Bloomberg's ban on large sodas overturned!!

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 03-12-2013, 08:20 PM
Here2Stay Here2Stay is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 144
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default Don't Take away my JOY!

All I want right now is a LARGE SUPERSIZE SODA and A TWINKIE!!!! Anybody got an old Twinkie just lying around!! Will pay TOP dollar!
  #17  
Old 03-12-2013, 10:42 PM
pauld315 pauld315 is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY, FL, PA, TX, NC, TV
Posts: 1,219
Thanks: 40
Thanked 98 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbg150 View Post
I live in NYC and the defeat of this legislation makes me sad. Perhaps Bloomberg over-reached, and the legislation could have been better crafted, but his heart was in the right place! Now the beverage companies are manipulating public opinion, but they remain greedy and uncaring. What people don't realize is that you can't even get a smaller drink these days. Thirsty at the movies, I tried to get a sip of something to quench my thirst but the smallest drink available was 32 ounces (for a premium price too!) I remember when Coke used to come in 7 oz bottles and it was a special once in a while treat that you savored. Try to find a 7 ounce bottle now! It is not a coincidence that this bigger is better mentality coincides perfectly with the obesity epidemic. People wake up! Stand up for children and sensible living, not these selfish corporate interests!Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oy vey ! Wow, I am speechless...whatever happened to personal responsibility ?
  #18  
Old 03-12-2013, 11:08 PM
cbg150's Avatar
cbg150 cbg150 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Living in the Villages after 26 years on the Upper Westside of Manhattan!
Posts: 188
Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pauld315 View Post
Oy vey ! Wow, I am speechless...whatever happened to personal responsibility ?
What ever happened to personal choice? Why must we accept only the bigger sizes because they are more profitable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" --Mary Oliver
_______
Cindy
formerly of Manhattan and weekends on the Jersey Shore--now living the dream in Caroline!
  #19  
Old 03-13-2013, 07:16 AM
travelguy travelguy is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hemingway
Posts: 690
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I guess some of us need protection from ourselves. That is why there are rules. Our own judgement can be faulty at times, and just because we believe in freedom is not enough to allow us to make stupid choices. Then again, who is to decide what constitutes a stupid choice? I just do not know either.
  #20  
Old 03-13-2013, 07:32 AM
De Lis De Lis is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 221
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Bloomberg may seem like Big Brother, but with obesity and diabetes on the ever increasing rise (especially in our youth), someone needed to something!

Come on, no needs to be served 32 oz. of pop. Geez.
  #21  
Old 03-13-2013, 08:00 AM
gomoho's Avatar
gomoho gomoho is offline
Sage
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,341
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Lis View Post
Bloomberg may seem like Big Brother, but with obesity and diabetes on the ever increasing rise (especially in our youth), someone needed to something!

Come on, no needs to be served 32 oz. of pop. Geez.
Agreed - NO ONE NEEDS TO BE SERVED A 32 oz SODA - but we all should have the right to make that decision on our own. People don't need to be served alcohol or cigarettes - ban that too???
  #22  
Old 03-13-2013, 08:25 AM
blueash's Avatar
blueash blueash is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,727
Thanks: 173
Thanked 2,182 Times in 532 Posts
Default

Where there are societal costs, we as a collectively responsible nation, have a right if not an obligation to our fellow citizens to encourage and even to legislate responsibility. The mayor's proposal I believe only applied to the on site sale of supersized drinks. There was no prohibition on a consumer buying two of them, or ten of them. There was no prohibition on grocery stores selling you a 2 Liter.
We already have laws regarding what some might consider "personal liberties". While you can consume alcohol, you cannot be served over a certain amount per glass. You cannot drive any speed you desire, even on a deserted road where you would endanger only yourself. Many states require you to wear a helmet if you ride a bike or a motorcycle. All states require you wear your seat belt. These are all examples of what people like to call the "nanny state". And they are all good laws. We have as a society laws not only to protect the individual from others but laws to protect the individual from him/her self when making poor choices may impose a burden on the society even without the intention of doing so. If Bloomberg is correct that obesity is a real public health danger and that there are ways to mitigate that danger why wouldn't he, and why wouldn't all of us, be trying to reduce the damage both present and future of that disease? It is a legitimate if not essential function of govenment to promote the common welfare and public health.
  #23  
Old 03-13-2013, 09:21 AM
karostay's Avatar
karostay karostay is offline
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Conn/Maine /
Posts: 2,724
Thanks: 110
Thanked 1,301 Times in 498 Posts
Default

Lets not forget your golf cart can't do over 20 mph.
When you have Villages Golf Car do any repair's THEY deem it necessary to turn down the speed
__________________
Don't take life Too Serious ..It isn't permanent
  #24  
Old 03-13-2013, 09:23 AM
karostay's Avatar
karostay karostay is offline
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Conn/Maine /
Posts: 2,724
Thanks: 110
Thanked 1,301 Times in 498 Posts
Default

You can buy 32 oz drafts at Cody's
They should have a 16oz limit
__________________
Don't take life Too Serious ..It isn't permanent
  #25  
Old 03-13-2013, 09:30 AM
graciegirl graciegirl is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,003
Thanks: 4,677
Thanked 5,374 Times in 1,852 Posts
Send a message via AIM to graciegirl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash View Post
Where there are societal costs, we as a collectively responsible nation, have a right if not an obligation to our fellow citizens to encourage and even to legislate responsibility. The mayor's proposal I believe only applied to the on site sale of supersized drinks. There was no prohibition on a consumer buying two of them, or ten of them. There was no prohibition on grocery stores selling you a 2 Liter.
We already have laws regarding what some might consider "personal liberties". While you can consume alcohol, you cannot be served over a certain amount per glass. You cannot drive any speed you desire, even on a deserted road where you would endanger only yourself. Many states require you to wear a helmet if you ride a bike or a motorcycle. All states require you wear your seat belt. These are all examples of what people like to call the "nanny state". And they are all good laws. We have as a society laws not only to protect the individual from others but laws to protect the individual from him/her self when making poor choices may impose a burden on the society even without the intention of doing so. If Bloomberg is correct that obesity is a real public health danger and that there are ways to mitigate that danger why wouldn't he, and why wouldn't all of us, be trying to reduce the damage both present and future of that disease? It is a legitimate if not essential function of govenment to promote the common welfare and public health.
Ah yes, you are right Blueash, and a very good scientist too. However, in Ohio where we both are from, no one so far has told us how much pop we can buy or drink at a time...so far.

When a law is passed, there is also a great expense to enforce it.

I think this may be political.

Say Goodnight Gracie.
  #26  
Old 03-13-2013, 09:35 AM
Cisco Kid's Avatar
Cisco Kid Cisco Kid is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Monticello IL
Posts: 1,885
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash View Post
Where there are societal costs, we as a collectively responsible nation, have a right if not an obligation to our fellow citizens to encourage and even to legislate responsibility. The mayor's proposal I believe only applied to the on site sale of supersized drinks. There was no prohibition on a consumer buying two of them, or ten of them. There was no prohibition on grocery stores selling you a 2 Liter.
We already have laws regarding what some might consider "personal liberties". While you can consume alcohol, you cannot be served over a certain amount per glass. You cannot drive any speed you desire, even on a deserted road where you would endanger only yourself. Many states require you to wear a helmet if you ride a bike or a motorcycle. All states require you wear your seat belt. These are all examples of what people like to call the "nanny state". And they are all good laws. We have as a society laws not only to protect the individual from others but laws to protect the individual from him/her self when making poor choices may impose a burden on the society even without the intention of doing so. If Bloomberg is correct that obesity is a real public health danger and that there are ways to mitigate that danger why wouldn't he, and why wouldn't all of us, be trying to reduce the damage both present and future of that disease? It is a legitimate if not essential function of govenment to promote the common welfare and public health.
__________________
My alarm doesn't have a snooze button. It has a paw.

Chloe
&
Lulu
  #27  
Old 03-13-2013, 10:15 AM
Bucco Bucco is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,734
Thanks: 219
Thanked 2,246 Times in 709 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash View Post
Where there are societal costs, we as a collectively responsible nation, have a right if not an obligation to our fellow citizens to encourage and even to legislate responsibility. The mayor's proposal I believe only applied to the on site sale of supersized drinks. There was no prohibition on a consumer buying two of them, or ten of them. There was no prohibition on grocery stores selling you a 2 Liter.
We already have laws regarding what some might consider "personal liberties". While you can consume alcohol, you cannot be served over a certain amount per glass. You cannot drive any speed you desire, even on a deserted road where you would endanger only yourself. Many states require you to wear a helmet if you ride a bike or a motorcycle. All states require you wear your seat belt. These are all examples of what people like to call the "nanny state". And they are all good laws. We have as a society laws not only to protect the individual from others but laws to protect the individual from him/her self when making poor choices may impose a burden on the society even without the intention of doing so. If Bloomberg is correct that obesity is a real public health danger and that there are ways to mitigate that danger why wouldn't he, and why wouldn't all of us, be trying to reduce the damage both present and future of that disease? It is a legitimate if not essential function of govenment to promote the common welfare and public health.
This may or may not be true.....

"If Bloomberg is correct that obesity is a real public health danger and that there are ways to mitigate that danger why wouldn't he, and why wouldn't all of us, be trying to reduce the damage both present and future of that disease? It is a legitimate if not essential function of govenment to promote the common welfare and public health.
Reply With Quote"


HOWEVER, and to me MOST IMPORTANTLY, when do we discuss personal responsibility.....when do we discuss parenting.

It does not seem to serve us well to throw aside our inherent responsibility and leave those responsibilities to politicians of any ilk
  #28  
Old 03-13-2013, 10:23 AM
Mikeod's Avatar
Mikeod Mikeod is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 5,021
Thanks: 0
Thanked 49 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco View Post
It does not seem to serve us well to throw aside our inherent responsibility and leave those responsibilities to politicians of any ilk
  #29  
Old 03-13-2013, 10:37 AM
blueash's Avatar
blueash blueash is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,727
Thanks: 173
Thanked 2,182 Times in 532 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco View Post
HOWEVER, and to me MOST IMPORTANTLY, when do we discuss personal responsibility.....when do we discuss parenting.

It does not seem to serve us well to throw aside our inherent responsibility and leave those responsibilities to politicians of any ilk
And here we agree in part. There is a more important role of parenting and personal responsibility in these issues. But, and it is a very important but, that does not mean that there is no role of government. This is not an either or, it is an all of the above. While we may disagree on the wisdom of this particular soda proposal, would you agree that one role of government is to regulate the sale of harmful products? Another role is to encourage positive health practices such as quitting smoking, getting exercise, weight control, avoiding sunburn, the list is lengthy. Some of this can be done by agencies tasked with getting good practices out to the public. This involves spending your tax dollars to support research and buy advertising time and pay the salaries of those employees. Some is done by regulation or tax policy. Why is some food taxed at Publix and other foods are not? Government has in many ways played a role in guiding people into making healthy life choices. What Bloomberg proposed was part of that tradition.
  #30  
Old 03-13-2013, 10:49 AM
ilovetv ilovetv is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,100
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Lis View Post
Bloomberg may seem like Big Brother, but with obesity and diabetes on the ever increasing rise (especially in our youth), someone needed to something!

Come on, no needs to be served 32 oz. of pop. Geez.
I agree nobody needs to be served 32 oz. of pop. However, the silly thing about the attempt in NY is that all a person has to do to get it is buy 2 bottles of it that are 16 oz.....

AND, since those are sealed and easy to carry around or keep in a backpack, a person can buy 4 or 5 16-oz bottles to consume in the next couple of hours.

Personally I don't understand how a person has that much time on their hands, to drink all that and spend that much more time at the toilet.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 PM.