Explore Group
- Topics
- Members
-
-
-
Twitter
-
Digg
-
What do you think of NYC Mayor Bloomberg's ban on large sodas and sugary drinks?
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to prohibit the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants and other locations across the five boroughs, sparking intense opposition from the beverage industry and reviving criticism that the mayor is turning the city into a "nanny state." The mayor is proposing an amendment to the city health code to prohibit food-service establishments from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces, arguing that sugary drinks have led to rising obesity rates for New Yorkers. What do you think? Will the move help fight obesity? Does it overstep into intruding on private choices?
(See more polls, discussions and hot topics.)
- Created by WSJ Editor
- Go to Most Recent
Recommend a comment by clicking 
-
I wanted to like this, I really did, just because of the whole "portion distortion" epidemic over the last few decades. The word "ban" here is what really sets me off; it's the equivalent of saying "can't" to a child or dieter... they're going to want to have it even more.
1 Recommendation
There were better ways of going about this -- perhaps scaling down the whole range of drink (and food) offerings back to something more reasonable. This could only be effective if done gradually over a period of time. To impose a cut-and-dry ban.... not gonna work, Bloom.
-
How about letting people decide what they want instead? Medical insurance rates should reflect one's lifestyle. Someone who smokes, drinks, is over-fat, etc. should pay much more in rates than someone who maintains a healthy lifestyle. Let the markets decide. Obviously, if someone wants to pay less, they will take appropriate actions to improve physically and if they don't, all of the scaling down in sizes, taxing, or bans will not change them.
5 Recommendations
-
Geraldo,
2 Recommendations
I understand where you're coming from -- that's the classic argument -- but the problem is that the smallest size available today is still bigger than the largest of yester-year. People make choices from what they can choose from, so you would ultimately have to resort to changing the "choice" (size) offering.
I make good decisions when I drink and eat, you may too, but a lot of people don't. I think you missed the point of my original comment where I said the idea of telling someone "No" and placing a ban is an entirely wrong way of going about this.
-
-
-
He is not preventing anyone from ordering a second beverage.
6 Recommendations
-
Where are the environmentalists? Won't more bottles, cups, cans mean more harm from trash?
4 Recommendations
-
It's okay to pollute if you do it for for a liberal cause.
7 Recommendations
-
-
-
We are encountering difficult times. High Fructose Corn syrup and tobacco products are destroying this country from the inside out. We need to tax these addictions and bring down the deficit. Add 3$ bucks to cigs and $2 to HFC syrup drinks. Fast food tax too! Let's get out of this mess!
Recommend
-
Dam right! We should furher, tax hell out of : alcohol, reckless driving, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ice cream, pasta, fatty cuts of beef, cheeses, maple syrup, hot dogs, white bread, wheat bread, corn, coffee, too much exercise, not enough exercise, violent movies, violent video games, violent tv, rap songs, songs that mention drugs sex, or violence...and anything else that people like you have deemed to be destroying the country.
12 Recommendations
-
To be fair, there already are massive 'taxes' on the first five on your lists...
1 Recommendation
-
-
How about we tax liberal stupidity. That would be a windfall of revenue.
6 Recommendations
-
-
It about time that we adjusted the bottle deposit for inflation and raised it to 25 cents.
2 Recommendations
-
Food Policing is a terrible idea. It is like all the rest of the Administrations desire to control everything in our lives. Just leave us alone.
4 Recommendations
-
Ones weight is a personal responsibility. It is not the function of the government to stick its nose into personal responsibility, period.
3 Recommendations
The fact that this is an issue, not the weight but the government throwing its weight, is disturbing and alarming. The fact that 22% of the people in this poll think it is ok to intrude on our personal sovereignty to either sell what we want or consume what we want in the area of food is just plain tyranny. I think these people would trade their freedom for security. They would happily become slaves if they knew their next meal was assured. They don't deserve the freedom we are entitled to. The high number who support this proposed ban is way too high. It should be less than 1 percent. It is indicative of a sick society.
The idea of a ban on the size of a soda should never have even been raised much less be a subject of debate.
If I lived in NY I would be livid. The Mayor needs to be booted out of office in a hurry.
-
Well it is nice to see that Dr. Adkins finally is paid his due. Maligned as a crank when he published the "Adkins Diet", he was the pioneer. A medical genius (according to those who went through med. school with him) he told us that sugar is a very powerful drug - to be used with extreme caution.
Recommend
Here's hoping that there is a special place in Heaven for those abused in life and finally recognized in death.
That being said - Bloomberg - also a genius - fabulously successful & recognized for his business acumen - still glories in playing the role of the totalitarian. Go figure!
-
Face it. Bloomberg wants a paternalistic government, and there are a lot of people who do.
1 Recommendation
Right and left, moral parochialism or social engineering, just different sides of the same coin.
(Just because SOME conservatives have disowned Bloomberg, doesn't mean he isn't playing for for team R.)
-
-
WSJ Editors Recommend
![[image]](http://web.archive.org/web/20120627214415im_/http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TM849_0625sc_A_20120625094805.jpg)
Immigration Checks
The Supreme Court upheld this provision in Arizona law.
(Discuss | See related story)
Should police check the immigration status of people they stop?
Yes | No
-
Add a Comment
Your Profile Here…
Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.
Your profile gives you access to personal messages, connections, and Group invitations.
Your Groups Here…
Participate in engaging dialogue on topics that matter to you and other members of your group.
When you join groups you'll find them for easy access here. Learn new perspectives and educate each other.....
Most Active Discussions
-
Question of the Day
Should police check the immigration status of people they stop?
-
Question of the Day
- back to top
-
Customer Center:
Create an Account:
Help & Information Center:
-
About:
-
WSJ.com:
-
Tools & Formats:
-
Digital Network- WSJ.com
- Marketwatch.com
- Barrons.com
- SmartMoney.com
- AllThingsD.com
- FINS: Finance, IT jobs, Sales jobs
- BigCharts.com
- Virtual Stock Exchange
- WSJ Radio
- Professor Journal
- WSJ U.S. Edition
- WSJ Asia Edition
- WSJ Europe Edition
- WSJ India Page
Foreign language editions:
- WSJ Chinese
- WSJ Japanese
- WSJ Portuguese
- WSJ Spanish
- WSJ Deutschland
ACAP Enabled
Copyright ©2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
- 1
- 2
»