Soda ban...good idea or misguided nanny state horseshit?

[XT]

There is probably a debate (or several) on this subject already, but was reading this article where there is talk of taking it to the next level (i.e. not only ban large sodas but also ban refills), so thought I'd see what 'dopers think of this.

Mass. mayor suggests ban on large drinks, free refills

A Massachusetts mayor is taking inspiration from a controversial New York City proposal to ban large, sugary beverages – and might even want to take it a step further.

Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis unveiled a proposal that would outlaw large-size sodas and other sugary drinks in area restaurants to the City Council on Monday.

She’s also suggesting that city officials consider banning free refills of sugary beverages, which would be a step beyond New York City’s plan.

“Our environment is full of way too many temptations,” Davis said. “This is one temptation that isn’t really necessary.”

'Our environment is full of way too many temptations'...'This is one temptation that isn't really necessary.' Necessary? I can think of lots of things that aren't 'necessary'. Doesn't mean they should be banned. But what say you, 'dopers...is this a good idea who's time has come, or just the latest example of misguided nanny state over-protection? Do we really need the government to tell us how much soda we can (not should) drink? And will this be a slippery slope where the next target is that burger (triple cheese burger with extra fat) and fries (supersized with lots of salt and grease)? Or that extra large sausage, pepperoni and double fist sized portion of cheese? Do we need this? And, regardless, is this something the government should be deciding for us to protect us from ourselves and the ravages of obesity and rapacious corporations bent on giving us what we ask for?

-XT

[FixMyIgnorance]

I disagree with banning. I do think it would be a reasonable idea to increase the costs of huge sodas (as a sort of tax) and use the additional revenue to help fight obesity.

Freedom's great, but it's also a pain in the ass to go out to eat when every restaurant is bent on serving huge, unhealthy portions because it's "in demand."

[Eonwe]

I'm still undecided about whether or not to regulate extremely unhealthy foods.

I am actually much more likely to support those regulations/restrictions than I am a tax. Creating a revenue stream based on the purchase of unhealthy products is a moral quagmire.

[Odesio]

The wheezing, coughing and laughter you hear are millions of smokers saying "I told you so."

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by XT

'Our environment is full of way too many temptations'...'This is one temptation that isn't really necessary.'

They'll just find another one.

re: the OP: I think it's both a good idea and misguided nanny state horseshit.

[Kenm]

Prohibition was the thin edge of the wedge.

[Mdcastle]

Nanny state horseshit. The food police won't be happy until we're all eating brocolli and tofu.

[Bryan Ekers]

For me, the biggest nuisance is that for a few days Jon Stewart kept harping on it, even forcibly introducing it into his interviews, i.e. with the Mayor of London.

[thelurkinghorror]

Nanny state horseshit. Sometimes you might want a large soda, say, to take with you on a several hour road trip. If a school (district) doesn't want to offer sodas on school premises, fine. But adults should not be regulated. If you have money to burn (ha), consider spending it on anti-obesity education.

Can I still get big diet sodas then? And will every McDonald's have to move the soda machine behind the counter when people start ordering a large diet soda or water and then fill it up with Coke?

Bryan Ekers what did he say? I'll try to catch it if I can.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Odesio

The wheezing, coughing and laughter you hear are millions of smokers saying "I told you so."

I was all set to disagree with this ban, and probably still do since I don't think drinking soda in restaurants is that big a contributor to the obesity epidemic. But you offer a good comparison -- and government restrictions on tobacco sales and use are a huge part of what has led to the decline in smoking rates. That gives me pause.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

I disagree with banning. I do think it would be a reasonable idea to increase the costs of huge sodas (as a sort of tax) and use the additional revenue to help fight obesity.

Freedom's great, but it's also a pain in the ass to go out to eat when every restaurant is bent on serving huge, unhealthy portions because it's "in demand."

First I highly doubt the revenue wqould go into a special account used only for fighting obesity. It would go into a general fund and then used however the politicians wanted.

Case in point. California sold special 9/11 license plates. The extra revenue from those was supposed to go to fund to help kids, who had one of their parents die in 9/11, pay for college. It did not. It was recently exposed that the money went into a general fund and has been spent on ?.

Secondly no one is forcing you to drink all 96 ounces of soda the waiter brings you at a restuarant. You could always order a small and then just drink 1/5 of that.


This is complete nanny horseshit. But not as horseshitty as New York Citys stance on only serving 16 ounces at a time because you can still order refills and get the 96 ounces you wanted in the first place.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

I was all set to disagree with this ban, and probably still do since I don't think drinking soda in restaurants is that big a contributor to the obesity epidemic. But you offer a good comparison -- and government restrictions on tobacco sales and use are a huge part of what has led to the decline in smoking rates. That gives me pause.

I just saw this post.

Your post has got me thinking this might be a good idea. I could probably make millions on bootlegging soda in Cambridge.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

Bryan Ekers what did he say? I'll try to catch it if I can.

Well, he kept going on about it, holding up two large plastic cups - one of which was full of soda, the other contained what was ostensibly an ounce of marijuana, and talking about how insane it was that serving the former in a restaurant got a $200 fine, while possessing the latter was a mere $100.... amusing, but he kept repeating it, five or six times over two days. Give it a rest, Jon.

[Grumman]

The difference between smoking or drinking and the consumption of unhealthy foods is that the former is a more direct threat to other people. If you smoke, you're burning a whole lot of horrible chemicals and putting them into the atmosphere. If you drink, you're removing your capacity to act as a "reasonable person" who does not, for instance, decide they're sober enough to drive and kills someone because they're not.

Unless you trip over and fall on someone, being obese doesn't really compare.

[PrettyVacant]

Jesus, look at the size of your people.

HFCS and obesity - check the 30-year correlation. The USA didn't even bother to keep data on obesity until 1985, it was all about heart disease until then. Then ... BOOM!

You people need deliverance from the political influence of the food lobby.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

HFCS and obesity - check the 30-year correlation. The USA didn't even bother to keep data on obesity until 1985, it was all about heart disease until then. Then ... BOOM!

You people need deliverance from the political influence of the food lobby.

If it makes you feel any better there are several European countries with expanding waistlines as well.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Odesio

If it makes you feel any better there are several European countries with expanding waistlines as well.

Don't blame them, they're Hungary!

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Don't blame them, they're Hungary!

Let them eat Turkey.

[Morgenstern]

Soda pop prohibition??? I see gangsters, tommy guns, bootleggers and speakeasies in the future. I want my damn super size soda pop.

[Oakminster]

Misguided nanny state horseshit.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Misguided nanny state horseshit.

I'm in here agreeing with a post from Oakminister, truly these are the 2012 end times pop culture prophesied.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Don't blame them, they're Hungary!

You are now my favorite poster of all time. Congratulations!

Honestly, I would have thought we'd see taxes on certain foods/drink raised before any serious talk of banning.

[John Mace]

The ads are for Coca Cola, Lipton Tea and Diet Coke.

Can we supersize that?

[Wesley Clark]

I think it is a bad idea. Even if it worked, it still isn't a good idea.

[John Mace]

I think the idea should be banned.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think the idea should be banned.

I think banning things should be banned

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

I think banning things should be banned

Why don't we bandy that idea out over a 32 oz soda?

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

... You people need deliverance from the political influence of the food lobby.

Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis ... [is] also suggesting that city officials consider banning free refills of sugary beverages ...

Yeah, that really doesn't sound like "nanny state horseshit". It does sound like a great way for some folks to make a mint on soda sales "Remind me again, what's our profit margin on a 16oz cup of soda with unlimited refills?" and blame it all on the evil nanny state.

CMC fnord!

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Let them eat Turkey.

But not goose, that's really Greecey.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by runner pat

But not goose, that's really Greecey.

Especially if you Finnish the whole thing.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Especially if you Finnish the whole thing.

I would if I was Hungary enough.

Waiter, Czech please.

[Little Nemo]

I'm instinctively against the idea of an outright ban.

I might support some government action that encouraged less soda consumption depending on the details.

[John Mace]

That's a Wale of an idea.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by John Mace

That's a Wale of an idea.

I dunno... maybe some tax breaks would Sweden the deal....

[The Tao's Revenge]

Oman Oman will you be sick

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I'm instinctively against the idea of an outright ban.

I might support some government action that encouraged less soda consumption depending on the details.

Maybe they could put warning pictures of Wilford Brimley hawking you diabetes medication on the sodas.

[tomndebb]

Since there does not actually seem to be a debate, here, this thread and its bad puns are moving to IMHO as a Pole.

[Kenm]

It's a plot by Coca Cola to at least triple its profits. A legislated ban? Follow the money.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Since there does not actually seem to be a debate, here, this thread and its bad puns are moving to IMHO as a Pole.

What's next, threats of "I'll ban ya!" ?





_{Okay, I'm not proud of that one}

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Kenm

It's a plot by Coca Cola to at least triple its profits. A legislated ban? Follow the money.

Exactly! If you allowed an unfettered free market you'd have perfectly healthy, safe, and cheap soda made with real cane sugar by the keg!

[Typo Negative]

Nanny state horseshit.

I will throw ripe, healthy tomatoes and any politician who advocates this.

[ZenBeam]

Banning refills is awesome, but so many fast food restaurants have the fountain drink dispenser right out in the open.

They should also require all restaurants have an employee stationed there to make sure no-one tries to sneak a refill. These employees could also watch out for people who try to get around the ban by buying a second soda drink. That's just as bad as a refill.

[TokyoBayer]

It's horseshit, but then I support mandatory seat belts and helmet laws. What's the difference? The potential for immediate danger I guess. Wearing helmets and seat belts makes a clear difference in surviving a crash.

I wouldn't support a ban on people smoking in their own homes or in designated spaces outside, because it is only going to harm themselves.

So, I guess the line I draw is on how much potential danger and how immediate is it. Yes for seat belts, no for tobacco, alcohol or gambling.

Banning large sodas makes even less sense than completely banning cigarettes.

[billfish678]

I am not against a minimal effort to keep people from fracking themselves up so I could live with drinks only being so big and refills not being free. If lard ass insist on 84 ounces of sugar laden carbonated water with their meal they can pay extra for it. And the good thing about limits on sizes and refills is that people who don't chug will probably pay less for the amounts they consume.

Your not forcing people to be healthy or restricting their choices. You are just making it mildy more difficult for them to do so and they have to make a small concious effort to do so as opposed to making it so easy to not be healthy (and actually encouraging it with free refills) that there is no immediate downside to doing so.

Something's gotta be done with all these way too fat people and soon to be way too fat people.

[Chefguy]

It's not just that it adds to obesity; it's that obesity creates a huge impact to the healthcare system. All those heart attacks and new cases of diabetes adds more and more burden to the patient load, and drives up health care costs/insurance premiums.

That said, I think it's bullshit. People make choices, whether smart or stupid. If you're stupid enough to down 2,000 calories at a sitting, you deserve to look like you need a piano crate for a coffin. Unlike smoking, a person drinking a 40 oz soda doesn't impact my health in the slightest. And what's to prevent people from buying three 15 oz sodas at a time? Legislating personal behavior is pointless.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

. And what's to prevent people from buying three 15 oz sodas at a time?

Nothing. But I think a fair number of folks would be less inclined actually BUY three. The die hard drinkers are going to buy as much as they can stand. Put it this way. I can see something like this working a little bit. I can't see how it makes things WORSE.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

So I can't sell you a 64oz cup of soda, but I can sell you a 2 liter bottle, or a 12 pack of cans? I foresee fast food restaurants starting to sell 2 liter (or the new 1.5 liter) bottles.

Way to much nanny state. Next they are going to come after my Double Stuff Oreos.

[billfish678]

What I would like to see even more is a limit on buying more gets you a discount. At the public retail level the 32 oz drink cost pretty much twice the 16 oz drink, not something like 25 percent more. You want more to drink have at it. But we aren't going to financially encourage you eat/drink more.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

It's not just that it adds to obesity; it's that obesity creates a huge impact to the healthcare system. All those heart attacks and new cases of diabetes adds more and more burden to the patient load, and drives up health care costs/insurance premiums.

Please don't take this as a personal attack; it's merely an attempt to fight ignorance. But the problem with the point you're trying to make (not just you you, but a lot of people who parrot this mantra) is everybody dies. People who eat themselves into the grave by the age of, say, 65 don't cost money that people who live to 85+ spend on decades more of elder health problems. And that doesn't even factor in cause of death. Obesity-linked deaths like heart attack and stroke are quick and dirty (and cheap, one ambulance ride to the ER and that's it). People who survive to their octogenarian or nonagenarian years might also have a stroke or heart attack, but often they have long-term conditions that require years in assisted living. They may also consume expensive palliative care for months before giving up the ghost.

Only the very worst cases of obesity require a high enough short-term investment to compete with the cost of merely surviving another couple of decades. And that doesn't even take into account the savings in uncollected social security benefits that the deceased was eligible for. Contrast a young, relatively quick death with the end-of-life care required for an elderly non-obese individual... their natural causes can be anything. Various cancers, kidney problems requiring years of dialysis, broken hips, becoming wheelchair-bound, Alzheimer's... pretty much any sort of disability that may require years in a nursing home.

I found this very interesting article stating that more and more people are living until their 90s, and 20-30% of those nonagenarians live in nursing homes. Also, an extremely high proportion of those who aren't in nursing homes are still disabled (an enormous eighty percent). "Almost all of those in nursing homes are disabled, while about four out of five who live on their own are disabled."

So, thin people may live longer than obese people, but they are very likely to become disabled before they die. Many of them require nursing home and palliative care. Which one do you think is more of a financial drain* on society?

The real answer, though, is that it doesn't matter a fig. Because the amount of policing it would take to force everyone in society to conform to a healthy lifestyle (for financial reasons, no less) is too abhorrent to consider. If giving fat people liberty gives them death, welp... it's their choice to make. Ain't America great?

*I prefer not to refer to old people as "drains," of course. They're simply aging resources and have nearly all contributed something worthwhile to society--they've worked and paid into the system, or given birth and raised families. They've made the world a better place by their mere existence. End-of-life care is the least any human being deserves, no matter why they need it or how much it costs. But if you think that dying from obesity-related causes is more expensive than dying of old age, you are sorely mistaken.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Please don't take this as a personal attack; it's merely an attempt to fight ignorance. But the problem with the point you're trying to make (not just you you, but a lot of people who parrot this mantra) is everybody dies. People who eat themselves into the grave by the age of, say, 65 don't cost money that people who live to 85+ spend on decades more of elder health problems. And that doesn't even factor in cause of death. Obesity-linked deaths like heart attack and stroke are quick and dirty (and cheap, one ambulance ride to the ER and that's it). People who survive to their octogenarian or nonagenarian years might also have a stroke or heart attack, but often they have long-term conditions that require years in assisted living. They may also consume expensive palliative care for months before giving up the ghost.

Only the very worst cases of obesity require a high enough short-term investment to compete with the cost of merely surviving another couple of decades. And that doesn't even take into account the savings in uncollected social security benefits that the deceased was eligible for. Contrast a young, relatively quick death with the end-of-life care required for an elderly non-obese individual... their natural causes can be anything. Various cancers, kidney problems requiring years of dialysis, broken hips, becoming wheelchair-bound, Alzheimer's... pretty much any sort of disability that may require years in a nursing home.

I found this very interesting article stating that more and more people are living until their 90s, and 20-30% of those nonagenarians live in nursing homes. Also, an extremely high proportion of those who aren't in nursing homes are still disabled (an enormous eighty percent). "Almost all of those in nursing homes are disabled, while about four out of five who live on their own are disabled."

So, thin people may live longer than obese people, but they are very likely to become disabled before they die. Many of them require nursing home and palliative care. Which one do you think is more of a financial drain* on society?

The real answer, though, is that it doesn't matter a fig. Because the amount of policing it would take to force everyone in society to conform to a healthy lifestyle (for financial reasons, no less) is too abhorrent to consider. If giving fat people liberty gives them death, welp... it's their choice to make. Ain't America great?

*I prefer not to refer to old people as "drains," of course. They're simply aging resources and have nearly all contributed something worthwhile to society--they've worked and paid into the system, or given birth and raised families. They've made the world a better place by their mere existence. End-of-life care is the least any human being deserves, no matter why they need it or how much it costs. But if you think that dying from obesity-related causes is more expensive than dying of old age, you are sorely mistaken.

Those thin (controlling for other factors) people will usually reach the point where they enter that nursing home, however, having needed significantly less medical care and attention that their much younger and fatter counterparts.