I firmly believe that soda is poisoning our society and I firmly believe that it's not the government's place to regulate consumption. The intellectual flaw of any argument in favor of regulation is the implicit belief that the goverment is going to regulate in the manner that you approve of.

Additionally, effective regulation requires government infallibility, which is clearly non-sensical. Finally, regulation leads to a sense of moral superiority. How many times have you heard a parent argue that second hand smoke in a restaurant harms their child? It may well, but what is doing more harm? 20 minutes of exposure to a cigarette 10 feet away or shovelling processed sugar-infused food down said child's mouth for 18 years?

"Terrified" is too strong a word, but there's no doubt that bad precedents are being set.

Education is better than regulation.

It is very scary but I'm not sure that our freedom to choose will be taken away in just a few months. However, once you start banning things and creating "sin" taxes where do you stop? I definitely think that soon we will start to see more taxes on more and more "bad" foods. Denmark has a fat tax that they implemented just last year. The government should not be able to tell ordinary citizens what they can and can't eat.

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2012/06/national_donut_day_mayor_bloomberg_soda_ban_nyc_daily_buzz.html

Thursday: Mayor Bloomberg announces plans to ban large sugary drinks.

Friday: Mayor Bloomberg signs a proclamation honoring National Donut Day.

This is starting to look like a SNL skit.

The "Slippery Slope" is a Fallacy

Or...it might be. People have raised the specter of the "slippery slope" a few times, and I find the argument tempting. But on the other hand, I also know that this argument is often fallacious. Because something might follow does not mean it will, and one has to consider so many other factors to predict where the slope leads. It seems to me we cannot identify a slippery slope until we are at the bottom of it, looking back.

Agricultural Subsidies: the Real Slippery Slope?

Might we argue the real slippery slope to worry about here was providing agricultural subsidies? From that, everything that's wrong followed: cheap processed foods; sugars in everything; corn and soy in everything; CAFO meats; sodas served in buckets because it costs nothing to make it (the bucket costs more). Can wee draw a line straight from agricultural subsidies to the obesity/diabetes/heart disease epidemic? I find it sad that my tax dollars subsidize farmers not to protect them and the agrarian American way of life, but to ensure my access to $1 buckets of soda.

Soda = Tobacco

People understandably worry that regulation of soda will naturally lead to more (and undesirable) regulation of other foods. I don't consider soda "food," so I prefer a different argument. Supposing we compare sugary sodas to tobacco, instead.

Studies demonstrate, and we as a society have more or less agreed, that tobacco harms people, and offers no benefit beyond profit for its producers/retailers. This also describes soda. Moderation doesn't matter: some smoking is bad; more smoking is worse. Same for soda. Smoking costs society, in terms of health care; soda too.

It seems to me the heavy regulation of tobacco has had some positive effects, and has not (apparently) prevented manufacturers and retailers from continuing to profit, nor does it prevent people from smoking if they want to. It just ties the impact of this behavior more closely to its cost, and asks the user to bear some of that cost.

Of course, this particular soda regulation doesn't really even do that, because it doesn't impose any costs, just an inconvenience. It's relatively toothless, and if this is the power of the government nanny-state, I'm not too scared. Not yet, anyhow.

Perversely, the power of the food mega-corporations will likely prevent the type of slippery slope regulation some of us fear. After all, meat, egg and dairy producers (particularly the evil ones!) have plenty of political clout too. The companies making the refined, processed crap also make the oils they fry it in. None of them will want meaningful regulation, so likely none will occur.

I am very cynical and pragmatic about all this. As long as abundant subsidized commodities and cheap energy prop up this system, not much will change. When the time arrives that it costs too much to process, package, and ship stuff across the country and around the world, other options will become more attractive.

They're not banning soda altogether, just sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (ie a Big Gulp from 7/11). People can still buy 2-liters at the grocery store.

Everybody just simma down now!

http://memebase.com/2012/06/01/internet-memes-rage-comics-did-someone-say-free-refill/

So they ban the cups but not the drink inside and we're supposed to be running scared? If I owned a restaurant I would advertise "bring your own cup, any size same price" and enjoy the money saved on cups I no longer have to purchase and dispose of as well as all the new customers I'd get.

YES. Time to head for the hills.

Companies run the world not governments, as long as things are profitable they will not be taken away regardless of how healthy or not they are perceived to be

Also the term fatty foods usually refers to fast foot etc, not butter, unprocessed meat and eggs which is where the majority of fat comes from on a diet like this

What do you mean 'about'? What is it about soda that gets you to sit up and take notice? This is why they went for the whole 'keep and bear arms' thing first- you don't have the ability to stop these creeps from doing whatever it is they want.

No ability=no freedom

I've actually thought about piping sunlight via fiber optic cables underground in order to have a hidden farm. Of course the first time I thought of that was back in the day when I had a different herb in mind... Now I wonder how viable raising cattle underground would be. If they don't know what you have, the likelihood that they'll take it goes down considerably.

Along similar lines, I just found this: http://ij.org/north-carolina-free-speech-release-5-30-2012.

Which may be in another thread somewhere but I didn't see it today.

Nope. I do what I want!

Oh drats. No more super sized soda at McDonald's either, what should we do?! RELAX. And have you been to NYC? Can't get your soda fix at a restaurant? Pop into any other little ma and pop type store and buy your self a 2 liter of whatever for half the price the restaurant wanted to charge you for a glass of the same stuff.

You know, if the extra funds went to something like a universal healthcare system where everyone had access to basic preventative care, I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for my fat and meat. If it went to subsidize other agreed-on healthy items, like fruits and vegetables, it would likely be a wash anyways, because my overall bill would be the same.

Basically, if we can make it economically unattractive for people to buy processed crap, high sugary sodas, etc. - I don't mind if my butter and red meat goes along with whatever taxes are involved. I'd rather lose that tiny battle and hopefully win a bigger war - like reasonable access to healthcare, making fresh vegetables and fruits financially accessible, etc.

In Denmark, stores aren't allowed to sell Lucky Charms. There's too much sugar; the government prohibits it. I think this is WONDERFUL. Granted, some full fat items are taxed at a higher rate. I'm okay with tradeoffs like that, given that the payoff is that people can't just go out and buy Lucky Charms...

I don't think legislation like this has any chance of actually passing. People will freak out like we're doing here. What it will do is raise awareness. "What, soda's bad for you? Really?" That's worth all the tempest in the teapot, IMO

I think it's just a tempest in a teapot. Stuff gets regulated all the time. There are taxes on all kinds of things, like cigarettes for example. There are limits on how much of a substance one can buy, like pseudoenephrine.

Unfortunately, I don't think this will make much of a difference in people's eating habits unless this policy, or tax, is bound to other efforts such as education. Or the ADA and the USDA changes their food recommendations. Or the gov't stops subsidizing corn, etc.

Just a little more info for those that don't live in NYC.

there are some ridiculous loopholes in Bloombergs proposed ban. Most notably, 7-11 is EXEMPT from the ban. Because its somehow considered a "grocery establishment" which is exempt from the ban and can sell large sodas. So yes, the "big gulp ban" doesnt actually ban the big gulp Yet they're still targeting bodegas, I'm not sure how 7-11 isn't anything but a cleaner polished bodega.

Also this doesn't stop people from just buying 2 sodas, or going to places with unlimited refills. Or just going to a grocery store. Or just buying alcohol instead.

I'm all for making people healthy, but this ban is hilariously bad.

I eat what I want and do what I want.

Using the argument that personal freedom is paramount to other concerns then any government regulation on individual behavior is without merit. Restrictions/taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, laws against illegal drugs, ect...should be stricken down in favor of individual freedoms.

If people have shown an inability to self control harmful behaviors, is it not society's responsibility to step in? We have an obesity epidemic which has astronomical societal costs as well as personal costs to the individual. Imagine what will happen if they classify obesity as a disability under the ADA?

Notice the law does not prevent one from buying more than one soda if they so choose. It will simply cost the consumer more. Freedom of choice is not taken away.

Um no....who is defending the bucket of corn syrup as a way of life except the beverage council and the people who make those creepy "corn sugar" ads? HFCS is at the root of as much liver damage and heart disease as alcohol, so why not regulate it in the same way? Anything to slow down the GM corn industry and atrozine releases into our environment will certainly fall on the right side of history. This is not about civil liberties, it is about regulating a substance known to do substantial harm. Were we any less free when coca-cola came only in 7 oz. bottles?

I like to think adults can think for themselves, but after hearing so many, "What am I supposed to drink if I can't get a big soda?" interviews this week I'm thinking at the very least we need a "Thirsty? Drink some effin' water!!!" campaign.

For many, making something that people desire illegal only raises their desire more.

Can you imagine a black market for..... soda? haha

I fully support it. The general American population is fat and stubborn. Education is a nice gesture, but it won't stop stupid people from making stupid choices and draining medicaid and medicare for which we all have to pay for through taxes and higher insurance premiums. Why should I be financially penalized so these sheeple can destroy their bodies? They don't even know how to make their own choices, let alone make good ones. Their "choices" are based on the pretty colors and advertising on pop bottles.

If they can't think for themselves, let someone with a bit of sense think for them.

I don't think the law goes far enough. If they can't drink a big coke, they'll gulp down a giant orange juice with even more sugar.

They should tax drink companies for every gram of sugar they dump into their trashy crap products.