Big Bloomberg

[Travis]

It is? Aren't both an encroachment on absolute freedom?

The existence of one set of regulations does not justify others. Each regulation should be able to stand on its own merits.

You're to stupid to control your own caloric intake.

I think his real concern is childhood obesity.

I really don't like the spirit of this regulation but maybe if it only applied to kids and didn't have ridiculous exceptions for things like fruit teas it would be somewhat more palatable.

 

[Cain]

You're to stupid to control your own caloric intake.

Too. "You're too stupid..."

-----
I'm not sure what's crazier, the fact people want to drink Mr. Pibb from a "cup" the size of a small trash can or the people who want to stop them.

I say people need only make informed choices. Through education they should know soda is not good for them. Maybe force outlets to rename 64 oz options "the fat tub of ****." That phrase must be use in every sale.
Customer: Give me, uh, (breathes hard), the biggest size you have.
Register engineer: So you want the fat tub of ******
Customer: Yes.
Register engineer: And what would you like in your fat tub of ******
Customer: Diet Coke.

 

[Donal]

Snapple doesn't come in quart-sized containers with free refills, so it wouldn't be affected any more than vending machines.

Typical bottle of soda from a vending machine is 20oz. Illegal under Bloomberg's plan.

The same sized bottle of his business partners' drink, which has the exclusivity deal, is 20oz and has the same amount of sugar. Totally legal.

And don't give me this "think of the children" crap. Bloomberg has no problem tearing down public parks so millionaire baseball players can have billion dollar stadiums (that are not returning the revenue) or using public schools as political battle grounds.


this is more "look at me I'm doing something" government in the same vein as CISPA, SOPA, and those stupid TSA airport pat downs.

 

[applecorped]

Too. "You're too stupid..."

-----
I'm not sure what's crazier, the fact people want to drink Mr. Pibb from a "cup" the size of a small trash can or the people who want to stop them.

I say people need only make informed choices. Through education they should know soda is not good for them. Maybe force outlets to rename 64 oz options "the fat tub of ****." That phrase must be use in every sale.
Customer: Give me, uh, (breathes hard), the biggest size you have.
Register engineer: So you want the fat tub of ******
Customer: Yes.
Register engineer: And what would you like in your fat tub of ******
Customer: Diet Coke.

Yay passive eugenics!!!!

 

[Cleon]

Typical bottle of soda from a vending machine is 20oz. Illegal under Bloomberg's plan.

Actually, no. Vending machines, convenience stores, etc. specifically aren't affected. Apparently the arbitrariness of it has to do with what's regulated by the health department:

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

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.

So you can still have your bottomless Pepsi, you just have to get it refilled more often.

Here's the thing: This is a stupid idea, but it's really pretty superficial. There's not going to be a huge inconvenience in Doing the Dew as much as your increasingly slow-moving body will allow. (I say this as someone who guzzles soft drinks down as much as my increasingly slow-moving body allows.)

And don't give me this "think of the children" crap.

In my 10+ years on this forum, at no time have I ever posted anything remotely resembling "think of the children." I don't think I've ever advanced a position or policy based on what's good for "the children." Generally, the only time I talk about what's "good for children" is in terms of which slow-cooker to buy.

 

[Beerina]

You're to stupid to control your own caloric intake.

You're too stupid to save money for retirement.

You're too stupid to live frugally and buy good insurance.


Where does it stop?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Should voluntary cannibalism be legal? Should eating endangered species be legal? Because unless you think the answer is yes, you are also in favor of regulating what people eat.

Cannibalism?

Yes. I don't believe there should be a right to access material from hospitals, or to violate other corpse laws, but after someone acquired the material, I don't think consumption should be illegal.

Endangered species?

Yes. That doesn't mean I believe the rate of legal kills for endangered species should be adjusted to cover it. But if someone was able to legally acquire the material in compliance with the endangered species act, it should not be illegal to eat it.

 

[Puppycow]

It is? Aren't both an encroachment on absolute freedom?

I think this is an argument over where to draw the line, not whether there should be a line at all.

Big?

Just because he can order off the childrens menu, it doesn't mean normal adults can.

16 oz. actually seems like a perfectly reasonable size for an adult. At least it used to be. The portions that "normal adults" have come to expect seem to keep growing, and growing. Originally Coke came in 6.5 oz. bottles, then 12 oz. cans. 16 oz. bottles were considered extra large when they first appeared.

Is this really the sort of thing that government should be concerning itself with?

It's a legitimate question. I'm not so sure.

John Stewart's not too keen on the idea:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-31-2012/drink-different

Clearly it's an easy idea to mock. "There goes nanny Bloomberg again, treating adults like children."

Still, just because it's easy to mock the idea doesn't actually mean it's a bad idea.

 

[Puppycow]

You're to stupid to control your own caloric intake.

You're too stupid to save money for retirement.

You're too stupid to live frugally and buy good insurance.

For some, perhaps many values of "you", these statements are all true.

 

[applecorped]

Yay! More cups, more trash, more environmental degradation!!!!!

 

[Puppycow]

Yay! More cups, more trash, more environmental degradation!!!!!

Not necessarily. Depends if people change their habits as a result.

A large cup is of course larger than a small cup and contains more material. The total amount of trash generated may not increase at all, or may decrease even if a few more small cups are used.

 

[Unabogie]

Reductio ad absurdum. You might as well cite pollution laws at that point.

Restricting food based on source, be it endangered or human, is not the same as restricting it based on size and location sold. The justification here is health, which isn't the case with the other two. People opposed to the restriction aren't arguing against any and all restrictions on food.

The existence of one set of regulations does not justify others. Each regulation should be able to stand on its own merits.

But foods are regulated for all kinds of reasons, so when I hear libertarian laments about assaults on freedoms, I don't think it's any kind of logical fallacy to explore the outer bounds of the arguer's notions of freedom.

There are plenty of people, Rand Paul for example, who argue that any regulations of food are evil and the the market would regulate better.

I think it's fair to explore the parameters of the debate, but YMMV.

 

[applecorped]

Not necessarily. Depends if people change their habits as a result.

A large cup is of course larger than a small cup and contains more material. The total amount of trash generated may not increase at all, or may decrease even if a few more small cups are used.

More straws, more lids.

 

[rcfieldz]

Hey Mister...

The existence of one set of regulations does not justify others. Each regulation should be able to stand on its own merits.



I think his real concern is childhood obesity.

I really don't like the spirit of this regulation but maybe if it only applied to kids and didn't have ridiculous exceptions for things like fruit teas it would be somewhat more palatable.

Does this mean some day I can expect to be approached by a juvenile and asked to purchase him a 3 liter bottle of soda pop?

 

[tomwaits]

I'm not sure why people don't just drink diet soda anyway. It tastes pretty good these days, and I even prefer it to the thick syrupy regular stuff.

 

[tyr_13]

But foods are regulated for all kinds of reasons, so when I hear libertarian laments about assaults on freedoms, I don't think it's any kind of logical fallacy to explore the outer bounds of the arguer's notions of freedom.

There are plenty of people, Rand Paul for example, who argue that any regulations of food are evil and the the market would regulate better.

I think it's fair to explore the parameters of the debate, but YMMV.

I suggest starting at the proposed regulation and work outward to what is acceptable rather than starting at the extreme edges and working in. When you start at cannibalism, not only are you going to very far from the proposed change, you're going to come off as making a straw man attack.

Actually for most arguments starting at cannibalism isn't a good idea.

 

[Cleon]

Actually for most arguments starting at cannibalism isn't a good idea.

It's very effective at ending arguments, though.

 

[shemp]

Cannibalism?

Yes. I don't believe there should be a right to access material from hospitals, or to violate other corpse laws, but after someone acquired the material, I don't think consumption should be illegal.

Endangered species?

Yes. That doesn't mean I believe the rate of legal kills for endangered species should be adjusted to cover it. But if someone was able to legally acquire the material in compliance with the endangered species act, it should not be illegal to eat it.

And what, I must ask, is wrong with enjoying a 64 oz. Mountain Dew with my roast leg of human or my deep fried bald eagle?

You know who else regulated soda portion sizes? [cue evil music]

 

[Ausmerican]

And what, I must ask, is wrong with enjoying a 64 oz. Mountain Dew with my roast leg of human or my deep fried bald eagle?

You know who else regulated soda portion sizes? [cue evil music]

Yeah, I heard he was totally against Mountin' Jew.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm not sure why people don't just drink diet soda anyway. It tastes pretty good these days, and I even prefer it to the thick syrupy regular stuff.

Monster!