Tom Bombadil: If somebody is serving you a drink, you don't choose how much sugar is in it, no matter how much telepathic willpower you have.

Actually Tom, the world usually laughs at the cultural component of US society which gave us these drinks in the first place, or the Heart Attack Grill Restaurant, or the battered deepfried weiner ona stick. Not so much the regulation I think.

Actually Tom, I tend to think the world laughs more at the cultural component of US society which gave us these drinks in the first place, or the Heart Attack Grill Restaurant, or the battered deepfried wiener on a stick. Not so much the regulation I think.

Oops sorry, dunno what happened.

What really makes me mad is how Bloomberg wants to improve health by restricting our right to buy a large sugary drink rather than limiting availability and sale of cigarettes. That is literally the dumbest thing ever.

Literally?

@JECE: I can see that for some drinks, but people aren't that ignorant. People know how much sugar is in soda. All nutrition information has to be made public by fast food places. So you should know how much sugar is in drinks, and you should be able to make your own decisions about whether or not you should drink said beverage.

This is also the reason why frappuccinos can never be made into Trentas. Something about how horrible it is for you. But hey everyone has the right to put as much sugar and crap into their system as they want. Then again I'm a bit biased since I work for Starbucks.

Tom Bombadil: Really?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-syCORcTYiaU/T9M0dtMb9mI/AAAAAAAAALs/Qd9I4EpzjKA/s1600/soda+and+sugar.jpg
http://khoi.fitbodylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sugar.jpg

is mcdonalds supersized coffee 20 ounces? this law will be devastating to the 4 sugars supersized breakfast combo drive-thru patrons. or will establishments be allowed to give out sugar packets. might just result in people putting the sugar in themselves as they are driving to work.

dunkin donuts will be in clear violation of the law unless they ban large sizes or change their practices
apparently this is how much sugar/cream they put in their coffee
2/2 for a small.
3/3 for a medium.
4/4 for a large.
5/5 for an extra large.

It is with no small amount of pride that I can genuinely claim to not know what a venti is.

My belief is that legislation like this, whether it's in the form of a soda ban or sugar ban in coffee, is made to make people stop and make a conscious choice before allowing that much sugar or soda to enter their body. It's obviously unhealthy, and obesity is one of the worst health epidemics this country has ever seen, part of which is derived from these massive portions we are served without even thinking twice about the consequences.

What some people call an intrusive regulation, I call higher insurance bills curtailing my economic freedom, all because of the poor choices made by others.

I'm just curious how many people here:
1. Voted for Obama and the nanny-state Democrat mentality, and yet are:
2. Irritated that Bloomberg is implementing a nanny-state in New York City?

It's so ironic to hear/see all the complaining about the liberal dream of invasive government oversight ("for your own good") - this is what the American people have been begging for! Nobody wants to be self-responsible for their health care, their income, their schooling, etc....but now all of the sudden your are upset because, after you have said you aren't responsible enough to care for yourself, a government has actually *listened* to you, and is going to protect you from yourself?!? How is this a bad thing...it's the fulfillment of an entire political philosophy!

It's two sides of the same coin, krellin. Conservatives (not singling you out) often complain that Medicare spending is out of control. Wonder why? It's because Papa Krellin and his flock of baby Krellins are out of shape, have a poor diet, eat sugar-laden foods like there's no tomorrow, then have the nerve to complain about healthcare costs adding to our federal deficit but refuse to change their habits. Your so-called "freedom" is killing you and you don't even know it.

Voting in America is all about choosing the lesser evil in my opinion, and, well, that's Obama...

Fine law though.

2wl - I don't *want* my health insurance paying for *anything* but catastrophic care. I prefer to automobile model: insurance doesn't pay for maintence, oil changes, brake fix, etc. I't time for the *consumer* to pay for basic medical care so they understand where they are getting raped by the system and start making intelligent choices.

Hence...true conservatives prefer health savings accounts, and higher out-of-pocket expenses.

The consumer already does pay for basic medical care. You think the money just appears out of thin air? It either comes out of your taxes to cover Medicare expenses, out of your inflated insurance premiums, or directly out of your pocket. Blaming "the system" does nothing to alleviate costs but rather passes these costs onto those who can't afford it to begin with.

In terms of your auto analogy, basic maintenance saves you money in the long run. That's a given. The same goes with healthcare - if you keep your body in good working order, you can avoid catastrophic costs down the line. Most rational people do this by eating well, exercising, not abusing alcohol or drugs, etc. Other people don't do this and eat fast food, drink massive sugary drinks, suck down coffee like it's nothing. Then they get diabetes, they get fat, they get heart disease, they get cancer, and it raises costs for everybody.

Whether you realize it or not, you're agreeing with me about preventive care.

2WL -- of course the consumer already pays for medical care from taxes, etc...and yet most idiots think their health care will be "free" under Obamacare...because "someone else will be paying for it"...therefore they go to the doctor with every bump, scratch and fart; they never question doctor's about cost; they don't shop around for lower costs, etc. I have turned down procedures that cost too much and shopped them elsewhere. - most medical consumers would never even dream of doing that!....but they'll search high and low for the best deal on a TV.

Preventive care is not something that can be forced on you, unless at the point of a gun. I give you the right to eat yourself in to obescity and die young and miserable. I also expect the health care system to charge you higher premiums, just like someone with more speeding tickets get's higher costs on auto insurance.

I join a company, they give me the standard insurance and I pay exactly as much as someone sitting next to me in terrible health who smokes and sucks down cotton candy by the bucketful. That's a bad system...there is no incentive to be healthy.

In auto insurance, you drive bad, premiums go up...bang - incentive to drive better.

In that company you joined, you still pay for the insurance, but the costs are just defrayed. It's still higher than it ought to be because of your cotton candy sucking coworker. If you aren't healthy, you not only cause your own healthcare costs to be higher, but everyone else's as well. It's similar in auto insurance - riskier age groups pay more in premiums because of poor behaviors over a whole group of people. Insurance premiums don't exist in a vacuum.

What does a vacuum have to do with this?

LOL

2wl - if the stated objective is to have more preventative behavior, then you need to create *direct* incentives for healthier behavior and give the consumer a choice.

A watered-down corporate insurance pool where I pay the same as someone who willfully puts themselves in danger is *not* incentive.

The insurance companies have our health records - I get information from my insurance provider about a prescription I take - so they are fully aware of our medical records. Thus, it's a matter of an *algorithm* in the system to adjust premiums based upon acceptable healthy norms (weight, blood work, etc) with the addition of some other stuff (health club membership or whatever) ... just like I get adjustments on my auto insurance. Base cost is based upon age and gender. Adjustments come because of where I live, my college education, etc. So the auto industry is certainly capable of a more discerning premium system that rewards good behavior.

It's time for the health care industry to reward good behavior and punish unhealthy behavior. It's easy to do, and would be **fair** - and isn't that always the goal in society, fairness?

This legislation actually does create a choice, which goes back to what I originally said. People don't pay attention to how much sugar is in a beverage. Its not that they are ignorant, it's more that people simply don't care. If people were rational consumers of information and were consciously making a choice regarding their choice of beverage, then you might have an argument, but this legislation is actually allowing consumers to *make* that choice, when otherwise they wouldn't think twice about a giant soda or five sugars in their coffee. People will and do think twice when they're actually putting the sugar in the coffee themselves. It lets them see how much actually goes in and what it physically looks like in their hand and consciously choose to put it in their drink.

Telling a legal business they can not sell a legal product (sugar) in a certain quanitity is *not* giving consumers a choice, unless you use a different dictionary than I do. You may be making the choice a little more obvious, but it is the same choice.

Regardless, it's wrong - it impinges upon freedom. Stop pretending that people don't know how much sugar is in the drink...THAT is why they buy it!

Besides, the *obvious* next step is that Bloomberg makes it illegal to have sugar packets available to the general public...duhh...

What you fail to understand is that every time we do something "to protect the idiot citizens from themselves" we slip down the slope. It started with big gulps...everyone was like "No way!" and then they shut up...now it's this and that...every week that maniac announces some new government restriction. At this point, he pretty much has free will to dictate your lifestyle in New York, because there is never any push back....there is no choice for consumers, there are only DICTATES....which come from...

A choice is, "Here, keep eating sugar, keep gaining weight, and we'll charge you more -- your choice. and yes, Mr and Mrs. Obese, you know the sugar is in that sweet drink you purchase with your free will."

By the way, sugar is not a poison, and it is not unhealthy in normal quanities. the brain *runs* on sugar...so you can't outlaw it, thus it is a legal, useful product.

I can also literally kill myself with *water*. Shall we ban the sale off large water bottles?