If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Judge upholds women's right to choose... large soda   (nypost.com) divider line 71
    More: Spiffy, board of health, rational arguments  
•       •       •

2824 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 7:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-12 07:08:54 AM
The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.
 
2013-03-12 07:09:21 AM
So many better ways to protect "his" children than banning a large drink.  I wonder if New York is trying to compete with Florida?
 
2013-03-12 07:09:23 AM
Maybe should have required a warning label with an image of a fat person or somesuch.
 
2013-03-12 07:13:07 AM
Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?  Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations.  You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable.
 
2013-03-12 07:13:46 AM

Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.


And stupid enough not to consider that people might refill smaller sizes.
 
2013-03-12 07:14:40 AM

Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.


Nanny-statists often are.
 
2013-03-12 07:14:45 AM
It doesn't make any sense to ban large capacity sugary drinks when you can just reload.  Hell, I can reload my big gulp so fast you would barely even notice the gap in my gulping.  Plus its very easy to make a home made cup.
 
2013-03-12 07:15:41 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions

...

It seems as if you answered your own question.
 
2013-03-12 07:16:02 AM
 
2013-03-12 07:17:58 AM
Since vidya games brainwash kids these days, maybe in GTA, add a soda power up. It gives you a temporary boost of speed, but after a long time of consuming them in game your character gets diabetes.
 
2013-03-12 07:19:04 AM
Judge halts mayor's soda ban, calls it 'arbitrary and capricious'

s3.hubimg.com
 
2013-03-12 07:19:36 AM
I love how all through this Starbucks was all like fark you, we aren't doing it.
 
2013-03-12 07:20:09 AM
www.smbc-comics.com
 
2013-03-12 07:24:20 AM

MacWizard: Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.

And stupid enough not to consider that people might refill smaller sizes.


That was understood from the beginning. The thing is, most people don't refill when given a drink proportioned for a human. When people get the elephant serving they feel compelled to drink it all.
 
2013-03-12 07:25:15 AM

Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.


Yes, because in NYC there is absolutely NOTHING that is more important...
 
2013-03-12 07:26:15 AM
You can't regulate these things, people will find a way to circumvent whatever you come up with.

Where I live bars close at midnight, however many years ago you could still buy beer/wine until 1 am. They passed a law making those hours end at midnight as well, thinking it would cut down on drinking and alcohol related problems. The bar goers simply stocked up beforehand or simply left the bar 15 minutes early to buy more beer. The only thing they managed to do is piss off the guy who gets off work at midnight and wants to pick up a 6 pack after a stressful night at work.
 
2013-03-12 07:29:38 AM
This is just such crap. Seriously, don't they have bigger problems to worry about in NYC?
 
2013-03-12 07:32:20 AM

Darke: This is just such crap. Seriously, don't they have bigger problems to worry about in NYC?


Fat people move slow and take up too much sidewalk.
 
2013-03-12 07:32:33 AM

HotWingConspiracy: MacWizard: Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.

And stupid enough not to consider that people might refill smaller sizes.

That was understood from the beginning. The thing is, most people don't refill when given a drink proportioned for a human. When people get the elephant serving they feel compelled to drink it all.


upload.wikimedia.org
That's the human size you are talking about right?

/I sound fat
 
2013-03-12 07:32:43 AM
Why would you want one of those gigantic drinks anyway? Drinking a whole one would make me nauseous.
 
2013-03-12 07:33:58 AM

MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.


Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.
 
2013-03-12 07:36:58 AM

abhorrent1: Why would you want one of those gigantic drinks anyway?


To show those libs a thing or two about freedom.
 
2013-03-12 07:37:28 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-12 07:40:02 AM

HotWingConspiracy: MacWizard: Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.

And stupid enough not to consider that people might refill smaller sizes.

That was understood from the beginning. The thing is, most people don't refill when given a drink proportioned for a human. When people get the elephant serving they feel compelled to drink it all.


Don't go bringing actual observations of human behavior into it. He's got that there common sense that tells him he's got it figured out better than the people that spent time and money designing the policy. If all that fancy high-falutin policy talkin can be undone by good old common sense, then no one ever has to be worry about being infromed on any particular subject.

Limiting the size of sodas in restaurants is good for public health. Over a population the size of New York City, it is a change that will result in measurable savings and improvement in quality of life. The only legal discussion worth having is whether the government has this kind of power over private businesses.

The fact that this judge is even discussing the merits of the policy and bringing up the refills shows that this is a political move by a low rung judge looking to make some headlines off Bloomberg's name.
 
2013-03-12 07:40:43 AM
Bloomberg said he was completely confident the city will win on appeal.

"We're going to appeal, we believe the judge's decision was clearly in error. We will clearly prevail on appeal," he said. "We think the judge is totally in error and we are very confident we'll win on appeal."


Anyone else picture this guy when reading this?

www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com
 
2013-03-12 07:41:08 AM
stay out of my life gumment scum  drpinna.com
 
2013-03-12 07:42:08 AM
This is really the worst way to attack the "problem".

There are just so many work-arounds. The only thing is does effectively is inconvenience  people. Reminds me of those oddball laws in some states where drinks have to be made from small bottles only and doubles are illegal.
 
2013-03-12 07:42:30 AM

salvador.hardin: The fact that this judge is even discussing the merits of the policy and bringing up the refills shows that this is a political move by a low rung judge looking to make some headlines off Bloomberg's name.


Basically. The timing is what gave it away for me. 24 hours before the law goes in to action? Dude wanted his name in the papers as some kind of hero.
 
2013-03-12 07:43:29 AM
www.wellcultivated.co.uk

Just get some of this, add water and you'll have all the soda you want to drink in the privacy of your home

What could go wrong
 
2013-03-12 07:43:52 AM
I was wondering if that sort of semi-ban was even legal, but couldn't think of why it wouldn't be. Misguided, dickish and a demonstrating a lack of knowledge of how to work the soda fountain, sure. But legal? I guess I was only partly right about that since the judge seems to be having more of a problem with consistency in the wording of the ban rather than with the idea that Daddy Bloomberg seems to want to encase all New Yorkers in fire retardant bubble wrap and then pass a law labeling the popping of a bubble on that wrap as "attempted murder". For their own protection, of course. 'Cuz New Yorkers are just so delicate, you know.
 
2013-03-12 08:00:48 AM
Meanwhile, getting rid of slum lords, which he has the legal power to do, is something Bloomberg won't do in a million years. Even though slums pose a far bigger present health issue than large soda.
 
2013-03-12 08:16:13 AM

jfivealive: It doesn't make any sense to ban large capacity sugary drinks when you can just reload.  Hell, I can reload my big gulp so fast you would barely even notice the gap in my gulping.  Plus its very easy to make a home made cup.




Registration or licensing of anyone wishing to purchase dangerous and deadly beverages.
30 day cool-off period.
Chemical tagging of all paper or plastic cups.
Monthly inspections of your beverage collection.
Cap locks for child protection from injury.
 
2013-03-12 08:24:56 AM

Darke: This is just such crap. Seriously, don't they have bigger problems to worry about in NYC?


You break the people's spirit with the little things first.
 
2013-03-12 08:26:02 AM
NOOOOOOO  I was having so much fun making....er....FUN of Best York.

Crap.
 
2013-03-12 08:26:45 AM

ReapTheChaos: You can't regulate these things, people will find a way to circumvent whatever you come up with.


I believe the point is not that you can't, but that you shouldn't.

/not an argument
 
2013-03-12 08:35:49 AM

HotWingConspiracy: salvador.hardin: The fact that this judge is even discussing the merits of the policy and bringing up the refills shows that this is a political move by a low rung judge looking to make some headlines off Bloomberg's name.

Basically. The timing is what gave it away for me. 24 hours before the law goes in to action? Dude wanted his name in the papers as some kind of hero.


The suit was filed in October.  They probably had to scramble to get it in front of a judge this quickly.

And can it really be considered a "law" if it wasn't passed in a legal manner?
 
2013-03-12 08:40:00 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.


"Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?  Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations.  You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable."

Since you're so insistent, let's break down and examine the entire statement, in a logical order.

The perceived problem which, for some reason, came last: "You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable." An entire population? Force fed? Seems like hyperbole to me, but let's assume you are exactly right.

Your solution: "Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?"

The logical argument against your solution: "Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations."

Your proposal is to "stop allowing" something, not "nudge overall decisions."  I snipped the quote where I did because that was a sufficient amount to illustrate that your argument contradicts itself. Seemed rather obvious. Why don't we stop allowing "insert bad decision here"? Because public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions. The rest of what you said does not change that.
 
2013-03-12 08:44:43 AM
I wasn't aware that mayors were the law.
 
2013-03-12 09:00:16 AM

MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.

"Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?  Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations.  You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable."

Since you're so insistent, let's break down and examine the entire statement, in a logical order.

The perceived problem which, for some reason, came last: "You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable." An entire population? Force fed? Seems like hyperbole to me, but let's assume you are exactly right.

Your solution: "Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?"

The logical argument against your solution: "Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations."

Your proposal is to "stop allowing" something, not "nudge overall decisions."  I snipped the quote where I did because that was a sufficient amount to illustrate that your argument contradicts itself. Seemed rather obvious. Why don't we stop allowing "insert bad decision here"? Because public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions. The rest of what you said does not change that.


We need to ban people against bans. That will solve all problems.
 
2013-03-12 09:01:17 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juiceand other sugary beverages

  to be purchased with WIC


Because the WIC program is intended to provide juice to women and children while disallowing other sugary beverages. SNAP... not so much.
 
2013-03-12 09:01:47 AM

MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.

"Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?  Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations.  You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable."

Since you're so insistent, let's break down and examine the entire statement, in a logical order.

The perceived problem which, for some reason, came last: "You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable." An entire population? Force fed? Seems like hyperbole to me, but let's assume you are exactly right.

Your solution: "Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?"

The logical argument against your solution: "Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations."

Your proposal is to "stop allowing" something, not "nudge overall decisions."  I snipped the quote where I did because that was a sufficient amount to illustrate that your argument contradicts itself. Seemed rather obvious. Why don't we stop allowing "insert bad decision here"? Because public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions. The rest of what you said does not change that.


When these families get nearly of their sustenance from government assistance, then it is important for the government to make sure that what is provided is nutritionally appropriate.  So while you may see "force fed" as a hyperbole, it is the only option available for many families.  It was awkwardly worded, and "stop allowing" was not the right choice because it implies curtailing a certain right.  What I am proposing is a correction to the policy that no longer includes calorie dense beverages on the WIC/SNAP approved foods list.  When you have a vulnerable population that relies on food that is provided to them, it shouldn't give them metabolic syndrome.  I am pretty sure that amending a list that is grounded in bad science and failed public health policy is still considered proper corrective public health action.

In short, "Don't drink this because I said" is bad policy and I mistakenly gave the impression that is what I was on board for.  What I meant it to come off as is, "Don't drink that anymore because it was on faulty evidence we gave it to you in the first place."
 
2013-03-12 09:02:03 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Darke: This is just such crap. Seriously, don't they have bigger problems to worry about in NYC?

Fat people move slow and take up too much sidewalk.


And other things being equal, they use more soap.
 
2013-03-12 09:04:42 AM

spickus: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juiceand other sugary beverages  to be purchased with WIC


Because the WIC program is intended to provide juice to women and children while disallowing other sugary beverages. SNAP... not so much.


My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations.  But juice is still not acceptable.  If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself.  It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.
 
2013-03-12 09:14:51 AM
Schroedinger's Glory Hole:  My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations.  But juice is still not acceptable.  If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself.  It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.

I see your point. I think the reason for allowing juice on WIC is to provide an alternative to other sugary drinks that parents may consume or give a toddler. We mistakenly assume since it's all natural juice that it must be healthy. Perhaps it's time to review WIC approved foods. SNAP should have an approved foods list like WIC.
 
2013-03-12 09:15:10 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: spickus: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juiceand other sugary beverages  to be purchased with WIC


Because the WIC program is intended to provide juice to women and children while disallowing other sugary beverages. SNAP... not so much.

My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations.  But juice is still not acceptable.  If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself.  It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.


That's complete rubbish. You can get your dietary fiber through many sources, but fruit and vegetable juices remain one of the most nutritional choices available. Keep in mind that means 100% juice, not crap like Sunny D or what you get from your average juice box.
 
2013-03-12 09:26:49 AM

ReapTheChaos: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: spickus: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juiceand other sugary beverages  to be purchased with WIC


Because the WIC program is intended to provide juice to women and children while disallowing other sugary beverages. SNAP... not so much.

My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations.  But juice is still not acceptable.  If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself.  It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.

That's complete rubbish. You can get your dietary fiber through many sources, but fruit and vegetable juices remain one of the most nutritional choices available. Keep in mind that means 100% juice, not crap like Sunny D or what you get from your average juice box.


Vegetable juice is fine, it is low in sugar.  Even 100% juice should be treated as all sugared beverages.

Juan, a 100 lb. six-year old Latino boy whose mother is a non-English-speaking farm worker from Salinas, California, comes to my clinic in 2003. He is wider than he is tall. I ask the mother in my broken Spanish, "I don't care what your kid eats, tell me what he drinks." No soda, but a gallon of orange juice per day. On calories alone, this amount accounts for 112 lbs/yr of body fat. of course, some of that is burned off, and it might influence total food intake. I explain to the mother, "La frutta es bueno, el jugos es malo (the fruit is good, the juice is bad). Eat the fruit, don't drink the juice." She then asks, "Then why does WIC (Women, Infants, and Children; a government entitlement program for the poor run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) give it to us?"

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/an-excerpt-from-dr-robert-lustigs-fat -c hance/

If you find that article interesting and have an hour or so to spare, his lecture here  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM  is fantastic.  This isn't some new age health retard, he does bariatric surgery on babies and specializes in pediatric endocrinology.
 
2013-03-12 09:31:10 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: bariatric surgery on babies


I'm speechless.
 
2013-03-12 09:34:43 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: bariatric surgery on babies


That seems like an exceptionally bad idea.
 
2013-03-12 09:40:43 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: bariatric surgery on babies

I'm speechless.


"Every one of these diseases has become more prevalent over the past 30 years. What's more, all of them are now found in children as young as 5. We have an epidemic of obese 6-month olds!"

What's even more shocking is that this is no longer a first world problem, shattering the idea that increased prosperity = increased obesity.  Even in the developing world, obesity is a bigger problem than undernutrition.  There is a long history of substances that went from commonplace to controlled in a matter of years.  My guess is sugar is next.
 
2013-03-12 09:53:55 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Vegetable juice is fine, it is low in sugar.   Even 100% juice should be treated as all sugared beverages.


True, but it's not empty calories like soda or artificially flavored drinks. There's actually decent nutritional value in fruit juice.
 
2013-03-12 10:00:56 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: What's even more shocking is that this is no longer a first world problem, shattering the idea that increased prosperity = increased obesity. Even in the developing world, obesity is a bigger problem than undernutrition. There is a long history of substances that went from commonplace to controlled in a matter of years. My guess is sugar is next.


Fortunately, global warming will bring back famine, and the world will revert to the nutritionally-ideal state of 1970.
 
2013-03-12 10:24:20 AM

This text is now purple: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: What's even more shocking is that this is no longer a first world problem, shattering the idea that increased prosperity = increased obesity. Even in the developing world, obesity is a bigger problem than undernutrition. There is a long history of substances that went from commonplace to controlled in a matter of years. My guess is sugar is next.

Fortunately, global warming will bring back famine, and the world will revert to the nutritionally-ideal state of 1970.


No, it won't.  Because people will still be much more sedentary than they ever were before.

Of course since Global Warming threatens to drown billions of people, maybe all that swimming will help folks keep slender.

Global Warming.  Is there anything it can't do?
 
2013-03-12 10:28:10 AM

FLMountainMan: Of course since Global Warming threatens to drown billions of people, maybe all that swimming will help folks keep slender.


I'm going to lash obese people together and live on them like an island.
 
2013-03-12 10:33:56 AM

salvador.hardin: Limiting the size of sodas in restaurants is good for public health. Over a population the size of New York City, it is a change that will result in measurable savings and improvement in quality of life. The only legal discussion worth having is whether the government has this kind of power over private businesses.


LImiting Internet time would be good in the exact same manner. Perhaps you'd care to endorse that as well?
 
2013-03-12 10:35:03 AM
FTFA: Tingling said this public-health debate should clearly be in the hands of lawmakers like the City Council or state legislature. Those bodies have never refused to take up this weighty matter, the judge said.

*golf clap*
 
2013-03-12 10:35:59 AM

HotWingConspiracy: FLMountainMan: Of course since Global Warming threatens to drown billions of people, maybe all that swimming will help folks keep slender.

I'm going to lash obese people together and live on them like an island.


It's been done

dvdmedia.ign.com
 
2013-03-12 10:37:12 AM

salvador.hardin: Limiting the size of sodas in restaurants is good for public health. Over a population the size of New York City, it is a change that will result in measurable savings and improvement in quality of life. The only legal discussion worth having is whether the government has this kind of power over private businesses.


Lost tax revenue from sodas will hurt the economy.  Hell, if everyone in this country got healthy and made good decisions on how they spend their money, our entire economy would collapse.
 
2013-03-12 10:49:51 AM

spickus: SNAP should have an approved foods list like WIC.


In my area we have a large homeless population, and some of them (quite a few from what I've seen) are on SNAP as well. The problem with "approved" food lists is that it doesn't take into account things like inadequate food storage and preparation facilities. Even if someone lives in a SRO, they're most likely to be subsisting mostly on prepared foods as they will lack those storage and facilities for food preparation. Telling someone they can buy a pound of extra lean "approved" ground beef, but not a hamburger when they may not have the ability to make a hamburger with that ground beef is somewhat self defeating if the goal is to feed people.

I know in some areas that isn't a huge concern, but for those of us in the cities in areas with temperate climates, caring for the homeless and very poor is a major concern and SNAP, for all of its flaws, does help with some of that problem.

I suppose we could quit pretending to be a civilized society and just kick 'em all to the curb, though.

/also, remember the "snack tax"?
//yeah.... think back to how well that worked and now make it even harder to implement and maintain
 
2013-03-12 10:54:26 AM
www.funnyvooz.com
 
2013-03-12 11:47:13 AM
If people want to drink themselves fat, let them. Maybe just apply a special tax to 20oz sizes and above. I have a diet/exercise cheat day once a week and like to enjoy a 20oz Dr. Pepper. Seems a bit dickish that I can't enjoy that indulgence in order to protect fatty tards lacking in self-control.
 
2013-03-12 12:07:38 PM
That means the world is safe again for Passover Coke.farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2013-03-12 12:22:26 PM
As for all the fat hate, remember that your daughters will get plowed by the groups that you hate to spite you.
 
2013-03-12 12:25:03 PM

MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.

"Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?  Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations.  You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable."

Since you're so insistent, let's break down and examine the entire statement, in a logical order.

The perceived problem which, for some reason, came last: "You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable." An entire population? Force fed? Seems like hyperbole to me, but let's assume you are exactly right.

Your solution: "Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?"

The logical argument against your solution: "Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations."

Your proposal is to "stop allowing" something, not "nudge overall decisions."  I snipped the quote where I did because that was a sufficient amount to illustrate that your argument contradicts itself. Seemed rather obvious. Why don't we stop allowing "insert bad decision here"? Because public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions. The rest of what you said does not change that.


You're right, but he does mak3e a valid point: if sugary drinks and obesity are such a concern to the mayor (as the article states, and as the mayor gives as his primary reason for wanting the ban), then perhaps he should start by lobbying the Governor to ban the purchase of such drinks via WIC and EBT. Because he is right--those who utilize WIC and EBT are, statistically, the ones who also will utilize Medicaid and Medicare services.

If obesity is such a public health concern for NYC that will cost 5000 lives this year (diabetes, heart disease, etc), then the first logical course for Mayor Bloomberg to take is to advance the agenda of removing sugary drinks and junk food items from the purchasable foods list for WIC and EBT. Then cause the Governor to allow WIC and EBT users to get a hold of healthier food options--fruits, vegetables, whole grains, real fruit juices, skim and 1-2% milk, lowfat unsalted butter, lean meats... all at a lower markup--say 5% above cost so that vendors/stores still make some profit. Remove unhealthy items from schools (which he does have the power to do) but allow alternatives such as frozen yogurt and fresh fruit and allow things like pizza once per week or once every other week, reinstate PE and recess, and teach children as part of health or PE how to make healthy choices. Remain on this plan for a period of about 3 years and study the results in terms of choices kids make and in terms of the impact on Medicaid/Medicare costs--does it save money, does the need for treatment of obesity-related and poor food choice-related illnesses improve?

THEN, after a few years of seeing what the changes you do have the authority to make does--and if it does indeed improve--put it to a vote. Get the information out, let the people see how much money can be saved in the budget of EBT, WIC, Medicare and Medicaid annually as well as the public education system, THEN give the people the right to vote on something that affects them. That's how we change laws in this country--the people get the information and vote, and if they say "no deal," the mayor has to abide by their wishes, not the other way around. He doesn't get to play King Michael in his little fiefdom of New York.
 
2013-03-12 12:37:36 PM
Gangs, Rapist, Drugs, Murders.
I have to protect my children....from sodas.
 
2013-03-12 02:35:27 PM
weknowmemes.com
Send out the NYPD.
 
2013-03-12 02:58:27 PM

MacWizard: Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.

And stupid enough not to consider that people might refill smaller sizes.


Are we talking about sodas or gun clips now?
 
2013-03-12 04:34:16 PM
Have fatties sign off on any right to Medicare or Medicaid funds, and I'd be okay with this.  Hey, Neolibs, where is your No Free Lunch now?
 
2013-03-12 05:57:20 PM

Carousel Beast: salvador.hardin: Limiting the size of sodas in restaurants is good for public health. Over a population the size of New York City, it is a change that will result in measurable savings and improvement in quality of life. The only legal discussion worth having is whether the government has this kind of power over private businesses.

LImiting Internet time would be good in the exact same manner. Perhaps you'd care to endorse that as well?


I'm not sure you understand what an endorsement is. I'm saying that the court's consideration should be whether the city government has the power to make the policy, not its prudence. In the case of internet access and use, the first amendment would be strongly implicated in determining the limits of government authority, but the role of the judge remains the same. The merit of the policy is a question for the electorate, not the judiciary.
 
2013-03-12 06:19:54 PM
Eh, Bloomberg will win this on appeal. If you read the judge's comments he's just saying that they need to re-write it so that there is conisistency across vendors and stores. The problem is that the State regulates some of those operations and not the city, but that's easily solved by Bloomberg going back to the state government and asking them to support this legislation (which they almost certainly will) and viola - problem solved.
 
xcv
2013-03-12 06:39:31 PM
The law should have just been a simple ban on  large soda fountain drinks or any sugary beverage poured into a 16oz+ cup by employees.

As written I could order 30 bucks of pizza for a family but couldn't get a 2 liter of soda included in the delivery, yet 7-11 had a loophole that let them continue selling Big-Gulps.
 
2013-03-13 01:17:12 AM

TomD9938: Judge halts mayor's soda ban, calls it 'arbitrary and capricious'

[s3.hubimg.com image 260x242]


Close, but this one is more appropriate.

24.media.tumblr.com

Hey, Judge, your fly is open.
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report