They *KNEW* this was coming.

I think the ban is unconstitutional as well, and a downright stupid idea of Bloomberg's.

(I drink only Diet Coke, with an occasional Diet Dr. Pepper if Coke products aren't available)

this is hilarious

This was such a despicable overreach.

Long live freedom and fat asses.

I agree that decision.

They couldn't ban cigarettes, yet 90% of NYers don't smoke now.

No one said they could ban cars from 42 to 47th street in the heart of Broadway,
yet 24/7/365 it is a concrete beach oasis, with zero cars.

Wellness, its a new issue, what with health care costs spiraling.

Coke itself has starting talking calories in a 12 ounce can.

So it is working.

If everyone in the nation looked like Jabba the Hut, then not very many would have to whine about social security being cut, being that Jabba The Hut in a human being don't live to retirement age so much of the time.

and it breaks my heart to hear of more and more children with children's diabetes. It is a preventable disease.
Yet of course, thanks to Dr.Wakefield, some are scared to get shots too.

Remember, today is the First day of the rest of your life.
Wellness will lead to many more first days.

It is up to each person's individual will to decide that for themselves, and not a narcissistic control freak. If I want a 44oz drink, that is my decision. Not up to the mayor (and that is mayor, not king) to make that decision. It's not up to him to make me think about my health. That's not his job. Go fix some potholes. Hell, go read a book. Find something better to do with your time than micromanaging the people that pay your salary.

Sometimes a gentle nudge is welcome.

And those older who no longer have grandparents left, sure wish I had even one of the four to tell me NO.

People put down nannies, but in reality, who wouldn't want that special relative who was able to break through?

Is there anyone that doesn't think how great it would be if Elvis had a nanny that cared and that he was still here today with one of the purist voices of all time?

Not wanting help is akin to not listening to a doctor or better yet, not going to a doctor
and just giving up and dying.

And putting down wellness is also putting down Michelle Obama, and John F. Kennedy.
Being that JFK fitness program was second to none for the early 1960s.

tax paying, responsible person, I don't like being told no. I'm a father, and I do t let my kids drink soda. But that's the point. I'm an adult. I'm not a child. And I resent a politician treating me like a child. Educate me, sure. Show me the dangers of doing whatever, have at it. But to force me? You can keep that, thanks. I didn't ask for your help.
Also? That "if it saves one life..." arguement is so tired. One could say, "we're going to invest $29 billion to jail every smoker in New York State for 2 years to get them to quit. If it saves just one life, it'll be worth it,". No one would tolerate that. And no one should.

sometimes one has to stop thinking of themselves when taking about something addictive

because the person themselves can't just say no.They need help one day at a time.

That my diet is healthy. I stopped on the way home and got a sausage wrap from a food truck downtown. It was spicy and slightly greasy and tasted 200 times better than it had any right to.
But that is my business. No one appointed you as my savior. And Bloomy is not my father. People need to mind their own business.
If I'm addicted to something illegal, and I want to be free of it, I will ask for help. But if I'm just having a sausage wrap and a large soda, leave me alone. If you try to force me to do anything, all you'll get for your trouble is a lot of hostility.

Did George Bailey just want to drink a large soda with his pizza? If so, why was he on a bridge?
Or did George want to kill himself? Are you saying that a soda is the same thing as suicide? Or are you saying that you are an angel? <rings a bell> There ya go. Now you have your wings, so you and all of your well meaning friends can fly away and leave me alone. Me and the rest of the Earthly sinners will stay here, work hard, enjoy the simple things in life without interference from you and Bloomberg. Oh I almost forgot about him. <rings another bell> Now he can join you.

well said ,freedom and liberty aren't about getting enough rope to hang ourselves or pig out on addictive garbage made by companies . that wouldn't use their own products. Its a start , Bloomberg is a jerk but he is no 9/11 Guliani

If it's about getting people to talk why pass a bad law? Why not just start a public awareness campaign to get people the information about it.


Inform the public about health concerns, don't legislate.

To get them to change their personal habits than to better inform those who have bad personal habits?



Like I said, by passing unconstitutional laws to regulate personal choices makes it sound like a nanny state.

stupid, useless feel good measure that accomplishes nothing.

and saved calories

The point wasn't punitive in the first place, it was conversation.

If it were punitive, a tax would have been created first...now probably a tax is coming anyhow.
But it will be statewide I bet, not city.

I couldn't believe it was about to be implemented. You can't regulate people's eating habits by law. Bloomberg has a narcissistic personality disorder.

Since when is demanding some responsibility from corporate America an infringment on personal freedom?

fixed that for ya.

How is this a victory for freedom? I must have missed school the day the government teacher discussed my constitutional right to a Big Gulp.

were taught it was government's job to tell you how much of a lawful beverage you can consume. See how that works? Also, you may want to look at my screen name before running down my knowledge of the Const.

lots of ridiculous comments in this thread.

what about the skinny people who drink giant size pop and eat fast food? yes, they are out there, i know "you" don't want to believe it.

what about us fat people who DON'T drink giant size pop and rarely eat fast food? yes, we are out here, i know "you" don't want to believe it.

i guess we just don't fit the bigotry....

You do realize that those skinny people pouring huge vats of sugary soda down their stretched-out gullets are just as susceptible to diabetes and other health issues as the the fat people, right? In the end, we all get stuck with the bill. Obesity and smoking are two of the biggest healthcare money sucks due to all the health issues both sets of folks tend to have, especially the longer they live shoving that shit in their mouths. And those of us who try hard to take care of ourselves (whether we're fat or thin is irrelevant) end up paying in the long run as insurance companies spread the responsibility to the all of us.

Last I checked, nowhere in the constitution does it state that we are born with the right to drink big gulps until we piss pure sugar. When I was a kid, there was small, medium and large. That was it. And, as I recall, no one got their XXXL panties all stuck up their over-sized asses about it and sniveled so much about their rights to over feed themselves. People certainly over ate but not like nowadays. We should all be just so thrilled that bellying-up-to-the-trough is now considered some sacred right of ours...right up there with owning as many assault rifles as we damn well please.

Jesus...this country and its "individual rights trump the good of all" mentality is just so fucked.

"And, as I recall, no one got their XXXL panties all stuck up their over-sized asses about it and sniveled so much about their rights to over feed themselves."

you do realize that you have made many of the same old ignorant assumptions that are always made about obesity, diabetes, etc.

maybe you should lighten up, let yourself eat something yummy and enjoy life. stop worrying so much about "stretched-out gullets" "piss{ing} pure sugar" "XXXL panties" and "over-sized" asses ... oh, and don't forget the sniveling.

frankly, i see more poor behavior from those condemning and judging the obese than i see from the obese themselves, who are usually just trying to go about their daily lives, attracting as little attention as possible from the oh so numerous judgmental asshole we may encounter each and every day.

i think you are just getting too, too worked up over this. have you had your blood pressure checked lately? you might give yourself a stroke or something!

...so be it. And if you'd read what I'd written, you would have noticed that I feel the same about skinny people who eat massive amounts of crap (I was talking about their stretched out gullets and not picking on the obese).

I'm overweight, by the way. I do allow myself to enjoy many yummy things, but I also moderate myself, something many in this country don't do, even to the detriment of their health and, ultimately, we all pay the price. Obesity can and does lead to health problems. If you're obese, do something about it. And if you're a skinny, unhealthy person, do something about that too. But stop demanding your right to such excess.

Like I said - it's a mentality where each person's individual right is more important than the good of the country. Sadly, liberals are as stupid as right wing nutters in this respect. Should people be allowed to own as many guns as they please with as much ammunition as they can stock pile with no gun control measures in place? Should bars be allowed to keep selling cocktails to drunks who could potentially go out and get behind the wheel of a car because the drunk just keeps wanting to drink? Should people really be told they have to have smog checks on their cars or allowed to drive emitting as much pollutants into the air as they please because they damn well want the choice to do so? Should we really just keep super-sizing everything so people can eat themselves ill because it's their right to choose how much they want to eat even if it is too much?

Like I said - it used to be small, medium, large. I don't recall anyone's rights being taken away from them and if they wanted more, they ordered another. You do realize that you're judging the obese by assuming they need their super-sized treats. Maybe the obese aren't so dumb or poor that they can't order more if they so well choose, thought about that?

And lastly, the thing that drives me nuts the most, is that by arguing for the rights of everyone to stuff themselves with soda, you're actually arguing for big corporate profit at the expense of citizens. The beverage industry is fighting this ban the most - they have the most to lose if the soda addicts of the world can't buy their big ass beverage. Yeah - let's get behind the Coke and Pepsi and support them - all in the name of freedom!

I, for one, don't mind ordering a medium drink and if I want more, I can order another one. I can even splurge and order a large. It's really that simple.

i never did any such thing. and i did not argue for the right of everyone to stuff themselves with soda, and thus support big corporations at the expense of citizens, as you are trying to claim.

but this law was ridiculous as many have pointed out to you. limiting the sale of gigantic size pop at certain locations is really not going to help anything.

and just because the super-sizes are available does not mean people have to buy them. are we being FORCED to super-size it?

get a grip, go take a walk. stop worrying so much about what other people eat and drink. because really, it's none of your business.

...a fitness trainer, with all the "get a grip," "go for a walk?"

First you shrug your shoulders asking where you made the claims, then you tell me that it's none of my business what people eat. I don't know now what your argument is (just a defense of obesity? Or are you someone who thinks what Bloomberg did was "nannying" New Yorkers?)

I thought (and still do based on this last response) that you're against the law. I think it's a stupid law too, but not because it takes away excessive sizes of sodas, but that it only does it in certain restaurants and not in all convenient stores, etc. I still stand behind my view and argument that we were not born with the right to gorge ourselves to death, especially when it impacts the society as a whole (if you want to move to Siberia and eat/drink yourself into diabetes/stroke/heart attack, etc., go for it). And that is what is happening. I don't have the statistics in front of me and I'm too lazy to go dig them up for you, but diabetes (especially in children) has been and still is on the rise. Unless you want to argue for that to continue, I don't know what the hell you're so worked up over (after all, if you think me worked up, you must be too as you're continuing to counter argue).

And why won't you address my point about how the right of the individual should not trump the good of all? We live in a world of rising health costs - that's a fact. Diabetes has been on the rise and that disease not only can lead to death but it causes all other kinds of health problems, many (most) of which cause a high cost impact to not only the patient but to all of us consumers. There's no way around it. As the costs increase, the insurance companies will continue to pass them along into the system where all of us pay. (To provide a personal example - my uncle lost part of his left leg due to diabetes and just continued right on drinking rum and coke to excess and smoking until he finally died. Many of his medical bills were just "written off" because he had no health insurance at all. Who do you think absorbed those costs?)

So, I have an idea (let me see if this will sit well with you) - I will mind my own business and not "worry" myself or get all "worked up" over what people eat just as long the system changes so that those who develop disorders/diseases/conditions directly related to their unhealthy habits, be it eating, drinking, smoking, inactivity, pay a higher percentage of the premiums where I work. This means, I pay less each month for my insurance fees than the coworker who has not taken care of him/herself and has a disorder/disease/condition because of it. How does that sound?

And if someone can't afford health insurance, how about we just don't treat them at all? How about that? That's fair, don't you think? That a way, the food industry can maintain their "rights" to sell as much junk in as big containers at a "valued price" as they please, and Americans can continue to exercise their rights to buy it, consume it and suffer/die from it. But those of us who don't want to exercise our right to eat/drink ourselves into a state of disease/higher healthcare costs/suffering/death, can choose not to, pay less of the burden in the overall healthcare system, and we all live happily ever after.

Something else to consider - Bloomberg isn't taking away anyone's right to drink all the soda they want. He is just trying to make it a tiny bit less convenient for the poor (who, let's face it, want and will buy in bulk to save what little money they have) and children/teens. That may beg for a whole other argument over what right do we have to tell the poor what they can buy, but in my opinion, it's not the point of this law. And, whether you like Bloomberg or not, he has gotten people to at least think about the notion that we as a nation really don't need to super size the hell out of junk food (or any food for that matter) just because someone did along the way to trick us into paying just a little bit more and now everyone expects it.

Lastly, and sorry to sound like a broken record - but when I was younger (I'm talking the 80's), there were three sizes at most (I'm pretty certain all) restaurants: Small, Medium, Large. There were some places that were "all you can drink," but the cup sizes weren't so big it took two hands to maneuver them. No one suffered. No one was denied any rights.

The silly argument here is not the one for Bloomberg's law, but for the one that champions for the gluttony some humans just can't help themselves from enjoying and for the consequences we all pay when they do.

OK. I reject it.

It's the mob-rule mentality that our rights guard against. Perhaps you've heard the experssion that the 1st Amendment was not written to protect speech that's popular; it protects speech that's unpopular. Majorities don't need protection even though they represent the lion's of of the "all" whom you supposedly want the "good of."

Are rights are not a particular enumeration of things we're allowed to do, they are blanket restrictions on what the goverment can do. You do not get to abrogate rights by affixing the term, "for the good of all" or "costs to society." Rights are rights are rights. They do not yield to you, you must repsect their inherent presence.

...you agree with me that I shouldn't have to pay for the rights of the individual? After all, it's often the "mob" that foots the bill for those out there exercising their individual rights. Especially in the area of healthcare costs. The government often foots some of the bill on our behalves too, including subsidizing health care costs. There goes my right to choose not to have my money spent on others' poor choices. My right over my money is gone while your right to (fill in the ______) is honored. I don't believe that is how this country should operate.

An example - you have a right to go hiking on trails in various areas of the country. But while out, if you climb up a very steep cliff and fall, and a helicopter has to come get you, then you, the individual, should pay the $10,000+ it costs for your rescue and not the "mob" taxpayers. Some people might even say to you, "why didn't you just go walking along the marked trail and not climb the cliff. Wasn't that excessive?" You might reply, "it's my right to climb the cliff." - sure, only if you are the one wholly responsible for the consequences. Otherwise, they should make it illegal to climb cliffs. And...wouldn't you know, it is illegal in certain state parks to go off marked trails and climb cliffs. I suppose that law is stupid too and that we shouldn't care what the majority wants. The individual's right is so much more precious.

Rights are not granted the same way universally, anyway, and they are often interpreted arbitrarily. So, no, rights are not just rights and, no, I do not have to respect their inherent presence. Besides, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where in the constitution it states that we have a right to gorge ourselves into a state of a disease and become a burden on others.

It doesn't have to be listed in the Constitution. And just because you have to "pay" for something doesn't mean you somehow get to control it. If that were the case we wouldn't really need a country at all. Further, your share is so small it doesn't allow you to be a little dictator over others...

...I'm a dictator?

So, let me get this straight. I live in a country in which I am part of a system where some of us pay for security of health care. Even though I'm a part of this system and pay into it, I have no right to complain about it, have a strong opinion about it or support a law that may actually be common sense (well, to those of us who aren't fear-mongers and conspirators). And if I do complain, give my opinion and support the law, I'm a little dictator.

Judging from your post to me, you feel the 1st Amendment is not as valid as everyone's right to stuff themselves with sugar. In fact, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to me at all - me...the individual. I guess you feel the "mob" who want super-sized sodas have more rights than me, the individual?

Interesting...

food stamps and other help for the poor. Therefore, people on food stamps are not allowed to eat anything except for beans and rice."

Mull that demand over.

...exactly. People on food stamps can buy more than beans and rice, although that might be the cheapest. I'm all for food stamps as there are many in this company who need them. Not sure why you bring that up in this thread though.

...meant "country" not "company." It's late and I just got home from work.

doesn't mean that you or anyone gets to dictate what people do in their personal lives.
Due to the health care law, everyone's taxes are paying for health care. A lot of us were against it. I have my own insurance, so I pay for my own stuff. But just because the law was passed doesn't mean that you get a say in what we do in my life.
Let's say I pass a law that says I now buy your gas, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean I get to say that you are now restricted to driving 5 miles a day.

that pays for the health care. But many people (including me) did not want that system in place. It was forced upon us. But, whatever. We can't do anything about it. We're all part of that system. I pay taxes too.
And you can complain all you want about people's eating habits. But you don't have the right to do anything about it. You don't have the right to get laws passed to limit people's personal choices. I was against this health care thing in the first place because I knew things like this would come up. Limits on portions. New, weird laws that were unnecessarily oppressive. I had visions of cops handing out citations to people that walk down to the mailbox barefoot. "We're paying for your health care, so we'll make the decisions from now on."
And you're bascially doing that. You're supporting what is probably going to be the first of many laws of this kind. And what we have to do is slap those laws down and crush them hard. You can complain all you want about my eating and drinking habits. And as long as you have absolutely no power to do anything about it, I can ignore you and do whatever I want.

You don't have the right to free speech and religion and a guard against unreasonable search and seizure because some people somewhere were once beneficient. Those rights pre-exist the Constitution and will continue to exist even after the Constitution is merely a footnote in history.

I don't need "Right X" to be described in the Constitution. You have no right to impose yourself on other people's lives.

It is extremely telling -- and by no small measure, hypocritical -- for you to use your rights of free speech/conscience to badger and hector people with non-existent, unrecognized legal arguments to abrogate the rights of others to be allowed to live their lives without incessant meddling. Why should we recognize your right to speak when your only exercise of it seems to further separate others from their rights? By what authority do you claim the perogative to dictate how other people live their lives and why should any of the rest of us care? You certainly do not deserve the power of law, which is the power to arrest, fine and imprison, over such a ridiculous demand.

...how am I separating anyone from his/her rights? And how am I imposing myself into anyone's life? And just because you don't need "Right X" to be described in the Constitution, doesn't mean I can't ask for it...speaking of rights.

I think you've confused yourself - I'm not Bloomberg, the mayor who is trying to enforce this ban. I'm an anonymous internet poster (just like you, Nuclear Unicorn), voicing my opinion. However, I'm not telling you what to do in any fashion.

And speaking of false assumptions, the proposed ban that has so many on here upset that all their rights are being stripped by mere mention of it is nothing more than a ban on size. It's not a ban on rights. Even if the ban were to ever pass, you'd still have the right to order as many drinks as you want. You could still drive to the store and buy a liter or 20 of all the soda you desire. Drink up!

My using my freedom of speech isn't encroaching on your right to eat and drink. And if it is, you might want to consider getting off of here and/or not reading my posts (opinions).

size doesn't matter.

It's not the place of government to tell people what they can or cannot eat and attempting to skirt that fact by distracting towards such arbitrary nonsense as serving size doesn't change that fact. Today the meddlesome will say, "Well, nobody needs a 32-ounce soda. We're not telling you what you can have, just the size." And then some time in the future they'll demand that it be reduce to 3.2-ounces and they'll trot out the same worthless arguments.

And what's to stop them?

If you had your way, nothing.

The fact of the matter is, you nor anyone else has the right to pervert the power of government to meddle in the conduct of free people going about their own business. If "it's for their own good and the good of society" is the excuse then you can excuse all manner of heinous acts. "The White Man's Burden" is draped in similar high-mindedness. Ditto Prohibition.

Just imagine the suffering we could alleviate if the government used its power to limit the amount of alcohol to less than that required to intoxicate the consumer? nobody need argue in favor of an outright ban, just amount sold. Right?

....the ban isn't on what people eat and I'm not skirting any issue anywhere. I keep asking the same and sticking to the same points.

Sigh...AGAIN, you're confused. It's about how much the food industry can sell in one sitting and not about "what we can eat" as American citizens. You call my argument distracting with respect to serving size. And you call it nonsense. Well, I suppose to someone who can't grasp the concept, that would be the case. But most logical humans could (and would) argue that limiting the size of a soda serving without limiting choice of drink or choice of how many drinks is nothing to get excited over. Yet you and other liberals (??) or ??? do. I'm an independent who votes Democrat (always have) but I do find arguments on BOTH sides all out stupid. No intent to offend here, but your argument is just that...stupid.

Capitalism is not dead in this country (thank goodness), although the Republicans are still trying to use it to their advantage. I believe in free market and free choices, but I also believe in regulation. Otherwise, why regulate food in general (think safety inspections). You can't have it both ways. You can't have your "safe" sources of red meat and seafood and yet ask the "government" to back the hell off if you want to swallow tons of chemicals and sugar (both proven to harm humans).

And about that big government the tea-baggers constantly rail on...(this is to the masses on here and not to any one poster, like you, Nuclear Unicorn):

We collectively are big government. We hire (vote in) politicians to run the ship, but we are all onboard and we all share the burden, responsibility and consequences of our collective actions. No matter how much we cling to individual rights and personal choice, we are (and should be) beholden to the collective community...country.

Yet, the balance is way off in 2013 (still!). So many want their rights no matter the outcome to the majority. I'm not talking the poor here either. I believe in helping those in need. But I do not believe we are all so special that our "rights" take priority over the rights of others. We all live here on earth and we all take responsibility in how we live in order to protect the earth and give back just as we take.

And no, damn it - we don't have the right to stuff our faces with junk food or drugs until we become a burden on others.

What other laws do want to pass for "my own good"? I can't wait until the weekly home junk food check start .

Seriously, you could justify just about any law with the logic that if it has a cost to society, the state can create a law to regulate individual behavior. The very idea would mean there'd be no limits on the power of the government.

...and exactly the argument the NRA uses with respect to banning ARs. "What's next? The handguns? Police state? Drones patrolling the neighborhoods and shooting anyone who's out past 8pm?"

Bloomberg's ban on super-sized sodas was a ban on excess, not a ban on choice. Stop trying to make it more than what it is. Voodoo and witchcraft went out a long time ago, and Big Brother isn't going to come take your Oreos away.

so you just made up quite a long post about what you think it might be or what you think it should be or what you want it to be?

i have said repeatedly, maybe not in this thread but in the other one, educate people all you want on food choices and nutrition, but the ultimate choice that an individual makes about what to eat or not eat is no one's fucking business but their own. if i choose to "gorge myself to death" it's MY BUSINESS, not yours.

many people are perfectly capable of saying no to supersized drinks while still being able to enjoy a pop; many people are perfectly capable of enjoying fast food without supersizing the meal or eating fast food everyday. i'm fucking sick of the nannies, whether they are trying to pass laws or trying to shame. i see a lot of condescending crap in posts from people like you about "the poor" and "the obese" and what they can and should do. pardon me if they make me want to puke.

you pay for my diabetes (which i don't have) and i'll pay for your prenatal care ... i thought that's how communities worked, no? and don't go blaming me for skyrocketing health care costs ... you'll want to be talking to the insurance companies about that.

...he who has been so free with giving me advice to get a grip and not get so worked up has gone to the edge himself.

For the record, it's pretty egregious of you to assume that since I'm a woman, I shall bear a child for which you'll be responsible somehow. Tsk tsk. I'm over 40 and have no children. I couldn't have them for private reasons; I don't see myself being a burden. Although, I do agree that there is a whole lot of prenatal care and birth costs out there we're footing the bill for as well, but that's another subject.

As for your advice in another thread, I did not see it. I don't follow your posts like a love-stricken puppy. I've only entered this thread to give my opinion - my apparently condescending opinion according to you.

Perception is a funny thing. I felt the same about your original post shaming the other members on here for their support of the law and assumptions that fat people drink a bunch of soda while the skinny do just the same.

Oh, and blaming the health care companies is a pretty immature way of saying that you don't care if you cost others more. Their money/comfort/lives don't matter. You, the individual, is all that does.

OMG! Also, pasta, ice cream, cookies, pastries, milkshakes. The list goes on. And people might "shove that shit" in their mouths, too. It's a veritable gauntlet of calories and fat. !!!

For the record, "we all pay for" huge subsidies to Oil companies that are raking in enormous profits and paying no income tax. How's about we all focus on that and use the savings for health education (and civics classes which have gone missing from our curriculum).

...about the oil companies, and electric companies (uh...GE?) and so forth. Also agree about the health education. We need more of it. But then some in this country will scream and pitch a fit that we're forcing people to learn how to be healthy. You can't win.

For all of the businesses that lost money on inventory to sue the city to recoup those losses. Maybe the financial hit will deter the mayor from trying any of this nonsense in the future.

To many childhood diabetes cases nationwide.

Back during Prohibition, courts became so clogged up with alcohol-related cases that judges resorted to holding "bargain days," on which defendants could plead guilty in exchange for greatly reduced sentences. He probably did not want to see the courts clogged up with similarly stupid cases about sugary drinks again.

It will be interesting to see if Bloomberg appeals the case and/or tries a different approach. I wasn't in favor of it, but then again I don't live in NY.

Good on the judge.

it ws a dumb law to begin with.