TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 30, 2012 23:59:52 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 31, 2012 0:16:41 GMT -5
What makes me really annoyed (beyond the whole nanny state stuff), is that they exclude MILK SHAKES and JUICE. Juice is the same as Soda when it comes to Sugar and Calorie. And more juice has no vitamins. And a milk shake at McDonalds (which I love) has more than 4 times the number of calories as a same sized coke (670!! vs 150 for 16 oz), plus 20 grams of fat (though it does have 14 grams of protein).
Its all theater. Its all meant to look like the government is doing something when really they are just wasting money.
People just need to stop shoving food down their gaping maws. Selling a smaller cup size only help marginally (smaller plates have been shown to reduce total calorie intake), but the problem is that people have no self control and they sit on their asses all day shoving food down their faces.
If the government really wants to do something they should cut the farm subsidies all together. (Id say cut taxed by the same amount, but they could also put that money to fund gym in schools which is cut all over the place.) Farm subs. go overwhelmingly to soy and corn. This drives down prices for these things making it cheaper to produce High fructose corn syrup and soy based food fillers and oils. Lower corn prices also reduces the price of feed for cattle, reducing beef prices. So Corn syrup, soy products, and beef. Pretty much fast food right there.
|
|
hoya4ever
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by hoya4ever on May 31, 2012 6:30:54 GMT -5
Is this illegal? I mean, nobody regulates how much meat you can buy... or heck how much fat you can buy.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 31, 2012 8:25:41 GMT -5
Sounds reasonable to me:
“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.”
He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 31, 2012 9:15:13 GMT -5
Government has no business regulating what people can eat or drink except for intoxicating beverages for minors.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 31, 2012 9:28:07 GMT -5
Mayor Bloomberg just doesn't like drinks which are taller than he is...
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 31, 2012 9:37:48 GMT -5
Not that I agree with either side of this, but it's conceputally strange to me for them to say that these proucts that companies are making are dangerous to the public health. Therefore we limit the size of the dangerous products that an individual can buy. But they can buy as many of them as they want (for now).
It's an overreach, and doesn't really solve the problem anyway.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 31, 2012 10:40:56 GMT -5
Government has no business regulating what people can eat or drink except for intoxicating beverages for minors. I agree with this strongly but would add that 18 year olds (and 19 and 20 year olds) are NOT minors and I've never understood for a second how 21 year-old drinking laws were not quickly eviscerated as unconstitutional. Well except that no politicians had the stomach to take on M.A.D.D. At first they came for the 20 year old's six pack...and I did not speak out for I was no longer 20 years-old.... |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 31, 2012 11:11:05 GMT -5
Government has no business regulating what people can eat or drink ...and they aren't doing that with this regulation, they are regulating what can be sold from certain locations. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 31, 2012 11:50:57 GMT -5
Cutting the subsidies needs to happen for a variety of reasons.
Then add information -- a regulation I never understand when people are against.
Then, if you are going to do this, at least tax it as opposed to ban it. Taxing gives you revenue.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on May 31, 2012 12:08:29 GMT -5
The end goal is legitimate but I don't think this approach right. I do think, however, that NYC's move to require calories and nutritional information be posted was wise. And it DOES change behavior (when combined with education, of course). For my day to day lunch choices, I vastly prefer restaurants that provide that information to those that do not.
So I would just say make sure you post "300 calories" next to the $1.99 for the soda or whatever. Far better for all of us to learn to make informed choices on a daily basis rather than be compelled to do so.
I do think, however, that efforts to limit what is available at vending machines in schools -- or at least expand the offerings to include healthy options -- is a good thing.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 31, 2012 12:24:18 GMT -5
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on May 31, 2012 14:23:49 GMT -5
The ban doesn't appear to apply to frappuccinos or other coffeehouse drinks either. It's almost like Bloomie knows whose electoral support he can't afford to lose.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 31, 2012 15:08:06 GMT -5
The ban doesn't appear to apply to frappuccinos or other coffeehouse drinks either. It's almost like Bloomie knows whose electoral support he can't afford to lose. The articles I've read talk about venti this and Starbucks that, so I assume it will apply to coffeehouse drinks. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 31, 2012 16:03:19 GMT -5
I believe it applies to sweetened coffee drinks like frapacinos (which are just milkshakes more or less) but will not if you want a venti coffee...then you can go add as much free sugar at the fixins counter as you like. Make a ton of sense.....I used to like Bloomberg. This is too stupid for words.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 31, 2012 16:29:28 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jun 2, 2012 22:50:18 GMT -5
Is it true that Chris Christie is mandating a 32-oz minimum on all soft drinks sold in NJ?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 3, 2012 2:12:12 GMT -5
This is nothing more that "Anti-obesity Theater" similar to "Security Theater" at airports.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 3, 2012 12:03:11 GMT -5
Government has no business regulating what people can eat or drink except for intoxicating beverages for minors. I agree with this strongly but would add that 18 year olds (and 19 and 20 year olds) are NOT minors and I've never understood for a second how 21 year-old drinking laws were not quickly eviscerated as unconstitutional. Well except that no politicians had the stomach to take on M.A.D.D. At first they came for the 20 year old's six pack...and I did not speak out for I was no longer 20 years-old.... FWIW, this is one of the major reasons that the drinking age became 21 in this country: www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov/families/facts/brain.aspxPlease forgive the incredibly crappy government PSA website; I was too lazy to look for a better link. As for unconstitutionality of the minimum drinking age laws, they're clearly within the police power of individual States. Once again you are confusing your perception of a law as foolish with its constitutionality. For the record, I absolutely agree with SSHoya's post. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jun 4, 2012 12:52:44 GMT -5
I agree with this strongly but would add that 18 year olds (and 19 and 20 year olds) are NOT minors and I've never understood for a second how 21 year-old drinking laws were not quickly eviscerated as unconstitutional. Well except that no politicians had the stomach to take on M.A.D.D. At first they came for the 20 year old's six pack...and I did not speak out for I was no longer 20 years-old.... FWIW, this is one of the major reasons that the drinking age became 21 in this country: www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov/families/facts/brain.aspxPlease forgive the incredibly crappy government PSA website; I was too lazy to look for a better link. As for unconstitutionality of the minimum drinking age laws, they're clearly within the police power of individual States. Once again you are confusing your perception of a law as foolish with its constitutionality. For the record, I absolutely agree with SSHoya's post. You are telling me they raised the drinking age in this country because drinking a lot of alcohol makes you drunk? This stunning revelation aside, I failed to see any information on that site that proved this phenomena only applies to (adult) citizens between the ages of 18 and 20. I believe most states raised their ages because of a federal bill cutting federal highway funds if they did not. Given that 20 year-olds are citizens in this country, I can't imagine how preventing them from doing something you or I can do legally isn't a violation of the equal protection clause. It seems blindingly obvious to me that if the problem is the propensity of the young to binge drink, nothing could have exacerbated the problem worse than making 18-20 year olds gather to drink illegally which is the predictable result (not abstinence) of making it illegal. The age for driving, drinking, voting, enlisting, etc should all be legal adulthood. Maybe that age should be pushed up to 19. But I'm fine with 18. 20 or 21 is absurd as evidenced by the utter lack of civilized countries who don't let their young adults drink legally while they are in college of all places. What a charade. Another one of those areas that Americans need to face up to when they boast about how we are the "freest country in the world." Well sort of....you can enlist in the Marine Corp at 17....4 years before the government trusts you to buy a six pack. But hey...Freedom isn't free. Why not save more lives and move the minimam age up to 22 by the way? I'm not 22...you're not 22. So what's the harm in taking away a couple of million people's right to buy booze? Its only for a year right? And it is the demon grape we're talking about. |
|
