New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

WTF?

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/us-usa-sugarban-new-york-idUSBRE86N1LN20120724]New York City's proposed ban on big sugary sodas draws heated debate | Reuters[/url]

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

(Old man) I remember when the idea of banning soft drinks was a joke. (/Old man)

Wonder how long it'll take for there to be a minimum amount of veggies served at a steak restaurant...

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Welcome to this nanny states of Amerika!

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Let adults make their own decisions, thin the herd!

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Is this not a violation of the Bill of rights?
Where's Thomas Jefferson when you need him.....

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=Hog1;926546]Is this not a violation of the Bill of rights?
Where's Thomas Jefferson when you need him.....[/quote]This is a municipal action, not federal. Sorry if I missed your sarcasm, my meter was broken a long time ago.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

So I guess Surary in the thread title should probably be corrected at some point

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=SmootSmack;926555]So I guess Surary in the thread title should probably be corrected at some point[/quote]

naw...Ruskins got a new one

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Just ban soda completely. The crap is horrible for you.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=Mattyk;926558]Just ban soda completely. The crap is horrible for you.[/quote]But most good tasting stuff is! Is bacon under attack next?

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

If they attack bacon I'll reverse my stance on gun control. That's a god damned fact.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=Chico23231;926556]naw...Ruskins got a new one[/quote]

Ruskins...well played

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=Daseal;926564]If they attack bacon I'll reverse my stance on gun control. That's a god damned fact.[/quote]

:laughing2

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=HailGreen28;926561]But most good tasting stuff is! Is bacon under attack next?[/quote]

Now that's blasphemy

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Ok , so newYork celibrates the 4th of july by having a party to watch 10 or 15 guys and gals shove up to 50 hot dogs down their throats as fast as possible,yet I can't have a big gulp on a 105 degree day,BS!
I can go to almost any NY Deli and get a sandwhich with 2lbs of meat and other things on it but still no big Gulp,BS.:soapbox:

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

No surprise that this is coming from Bloomberg.
He's a loon.
He wants the police to go on strike until American citizens give up their firearms.

[url=http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/23/mayor-michael-bloomberg-on-implementing-stronger-gun-laws-i-dont-understand-why-the-police-officers-across-this-country-dont-stand-up-collectively-and-say-were-going-to-go-on-strike/]Michael Bloomberg on stronger gun laws: "I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say we're going to go on strike" – Piers Morgan - CNN.com Blogs[/url]

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

I have 2 cousins who are NYPD and other retired cop relatives.

If anything, Police appreciate and respect having responsible citizens who own guns. It actually makes their job SAFER.

Bloomberg, once again, is not speaking for someone else, just his own illogical self.

I thought Bloomberg wanted to keep people alive by controlling their diets...now he wants them to be unarmed sitting ducks against the criminals in his city? Make up your mind, man.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Enjoy:
[IMG]http://functionalfitnessnyc.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/wall-e2.png[/IMG]

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=saden1;926757]Enjoy: snip pic of fatties not exercising [/quote]Do you really believe sodas are the problem there? I think you're missing that particular point of the situation.
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e1iVmqqclJc/TuoCI416oAI/AAAAAAAABtY/YQ5QhKpuQx0/s400/glasbergen-cartoon.jpg[/IMG]

In other words, "No, it's not that cupcake that made you fat. It's your choosing to eat that cupcake and sit around all day that made you fat."

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=HailGreen28;926764]Do you really believe sodas are the problem there? I think you're missing that particular point of the situation.
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e1iVmqqclJc/TuoCI416oAI/AAAAAAAABtY/YQ5QhKpuQx0/s400/glasbergen-cartoon.jpg[/IMG]

In other words, "No, it's not that cupcake that made you fat. It's your choosing to eat that cupcake and sit around all day that made you fat."[/quote]

I kinda agree with that. Its basically the whole, "McDonalds makes you fat" argument. Well duh it made you fat because that's all you ever ate. If you eat McDonalds every once in a blue moon, or if you exercise regularly, McDonalds isn't gonna make you blow up like a hot air balloon.

Soda is the same thing, obviously you're going to get diabetes if all you do is sit in front of the tube and drink Mt. Dew or if you're drinking a soda or two everyday.

As for long term health issues from soda, it's like smoking, if that's a risk you wanna take then fine, its a free country (right? O_o)

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;926795]I kinda agree with that. Its basically the whole, "McDonalds makes you fat" argument. Well duh it made you fat because that's all you ever ate. If you eat McDonalds every once in a blue moon, or if you exercise regularly, McDonalds isn't gonna make you blow up like a hot air balloon.

Soda is the same thing, obviously you're going to get diabetes if all you do is sit in front of the tube and drink Mt. Dew or if you're drinking a soda or two everyday.

As for long term health issues from soda, it's like smoking, if that's a risk you wanna take then fine, its a free country (right? O_o)[/quote]

agree...cigs are legal, but certain soda sizes are not? crazyyyy ish

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

McDonald's food is unfit for human consumption therefore it is deserving of scrutiny. If the entire country is turning into a Wall-E world then the government has a duty to insure that it's people to insure that what is making them ill be taken off the shelf. I mean, not too long ago lead was in all sorts of product on the shelf. Lead doesn't kill instantly, it slowly poisons you to death and once that was realize it was banned. The government didn't simply say "don't buy lead product," it said "leaded product are no longer fit to be on the shelves."

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[QUOTE=saden1;926852]McDonald's food is unfit for human consumption therefore it is deserving of scrutiny. QUOTE]


You're wrong,I get it you don't like it but don't get carried away.If someone eats to much of anything and does nothing ....it's going to get you.
Fast food was never ment to be an all the time thing.


[url=http://www.livestrong.com/article/417444-healthy-food-at-mcdonalds/]Healthy Food At Mcdonald's | LIVESTRONG.COM[/url]

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=saden1;926852][COLOR="Red"]McDonald's food is unfit for human consumption [/COLOR]therefore it is deserving of scrutiny. If the entire country is turning into a Wall-E world then the government has a duty to insure that it's people to insure that what is making them ill be taken off the shelf. I mean, not too long ago lead was in all sorts of product on the shelf. Lead doesn't kill instantly, it slowly poisons you to death and once that was realize it was banned. The government didn't simply say "don't buy lead product," it said "leaded product are no longer fit to be on the shelves."[/quote]

[COLOR="Red"]No its not, its just high in calories.[/COLOR] And as pointed out above, not all of it is.

The govt does not need to make our choices for us.
When it does, that is called totalitarianism, which has no place in a democracy.

And picking on McDonalds is utterly stoopid.
I can eat bacon and ice cream all day without coming anywhere near a McDonalds.
How come no one complains about the french fries and burgers from a jillion other restaurants in the nation?
Next we can start a list from what to pull out of grocery stores.
Then I can go to my dealer and get crack, meth and bacon.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;926986][COLOR="Red"]No its not, its just high in calories.[/COLOR] And as pointed out above, not all of it is.

[B]The govt does not need to make our choices for us.
When it does, that is called totalitarianism, which has no place in a democracy.[/B]

And picking on McDonalds is utterly stoopid.
I can eat bacon and ice cream all day without coming anywhere near a McDonalds.
How come no one complains about the french fries and burgers from a jillion other restaurants in the nation?
Next we can start a list from what to pull out of grocery stores.
Then I can go to my dealer and get crack, meth and bacon.[/quote]

We are the government. So long as you have the right to vote you get to decide what the government can or can't do.

There are plenty of food unfit for consumption, more so in this country than in many others. The egregious use of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime"]pink slim[/URL] by the fast food industry in this country makes their food unfit for human consumption.

To McDonalds credit they have recently stopped using pink slime. Still, when you add the other crap they use in their food products along with what they feed the animals slaughter they can still be classifed as unfit for consumption. It's all empty calories.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=saden1;926852]McDonald's food is unfit for human consumption therefore it is deserving of scrutiny. If the entire country is turning into a Wall-E world then the government has a duty to insure that it's people to insure that what is making them ill be taken off the shelf. I mean, not too long ago lead was in all sorts of product on the shelf. Lead doesn't kill instantly, it slowly poisons you to death and once that was realize it was banned. The government didn't simply say "don't buy lead product," it said "leaded product are no longer fit to be on the shelves."[/quote]Then you should be relieved that McDonald's products contain no lead. At least that's what I heard.

McD's is low quality food. So are snack bars. Both are still fit for human consumption, just not in large quantities. You want something that tastes like lead, that's really full of artificial stuff... keep eating artificial sweeteners, fake meat, and fake milk.

[quote=saden1;926988]We are the government. So long as you have the right to vote you get to decide what the government can or can't do.

There are plenty of food unfit for consumption, more so in this country than in many others. The egregious use of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime"]pink slim[/URL] by the fast food industry in this country makes their food unfit for human consumption.

To McDonalds credit they have recently stopped using pink slime. Still, when you add the other crap they use in their food products along with what they feed the animals slaughter they can still be classifed as unfit for consumption. It's all empty calories.[/quote]Lol, if it was all empty calories, there'd be little problem with overeating it. Agreed about the soylent pink, but you're still reaching to call food you don't like "unfit for human consumption".

Wow, since I'm the government, next time I go to New York I can have all the big sugary drinks I want?

Again, you're confusing snack food (including fast food) with "unfit for consumption". You can overeat on anything. Know what's "unfit for human consumption"? Tofu. Rice cakes. Soybean milk. Fruit2O (I actually drink to cut back on sugar and caffeine, but guess which one is more "unfit" if you really want to split hairs. F2O is filler at best.).

And remember, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. Do you really want to ban foods, including some you may like, or inform people to make their own choices?

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=HailGreen28;927053]
Lol, if it was all empty calories, there'd be little problem with overeating it. Agreed about the soylent pink, but you're still reaching to call food you don't like "unfit for human consumption".

Wow, since I'm the government, next time I go to New York I can have all the big sugary drinks I want?

Again, you're confusing snack food (including fast food) with "unfit for consumption". You can overeat on anything. Know what's "unfit for human consumption"? Tofu. Rice cakes. Soybean milk. Fruit2O (I actually drink to cut back on sugar and caffeine, but guess which one is more "unfit" if you really want to split hairs. F2O is filler at best.).

And remember, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. Do you really want to ban foods, including some you may like, or inform people to make their own choices?[/quote]


a) You are either being stupid or are really stupid. I'm hoping you know what empty calories are but with you lot my confidence is pretty low.

b) You think I'm calling it unfit when in fact pink slime use to be banned in this country and is and has banned all around the world as unfit for consumption.

c) When [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy"]correctly wield[/URL] the government can be a powerful ally to its citizens. We do want the government to keep harmful and dangerous food out of our food chain, the question is where do we draw the line as to what should be considered harmful?

d) You are the government though you only get one vote out of millions of votes. Exercise it in Nov to topple the current government and if it doesn't work, well, life goes on and there's always the next time...and do try to remember that being this guy is neither attractive no civilized:

[YT]-eREiQhBDIk[/YT]

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Empty calories is a stupid buzzword.
If a calorie makes you fat then its far from empty.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=saden1;927107]a) You are either being stupid or are really stupid. I'm hoping you know what empty calories are but with you lot my confidence is pretty low.[/quote]What AlvinWalton said. Concession accepted.

[quote=saden1;927107]b) You think I'm calling it unfit when in fact pink slime use to be banned in this country and is and has banned all around the world as unfit for consumption.[/quote]Glad you agree with me here.

[quote=saden1;927107]c) When [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy"]correctly wield[/URL] the government can be a powerful ally to its citizens. We do want the government to keep harmful and dangerous food out of our food chain, the question is where do we draw the line as to what should be considered harmful?[/quote]The Bloomburg action is pants-on-retarded. Sorry if you don't see that.

[quote=saden1;927107]d) You are the government though you only get one vote out of millions of votes. Exercise it in Nov to topple the current government and if it doesn't work, well, life goes on and there's always the next time...and do try to remember that being this guy is neither attractive no civilized:

[YT]-eREiQhBDIk[/YT][/quote]Please don't go ballistic like that at the nearest McDonald's when you see them serving soda, saden.

HTTR

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;927109]Empty calories is a stupid buzzword.
If a calorie makes you fat then its far from empty.[/quote]

Interesting, sorta like calling the United State's Department of Defense "Department of Defense?" I would think if you're fighting them over there instead of over here it's not really defense is it?

You know what, I'm going to go ahead and call you a nimrod and let you choose the definition of it that applies to you:

a) a person who is dedicated to or skilled in hunting
b) a simpleton

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=HailGreen28;927119]What AlvinWalton said. Concession accepted.

Glad you agree with me here.

[B]The Bloomburg action is pants-on-retarded. Sorry if you don't see that.[/B]

[B]Please don't go ballistic like that at the nearest McDonald's when you see them serving soda, saden.[/B]

HTTR[/quote]

Food portions in america are getting out of hand and the issue is no longer about freedom but exercising our collective intelligence to tackle the issue of obesity. One of the tools afforded to the government in tackling issues is the creation of market barriers. Telling people to "just don't eat that stuff" is not working. Asking or telling restaurant to reduce the size of their meals is not unreasonable and if it is well, you can try ask the judicial branch for relief. You understand? You don't have to like it but at least make a reasonable attempt to understand it.



As for going ballistic, I don't sweat the small stuff but if you mess with my family, well, that's entirely a different story.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=saden1;927127]Food portions in america are getting out of hand and the issue is no longer about freedom but exercising our collective intelligence to tackle the issue of obesity. One of the tools afforded to the government in tackling issues is the creation of market barriers. Telling people to "just don't eat that stuff" is not working. Asking or telling restaurant to reduce the size of their meals is not unreasonable and if it is well, you can try ask the judicial branch for relief. You understand? You don't have to like it but at least make a reasonable attempt to understand it.[/quote]How are actions like Bloomberg's going to reduce the amount of soda that fatties drink? When did deciding the size of restaurant servings become a government responsibility? If someone wants a smaller portion, they should order one. Now the judiciary should get involved? :doh: I understand a "nanny state" perfectly well.

[quote=saden1;927127]As for going ballistic, I don't sweat the small stuff but if you mess with my family, well, that's entirely a different story.[/quote]I really have no idea where you are going with this. Let's keep this friendly, as fellow Redskin fans. :cheers
I was just pointing out you were the one railing about McDonald's earlier.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=HailGreen28;927134]How are actions like Bloomberg's going to reduce the amount of soda that fatties drink? When did deciding the size of restaurant servings become a government responsibility? If someone wants a smaller portion, they should order one. Now the judiciary should get involved? :doh: I understand a "nanny state" perfectly well.

I was just pointing out you were the one railing about McDonald's earlier.[/quote]



You think this is just about the fatties? This is not just about the fatties, it's about kids and regular Americans. What reducing the size of a drink does is institute a portion and price control over consumers. Let's think this through, what is the cost of a Slurpee at 7-11? A quick Google search yields:

Gulp
16oz.................$1.19
24oz.................$1.49
44oz.................$1.59
64oz.................$1.89
Refills...............$1.09

Notice the price difference between 16oz and 64oz drinks; it's 70 cents. Why is that? You are getting 4 times the amount less than twice the cost. It's not because you are buying more but because it's cheap as **** to make this stuff and they are trying to get you buy more of it. Now if you eliminate all the sizes except 16oz drinks a 64oz drink will all of a sudden cost you $1.19 + $1.09 * 3 = $4.46. Ouch....very pricey. Well, that's not going to happen, I mean this stuff is cheap so free re-fills for everyone. How much Gulp is a typical consumer likely to consume? 32oz at the most (law of diminishing marginal utility). It's highly unlikely that most consumers would hang around and consume more than the initial 16oz plus an additional 16oz free re-fill to take home.




What mayor is trying to really do is prevent people from consuming 64oz is short period of time and potentially taking home a large quantity home afterwards. He is not saying I want to prevent fat fcks like guy below from drinking himself to death but he is saying a) portions are out of control and are harmful to our children and ordinary citizens and b) I want to reduce consumption these unhealthy beverages and reduce our future healthcare cost associated with unhealthy consumption. If you limit the amount of drink that can be sold as Bloomberg did the worse case scenario as far a consumer consuming a gulp at a reasonable price is $2.28 for 260 cal 32oz drink, were as if you left things as they were the worse case scenario at a reasonable price is $2.98 for a 128oz 1040 cal drink.



...propositions


Drinks a Gulp a week:

16oz...............130 cal * 52 = 6,760 calories ($61.88)
32oz re-fill.......2 * 130 cal * 52 = 13,520 calories ($61.88 if free or $118.56 at $1.09)
64oz...............520 cal * 52 = 27,040 calories ($98.28)
128oz re-fill .....2 * 520 cal * 52 = 54,080 calories ($98.28 if free or $154.96 at $1.09)


Drink a Gulp once a day:

16oz..............130 cal * 365 = 47,450 calories ($434.35)
32oz re-fill......2 * 130 cal * 365 = 94,900 calories ($434.35 if free or $832.2 at $1.09)
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)
128oz re-fill.....2 * 520 cal * 365 = 379,600 calories ($689.85 if free or $1087.7 at $1.09)


[YT]tiP3uM5hHsw[/YT]



[quote=HailGreen28;927134]
I really have no idea where you are going with this. Let's keep this friendly, as fellow Redskin fans. :cheers [/quote]

I am friendly, I was just stating my position on when violence is deemed necessary is all. The only interenet muscles I flex are the ones used for stroking my keyboard.


Cheers to you too, HTTR.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

Saden you would make a great politician.
You just wasted a feckload of time and tax money on figuring out stuff that takes away peoples libertys.
I'll make my own decisions on food consumption. Its my right as far as I'm concerned and no one elses business.
Take your numbers and big govt practices and cram it.
Now I'm off to have some Samuel Adams Double Creme Stout.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

What's to stop people buying 2 X 16oz drinks instead of 1 X 32oz?

This law makes no sense. Let people make dumb choices and die sooner.

Issue everyone a bowl of water, a toaster (plugged in) and a nice metal fork.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;927153]
Now I'm off to have some Samuel Adams Double Creme Stout.[/quote]


lol....Just knocked of a couple of the SA Summer Ale at dinner.:food-smil

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=RedskinRat;927155]What's to stop people buying 2 X 16oz drinks instead of 1 X 32oz?

This law makes no sense. Let people make dumb choices and die sooner.

Issue everyone a bowl of water, a toaster (plugged in) and a nice metal fork.[/quote]

Price. It's supposed to be cost prohibitive. When you buy a soda they spend more on the plastic bottles than on the drink.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=saden1;927141]You think this is just about the fatties? This is not just about the fatties, it's about kids and regular Americans.[/quote]And yet, in your links, you show a video of a fattie and cartoon fatties. And what *I* have said can actually be applied to everyone. But "regular americans" don't have a problem with soda. Thought there is an increase in obesity, including "childhood obesity", so yes fatties are being addressed in this topic.

[quote=saden1;927141] What reducing the size of a drink does is institute a portion and price control over consumers. Let's think this through, what is the cost of a Slurpee at 7-11? A quick Google search yields:

Gulp
16oz.................$1.19
24oz.................$1.49
44oz.................$1.59
64oz.................$1.89
Refills...............$1.09

Notice the price difference between 16oz and 64oz drinks; it's 70 cents. Why is that? You are getting 4 times the amount less than twice the cost. It's not because you are buying more but because it's cheap as **** to make this stuff and they are trying to get you buy more of it. Now if you eliminate all the sizes except 16oz drinks a 64oz drink will all of a sudden cost you $1.19 + $1.09 * 3 = $4.46. Ouch....very pricey. Well, that's not going to happen, I mean this stuff is cheap so free re-fills for everyone. How much Gulp is a typical consumer likely to consume? 32oz at the most (law of diminishing marginal utility). It's highly unlikely that most consumers would hang around and consume more than the initial 16oz plus an additional 16oz free re-fill to take home. [/quote]Saden, nearly every consumable especially foodstuffs operate on that basis. Because larger portions on most things are still more profitable even with a discount. For example: the Food Lion closest to me sells a 1lb bag of carrots for 78 cents, and a 2lb bag for 98 cents. (Those evil bastards! They're trying to force people to eat more carrots!!!!!) What's wrong with 7-11 or Food Lion pricing their items as they do?

[quote=saden1;927141]What mayor is trying to really do is prevent people from consuming 64oz is short period of time and potentially taking home a large quantity home afterwards. He is not saying I want to prevent fat fcks like guy below from drinking himself to death but he is saying a) portions are out of control and are harmful to our children and ordinary citizens and b) I want to reduce consumption these unhealthy beverages and reduce our future healthcare cost associated with unhealthy consumption. If you limit the amount of drink that can be sold as Bloomberg did the worse case scenario as far a consumer consuming a gulp at a reasonable price is $2.28 for 260 cal 32oz drink, were as if you left things as they were the worse case scenario at a reasonable price is $2.98 for a 128oz 1040 cal drink.[/quote]The mayor has no business determining how much soda people can take home.

in response to a). What determines when a portion is so called "out of control"?

in response to b). What is the direct linkage between soda consumption and healthcare cost? And where is the line to be drawn in "reducing healthcare cost? Why *shouldn't* the line include chocolate be banned, by this same standard? Why *shouldn't* hamburger and bacon banned, by the same reasoning? Nevermind soda lovers can still get two orders, or just pick up a 2 liter to enjoy at home.



[quote=saden1;927141]...propositions


Drinks a Gulp a week:

16oz...............130 cal * 52 = 6,760 calories ($61.88)
32oz re-fill.......2 * 130 cal * 52 = 13,520 calories ($61.88 if free or $118.56 at $1.09)
64oz...............520 cal * 52 = 27,040 calories ($98.28)
128oz re-fill .....2 * 520 cal * 52 = 54,080 calories ($98.28 if free or $154.96 at $1.09)


Drink a Gulp once a day:

16oz..............130 cal * 365 = 47,450 calories ($434.35)
32oz re-fill......2 * 130 cal * 365 = 94,900 calories ($434.35 if free or $832.2 at $1.09)
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)
128oz re-fill.....2 * 520 cal * 365 = 379,600 calories ($689.85 if free or $1087.7 at $1.09)[/quote]And spend about 3 bucks on breakfast a morning and your total cost over a year is a staggering $1095. All daily items cost a lot over 365 days.

The problem with your wall of numbers over prices for larger portions, and for calories and price over a year, is that the numbers you cite have nothing to do with a desire to get people hooked, or are expensive or fattening compared to other common things. You seem to cite these numbers as if they are remarkable, when in fact you kinda make a case FOR soda when actually comparing with other things. For example:


Compare your 64 oz Big Gulp to orange juice.

One 64 oz Big Gulp
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)

One 64 oz. "My Essentials Orange Juice" [URL="http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/my-essentials-100-orange-juice-11789768"](link to calories) [/URL]..[URL="http://www.foodlion.com/WeeklySpecials?StoreNumber=1669"]link to price of oj nearby, scroll down[/URL]
64oz..............960 cal * 365 = 350,400 calories ($799.35) :eek:

So what's the message in your previous post? That everybody sells bigger portions cheaper per oz/lb than smaller portions? That sodas are healthier and cheaper than some orange juice products?

There's little logic behind banning anything because of the numbers you cited. Just like there's little logic behind Bloomberg's action, as discussed this thread.

Cheers!

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

[quote=HailGreen28;927287]And yet, in your links, you show a video of a fattie and cartoon fatties. And what *I* have said can actually be applied to everyone. But "regular americans" don't have a problem with soda. Thought there is an increase in obesity, including "childhood obesity", so yes fatties are being addressed in this topic.

Saden, nearly every consumable especially foodstuffs operate on that basis. Because larger portions on most things are still more profitable even with a discount. For example: the Food Lion closest to me sells a 1lb bag of carrots for 78 cents, and a 2lb bag for 98 cents. (Those evil bastards! They're trying to force people to eat more carrots!!!!!) What's wrong with 7-11 or Food Lion pricing their items as they do?

The mayor has no business determining how much soda people can take home.

in response to a). What determines when a portion is so called "out of control"?

in response to b). What is the direct linkage between soda consumption and healthcare cost? And where is the line to be drawn in "reducing healthcare cost? Why *shouldn't* the line include chocolate be banned, by this same standard? Why *shouldn't* hamburger and bacon banned, by the same reasoning? Nevermind soda lovers can still get two orders, or just pick up a 2 liter to enjoy at home.



And spend about 3 bucks on breakfast a morning and your total cost over a year is a staggering $1095. All daily items cost a lot over 365 days.

The problem with your wall of numbers over prices for larger portions, and for calories and price over a year, is that the numbers you cite have nothing to do with a desire to get people hooked, or are expensive or fattening compared to other common things. You seem to cite these numbers as if they are remarkable, when in fact you kinda make a case FOR soda when actually comparing with other things. For example:


Compare your 64 oz Big Gulp to orange juice.

One 64 oz Big Gulp
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)

One 64 oz. "My Essentials Orange Juice" [URL="http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/my-essentials-100-orange-juice-11789768"](link to calories) [/URL]..[URL="http://www.foodlion.com/WeeklySpecials?StoreNumber=1669"]link to price of oj nearby, scroll down[/URL]
64oz..............960 cal * 365 = 350,400 calories ($799.35) :eek:

[B]So what's the message in your previous post? That everybody sells bigger portions cheaper per oz/lb than smaller portions? That sodas are healthier and cheaper than some orange juice products?[/B]

There's little logic behind banning anything because of the numbers you cited. Just like there's little logic behind Bloomberg's action, as discussed this thread.

Cheers![/quote]

:doh:

Because ounce for ounce it has less calories than orange juice it's healthier for you? You may or may not know this but you sir are an idiot of first order.


...I tried to peel the onion but it seems to have countless layers of stupidity.

Re: New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink
 

So the other day I see this fat ass getting out of her car which was parked in a Handicap parking spot because I'm guessing she was fat. Shouldn't we have special Fat Ass Handicap parking in the back of the parking lot instead of right by the door?

Saden the reason for the small gap in the pricing of the 16 oz v/s 64 oz is that most of the cost is the cup not the drink. I guess they also need to only allow stores to sell single beers and no 6 or 12 packs.