New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

What AlvinWalton said. Concession accepted.

Glad you agree with me here.

The Bloomburg action is pants-on-retarded. Sorry if you don't see that.

Please don't go ballistic like that at the nearest McDonald's when you see them serving soda, saden.

HTTR

Food portions in america are getting out of hand and the issue is no longer about freedom but exercising our collective intelligence to tackle the issue of obesity. One of the tools afforded to the government in tackling issues is the creation of market barriers. Telling people to "just don't eat that stuff" is not working. Asking or telling restaurant to reduce the size of their meals is not unreasonable and if it is well, you can try ask the judicial branch for relief. You understand? You don't have to like it but at least make a reasonable attempt to understand it.



As for going ballistic, I don't sweat the small stuff but if you mess with my family, well, that's entirely a different story.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Food portions in america are getting out of hand and the issue is no longer about freedom but exercising our collective intelligence to tackle the issue of obesity. One of the tools afforded to the government in tackling issues is the creation of market barriers. Telling people to "just don't eat that stuff" is not working. Asking or telling restaurant to reduce the size of their meals is not unreasonable and if it is well, you can try ask the judicial branch for relief. You understand? You don't have to like it but at least make a reasonable attempt to understand it.

How are actions like Bloomberg's going to reduce the amount of soda that fatties drink? When did deciding the size of restaurant servings become a government responsibility? If someone wants a smaller portion, they should order one. Now the judiciary should get involved? I understand a "nanny state" perfectly well.

Originally Posted by saden1

As for going ballistic, I don't sweat the small stuff but if you mess with my family, well, that's entirely a different story.

I really have no idea where you are going with this. Let's keep this friendly, as fellow Redskin fans.
I was just pointing out you were the one railing about McDonald's earlier.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

How are actions like Bloomberg's going to reduce the amount of soda that fatties drink? When did deciding the size of restaurant servings become a government responsibility? If someone wants a smaller portion, they should order one. Now the judiciary should get involved? I understand a "nanny state" perfectly well.

I was just pointing out you were the one railing about McDonald's earlier.

You think this is just about the fatties? This is not just about the fatties, it's about kids and regular Americans. What reducing the size of a drink does is institute a portion and price control over consumers. Let's think this through, what is the cost of a Slurpee at 7-11? A quick Google search yields:

Gulp
16oz.................$1.19
24oz.................$1.49
44oz.................$1.59
64oz.................$1.89
Refills...............$1.09

Notice the price difference between 16oz and 64oz drinks; it's 70 cents. Why is that? You are getting 4 times the amount less than twice the cost. It's not because you are buying more but because it's cheap as **** to make this stuff and they are trying to get you buy more of it. Now if you eliminate all the sizes except 16oz drinks a 64oz drink will all of a sudden cost you $1.19 + $1.09 * 3 = $4.46. Ouch....very pricey. Well, that's not going to happen, I mean this stuff is cheap so free re-fills for everyone. How much Gulp is a typical consumer likely to consume? 32oz at the most (law of diminishing marginal utility). It's highly unlikely that most consumers would hang around and consume more than the initial 16oz plus an additional 16oz free re-fill to take home.




What mayor is trying to really do is prevent people from consuming 64oz is short period of time and potentially taking home a large quantity home afterwards. He is not saying I want to prevent fat fcks like guy below from drinking himself to death but he is saying a) portions are out of control and are harmful to our children and ordinary citizens and b) I want to reduce consumption these unhealthy beverages and reduce our future healthcare cost associated with unhealthy consumption. If you limit the amount of drink that can be sold as Bloomberg did the worse case scenario as far a consumer consuming a gulp at a reasonable price is $2.28 for 260 cal 32oz drink, were as if you left things as they were the worse case scenario at a reasonable price is $2.98 for a 128oz 1040 cal drink.



...propositions


Drinks a Gulp a week:

16oz...............130 cal * 52 = 6,760 calories ($61.88)
32oz re-fill.......2 * 130 cal * 52 = 13,520 calories ($61.88 if free or $118.56 at $1.09)
64oz...............520 cal * 52 = 27,040 calories ($98.28)
128oz re-fill .....2 * 520 cal * 52 = 54,080 calories ($98.28 if free or $154.96 at $1.09)


Drink a Gulp once a day:

16oz..............130 cal * 365 = 47,450 calories ($434.35)
32oz re-fill......2 * 130 cal * 365 = 94,900 calories ($434.35 if free or $832.2 at $1.09)
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)
128oz re-fill.....2 * 520 cal * 365 = 379,600 calories ($689.85 if free or $1087.7 at $1.09)

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

I really have no idea where you are going with this. Let's keep this friendly, as fellow Redskin fans.

I am friendly, I was just stating my position on when violence is deemed necessary is all. The only interenet muscles I flex are the ones used for stroking my keyboard.


Cheers to you too, HTTR.

[Alvin Walton]

Saden you would make a great politician.
You just wasted a feckload of time and tax money on figuring out stuff that takes away peoples libertys.
I'll make my own decisions on food consumption. Its my right as far as I'm concerned and no one elses business.
Take your numbers and big govt practices and cram it.
Now I'm off to have some Samuel Adams Double Creme Stout.

[RedskinRat]

What's to stop people buying 2 X 16oz drinks instead of 1 X 32oz?

This law makes no sense. Let people make dumb choices and die sooner.

Issue everyone a bowl of water, a toaster (plugged in) and a nice metal fork.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Now I'm off to have some Samuel Adams Double Creme Stout.

lol....Just knocked of a couple of the SA Summer Ale at dinner.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

What's to stop people buying 2 X 16oz drinks instead of 1 X 32oz?

This law makes no sense. Let people make dumb choices and die sooner.

Issue everyone a bowl of water, a toaster (plugged in) and a nice metal fork.

Price. It's supposed to be cost prohibitive. When you buy a soda they spend more on the plastic bottles than on the drink.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

You think this is just about the fatties? This is not just about the fatties, it's about kids and regular Americans.

And yet, in your links, you show a video of a fattie and cartoon fatties. And what *I* have said can actually be applied to everyone. But "regular americans" don't have a problem with soda. Thought there is an increase in obesity, including "childhood obesity", so yes fatties are being addressed in this topic.

Originally Posted by saden1

What reducing the size of a drink does is institute a portion and price control over consumers. Let's think this through, what is the cost of a Slurpee at 7-11? A quick Google search yields:

Gulp
16oz.................$1.19
24oz.................$1.49
44oz.................$1.59
64oz.................$1.89
Refills...............$1.09

Notice the price difference between 16oz and 64oz drinks; it's 70 cents. Why is that? You are getting 4 times the amount less than twice the cost. It's not because you are buying more but because it's cheap as **** to make this stuff and they are trying to get you buy more of it. Now if you eliminate all the sizes except 16oz drinks a 64oz drink will all of a sudden cost you $1.19 + $1.09 * 3 = $4.46. Ouch....very pricey. Well, that's not going to happen, I mean this stuff is cheap so free re-fills for everyone. How much Gulp is a typical consumer likely to consume? 32oz at the most (law of diminishing marginal utility). It's highly unlikely that most consumers would hang around and consume more than the initial 16oz plus an additional 16oz free re-fill to take home.

Saden, nearly every consumable especially foodstuffs operate on that basis. Because larger portions on most things are still more profitable even with a discount. For example: the Food Lion closest to me sells a 1lb bag of carrots for 78 cents, and a 2lb bag for 98 cents. (Those evil bastards! They're trying to force people to eat more carrots!!!!!) What's wrong with 7-11 or Food Lion pricing their items as they do?

Originally Posted by saden1

What mayor is trying to really do is prevent people from consuming 64oz is short period of time and potentially taking home a large quantity home afterwards. He is not saying I want to prevent fat fcks like guy below from drinking himself to death but he is saying a) portions are out of control and are harmful to our children and ordinary citizens and b) I want to reduce consumption these unhealthy beverages and reduce our future healthcare cost associated with unhealthy consumption. If you limit the amount of drink that can be sold as Bloomberg did the worse case scenario as far a consumer consuming a gulp at a reasonable price is $2.28 for 260 cal 32oz drink, were as if you left things as they were the worse case scenario at a reasonable price is $2.98 for a 128oz 1040 cal drink.

The mayor has no business determining how much soda people can take home.

in response to a). What determines when a portion is so called "out of control"?

in response to b). What is the direct linkage between soda consumption and healthcare cost? And where is the line to be drawn in "reducing healthcare cost? Why *shouldn't* the line include chocolate be banned, by this same standard? Why *shouldn't* hamburger and bacon banned, by the same reasoning? Nevermind soda lovers can still get two orders, or just pick up a 2 liter to enjoy at home.

Originally Posted by saden1

...propositions


Drinks a Gulp a week:

16oz...............130 cal * 52 = 6,760 calories ($61.88)
32oz re-fill.......2 * 130 cal * 52 = 13,520 calories ($61.88 if free or $118.56 at $1.09)
64oz...............520 cal * 52 = 27,040 calories ($98.28)
128oz re-fill .....2 * 520 cal * 52 = 54,080 calories ($98.28 if free or $154.96 at $1.09)


Drink a Gulp once a day:

16oz..............130 cal * 365 = 47,450 calories ($434.35)
32oz re-fill......2 * 130 cal * 365 = 94,900 calories ($434.35 if free or $832.2 at $1.09)
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)
128oz re-fill.....2 * 520 cal * 365 = 379,600 calories ($689.85 if free or $1087.7 at $1.09)

And spend about 3 bucks on breakfast a morning and your total cost over a year is a staggering $1095. All daily items cost a lot over 365 days.

The problem with your wall of numbers over prices for larger portions, and for calories and price over a year, is that the numbers you cite have nothing to do with a desire to get people hooked, or are expensive or fattening compared to other common things. You seem to cite these numbers as if they are remarkable, when in fact you kinda make a case FOR soda when actually comparing with other things. For example:


Compare your 64 oz Big Gulp to orange juice.

One 64 oz Big Gulp
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)

One 64 oz. "My Essentials Orange Juice" (link to calories) ..link to price of oj nearby, scroll down
64oz..............960 cal * 365 = 350,400 calories ($799.35)

So what's the message in your previous post? That everybody sells bigger portions cheaper per oz/lb than smaller portions? That sodas are healthier and cheaper than some orange juice products?

There's little logic behind banning anything because of the numbers you cited. Just like there's little logic behind Bloomberg's action, as discussed this thread.

Cheers!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

And yet, in your links, you show a video of a fattie and cartoon fatties. And what *I* have said can actually be applied to everyone. But "regular americans" don't have a problem with soda. Thought there is an increase in obesity, including "childhood obesity", so yes fatties are being addressed in this topic.

Saden, nearly every consumable especially foodstuffs operate on that basis. Because larger portions on most things are still more profitable even with a discount. For example: the Food Lion closest to me sells a 1lb bag of carrots for 78 cents, and a 2lb bag for 98 cents. (Those evil bastards! They're trying to force people to eat more carrots!!!!!) What's wrong with 7-11 or Food Lion pricing their items as they do?

The mayor has no business determining how much soda people can take home.

in response to a). What determines when a portion is so called "out of control"?

in response to b). What is the direct linkage between soda consumption and healthcare cost? And where is the line to be drawn in "reducing healthcare cost? Why *shouldn't* the line include chocolate be banned, by this same standard? Why *shouldn't* hamburger and bacon banned, by the same reasoning? Nevermind soda lovers can still get two orders, or just pick up a 2 liter to enjoy at home.



And spend about 3 bucks on breakfast a morning and your total cost over a year is a staggering $1095. All daily items cost a lot over 365 days.

The problem with your wall of numbers over prices for larger portions, and for calories and price over a year, is that the numbers you cite have nothing to do with a desire to get people hooked, or are expensive or fattening compared to other common things. You seem to cite these numbers as if they are remarkable, when in fact you kinda make a case FOR soda when actually comparing with other things. For example:


Compare your 64 oz Big Gulp to orange juice.

One 64 oz Big Gulp
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)

One 64 oz. "My Essentials Orange Juice" (link to calories) ..link to price of oj nearby, scroll down
64oz..............960 cal * 365 = 350,400 calories ($799.35)

So what's the message in your previous post? That everybody sells bigger portions cheaper per oz/lb than smaller portions? That sodas are healthier and cheaper than some orange juice products?

There's little logic behind banning anything because of the numbers you cited. Just like there's little logic behind Bloomberg's action, as discussed this thread.

Cheers!

Because ounce for ounce it has less calories than orange juice it's healthier for you? You may or may not know this but you sir are an idiot of first order.


...I tried to peel the onion but it seems to have countless layers of stupidity.

[firstdown]

So the other day I see this fat ass getting out of her car which was parked in a Handicap parking spot because I'm guessing she was fat. Shouldn't we have special Fat Ass Handicap parking in the back of the parking lot instead of right by the door?

Saden the reason for the small gap in the pricing of the 16 oz v/s 64 oz is that most of the cost is the cup not the drink. I guess they also need to only allow stores to sell single beers and no 6 or 12 packs.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Because ounce for ounce it has less calories than orange juice it's healthier for you? You may or may not know this but you sir are an idiot of first order.


...I tried to peel the onion but it seems to have countless layers of stupidity.

Way to miss or refuse to admit my point.

The layers of stupidity in this thread have been your and bloomberg's arguments trying to justify a stupid and pretty useless government and nanny state intrusion. By trying to make soda and soda pricing out to be a big EVIL. When your figures and the facts prove its mainly fearmongering to push this stupid proposal. I'm really amazed you don't see that by now.

[CRedskinsRule]

I guess my question is: most days, I will grab a 20 oz coke from Royal farms, or a liter depending on the day. The 2 Liter which is usually cheaper doesn't enter my mind because I'm not going to drink it. So should they now limit the sizes Coca Cola can sell directly? Why is it ok for a soft drink distributor to sell larger sizes, but not a fast food restaurant? Don't most people get a second, or 3rd refill at the free ones, why should it matter to the government if I choose to actually pay for the larger sizes.

Right now, McD's is selling all the soda sizes for one dollar, how does that fit into the equation?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I guess my question is: most days, I will grab a 20 oz coke from Royal farms, or a liter depending on the day. The 2 Liter which is usually cheaper doesn't enter my mind because I'm not going to drink it. So should they now limit the sizes Coca Cola can sell directly? Why is it ok for a soft drink distributor to sell larger sizes, but not a fast food restaurant? Don't most people get a second, or 3rd refill at the free ones, why should it matter to the government if I choose to actually pay for the larger sizes.

Right now, McD's is selling all the soda sizes for one dollar, how does that fit into the equation?

This law covers fountain soda...people buy fountains drinks out of convenience...we now restrict the consumption of soda at schools but kids can still bring their own soda.

These laws are designed to restrict your freedom all together but certain choices that are typically made on the whim. If we restrict the purchase of tobacco and alcohol because they are considered harmful it stands to reason you can restrict the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup (corn sugar?), which is quite unhealthy according to many.

Remember, you are still free to do as you fcking please in your quest to live an unhealthy, just don't get mad when the gov puts road blocks in your way.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

This law covers fountain soda...people buy fountains drinks out of convenience...we now restrict the consumption of soda at schools but kids can still bring their own soda.

These laws are designed to restrict your freedom all together but certain choices that are typically made on the whim. If we restrict the purchase of tobacco and alcohol because they are considered harmful it stands to reason you can restrict the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup (corn sugar?), which is quite unhealthy according to many.

Remember, you are still free to do as you fcking please in your quest to live an unhealthy, just don't get mad when the gov puts road blocks in your way.

If it was up to me I'd ban computers and all these electronic games that kids sit around and play all day. That's the reason they are fat and we could also eliminate the violence they are subjet to playing these games.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If it was up to me I'd ban computers and all these electronic games that kids sit around and play all day. That's the reason they are fat and we could also eliminate the violence they are subjet to playing these games.

We have parental control feature for this very reason. You can control what you do in your home, you can't control things outside of your home because it's for the community by the community and you are merely one member of the community.

You are free to regulate your kids in your domain and the government is free to regulate you in the communal domain. If you don't like that, take it up with the founders and your representatives.