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.
‘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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.