You’ll take my Big Gulp when you pry my cold, fat fingers from around it!

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been in the news lately for a proposed ban on large sugary drinks. Goodbye Big Gulps, Venti Mochas and 2 litres with a straw. According to a poll taken over the weekend over half of New Yorkers oppose the ban.

Personally, I find it disheartening that 42% say this is a good idea simply because they think it will help people lose weight. I’m all for losing weight and being healthy, but I’m not convinced that government-mandated limits will be all that effective.

via absurdintellectual

Nor am I convinced this will be the key to wide-spread weight loss. It doesn’t stop refills, double buying, or the real culprits in the “war on obesity.”

And then there’s the “nanny-state” thing.

At any rate, at least New Yorkers will still have their big pizzas, big hot dogs, big subs, big steaks and big cheese cakes. Fellow Southerners can grasp their Mason jars of sweet tea and breath easy.

So what do YOU think? Cast our vote and share your thoughts:


10 thoughts on “You’ll take my Big Gulp when you pry my cold, fat fingers from around it!

  1. If it passes there will be “The War on Super Size”. Yes, it is unhealthy and people should avoid drinking soda altogether but it should be our choice weather we want to drink super sized sodas or not. But I don’t think it will pass. The big drug companies will lobby against the law because if people stop drinking all that soda then they won’t need to supply as many drugs…heh heh.

    • You’re right, Joanna! One works to get us unhealthy, the other to get us “healthy.” They probably are working together on this one! 😀

  2. I agree this is an issue the government isn’t going to fix… and this approach will have little effect on the problem in my opinion. As a former New Yorker, I do like seeing all the calories on the menus when I go back home. I find that has should have more an impact on eating right than this new idea will.

    • Wondering Cameron if you see super-sized drinks in the same light as cigarettes? Each seem to be addicting and harmful to health. Cigarettes are heavily taxed because of the health hazards but super-sized drinks and other foods are not. Is there an inconsistency here? And, for the record, I am against this NYC idea. 🙂

      • I can see similarities (unhealthy, addictive) and dissimilarities (health effects on others). There is also a difference between a ban of this sort and a tax. A tax on cigarettes (and similar items) leave me rather ambivalent.

        I understand the reasoning behind them, but generally, I dislike extra taxation. Even if you tax them, however, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you can or should tax food items.

        You don’t have to smoke to live, but you do have to eat. Smoking is harmful to others (second-hand smoke), while food isn’t (never experienced second hand diabetes).

        Also, I’m uncertain how you could practically implement a tax on junk food or large portions. A man might order an XL pizza and eat it all himself, or take it home and share with his family. A runner might eat a large pasta dinner merely to carb-load for a marathon the next day. Moderation can be exercised with food, with smoking it’s still harmful.

        Not sure how it would be possible to tax the innocent with the glutton, but, even if you could, a tax would be different from this type of ban. Even if taxed, people would still have the liberty to choose the food and amounts they wished.

        Really thought-provoking question – one of these days I’ll have to invest greater “thought time” into it! 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s