Skip to comments.N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg: 'Ban' on large sugary drinks 'in the country's interest'
Posted on 03/10/2013 9:32:50 AM PDT by SMGFan
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg defended the citys new law banning restaurants from serving large sugary drinks, saying that its in the countrys interest.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/10/ny-mayor-bloomberg-ban-large-sugary-drinks-country/#ixzz2N9gvQmjY Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It may look crazy to the rest of us, but this is exactly the type of leadership the people of New York want. He would probably easily win a 4th term as mayor. He is probably getting close to being the most voted-for mayor in the history of any city in the country. The people are clearly telling him they like what he is doing, so from his point of view why should he change anything he is doing.
He’s actually a bit wide for as short as he is.
Anybody considered the possibility that the boy has gone insane... or slightly demented?
Why do I get the feeling these laws are targeting minorities?
Since there are so many homeless, how about a ban on large apartments in NYC? Say over 1,000 sf. Nobody really needs more space than that.
Did they reduce the size of pizza’s? No. He singled out soft drinks for some moronic reason. Even then a person can go into a grocery store, buy a 2 litre coke and chug it. So they are not implementing portion control.
A ban on Michael Bloomberg would be in the interest of the citizens of the USA, not that we really matter any more...
The guy has a Napoleon complex, and needs to meddle in ever bit of our lives, with the exception of the things that a city government is actually supposed to do...
I wish that were the case. He just dropped a chunk of $$$ into the campaign of a woman running for the Los Angeles school board, and I heard there were other campaigns he had funded. He's trying to meddle in places where he doesn't belong. California has enough problems without him. He needs to just STFU and go away.
The fool is actually driving up the cost of healthcare.
How about banning homelessness, doofus?
This reminds me of the movie Demolition Man. Bloomberg is Dr. Cacto.
This meddling,plutocrat pissant has been around far too long. For Gods sake someone please shut him up!!
I’m for smoke free zones just as long it is done by private means and not the state..
the next question is:
what will he do when this (outlawing large sizes) does nothing to slow obesity in NYC?
or is this a huge diversion?
just cuz I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me.
The country’s interest? Excuse me, I don’t recall that Bloomberg was elected President of the country, let alone King. If the people of NYC really want to put up with his nonsense it’s their business, but I don’t live in NYC and I don’t answer to that a$$clown.
If we adhere to the Aristotelian mean and moderation in all things, then sugary drink size creep is to be shunned.
A short visit into most any public place provides views of large and extremely large people. The term is obese. They have a BMI exceeding 30 and have or are destined for poor health. One result is type II diabetes, a difficult to define disease that can be manifest in a host of minor to very serious health problems. Sugar and other carbohydrate excess over time produce the problems.
In the big picture, the problem becomes freedom, liberty, the ability to make choices. Should one be free to guzzle Coke or Pepsi while consuming mass quantities of Do Nuts and Twinkies or should all that stuff be rationed? Should one be restricted from eating a whole cake in one setting or be free to eat and suffer?
Those who tend to actually worry about the concept take both positions. Conservatives say freedom, liberty. Progressives say ration.
Under the concept of govern mandated health care the penalty for a BMI > 30 is a very unhealthy population requiring care that becomes very expensive. Such care can be considered unnecessary if there were adherence to the Aristotelian eating mean in the first place. Regulating moderation is the conclusion. The inability to moderate eating requires regulation to insure the cost of the immoderate action is reduced.
As mayor of a city that taxes beyond the Aristotelian moderation mean and still struggles, the cost of fat asses demanding city health care provided in addition to the state and federal care is a problem. The moderation penalty is not fair in the sense it affects everyone. It affects only the immoderate. Sensible people that drink only 12 oz are not bothered.
Large sugary drinks make people fat
Fat people require more healthcare and associated costs
Eliminate sugary drinks and save the budget
No. A ban on Mike Bloomberg is in the country’s interest. This billionaire bozo needs to STFU and go away.
Only a liberal idiot would consider citizens too dumb to make food choices but smart enough to vote in elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.