Sugary Drinks Banned in San Francisco

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the premise was, we're going with other choices because they won the bid, that's one thing.

To make the criteria being 'better health alternatives' is too big brother-esque, and actually false based on the article I just posted. Nutrasweet is v bad for you, I bet HFCS 'toxicity' doesn't mimic one of those diseases on that chart in the article.

I don't see why the government should be obliged to make its decisions on the basis of purely commercial criteria. On some level it has a vested interest in public health.

This thread does highlight a much bigger issue though - the amount of power and influence that processed food manufacturers actually have. One of the reasons that fast foods (in general) are so popular isn't simply to do with consumer choice (and in this story that isn't a factor at all) it's those companies spend billions of dollars on advertising budgets to promote them (usually to children). Product quality doesn't really factor into it all that much - if it did McDonalds wouldn't be able to shift its hamburgers, let alone sell them for $0.99 or whatever they are now.

Personally I think its a storm in a teacup - San Francisco is perfectly entitled to do this within the confines of public buildings. It is not "banning" any product, and anyone who wants a "full-fat" coke can still go across the street and buy one without any problems.

That said, this exact scenario has already played out in some public schools - with school boards removing regular sodas from vending machines and replacing them supposedly "healthy" alternatives. It's entirely right to question whether specific products (like diet sodas) are in fact healthier than the regular ones, but there is no sinister intent behind the idea.

I also have to wonder if there would be quite the same level of objection if this thread were about, say, school cafeterias taking fries, burgers hot-dogs off their menus and offering salads and grilled chicken instead.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Fandango 1,439]

At the end of the day, the gov't should not be in the business of making your choices for you, and that's what I see this as being indicative of. Sure, you can go and buy whatever you want at Circle K or whatever, but at the same time, these vending machines now have the 'this is healthier! because gov't says so!' stamp of approval on it. It's promoting 'health by numbers for idiots courtesy of gov't' which places a false sense of security with the general public. Let's not even get into the fact that 'healthy' wrt drinks/sodas/sweeteners is a subjective view at best, and let's also not get into how many times the gov't has said something is good for you, then it's yanked off the mkt as being toxic.

I say have all choices. Because I do see this as the beginning of something bigger. First, it's sugar, then it's something else, then something else. Who is really to say that one can of regular soda is actually worse than a can of diet? Or soy milk is better than regular milk? The gov't wants you to be 'healthy' yet it radiates lettuce. *shrug* I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think that this is BS based on the premise of making people more dependent on nanny gov't doing the thinking for everyone.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At the end of the day, the gov't should not be in the business of making your choices for you, and that's what I see this as being indicative of. Sure, you can go and buy whatever you want at Circle K or whatever, but at the same time, these vending machines now have the 'this is healthier! because gov't says so!' stamp of approval on it. It's promoting 'health by numbers for idiots courtesy of gov't' which places a false sense of security with the general public. Let's not even get into the fact that 'healthy' wrt drinks/sodas/sweeteners is a subjective view at best, and let's also not get into how many times the gov't has said something is good for you, then it's yanked off the mkt as being toxic.

I say have all choices. Because I do see this as the beginning of something bigger. First, it's sugar, then it's something else, then something else. Who is really to say that one can of regular soda is actually worse than a can of diet? Or soy milk is better than regular milk? The gov't wants you to be 'healthy' yet it radiates lettuce. *shrug* I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think that this is BS based on the premise of making people more dependent on nanny gov't doing the thinking for everyone.

The government isn't making people's choices for them - if it were then surely they would be looking to ban sodas outright and not merely remove them from vending machines on public property.

As I say, if you look at this in the context of the public school system I honestly doubt that many people would have an issue with it. Personally I think schools need to be teaching proper nutrition, and not just leave it at the level of the Food Pyramid and "eat less fat and sugar". Whether you want to admit it or not obesity IS a major issue in the US, and heart disease IS the biggest cause of premature death - this isn't an opinion it is a fact, and lifestyle has near everything to do with it.

Personally, I think this is much too large of an issue to dismiss it with partisan rhetoric and I would say that the objections people have in this thread have more to do with being unable beyond "San Francisco bans...", because a lot of people have an issue with liberal government and the San Francisco liberals are the worst people that they can imagine.

[Fandango 1,439]

The government isn't making people's choices for them - if it were then surely they would be looking to ban sodas outright and not merely remove them from vending machines on public property.

As I say, if you look at this in the context of the public school system I honestly doubt that many people would have an issue with it. Personally I think schools need to be teaching proper nutrition, and not just leave it at the level of the Food Pyramid and "eat less fat and sugar". Whether you want to admit it or not obesity IS a major issue in the US, and heart disease IS the biggest cause of premature death - this isn't an opinion it is a fact, and lifestyle has near everything to do with it.

Personally, I think this is much too large of an issue to dismiss it with partisan rhetoric and I would say that the objections people have in this thread have more to do with being unable beyond "San Francisco bans...", because a lot of people have an issue with liberal government and the San Francisco liberals are the worst people that they can imagine.

Who's dismissing it with partisan rhetoric????

Furthermore, kids don't make wise decisions based on what's 'healthy'. This is not a school cafeteria issue.

[slim 1,525]

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think that this is BS based on the premise of making people more dependent on nanny gov't doing the thinking for everyone.

Bingo.

This is the beginning of the govt. telling you what you can and can't do. First, they eliminate it on govt. property. Then they eliminate it within 250 feet. Then it's eliminated altogether. They'll say, "sure you can still do it on your own or at home" but they'll conveniently forget to tell you it's an extra $.25 because of the "tax" that is earmarked for your healthcare costs down the road. Nevermind the fact that tax is being squandered, as we speak, on conventions in Hawaii. Also nevermind the fact that you have private insurance.

Even if you have govt. insurance it's not like your obesity was caused by your choice of drinks alone. Perhaps if they were truly concerned about combating obesity they would encourage people to move their greasy @$$es around a little bit instead of sitting in their cubicles pretending to do work. Smokers are actually some of the healthiest govt. employees simply because they get about five times as much exercise as the average desk dweller.

If this was truly about health, they would've started with the coffee that spikes blood pressure immediately. Not sugary drinks that take a lifetime of abuse to cause obesity.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who's dismissing it with partisan rhetoric????

You are, for one. You're suggesting that the government is restricting choice and shouldn't be in the business of doing that, that the government shouldn't/can't be trusted and that this is an example of nanny government and encourages dependency.

This is all partisan rhetoric.

Furthermore, kids don't make wise decisions based on what's 'healthy'. This is not a school cafeteria issue.

So what? It's the same issue - there's no difference. Schools are public property too are they not?

As I said - the manufacturer's advertising targets a lot of these products to children adults, because they know that making the brand an integral part of their lives will result in long-term consumption of their products.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bingo.

This is the beginning of the govt. telling you what you can and can't do. First, they eliminate it on govt. property. Then they eliminate it within 250 feet. Then it's eliminated altogether. They'll say, "sure you can still do it on your own or at home" but they'll conveniently forget to tell you it's an extra $.25 because of the "tax" that is earmarked for your healthcare costs down the road. Nevermind the fact that tax is being squandered, as we speak, on conventions in Hawaii. Also nevermind the fact that you have private insurance.

This is partisan rhetoric also.

Even if you have govt. insurance it's not like your obesity was caused by your choice of drinks alone. Perhaps if they were truly concerned about combating obesity they would encourage people to move their greasy @$$es around a little bit instead of sitting in their cubicles pretending to do work. Smokers are actually some of the healthiest govt. employees simply because they get about five times as much exercise as the average desk dweller.

If this was truly about health, they would've started with the coffee that spikes blood pressure immediately. Not sugary drinks that take a lifetime of abuse to cause obesity.

At the end of the day, I don't think that this alone is going to do a lot to combat obesity; but I can entirely appreciate why they have done this.

Now if the government does decide to ban sodas, fast food, cigarettes and alcohol - I'll be right behind you in objecting to it. This however, is not that.

[Fandango 1,439]

You are, for one. You're suggesting that the government is restricting choice and shouldn't be in the business of doing that, that the government shouldn't/can't be trusted and that this is an example of nanny government and encourages dependency.

This is all partisan rhetoric.

No, it's actually my opinion. I think I've shown an ability to break with partisan opinion from time to time.

So what? It's the same issue - there's no difference. Schools are public property too are they not?

As I said - the manufacturer's advertising targets a lot of these products to children adults, because they know that making the brand an integral part of their lives will result in long-term consumption of their products.

So now gov't workers and anyone in a gov't building are the equiv of school children?

Edited July 9, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, it's actually my opinion. I think I've shown an ability to break with partisan opinion from time to time.

Yes you have indeed. Just not there.

So now gov't workers and anyone in a gov't building are the equiv of school children?

I'm trying to point out to you that there is a much much bigger issue here behind this headline.

[Fandango 1,439]

Yes you have indeed. Just not there.

My point being, this is not just some situation for me to come spewing 'partisan rhetoric' It's my opinion. Just like yours is yours... Dismiss it away all you want.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point being, this is not just some situation for me to come spewing 'partisan rhetoric' It's my opinion. Just like yours is yours... Dismiss it away all you want.

I'm not sure what you want me to say - you gave your opinion and I gave you mine. I read your post and everything you said in it are Republican party political talking points I've heard many times before from a lot of different posters.

I'm not saying you're some die-hard Republican/Conservative who takes an ideological line on every issue, but you are clearly doing it on this subject.

[Fandango 1,439]

I'm not sure what you want me to say - you gave your opinion and I gave you mine. I read your post and everything you said in it are Republican party political talking points I've heard many times before from a lot of different posters.

I'm not saying you're some die-hard Republican/Conservative who takes an ideological line on every issue, but you are clearly doing it on this subject.

Ok, so how does that change the validity of my opinion?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ok, so how does that change the validity of my opinion?

Well, the position you are taking (except for the stuff about which drinks are "healthier" - that is a reasonable question) is entirely ideological and you are essentially dismissing the story (and it's wider context) out of hand.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Fandango 1,439]

Well, the position you are taking (except for the stuff about which drinks are "healthier" - that is a reasonable question) is entirely ideological and you are essentially dismissing the story (and it's wider context) out of hand.

No, I'm not. I gave my opinion and the reasons why. You gave yours. Oh that's right, you 'support it even though you don't think it will work, and if a ban continues to grow, then you will oppose it'

I am not dismissing the 'wider context' at all. I think you are, actually.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[slim 1,525]

At the end of the day, I don't think that this alone is going to do a lot to combat obesity; but I can entirely appreciate why they have done this.

Now if the government does decide to ban sodas, fast food, cigarettes and alcohol - I'll be right behind you in objecting to it. This however, is not that.

This alone will not do anything to combat obesity. However, what it does is establishes a precedent that it's acceptable for government to do things like this - so they press on with something more restrictive. No sugary drinks in the building. You're too fat, here's a reprimand. Taxes at "unhealthy" restaurants.

Where does it end?

While it may not seem like much now... this is just the beginning.

Illegal wiretaps = waterboarding. Think about it.