Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 31, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
-
He's on MSNBC with an exclusive interview - "We're simply forcing you to understand you have to make the conscious decision to move from one cup to another cup".
Yes, he's pushing a proposition:
Movie theaters and Restaurants will NO LONGER be legally allowed to SELL any drink larger than 16 ounces. No more big movie theater drinks, no more large drinks in restaurants. You have to order a second drink.
Next he says he will address banning smoking and trans fats. This is in addition to the nationwide crusade to band 'stand your ground' nationwide.
-
Will this affect the standard 20 ounce starbucks coffee? People are gonna be PISSED.
Updated: May 31, 2012 10:07 a.m.
(AP) - Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks in the city's restaurants, delis and movie theaters in the hopes of combating obesity—an expansion of his administration's efforts to encourage healthy behavior by limiting residents' choices.
The proposal—expected to be announced formally on Thursday in a City Hall briefing—would take 20-ounce soda bottles off the shelves of the city's delis and eliminate super-sized sugary soft drinks from fast-food menus. It is the latest health effort by the administration to spark accusations that the city's officials are overstepping into matters that should be left in the hands of individual consumers.
"There they go again," said a spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, who called the proposal "zealous" in a statement. "The New York City Health Department's unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top. The city is not going to address the obesity issue by attacking soda because soda is not driving the obesity rates."
But City Hall officials, citing a 2006 study, argue that sugary drinks are the largest driver of rising calorie consumption and obesity. They note that sweet drinks are linked to long-term weight gain and increased rates of diabetes and heart disease.
The administration's proposal would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sugary drinks sold at food service establishments, including restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.
The ban would apply only to drinks that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. It would not apply to diet soda or any other calorie-free drink. Any drink that is at least half milk or milk substitute would be exempted.
The ban, which could take effect as soon as March, would not apply to drinks sold in grocery or convenience stores that don't serve prepared food. Establishments that don't downsize would face fines of $200 after a three-month grace period.
The proposal requires the approval of the city's Board of Health—considered likely because its members are all appointed by Mr. Bloomberg.
Under the three-term mayor, the city has campaigned aggressively against obesity, outlawing trans-fats in restaurant food and forcing chain restaurants to post calorie counts on menus. The mayor has also led efforts to ban smoking in the city's bars, restaurants, parks and beaches.
Mr. Bloomberg often cites the city's rising life expectancy numbers as proof the approach is working, but his efforts have drawn criticism from others who accuse him of instituting a "nanny state."
His administration has tried other ways to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, an idea federal regulators rejected.
City Hall's latest proposal does not require approval beyond the Board of Health, although public hearings will be held.
©Copyright 2012 Associated Press.
Read more: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120531/HOSPITALITY_TOURISM/120539977#ixzz1wT99QK1m
-
This is one dude that I may actually applaud on the day he dies.
-
This is one dude that I may actually applaud on the day he dies.
it's gonna suck for people who work all day. If you want a thirstbuster of Coca-Cola before you work landscaping all day, YOU DESERVE ONE. If you want a vente 20 oiunce coffee before you stay up until 3 am studying for a mid-term, YOU DESERVE ONE. It's america!
This goes WAY beyond michelle obama recommending dieting ideas - this is forcefully telling grownups they may not order a drink to satisfy their thirst. Can you imagine buying two drinks from a drive thru, or two starbucks coffees - because a politician says you shoudn't drink that many calories?
Bloomy, hero of many here who really wanted him to be prez in 2012, believes he should be able to take away your large drink.
-
He jumped the shark officially here and is getting BLASTED locally.
-
He jumped the shark officially here and is getting BLASTED locally.
How do you think grownups in NYC will react to telling them they're not legally allowed to buy a 20 ounce coffee on their way to work?
(They can however buy two 10 ounce coffees and carry them both).
-
Here is the politician line of thought on everything of this nature: X is bad for you so we will ban X.
And listen to the language they use : "I think that this is bad for you so we will now ban you from purchasing it.
The law is naive, short sighted and totally ineffective.
Slippery slope.
How long until:
-Limits on how much you are allowed to order during a single sitting, or in a week/month/day?
-If they are going to go ahead with the the soft drinks, then why not limit the # of cigs per pack? Cans per case of beer? How many bottles of 80 proof liquor should you be able to purchase in a month/week? How many hamburgers should you be allowed to buy in a day from a fast food store? How about sunflower seed, those have a lot of sodium in them....ban anyone under 18 from buying them!
Knowledge, education and personal responsibility will defeat obesity. Not dumb shit laws like this.
-
Here is the politician line of thought on everything of this nature: X is bad for you so we will ban X.
And listen to the language they use : "I think that this is bad for you so we will now ban you from purchasing it.
The law is naive, short sighted and totally ineffective.
Slippery slope.
How long until:
-Limits on how much you are allowed to order during a single sitting, or in a week/month/day?
-If they are going to go ahead with the the soft drinks, then why not limit the # of cigs per pack? Cans per case of beer? How many bottles of 80 proof liquor should you be able to purchase in a month/week? How many hamburgers should you be allowed to buy in a day from a fast food store? How about sunflower seed, those have a lot of sodium in them....ban anyone under 18 from buying them!
Knowledge, education and personal responsibility will defeat obesity. Not dumb shit laws like this.
good post
-
good post
Thank you. As an ex-PE/Health teacher I can tell you that the best way to fight obesity and general unhealthiness is through education in the classroom and "in the field". Health/PE is one of the areas that could easily be harnessed in a unified manner to help in this respect and it wouldn't be at all expensive.
Knowledge is power.
-
Here is the politician line of thought on everything of this nature: X is bad for you so we will ban X.
And listen to the language they use : "I think that this is bad for you so we will now ban you from purchasing it.
The law is naive, short sighted and totally ineffective.
Slippery slope.
How long until:
-Limits on how much you are allowed to order during a single sitting, or in a week/month/day?
-If they are going to go ahead with the the soft drinks, then why not limit the # of cigs per pack? Cans per case of beer? How many bottles of 80 proof liquor should you be able to purchase in a month/week? How many hamburgers should you be allowed to buy in a day from a fast food store? How about sunflower seed, those have a lot of sodium in them....ban anyone under 18 from buying them!
Knowledge, education and personal responsibility will defeat obesity. Not dumb shit laws like this.
Great post.
Something sorely lacking in todays population is personal responsability. Always looking to someone for an excuse or to tell them how to live.
Idiots.
-
Thank you. As an ex-PE/Health teacher I can tell you that the best way to fight obesity and general unhealthiness is through education in the classroom and "in the field". Health/PE is one of the areas that could easily be harnessed in a unified manner to help in this respect and it wouldn't be at all expensive.
Knowledge is power.
Agree completely. Using too many laws because people don't know better is stupid. The best way to rid the world of empty calories is through education and mandatory PE in schools.
If we had a true leader as a president he could start a national campaign for eating healthy and exercise. But one can only dream.....
-
Agree completely. Using too many laws because people don't know better is stupid. The best way to rid the world of empty calories is through education and mandatory PE in schools.
If we had a true leader as a president he could start a national campaign for eating healthy and exercise. But one can only dream.....
Isnt michelle O doing that w "Let's Move" ?
-
Isnt michelle O doing that w "Let's Move" ?
She tried.. and then got slammed for it.. People goin on tv eating doughnuts and cookies and shit
-
Isnt michelle O doing that w "Let's Move" ?
Yeah,it's working so great that NYS just banned 20oz drinks.
-
Yeah,it's working so great that NYS just banned 20oz drinks.
I live here! This is so stupid since it hurts store owners and restuarants, hurts the consumer, etc.
and why not ban orange juice or apple juice while we are at it?
-
She tried.. and then got slammed for it.. People goin on tv eating doughnuts and cookies and shit
Agree completely. Using too many laws because people don't know better is stupid. The best way to rid the world of empty calories is through education and mandatory PE in schools.
If we had a true leader as a president he could start a national campaign for eating healthy and exercise. But one can only dream.....
Disagree. Her initiative for getting kids/teens/whoever to get outside and exercise, be healthy, eat right isn't what got her bashed and mocked. It was the "Bake Sale Regulations", what food you are allowed to pack for your kids lunch and the like. That's what got people upset.
And for the record, I really don't have a problem with government regulations on lunches that schools serve to their students as long as parents are informed and such. But schools/govt. shouldn't regulate what parents pack for their kids or what is sold at school bake sales, that's where I draw the line.
-
schools/govt. shouldn't regulate what parents pack for their kids or what is sold at school bake sales, that's where I draw the line.
The fact that this is even an issue goes to show you how fucked up things have become.
-
The fact that this is even an issue goes to show you how fucked up things have become.
The more you regulate people, the more responsibility and self-empowerment you take away from people the less self-responsible and self-reliant your society will become.
It's simple.
-
The more you regulate people, the more responsibility and self-empowerment you take away from people the less self-responsible and self-reliant your society will become.
It's simple.
Well put. I dont know when and where we allowed them to get this idea that theyre responsible for how people live their fucking lives. Pretty sure the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.
-
He must be on crack. This is absolutely retarded. Judge Napalatano said the same thing this morning, but he was a little more eloquent than me. :)
-
I wonder if the republicans who shouted "Bloomberg 2012" and were able to look past him being an anti-gun prick are still wanting him?
I mean, i guess they figured any prick who would sign anti-gun legislation would NEVER go after other personal freedoms.
We see how that worked out, huh? (cough: Romney signed an assault weapons ban bill...)
and if you want a real laugh, check out http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org
-
This is one dude that I may actually applaud on the day he dies.
This
-
He can kiss his political career goodbye after this. You can do a lot of dirty shit like hang with terrorists, write racists news letters, start unjust wars, but don't take away peoples choice of beverage size..LOL.
-
He can kiss his political career goodbye after this. You can do a lot of dirty shit like hang with terrorists, write racists news letters, start unjust wars, but don't take away peoples choice of beverage size..LOL.
Bloomberg locally is getting fryed over thus.
-
Bloomberg actually fucking said, "We're Simply Forcing You To Understand..." ::) Pretty sure that notion has no place in America.
-
Bloomberg is done after this.
-
this is what happens when you support a dipshit who signs anti-gun legislation.
The leader says "Wow, I was able to get away with that anti-gun shit. Now it'll be anti-calorie next".
People who sign assault weapons bans suck. They hate freedom, hate the 2nd amendment.
-
Piece of steaming shit.
-
Disagree. Her initiative for getting kids/teens/whoever to get outside and exercise, be healthy, eat right isn't what got her bashed and mocked. It was the "Bake Sale Regulations", what food you are allowed to pack for your kids lunch and the like. That's what got people upset.
I have no problem with advocating and promoting exercise and a healthy lifestyle, provided it's not forced at the point of the government's proverbial gun. But did she really advocate "bake sale regulations"? I don't pay much attention to the personal agenda of the unelected spouse of the President; all I heard was that she was hoping to address childhood obesity - a lofty, if not weighty, goal.
And for the record, I really don't have a problem with government regulations on lunches that schools serve to their students as long as parents are informed and such. But schools/govt. shouldn't regulate what parents pack for their kids or what is sold at school bake sales, that's where I draw the line.
I more or less agree with that; I don't think that any level of government should be able to tell parents what they can and cannot feed their child, provided that you are actually feeding him and that the food isn't dog food.
-
this is what happens when you support a dipshit who signs anti-gun legislation.
The leader says "Wow, I was able to get away with that anti-gun shit. Now it'll be anti-calorie next".
People who sign assault weapons bans suck. They hate freedom, hate the 2nd amendment.
I like the Second Amendment just as much as I like the First and think that assault weapons bans are idiotic. Background checks I can understand; I could even be convinced about a requirement that the owner attend a short and inexpensive one-time course on gun safety as a prerequisite for a semi- or fully-automatic weapon. But an outright ban on sales is just stupid.
But I do have one question. Do you actually draw a line at some point? That is, would you support say, a ban on the purchase of, say anti-tank weapons like the M20A1, or an M252 mortar? If so what changes the calculus for you to cause you to say "I think this should not be available for purchase by civilians"?
-
I like the Second Amendment just as much as I like the First and think that assault weapons bans are idiotic. Background checks I can understand; I could even be convinced about a requirement that the owner attend a short and inexpensive one-time course on gun safety as a prerequisite for a semi- or fully-automatic weapon. But an outright ban on sales is just stupid.
But I do have one question. Do you actually draw a line at some point? That is, would you support say, a ban on the purchase of, say anti-tank weapons like the M20A1, or an M252 mortar? If so what changes the calculus for you to cause you to say "I think this should not be available for purchase by civilians"?
I don't... I think if it's good enough for a military or police force to buy, then we should be able to buy it.
If not, there's no way that the people can take up arms and revolt against oppression if need be.
-
I don't... I think if it's good enough for a military or police force to buy, then we should be able to buy it.
If not, there's no way that the people can take up arms and revolt against oppression if need be.
So you would be ok with the sale of anti-tank weaponry to the general public? What about nuclear or biological weapons? I could understand if you said "good enough for a police force" but "good enough for a military" is kind of extreme for me.
-
So you would be ok with the sale of anti-tank weaponry to the general public? What about nuclear or biological weapons? I could understand if you said "good enough for a police force" but "good enough for a military" is kind of extreme for me.
I see where you're going... and maybe just "maybe" I can be onboard with nuclear and biological weapons... only because the general public wouldn't handle them even remotely safely, but Anti-Tank weapons are fine by me.
-
I don't... I think if it's good enough for a military or police force to buy, then we should be able to buy it.
If not, there's no way that the people can take up arms and revolt against oppression if need be.
I'm with you on this.
If the Government has access to it than the citizens should have access as well.
In the end it is a great check and balance system.
Of course, let us not go to extremes but owning a 12 gauge, body armor, hunting rifle and an assault rifle with add-ons should be legal.