but I'm not aware of any ban on the quantity a person can smoke or the amount of cigarettes that can be sold.

Studies show as the price goes up, the number of smokers goes down.

If I drink too much soda, and become obese, I'm not making other people fat.

My point was that I hurt only myself with soda. Alcohol and smoking can affect other people.

Tailpipe emissions are being reduced through regulation as they affect more than the person driving. But there is no law stopping somebody from driving around in a Hummer. (I bought an electric car that charges from wind power. So I'm kind of exempt from this one)

Smoking regulations have been introduced as smokers affect more than the person smoking. But there is no law stopping them from buying cartons of cigarettes.

Alcohol is barely regulated, bars are everywhere, and I can go buy 50 kegs of beer tonight.

I can't make other people fat when I drink a soda. But there is a law stopping me from buying a large soda in NYC. So why would we choose to regulate this one? If I die early, that's my problem. That much more money in the Social Security fund for everybody else.

I just don't understand why this is the hill the fight is on. There are so many issues that one person's choices affect others, but we're going after something that only affects the user.

If you're going to meddle in people's lives for their own good because it is assumed they can't do better on their own then why stop at just sugar?

Let's look at everything that can leave someone ata statisitical disadvantage: sugar, vehicle exhaust, second-hand smoke, single-parent households...

I do not want to set-up a regime of government that allows the worst sort of meddling to be prepetrated by those pretending to have the best of intentions. It is not a question of "if" power becomes exploited and abused, only "when." The best safeguard is to keep that much power out of the hands of those who can use the law and the courts and the police to make us miserable. If someone is foolish enough to say, "We have no reason to fear some sort of Pat Robertson figure gaining too much power; this is America!" Then ask, "So why do you know the name Pat Robertson?"

I don't think they should be trying to impose restrictions on soda.

Especially since we don't restrict the supply of other materials. No restrictions on volume of cigarettes, alcohol, pop-tarts, 96-ounce steaks, etc.

And on providing them to minors.

In NYC, they've overshot, and not even had that discussion, it was just an artificial cap on all consumers.

I'd be ok with a look at limiting access to minors. Hopefully they block the energy drinks and other stuff that isn't as closely watched as soda first. But that's a decent position to look at.

You are still perfectly free to buy resealable bottles of the stuff in sizes that far exceed even the biggest of "gulps".

As I see it, this legislation is about limiting the size of OPEN containers, that the purchaser feels compelled to finish before it goes flat and the ice waters it down.

When I was a kid, a single serve of soda was 7 to 10 oz. (A 13 oz can was meant to be split between 2 glasses). Today the smallest (child's portion) is 12. 20% larger than an adult serve 30 years ago.

Child: 12 fluid ounces
Small: 16 fluid ounces
Medium: 21 fluid ounces
Large: 32 fluid ounces

And standard soda pop bottle there is about 8 ounces, too.

They manage to fund their national health care systems, and their populations are healthier and live longer.

So what do we Americans complain about? "You're taking away my BIG GULP! I have a right to get diabetes -- and make YOU pay for it!"

Sugar is downright Satanic.

There's so much more stuff to get riled up about, but I guess this is a control thing.

People who can't control Washington corruption or Wall Street thievery can impose their will on others. Many of those who want soda bans/reductions have far worse vices than a soda drinker.

I've had people tell me I shouldn't drink large sodas, while they're sipping on a Starbucks that's full of sugar, caffeine, and other wild stuff.

So you can't buy that, but you can go to the refrigerated isle and buy a 16oz bottle of soda.

I'm sure people are going to be getting slimmer in NY by the end of the month.

Oh well, at least we can sleep better at night content in the knowledge that we did something.

and what kind of mean spirited little SOB would ever want to outlaw a body type?

If we want to outlaw something, make it self righteousness.

I did hear about a guy who did 0.25 ounces of coke and shot his wife and kids.

by a nutritionist, if you feel that yup I should be restricting people's diet choices why not go the whole way as it is for their own good after all.

and have patrols of personal trainers walk around making sure it's maximum effort. kinda scares me how much people want the government to control our bodies as long as it's something they agree with.

Except that in 1984, everyone was monitored with a two-way television.

"Thirties and forties! Time for calisthenics! Thirties and forties!"

I got to watch official Soviet television. Every morning, there was an hour-long exercise program that ran on all channels. Hosted by a woman who sounded like a Marine Drill Sergeant, it looked pretty much like a mandatory thing.

Very interesting.

allow affordable day care and housing options for single moms and two parent households living in poverty and institute real mass transit that is affordable; to start off with.

Once that is done, then most of the people in society will have the free time to take that aerobics class.

The poor in this nation who have to work several jobs to make ends meet, usually don't have the disposable time to take that class, let alone raise their kids and feed themselves or their family properly. Most of the time, they don't get enough sleep and are exhausted to do anything at the end of their day.

The rise of obesity is directly proportional to the increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

Proper nutritional options are not available to a person if they live in a food desert, or don't have the knowledge of what a proper diet is or if they do are unable to afford to pay for that proper diet.

You are aware that just because a person is obese, they can still die of malnutrition, right?

I think that might be a lot of fun actually.

That OP seemed to be calling for severe restrictions on sugar.

That's probably what this is about.

Mark Bittman, their food writer was the author. He outlined the method of study where researchers compared sugar consumption in 175 countries and their rate of diabetes. The end finding was that sugar consumption precedes both obesity and diabetes. I read the article and I don't recall any specific call for restriction or rationing, just that this evidence needs to be introduced into public health discussions.

do not apply to everyone and/or are not meant to limit sugar intake?

Probably not the intended message but I have no problem with saying this: soda is poison.

The intended message is that drinking ungodly amounts of soda is bad for one's health. No one is preventing you from ruining your health any way you want.

That is also as important, if not more so, for a helthy, functioning society.

Or when their fat arse spills over into my seat on shared conveyances?

I'm sorry to hear that obese people are such a burden on your life

... it regulates sales. Consumers are free to drink as much as they want: they just need to buy it in a different store or a smaller container size.

Conversely, if someone is visibly obese should vendors be encouraged to refuse the sale of unhealthy foods?

That just opens the door for them to discriminate against people of their choosing - it's pretty much guaranteed to be abused by bigots of all kinds.

That's how we ended-up with the debacle known as Prohibition.

If you, as an individual, want to drink two liters of soda with every meal, you will still be able to. It will just come in more cups, or be purchased at a grocery store.

The idea behind the law is to make healthier habits more convenient.

That's quite the admission.

But since alcohol is so much more dangerous and the list of assocaited diseases is longer than my arm why not push to reinstate Prohibition? Because we all know what a miserable failure it was. But that just proves even further that this is a farce. It isn't about health. It's about elitists lording over the peasants.

Society will get along just fine without a soda regulation. It will not be the same if those who treat us as subjects are given the power.

... a mis-characterization of the law.

There is a tangible benefit, and this has nothing to do with "power". It turns out that when the easiest choice is a better choice, most people will choose it most of the time. When the easiest choice is an unhealthy one, most people will choose that most of the time. For example: when you walk into your neighborhood fast-food place feeling thirsty, you want a big soda for a good price. You get their largest. Because you want to get your money's worth, you drink the whole thing, even though you stopped being thirsty less than halfway through. If that happens every day, and that largest soda is 64 oz, you've made a choice that will cause you some damage. If you do that every day, and that largest soda is 16 oz, you've still made a bad choice, but it will cause you relatively less damage. If you really want to drink more after finishing 16oz, you'll buy another cup, but most people will decide not to most of the time, because they are not thirsty anymore by then.

Also, alcohol is already subject to many such regulations without prohibition: you need a special license to sell it; portion sizes are limited; you can't sell it to children, etc.

Society will get along without soda regulation exactly the way we do now - with an obesity epidemic. We can do better than this without prohibiting soda or discriminating against overweight people.

What they CAN do, however, is slow down corportions from shilling their poison in enormous dosages.

and years of crappy dietary habits.

So you're saying not to help people BEFORE the problems start?

"So you're saying not to help people BEFORE the problems start?"

Why not help alcoholics, wife-beaters and drunk drivers BEFORE their problem starts?

of alcohol and tobacco sales?

People pay higher life insurance costs for being smokers. Why not make those with poor diets and other bad habits pay more for health insurance? Then people who want to have their 32.5 ounce soda may do so in peace.

corporations cannot make people magically do things against a consumer's will. If people's minds really are so pliable I would feel guilty about preying upon these supposedly weak-minded types every 2 years with political campaigns. Do we really want to win the simpleton vote?

Supposedly, personal liberty grew by leaps and bounds when Colorado and Washington state decriminalized marijuana. "Finally!" we cried, "the government is starting to treat adults like adults!"

I don't know about you but my college days aren't that far behind me and last I checked MJ was a bigger inducement to poor eating than any number of TV ads or highway billboards. Yet, and curse me for a libertarian if you must, I maintain that it is the best choice and the best guiding principle. I won't rail against Big MJ years from now when pot use is mainstreamed. I won't blame a lack of government regulation; I'll just note the irony that it was the same election cycle that Twinkies went out of business.

from people who get diabetes but had a normal/average diet?

About 1/3 of men with late onset type II diabetes also have one or more additional endocrine problem that leads to weight gain, loss of muscle mass and loss of height which bias measurements toward obesity.

It certainly dragnets fewer people than a regulation regime that sweeps up all diabetics and non-diabetics as well.

have already been effected.

Further, the science shows that deleting simple sugars from the diet reverses, or helps to reverse, the process.

Why is that so painful to admit?

ROFL... no they don't, unless you consider "eat better" to be a diet discussion.

You cannot reverse Type 2 Diabetes. You can treat it. You can manage it. You cannot reverse or cure it.

ETA: I had to go to a Nutritionist to discuss diet and I can tell you it was completely useless. The recommendation was to eat 60g of carbs for breakfast, 70 for lunch, 80 for dinner and no more than 20 for my snacks. My body cannot in any way handle that many carbs at one time. I had to make my own meal plan of no more than 45g of carbs for my meals and no more than 15 for my snacks.

Frankly, in the 10 years that I've had Type 2 Diabetes, doctors, the American Diabetes Association and "nutritionists" have been my biggest enemy. The give terrible advice on prevention/control and usually it's left to you to figure your way forward. Many Type 2 Diabetics get WORSE when following their doctors' and/or other "experts" advice.

diabetes, I guess you could say, for now. His BGL was over 500 when he was first diagnosed. But he went on a very radical diet that his wife read about (definitely did not get that advice from an MD), lost a hundred pounds and his BGL has not gone passed 90 in over a year. He hasn't been on any medication for it either. His was diet related though, I think. Must have been pretty early I would guess too. You do rarely hear of people reversing their diabetes, so perhaps he was pre-diabetic, I don't know. They wanted him on meds in the beginning but he stopped taking them when he went on his diet. I imagine though if he returned to his previous diet I'm sure he would find it would return.

He didn't reverse it, but he's doing a great job of managing it. The insulin resistance is likely still there, so, as you said, if he goes back to his old diet, his blood sugars will rise again.

Huge congratulations to him in getting it under control! It is not easy to make that sort of commitment to changing your lifestyle and sticking with it!

imagine he reversed full blown diabetes, probably just caught it early enough in the pre-diabetic stage to be able to manage it without medication and through diet only. Luckily he does realize this diet has to be a permanent lifestyle change or else he's going to end up full blown diabetic. He's got more willpower than I've got! If it were me, I'd have no problem cutting down, but eliminating completely would be hard!

It is because of genetics. I am a vegetarian and avoid any foods with sugar. All relatives on my mother's side had Type II, and I have watched my diet for years, but my doctor told me because of my family history, it could not be avoided. And I not overweight. I am 74 years old, so I am not doing too bad. At least I am still alive.

The molecular and cellular physiology of blood sugar regulation is complicated enough for there to be a variety of mechanisms that can lead to the same result--high A1C.

I ate right, exercised and did everything I was supposed to in order to "avoid" it, but at 30, my thyroid died due to an autoimmune disease and I developed Type 2 Diabetes. I was diagnosed, put on thyroid meds and exercised my ass off (lost the 75 lbs I had gained during the 2 years it took to get help and then some), eating a stricter diet even then the ADA recommends. And at the age of 34, despite being 155 lbs (6 ft' tall) I had to go on medications to control my blood sugar.

My mother and father both have Type 2 Diabetes, as do both of my paternal aunts, my maternal aunt, my maternal grandfather and all of his siblings, my paternal grandmother and all of her siblings, almost all of my 1st cousins and my little sister. My older sister has "pre-diabetes" and my brother refuses to have his checked because he's convinced it skips the men in every generation.

I wish I could get paid for every time someone has told me that Type 2 Diabetes is caused by being a fat, lazy sloth-like creature that sits around stuffing their face with Twinkies and therefore, "deserves" it.

My daughter is incredibly insulin resistant and she struggles to find a doctor that will help her manage the insulin resistance. But doctors just tell her she's fine and should just eat better and exercise. She already eats a Diabetic Diet and exercises... she why does she have to wait to get T2 Diabetes before anyone will help her?

I'm "overweight" right now because I'm pregnant, but I maintained my 155 lbs for almost 10 years and STILL needed meds to control my blood glucose.

Genetic predisposition is the chief reason for Type 2 Diabetes. (Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmune disease that has nothing to do with diet or exercise).

You can not have the genetic disposition to get Type 2 Diabetes and eat as much crap as you want and never get it. Or you can be genetically predisposed to Type 2 Diabetes, eat right, exercise and STILL get Type 2 Diabetes.

Being insulin resistant and pumping out tons of insulin is one cause of weight gain. Often, the cause and effect are backwards in many people's minds. Many people get obese because they are insulin resistant and eventually, their pancreas gives out and can't continue to produce that much insulin, leading to Type 2 Diabetes.

You want to help Type 2 Diabetics before the problem starts? Educate them on insulin resistance, genetic propensity and lowering that insulin resistance - even if it means taking medications like metformin or discussing exercise with a physical therapist to accomplish that. Regulating sugar intake like they are little children doesn't really help much. Most obese people are shamed like this and no one ever tells them HOW they can help themselves. Giving advice like "stop eating a crappy diet" really doesn't help anyone - especially if they are not EATING A crappy diet.

the problem is that whole segments of the population are genetically predisposed, and the marketing of food and drink to children in our profit-driven culture pretty much guarantees that they will eat crappy and succumb before they are really old enough to choose or know better.

We have reasonable regulations to safeguard our health and the health of children, as we live in an economy that is driven entirely by profit. No corporation really cares whether you or your children get sick.

I agree with all of that. And, once you do get Diabetes, every doctor and corporation out is useless in most cases. You have to be your own advocate.

That they don't fifty times a day hear from doctors, coworkers, TV, magazines, etc. not to mention the multi-billion dollar diet industry how much better their lives would be if they would just stop shoving crap in their mouths and lose weight?

And yet somehow, with fifty years of fat-shaming and national obsession with thinness behind us, we're still getting fatter and fatter as a nation every year.

that people who don't share their problem are being targeted by the law.

"And yet somehow, with fifty years of fat-shaming and national obsession with thinness behind us, we're still getting fatter and fatter as a nation every year."

The pro-soda regulators have said, more than once, that people are "too stupid" to make good choices; and, yes, the quoted words are a quote. Perhaps you might wish to talk to them.

You used the phrase "ban obesity" in your OP. Please explain how the government should go about "banning" excessive body weight. Round up all the fat people and lock them away on starvation rations until they're acceptably svelte?

You're not making an argument, you're just spewing nonsense.

This may not help obese or diabetic… it very well might help those going down that road.

a sufficiently moral cause they can invade everyone's life in the name of the public good?

What are the odds of something like that ever becoming abused?

Here's a shocker for you: the government doesn't care if you exist or not. They have NO intentions on your body or your habits. None.

New York does, however, want to slow down corporations from peddling their poison to its citizens. That includes children who aren't likely to be as discerning as you.

That's a novel approach to government. Let someone else pick through your life and decide what you should or shoul not be allowed to do or acquire and when you complain they've gone too far they can say they are not and you will dutifully accept their answer.

Please explain, in your anti-corporatists fervor, why a soda corporatist would not switch from peddling soda to peddling water and juice. Once you've decreed a captive market they will follow the money. They always do. Do you think people who peddle healthy foods don't have corporations? Do you think they won't whisper in politicians' ears and hand them big campaign donations to get favorable laws? Or does selling healthier foods confer an aura of moral benevolence?

Mandating that corporations not peddle poison in enormous quantities is quantifiably different than regulating a health store corporation.

And do you think the soda companies are NOT whispering in the ears of politicians already? For once, it doesn't appear to have worked.

It's the function of government to regulate our lives to a certain extent. That's axiomatic. The only thing we're arguing about here is if this is too MUCH regulation. Since no one is preventing you or anyone else from poisoning yourselves, I contend that it is not. We may never agree on that but that's okay.

will start selling pinwheels.

or just arrived on earth? Messages have been everywhere for years. It's all we hear about! Yes sugar is bad, fat is bad, salt is bad, drugs are bad, alcohol is bad, smoking is bad! Do you know how often I see these messages just going about my business, not looking for it? You have to be shut out from the world not to hear them and it's been that way for a long time. If people do not realize this already, they must live in a bubble.

Let's focus FIRST on the things that are killing the planet and causing problems for us all.

Pollution, chemicals in our plastics that lead to cancer, dumping waste, car exhaust, coal, etc and so on - you know, the things people make money off of.

You want to make a difference in places like NYC? Ban all cars that are not hybrid.

Ban people using electricity that has anything to do with coal or nuclear.

There are a lot of BIG things - but we don't want to take them on because they involve big companies and money.

If we truly cared about health and life we would be doing something about climate change, not whining about who wants to buy a bigger soft drink.

But it is easier to control the masses than the masters.

Selling a gallon of soda as a single serving to kids is. That's what's been regulated.

Drunk drivers are regulated because they pose a risk to others. Fat people don't. The people who do pose a risk to others are the ones who normalise gargantuan portion sizes for profit.

"Drunk drivers are regulated because they pose a risk to others. Fat people don't."

Many of those favoring the soda regulations claim obesity is a public health issue that drags on society as a whole.

The science is pretty strong that sugar is toxic. Mark Bittman wrote about it yesterday in the NYT. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/mark-bittman/

Bloomberg's directive on the soda serving size may or may not work out; we'll see. But remember, if one wants the equivalent of the large serving size he banned, one could just buy the equivalent in smaller sizes.

Really, working oneself up into a Libertarian tizzy is kind of silly. Limiting the ingestion of toxic substances in the interest of public health is not a terribly new idea.

Perhaps you guys would like some time to sort out the rationale for the soda regulations and then present a concerted argument.

We all know that. regulating serving sizes doesn't stigmatize anybody, that's just silly.

What about those being told they're "too stupid" to make good choices?

I really don't know myself. Can't speak for anyone else...I don't mind. No skin off my nose if I can't buy a humongous soda.

As I've noted elsewhere, I don't drink soda enough for it to matter to me -- but my lifestyle doesn't govern other people. In fact, other people deserve to live their lives as they see fit regardless of what I do or do not do myself. I am not the standard.

health care costs. Look, my degrees are not in public health or public policy, but my husband's are and he has run public health departments. We all pay for those health costs. Bloomberg is trying one way to deal with it. Whether it works, or it doesn't, it is reasonably under his purview to try this as a way of diminishing this cost to us all. As I said, we'll see...

With this intrusion not only do those who aren't sick and obese not only do they still have to pay but now they're being told what they can and cannot do. Those who have to pay extra for the problem they are not a part of are now being treated as if they are the cause.

There is no public interest in that arrangement.

instead of one gigantic one is really going to wreck your whole day?

Really, this is your line in the sand? "You'll have to pry my supersized cup of high fructose corn syrup out of my cold dead hands."

If this regulation proves too onerous I'm sure the voters of New York City will make their outrage (OUTRAGE, I TELL YA!!!) known.

In the meantime, it'll be interesting to see if this actually has an effect on reducing obesity, especially in children.

Will the pro-soda regulators display their outrage (OUTRAGE, I TELL YA!!!) and demand the offender(s) be hauled before the magistrate?

What is your line in the sand?

all civil disobedience in defense of his inalienable right to serve his customers a single, massive dose of high fructose corn syrup as opposed to two smaller ones?

I imagine if that happens, and the store is caught, the owner will get a ticket or a citation or something. The more times he or she violates the regulation, the more tickets he or she will get.

O, the humanity!

[IMG][/IMG]

God bless you, nuclear unicorn!