Crush bottle one time and saw 75-80 or whatever it was and nearly choked. I don't drink a ton of soda. I drink it occasionally. This law wouldn't bother me too much, but I can see why it would bother a lot of people. Bloomberg should stay out of it.

CFP wrote:Here's an idea. Bloomberg can go to PepsiCo or Coke or whoever the hell he wants to, he can take that stupid picture of him with the sugar packets in front of him and say:

"Hey let's take a look here. Look at all these sugar packets." In a 20oz soda, you know you're finishing the whole damn thing. If you had a 12 oz, you'd probably finish it. For some reason when people get a 20, they're gonna finish it. It's habit to finish it almost. Nobody would leave the last 8 ounces or 7 ounces or whatever. So Bloomberg walks down to Pepsi and says "hey guys, maybe we can experiment here with cutting the sugar. What's a 20oz bottle, about 70g of sugar these days? Let's cut it to 45 or 40 and see how it tastes. And then the 12oz cans, which are what, about 45-46g themselves, let's try to cut them to 25-30. And if Pepsi says "LOL, GTFO" then Bloomberg gets back on the plane to New York and goes to sleep. No need to do what he's doing.

We can have an honest conversation about lobbying the companies to cut back the sugar. Hell, I think I looked at the back of an Orange Crush bottle one time and saw 75-80 or whatever it was and nearly choked. I don't drink a ton of soda. I drink it occasionally. This law wouldn't bother me too much, but I can see why it would bother a lot of people. Bloomberg should stay out of it.

I'm not sure I'm following you here but I'm pretty sure I don't want you mixing my drinks

MoBettle wrote:Is there anyway this can HELP the soda industry? Since people wouldn't be able to buy in bulk as easily? Or is that crazy?

Lots of convenience stores have buy 2 deals. Instead of buying 1 20 ounce for 1.69, now they'll buy 2 16 ounces for $2.50. 4th term baby!!!

Edit: Noticed that the law wouldn't apply to c-stores, but that doesn't prevent similar deals at hot dog carts and so forth.

delis in new york are basically convenience stores anyway. which is sort of my point, its not as much of a thing to go to a grocery store, especially if you're younger, you go to these delis. people might go and instead of buying one big bottle and now get two 16s. probably a crackpot theory not really based in anything but anecdotes.

anyway, in other news, coming to a SCOTUS near you

Saw my first Super PAC ad tonight attacking Obama... its really bad. Not based on fact and not spun enough to even be credible. I guess it is just food for the DC area extreme end of the base, but it really lack credibility. It is going to be long and ugly season if it will be drivel all the time. Good news is that this stuff should drive some short term economic gains for unskilled labor.

I expect to see pro-Obama stuff equally lacking soon.

I think there's a viable public purpose in trying to reduce behaviors known to be unhealthy and that have public finance consequences. But a ban goes too far. Tax it, put warning labels on it, raise awareness, create incentives, but a straight-up ban seems un-American.

And, TV, I think the authoritarian tendencies of our mayors are more like something we tolerate, or not, than something we actively select for.

Most NYC Democratic politicians make John Street look like Chris Christie by comparison. That's part of the reason for the authoritarian mayors.

dajafi wrote:I think there's a viable public purpose in trying to reduce behaviors known to be unhealthy and that have public finance consequences. But a ban goes too far. Tax it, put warning labels on it, raise awareness, create incentives, but a straight-up ban seems un-American.

And, TV, I think the authoritarian tendencies of our mayors are more like something we tolerate, or not, than something we actively select for.

Bloomberg hasn't banned a product, he's banned a portion size. Which seems even weirder than banning a product, though more benign (that it comes from a size-challenged mayor does gild the weird)

Obama, incredibly gracious & nice speech. GW Bush, good at this shit. Nice stuff from Laura and Michelle as well.

Kind of a neat tradition, in the midst of a competitive election season, to have this kind of a bipartisan lovefest. Studying for my comparative politics exam...this stuff doesn't happen everywhere.

Presidential spouses for the win. The Bush guys did pretty well in the brides department.

Laura Bush looks younger than when Dubya was in office; he looks a bit shrunken, but he certainly seemed chipper in his remarks.

From an event like this you can start to see a certain sense to having your nation's leader be more ceremonial than operational.

Man if I were a crazed billionaire looking to stir shit up I might declare my 3rd party POTUS candidacy today

Werthless wrote:This is precious.

The liberals on this board (and those off it) are perfectly fine legislating restrictions on soda intake, cigarettes, bicycle helmets, speed limits, seat belts, etc, because they assert that society is better off without these behaviors (drinking large sodas, smoking, riding without a helmet, etc). That is the only standard! And yet, if conservatives try to pass laws that meet that standard ("It will make society better off"), the standard is not enough to justify taking away that choice. Everyone agrees that abortions are bad, so let's ban them. Ohhhh no, we can't do that; this is infringing upon the woman's right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, including stopping the tiny heart beating inside her.

you think "everyone agrees that abortions are bad" and should be banned?

consuming the amount of sugar in a 32oz soda is scientifically proven to be terrible for you. aborting a baby is not. should the gov't ever try to do anything about the increasingly alarming obesity rates in this country?

i do agree that banning might be going too far and maybe an increased tax (like cigs) needs to be applied, but i do think that some kind of action needs to be taken.

NYP is pro-ban. NYT is opposed, suggesting more public information and other measures.

Awful libberls, trusting people to make their own decisions...

My theory on this, FWIW, is that this isn't about liberal or reactionary, but who's affected: as with stop-and-frisk, those impacted by this policy are mostly less educated, lower-income nonwhites. Perhaps not atypically for Republicans, the Post consistently has contempt for "those people" and is quite willing to toss aside their supposed "rights". The Times presumes that they really are equal human beings, and takes positions accordingly.

I am obviously an overweight man. This doesn't bother me. I usually drink water at restaurants anyway.

Unemployment up in May as job growth falls off - We're all gonna die

Joe Manchin finally figured out he was actually a Republican. He appears to have been the las person in the US to realize this.

What did Joe Manchin do?