Bloomberg: What the hell is his problem?

what do we think about this? i'm kind of OK with it tbh

I'm ok with calling people pigs for ordering 20 oz sodas but not making their sale illegal.

The people or the sodas?

Lady Bracknell: Well, both, if necessary, I presume!

John Cole's response

FANTASTIC ad juxtaposition on that post

Bloomberg does know that two 16 ounce cokes equals one 32 ounce supersized coke, right? So what is to stop people from ordering two beverages instead of one?

costs more, for one thing

And why are fruit juices exempt? Does he not realize how much sugar is in your average over the counter orange juice and apple juice- my goodness, they are worse than soda, because with a soda you know you are getting a gut bomb. With fruit juices, you may thing you are drinking healthfully, but you are getting the same amount of sugar as if you were guzzling coke.

all calories aren't created equal - fruit juices are much more nutritious on a per-calorie basis

I heard him say this morning, literally, "we want to make you go to another cup."

btw Big Gulps are still allowable, I understand, bcz 7-11s aren't considered restaurants.

but almost as bad with sugar levels

xpost

I'm working on a study right now that's examining the effect of sugary drink consumption on kids' weight and it's pretty awful. Not that that's surprising, just saying. Anyway, I fully support this.

i'm not familiar with the logistics - though i trust mr. cole is - but i don't see how enforceability is an/the issue, or why that matters. and calling it 'paternalistic' doesn't really appeal to me, but then big-government liberals like me tend to avoid that rhetoric. this seems to pretty much amount to a soda tax

but almost as bad with sugar levels

― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, June 1, 2012 1:55 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xpost

― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, June 1, 2012 1:55 PM (3 minutes ago)

people guzzling 32 ounce orange juices at mcdonalds is a bridge we can cross once we get to it

a tax disproportionately on the poor, now there's a switch.

(I don't want them drinking that shit either, but the man's priorities are monomaniacal)

sorry, guys, this is where my liberal streak really kicks in (fuck calling it a "libertarianism").

Ordinarily I think I'd be totally against something like this but given where I'm working and what on it's sort of hard to be. It's not like someone still can't buy tons of soda but this might deter them or make them think about it even a little bit which can only be a good thing imo.

I'm okay with public schools eliminating soft drinks, PSA's during Cartoon Network, and so on, but I don't want a bored tinpot Ms Grundel setting rules. I mean, education does work. Every conservative I know (i.e. my family) no longer keeps Coke or Pepsi products around the house.

people can still drink soda guys. just not as much

a tax disproportionately on the poor, now there's a switch.

(I don't want them drinking that shit either, but the man's priorities are monomaniacal)

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, June 1, 2012 2:01 PM (3 minutes ago)

this seems better than a straight sugary-drink tax, in that it encourages but doesn't punish moderation. buy a 16 ounce for the same price it always was.

i'm sensitive to regressive taxes like this too, but it's somewhat difficult to avoid when the epidemic you're fighting is so neatly tied to socioeconomic status, as obesity is.

where the hell is iatee

writing speeches for Larouche.

oh c'mon

i think this is kinda dumb, definitely paternalistic, probably pointless. and yet... i don't care too much? don't drink ANY soda, how 'bout that. voluntarily, like.

probably says more about the hyperdense center-of-universe politics of NYC than anything else tho

I think my big question here is "why is soda being treated like a life-giving substance that people need in order to survive?"

Great, I'm going to NY in September and now I have to triple my soda budget.

really dunno why anybody drinks anything in a town where finding a bathroom is a soviet experience

Try bumming a cigarette.

means nothing til they ban bacon too.

what the hell is a soviet experience?

they made Solzhenitsyn hold it for 20 years

lol

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/05/in-defense-of-nanny-bloomberg.html

http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/limit-soda-for-kids-sake/?src=tp

fucking idiot doesn't know what his job is

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/164870/mayor--nyclu-does-not--do-anything--to-end-need-for-stop-and-frisks

Soundbite from Bloomturd yesterday on soda-size hearings: "No one is going to stop this."

And next, alcohol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/bloomberg-alcohol-abuse-city-telephone-survey-new-york_n_1701356.html

I guess I was gone volunteering for larouche the first time this came up but the way I'd suggest thinking bout this is let's say a democratic mayor passed a large-soda ban and bloomberg was being lobbied by a buncha soda giants and was trying to reverse the ban. do you really, honestly believe that you would be supporting that in that context?

big gulp-ernment

I want ppl to live as unhealthily as they choose to, and decrease the surplus population.

too bad they burn through all the public health dollars on their way out

(catch the Dickens quote?)

nope

this kinda (very soft) health paternalism is pretty uncontroversial in countries where they accept that there's a social responsibility for health care provision / that maybe free market capitalism won't result in optimal decision making 100% of the time.

I'm all for ppl being healthier, but not nanny statism

democratic socialism inevitably requires something of a 'nanny state'. universal health care is nannystatism.

i feel a lot more comfortable having huge private for-profit beverage corporations dictate the conditions of my soda consumption than representatives of elected government

I know there's irony somewhere in there, max

no way, what is freedom if not making sure that multinational businesses always have more influence than the state

I think what Morbs meant to say is that we don't really care until it affects our alcohol-consuming convenience. Or that could just be me.

as long as mikedolf bloomler stays away from the booze, i'm good with his health agenda.

oh, missed the last revive. anyway this is pretty much otm and echoes one of max's points: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/08/13/120813ta_talk_surowiecki