Right, but if its not the Government's responsibility to step in and say "hey, maybe people should know how awful this stuff can be for your health," who will do it? Will the companies do it? Fuck and no. That would cut into their profit in several ways (it costs money to put that information out there, and they'd lose customers, as just two examples). It would be downright stupid for a company to do that if they weren't forced too (and I can't blame them, they should do what is in their best interest). Okay, maybe an organized citizen group can get out there and spread the word about how bad fast food and/or soda is. How long do you think that group would last, and how effective would it be, going up against a multi-billion dollar corporation like McDonalds or PepsiCo, and their army of lawyers and advertisers? It would be like trying to slay Godzilla with one of those little plastic swords they stick in club sandwiches. Answer: completely fucking ineffective. And the problem is that the above scenario isn't hyperbole. They used to advertise that cigarettes were "healthy. Hell, it even applies to Soda. Until the Government stepped in to regulate that shit, companies could say whatever they wanted about their products to sell them. With no regulation, McDonalds could say that the Big Mac is a healthy, 200 calorie treat, great for between meals to keep your kids from starving between their Egg McMuffin breakfast and their 20 piece Chicken Nugget lunch. PepsiCo could talk about how their amazing new Pepsi product is zero calories, even if it has more calories in a 16 oz. cup than your average breakfast and lunch combined. It would be up to the consumer to determine what was true and what was bullshit, and hey, buyer beware, right? Again, the answer lies someplace in the middle. I don't claim to know where, exactly, that is. All I am saying is that the answer is NOT zero regulation, and the answer is NOT "so much regulation that businesses choke to death." I do know that, in this particular case, the regulation of 16 oz. cups may be a bit out there, but I don't think it crosses the line into cartoonish supervillany that some people seem to think it does. Edit to add: The problem is you're assuming that the people are being protected from "themselves." That simply isn't the case. If a person is well informed of how good or bad something is, and they make a conscious and rational decision, yes, they should be allowed to do that. HOWEVER, how many people can you honestly say are well informed? People don't know. I'd venture to guess that if you went into an average McDonalds and asked the consumers how many calories were in the 32 oz. soda they just chugged, they wouldn't even be CLOSE to guessing accurately, because they have no idea, and it isn't like companies are rushing out to tell them. The problem is this: you're assuming people are making informed decisions, when they're not. They don't have all the facts, and therefore they can't make an informed decision. It is like the baby in that scenario I posted above. That kid has no idea that shoving a fork in that light socket will kill it, because it doesn't have that information. It has to get it from someplace, right? And until it DOES get that information, someone or something has to keep it from making an uninformed, dangerous decision. Enter Government Regulation. Again, I'm not saying we should regulate the shit out of everything, but that some Government regulation is necessary.
Yet again. It is not governments responsibility to protect the citizens from themselves. Freedom is what it is.
Good argument. Glad you made such amazing points and contributions. Anyone want to make a real point besides "yeah, but you're wrong"?
Assumption #1: The law hasn't even been enacted yet, you don't know how it'll affect consumption. Assumption #2 Assumption #3
You're operating under the assumption that "multi-billion dollar corporations" are demonic entities whose only purpose is to poison and harm innocent people. That's a popular view nowadays, but even if we assume it's true, government regulation hasn't improved a thing. Go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. McDonalds and PepsiCo were already very popular at the time, and their products were even more unhealthy than they are now. Government regulation of the industry was also much lower. And according to studies, people consumed just as many calories in the 70s as they do now. So why were people in the 70s generally healthier, less overweight, and there were fewer instances of obesity? How come things were better with less government regulation than we have today? The answer is that it had nothing to do with either government or companies. People just exercised more. By the way, I have no problem with government requiring companies to publish the number of calories in their food, or educating people about caloric intake. Or requiring they publish accurate findings. But as long as the food is safe to eat, that's as far as it should go. This is addressed to Nitwit, not me, but just I want to note that people make grossly misinformed decisions about most things in their lives. How many people voting in the general election don't know the most basic facts about either the Democratic or Republican candidates? How many people arguing either way about marijuana truly understand its full medicinal effects? How many people buy inferior products because it has a cool name or commercial attached to it? Is it the government's job to run billion-dollar informational campaigns, regulate, and ban choices in all those instances, too? Edit- You're telling me that you have never been to a fast food place with infinite refills? Off the top of my head, Carl's Jr, In N' Out, Five Guys, and Panera all offer this in California. And how is the ability to buy 2 16-ounce cans an "assumption"? That's a basic choice consumers will still retain. Are you telling me you believe that a single 20-ounce can will be more expensive than buying two 16-ounce cans? That's not the way pricing works at restaurants. This is just an economic reality. Government sends signals to companies by passing certain bills or considering others. If sufficiently threatening, companies respond through increased dollars spent on lobbying and special interests.
I wasn't making a 'point'. I was stating truth that your rhetoric can't stand up to. EDIT: Thanks for the red dot.
Sure, prohibition did happen. But I don't think anyone these days thinks that prohibition was even a moderately good idea, and I'm confident that our future decisions will be informed by past mistakes. As for the remarks about "holding liberty at the highest" and statements such as this: I think we'll find this to be the central bone of contention. You guys seem to be invoking a notion of "freedom" that I can't say I completely understand, and, insofar as I feel I do understand it, I disagree with it. Here's the thing, to be able to say "I freely chose to do X", I'd imagine that you're implicitly assuming you could do otherwise. Obviously, if a choice is forced, we wouldn't consider it free. This is a pretty standard notion of free will, which is central to the issue of freedom. Now, the standard conception, which I'd imagine proponents of this "freedom is paramount" argument adhere to, is that short of coercion, physical or otherwise (some people disagree about the 'otherwise', I guess), all the decisions you make are free. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing body of evidence suggesting that this conception of free will is much too strong: As long ago as 1983, Benjamin Libet did a study in which subjects, were asked to flick their wrists, whenever they so chose, and to record the time that they felt the conscious urge to do so. It turns out that a full half-second before the subjects felt any sense of agency in "choosing" to flick their wrists, Libet could predict the urge via associated brain activity. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6640273) Recently, in 2008, several researchers published a study showing that they could predict, via monitoring of the prefrotal and parietal cortex, whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand, 60% of the time 10 seconds before the subjects were aware of making the choice. (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html) There's also a lot of interesting research being done on the subject of "free won't", or our ability to veto decisions (or at least, what's going on when we believe that this is what we're doing). These are showing similar results as the above. Now, obviously, I'm not saying free will doesn't exist. The evidence isn't nearly that strong, and, since I do believe in free will, I don't think it ever will be. What I am saying, is that in light of our current, and growing, understanding of how we function, it strikes me as lacking in nuance to assume that all of our choices are completely, 100% free. So, if this is the case, then it certainly seems reasonable, to me, that the government regulate or restrict substances, or choices, about which there is evidence that large portions of the population actually cannot be said to make "free choices" (obviously, this is dependent on the risk of the behaviour). But certainly, I wouldn't consider this to be an infringement of freedom, rather, in this light, it seems to me that the government is acting to increase your freedom, since they're eliminating a choice that one would invariably "choose" without really having freely chosen.
I'm not telling you anything, all I said was that you don't know what effect the law will have on consumption. You can predict all you want, but until we have solid data no one knows. Hence, you're assuming.
No, sir. You were stating an Opinion that my 'rhetoric' clearly refutes, only you refuse to back your opinion up with anything other than a smug sense of satisfaction. It is only your opinion that it is not a Government's job to protect the people from themselves. Anyone who has taken any basic poli-sci class can tell you that there are many opinions on Government, and what is best. The red dot was because you've added literally nothing to this discussion to back up your Opinion, and because you seem to think your opinion is a fact, which makes you either a raging egomaniac or someone who lacks a clear definition of what a debate is. Say what you will about KIMaster, at least he is clearly arguing his points and I can respect that. I may not agree, but I respect it. I don't respect people who state Opinions and call them blanket facts, without backing them up in any way, shape, or form.
Yes it is. It happens all the time. Speed limits, stop signs, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, the list goes on and on. Certainly in some of the instances I listed the government is also protecting others as well as yourself, but that blanket statement above is foolish. Is a large soda ban a silly waste of taxpayer dollars that will have zero effect on obesity in the city of New York. In my opinion, yes.
It would be awesome if, instead of the government regulating this stuff, they just didn't let companies pass pseudofood off to the public. Oreos...and whatever they're made of...are not food. They're chemicals. HFCS is not food. Manufactured chemicals and sugars and additives are not food. If the government is truly that interested (big government or small government, national, local, whatever) in a healthier populace, then regulate what is actually passed off as food and beverage. Preservatives, chemicals, chemical sweeteners, etc are NOT GOOD FOR YOU. We could argue about grains all day, I don't think they're good for you, but others do, but at least they're not laden with crap (usually). Go back to cooking and selling real food and real beverage, that's where it starts. And, require Home Ec as a class to graduate. Teach kids how to cook, and read recipes, at an early age. Teach kids to appreciate real food. Don't even introduce pseudofoods to your children. That's where this all starts, not with some politician saying "Only one soda y'all." But, people are stupid, and can't do that for themselves. My assumption is that other people are like me, when I know in fact they are not. The things I mentioned above are how I live. I can look around and the fatasses I see daily and realize taht some people really do need some kind of regulation...I just wish it came in the form of removing the availability of the crap.
I don't think anyone is disputing this, there is no doubt in my mind that advertising affects our decision making (it wouldn't exist if it didn't) and beliefs. I also believe that the reason we drink so much soda at these places is because they sell the 32 ounce cup for a few pennies more than the 20 ounce. However we still have the ability to buy the smaller cup of soda and the ability to ignore advertising. We do not have the ability to ignore freedom restricting legislature. As for a government protecting it's citizens, think about how long the Food Pyramid was pushed and how much worse the general population has become, we're pumping a lot of money into educating people and it isn't doing shit. Meanwhile we have private nutritionists (paleo people, Atkins, South Beach diet, Zone, hell even vegans like Ornish) giving people the tools they need to affect huge change at an incredibly low price (~$20 for a book or in many cases free info on the internet). We can argue what the government SHOULD do up and down but the fact of the matter is these individuals with private interests are offering significantly better solutions at a much lower cost, why? Because they need to produce results to make money, the government does not. And do people really believe soda and fast food are good for them? Serious question. I'm sure most people don't know HOW bad it is, but I doubt education is going to change a lot of behavior long term, then again I don't live in an inner city.
The idea that a mandatory home ec class is the solution is off the mark. Health education classes are mandatory, and diet and eating habits are part of that curriculum, yet the obesity epidemic, especially amoung youth, continues to escalate. Sex education is also part of that curriculum, yet teen pregnancy is still prevalent. You can lead a horse to water... One New York City politician--hardly a strong representation of the entirety of American government at any level--is seeking to curb soda consumption only at certain points of sale, in one city. This is hardly the vast and nefarious government conspiracy/big business collusion some of you folks are painting it to be.
Focus: Should we be regulating how much/what type of food people should be eating? My answer? No It is not governments responsibility to protect the citizens from themselves. I'm not sure what you are looking for with regard to "backing that statement up". I answered the question and then I "backed it up" with reason. I can't see where you have done that so I'll just ask. Do you, D26, feel that our government should pass laws regulating how much sugar the citizens are permitted to ingest?
Few problems here. 1) By the time I got involved, the conversation had evolved into a much larger debate regarding Government's role in regulating businesses, which is what I was discussing. You, apparently, ignored that. Or, you decided that if a response to a complicated issue such as "how much Government regulation is too much" was more than one word ("Any"), it was far to complex for you. 2) To the question you posted: "Do you, D26, feel that our government should pass laws regulating how much sugar the citizens are permitted to ingest?" No, I don't feel that way, and that is NOT AT ALL what this law does. This law simply states that, if you wish to ingest that much sugar, you have to purchase it in two separate containers. Nothing stops you from purchasing 2, 3, or ten 16 oz drinks. Buy as many as you want, you are still completely free to make the choice to consume any amount of sugar you wish. There is zero limitation on your PERSONAL FREEDOM to consume as much sugar as you please. If you want the diabetes fairy to visit you, by all means, buy nine of those bad boys and chug them back to back. The stores are simply not allowed to sell it to you in one massive container. You argue that the Government shouldn't "protect people from themselves." Therefore, one can assume, you feel people should be completely free to make their own decisions. However, what you seem to be failing to recognize, is that this law does absolutely NOTHING in terms of limiting how much sugar an individual can intake. All it does is make it slightly more inconvenient for them. This isn't some slippery slope to a totalitarian society, it is one city enacting a law designed to make it inconvenient for people to drink massive quantities of sugar, not to limit the consumption of sugar (which, apparently, is what you think is happening). Since you clearly have your view that the Government is this awful thing that wants nothing more than to take away all your rights, I'm done addressing you. It is pointless to argue with someone who is so smugly entrenched in their viewpoint that they can only compose single sentence responses to what are generally very complex issues. You, sir, are exactly what is wrong with today's political climate. "I'm right because you're wrong. That is all I need to say. That is a fact." I actually don't believe this. I do believe that corporations have one single interest: profits. If telling people that their food is healthy was both profitable and legal, you can bet McDonalds would be running ads 24/7 about the Chicken McNugget diet. I would expect nothing less, because it is in their best interest to make as much money as possible. That is their job, and I don't begrudge them that. I wouldn't blame the companies, I'd blame the Government for not stepping in and saying "Hey, you probably shouldn't blatantly lie to your consumers." You can't depend on a company to behave in an ethical manner, because if there is a choice between behaving ethically and making a profit, a company will chose profit 100 times out of 100, because that is their sole reason for existing. Again, I don't begrudge a company for making a profit, that is their job. The flaw in this argument is that the 1970s USA and 2010s USA are completely different societies. In the 50s through the 70s, manufacturing and labor jobs were still the majority of jobs in the US. These jobs required much more physical labor. Today, the majority of jobs are in the service industry, with the technology industry booming. These job fields are significantly more sedentary than their labor intensive counterparts of the 50s through the 70s. When you throw in cable television, VHS/DVD/home entertainment, and computers and the internet, and you can easily see that today's society is significantly more sedentary than previous generations. We don't have to leave the house to go to the library to get books, we can download them on our kindles or our laptops. We don't have to go to the movie theater, we can download movies at home. Honestly, thanks to grocery delivery services and the internet, people could live at home for months, if not years, without ever leaving. That simply wasn't possible in the 70s. That, much more than fast food, is what has contributed to the obesity epidemic. That said, fast food companies certainly can hold SOME share of the blame. Not the majority, but definitely some of it. Their food is fast (redundant, I know), easy to get, and cheap. It is perfect for our current society, but it sure as shit ain't healthy. The Government can't regulate how sedentary people are, or regulate how much time we spend on the internet or sitting on our asses. That would infringe on personal freedoms, which I've yet to see anyone argue is a good thing. They can, however, put little inconveniences in place to try to curb the consumption of unhealthy food, which is what I believe this Soda law is. Just a minor inconvenience. In a way, I'd argue that the fact that everything is so convenient and so easy, and we have SO MUCH freedom now-a-days, that it is what is leading to our obesity epidemic. Like I said, it is incredibly easy for someone to sit at home for months on end, have food delivered, work from home via the internet, and only leave their chair to use the bathroom or answer the door. It would be unfathomable that someone could accomplish that feat in the 70s, because "Working from Home" barely existed, home delivery was exclusive to pizza and mail, and the majority of jobs were much more labor intensive. Let me state this again, for emphasis: This soda law, in no way, infringes on ANY personal freedoms. I think you and I both agree that some regulation is required, but I think we disagree on where that line is, and what an appropriate amount of regulation is. Fair enough. That is a good thing, by the way. Disagreement is good, when both sides actually have a discussion, as we have been having. Our government is set up to deal with those disagreements, and to foster compromise (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a dirty word).
Since I know you've all been waiting with baited breath for moi to answer, I'll tackle several things here: 1) Free market, and proponents thereof. Just stop it, knock it off. 'Free market' is a euphemism for 'regulations we don't want passed.' No one on this board has likely ever seen a 'free market.' It doesn't exist in the industrialized world, and one of the reasons the industrialized world is industrialized is because there are regulated markets. So knock it off. I'm tired of the 'free marketers' spewing their uneducated point of view. You like the fact that if someone tells you it's soda, and it's ok for human consumption, but scream 'free market' if you can't get a 20 ounce? Why do you think it's safe for human consumption? Yeah, because it's regulated. Free market means just that, free. As in unfettered by ANY regulation. But you don't mean that. So stop saying it, it makes you sound retarded. 2) The 'right' that is being infringed here is the right of the property owner to do with his/her property as they wish. It IS an infringement. Meaning, it's something you used to be able to do, but is now being taken away. There's no right of the consumer to buy whatever size they want. Sadly, most people don't blink an eye at this. However, I'd argue that the infringement of private property rights has led to the slippery slope that we jumped off of circa 1982. Too late to put that genie back in the lamp. 3) The 'it won't work' argument doesn't work. It will work. It's basic human consumption. You go to a fast food place, you don't buy a meal, then decide to get two drinks. So you'll take what you got. People will consume less soda, people will lose weight. So from that point of view, it will work. But that doesn't sell it for me. I'm on board with the 'freedom means the freedom to choose poorly' crowd. What's funny is people have no problem with Bloomberg and politicians taking 3.42 BILLION dollars (2010 - check out 'open secrets.org.' in lobbyist money, but you fuck with their happy meal? Yeah, look out. Overall, this is a bullshit issue (like many others) meant to divert the electorate's attention away from actual issues. So it has been a wild success from that point of view. TL;DR. Who gives a shit? This goes on all the time and no one seemingly cares, but suddenly people want to exercise their right to soda? For all their posturing about 'rights,' Americans are probably too ignorant to be free.
You are assuming that the health education we have at the moment cannot be improved. It can. I learned more about calories in chemistry than I did from my high school health class. (And, while we're at it, teen pregnancy isn't even remotely in the same solar system as obesity as far as societal problems go.)
You're missing my point. Just because a problem is addressed via an education or awareness program does not mean the problem is anywhere close to being solved. In fact, in many cases not even a dent is made. DARE was a complete failure. Mandated alcohol awareness programs for people convicted of DWIs has had little if any impact on DWI conviction rates. Are there kids who Get it"? Sure there are. But let's face it. Given a choice between an organic apple and a Twinkie, which one is the typical kid going to choose? Furthermore, how many even have the choice? An education system can always be improved upon, but a child's education does not rest solely on the backs of the teachers. Reinforcement, guidance and an active interest on the part of parents/primary caregivers is equally important.