[sontaikle]

You know, the more I read everyone's replies, the more I wonder if a tax on soda—that they tried a couple years back—would be more beneficial than saying "no 32oz soda for you!" People will still moan and whine, but maybe that tax money could fund education programs that teach nutrition.

Take away the tax on smaller portions to encourage people to drink less soda, but leave it on the larger portions to discourage drinking them (but the choice is still there).

Originally Posted by Emama

Does NYC have the law that chain restaurants need to show the amount of calories in the servings (like California)?
I think this is a worthwhile step. It allows everyone to choose for themselves,but educates at the same time.

Yes, I think they were one of the first that did that. Now I believe it's a statewide thing. Restaurants out on Long Island have the calorie counts too.

It's still not ideal. The counts sometimes don't include sides or the default option on the menu (i.e. the calorie count for a sandwich might not include the cheese that comes default) so you still have to trek online to get an accurate idea of what you're eating (and even then it can be off) but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by kurisitaru

No one needs to... but it's a free country, or at least that's what they claim. People know when they get a soda it isn't good for them, but they know that when they get cigarettes, alcohol, Twinkies, etc...

I hate to say it, but if the government wants to dictate what I can and can't put in my body, it's an issue. Aren't there more important things for these people to think about? I don't know... the decade long war that is bankrupting the nation, the pell grants that are slowly dissipating for higher education, the fact that teen pregnancies are a little too high because some people don't like the idea of teaching about preventative contraceptives and instead think that preaching abstinence is the only way to go (Which TOTALLY works for Texas... *sarcasm*) Then again.. this is the Mayor. He's not really sucked into the Big issues. How else can he get a little face time on TV with all the real fat cats?

I'm sorry, educate us if you need. Run funny adds or some other BS. But to dictate what I can and can not do with food... is a little... I don't know... NOT American.

If it really causes issues, what ever... tax it and come up with some lame reason of "preventative health care" measures or something lame like that. But don't ban it.

The fact that they are even thinking of doing so actually makes me angry. I'm all for making sugary drinks taxed rather than a grocery item, but to ban a certain amount, that's pushing it.

Don't even get me started on financial aid, I didn't get some aid I was counting on in grad school because of budget cuts in NY (thanks politicians). It wouldn't have made a huge difference, but it probably would have meant I could have worked less and concentrated on my studies more (working full time whilst going to grad school with more than full time credits was certainly a doozy!)

I'd have to agree that there are more pressing issues for the government to worry about. I can see why they're doing this but it is just misguided. Like you said it might be more effective to tax it...and that would cost less too!

[4star]

Originally Posted by novangel

I hope you mean in general "you" because *I* personally am not judging anyone.

McDonalds did away with Super Size and I don't see getting rid of 32oz soda being any different. I think it's a good thing just like a lot of products getting rid of trans fat several years ago, we don't need it.

I don't buy into slippery slope arguments. Banning 32oz soda isn't going to lead to the govt taking everyone's ice cream away. Different story if they banned soda entirely which will never happen. It will be fine.

It was a general you, not a singling out of you in particular.

When people correlate a 32 oz soda with obesity, they are making a judgement. I really don't see this doing much to help b/c many of the obese people I know don't drink sugary drinks anyway. Ironically, around here it's those people with physical jobs walking around with those large cups and they aren't suffering from any weight issues, just want their big cup to take to their jobsite. It might be different in that city but I think they are missing the mark entirely by not going for an education program instead.

It's not about ice cream priviledges, it's about rights. Now it's a certain size soda. What happens when it's decided something else used freely isn't "necessary"? If a pro-life politician decided birth control isn't necessary, causes too many dangerous complications, and is a huge drain on healthcare, would that be enough of an arguement to take it out of the hands of the people? Many people can think of good reasons to dictate other's choices but it's not within their rights to do so.

[Beach Patrol]

Originally Posted by electrongirl

I don't want the Government telling me what I should eat or drink. That's not their job.

^^THIS!!^^

Plus, these kinds of "laws" are just a waste of taxpayers' money. And THAT really peeves me.

[EagleRiverDee]

A couple of comments:

One- re suggestions that insurance companies charge more for heavy people than thin people: They do, if you have private insurance. Private insurance premiums are driven by age, sex, BMI and pre-existing conditions. I found this out the brutal hard way when I left a company that had group coverage and went to work for a company that did not. The first thing I found out is that I couldn't even QUALIFY for good insurance due to my weight (225 @ 5'5" at the time). I ended up having to settle for not-so-good insurance until I lost weight. They also put riders on my pre-existings, essentially saying they would NEVER cover them. Group coverage spreads the risk out across everybody, so healthy people with a normal BMI and no pre-existings have the same premium as unhealthy people or folks with a high BMI or folks with pre-existing conditions. If your employer pays for your insurance, you never even see this. And while it was a painful experience for me to be denied coverage by a good insurer, it also was a major catalyst for change for me. It was a wake up call, for sure.

Two: I think education is more important than bans and even taxes. When it comes to cigarettes, as example, I see more people respond to the education campaigns than to the higher taxes. When I was 20, I was a smoker and cigs cost about $2 a pack. I remember a bunch of my friends that would say, "If cigs ever cost $XXX I will quit." Well, cigs cost $10 a pack now and those same people still smoke. I don't see the taxes making a difference, really. What I do see making a difference is the education campaigns- all those scary commercials showing someone dying of cancer, someone who lost their legs, someone who has a heart problem and can't keep up with their kids, all because of smoking. I think similarly we're going to reap the greatest benefit when it comes to unhealthy foods through education efforts. However, until we address the fact that unhealthy food is so inexpensive in comparison to healthy food, I don't think anything is going to change.

[kurisitaru]

Originally Posted by sontaikle

Don't even get me started on financial aid, I didn't get some aid I was counting on in grad school because of budget cuts in NY (thanks politicians). It wouldn't have made a huge difference, but it probably would have meant I could have worked less and concentrated on my studies more (working full time whilst going to grad school with more than full time credits was certainly a doozy!)

I'd have to agree that there are more pressing issues for the government to worry about. I can see why they're doing this but it is just misguided. Like you said it might be more effective to tax it...and that would cost less too!

I'm a little disgusted how higher education is ran actually.
Governors here were talking about how Pell Grants are people just leaking of the government to a good life! And paying all their bills using government aid while they milk the system for other things like food stamps and medicare.

Which is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

The MAX you can get in a pell grant is 5550, for a YEAR. That's 2 semesters (They took it away for summer... they roll over and they might not even do that anymore). Most tuition costs are say... 3K-20k a semester (depending where you go). So IF you get the max pell grant, then ALL it can pay is MAYBE the tuition, or a portion of it. Which is what they were there for. Tuition, and most people don't even qualify for the max.
If your under 24, single, no children of your own. You have to use your parents income information as well as your own to apply. Regardless if your parents want to or even can help pay for your college. (Thanks Bush administration!) So much college bound have a few incomes that instantly say "Oh! You and your parents make just sooooo much, you don't qualify"

Also, these students that do qualify for any of it have to be passing classes (2.0 or higher), completing classes (67% completion rate), not adding the grant to repeated coursework, there are limits how many times a grant will pay the tuition on say... a gym class(I agree with the completion rate and passing classes bit). AND they can't go beyond 180 credit hours. Wait... scratch that... they can't go beyond 140 credit hours Thanks to the Obama administration, so if you change majors or went to school in the past (even 20 years ago) and are now trying to pay for a higher education, EVERY credit hour counts against you. You may only need 10 to graduate, but it your sitting at 140... you're either taking loans, or on your own.

I personally think education is INSANELY important. Not only for the people that are trying to get better jobs in this rough economy, but also for the economy. Any job that requires just a high school diploma is more than likely retail, or it's been outsourced. Associates are just the new high school diplomas. "Congrats... now what? Oh... not much!" So a BA is almost necessary, and I still know people who have MASTERS, BACHELORS, etc that work retail and can't begin to crack on the loans they needed to take out because they didn't qualify for any aid at all, and their parents DIDN'T help them.

You can also thank the Obama admin for making Masters only aloud to take out unsubsidized loans.

ALL of this happening while we still allow small airlines have the government buy out their unused seats? (3K a pop almost), Or while we allow LIFO in our accounting systems? Give millions of dollars of rebates to billion dollar revenue corporations? continue the unfair taxation and claim there is this "trickling down effect" in place that CLEARLY doesn't work? While we pay for a war that is ineffective, irrelevant, and driven on fear and ignorance?

I need to stop....