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
click here to read article
Were not banning anything, he said. Its called portion control its a typical [way] that companies use and governments use to explain to people whats in their interest and what isnt, he said.
‘Ban’ on large Bloombergs ‘in the country’s interest’
I would like to point out it started out with the smoking ban...
A sock in napoleon bloombergaparts pie hole would be in the country’s best interest. What a meddlesome old biddy.
There is one rationale - and one rationale only - for the ban on large drinks, and that is clearly the exercise of Bloomberg’s enormous and demented ego.
Ban sugary drinks, legalize marijuana. Moral posturing in a decadent, declining America.
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!
what business is it of Bloomberg OR ANYONE ELSE IN GOVERNMENT !! to tell someone that they can or can’t sell a legal product!!?!?!?!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I am about to explode!
and who wants to bet that this SAME freaking idiot would fight tooth and nail to allowed some poor person on food stamps to be able to buy ANYTHING that want at the grocery store!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bloomberg is nothing but a little tyrant. Thank God he’s restricted by the borders of his city. Of course, the good liberals of New York City deserve whatever the hell they get out of what they vote into office....
SMGFan~:” .. how 80% recent of NYC High Schools grads cannot read? “
Hey , we have priorities , ya know !!
Its not like you have a right to a quality education which is government funded and controlled.
See what Bloomie has done to pain medications in city hospitals
See what Bloomie has done to nutrition and sugary drinks
See how Bloomie wouldn’t even allow the State National Guard into the city without weapons despite looting
We have to expand government control since the public cannot be trusted with their own health issues.
Why doesn’t the power hungry old fart ban Obama and his crew from coming into NYC and holding up traffic..
Why don’t the people of NYC see he doesn’t get reelected?
If sugary drinks are that pernicious, then just lobby the congress to outlaw them, using the interstate commerce clause. They’ve already set the precedence.
The idiots of NY put him in for a third term, had to change to law to do it 2 terms as republican, 1 term as independant...they deserve him....
I would like to point out it started out with the smoking ban...
As I am deathly allergic to nicotine, I was ever so grateful that smoking was banned in the workplace. But it upsets me to see the ban getting bigger and bigger. People have been ticketed for smoking in their trucks, by themselves, because that is their workplace. As this happened, my first thought was, okay, what will they ban next? The other disturbing thing is that so many people support this type of intrusion. Why? Ive noticed that these people project. Case in point, Michelle Obama. Michelle is carrying a few extra pounds in the caboose. Ive seen her pictured woofing down the very things she would ban from others. I looked up Bloomberg. He appears lightly built so he probably isnt projecting. He is, however, attempting to control activities that should be well beyond the realm of politics.
This guy just won the grand prize for oppression. No level of government has any right to tell me what legal size any legal drink has to be. This is just the stupidity of political ego and arrogance. Take your nanny state and shove it way up there but be sure to leave room for your head.
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.
“We’re not banning anything...It’s called portion control...”
Yes, portion *control*. Big Government portion control. You, sir, are powermad.
At least they tried to make smoking a “public health” issue, incantation of which words unlocks the police powers, even though they lied about secondhand smoke. But there is no such thing as secondhand large, sugary drinking. Why is it they feel no need to justify themselves anymore? Is the personal finally truly political, as the Marxist always wanted, and everything you do as an individual is now subject to regulation for the good of the whole? When did that happen?
You are in the twilight zone. How a person moderates his food and beverage intake only affects him. People try to make it out as a disease, which it isn’t, even though it can lead to diseases. Neither is drug addiction. It can’t be a disease, in my opinion, if the “cure” is simply to choose to do something less.
But let’s say fattiness is a disease. It still isn’t a public health issue. It still only affects the individual, and as such is cut off from the state’s police powers. Ah, but as you point out, we now have socialized medicine. Meaning everyone’s healthcare is everyone’s else’s business because everyone’s healthcare is a financial burden to the rest of us.
However, someone’s still paying for it. The money gots to come from somewhere. Mainly we decide who pays based on how much more they have than others (from each according to his abilities), or whether you buy unpopular things (sin tax), or how stupid you are (lottery). Why not make fat people lay for themselves? Or is that too much like the old system and common sense?
Here’s a perfect argument for why healthcare shouldn’t be socialized. Not only do undesirables cost us, we in fact encourage more fattiness, as there’s less incentive not to be fat. Yet you’re perfectly fine with socialism. It’s the immoderate who are at fault. But I don’t see why. You ought to embrace crackheads, sloths, sluts and satyrs, gluttons, and daredevils. You’ve guaranteed there’ll be more of them.
The only apparent alternative is to come at them with theaw from the other side. If socialism has removed consequences, then prohibition can remove opportunity. And we all know how well that works.
You may be comforted by fatties getting the business. They’ve abandoned Aristotlean truth and the Protestant ethic, committed one of the sevenly deadly sins, or whatever. But of course we won’t always go after the obviously socially unworthy. If what constitutes public health—and therefore the police powers—within a society with socialized medicine is whatever costs money to treat, or whatever can conceivably lead to costly medical consumption, then the government has power over every conceivable aspect of human life. Life is a disease for which death is the cure, as they say.
Next, we just eliminate fat people. /s
I don’t disagree with you but there two thoughts expressed by my post.
The progressive thought is responsible for the conclusion one way to reduce healthcare cost is to forbid big gulps.
You are right..
What an adult puts in their body is nobody else's business, be it sugar or marijuana.
Uh oh. A liberal nanny-stater hijacked bert’s account. Anyone know how to get in touch with the original FReeper ‘bert’?
To function on Free Republic, you need to be able to read.
There is a conservative thought and a progressive thought. The progressive reasoning was outlined for those who have difficulty understanding the liberal mind.
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.