Skip to main content

(Click to super-size the cartoon.)

Progressives seem divided on the issue of NYC's proposed enormo-soda ban. But my opinion is that bucket-sized soft drink portions (or towers of cloying coffee-like beverages) containing enough sugar to kill a cow have no good reason to exist, and many serious reasons not to. (I have no idea what actual effect they have on cows, but I'm sure it's not good.) Food writer Marion Nestle wrote a good piece -- just before a judge blocked the ban -- on how our beverage norms have shifted over the years, and how mega-sodas are in the extreme vanguard of our national, and increasingly global, dietary problems. This isn't even about banning soda, per se -- you're free to drink as much as you want! -- but about questioning absurd, corporate profit-driven social conventions.

A couple weeks ago I found myself chuckling at a New York Times article that quoted New Yorkers grumbling about the new sugary drink laws. One woman was irate that she would be forced to add sugar to her not-pre-sweetened-enough Dunkin' Donuts coffee, thus slowing her down. Here's what I think: If your life is so hectic that you don't have time to dump a couple sugar packets into your coffee-to-go, there's something seriously wrong with your life. Speaking for my own coffee habits, I find home brewing takes less time than waiting in line, and my coffee is so good it doesn't need sugar!

[UPDATE: This cartoon has generated predictable comments about being about a "silly" subject. I get it; a lot of people, including many progressives, are opposed to NYC's proposed measures to cap soda sizes at 16 oz. Never mind that the chief scientist for the American Diabetes Association predicts that up to one in three American adults will have diabetes by the year 2050. And silly me, paying attention to conclusive studies proving that excessive sugar (with sodas being the primary culprit) is killing people.

"Educate consumers, don't engage in Prohibition!" some readers have commented. Well, education efforts in situations like this don't work, especially when competing with billions of dollars in marketing from multinationals. Also, the sugary drink restrictions aren't prohibition -- they're regulation. You're still free to swig as many 16-oz. Cokes as you like.

This isn't about "controlling" or "feeling superior to" other people. This is about challenging cultural norms that are being driven by super-sized industry profits. But hey, keep drinking that corporate Kool-Aid! No one's stopping you.]

Get a signed print of this cartoon from the artist.

Originally posted to Comics on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by DKos Cannabis Law and Drug War Reform and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No Fat Freddie's Cat? (17+ / 0-)

    I feel ripped off. He was my favorite character.

    I especially liked the cockroach who acted like General MacArther.

  •  Eh... I enjoy the occasional... (11+ / 0-)

    Soda with my alcohol.   But you have to have REAL sugar with that.

    See, you can't enjoy your alcohol with corn.  (Unless you drink corn whiskey, which I can't stand)

    /snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:03:54 AM PDT

    •  corn whiskey is delicious (0+ / 0-)

      and the price is driven up by the nasty corn syrup market.  Boo.  Hiss.

      Happily this economic factor is also driving the booming rye market (even more delicious).

      I cannot even comment on the crime of adding soda to good whiskey or bourbon- it makes me too emotional....

  •  I've become diabetic (12+ / 0-)

    No HFCS for me.  Who puts sugar in their coffee anyway?  That ruins it.  If you want real coffee you don't buy the stuff they sell in convenience stores and starbucks.

    "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

    by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:07:54 AM PDT

    •  There is a great book (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider, koNko, greengemini, Woody

      by Dr. Joel Fuhrman with a diet that has great success with this. It's called The End of Diabetes- basically low fat, whole food, no refined sugar, and lots of veggies. I've got a nutritionist friend with high blood pressure and cholesterol who did this for 10 weeks and while not diabetic, her cholesterol went down 50 points. I bought the book because if I don't lose some weight I'm probably going to start becoming diabetic myself.  

      Helping a food pantry on the Cheyenne River Reservation,Okiciyap.

      by betson08 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:11:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I eat so much healthy stuff (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        betson08, koNko, greengemini, MeToo

        I think I'll puke.  At night I dream of barbeque.

        "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

        by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:22:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  awwwww (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          koNko

          sorry about that!

          Helping a food pantry on the Cheyenne River Reservation,Okiciyap.

          by betson08 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:44:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See, when you are diabetic (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greengemini, Woody

            Everybody's got a friend who's diabetic and so they tell you all about it.  They know more than you.  The amount of misinformation out there is very large.  This includes a large number of diabetics who have the damndest ideas about what "caused" their diabetes or who become "experts".   "My diabetes was caused by the soil of California (but they don't raise any of their own food).  

            Those who do various kinds of political organizing will recognize the sentence, "You know what you should do ...." by people who won't do their own advice themselves.   They tell you this stuff about their diabetic "friend" while sucking a Big Gulp and scarfing a pile of Cheetos and going back for seconds on cocktail weenies in tomato sauce.

            "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

            by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Synthestize your own! HAHA!Ah, the low fat trap... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Woody

          Everyone is different because their bodies have coped with whatever chemistry we've been adding for years. This movie released all my anxiety about food into the ether, and made me more aware about how food is a political tool, although poorly understood by the politicians (not much of a shock there I admit, but to see it is action in this movie is life confirming.)

          http://www.fathead-movie.com/

          Watch it past the half way mark- it gets much better after the whole intro/ premise. You can stream it on Netflix, which has the older version- the new version he explains that he doesn't eat the bun anymore. You can eat all the BBQ you want!

          Grains in general are out of my life- which started years and years ago. I have never eaten quantities of HFCS. How DO you synthesize that? It can only be done in a lab. Soda pop has been gross for years because they switched to HFCS. Who would thinkingly walk around drinking corn?

          The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. Paul Cezanne

          by MeToo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:14:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Grains make me gain weight (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeToo

            I was using them for the fiber, which did work, but the weight gain was not good.

            Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

            by splashy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:32:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Here's an entertaining watch (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, greengemini, Woody

        Forks Over Knives, which you can watch for free on Hulu (they have commercials). They do what they call a 'plant-based, whole foods' diet — the same one Bill Clinton is on.

        There's Dr. Lustig's indictment of fructose. Imagine an hour and a half youtube lecture video with more than 3,000,000 views?

        There's  another video, Simply Raw - Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days, where they did a raw foods diet with six subjects. All were able to get off medication, excepting the sole Type 1 patient, who at least was able to lower his medication substantially. Along with no sugar, the diet they gave the patients had copious amounts of fiber.

        The USDA recommendations for fiber are kind of a joke. They recommend only 25 grams for a 138 lb. woman, 38 g for a 185 lb. man. I try to get at least 100 grams each day.

        "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

        by Crider on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:41:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I mostly agree (6+ / 0-)
    If your life is so hectic that you don't have time to dump a couple sugar packets into your coffee-to-go, there's something seriously wrong with your life. Speaking for my own coffee habits, I find home brewing takes less time than waiting in line, and my coffee is so good it doesn't need sugar!
    .....but having an out-right ban smacks of the worst nanny statism that the GOPers often smear us with.

    Tax the high sugar sodas and put the money in Health Care

    This space for rent -- Cheap!

    by jds1978 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:09:03 AM PDT

    •  Another Tax on the Poor!!!!!!!!!??????????? (5+ / 0-)

      Why not slap any meal that exceeds 3k calories at the Four Seasons with a 30% excise tax.

      No, that would make too much sense.

      It makes more sense to some of my friends on the center-left to slap a 2 cent per ounce tax on soft drinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I consider REGRESSIVE excise taxes the worst form of nanny statism.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:15:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Four Seasons meals tend to be lower calorie (6+ / 0-)

        things than the big chain restaurants.  Four handcrafted ravioli stuffed with a half teaspoon of farmstead goat cheese, local wild mushrooms and herbs from their private garden, drizzled with a tablespoon of sauce, with four spears of asparagus on the side.  Even deserts are spare.  At the top end restaurants, you'd be hard put to find a calorie-laden meal.

      •  It's not the calories that are the issue, (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crider, koNko, greengemini, MeToo, Woody

        within reason. It's the sugar. We have no problem slapping higher and higher taxes on cigarettes, and that's fine with me. Sugar in these quantities is as addictive as nicotine and very threatening to one's health.

        We have all kinds of sensible nanny statism---seat belt and helmet laws, drinking while driving laws, etc. etc. The costs of some behaviors impacts the culture as a whole, comes out of all our pockets and effects the society we live in.  

        If by consensus we decide to ask for increased taxes from those who wish to indulge, then that seems sensible to me.

        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

        by StellaRay on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:31:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe there was any consensus on (0+ / 0-)

          this one, though, do you?  

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:15:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, not there on the sugar thing. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greengemini, MeToo, Woody

            But we used to not be there on the tobacco thing either.  Which is why the discussion is important. These things take a long time to evolve.

            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

            by StellaRay on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Using cigarettes as similar is not accurate. (0+ / 0-)

              Cigarette smoke directly affects others than those who chose to use it.  And the majority of people prefer not being directly affected by someone else's choices.  Plus, there was a hell of a lot of education that happened before there was an attempt to change things by law.

              I'll agree there needs to be more education on this issue.  But banning something just doesn't work.  Even cigarettes still aren't banned.  People get to smoke all they want - they just don't get to do it around other people.  No laws on sizes of cigarettes or how many a person can buy at once.

              If this is actually geared to kids, as some people are claiming, then do like they did long ago with cigarettes and make it illegal to sell soda to kids.  Banning something simply doesn't work.

              "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

              by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes and no. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Woody

                Agreed that cigarette smoke directly affects others, unlike sucking down a quart of sugar, and that's where the smoking laws have been laid down.  However, it is interesting to note that under the ACA, you will pay more if you're a smoker as it allows insurance companies to up their rate for smokers.

                So can they up their rates if you have a sugar addiction, or an alcohol addiction? All these things are very bad for your health and cause big complications that cost everybody money. This is how the cigarette issue IS like the sugar issue. High taxes on cigarettes is an outcome of that, and I think something to consider for these super sugar drinks as well.

                And while it is true that cigarettes have not been banned, this law does not ban soft drinks per say either.  You can still go to the grocery store, buy yourself a couple of six packs of Mountain dew and drink them all in one afternoon.

                Not sure how I feel about the NY law. But I certainly think the discussion is good. American food industries have been seeding sugar into almost everything we eat. There's a book out on this right now, can't think of the name of it, darn it, but I've seen the author interviewed a couple of times and what he has to say is not pretty.

                I guess rather than banning it, I'd go for taxing it more and educating more.

                "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                by StellaRay on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:37:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  It is a strange culture (5+ / 0-)

          that defines "Freedom" as "free" from rules and regulations that promote greater collective health and well-being, don't you think?

          The evolution of the commonsense understanding of "freedom" would be an interesting analysis I think.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:59:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm up for a value-added tax on food (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, MeToo, Woody

        When I become dictator, the more a food is processed, the higher it will be taxed. Fresh fruits and vegetables? No tax.

        I'll go no tax for milk. Little tax on yogurt, larger tax on yogurt with sweetened fruit flavor-like swill inside. Whole wheat flour? No tax. White flour, a little tax, bread a little more, white bread a little more still.

        Frozen pizza and any crap in the frozen section that isn't a single ingredient, such as frozen peas? Tax it. The more ingredients, the higher the tax.

        Processed sugar would be taxed some, and HFCS would be taxed a lot! I won't ban HFCS, but it will cost more than sugar.

        Vote for me.

        "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

        by Crider on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:49:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The reason for the ban (9+ / 0-)

      Has nothing to do with the adults who purchase soda, and everything to do with kids who will spend the afternoon after school buying the stuff from he convenience store or McDonalds that replaced the local grocery store 20 years ago.

      The goal was to protect them, because generally, there is no adult around to do that work. When parents have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to pay rent, they can't be there.

      I am stunned that there are so many adults who are too lazy and selfish to be willing to be very slightly inconvenienced (Oh noes! I'll have to pour my own sugar!!?!) in order to save kids from a lifetime of health issues. Nanny state my ass. The right wing is full of shit, and entirely bought by the industries that profit from harming our kids.

      •  Do you honestly believe that one law in one city (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gustynpip

        that bans sugar in just a handful of products will have any life long effects that will save kids from lifetime health issues?  

        okay then.

        •  It is having a national effect (6+ / 0-)

          because people are thinking about it and looking at soda pop with a more critical eye.

          "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

          by Crider on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:51:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not the stupid law that started the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Whitewitch, jds1978, IQTech42

            conversation.  Wasting time arguing about whether the law is a good one or a bad one is taking attention away from the real issues.

            The real issues being things like improving people's lives so they don't have to work 2 or 3 jobs; providing child care so kids aren't on their own after school; providing substantial government subsidies to industries that make unhealthy food, but none for those that grow and distribute healthy ones.

            Arguing about whether a law as silly and pointless as this one should or should not exist is a distraction from the conversation that should be taking place.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Really? Okay I teach college kids and I can tell (0+ / 0-)

            you that not a day goes by that at least 90 percent of them  walk in with either a Starbucks Mocha Frappuccino, a couple of Red Bulls, a Sonic Happy Hour Slushie, bottles of Coke or carting their own home made version of any of the above.....and all the while using it to wash down....honey buns, Cheetos, candy bars, cupcakes, M&M's, pizza rolls, or fast food value menu crap.

            I see no change at all.

            •  But you are (0+ / 0-)

              writing about the subject --at least--

              "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

              by Crider on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:32:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is a dumb, stupid law that will do nothing but (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jds1978

                add fodder to the "nanny state, business killing" meme that will hurt other ideas and other valuable laws....in the eyes of the voting public.

                If this is the battle we want to fight, then do it right.  Use education, give help to the poor so they can buy better food and drinks, and above all, make their own personal choice a choice they want to make rather than a forced one.

                •  It is not a dumb, stupid law... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greengemini, MeToo, corkys debt

                  It is perhaps, as the first law, an easy target, but that's not the same thing at all.

                  Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                  by a gilas girl on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:03:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, it is a dumb, stupid law. (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Calif. had snack tax over 20 years ago (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Crider

                    Anything that puts more control in the cultural memory of the citizen is a good thing- the problem is, as I see it that we should not have to be regulated on this issue at all. Food should be honest, unmodified, unadulterated food, and not a factory product. Farmers should be living in symbiosis with the land and not dictated by Monsanto and ADM, etc. Citizens should be protected by the FDA, the USDA, and the Agriculture departments, not pawns in the game of dominion over foodstuffs. Congress should have mandatory in-house training sessions where real scientists, real engineers, real philosophers, etc. present actual facts. Imagine if we had real engineers talk about he importance of infrastructure? Real farmers talk about the importance of soil science...? These are the things that Congress should understand- what they understand now is a hodge-podge of divided loyalties and cash.

                    The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. Paul Cezanne

                    by MeToo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:49:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hey, I remember that (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MeToo

                      I've always lived in California, so I remember the snack tax. I went googling about it and found a ballot post-mortem in the LA Times which described the whole rise and fall of the snack tax.

                      And I also found the text of then Proposition 163, which is how the tax was overturned. I was blown away, because it not only ended the snack tax, it also amended the friggin' California Constitution to forbid ever having a snack tax again. The constitutional amendment even forbids counties and municipalities from taxing 'candy, bottled water, and snack foods.' Crazy.

                      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

                      by Crider on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:20:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  If you teach college students... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greengemini, corkys debt

              then you should have some idea about infrastructure and about impacts: they aren't always going to show up immediately at the individual consumer level.

              And they aren't always the primary objective.

              Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

              by a gilas girl on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It's a start/eom (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radical simplicity, greengemini

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:56:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Similar was said about bans on smoking in (3+ / 0-)

          restaurants. It has to start someplace.

          •  Cigarettes are one product that only 25% of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NE2

            people use.  It was already socially unacceptable when the bans started and it personally effects a person who doesn't smoke when it is consumed in the same area of a non smoker.  

            Sugar is consumed by almost all people in some form or another....usually on a daily basis.  It is not nearly as socially unacceptable as cigarettes as noted by Christmas cookies and cakes, Thanksgiving pies, birthday cake, wedding cake, ice cream trucks and an entire holiday dedicated to knocking on doors to collect as much candy as one can hold.

            Sugar is used for holidays, celebrations, an after dinner treat, on weekends, as a treat to oneself after a bout of dieting. It is consumed because it tastes good and you will not find hardly a single soul who can honestly say they dislike it completely.   The same can not be said of cigarettes.

            There are not many people at all who abstain completely from it, even those who medically can die from consuming it (diabetes)....have a very hard time never using it.

            This ban, in one city and from a handful of products will do nothing to stop it.

        •  it is a start to reorganizing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Woody

          how these products are so readily available.

          do you honestly believe that laws like this are about immediate impacts rather than establishing a new infrastructure?

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:01:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you think people don't know they are available? (0+ / 0-)

            My goodness....go to any corner of any street in the USA and see how many Starbucks, Smoothie shops, Sonics (with a happy hour no less), Stop and Sip stores, fast food places etc you see and the lines to get in them.   People like sugar and cokes and fatty foods.  Bans are not going to stop them from consuming it.

            Tax it, educate them, give more money to the poor so they can afford to eat right, give money to organic farms and other worthy projects.....but bans are just going to turn off the voting public and then when we need money for the above mentioned valuable options, we are going to hear "nanny state" all over again because of a dumb, stupid law.

    •  but it would be simple enough (0+ / 0-)

      let people buy any size drink they want, but unless they specifically request a "large" or a particular size drink you serve them a 16 ounce (or smaller) beverage.

      Everyone is free to buy or sell what they want, so nobody can whine about their lost freedom to mainline HFCS.

      Your end of the Constitution is sinking.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:22:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My *personal* take on this: (12+ / 0-)

    I really dislike sideshow topics like this, which entangle all kinds of ideological strands and make it impossible to get a clean discussion on any single idea.

    The seeming silliness of the ban is easily used by the right to mock the very notion of government regulation.

    It also is easily spun by the right to appeal to a low-grade sort of  populist "FREEEDOM" - a freedom that threatens precisely no priviliges of the uber elites.

    Basically, this is a depressing carnival that makes me despair of ever changing anything that matters - like our entire energy or health care systems.

    •  I wanted it to succeed (0+ / 0-)

      but I knew it couldn't.

      This sort of thing only works if a high enough percentage of voters and policy makers are actually in favor of it.

      Eventually we may get some significant stigma associated with the sugar death merchants, but right now there is no public outcry. The diabetes victim lobby doesn't have logos, a color for their ribbons, or exist at any meaningful level.

      •  This a way to prime the pump (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greengemini, hamjudo

        On public dialogue.

        Sugar, actually kills more people than assault weapons, but the public if finally starting to come to their senses about that problem.

        Got to start somewhere. Props to Bloomberg on this.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:03:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ideas do not exist in vacuums. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider, koNko

      marijuana prohibition is so huge and far-reaching as to be surreal in what it actually affects.

      A 'clean' political discussion: that's pretty funny,

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:28:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the kind of thinking (8+ / 0-)

      the tobacco industry loves. And boy, do they ever wish we'd stop calling them out and concentrate on other things. Instead, while not banning cigarettes, we've legislated a battery of laws to fight their harmful effects.

      Sugar is every bit as addictive as nicotine, and at least most children are not smoking a pack or two a day. But many children are drinking and eating the equivalent of sugar.

      Pat head, rub tummy. It's not impossible. The discussion regarding sugar needs to be had, and greatly impacts our health care systems, something you suggest matters enough to be important.

      Not to mention, boy do I dislike the idea of backing down on something because the right wing will run with it if we decide to fight it.  

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:44:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So heathy living is an ideological buzz kill? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeToo

      Some of the people who complain the loudest about Obamacare are those responsible for raising the cost of heath care with their crappy diets.

      It's common sense.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:00:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The ban was a dumb idea; it just reinforced the (14+ / 0-)

    worst notions of the nanny state while containing multiple loopholes & dodges.  

    Bans, like the "maximum wage" idea, are both less popular & less effective than taxes, which IIRC we pulled off with respect to cigs.  Just tax the damn HFCS, to counteract the corn subsidy that makes huge, public health-eroding sodas dangerously cheap in the first place.  And write the tax to ensure that Republicans can't reroute or refund the tax revenue away from public health.

    Sometimes I can't believe it; I'm movin' past the feelin'...

    by Leftcandid on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:11:08 AM PDT

    •  No, it's a great idea. (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps it's too rooted in common sense to have universal appeal at this point, but sugar kills, so what is your problem?

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:05:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The desired OUTCOME is a great idea; (0+ / 0-)

        it doesn't follow that all conceivable methods to achieve that outcome are great ideas.  Bans spark a counterproductive backlash & are hard to work, as this one demonstrated.

        Sometimes I can't believe it; I'm movin' past the feelin'...

        by Leftcandid on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:24:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's My "Libertarian" Argument! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, greengemini

    If you choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you must first sign a document giving up your right to social security disability for your closed head injury.

    If you choose to stay in Key West when a hurricane is coming, we paint a yellow sign on your front door and you abrogate the right to have a first responder or Sean Penn come bail you out.

    And if you choose to sugar yourself into Type 2 diabetes, go for it...but before you do, you abrogate your right to any Medicare or insurance coverage for the condition or any of the accessory ailments it causes, including blindness and amputation of limbs. (BTW Type 2 diabetes is the second most costly disease in the country.)

    •  Because it's not a "right" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      betson08, koNko

      if the rest of us have to pay for the consequences.

      My only problem with soda taxes is that I'm not sure they would go to pay for the consequences of the sodas.

      •  It's only my right if you want to do it, too. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kimbeaux, MeToo

        Got it.

        There are SOOOOOO many decisions that you - yes you as in you personally - make every fricking day that affect other people.  And sometimes the rest of society will end up paying some portion of the cost.

        Do you eat meat?  You're increasing your chances of heart disease, so if you have a heart attack, you're on your own.  Do you work in a stressful job or have a bad relationship with your spouse or children?  You're increasing your chance of high blood pressure.  Do you work with lawn care products?  You're increasing your chance of cancer, so if you get it, you're on your own.  Do you ski?  Or play football or soccor?  You're increasing your chances of concussion and getting dementia in your old age.  So if you do, you're on your own.  Do you drive or ride in a car?  You're increasing your chances of being killed, so if you are, don't expect that your spouse or children will be entitled to any SS benefits or other help.

        That's the problem with "libertarians".  They seem capable of only thinking about themselves and everything exists in relation to themselves.  If it's a mistake they don't anticipate themselves making, then it's one that we should punish by not caring about the people who make it.  But if it's one they can see themselves making, all of a sudden, it's one that society should be concerned about and be sure to be there to take care of them.  It's such a childish way of seeing the world.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:01:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Of course. We don't want to help anyone who (7+ / 0-)

      makes poor decisions.  Because I'm sure you never have.  And if someone else does, and has the misfortune of it happening to be a decision that has a major impact on their lives, why the deserve living in misery forever.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:14:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought it was a helpful suggestion. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corkys debt

        Make people think. Give them the information.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:08:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, because we can't trust people to think on (0+ / 0-)

          their own.  Just like we should require women to view sonograms before having an abortion.   It's for their own good, really.  Really, it is.

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:10:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  actually most people can't be trusted to (0+ / 0-)

            think on their own.

            that's why they have friends and relatives or people they can consult to make a decision,  or maybe "enforce" a decision that should be made.

            they make poor decisions unless they have that kind of support network.

            many people don't.

            and the people that can make consistently good decisions on their own are generally going to be above average intelligence, and since not everybody can be above average, that means there are a lot of people who are going to make bad decisions.

            more importantly many people simply aren't aware of the ramifications of their decisions.

            not everyone is as smart as you are.

            big badda boom : GRB 090423

            by squarewheel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:36:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In many cases, we obviously cannot. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greengemini

            Lots of people are addicted to the stuff and cannot think rationally or control themselves, these laws give them some help because they have to deliberately act to procure unhealthy quantities of the drug.

            BTW, I loved the false equivalency of your sonogram argument.

            No one is banning access to soft drinks, just regulating the amount available at one stop to discourage unhealthy over-consumption.

            If you really can't live without that massive sugar fix, you can guzzle the first one down and then stagger to the next 7-11 for the next hit.

            What about my Daughter's future?

            by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's not the decision...it's the policy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greengemini

        When people insist they have the right to drive without seatbelts or have hurricane parties, they fly in the face of common sense. Bloomberg et al are not saying you can't eat the sugar, but when you have to buy two rather than finish one, you might think about it.

        Read carefully; we are talking about those who eat the most sugar being educated and perhaps paying a penny toward the costs of the treatment. No one is sending anyone to sugar jail.

    •  Regarding Hurricanes/Barrier Islands... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orlbucfan, koNko, greengemini
      If you choose to stay in Key West when a hurricane is coming, we paint a yellow sign on your front door and you abrogate the right to have a first responder or Sean Penn come bail you out.
      The local police at Sunset Beach, NC did the rough equivalent when a hurricane warning/evacuation was in effect: they'd go around in a patrol car out on the island, street to street, and personally visited every house that appeared still occupied.  If you were a renter, you HAD to obey the evacuation order and leave.  OTOH if you were an owner, they wouldn't make you leave, but gave the plain warning: WE CLOSE THE BRIDGE AT 11:00AM (the old bridge was a swing bridge they locked in the same "closed" position used to allow ships to pass by through the inland waterway)...AND WE'LL NEITHER OPEN THE BRIDGE NOR COME TO RESCUE YOU IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN DANGER FROM THE STORM...YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN."  The old bridge was replaced three or four years ago with a fixed high-rise bridge, but they still close and block access to the bridge both ways during periods where winds are expected to exceed 45mph, so you're still stuck out on the island with a refuse-to-rescue stance by local authorities if you ignore an evacuation warning.  AS IT SHOULD BE.
    •  Children can't be libertarians (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, corkys debt

      Because they aren't adults with the libertarian 'reason' you guys love to tout. So . . . what would a libertarian do about kids buying that swill and drinking themselves fat? Or do you care?

      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

      by Crider on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The child most likely has a parent or someone (0+ / 0-)

        else to help make those decisions.  And if they happen to have parents who don't care or make poor decisions themselves, I guarantee you there are bad decisions being made that are a whole lot more critical than a soda with too much sugar in it.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:04:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  HANDS OFF MY OBAMACARE!!! (0+ / 0-)

      Comminust!

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:06:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But, before you do that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a gilas girl, greengemini, MeToo

      you have to provide affordable alternatives to foods that contain gross amount of sugar and other sweeteners. Have you been in a supermarket lately?  It is a awash in foods toxic to diabetics. The cheaper the food, the worse it is for you. Even the stuff you would think would be healthy, like yogurt, has boatloads of HCFS in it. You quickly find out that it costs real money to eat healthy. That's was the biggest thing that I discovered when I syndrome X'ed about a decade ago.

      The other thing is that diabetes is not totally a life style choice like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Part is genetic and part is environment. Genetic susceptibility to diabetes loads the gun, you pull the trigger. And, people don't always know whether the gun is loaded.

  •  Agave (6+ / 0-)

    I just read that HFCS is 50% fructose and agave is 80%. Now it seems to me that in the search for alternatives we may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

    Thoughts?

    Personally, I just use maple syrup on oatmeal and try to stay away from soda and sugar in my coffee. But sometimes you want a little sweetener.

    Helping a food pantry on the Cheyenne River Reservation,Okiciyap.

    by betson08 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:12:55 AM PDT

    •  Maple & honey in moderation. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VictorLaszlo, betson08, koNko

      I love sugar & cream in my coffee.  Love it.  I have no desire to give that up (sometimes I'll have black coffee when the mood hits).  But I've eliminated sweet snacks other than whole fruit, & if I have dessert at all, it's small.

      I may have read what you read, but apparently miel de agave is a truly natural sweetener with the promised low-glycemic impact, whereas the nectar is the processed HF product you reference.

      Sometimes I can't believe it; I'm movin' past the feelin'...

      by Leftcandid on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:27:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yah, agave is a bad, bad fad (0+ / 0-)

      Overpriced nonsense. I checked out the 'best' sweeteners and came up with dextrose and maltose. Both are made from glucose. Probably not so good to eat a lot of sweet things anyway, but at least glucose isn't metabolized directly into fat like fructose is!

      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

      by Crider on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:01:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  HFCS actually ranges from 42% to 55% (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      squarewheel

      fructose.

      It is "real" sugar (i.e., sucrose) that is exactly 50% fructose.

      Which is basically just as bad for you as HFCS . . . .

      •  1 million recs - HFCS is just cheap sugar (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, a gilas girl

        that's what makes it a problem.

        it's sugar generally speaking, fructose more specifically that's really a problem.

        but HFCS is cheap enough that they put in f*cking absolutely everything.

        because sweet things taste good.

        big badda boom : GRB 090423

        by squarewheel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:37:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup, I recently saw some statistics (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jen Sorensen, greengemini

          that the body could safely "handle" about 6 grams of glucose at a time (or sucrose, HFCS, doesn't really matter) - i.e., that 's what it is evolutionarily equipped to do.

          The biggest "big gulp" size has literally 30 times that much (180 grams)!

          Which is just about exactly one mole of the shit, for anyone  who'd interested in that type of factoid.

          •  Fructose & glucose are very diff metabolically (0+ / 0-)

            Glucose is metabolized directly by cells. Fructose is not, it must be processed by the liver, & in high quantities is converted to liver fat. Bad. HCFS=sucrose: both are about 50:50 fructose:glucose.

            "A witness stand is a lonely place to lie. (...) We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost." -David Boies

            by corkys debt on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:00:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  So..."corntentious"! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, Jen Sorensen

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:13:08 AM PDT

  •  It is societies duty (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08, koNko, greengemini, corkys debt

    to protect kids from adults who do not act in the kid's best interest. This applies to everything including diabetes inducing drinks or guns.

  •  Roast your own. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbirchard
    Speaking for my own coffee habits, I find home brewing takes less time than waiting in line, and my coffee is so good it doesn't need sugar!
    Kick it up a notch and roast your own beans; coffee seems to be best for up to a week after it's been roasted.  Try a FreshRoast SR300 and get fresh feans from either coffeebeancorral or sweet marias.


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

    by KingBolete on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:14:51 AM PDT

  •  Sugar - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crider, koNko

    It's the new meth!

  •  And we talk about Republicans being (0+ / 0-)

    judgmental?  I mean, really, a woman who objects to having to take a few minutes to tear open sugar packets to add them to her coffee when she's already late for work in the morning and might lose her job over it, how absolutely ridiculous.  Let's really make fun of her.  Because we're sooo superior to her.  We just loll through life, never being in a hurry and always putting things into perspective, so we can really feel good about ourselves by looking at her as a fool.

    The problem with bans such as these are: 1. they treat us all as idiots who are incapable of making our own decisions; 2. they are the "judgments" of a few about one minor aspect of life, and those few make no better judgments about other aspects of their own lives, so who are they to be deciding; and 3.  it's an irritating intrusion in peoples' lives intended simply to be an intrusion - it has no realistic hope of improving Anything.

    They're stupid, plain and simple.  You want to control something, you tax it.  And tax it and tax it and tax it.  And do some education on it.  And little by little, it affects peoples' behavior.  "Banning"  anything is simply stupid.  It never works, always backfires.  And Bloomberg was incredibly stupid when he got this silly idea.  

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:22:18 AM PDT

    •  Sometimes people act idiotic. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeToo

      This helps them to think if they are so inclined.

      And I'd suggest that if it's really a choice between dumping a lot of sugar in your coffee verses holding your job and you chose the former, your priorities are a bit screwed-up and you might have a sugar addiction problem.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:14:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it's really not your job to decide what (0+ / 0-)

        priorities someone else should have, do you think?  

        I find it quite amusing that you and several others are so ready to make judgments about other people and their lives when I have absolutely no doubt that you frequently make poor decisions and have screwed up priorities about other aspects of your lives.  And I know this because that's a part of being a human being.  I also find it amusing that it's okay with you that pointless limitations be put on others' rights - even though if those same types of limitations were placed on something foolish that you engage in, you'd be furious.  And I can say with confidence that you engage in foolish activities because we all do.  And I can say with confidence that you'd be furious because we all would.  

        I don't drink sugary drinks myself, but I have other little things in life that aren't the healthiest or the wisest.  I spend too much time on the computer, I eat too many potato chips, I don't exercise enough.  Should someone tell me I'm limited to x number of minutes on the computer per day or that my occasional binge on potato chips has to be cut in half or that I'm legally required to get at least a half hour of exercise a day?  There's absolutely no difference between these two concepts.  None.  So we all need to quit the judging and thinking we have the right to prevent others from making their foolish mistakes until we're ready to let them prevent us from making ours.

         

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:53:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ban is as Counterproductive as "war on drugs" is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimbeaux, gustynpip
    But my opinion is that bucket-sized soft drink portions (or towers of cloying coffee-like beverages) containing enough sugar to kill a cow have no good reason to exist, and many serious reasons not to.
    Let's compare banning smoking in public with banning sales of jumbo-size sugary drinks.  Smokers unavoidably inflict direct secondary negative health impacts on everyone in the surrounding area, plus inflict the stink of cigarette smoke on nonsmoker's clothes.  Sugary drinks are mainly only a direct health issue for the person drinking them, though you can argue that for adults with kids, there's role modeling influences.

    However, experience teaches that HUGE caution is in order when trying to legally force people to forego arguably unhealthy lifestyle practices.  If a prohibitioinist war on recreational drugs or alcohol is a failure, so even more likely will a war on sugary soda, with an enormous backlash.  You also have tricky enforcement issues, such as: would bans on large-size sugary drinks include bans on free refills of more modest-size cups (which are well-established practice at many moderate-priced fast-food restaurants)?

    Opposing such bans is thus consistent with agreeing with the basic principle that giant-size sugary drinks are counterproductive to good health.  What's next: mandating spinich and kale with every Happy Meal?

    •  The good thing is that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko, greengemini

      it does make the public have the conversation about soft drink size, whereas before nobody talked about it.

      Helping a food pantry on the Cheyenne River Reservation,Okiciyap.

      by betson08 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:48:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, how do you feel about fully automatic weapons? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, greengemini

      Or personal nukes? Or child slavery?

      Are all laws against bad stuff wrong-headed and counter-productive?

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All of your examples impose directly on others... (0+ / 0-)

        ...automatic weapons, personal nukes, and child slavery are all examples of things outlawed (or proposed to be outlawed) due to the high potential for direct highly harmful impact by those desiring to practice them upon innocent third-parties.

        Self-indulgent vices such as sugary sodas, recreational drugs, alcohol etc. are best regulated, if at all, in manners confining their harmful impact only to the person indulging in same.  Yes, they have important secondary impacts such as adding to the burden on our health-care system, but that too is better addressed by stong incentives rather than prohibitions.  Speaking of which...outright prohibition of alcoholic beverages didn't work out so well when it was in force; in fact, it was extremely counterproductive, as is the contempoarary "war on drugs".

        •  But that is not true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greengemini

          These vices do impact society in many ways and harm others as parents pass-down their self-destructive habits to their children.

          Specifically, this regulation was aimed at regulating what school children purchase at fast-food chains after school.

          So if their careless, negligent parents don't give a shit about their children's health society should just stand by watching and then pay the down-stream social costs in higher healthcare costs?

          Funny how these "victimless crimes" seem to pass from generation to generation and infest society at large over time.

          But it's just a "personal choice".

          Yeah, burning human right issues here: right to slow-motion generational suicide.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:34:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This ban does nothing to stop that. You can (0+ / 0-)

            buy two of the smaller products or any of the exempted products or go outside the city limits or add sugar or whatever.  It does nothing at all but make voters mad.  Mad voters then in turn vote against any ban or any politician advocating to them.   It is a stupid ban that adds light not to sugary products but spotlights "nanny state" and that meme is hard to overcome once it's in the mind of a voter.

            •  It discourages over-consumption (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greengemini, MeToo, corkys debt

              By making it less convenient, forcing people to make a deliberate choice that (hopefully) causes some to think about what they are doing or merely forcing a slight behavior modification by the convenience, as I noted elsewhere.

              And so, what is the big "rights" issue here?

              Change the word "soda" to "guns" and some of the comments in this diary would resemble the ranting and pretzel logic of gun nuts ranting about their high capacity bullet magazines.

              Note to both; yes, I hate your freedoms.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:04:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  marijuana doesn't kill anybody. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan, lenzy1000, Jen Sorensen

    Nor does it cause diabetes.

    Nor does it go off accidentally and injure people.

    Please stay the HELL away from it.

    Legal means good.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:24:36 AM PDT

  •  Coke, Pepsi, et al have convinced generations of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, greengemini

    Americans that drinking their swill by the gallon is normal and healthy.

    The 'giant soda ban' just helps balance that situation. Or, would have helped, I suppose.

    It is more important to be a confident and articulate speaker than to know jack shit about anything.

    by VictorLaszlo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:25:41 AM PDT

  •  Sarah Palin is for Big Gulps of sugar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, Jen Sorensen, greengemini

    That alone is enough for me to shun them.

  •  Well, soda (pop where I'm from) does taste (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08, Crider, koNko, Jen Sorensen

    good - with sugar.  Artificial sweetener tastes artificial.

    My biggest reason for not buying soda (pop) is that it is a HUGE waste of money.  The amount of syrup flavoring that goes into even a giant drink probably costs less than 25 cents.  Carbonated water isn't expensive either, and we know that the sellers of this stuff pay their workers crap wages.  

    I know - there's transportation and packaging and, for cryin' out loud, the marketing to be paid for (and most likely some stuff I've forgotten).  But soda is vastly overpriced compared to the value of the ingredients.

    Which goes for most (all?) fast food/processed food.

    Hate is a dead thing. Who of you would be a tomb? -Kahlil Gibran, poet and artist (1883-1931)

    by Spirit of Life on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:39:07 AM PDT

  •  But ... but ... but ... (0+ / 0-)

    Deprived of mega-energy drinks, how will our kids beat the crap out of the other kids at school excel in their academic  endeavors?

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:51:45 AM PDT

  •  Not Really your call, is it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustynpip, zemongoose
    But my opinion is that bucket-sized soft drink portions (or towers of cloying coffee-like beverages) containing enough sugar to kill a cow have no good reason to exist, and many serious reasons not to.

    If your life is so hectic that you don't have time to dump a couple sugar packets into your coffee-to-go, there's something seriously wrong with your life.

    I don't think this is really your call.  If you want to launch an education campaign to educate people on the dangers of pop(<- I'm from Michigan, we call it Pop), or other sugary drinks, I'm all for it.  But banning or regulating stuff that keeps people from purchasing what they want, it's only going to piss people off and ultimately backfire.

    Our Dime: Understanding the Federal Budget

    by Dustin Mineau on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:52:15 AM PDT

    •  Not really your place to criticize here, is it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roberb7

      This is not your diary, so why do you feel free to express an opinion counter to the diarist?

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:20:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't create false equivalency (0+ / 0-)

        Because I'm educating and engaging in a discussion.  The diarist is the one that wants to skip over that and instead tell people what they can or can't buydrink.

        So yes, it IS my place because SHE is the one that is trying to tell me what I can or can't do when I visit New York.

        Our Dime: Understanding the Federal Budget

        by Dustin Mineau on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:37:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reading comprehension problem? (0+ / 0-)

          Diarist expressed an opinion.

          She shared her observations about how social norms have changed and her own personal viewpoint on people with apparent sugar addictions, as well as her personal habits.

          She did not say you are forbidden to self-district by over-consumption or sugar if that is your choice.

          Quote:

          "Here's what I think: If your life is so hectic that you don't have time to dump a couple sugar packets into your coffee-to-go, there's something seriously wrong with your life. Speaking for my own coffee habits, I find home brewing takes less time than waiting in line, and my coffee is so good it doesn't need sugar!"
          Did I miss something? Where did she say what YOU can or can't do when visiting New York?

          Far as I know, Jan Sorenson is not Michael Bloomberg or the New York City Council, and did not make the laws.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:53:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're still free to drink (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greengemini

            as much soda as you want; it's not about "controlling" people. It's about making us at least slightly more conscious about a product that's killing us -- in numbers far greater than 9/11, I might add, which makes it a serious issue in my book.

            •  Its about controlling behaviour (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dustin Mineau

              We've determined that sodas are bad for you and we intend to control your consumption by limiting the sizes that you are free to buy.

              If this was an education campaign about the dangers of sugary drinks, or the benefits of healthy eating, I would agree that its about empowering people to make healthy choices. But this isn't about people making the correct choice, its about the govt. making the correct choice for them.

            •  I agree it's a serious issue. (0+ / 0-)

              I agree it's a serious issue, but I don't think telling people they can't buy a 32oz glass of pop is the correct answer.

              I believe education, awareness, and alternatives will be the ultimate way to undue the damage.  Creating artificial barriers to what a person wants will only breed resentment.

              Our Dime: Understanding the Federal Budget

              by Dustin Mineau on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:46:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Raising awareness vs. regulation (0+ / 0-)

            If this was just about education and raising awareness, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  In fact, I would fully agree.  However, I thought the diary was pretty clear in coming out in favor of the New York "Giant Soda ban".

            my opinion is that bucket-sized soft drink portions (or towers of cloying coffee-like beverages) containing enough sugar to kill a cow have no good reason to exist, and many serious reasons not to.
            I interpreted that to mean that she was in favor of this law.  If that wasn't clear enough in the diary, she reiterated it in a comment.
            Did I miss something? Where did she say what YOU can or can't do when visiting New York?
            That being the case, she is advocated for a law that says I cannot buy a 32oz soft drink when I visit new york and that vendors cannot sell a 32oz cup of pop to me.
            Far as I know, Jan Sorenson is not Michael Bloomberg or the New York City Council, and did not make the laws.
            That is an odd statement to make.  The implication being that since she isn't in DIRECT control, then her opinion shouldn't matter to me?  If you believe that her opinion doesn't matter so I shouldn't bother responding, then why is she bothering to post on the internet?

            She is free to express an opinion and I am free to respectfully disagree with it.

            Our Dime: Understanding the Federal Budget

            by Dustin Mineau on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:43:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I was appalled (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crider, koNko, greengemini

    when I read that Mountain Dew is going to be marketing a 'breakfast drink' aimed at 18-24 year olds.

    Yeah, just what they need - to drink that crap morning, noon and night.  These corporations are just shameless.

    you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

    by Dem Beans on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:52:35 AM PDT

  •  I think Bloomberg is show-boating on this one. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustynpip, squarewheel

    He's gotten plenty of attention which he seems to crave. Interesting diary and discussion though.

    Some people make u want to change species! --ulookarmless, quoted w/his permission: RIP good man.

    by orlbucfan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:03:16 AM PDT

    •  bloomberg's an asshole (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bailey2001

      he comes out for gay marriage and that seems to have absolved him of all his other terrible decisions including stop and frisk.

      he's a total prick, and NYC must just love that asshole because they key re-electing him.

      big badda boom : GRB 090423

      by squarewheel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:39:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I find the amount of sugar being put into (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001, MeToo

    food at all levels to be astounding and appalling.  I, myself, try to avoid the stuff and find that it is becoming increasingly difficult as it is creeping its way into basics like meat and vegetables.  Things that should not be sweet to begin with.  

    I think placing a ban or regulation on what size soda could be sold is just plain stupid and it smacks of idiotic arrogance that I have come to expect from that city's mayor.  That being said, we really do need to be focusing on what is being put into our food and encouraging healthier choices.  An excellent way to start would be to revise the food subsidies which gravitate towards sugar and other cheap, refined, carbohydrates.  

    The TLDR version is instead of trying to regulate or legislate individual personal behavior, lets fix the food industry as a whole.

  •  Love the Freak Brothers reference. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bearian

    Fat Freddy looks slimmer than I would have imagined.
    I would have thought that Phineus would be snorting his coke.
    And Franklin looks marvelous. He must be using No More Grey.

    "I'm gonna dance between the raindrops"

    by IB JOHN on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:37:32 AM PDT

  •  i can't believe no ones brought up the, I buy two (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001, Hubbard Squash

    drinks instead of 1 end-run around this idiotic law.

    we have real problems to solve.

    the real problem is to educate people not to consume so much damn sugar.

    big badda boom : GRB 090423

    by squarewheel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:39:58 AM PDT

  •  Silly Thing to Worry About (0+ / 0-)

    There are so many very serious problems in this world - guns, employment, the dumbing down of activitist.  How about we worry about how big my soda is after those are solved.  I don't drink the stuff - through self-education.  Just reading these comments shows how silly this conversation is.  Coffee snobs and those who think they are better then everyone else because they can judge soda as BAD.   Wow - just Wow!!!

  •  Im as anti sugar as they come (0+ / 0-)

    But banning certain sizes of drinks is not the answer. Making it more expensive (taxing) can be part of it, but education is the biggest thing. Many people are unaware of how bad sugar can be. We need a cultural shift, especially to convince the public it's not okay to feed kids candy bars and mt dew. Having an age requirement for consumption is prolly going too far, but applying cultural pressure to make it taboo could work; also, vending machines really ought to be banned in schools.

  •  If it's a great idea, it obviously should stand (0+ / 0-)

    easily in a referendum.

    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

    by JesseCW on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:05:40 PM PDT

  •  cob marley lives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jen Sorensen

    especially the tune 'want more' from his 1976 album "sugar-mon vibration"

    "ahhh, sugar. honey honey. you are my candy, girl, and you got me wanting you..." the archies
  •  All those pre-sweetend drinks are too sweet (0+ / 0-)

    For me. They make me gag.

    I go for unsweetened tea, and put sugar in it. You can have a big gulp, without all that corn syrup and over-sweetening.

    Besides, pop leaches out the calcium in your bones. That's not good at all!

    Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:28:07 PM PDT

  •  Farm Subsidies for the Wrong Foods (0+ / 0-)

    The Government subsidizes the Growing of Corn and
    Soybeans. That was a good idea back when We were
    worried about producing enough food to feed ourselves
    during World War II.  NOT such a good idea Now.

    Monsanto genetically Modified Corn and Soybeans
    for the Same Reason.  Farm Subsidies make those two
    products extremely Profitable.

    Corporate Agribusiness only cares about Profits.

    The Revolving door Between Corporate Agribusiness
    and the FDA was put in Place to Ensure that ALL
    decisions regarding Food are made for the Benefit of
    those same Corporations.

    If you want Healthy and Nutritious Food, Your on Your Own.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:52:46 PM PDT

  •  It's not prohibition, it's regulation (0+ / 0-)

    Education has been tried in cases like this, and it hasn't worked: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    Also, where's the money going to come from to compete with billions of dollars in marketing from multinationals?

    To reiterate my comment from above:

    "Recent estimates project that as many as one in three American adults will have diabetes in 2050" -- Robert Ratner, Chief Scientific & Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association (emphasis mine)

  •  I loved the reference (0+ / 0-)

    to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers.  Did anyone else get the joke?

  •  Pepsi Cola hits the spot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jen Sorensen
    pepsi cola hits the spot

    twelve full ounces that's a lot

    twice as much for a nickel too

    Pepsi Cola is the drink for you!

    That's how Pepsi made a name for itself. CocaCola was in those cute little 6 ounce green bottles, but Pepsi was 12 ounces for a nickel instead of six.

    A 12 ounce drink was considered a big "soft drink" then.  You'd sip it slowly and savor each sip.  You'd no more guzzle down a 12 ounce drink in a few seconds than you'd drink a 12 ounce glass of wine in a few seconds.

    And both Pepsi and Coke were made with real sugar then!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:49:15 PM PDT

  •  Prohibition (0+ / 0-)

    Whether you call it prohibition or regulation, creating a law defining how big a soda you can buy is still creating bigger and more bloated government.

    Alcohol prohibition did not work.
    Drug prohibition has not worked.
    Soda prohibition/regulation will not work. What it will do is make people resent government.

    You say education has not worked. You're right. Sadly, for many people, the only real teacher is experience.

    As for the diabetes/obesity epidemic: the medical profession has lowered the diagnostic threshold for both diabetes and obesity. This has not made people healthier but it has resulted in higher profits for the pharmaceutical companies.

    I agree with gustynpip on this one. The soda issue is a distraction from the real issues, like the growing wage gap and the huge cost we are all paying to subsidize companies like Monsanto that manufacture nutritionally deficient foods and big banks that make foolish business decisions and after we bail them out, turn around and throw people out on the street in the name of profit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site