search
top

King Bloomberg Knows What’s Best

Busybody-in-chef for the City of New York is looking to ban large sized bottles of sugary drink in an effort to fight obesity. It’s not just our Constitutional freedoms Bloomberg hates. I’m pretty sure he hates pretty much all freedom. This is the most anti-choice politician in America today, and it’s a sad testament to New York City that they tolerate this bozo lording over them like he’s everybody’s mother.

UPDATE: Whatever you do, don’t read the comments. If it’s true that global warming is going to cause sea levels to rise, and put Manhattan underwater, I’m thinking I’m not driving nearly a big enough vehicle.

56 Responses to “King Bloomberg Knows What’s Best”

  1. ExurbanKevin says:

    MAIS (or MAIP for the Northeast) announces the formation of a new BATFE: Bureau of A+W Root Beer, Tab, Fanta and Egg Cream.

  2. Dannytheman says:

    I hope Coke and Pepsi, 7/11 and other major suppliers of sugar laden soft drinks take his ass to court and beat his city law to a pulp.
    He is evil incarnate. A spoiled rich boy who is use to having his own way all the time. People are leaving New York in droves and heading for better areas. I fear those that are left will be like NJ and all be ideologues that agree with their master.

    I can truly see the country being divided more and more now!

    • Zermoid says:

      As a refugee from the Gestapo State of New Jersey I have to agree on all your points.

      Sadly in the 20+ years I’ve lived in PA I can see them easing closer to NJ and NY type regulations, not further away like they should be.

  3. asdf says:

    Wait until universal health insurance coverage becomes reality. Every single thing you do will become everybody’s business.

    • Stacy says:

      I wish more people were talking about this WRT Obamacare. It’s a perfect example of the banality of evil; with the best of intentions, guidelines will be established to e.g. make sure kids under 12 don’t drink soda. But the guidelines need to be enforced, and next thing you know families are broken up, the parents thrown in jail and the kids sent to be abused in foster care, all over a can of pop. And you’re a rightwing racist if you complain about it.

  4. BigHayden says:

    The news last night said they are going to be banning sugary drinks over 16 oz. from being served in restaurants. My question was an obvious one, I think. Are they also banning refills?

    Nevermind that this law is stupid; it’s impossible to enforce the spirit of it. But this is what Mayor Snowplow thinks is the government’s job…

    • David says:

      How many calories are in an imperial pint of beer? Something tells me that the hipsters who favor this crap will change their tune when they can’t get that imperial pint of fat trendy dog fish autumn summer wheat stoudt – cause that’s the next item to attack.

  5. Tam says:

    This is Kim Jong Il-style crazy.

  6. Spade says:

    So…what happens if you buy two 16 oz sodas at once?

    Do we need a “one soda a day” law?

  7. FatWhiteMan says:

    So what? New York is banning high capacity assault drinks. It’s common sense for the children.

  8. ExurbanKevin says:

    I can’t wait for the re-make of Goodfellas where Henry Hill begins his life of crime by selling two liter bottles of soda on the street for the mob.

  9. TS says:

    Did you see the size of that Assault Pepsi on the end? That bore diameter must be at least half an inch!

    The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

    Hence the creation of the “grocery store loophole”.

    A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday.

    Damn radical NYCBA and their buying off legislators. They are only out to protect the profits of big cola.

    At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

    …and of course the “free refill loophole”. They need to at least slow down how fast you can refill your cup- like requiring a tool to dispense the soda. I’m going to contact Gene about developing the “Straw Button”.

    The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,”

    I’m a soda drinker, but…

    “Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

    Ok, so then why are you doing this?

  10. SDN says:

    “global warming is going to cause sea levels to rise, and put Manhattan underwater,”

    That’s what you call a bonus feature……

  11. Cam says:

    relax, everyone. Its actually ok to let the government protect you a little from corporate marketing and inundation that skews our reality. You think its your right to buy big awful acid drinks? It would be great if we could just leave it up to everyone to choose for themselves, but when marketing has created the environment when literally everyone is defending these gargantuan disgusting drinks because we would feel deprived without them….there’s something wrong. Should anyone drink more than 16 oz of soda in a day? Absolutely not. You are guaranteed tooth decay almost yearly. I suppose everyone would freak out if packs of cigarettes were only allowed to hold only 10 butts, because its taking away our freedom…What happened to caring about our freedom from oppression of corporate marketing that has contributed to childhood obesity and overrun our healthcare system? I say thanks for raising this topic, Mr. Bloomberg.

    Its absolutely crazy to ban stuff that is bad for the general population….like all illegal drugs. We should legalize everything and let people make the right decision. Oh, right, we’re a country of nitwits who wouldn’t make the right decision. And accordingly, we don’t with our drink choices, either. I really can’t feel bad for even the best argument against this 16+ oz soda ban, which is the frugal family who shares at the movies or restaurant. I’m sorry, but if you need your whole family to sip on soda for 2 hours, you are the ignorant fool you accuse Bloomberg of being. No one seems pissed they can’t pass out cigarettes to their family in the movie theater. The marketing of cigarettes was outlawed in our country and the effects, along with banning it indoors, has been the best public health improvement since plumbing. Why can’t we phase out the garbage that many/most Americans poison their children with like soda and junk food? Can we at least ban the advertisements that make kids (and adults) think its something they need and crave? Well, that would require fighting corporate America and everyone who is up against this proposed law has no interest in improving our declining country.

    • Sebastian says:

      You think its your right to buy big awful acid drinks?

      Yes, I do, and if you don’t, you need to start minding your own fucking business. If I want to drink battery acid, that’s no business of yours.

      It would be great if we could just leave it up to everyone to choose for themselves, but when marketing has created the environment when literally everyone is defending these gargantuan disgusting drinks because we would feel deprived without them….there’s something wrong.

      I would encourage you to stop thinking of your fellow citizens as children and imbeciles who need to be taught proper thinking by the likes of you. They are adults. They are not powerless to slick marketing. To the extent they are, you are not immune. You are not a better person than anyone else. Get over yourself.

      Should anyone drink more than 16 oz of soda in a day? Absolutely not. You are guaranteed tooth decay almost yearly. I suppose everyone would freak out if packs of cigarettes were only allowed to hold only 10 butts, because its taking away our freedom

      Please crawl back into whatever fascist hole you crawled out of. I’m absolutely serious about this. You are a fascist. Stop telling people how to live their lives. It is absolutely none of your fucking business whether other people like sugary drinks.

      Its absolutely crazy to ban stuff that is bad for the general population….like all illegal drugs. We should legalize everything and let people make the right decision. Oh, right, we’re a country of nitwits who wouldn’t make the right decision.

      OK, now I’m totally confused. I think you may have taken a bit too high a dose of an illegal substance. If you are suggesting we shouldn’t ban drugs because people might abuse them, I’m with you. But how is it you don’t see the parallels to banning large, sugary drinks? So it’s OK if Mexican cartels sell you the shit, but if it were legalized, and it was “Big Pot” filling your hookah, well, fuck that, we better regulate it. You make no sense.

      No one seems pissed they can’t pass out cigarettes to their family in the movie theater. The marketing of cigarettes was outlawed in our country and the effects, along with banning it indoors, has been the best public health improvement since plumbing. Why can’t we phase out the garbage that many/most Americans poison their children with like soda and junk food?

      Really? If public health is so good, why do you now think it invites the state to use violence to impose a ban on large beverages on the population. You are a fascist. I will restate, just in case we’re not clear. You are a fascist who enjoys having the state make everyone else’s business yours.

      Can we at least ban the advertisements that make kids (and adults) think its something they need and crave? Well, that would require fighting corporate America and everyone who is up against this proposed law has no interest in improving our declining country.

      No. We live in a free country, with free speech and a First Amendment. Coke as a right to speak as much as I do or as much as you do. I’m sitting here sipping on a nice rum and coke in an Imperial pint glass. That’s 20 ounces! The Horror! It’s bad for me. I know it’s bad for me. Marketing did not convince me that it’s good for me.

      And it’s my fucking right, it’s my decision as a grown adult, and fuck you if you want to lecture me or anyone else about it.

      Go crawl back into whatever fascist shithole your crawled out of, and stop trying to nanny, lecture, and look down on you fellow citizen, who you suggest are so stupid as to be easily brainwashed by a few commercials. Get over yourself.

      • Cam says:

        I think you’re missing the big point here (as well as my sarcasm in the part that confused you). Marketing isn’t just a few commercials that we all forget or dismiss, its what American culture has become. Its been 60 years of slowly changing our frame of reference with constant product placement and advertising, etc, so now everyone accepts junk food as a great cheap option or quick fix. I’m not saying ban a product. I’m talking about opening discourse to what the fuck we’re doing and figure out what we can do to improve our society. I think limiting advertising would be a great start, like we did with tobacco. Our parents and ancestors weren’t faced with what we’re facing.

        The reason we had a new healthcare system jammed down our throats is not political. Its because 8.5% of the US has diabetes and three times that are pre-diabetic and about 19% of the US smoke cigarettes. Too many of the affected citizens are uninsured or underinsured and its a major f-ing problem to have such a large portion of the population so afflicted. I don’t want to tell people they can’t harm themselves with cigarettes or rot their teeth with soda. But I sure would like to change the environment that corporate America has created that makes you think soda is as american as apple pie. I want freedom, my friend. But our youth in particular and much of our population in general are deprived of their freedom of choice by a slow and subtle brainwashing that makes soda so culturally acceptable and normal.

        Smoking is a decent parallel here, albeit a far worse health risk. Marketing, including product placement in Hollywood, had the use of tobacco at about 50% in the 60s. Do you feel cheated by an overreaching liberal government that tobacco can’t be advertised anymore? A few small rule changes that never took our freedom to choose to smoke away changed the environment in this country, saves millions of lives and improves the financial well-being of the common citizen.

        I’m all about freedom, but the corporate voice has outbid the other voices in the country and the general population isn’t evenly educated on their choices. A rum and coke isn’t bad for you, actually. Drinking coke when you’re thirsty is very bad for you, though. Look at the slogans for Coke and Pepsi, for example. They’re all about thirst quenching and refreshing. After 100 years and generations of being told this, believe it or not, a lot of people adopt this mentality that soda is refreshing and thirst quenching, because it gets people to buy more of it. Sorry, its not thirst quenching or refreshing. If you believe it is, you are effected ‘by a few commercials’ more than you know. Chemically and medically its neither. I want my kids to have the freedom to figure out what quenches their thirst, just like I don’t want tv telling them its cool to smoke.

        • Sebastian says:

          I think you’re missing the big point here (as well as my sarcasm in the part that confused you). Marketing isn’t just a few commercials that we all forget or dismiss, its what American culture has become. Its been 60 years of slowly changing our frame of reference with constant product placement and advertising, etc, so now everyone accepts junk food as a great cheap option or quick fix. I’m not saying ban a product. I’m talking about opening discourse to what the fuck we’re doing and figure out what we can do to improve our society. I think limiting advertising would be a great start, like we did with tobacco. Our parents and ancestors weren’t faced with what we’re facing.

          I will admit to completely missing your sarcasm. But why do you think your fellow citizens are gullible and completely susceptible to marketing? Do most people not really understand that junk food is bad for them? I certainly know what’s not good for me. It’s not marketing that makes me drink it. It’s my freedom to choose between my own health and pleasure. I don’t want to live forever if it means a lifetime of self-denial… and I’m not asking anyone else to pay for that choice, though there are plenty that insist on paying for it regardless of my wishes, and then deciding that in the same breath they can then tell me my health is their business, because they are paying for it. Screw that, I never asked them to.

          But I sure would like to change the environment that corporate America has created that makes you think soda is as american as apple pie. I want freedom, my friend. But our youth in particular and much of our population in general are deprived of their freedom of choice by a slow and subtle brainwashing that makes soda so culturally acceptable and normal.

          I don’t think so lowly of my fellow citizen as to think they have been brainwashed. Soda tastes good. People drink it for that reason. It’s not good for them. I think most of them know that. They are weighing risk vs. benefit. As adults they are free to do that. As parents, they are free to do that. They are not brainwashed. That’s a lot of elitist thinking you have going there to presume that.

          Smoking is a decent parallel here, albeit a far worse health risk. Marketing, including product placement in Hollywood, had the use of tobacco at about 50% in the 60s. Do you feel cheated by an overreaching liberal government that tobacco can’t be advertised anymore?

          Yes, because the precedent that created is being used to limit other freedoms, as you are advocating. You’re convincing me more and more that the distinction made between commercial and noncommercial speech is untenable.

          I’m all about freedom, but the corporate voice has outbid the other voices in the country and the general population isn’t evenly educated on their choices.

          No, you’re not about freedom. Freedom is not frowning because other people chose wrong. Freedom is not looking down on your fellow citizen and declaring that because they made the wrong choice (in your eyes) they are victims of some unseen, unfeeling “corporate” force. Freedom is allowing people to make their own choices, and to suffer the benefits and consequences of those choices.

          • Cam says:

            ugh. You still think I give a flying fuck what people choose? I fully support people doing whatever they want. I do whatever I want and I want you to as well. I’m not judging anyone here. But the effects of generations of product placement and advertising change our frame of reference for what’s normal. Not everyone is as aware as you think. I talk with people everyday that don’t know the effects of their choices. A lot of people think diet soda is a much healthier alternative to regular soda. Plenty of people know whats what. But plenty don’t. Its ok to make choices we aren’t experts on. That’s the freedom you and I can agree on. But why is it ok for the richest ‘people’ (corporations) to feed us subtle lies (for generations, I’m not talking about just us) that effect our decisions? Can we as a government and a society not hold misleading advertising accountable? Lets talk about corn growth in the US next. The government subsidizes… oh forget it. I’ll need a few rum and cokes now.

            • Sebastian says:

              And what in your expert opinion makes diet soda so unhealthy? And how did you escape this brainwashing? And why s everyone else so gullible, except you, of course.

            • NUGUN says:

              So let’s be brutally honest. Government subsidizes corn syrup (corn, wheat & soy in general). So 90% of what you can buy is derived from what? Corn, wheat & soy – heck even your beef is nothing more than processed corn.

              Little research is done with regards to chemicals and products. FDA is an arm of big agr/chem. So now we’re finding out there are issues with corn syrup, soy proteins & carbs in general.

              But these products are artificially deflated (ie: cheap). So what happens? .gov makes more regulations to compensate for prior regulations which were compensating for government actions. It becomes a chain of control.

              Guess what. All those with diabetes dying early help keep the Social Security fund balanced too.

              Healthcare was implemented because of government regulations which makes everything have to be FDA approved. Seriously, how much is an MRI unit? It’s 50 year old technology. Yes a DVD player was $5,000 when it first came out. Now they’re $25. But not so in the healthcare world. Due to those regulations, costs went up. People needed supplemental insurance to cover the costs. Now we’re not paying directly, so the costs move higher from what is an acceptable payment. All due to .gov

              Solution [proposed] more government regulation.

              • Sebastian says:

                I have experience working in the industry that the FDA regulates. As regulators go, FDA does a pretty good job. They base their regulations and edicts largely on science. The reason the FDA does not come out in agreement with many of the claims out there, in regards to many of the things people believe about vaccines, etc, what have you, is that there’s no scientific basis for them.

                As for the agricultural subsidies, that’s USDA policy, not FDA. And I agree we should end those and let the free market decided on what sweeteners and feeds are economical.

                MRIs are expensive because of how the magnetic field is generated. You have to keep a superconducting magnetic coil cooled with liquid helium. Wrapping around the liquid helium is an even bigger jacket of liquid nitrogen, to keep the liquid helium cool. You have to keep this going 24/7, or else the magnetic field collapses. If it collapses, very bad things can happen if the shutdown isn’t handled properly. Then there’s also the overhead to keep all the systems redundant enough that there’s not much risk of a power outages causing problems for the magnet.

                • A Critic says:

                  They base their regulations and edicts largely on science.

                  The Food and Drug Administration does that? Really? I suppose if you count junk science as science you are right.

                  • Sebastian says:

                    Please don’t insult my intelligence Mr. Critic. Unless you work in an industry they regulate, and can elaborate on what they are doing specifically that’s junk science, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    There are certainly very valid criticisms of how the FDA weighs risk, but the basic process by which drugs are regulated is based on science.

                    • A Critic says:

                      Please don’t insult my intelligence Mr. Critic. Unless you work in an industry they regulate, and can elaborate on what they are doing specifically that’s junk science, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                      There are certainly very valid criticisms of how the FDA weighs risk, but the basic process by which drugs are regulated is based on science.

                      1) “Unless you work in an industry they regulate” – fallacy of authority. One doesn’t have to be an authority to point out systemic major errors by alleged authorities.

                      2) The basic process by which drugs are regulated is politics. That’s why it’s so convoluted, arbitrary, and often bizarre.

                      3) The history of the FDA is not a history of science, scruples, high standards, or good causes.

                      Believing that the FDA is a food and drug safety organization is like believing that the TSA is a transportation security organization – it’s the willful disregard for the blatantly obvious political purpose and functions of political agencies.

                    • Sebastian says:

                      I think you misunderstand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is. Appeal to authority is when “one uses a claim from an person not qualified to comment on the area.”

                      As someone who works in the industry that is regulated by the FDA, I am not using an appeal to authority. I am telling you have direct experience with how the regulatory process works. I won’t say everything the FDA does in regards to regulating pharmaceuticals is based on science, but for the most part, the overall regulatory process is science based. It is designed to make sure when you claim a drug is safe and effective, that you have done scientifically sound studies to show both those things as true.

                      Not all government agencies are equal. The EPA, for instance, hardly bases a damned thing off science. I’ll absolutely agree the TSA is a monstrosity. And there are numerous bad things I could say about the FDA as well. But whether you agree, overall, with the FDA’s mission or not, when it comes to how they regulate safety and efficacy, they do a decent job from the point of view of science. The problem with the FDA these days is they have been entirely too risk averse, and are demanding safety profiles of drugs that are unrealistic. The sort of joke in the industry today is that if you submitted Tylenol or Aspirin for a new drug application, the FDA would deny it. Tylenol because its liver damaging dose is very close to the therapeutic dose, and Aspirin because it promotes bleeding in the GI tract.

                      Both Tylenol and Aspirin was what is called GRAS (generally regarded as safe) because they were in long term use by the time the FDA implemented the clinical trial regulations.

                    • A Critic says:

                      But whether you agree, overall, with the FDA’s mission or not, when it comes to how they regulate safety and efficacy, they do a decent job from the point of view of science.

                      Many dangerous and ineffective drugs are sold with FDA approval, many safe and effective drugs are not sold because the FDA won’t approve them. How is failing desperately doing a “decent job”?

                      I have yet to find a regulatory agency that is competent. The FDA is no exception.

                      Do you think it might be possible that your view of the FDA is biased as your income and professional ego did/does depend on the FDA and the pretense that it serves a legitimate useful purpose?

                      And how do your claims jibe with the fact that even the FDA says it sucks?

                      http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_FDA%20Report%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf

                      Major Findings
                      The Subcommittee found substantial weaknesses across the Agency,
                      with the possible exception of some drug and medical device review
                      functions funded by industry user fees. There are several areas of
                      greatest concern, however, which form the basis for this report’s most
                      significant findings.

                      1.2.1
                      The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its
                      scientific base has eroded and its scientific
                      organizational structure is weak.

                      The nation’s food supply is at risk.

                      FDA’s inability to keep up with scientific advances means that
                      American lives are at risk.

                      1.2.2
                      The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its
                      scientific workforce does not have sufficient
                      capacity and capability.

                      This is only an excerpt. The FDA’s IT also sucks according to this report. The FDA is scientifically incompetent even according to the FDA.

                    • Sebastian says:

                      Well, most of the big pharma IT departments suck too. I wouldn’t have a job if they didn’t.

                      That report makes some true observations, but it doesn’t say what you think it does. For the traditional drug development process that’s been in place for 40 some years now, the FDA generally has reasonable scientific expertise.

                      What this report is saying is that new therapies are springing up faster than FDA can develop expertise for them, because their staff largely revolves around traditional drug development.

                      At least from the pharma point of view. There are other deficiencies mention in FDA’s other missions, but I have no direct expertise with those.

                      From a Libertarian point of view, you could probably replace the FDA with some kind of private certification. But they actually do pretty well for a regulator in the realm of traditional drug development. A big issue today is they have gotten way too risk averse, and that’s preventing drugs from hitting the market.

                    • A Critic says:

                      That report makes some true observations, but it doesn’t say what you think it does.

                      How do you know what I think? I think it’s a very understated politically correct critique that is limited in scope and depth. A thorough critique would be easily 600-800 pages.

                      For the traditional drug development process that’s been in place for 40 some years now, the FDA generally has reasonable scientific expertise.

                      I disagree strongly with that based on what I’ve read of the history of the FDA and it’s regulation of drugs in this country. I’ve always found the FDA to be a sick joke of an agency. YMMV.

                      From a Libertarian point of view, you could probably replace the FDA with some kind of private certification.

                      I favor competing private certifications. It makes a lot more sense.

                      But they actually do pretty well for a regulator in the realm of traditional drug development. A big issue today is they have gotten way too risk averse, and that’s preventing drugs from hitting the market.

                      Your “doing pretty well” is my “desperately failing”. I’m a very critical person and your acceptable is my reject. “Better than the TSA” is not a standard I can endorse.

                      And if the FDA is too risk averse, why are there all of these new drugs of dubious benefits and certain serious side effects?

                    • Sebastian says:

                      And if the FDA is too risk averse, why are there all of these new drugs of dubious benefits and certain serious side effects?

                      All the easy targets have drugs that target them. What’s left are hard targets. Drugs today are subject to far more rigorous requirements in terms of side effects than years ago. That’s one of the problems with the FDA, is that they are demanding side-effect profiles so clean that it’s virtually impossible to meet the required standard, so a lot of potentially beneficial drugs either don’t get approved, or drug companies don’t want to risk taking them forward, because the FDA has gotten ridiculous about this.

        • Brad says:

          By gum you are right.

          The corporate brain washing has gone too far. For example you really don’t need all your money, it’s just a tool the corporations use to numb you into a mindless zombie consumer.

          Fortunately I’m here to help. Just send me a message and we can start the process of transferring your excess money to me. Can’t you just feel the corporate chains dropping off you already? Ah, Freedom!

          You’re welcome.

      • Sam C says:

        Not sure “fascist” is the right word. This has nothing to do with nationalism. “Totalitarian” definitely applies, though.

        • SDN says:

          Fascism is simply another economic system, like Communism. Nationalism is completely compatible with Communism; look up the Soviet concept of the Rodina.

          The only difference between Fascism and Communism is that under Communism the state openly owns everything; under Fascism there’s a veneer of private ownership while the state actually runs everything.

      • harp1034 says:

        Well said.

    • Sebastian says:

      And I would note that, as a follow up, there is no comparison between cigarettes, smoked in public places, and drinking soft drinks. Cigarette smoke smells awful. Second hand smoke from someone else is at least plausibly damaging to your own health. There are at least some externalities that could justify government regulation (and even given that, I still don’t support nanny public smoking bans).

      On the contrary, soft drink consumption does not affect you. It is no diminishment to you that someone in front if you is gulping down a 20oz Mountain Dew. None whatsoever. The proper response to your disapproval is to encourage you to get over yourself, and stop trying to use government to enforce your preferences on everyone else like you’re some kind of American royalty. We fought a revolution to get rid of the likes of you.

      • Cam says:

        re: 1st paragraph: I agree, but I’m not talking about a specific comparison. I’m talking about regulation of shoving stuff down our throats and how we can change that with simple, non-freedom depriving laws.

        2nd paragraph: I don’t care what people choose to do, harmful or not. How does drinking soda at the current rate effect me (the US)? It taxes the healthcare system, it taxes government programs that help our neediest citizens. Working in health care, I see effects of obesity and dental disease everyday and while we all should have the right to choose such outcomes, we as a society have been subtly told and utterly convinced that drinking soda when you’re thirsty is normal. This silly law we’re arguing about doesn’t keep anyone from drinking 64 oz of soda, but it does make it seem less ‘normal’ which could be a good start, but even if that’s too much for you to embrace, it raises some questions about what we’re doing as a society that are not self perpetuating.

        We didn’t fight the Revolution to get rid of royalty, we needed economic and religious freedom. Do you reject learning and education? Can we not learn from our mistakes and guide the growth of our country in a healthy direction through medical and scientific research? Do you prefer we elect paid-off simpletons to our government offices or free-thinkers who want to avoid the collapse that ALL empires in the history of man have experienced?

        • Publius says:

          You are clearly very, very confused. In particular, you are very confused about what freedom actually means.

          How can a law telling some person or group they can’t do something, particularly something that only affects themselves, be anything but “freedom-depriving?”

          How does someone “tax the healthcare system” if he pays for his own treatments? What if that person would have come down with diabetes anyway, soda or no soda, due to genetic factors? Shouldn’t he be allowed to enjoy himself until then?

          What about the people who, in the face of these kinds of regulations, can’t help but do the opposite just to piss off people like you? I, for one, started smoking largely because I was deeply annoyed and offended by the anti-tobacco propaganda that started to crop up in the late ’90s when I was a teenager.

          Who died and left you in charge, anyway?

        • Divemedic says:

          The best part of this is even your starting premise is wrong.
          Eating foods does not cause diabetes. The evidence is mounting that DM2 is actually a genetic defect.

          • Zermoid says:

            There is also alot of evidence that the Govt mandated food guidelines (the pyramid) have ALOT to do with both diabetes AND the level of overweight Americans. In fact many diabetics have been able to control their sugar and get off the meds by adopting a carnivore, or ‘caveman’ diet. The overloading on carbs in the modern diet is in my opinion more of a hazard than smoking, yet it is both pushed and subsidized by our wonderful “I know better than you” govt.

            And honestly I don’t believe smoking is all that bad for you either, in fact there are health BENEFITS of smoking. But they never tell you that because it doesn’t fit the nanny state agenda.

            • Cam says:

              Wow. First, congratulations for quitting. Don’t think for a second that there is a benefit to smoking, besides looking cool when idle. The chemicals are extremely toxic and the effects are dramatic across the spectrum of the population in general. Going through medical school you learn about each organ individually, its histology and all possible afflictions that can occur and smoking is specifically listed as a major contributor to every bodily affliction there is. It doesn’t effect all systems and organs the same, but it increases your chance of having a problem in every organ by 10 – 60%. Plenty of people smoke their whole lives with only gum disease to show for it, but an overwhelming majority of people develop problems like emphysema, hypertention, heart problems, stroke, etc.
              (ok, there are some unique benefits that have turned up in studies: reduced likelihood of knee replacement, parkinsons, and obesity, as well as having more success with certain post-heart attack treatment like angioplasty – not reasons to smoke, though)

    • Jeff Dege says:

      For you to choose not to drink sodas is perfectly acceptable. It’s your choice and your life.

      For you to disapprove of others who drink sodas is also perfectly acceptable. You are free to hold your own opinions.

      For you to advocate against the drinking of sodas, to try to convince others that drinking sodas is self-destructive, is fine. You have the right to freedom of speach and of expression.

      For you to sneak up behind a vending machine service person, and to assault him in order to prevent him from refilling a soda machine, is anything but fine. It’s an act of criminal violence on that individual and upon society as a whole.

      For the government pass laws forbidding the sales of sodas is just as morally wrong as it would be for you to attack someone who is selling sodas as an individual. What is immoral does not magically become moral simply because the government does it.

      For you to advocate that the government pass laws forbidding the sales of sodas is at least as morally reprehensible as for you to attack soda salesmen individually. It is an attack upon the foundations of a free society on a much larger and more dangerous level.

      You are, sir, a thug and a tyrant.

    • Alpheus says:

      To the extent that you think this will create a “public dialogue” about the effects of sugary drinks on our health, you are wrong, for two reasons: First, we are pummelled daily with messages about this. My children watch a stupid, self-contradictory, misguided show featuring one “Professor Fuzzy” with an enemy “Fast Food Freddy” on the internet, that’s just *one* example of how we’re always getting this message. Second, this has created a “public dialogue”, and an important one, but it’s been more about regulation than about food. Which is a good thing!

      How far are we going to go with regulations like these. Bloomberg, in addition to being a “Gun Nazi”, has proven himself to be a “Fat Nazi” and a “Salt Nazi”. Now he’s going after sugary drinks? Why doesn’t he just leave people alone? People are so fed up with this, the Democrat Speaker of one of the Houses of the New York Legislative Branch has come out with a proposal to pre-emp such laws on a State level!

      Do we really expect to improve health with such silly regulations? Yes, it would seem so, but how many regulations have been made against certain types of food, because of some studies, only to discover that (1) their replacements are worse, and (2) the original food isn’t nearly as bad as thought? In which case, these regulations ultimately hurt us, rather than help us.

      Way to go, Nanny State! And I welcome the dialogue that will hopefully reduce it.

    • Gerald says:

      “You are guaranteed tooth decay almost yearly.”

      I’ve drank sugary drinks and soda all of my life. While I will admit I can lose about 20-30 pounds, i’ve never had any tooth decay. In fact, my dentist marvels at the fact that in the 30 years he’s been my dentist, he’s never had to do anything other than come in the room and look over my x-rays twice a year.

      • dentist says:

        Careful with that one. Lots of smokers never get cancer, too. The point I think he was making is that 99% of people who drink acidic drinks get regular tooth decay. It depends on how they are drank, including time of day, how long it takes to drink them, as well as genetic factors and hygiene. 99% of people who get cavities can pretty much chalk it up to acidic drinks (sometimes foods/snacks). Whether its sipping on coffee/tea, adding lemon to your water, drinking crystal light, diet drinks and the like…its all very acidic and creates the environment that tooth decay starts. Count yourself lucky, but don’t parade it like you’re disputing scientific fact, sir. You’re doing everyone who doesn’t know better a minor disservice.

  12. Wolfman says:

    I, for one, believe in the basic human right to terminal stupid. Look, when things you do start to actively impede others in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, we can talk. That DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOU WIN THE DISCUSSION. But we can talk. Other than that, stop telling me what’s good or bad for me. You=not the boss of me. STFU. Why? Because f%$# you, that’s why.

    Go back under your bridge, Cam. You can’t measure up to these billygoats.

  13. GayCynic says:

    MYOB is a good rule of thumb. If you want to smoke yourself silly, dive into a bottle, or go swimming in a Olympic grade pool full of diet coke – HAVE AT IT.

    It is not our job to dictate what other folks put into their bodies. Nor is it the job of government or much of anyone else.

    Morality aside, prohibition is made of suck and fail – which is why the current version is called the “War on (Some) Drugs”. All Prohibition creates is a violent black market in the commodity du jour, whether we’re talking version 1.0, 2.0, or 11.4.

    You cannot save folks from themselves nor should you try. The effort will create the aforementioned black market, your victims will resent the hell out of you and they’ll bloody well ask for help when and if they are ready to accept it. And it won’t do a damn bit of good to offer it to them (or try and cram it down their throats) before then.

    MYOB. Google is your friend. And even as an asthmatic and decidedly non-smoker, abolish the silly bans that treat adults as children and sabotage the whole notion of self-governance. Those that can’t, won’t, and will shortly self-resolve.

    • Zermoid says:

      Right on the mark!

      Most people can’t be made to quit anything, you have to decide for yourself.

      A good example is quitting smoking, I did a couple years ago after having smoked for over 20 years. All these people who whine about not being able to quit are full of crap. The real problem is not that they cannot quit, but that they don’t want to. “Trying” to quit because of people hounding you to is not the same as deciding for yourself that you want to quit. I decided and I quit, because I wanted to, not because someone told me i had to.

  14. The Duck says:

    Smaller straws are the answer, that way they would burn more calories, while consuming

  15. Patrick says:

    I’m all for small government, but not when it gets small enough to fit into my life and tell me what do do every moment of it.

    I have lots of people telling me three Diet Coke’s a day is bad for me, but I don’t need them using the force of government to stop me from doing so. I don’t rationalize this by saying, “but I work out regularly.”

    I know that drinking this stuff is not that good for me, but I’ll keep doing it because I have somehow gotten into the habit of drinking soda while working certain tasks. It wasn’t advertising, it was pure personal behavior.

    There is nothing worse than someone forcing me to do something, “for my own good.” Bugger off and just say you are exercising power for the sake of it, but don’t pretend to be nice about it. If you trend fascist, might as well go all-out and ban all speech (advertising is speech) that you don’t like. And religions (Eff them Scientologists, anyway), political parties (Wookies Suck!) and personal perversions (WTF is a ‘furry’ anyway…wait, don’t want to find out, especially if it involves wookies).

    The funny thing about fascists is that you cannot have a democracy of them. The whole concept of, “my idea rules all others” gets in the way of a simple fact: all humans eventually disagree. So that means eventually only one human gets to make the rules. All other ideas and humans are…disposable.

    This is where the, “because we care and this is good for you” line is bullshit. Maybe you think you’re doing a good thing, but the simple truth is eventually – once all the things most people agree are “Bad” have been eradicated – we get down to arguing over which of the things left over are “More Bad” than the others. Then we start arguing over those, and the only way fascism survives is to keep ordering people around. So the arguments require someone to win, because fascism does not allow individual choice and action. Being on the losing end of those fights is expensive. Very expensive.

    So go join Bloomberg’s army and see how it goes when he gets around to banning your things. Don’t think you’ll be co-equal in his world: only one man sits at the top and – pro-tip for you – it won’t be you.

    Another pro-tip: don’t anyone Google “Wookie” and “Furry” at the same time. The results are disastrous.

    • Cam says:

      Not that this proposed law is all that defendable, but its not taking your freedom to drink soda away. Its not even close, and its not a slippery slope that could ever lead to that. We can all drink soda as much as we do now if the law were to pass. We can drink our habitual sodas when doing tasks. It is, however, an interesting attempt to reduce the SuperSize it mentality in this country. Parenting alone won’t keep our kids from sipping on a gargantuan soda at the movies. Who even finishes a big gulp sized drink anyway? Its mostly ice and it gets all watery and gross before its done.

      I think the fear of being even a little regulated has brought about a strong response against this law’s idea, which is fine. I don’t want to be overregulated, either. But take it for what it is, a tweak in how this drink is presented to the population. Not a ban, or even a restriction (you can still drink as much as you like).

  16. SomeGuy says:

    First they came for…

    And they just keep coming.

    You either stop ‘them’ from coming AT ALL, or else you have no leg to stand on when ‘they’ decide to dictate YOUR behavior, as they inevitably will.

  17. Alpheus says:

    I think it’s a little ironic that, a day or two after I made a comment about how gun-banners tend to be anti-freedom, and gun-rights people pro-freedom (and thus, a good “single issue” to vote on), Bloomberg comes out with this.

    He’s not satisfied with taking our guns away. He wants to regulate how we drink, too! (Don’t think, for a second, he’s “only” for limiting the amount we drink. He’s going to complain about refills next, and then demand that this stuff is going to be banned altogether. It’s not even a “good first step”, because he’s been regulating fat and salt as well.)

    And it is with supreme irony that diet sodas are left unregulated. A study or two has shown that diet sodas actually increase our craving for sugar, without satisfying it…hence, leading us to eat and drink more! Human health is a very complicated thing; we shouldn’t be banning or promoting things, just because we think we know what we’re doing, because we simply don’t know what we’re doing!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Nanny Statism, Again | hogewash - [...] Against Illegal Guns. MAIG works to suppress Second Amendment rights. Exurban Kevin comments at Shall Not Be Questioned: MAIS …
  2. Bloomberg Backing National Donut Day. I Kid You Not. | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] in the day, I left a comment over at Tam’s place, in regards to King Bloomberg’s latest anti-soda proclamation, …
  3. Yeah, Every Once in a While | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] put aside my fairly amiable, detached nature, and just let someone have it who deserves it. Sometimes, I think …
  4. Sebastian Works Out to Good Effect | Daily Pundit - [...] Every Once in a While | Shall Not Be Questioned I put aside my fairly amiable, detached nature, and …
top