Jump to content



Photo

NYC Board of Health passes big-soda crackdown rule

new york fast food sugar

  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#16 redvamp128

redvamp128

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,925 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 01

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:24

WRONG-- IDIOTS (the NYC Board of Heath)

Just because you ban something only being over a certain size--does not fix the problem

Guess what you just did---

HELLO --- REFILLS ---
Plus as a side benefit that same person now will buy two instead of one. (So now N.Y. will get more tax) (and places will now charge for refills)


This is one of those where the theory sounds sound, but in reality will fail.

Edited by Denis W, 14 September 2012 - 05:14. Reason: Don't abuse font formatting.



#17 +Harrison H.

Harrison H.

    Neowinian

  • 576 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 04
  • Location: Florida
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:27

If DrakeN2K is anything like me it's not fat people he dislikes, but anyone who fails to see how their own actions can lead to limiting the availability of healtcare to someone who hasn't abused their body.

However I agree this is ridiculous, a much fairer solution is taxing unhealty foods higher to pay for the increased burder on the health systems around the world. Just like fuel is taxed to pay for roads, and you pay for tickets depending on how much you use the train.

Actually, it's not really fairer. If you can, watch the Penn & Teller: bull**** episode on Fast Food (Season 8 I believe). Taxing isn't going to benefit anyone. It is going to hurt those who eat fast food the most, which are usually the people who can't afford to eat nice home cooked meals on a daily basis.

#18 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,020 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:27

Seems to me limiting doughnut sales would be more effective. :p

#19 Rohdekill

Rohdekill

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,514 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 05
  • Location: Earth

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:28

Exactly how does this help anything when most places have free refills?

#20 McKay

McKay

    Neowinian Stallion

  • 5,905 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 10
  • Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Lane
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: LG G3

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:30

Just jack up the tax rate for drinks over a certain size, most people will simply avoid them.

#21 Raa

Raa

    Resident president

  • 12,377 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 02
  • Location: NSW, Australia

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:41

So basically, people will refill or buy two. More money for the state.

See, they're not dumb - they know what they're doing. ;)

#22 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:52

They can pass all the legislation they want. People are going to do what they want. This solves nothing.

#23 lt8480

lt8480

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 13 September 2012 - 23:58

Actually, it's not really fairer. If you can, watch the Penn & Teller: bull**** episode on Fast Food (Season 8 I believe). Taxing isn't going to benefit anyone. It is going to hurt those who eat fast food the most, which are usually the people who can't afford to eat nice home cooked meals on a daily basis.


Thats the problem though the poorest and thus those lowest paying tax are swallowing up expensive healthcare. I don't quite buy it will hurt the poor, it would simply price them out of buying junk food, as home cooked food is cheaper than fast food anywhere in the world already. Making fast food cheap only makes the problem worse.

In the UK all "essentials" food items are tax free, eat healthy(-ish) eat tax free.

EDIT:

Good home cooked food can cost less than £1 per person for your main meal of the day... god I hope you cannot buy a fast food meal for that little anywhere in the states.

#24 +Harrison H.

Harrison H.

    Neowinian

  • 576 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 04
  • Location: Florida
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520

Posted 14 September 2012 - 00:12

Thats the problem though the poorest and thus those lowest paying tax are swallowing up expensive healthcare. I don't quite buy it will hurt the poor, it would simply price them out of buying junk food, as home cooked food is cheaper than fast food anywhere in the world already. Making fast food cheap only makes the problem worse.

In the UK all "essentials" food items are tax free, eat healthy(-ish) eat tax free.

EDIT:

Good home cooked food can cost less than £1 per person for your main meal of the day... god I hope you cannot buy a fast food meal for that little anywhere in the states.


I'd look to know what you are cooking for $5 a person. Can't even buy meat for that price. Oh and if you like Taco Bell (I don't), you can definitely have a meal for $2.

#25 srbeen

srbeen

    Neowinian

  • 1,014 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 11

Posted 14 September 2012 - 00:14

Because we all know prohibition works right?

#26 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,023 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 14 September 2012 - 00:37

Regardless of a supposed obesity epidemic, this is still ridiculous.


It's not a "supposed" obesity epidemic - it exists and is readily observable. In the US more than 68% of people are overweight and more than 35% are obese - it is predicted that the percentage of people that are obese will increase to 42% by 2030. Those numbers should be shocking to any civilised society and yet very little is being done about it. In many ways it is very similar to people's reaction to climate change in that people (mostly) recognise that it's a serious problem but oppose any action being taken to address it.

Doing nothing isn't an option. You can tout personal freedoms and blame individuals but when the vast majority of the country is overweight the reality is that something is going wrong on a massive scale. The food available for sale today just isn't healthy. Do I think this move is ideal? Absolutely not. But it's better than doing nothing. The food industry should be heavily regulated and foods with high calorie contents should be heavily taxed or banned. That's what happens with tobacco, so it's far from unprecedented.

If you oppose change and don't offer any solutions then you're part of the problem. Obstructing those trying to address the obesity epidemic isn't helpful.

#27 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,493 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows Embedded Standard 8 & Server 2012/08 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 14 September 2012 - 00:41

It's not a "supposed" obesity epidemic - it exists and is readily observable. In the US more than 68% of people are overweight and more than 35% are obese - it is predicted that the percentage of people that are obese will increase to 42% by 2030. Those numbers should be shocking to any civilised society and yet very little is being done about it. In many ways it is very similar to people's reaction to climate change in that people (mostly) recognise that it's a serious problem but oppose any action being taken to address it.

Doing nothing isn't an option. You can tout personal freedoms and blame individuals but when the vast majority of the country is overweight the reality is that something is going wrong on a massive scale. The food available for sale today just isn't healthy. Do I think this move is ideal? Absolutely not. But it's better than doing nothing. The food industry should be heavily regulated and foods with high calorie contents should be heavily taxed or banned. That's what happens with tobacco, so it's far from unprecedented.

If you oppose change and don't offer any solutions then you're part of the problem. Obstructing those trying to address the obesity epidemic isn't helpful.


Id take issue with the claim that " The food available for sale today just isn't healthy" as it reeks of the naturalistic fallacy. You could replace coke with all natural apple juice it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in terms of caloric count.

The issue is not the food its the massive quantity's its available in combined with a less active lifestyle. So i take issue with " The food available for sale today just isn't healthy" in case we waste time on a non-solution.

#28 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,020 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 14 September 2012 - 00:43

obesity solution:

Attached Images

  • taped.jpg


#29 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,023 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 14 September 2012 - 00:47

Id take issue with the claim that " The food available for sale today just isn't healthy" as it reeks of the naturalistic fallacy. You could replace coke with all natural apple juice it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in terms of caloric count.


Apple juice doesn't have added caffeine to make it addictive.

#30 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,493 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows Embedded Standard 8 & Server 2012/08 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 14 September 2012 - 00:54

Apple juice doesn't have added caffeine to make it addictive.


True caffeine can create physical dependence



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!