Mayor Bloomburg (NY) proposes 16-oz. limit on soft drinks.

By Nick1962 Latest Reply 2012-06-24 17:53:50 -0500
Started 2012-05-31 15:22:44 -0500

Mayor Bloomburg proposes 16-oz. limit on soft drinks.

“All across the country, everybody recognizes obesity as a growing, serious problem,” the mayor said in an interview. “But everybody’s just sitting around wringing their hands, not doing anything about it . . . I think it’s fair to say that while everyone else is sitting around complaining, New York City is acting.”

This is an excerpt from the article here:

Now before we start talking about food police and government intrusions on our right to eat and drink what we want, please keep in mind that we already ban trans-fats, many cities have health department regulations prohibiting serving soft cooked eggs, and undercooked hamburgers.

So, a 32-oz. Coke – is it a health issue?

161 replies

jayabee52 2012-06-13 15:37:01 -0500 Report

This just came to my inbox a few minutes ago: "First Soda, Now Milk: NYC Wants To Extend Ban to Popcorn, Milk Drinks"

Read it here ~

Graylin Bee
Graylin Bee 2012-06-13 15:47:26 -0500 Report

Seems it was just the camal's nose. Now they want the whole stinkin' beast in our tents.

old biker
old biker 2012-06-24 17:53:50 -0500 Report

GB you have such a wonderful way with words.You paint a picture with them that can't be missed..I love it..many huggs

dietcherry 2012-06-11 12:59:31 -0500 Report

Heres another perspective on this issue; its long but worth a read:

Nick1962 2012-06-11 15:17:12 -0500 Report

I like the way he worked the “green” aspect into it linking increased plastic bottle usage. I agree Bloomburg is just taking a “pot shot” at the issue with his initiative, but I don’t agree this will increase sales as Mercola suggests. Many folks when ordering a beverage as a side to a meal don’t automatically say “hey I need 20 oz. or my meal isn’t right”. Maybe some of the hardcore soda addicts may, but I doubt the average Joe is going to miss a few ounces and deliberately order a second.
He makes several good points about where we stand as a nutritionally educated society. We suck, and we’ve completely lost our minds about portion control. Not to mention the folks that are supposed to be putting forth this education are apparently being bought off by the food manufacturing industry. Another conspiracy theory? Maybe, but I still applaud Bloomburg for taking a stand.

dietcherry 2012-06-12 08:36:31 -0500 Report

Agreed Nick. The country is in short supply of disposable income as it is so I think alot of folks will decide this is all about money anyway and will say No Thanks to an additional soda. Mission accomplished.

Nick1962 2012-06-12 10:36:24 -0500 Report

Yes, it is all about money, and I've been reading the results of the "National Soda Summit" where the former Coke exec openly states his job was to capture "stomach share". I've debated posting this given the strong opinions already shown in these posts. The irony I take from it is yes, people don't want government involved in their lives, but they're perfectly happy being manipulated by marketers to buy their products.

GabbyPA 2012-06-13 08:46:52 -0500 Report

This is where common sense should kick in...but it seems we don't have much of that either. Ads are doing their job, but when did we become mindless and give in to every food ad out there? There are a lot, that is for sure. I we just throw out the TV. That will eliminate a lot of food ads from our daily diet. Oh, but there is also radio, magazines and bill boards. Hmmmm?

We give in to the ads because they provide us with things we "want". That is why we also give in to government control, because it often also provides things we "want" for free. But once that is started, it has no end.

When we stop using our brains to see what is really being done to all of us, we have lost already.

Nick1962 2012-06-13 10:44:43 -0500 Report

And that really is the bottom line - we're being manipulated from all sides. I feel like a pawn sometimes - soda industry says "here, drink all you want" then uncle sam steps in and says "put that down it's no good for you". I wish the two of them would just fight it out, come to an agreement, and get back to us when they're done.

Caroltoo 2012-06-12 12:10:40 -0500 Report

That might be a good discussion though you would have to skip the punchline about the government involvement if you want to draw out feelings about how we are manipulated by the marketers, then tie it all together later.

MoeGig 2012-06-05 19:35:14 -0500 Report

No one tell Bloomberg that you can buy a whole pizza!! Illustrates the stupidity of this law.

GabbyPA 2012-06-07 11:42:07 -0500 Report

Yep, you can still buy a loaded shake or large fries at the restaurants, just not the large is really insane.

Nick1962 2012-06-07 12:01:50 -0500 Report

Isn't that kind of apples to oranges though? I mean people don't spend their day with a shake or quarter pounder within arm's reach every day. They do with soda to the point of abuse in some cases. There has to be some issue here, why else would the CSPI be holding a "Soda Summit" today?
Check out their agenda link. More than just Bloomburg are getting in on this.

GabbyPA 2012-06-13 08:53:15 -0500 Report

This is why Pepsi came out with one that is half the sugar. But I rarely drank regular soda. I drank TAB (I'm sure I'll die from that) and grew up fairly active, but I just ate too much in general. I ate more healthy food than not, but he key is that I ate more.

So attributing obesity to sugary soda is not very realistic in my view. I believe it can be a contributing factor, but not the way that link to the summit seems to put it.

ptsparkle 2012-06-07 11:40:44 -0500 Report

Agreed on that point. I think in my own warped mind, Boomberg has an ulterior motive! People are leaving N.Y. like rats jumpimg ship because of all the high taxes and nonsensical regulations. That becomes a drain on his revenue. 16 oz. max size soft drink? People will buy 2 drinks(32 oz), and bloomy gets twice the tax!! Sound crazy?? Just thinking out loud.

Type1Lou 2012-06-04 15:03:37 -0500 Report

I think banning super-sized portions of unhealthy foods will not change the underlying cause of our obesity epidemic. We need radical revisions in our eating habits and food processing to get back to healthy eating and healthy lifestyles. Rather than ban the super-sized junk food (or any junk food for that matter), why not tax the heck out of them and maybe that might reduce demand while generating much needed income to tackle our deficit…but that's not what the "Land of the Free" is all about, is it? I'm not sure I would react well to someone dictating to me what and how much I can and cannot eat.

Nick1962 2012-06-04 16:02:25 -0500 Report

The “supersize” is pretty much a US thing. We’ve been outside the US and in a lot of places, if they have a McDonald’s or such western place, they don’t offer the supersize option. Also, many of the snack foods like Doritos and such are all individual portion bags. Beer in many places is a 10 oz. bottle or can, even the stuff we export to them. No such thing as a “Grande” in many coffee shops either.
You’re right though, banning these portion sizes would only be one part of a needed overhaul. A tax would be a great way to generate revenue, but people would scream like crazy.
By banning ther supersize option (and stuff like free refills) and limiting foods to single serve, you wouldn't be dictating how much a person eats, you'd just change the packaging - you want two, eat two!

Caroltoo 2012-06-03 15:35:14 -0500 Report

Just an observation: this appears to me to illustrate why recently we have not been able to generate positive changes in our country. Almost everyone has an idea why what you suggested can't work, but few, if any, make constructive suggestions of what could work. So we are in a stalemate.

great dane
great dane 2012-06-03 15:49:07 -0500 Report

I would think that advocating personal responseability is a constructive suggestion

Caroltoo 2012-06-03 15:56:33 -0500 Report

Theoretically, it is, but how do you get it to happen? Theory without suggesting a way to implement it, is not really a solution.

great dane
great dane 2012-06-03 14:39:01 -0500 Report

Big brother knows what's best for you!! Whatever happened to personal responnsebility.

red flower lady
red flower lady 2012-06-03 15:50:08 -0500 Report

We should take responsibility! How has that been working out for us so far? We want the right to do what ever we want, and then put the blame/expense elsewhere. Something has to change.

Jim Edwards
Jim Edwards 2012-06-02 20:19:21 -0500 Report

I almost forgot. Does this eliminate free refills?

Nick1962 2012-06-02 20:37:45 -0500 Report

You know, I forgot that in my other spinoff post. Yes, i'd eliminate them for soft drinks, don't know if that's Bloomburg's plan. Still wouldn't fall under the restrictive premise, but i think most folks would think twice if it meant their pocket change. There might be a second succession here in the south over sweet tea!

Jim Edwards
Jim Edwards 2012-06-02 21:21:53 -0500 Report

No. Sweet tea needs to stay. if it is banned, i will move to the south to join in the succession. i don't drink it much anymore but I will defend to my death the right for other to enjoy it. Some things are sacred and need to be left alone!

Nick1962 2012-06-02 21:51:24 -0500 Report

As a yankee transplant i should say thems fightin' words. But as a lazy man, I'll just wait for the sugar to do you in :)

DeanaG 2012-06-02 19:10:53 -0500 Report

What's next, video games, TVs and computers to stop people from sitting too much??

Jim Edwards
Jim Edwards 2012-06-02 19:35:27 -0500 Report

sounds good. those items could be removed from the power grid and a generator hooked up to them. For example if the kids wanted to watch 4 hours of TV they would have to peddle a bike for 2 hours to generate enough electricity to power the TV for that time. Excellent idea! My girls, now 30 & 31 watched very little TV and most of it was educational. My one daughter taught herself sign language from Sesame Street (?). she would love to play board games with me or her Mom. My oldest daughter loved and still loves to read. The first daughter is an engineer at Volvo, the second has had her own successful business for about 6 years. For the most part their lack of TV watching and video games was their choice. there were programs we would not allow them to watch, but, for the most part, they wanted to do other stuff.
After it rained we would get a popsicle stick and walk around the development picking up all the worms before they were crushed by the cars. We added them to our garden. Both girls still remember doing this.

Nick1962 2012-06-02 19:56:48 -0500 Report

Excellent point Jim, it's not just about food. Like all things, balance is the key. You want mindless TV time, balance it with something beneficial. I'm sure there was an education in the worms and garden thing, not to mention the sense of humane treatment. There's a life lesson.

dietcherry 2012-06-02 19:52:49 -0500 Report

Im giving you a standing ovation for this most excellent idea !!!

Nick1962 2012-06-02 20:14:00 -0500 Report

Both! Most exercise equipment now has video screens. The Nintendo Wii is great and all, but why not power the X-box by treadmill. Heck, why not go old school - i was told if i wanted a game console (Pong at the time) i had to pay for it. I worked a whole summer painting curbs for the city dept. with yellow paint to pay for that. Funny thing was, after all that hard work, the game console really didn't seem to be an equal payback.

locarbarbie 2012-06-02 08:07:54 -0500 Report

First of all, I believe we need less government interference in our lives. That said, this is a ridiculous over simplification of a bigger problem. I checked on the McDonalds "nutritional", (yeah, I know: oxymoron!) website. They do not list sizes, but here is a sample of items with calorie and carb couts.
Coke (I assume 16 oz ?) 150 calories 40 carbs
Wild berry smoothie 210 calories 48 carbs
Strawberry lemonade 200 calories 51 carbs
Chocolate shake 570 calories 91 carbs
caramel frappe/coffee 45o calories 61 carbs

Not saying coke is a healthy choice at all, but it doesn't look too bad when compared to some of the other options…so why is only soda being singled out?

Not to mention…
Angus mushroom and swiss burger 770 calories 59 carbs
Southwest salad/grilled chicken 290 calories 28 carbs
fries (again no size given) 230 calories 20 carbs
Big breakfast with hot cakes 1090 calories 28 carbs, a great way to start your day…NOT!

In my mind, this is just one more way for a government institution to make it appear as if they really care about your health and welfare when really it only amounts to one more way to pad their coffers with fines.

Nick1962 2012-06-02 08:42:25 -0500 Report

Soda is being singled out because it is a beverage many drink all day long. We don't eat hamburgers all day. I always had a full cup of coffee next to me most days. I know folks who do the same with Mountain Dew.
I agree that we need less government intrusion, but just by your post here, a burger and soda for one meal is nearly equal to what is a recommended daily allowance, even without fries. Many people don't understand that.

locarbarbie 2012-06-02 10:16:40 -0500 Report

That is exactly my point, most people mindlessly place their order without realizing how many calories/carbs etc. are being consumed. In addition, so many believe they are making a better beverage choice with a smoothie or lemonade and that is not the case calorie/carb wise, although at least there are some nutrients.
But I think that in a free nation, you should be able to make your own choice, right or wrong.

Nick1962 2012-06-02 11:22:17 -0500 Report

Yes, you're right, it is your choice. Trouble is no one is there informing you it may be a bad choice. This is how we got all those tobacco lawsuits.
I think you'll agree that drinking 64 oz. of soda each day is bad for you, and I'll also say that these restrictions and fines are maybe not the best way to fight obesity, but I think we have to do something.

jayabee52 2012-06-02 11:27:58 -0500 Report

I think back to when I was a Certified Nurse assistant in home health. I'd stop in the grocery store and buy a 2 ltr bottle of (diet) Mt Dew. I would usually go through 2 - 2 ltr bottles per day.

Does Bloomberg's ban mean that Groc stores may no longer sell 2 ltr bottles of regular sodas?

jayabee52 2012-06-02 11:46:47 -0500 Report

I suspect it is just for show then. It has generated a lot of buzz, to be sure.

What is more (if it is enacted), there'll be lawsuits over this as the groc. stores can sell it in quantity and the resturaunts are forbidden. That is restraint of trade.

It'll probably line the pockets of lawyers.

When I bought it I would buy it in groc stores since in my state there is no sales tax on food/bevereges bought in groc stores but a 8% tax on meals from a resturaunt.

Nick1962 2012-06-02 11:49:52 -0500 Report

I think they'll couter he restraint of trade argument by saying they don't restrict how many 16 oz. servings they can sell.

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-01 13:21:19 -0500 Report

Nick what about All you can eat buffets? Are they going to regulate those next. The last time I went in Cactus Willy's it was like watching cattle graze. When people over indulge, what law is going to prevent this and how would it be regulated.

Nick1962 2012-06-01 13:45:47 -0500 Report

Well, again as I stated earlier, I'm still on the fence on the issue. You have a good point and I agree - been there, seen that and done that as well. I think the difference though is a buffet is a once in a while thing, with some nutritional value, whereas suagred drink consumption is a daily habit with no nutritional value.
A lot of buffet style restaurants are closing down near me, which really is a shame because for someone like me, I can go in and choose what I have and tailor the meal to my diet. Regulation of these places has already started in the form of health insurance. When obese people see their insurance premiums rise because they aren't self managing, I suspect the grazing will taper off.

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-01 14:25:05 -0500 Report

Insurance companies are the cause of the high cost of medical care or so I think. With the high premiums that are paid, the insurance companies should actually address obesity. Cover surgeries that help people lose weight, cover legal weight loss medications and cover the cost of a gym or personal trainer.

Obese people more than likely won't self manage with higher premiums if they don't mind covering the cost. We can have the government manage everything as that is not the purpose of government. It is like rehabbing prisoners, drug addicts and alcoholics. You can force people into rehab but if that isn't what they want it won't work. Even if the ban passes, if I want a 32oz soda, I will simply order two 16oz sodas, thumb my nose at the government and drink both of them. Why? because I know there is absolutely nothing the government can do to stop me and if I want to weigh 1000lbs and be dead by 40 that is my business. At the end of the day the government has only made me spend more money to get what I want. This is what is going to happen with that ban.

red flower lady
red flower lady 2012-06-03 15:46:41 -0500 Report

People are not doing it now with current premiums. The problem with you saying you should be able to weigh 1000lbs and be dead by 40 if it is your choice is this, are you willing to not have insurance cover anything caused by you being overweight? I'm sure that is what insurance companies will do and rightfully so in my opinion. I don't want to pay for you to be that fat or any one else for that matter. I don't like what I'm currently paying to be covered, but if people don't start getting their weight under control we will be paying higher premiums and have limited coverage.

I agree we should have the right to make our own decisions, but we also have to accept the consequences for doing so. I think we should be helped by the insurance company if we do take matters in hand to drop the weight and show that we are doing it, through dr appts. Like covering gym/exercise classes or weight loss eating plans, discounted weight equiptment. I don't think covering weight loss surgery is the answer as people will just rely on it and forgo working out as is the current situation. Insurance wasn't the reason we gained the weight so it shouldn't fall on them to be responsible for all ways to drop the weight, but some help by them would be nice.

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-03 17:51:12 -0500 Report

Red it is the persons right to weigh 1000lbs if they choose to do so even though they will suffer for it in the end. Hypothetical situation: If I were your daughter, I lived alone and supported myself with an at home business. I never ask you for any kind or financial assistance and am doing pretty good. We live in the same city and talk on the phone or visit all the time. You notice that every time we see each other I have gained weight. You talk to me about eating healthy and I listen to a point but still gain more and more weight. You continue to talk to me about losing weight and eating healthy and going to the doctors. I stop listening, continue to eat and refuse to go to the doctors. What are you going to do as my mother to get me to eat properly, diet and see a doctor. I know that I am not doing what I am suppose to do by your standards but to me I am fine. Keep in mind there is nothing legally you can do.

We are already paying higher prices with limited coverage. My insurance deductible at work went to $1,200.00. I live in a city that is red-lined by automobile insurance companies. We pay more for auto insurance than we would if we lived outside the city limits and in the city it is still higher with the safe driver and two car discounts than outside the city limits. The Safeway and Giant supermarkets prices are higher inside the city limits than they are outside the city. Even gas prices are higher in the city than outside the city.

I agree with you 100% insurance companies should cover the expense of weight loss. At one point Blue Cross/Blue Shield included coverage for a gym. I checked into it and not one of the gyms they covered were anywhere near where I live and I still had to pay a fee. If we are going to pay high premiums, include what people really need or ask for and weight loss should be monitored by the gym and the doctor. You raised a very good point.

red flower lady
red flower lady 2012-06-04 16:12:05 -0500 Report

You are right, anyone can weigh what they want, but wrong to expect others to pay for their health issues because of it!! As far as the hypothetical situation, I would try to find out why she is in that funk and help her change the mind frame. I would ask her to do the buddy plan:) I would tell her I need to get the exercise and could she please do it with me for support and sit with her to work up meal plans, also go to the dr together and both get the check up and move on from there. If none of this worked then I would have to respect( won't like it) that it's her decision as an adult to continue the way she wants and hope she finally gets to the point of wanting to change. Then I would once again do the buddy plan.

Now, I have to admit that my kids and I are extremely close and they do go to my dr appts, surgeries, rehab, exercise and so on along with my husband, so that they can participate in my care. There isn't anything they don't talk to us about(some times TMI) so I'm blessed we brought them up right.

I just wish it were easy for us all to make the changes needed to get healthy and active.

Nick1962 2012-06-03 17:41:03 -0500 Report

So right red! There are many forms of assistance available for anyone who wants to lose weight, many free. It's not the insurance company who need to be the educator. My insurance dropped by $100/month because we adopted a healthier lifestyle, cut medications (both prescription and OTC). Every 6 months or so the company's health segment "nurse" calls to get info from me on my latest PCP visit, bloodwork, and weight. All voluntary on my part. Since I'm costing them less now, and potentially in the future, I'm less of a liability to them.

Nick1962 2012-06-04 16:07:32 -0500 Report

Well, it is costly to staff such a thing, but I haven't ben hospitalized for anything for 12 years now, and the only ongoing "treatment" I recieve is chiropractic, and a med my PCP is prescribing as "preventative". They make money off me. Shame it has to go to my fat neighbor who's in regularly for asthma attacks when he overuses his inhaler

red flower lady
red flower lady 2012-06-04 16:19:07 -0500 Report

That is what I'm talking about! Don't up our premiums based on other's right to live their way. Don't get me wrong I would hope they can get the care they need, but understabd they could be paying less if making changes. You know how smokers pay more, but if they quit or get on some program then they get the reduced premium.

Controlled 2012-06-01 14:04:37 -0500 Report

All good points; however, let's be honest…"sugary" drinks are not the sole culprit and I don't even believe the biggest cause for concern. You will read on this site all day long that sugar is not the cause of diabetes. The diabetes epidemic is clearly a public health crisis, but what about the food additives and the tons of junk food that is available and for sale right next to these drinks.

A ban, tax, fine or penalty won't personally effect me in any way. While it's good to see health concerns being addressed on a broad level, draconian measures that effect specific populations leave much to be desired.

We're lucky here. We preach to the choir regarding health and nutrition. Even at that, a significant amount of our discussions regard "sugar" cravings, controlling our appetites and (for lack of a better word) consumption.

The simple truth is, with 100% enforcement, you will never collect enough fines to meaningfully address the problem. So, what's the point?

Irish1951 2012-06-01 14:58:35 -0500 Report

It's not even the collection of the fees but what they do with it. About 30 State Attorney Generals filled suit in the Supreme Court against the cigarette companies. They won and the money was to be used to support anti-smoking programs. This was done in my State(Ohio) until the Governor and legislators saw this big pool of money. They decided it would be better used for job training. Good program but what about the anti-smoking for kids. Fines,fees,taxes or whatever. They will say they are going to use it to fight the obesity problem and then they suddenly have a better use.

Nick1962 2012-06-01 14:15:59 -0500 Report

Agree on all points (except one). The restriction though is to find a way to curb obesity, not diabetes. What I disagree with is the "So, what's the point". I will never be at ideal weight, but I'm certainly not going to just give in without trying.

Controlled 2012-06-01 14:26:35 -0500 Report

A point well-taken.
That's the risk I took by not reading the entire chain before posting.

Do you remember a few months back when DietCherry suggested that we try to increase participation on this site? Her suggestion was for us all to be more active and to invite others here. I still agree with her. Other sites that I visit are much more active. It's not merely responding for the sake of hearing ourselves, but there's a wealth of "lurkers" out there who for whatever reason are reluctant to post. We were probably all scared when we were first diagnosed. If we weren't, we were confused. If we weren't either then we simply weren't being honest either.

There are lots of questions, insights, suggestions and observations out there that would be helpful for us all. So, in my own way…I am trying to increase participation on this site and modeling what I would like to see.

Nick1962 2012-06-01 14:37:34 -0500 Report

You and I are a lot alike in our D journey. Yes, I remeber her post about participation, and honestly that's one reason I started this. After being around here, I pretty much knew who would come down where, and no one's disappointed me so far. I know it's controversial, and as I told Carol, i have a spinoff in mind that would be more productive than debate.

Fyremarshal 2012-06-01 13:19:26 -0500 Report

Ohh I agree! Most people don't know what that stuff does to their arteries and heart. Being in the fire service, I've been to many medical runs that were possible heart attacks..

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-01 14:30:08 -0500 Report

So have I fyre but the thing is people either don't care that they can hear their arteries hardening or they simply refuse to accept the fact they have a problem so they are not going to do anything about it. I have actually been on calls for people whose blood pressure was about to explode out of the tops of their heads and was told I don't take my medication because the doctor doesn't know what he is talking about. People are going to do what they are going to do and there isn't a law that will stop them.

Look at the laws we have on the books today. Everyone of them is violated not only by the average joe who wants to be a criminal, those who think laws don't apply to them, or the woman who steals a purse just to see if she can get away with it or because she can't afford to pay for it. Our laws are also violated by the very same people who passed these laws.

Irish1951 2012-06-01 10:48:32 -0500 Report

Mayor Bloomberg was on the Today show this morning and admitted that people could simply order two 16oz drinks at time and the restaurant would not be in violation (a proposed two hundred dollar fine - where does that money go). Can you see the promotions to get around this - buy one get a free refill, buy one get one free, etc. There has to be more serious issue in New York that the politicians need to deal with. I will say the Mayor has put himself in the political spotlight and the talk of the airwaves and it cost him nothing for all this publicity.

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-01 00:32:41 -0500 Report

Nick I read that article and my first thought was people have the right to choose what they want to eat and how much. If the bill should pass, what is going to stop someone from going into a fast food restaurant an order two 16oz drinks.

I was at McDonald's in Walmart getting my unsweetened tea. The woman in front of me ordered two large fries, a big make a two large sodas. Thinking she was ordering for two I later saw her downing all of that food.

The reality is, people are going to eat as much as they want no matter what kind of food they want and there isn't anything anyone can do to stop it. The government can regulate this but it will be another wasted piece of paper. You can not force healthy eating on anyone anymore than you can force a person to go on a diet and lose weight.

Nick1962 2012-06-01 07:57:29 -0500 Report

That is true, but like Carol hints at, we stopped putting cigarettes in readily available vending machines and put an age limit on purchases. It didn't stop people from smoking, but it did cut the numbers of kids from starting.

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-01 12:18:16 -0500 Report

Nick smoking with kids is mainly peer pressure. Back in the day I would sneak my fathers filter-less Chesterfield cigarettes to sneak and smoke. I still smoke and that is the hardest habit to break but I am working on it. I have been in a corner store and kids have asked me to buy cigarettes for them. I won't do it but others will. Back in the 80's, cigarette companies would come in African American communities and give out free packs of cigarettes to adults and kids of all ages. This wasn't done in White communities. Our city put a ban on it and this stopped.

I had a guy in my 10th grade class who came to school drunk every day. I saw him 30 years later and he is still an alcoholic but looks like the walking dead. He got his alcohol from his fathers bar in the basement. Even though we have laws to protect kids from legally purchasing alcohol and cigarettes, there is nothing stopping them from getting it. They get alcohol from the parents home bar, older friends and all kids have friends who are either old enough to purchase alcohol and cigarettes or have a means of getting it. They pharm their parents medicine cabinets to get drugs so all the laws have done was slow it down. It didn't stop it and laws never will. As long as there is a way for kids to get what they need illegally they will get it.

Nick1962 2012-06-01 13:53:03 -0500 Report

Again, I know it's not going to absolutely STOP people from getting their sugar fix. I picked up the same bad habbits from my parents. Heck, we'd go to the gas station and dad would give a bucks worth of pocket change to run in while the guy pumped his gas. 65 cents were for his Marlboros and the rest I got for candy.
But like the anti-smoking campaign, it will curb the sugar fix in those that are just passively consuming, and prevent it from becoming a habit. It has shown to have an effect.

dietcherry 2012-06-01 13:10:19 -0500 Report

I started smoking because my Dad smoked. I was breathing it anyway so I was probably hooked long before knowing it. Peer pressure IS considerable but the examples our parents set for us are just as significant. I picked up more bad (and good!) habits from my parents than I ever did my friends.

I wish you ALL the success in the world in quitting Joyce. As a former smoker, please take it from me: when you are ready, it will happen. Youre not failing at quitting; youre just not ready yet :)

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-01 12:08:41 -0500 Report

True the laws do encourage sobriety but the mom that hit a mother and two kids crossing the street in the crosswalk and got hit by her who was drunk and ran a red light at 8:30 in the morning didn't care about that law.

Look at it this way. If the law is passed and you can no longer buy a 32 oz drink in a fast food restaurant, what is going to stop you, me, and anyone else from ordering two Triple Burgers, two orders of fries, and two 16 oz drinks and prevent us from sitting down eating it? Absolutely nothing.

It is also sad but true that a determined person committing suicide by food, drugs, alcohol or even a bullet won't be stopped unless they want to stop.

Americans are obese but obesity can be linked to under lying problems. The girl who doesn't have a date or is simply lonely, the recently divorce woman, the loss of a loved one can also cause these kinds of people to turn to food for comfort. The angry person eats to calm his/her nerves, thyroid problems, medications, genes, and greed can all be factored in to being the cause of obesity.

Regulating serving sizes isn't going to stop a person from being obese because all that person is going to do is go home and continue to eat.

Nick1962 2012-06-01 12:16:30 -0500 Report

Won't disagree at all, but I think some effort needs to be made to slow it down.
Right now a standard soda in a vending machine is 20 oz. Most people simply out of habbit will finish a bottle even though it's two servings. I doubt the average person wanting a swig of Coke would go back for a second bottle if they were reduced to 10 oz. Sure, some will, but thiose are the addictive behaviors you're talking about.

Just Joyce
Just Joyce 2012-06-01 13:31:32 -0500 Report

I think a can of soda is 10 ozs but I have seen people drink two of those. No matter how we look at this law it will be another form of government intrusion. It may reduce the size of beverages in some types of restaurants but it is also going to cause people to buy two 16ozs to get what they want. It still comes down to the individual choice of the people as to how little or how much of something they want regardless if it is good or bad for them.

Caroltoo 2012-06-01 00:37:26 -0500 Report

True, you can't prevent a determined person from commiting suicide by food, drugs, or alcohol, but we do have laws that encourage sobriety with respect to drugs and alcohol. Is a food addiction really any different?

Nick1962 2012-06-01 08:02:00 -0500 Report

I think you're onto something there. Time was food was a necessity we had to work to aquire and wasn't a substance we could abuse. Society and food have changed. Now food can be abused, and it's quite clear it can become harmful to public health. Insurance companies are already taking a financial stand on obesity, so is the view of food changing?