vainandy said:

KidaDynamite said:

You ain't never lied.

They even talk about WATER of all things these days. All these folks for the last 15 or so walking around with these bottles of water. I be damned if I'm going to waste hard earned money on something that comes out of the sink for free. I think a lot of them do it because it looks "trendy". Hell, I think some of them buy one bottle and then fill up from the sink over and over just so they can look "trendy". I have never bought water and never intend to but somebody gave me some bottled water once and I promise you, I couldn't taste the difference. Somebody even told me once that tap water was unhealthy because it goes through the metal pipes so it's not really clean. Hell, I've had dicks in my mouth, you think I give a damn about some water touching a damn pipe?

You are so right but check it out....NOW they are saying the bottles that they put the water in can cause cancer. So basically we aren't safe, no matter what we do.....OUR ASS IS GRASS!

KidaDynamite said:

vainandy said:

They even talk about WATER of all things these days. All these folks for the last 15 or so walking around with these bottles of water. I be damned if I'm going to waste hard earned money on something that comes out of the sink for free. I think a lot of them do it because it looks "trendy". Hell, I think some of them buy one bottle and then fill up from the sink over and over just so they can look "trendy". I have never bought water and never intend to but somebody gave me some bottled water once and I promise you, I couldn't taste the difference. Somebody even told me once that tap water was unhealthy because it goes through the metal pipes so it's not really clean. Hell, I've had dicks in my mouth, you think I give a damn about some water touching a damn pipe?

You are so right but check it out....NOW they are saying the bottles that they put the water in can cause cancer. So basically we aren't safe, no matter what we do.....OUR ASS IS GRASS!

I think people just enjoy looking for shit to find unhealthy. If you're gonna die, you're just gonna die. You can't prevent it. I'd rather die younger and be happy than live to be 100 and never have a moment of pleasure in those hundred years for constantly avoiding things considered unhealthy.

vainandy said:

You can buy a 2 liter in the convenience stores but they're not cold so unless you're going home, it's not going to suit your needs. If you're on the go in a car, you would need a cup and some ice. Yeah, they sell cups of ice but they are very small. You would have wreck trying to constantly pour the drink into the cup multiple times and the ice would melt more and more each time you fill the cup up.

I've seen the fountain drinks in fewer and fewer convenience stores down here though because they taste so horrible and watered down. Everybody down here buys 20 ounce Cokes from the cooler. When we buy fountain drinks down here, we usually buy them from fast food windows when we get a supersize meal. Hardly anybody buys the drink alone because they cost too much. It's cheaper to get the hamburger, fries, and supersize drink, than it is to buy them separately. Now, if you go inside to eat, that's a different story altogether because only a fool would buy the extra large drink when they eat inside because the drinks come with free refills. Money is too tight down here and we all know the ways to get more for our money. And believe me, when that 100 degree heat kicks in down here, you can drink a 16 ounce drink VERY fast with one swallow and still feel like you're dying of thirst.

You will still be able to buy cold non-diet sodas greater than 16 oz. in convenience stores. Unless the convenience store decides not to refrigerate them. But that would be on the store, not the law.

From the press release:

The regulation will apply to any food service establishment that is regulated by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums and arenas.

Not convenience stores (or grocery stores)! If you want 32 oz of soda when you go to the movies, just buy it at a store and sneak it in; which I'm sure tons of people do anyway because it's less expensive.

KidaDynamite said:

sexton said:

This law does NOT affect your personal choice. You can still buy and drink as much sugary soda as you want.

Then there's really no point in this law if that's the case.

It's like the crazy taxes on cigarettes. If you insist on poisoning yourself, you will have to pay more to do it. That's the point of this law.

KidaDynamite said:

vainandy said:

They even talk about WATER of all things these days. All these folks for the last 15 or so walking around with these bottles of water. I be damned if I'm going to waste hard earned money on something that comes out of the sink for free. I think a lot of them do it because it looks "trendy". Hell, I think some of them buy one bottle and then fill up from the sink over and over just so they can look "trendy". I have never bought water and never intend to but somebody gave me some bottled water once and I promise you, I couldn't taste the difference. Somebody even told me once that tap water was unhealthy because it goes through the metal pipes so it's not really clean. Hell, I've had dicks in my mouth, you think I give a damn about some water touching a damn pipe?

You are so right but check it out....NOW they are saying the bottles that they put the water in can cause cancer. So basically we aren't safe, no matter what we do.....OUR ASS IS GRASS!

According to sources, we'll die from ANYTHING.

wow! i never thought folks would get so stressed and heated over soda cup sizes. i don't think the government should tell people what size soda they can purchase. it's just like the ban on happy meal toys for kids.

when i lived in another country their soda cups were so damn small, it left me thirsty as hell.

I personally don’t think it’s a great idea. It’s perfectly valid to try to draw a circle around some industries or activities if there’s a damage or a cost involved that’s not getting picked up in the price of the product and use government tools to try to restrict the activity. But this kind of regulation usually doesn’t stop the activity from happening...instead you’ll just cause the producer & consumer to come up with a work-around. You’ll likely end up with the same end-result (high consumption of the soda) and often get an unanticipated negative consequence (like more small cups in landfills instead of fewer large cups).

Usually the most effective thing to do is to put a price on the product to reflect the cost not getting picked up in the price. So put a tax on soda, or implement a junk food levy, to the extent that the health costs are offset. But then you get into further, almost endless issues, a series of cliffs that you keep falling off of – what is junk versus what is a nutritious food? A cheeseburger with some lettuce & tomato can be a pretty good, well rounded meal. Five of them a day perhaps not so much. And people will just seek out cheaper sources – it’s not like tobacco or carbon, where you can draw a very specific line around the product. This is an area where we can be said to be victims of our own success; most of us have access to an endless supply of cheap calories. We’re evolved to crave salt & fat & sugar, & unless we’re willing to agree that we should tax food to the extent it would be uneconomical for people to overindulge, or restrict it in some other regulatory way I don’t see an answer to this other than to try to continue to educate people on fitness & diet.

PurpleJedi said:

XxAxX said:

i dislike this legislation. it's too parental, imo. what next? no potato chips? no pizza?

i also object to the smoking bans, and think the situation could be handled through dedicated smoking rooms. but that's just me.

I am an avid NON-smoker. The smell of cigarette smoke makes me nauseous.

BUT if a restaurant/bar has a separate room with adequate ventilation for smokers, then why not?

right. i don't like the smell either, but it bugs me that government can tell a restaurant owner what they can and cannot do in this regard. having a smoking room seems like a reasonable solution. as for this issue about the soda... it's a precedent. i still don't like it

I'd vote for Bloomberg a 4th time if I could..
<-- very liberal/progressive Democrat

this is awesome!

now I can start trucking in Big Gulps and sell them on the street!

jobs, jobs, jobs!!!

damosuzuki said:

I personally don’t think it’s a great idea. It’s perfectly valid to try to draw a circle around some industries or activities if there’s a damage or a cost involved that’s not getting picked up in the price of the product and use government tools to try to restrict the activity. But this kind of regulation usually doesn’t stop the activity from happening...instead you’ll just cause the producer & consumer to come up with a work-around. You’ll likely end up with the same end-result (high consumption of the soda) and often get an unanticipated negative consequence (like more small cups in landfills instead of fewer large cups).

Usually the most effective thing to do is to put a price on the product to reflect the cost not getting picked up in the price. So put a tax on soda, or implement a junk food levy, to the extent that the health costs are offset. But then you get into further, almost endless issues, a series of cliffs that you keep falling off of – what is junk versus what is a nutritious food? A cheeseburger with some lettuce & tomato can be a pretty good, well rounded meal. Five of them a day perhaps not so much. And people will just seek out cheaper sources – it’s not like tobacco or carbon, where you can draw a very specific line around the product. This is an area where we can be said to be victims of our own success; most of us have access to an endless supply of cheap calories. We’re evolved to crave salt & fat & sugar, & unless we’re willing to agree that we should tax food to the extent it would be uneconomical for people to overindulge, or restrict it in some other regulatory way I don’t see an answer to this other than to try to continue to educate people on fitness & diet.

Good points.

JerseyKRS said:

this is awesome!

now I can start trucking in Big Gulps and sell them on the street!

jobs, jobs, jobs!!!

black market Big Gulps!

[Edited 9/21/12 12:12pm]

http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?_r=0

Avoiding Sugary Drinks Limits Children’s Weight Gain in 2 Studies

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Published: September 21, 2012

Two-thirds of all American adults and one-third of children in the United States are overweight or obese. The contribution of sugary sodas and fruit drinks to this epidemic has been hotly disputed. But two new randomized clinical trials published on Friday in The New England Journal of Medicine lend credence to the idea that limiting access to these beverages may help reduce obesity.

Beverage industry officials denounced the research, which may fuel wider efforts to curb consumption through taxes or other restrictions.

In one of the new trials, researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital randomly assigned 224 overweight or obese teenagers to receive home deliveries of bottled water and diet drinks for one year. The children also were regularly encouraged to avoid sugary drinks. Those who received the shipments gained only 3.5 pounds on average during that year, while a comparison group of similar teenagers gained 7.7 pounds. The differences between the groups evaporated after the deliveries stopped.

In the second trial, researchers at VU University Amsterdam randomly assigned 641 normal-weight schoolchildren ages 4 to 11 to drink eight ounces of a 104-calorie sugar-sweetened or noncaloric sugar-free fruit-flavored drink every day from identically branded cans. Over 18 months, children in the sugar-free group gained 13.9 pounds on average, while those drinking the sugar-added version gained 16.2 pounds.

“So many things are driving obesity that changing any one thing is not going to reverse the problem, but these studies suggest soda is a pretty darn good place to start,” said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. He is an author of an editorial accompanying the studies that argues that the government should more aggressively regulate food industry practices.

“Just think what the impact would be if you could create a public policy that would have the same effect as their intervention, but on millions of people,” he said.

Officials with the American Beverage Association, the trade association for makers of nonalcoholic beverages, criticized the studies, saying that obesity is not caused by a single food or beverage and that sugar-sweetened beverages make up an estimated 7 percent of the calories in a typical American diet.

Industry representatives also pointed out that the intervention in the two-year Boston study did not produce lasting changes in habits or body composition once it ended.

But Dr. David S. Ludwig, the director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s and the study’s senior author, said the finding only underscored the need for public policy changes.

“It suggests that if we want long-term changes in body weight, we will need to make long-term, permanent changes in the environment for children,” he said.

The effectiveness of such changes may vary by ethnic group, Dr. Ludwig and his colleagues found. Hispanic children responded more strongly than non-Hispanics to the switch to sugar-free beverages, gaining less than a pound on average by the end of the second year in the Boston trial, while Hispanics in the comparison group gained more than 20 pounds on average.

Dr. Ludwig said that this analysis must be interpreted with caution because the Hispanic subgroup was very small, but that it may suggest a greater sensitivity to carbohydrates in the diet among Hispanics in the United States, who have high rates of diabetes.

The Dutch study was double-blinded, meaning neither the researchers nor the children knew whether they were given sugar-sweetened or sugar-free drinks. Dr. Martijn B. Katan, emeritus professor of nutrition at VU University Amsterdam, developed fruit-flavored drinks that contained either sugar or noncaloric artificial sweeteners in identical cans.

A weakness of this study was that one-quarter of the children dropped out before its conclusion. But the children who were assigned to drink the sugar-free beverages not only gained less weight over the course of the 18-month study, they also had less body fat and thinner skin folds.

“When you change the intake of liquid calories, you don’t get the effect that you get when you skip breakfast and then compensate with a larger lunch,” Dr. Katan said. “You skip the sugary drink and never notice it, which means that this is a less painful way of losing weight.”

Still, Dr. Katan and others warned that studies need to examine how consumers react to policies restricting access to sweetened drinks, because such policies could have unintended consequences. Taxing soft drinks could result in consumers’ buying fewer fruits and vegetables so they can afford soft drinks, he suggested.

Both clinical trials had limitations, but they are unusual in that they demonstrate the effect of a single behavioral change on weight gain, said Dr. Seema Kumar, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Mayo Clinic Children’s Center. “Typically when you do a weight loss intervention, we talk about multiple aspects, changing food choices, portion sizes, frequency of snacks, types of snacks,” she said.

Still, she added, curbing soda consumption “is not a magic pill.”

The studies were presented on Friday at the annual scientific meeting of the Obesity Society in San Antonio.

It's classist as hell.

Working-class people are the only ones walking around with giant sodas, to propel them through their grueling days making Michael Bloomberg and his ilk richer.

Why not outlaw foie gras? It's just as unhealthy. Yeah, yeah, it hasn't contributed to anywhere near as many cases of obesity. But I'm making a point. This is random and targets poorer people, exerting more control over their lives.

Fuck that.

PunkMistress said:

It's classist as hell.

Working-class people are the only ones walking around with giant sodas, to propel them through their grueling days making Michael Bloomberg and his ilk richer.

Why not outlaw foie gras? It's just as unhealthy. Yeah, yeah, it hasn't contributed to anywhere near as many cases of obesity. But I'm making a point. This is random and targets poorer people, exerting more control over their lives.

Fuck that.

I've got nothing else to add because you said it all for me.

PunkMistress said:

It's classist as hell.

Working-class people are the only ones walking around with giant sodas, to propel them through their grueling days making Michael Bloomberg and his ilk richer.

Why not outlaw foie gras? It's just as unhealthy. Yeah, yeah, it hasn't contributed to anywhere near as many cases of obesity. But I'm making a point. This is random and targets poorer people, exerting more control over their lives.

Fuck that.

Foie Gras has been outlawed in California...

RenHoek said:

PunkMistress said:

It's classist as hell.

Working-class people are the only ones walking around with giant sodas, to propel them through their grueling days making Michael Bloomberg and his ilk richer.

Why not outlaw foie gras? It's just as unhealthy. Yeah, yeah, it hasn't contributed to anywhere near as many cases of obesity. But I'm making a point. This is random and targets poorer people, exerting more control over their lives.

Fuck that.

Foie Gras has been outlawed in California...

Well...good!

RenHoek said:

PunkMistress said:

It's classist as hell.

Working-class people are the only ones walking around with giant sodas, to propel them through their grueling days making Michael Bloomberg and his ilk richer.

Why not outlaw foie gras? It's just as unhealthy. Yeah, yeah, it hasn't contributed to anywhere near as many cases of obesity. But I'm making a point. This is random and targets poorer people, exerting more control over their lives.

Fuck that.

Foie Gras has been outlawed in California...

but isn't that more of a hippy cruelty to animals issue?

Efan said:

kewlschool said:

Well, at least you can still get your heroin in Times Square. Just saying.

No, you totally can't anymore. It's depressing.

Just look for the tall goofy looking dude and tell 'em the NDRU sent you, I think you'll get a 5% discount.

uniden said:

wow! i never thought folks would get so stressed and heated over soda cup sizes. i don't think the government should tell people what size soda they can purchase. it's just like the ban on happy meal toys for kids.

when i lived in another country their soda cups were so damn small, it left me thirsty as hell.

yeah, being addicted to sugar makes you feel that way

sexton said:

KidaDynamite said:

Then there's really no point in this law if that's the case.

It's like the crazy taxes on cigarettes. If you insist on poisoning yourself, you will have to pay more to do it. That's the point of this law.

Someone else thinking they can force someone to eat or drink the way they want to pisses me off because I'm the type of person that if someone thinks they're going to tell me to stop doing something, I'm going to do it even more just to show them that what I do is none of their damn business. But the fact that someone would have to pay more to do anything, healthy or unhealthy, pisses me off also. They know that there are a lot of people that are going to just bite the bullet and pay more because a 16 ounce drink is not enough, especially on a hot day, and also after eating a salty hamburger and fries because fast food joints are mainly where these big drinks are sold, at least in my area anyway. If they were lowering the price to where two 16 ounce drinks comes out to the same price as one 32 ounce drink that would be fine. Yes, that might be productive because someone may drink the 16 ounce drink and be satisfied with it and they would even save a little money also if they didn't buy another drink. This would be a good idea because it offers the customer a fair price on a smaller drink and the CHOICE to not drink more. But if the 16 ounce drinks continue to be full price, because the 32 ounce drinks are only about 20 or 30 cents more, the consumer would have to come up with over a dollar or more to buy another drink to obtain the full 32 ounces from two cups. That means they are being PUNISHED for buying more because it previously costed them less. Nobody wants to be told how to live their life. When somebody tries to tell me how to live my life, I'm not thinking about listening to them. Whatever they're saying is being tuned out because the main thing I'm thinking about is how much I'd like to slap the shit out of them for having the nerve to even think they can tell someone else what to do. The only people profiting from this is the fast food chain, in other words, the rich. And rich fuckers already have enough damn money as it is without cheating poor people out of their hard earned money.

The problem with obesity is not from the drinks but mainly from the meal itself. If they want to decrease obesity, go after the food industry, the grocery stores. Hamburger, bologna, and hot dogs are much cheaper in the grocery stores than chicken and fish which you could bake and lose weight. The main reason I haven't gone back on my diet is because I can't afford to. I was looking at the price of fish in the grocery store just the other day. A pack of two catfish costed almost ten dollars. Hell, add another two or three dollars to that and I could go to the Jerry's Catfish House and eat all-you-can-eat fried catfish for that. Lower the price of the fish in the grocery store to about three or four dollars and I could take it home and bake it and also only eat two pieces rather than endless fried fish at the restaurant.

They want to come up with all these ideas for people to spend MORE money on things unhealthy for them but it never enters their mind to LOWER prices on things that are healthy for them. But of course, they would never do that though because it's all about making the rich fuckers richer. Every single time they think they're coming up with a solution to "help" people, it always ends up costing the poor person more and puts more money in the hands of the rich bastards doing the selling.

.

.

.

[Edited 9/22/12 6:22am]

vainandy said:

Someone else thinking they can force someone to eat or drink the way they want to pisses me off because I'm the type of person that if someone thinks they're going to tell me to stop doing something, I'm going to do it even more just to show them that what I do is none of their damn business. But the fact that someone would have to pay more to do anything, healthy or unhealthy, pisses me off also. They know that there are a lot of people that are going to just bite the bullet and pay more because a 16 ounce drink is not enough, especially on a hot day, and also after eating a salty hamburger and fries because fast food joints are mainly where these big drinks are sold, at least in my area anyway. If they were lowering the price to where two 16 ounce drinks comes out to the same price as one 32 ounce drink that would be fine. Yes, that might be productive because someone may drink the 16 ounce drink and be satisfied with it and they would even save a little money also if they didn't buy another drink. This would be a good idea because it offers the customer a fair price on a smaller drink and the CHOICE to not drink more. But if the 16 ounce drinks continue to be full price, because the 32 ounce drinks are only about 20 or 30 cents more, the consumer would have to come up with over a dollar or more to buy another drink to obtain the full 32 ounces from two cups. That means they are being PUNISHED for buying more because it previously costed them less. Nobody wants to be told how to live their life. When somebody tries to tell me how to live my life, I'm not thinking about listening to them. Whatever they're saying is being tuned out because the main thing I'm thinking about is how much I'd like to slap the shit out of them for having the nerve to even think they can tell someone else what to do. The only people profiting from this is the fast food chain, in other words, the rich. And rich fuckers already have enough damn money as it is without cheating poor people out of their hard earned money.

The problem with obesity is not from the drinks but mainly from the meal itself. If they want to decrease obesity, go after the food industry, the grocery stores. Hamburger, bologna, and hot dogs are much cheaper in the grocery stores than chicken and fish which you could bake and lose weight. The main reason I haven't gone back on my diet is because I can't afford to. I was looking at the price of fish in the grocery store just the other day. A pack of two catfish costed almost ten dollars. Hell, add another two or three dollars to that and I could go to the Jerry's Catfish House and eat all-you-can-eat fried catfish for that. Lower the price of the fish in the grocery store to about three or four dollars and I could take it home and bake it and also only eat two pieces rather than endless fried fish at the restaurant.

They want to come up with all these ideas for people to spend MORE money on things unhealthy for them but it never enters their mind to LOWER prices on things that are healthy for them. But of course, they would never do that though because it's all about making the rich fuckers richer. Every single time they think they're coming up with a solution to "help" people, it always ends up costing the poor person more and puts more money in the hands of the rich bastards doing the selling.

sexton said:

vainandy said:

Someone else thinking they can force someone to eat or drink the way they want to pisses me off because I'm the type of person that if someone thinks they're going to tell me to stop doing something, I'm going to do it even more just to show them that what I do is none of their damn business. But the fact that someone would have to pay more to do anything, healthy or unhealthy, pisses me off also. They know that there are a lot of people that are going to just bite the bullet and pay more because a 16 ounce drink is not enough, especially on a hot day, and also after eating a salty hamburger and fries because fast food joints are mainly where these big drinks are sold, at least in my area anyway. If they were lowering the price to where two 16 ounce drinks comes out to the same price as one 32 ounce drink that would be fine. Yes, that might be productive because someone may drink the 16 ounce drink and be satisfied with it and they would even save a little money also if they didn't buy another drink. This would be a good idea because it offers the customer a fair price on a smaller drink and the CHOICE to not drink more. But if the 16 ounce drinks continue to be full price, because the 32 ounce drinks are only about 20 or 30 cents more, the consumer would have to come up with over a dollar or more to buy another drink to obtain the full 32 ounces from two cups. That means they are being PUNISHED for buying more because it previously costed them less. Nobody wants to be told how to live their life. When somebody tries to tell me how to live my life, I'm not thinking about listening to them. Whatever they're saying is being tuned out because the main thing I'm thinking about is how much I'd like to slap the shit out of them for having the nerve to even think they can tell someone else what to do. The only people profiting from this is the fast food chain, in other words, the rich. And rich fuckers already have enough damn money as it is without cheating poor people out of their hard earned money.

The problem with obesity is not from the drinks but mainly from the meal itself. If they want to decrease obesity, go after the food industry, the grocery stores. Hamburger, bologna, and hot dogs are much cheaper in the grocery stores than chicken and fish which you could bake and lose weight. The main reason I haven't gone back on my diet is because I can't afford to. I was looking at the price of fish in the grocery store just the other day. A pack of two catfish costed almost ten dollars. Hell, add another two or three dollars to that and I could go to the Jerry's Catfish House and eat all-you-can-eat fried catfish for that. Lower the price of the fish in the grocery store to about three or four dollars and I could take it home and bake it and also only eat two pieces rather than endless fried fish at the restaurant.

They want to come up with all these ideas for people to spend MORE money on things unhealthy for them but it never enters their mind to LOWER prices on things that are healthy for them. But of course, they would never do that though because it's all about making the rich fuckers richer. Every single time they think they're coming up with a solution to "help" people, it always ends up costing the poor person more and puts more money in the hands of the rich bastards doing the selling.

I'm not bitching at you honey. I'm just bitching at that whole situation. It's too expensive to eat healthy and their idea of making things better is to raise the price of the things that are bad for you. Yes, healthy things should be cheaper than unhealthy things but don't accomplish that by raising the price of the unhealthy things. Accomplish it by lowering the damn price of the healthy things.

vainandy said:

sexton said:

I'm not bitching at you honey. I'm just bitching at that whole situation. It's too expensive to eat healthy and their idea of making things better is to raise the price of the things that are bad for you. Yes, healthy things should be cheaper than unhealthy things but don't accomplish that by raising the price of the unhealthy things. Accomplish it by lowering the damn price of the healthy things.

Can't argue with that.

PunkMistress said:

RenHoek said:

Foie Gras has been outlawed in California...

Well...good!

are you joking!!! Foie is like hot sex on a cracker... I miss it so...

RenHoek said:

PunkMistress said:

Well...good!

are you joking!!! Foie is like hot sex on a cracker... I miss it so...

I had foie gras for the first time in Paris last Christmas. omg.

sexton said:

RenHoek said:

are you joking!!! Foie is like hot sex on a cracker... I miss it so...

I had foie gras for the first time in Paris last Christmas. omg.

My man!!!