[safetysign]

Yet Bloomberg doesn't want to prosecute marijuana users.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The basic case against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s latest crusade, to outlaw the sale of extra- large sugared soft drinks, is [...] sugary drinks have a perfectly adequate and legal substitute: sugar-free drinks.

? Sounds like a case (albeit weak) FOR Bloomberg's ban.

[HoneysuckleTN]

(Even if you can tell the difference between Coke and Diet Coke, you can’t claim that the difference is very large.)

Oh, yes, I can! The horrible aftertaste of sugar substitutes is horrible. There's a HUGE difference, and I won't touch them.

Besides, high-fructose corn syrup is the culprit, not sugar. I do not support a nanny-type ban for HFCS or anything, but I wish I could find a wider variety of soft drinks made with real sugar. I'm stuck with only Sierra Mist at this time when I want something fizzy.

[darth]

Why doesn’t Bloomberg put a limit on how many alcoholic drinks can be served to customers at bars and restaurants? To be in line with the sugary drink mandate, he should limit all to two drinks max.

After all, in addition to alcohol being empty calories like sugar, there are many other health risks.

I would like to see him try this.

Then I would like to see him walk down the street sans armed bodyguards.

Then I would like to see the video.

[jmacusa]

Neither do I. Legalize the crap and or bring back alcohol prohibition, that was a sterling success. Bloomberg is a f’ing nanny-state plutocrat.

[GSWarrior]

If I were a dentist I would be against the ban.

[MrB]

To a leftist, the more decisions that he doesn’t have to make, the freer he is.