Southern Brooklyn

Poll: Should Big Sugary Drinks Be Banned?


From the New York Times:

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

… The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

Comment policy


  1. only someone with a lot of money would suggest restauarants to simply charge more for smaller drinks if sales were to drop – He really needs to get his head out of his ass and get with the real world – not everyone is loaded like him and money is no object – people buy larger bottles because its more economical – not just to drink it at one time – but what does he know- he has money and his remarks coming out of his ass…

  2. I drink diet soda, and I think this is ridiculous.  His priorities are totally out of whack.  This, while at the same time he banned food donations to shelters and selected taxicabs for the city that aren’t accessible to people with disabilities.  Smh.

    “he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop” … just shows how out of touch he really is.  Just charge us more for less!  Why not!

  3. No one wants this, but he will do it anyway.

    People get the government they deserve. He should have been shown the door during the last election. This behavior of his is nothing new.

  4. This is so fucking absurd. What if i want to buy a big drink and share it instead of buying 2 small drinks. I dont drink soda that often but do like iced teas but mostly drink water. To have the balls and say just buy an another drink and for restaurants to charge more is insane. I really hope people understand how fucking nuts this guy is and start getting prepared for the worst if he runs for any other office when he is done meddling with our lives. It is scary that there are other people out there that actually support this type of intrusion into free peoples lives. 

  5. On the one hand, this is a big leap for the government to make, bordering on exactly the kind of intrusion claimed by paranoids we make fun of. On the other hand, like with many things of the type, most people accept them as part of life and move on once they are in place.

    On the one hand, it is an attempt by government to do something about the obesity problem since people (and especially children) are disabled by their own lack of education on even a shred of what it means to NOT kill yourself with crap. On the other hand, whatever happened to weeding out the weak? Drain on our economic resources, yes, but still…so long, tubby.

    On the one hand,  it’s good for a executive politician to care about this and not care what a powerful bad-minded lobbying group would try to do to fight it. On the other hand, he’s really only doing this because HE doesn’t like unhealthy living. It’s a personal quirk. Just like his whole inability to understand that many people are not stinking rich. 

    Most importantly, and there is no “On One Hand”, this is only one sided: it is clearly an inconsistent, sloppy, confusing law. It makes no sense in how it discerns why some places are OK and some are not. I can’t find a straight answer about the fate of the 7-11 Big Gulp. What kind of law would it be if the 7-11 Big Gulp is deemed OK? That is the biggest damn symbol of everything that is wrong with America and that would somehow be OK?! 

    You know what would solve all the complexities and confusion? What I’ve said before. Just Singapore-up this joint and start literally slapping people on the wrists for bad social choices. 

  6. Bloomberg needs to butt out of peoples private lives,  it is none of his business what people choose to drink…he only bought himself another term in office, he doesn’t OWN our city.

  7. I think that between Bloomberg and Michelle Obama, they think that they know it all.  It is the responsibility of parents to decide what their kids eat, and an adult can eat whatever he/she wants and can afford.  Who do these nosey bastards think they are butting into the personal lives of others?  Hate them both – wish they would both go away forever

  8. We had term limits, but herr Bloomberg and his paid-off city council just threw the will of the people out the window. He shouldn’t even be in office at this moment.

    Wondering now if he will declare mandatory exercise in the form of the famous goosestepping. Heil Bloomberg!

  9. People who jog a decent distance in heat SHOULD drink a large sugar drink to replace what’s been lost in the system. Water is actually bad for you because it dilutes already-depleted sugar levels. Take that health tip, Herr Bloomberg, and shove it along with a 20 oz coke you know where.

  10. I truly believe that Bloomberg pushed the exception bill through the City Council merely because he could. He can do anything he wants, because much as some people grouse and groan their elected officials rarely attempt to do anything serious to thwart the more ridiculous and offensives of his royal edicts.

    Perhaps in 2013 he’ll suggest to the City Council that there should be a referendum on whether he should be “mayor for life”. That will put a few billion into NYC’s economy as he attempts to sell that one to the voting public.

  11. Speaking of shoving things you-know-where, why should he stop with just sugary drinks? He’s just getting warmed up, because it would not surprise me one bit in the least if he proposes the following:

    . All known flatulant mass transit riders will be forced to take anti-gas relief products prior to boarding; all violators will be subject to fines & will have to register with the Citywide Gas Offender Registry;

    Anyone disagreeing with this or any other proposals put forth will be “resettled” in Perth Amboy.

  12. UGH!! The difference is Michelle Obama is SUGGESTING you eat healthier. Emperor Bloomberg is telling you YOU WILL DO AS I SAY. Do you not see the difference?

  13. I’m all for full disclosure of fast food content and the banning of
    harmful food additives like trans-fats, but this proposal makes little
    or no sense. I mean, can’t we still get free refills at the self-serve
    or add tons of sugar to our coffee and tea? And the adipogenic qualities
    of Pepsi pale in comparison to the artery-clogging WMD-like fat content of Big Macs and
    Whoppers. And what about milk shakes, which are usually larger than 16
    ounces?  I don’t know if downsizing Slurpees will have a significant
    impact on obesity, but selling more 16oz. drinks will definitely be a
    profitable boondoggle for the merchants of death who serve us the
    sodium-laden burgers and fries that we buy these beverages to wash down.

    then, government, usually the FDA, has had control over food safety for
    years, and protecting public health has always been both a Federal and
    local responsibility. And mandatory food labeling and restricting
    harmful food additives are legitimate government powers. But
    micro-managing portion sizes, or restricting the sale of otherwise
    legitimate food products because some people might abuse them to their
    own detriment, does go too far. I think the litmus test should be the
    degree to which the rights of individuals are being violated, balanced
    against any supposed public benefit.

    People do have a right to
    know what’s in their food, so label it. And if some ingredients pose a
    public health risk, ban the ones that are poisons with no redeeming
    culinary value, set limits for the ones, like salt, that customers can
    add themselves to their own personal taste, and require food merchants
    to offer safer alternatives to health conscious customers and those with
    food related medical problems like hypertension and diabetes.

    days, banning smoking in places frequented by non-smokers is a
    no-brainer, but people still smarting from what they saw as an incursion
    on their right to pollute are naturally upset about what they see as
    the Mayor’s numerous assaults on the right to eat, each of which should
    be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because, with some otherwise
    well-intentioned regulatory proposals, the end doesn’t always justify
    the means.

  14. Thats actually not true, you need to replenish sodium because that is what you lose via sweat. Do you see a lot of marathon runners reaching for a coke mid or post race? No they drink water or a sodium/electrolyte solution. Having a high quality carb after long duration work (over 2 hours) does not mean chugging a coke. This is the kind of flawed fat person logic that is keeping our country literally on the toilet. I for one give Bloomberg respect for at least pretending to care about the health of people. Sugar is literally poison, the thing with the highest ratio of sugar is soda. What is the harm in him trying to restrict portions of this garbage for people that are too stupid to know better? They should ban soda altogether. And round every smoker up and put them in some air proof dome somewhere no one cares about (like new jersey or something) and then they should take every morbidly obese gastropod out there, stuff them onto an island and have a real hunger games. Sheesh, every one is basically saying, “how dare someone try to make me not be fat or unhealthy!” THE HORROR  

  15. The government shouldn’t be telling you what you can and can not put into your body. This is just ridiculous. Slippery slope, etc..

  16. Nanny state! Creeping government involvement into every part of our private life. 
    I hope I can still go to McD or White Castle and get unlimited refills on my soft drinks. 
    Surprised he did not pass a prohibitive tax on large drinks, instead of a ban.  This socialism will not end until a majority of us say NO!

  17. It bothers me that fruit juices and milkshakes aren’t included. Not that ANY should be, but just because it has milk in it or originally came from a piece of fruit doesn’t mean it is healthy.  I bet big, monster coffee drinks are ‘safe’ too. This is just to give the impression of doing something, whilst doing nothing.

  18. There are so many other things that can be done. Better school lunches.  Better education about food. Make sure farmer’s market vendors can take food stamps. Have more farmer’s markets. Instead of giving subsidies to big corporations, why not do that with the markets instead?  This is just a small solution, but last year the city I moved to got a program that gave people kiddy pools, enough dirt to fill it, and seeds, with instructions on how to get it to grow properly.  None of these are huge solutions, but they change the thinking, making better food accessible to people.  

  19. All those who complain about a “nanny state” should consider that, while some laws and regulations do attempt to regulate personal behavior, most are enacted to protect the larger community, and society as a whole, from people and corporate entities that have a responsibility to not endanger it.  Even this ill-conceived downsizing proposal is a restriction placed on food merchants, who must follow numerous other health and safety requirements, and not on the right of individual consumers to drink all the sugary sodas they want to.

    As for smoking bans in places of public accommodation, these weren’t enacted to restrict a smoker’s presumed right to smoke, but, rather, to protect the unalienable right of non-smokers to not smoke.  All rights, even fundamental ones, are subject to time, place, and manner restrictions that protect the rights of others, and laws that define our responsibilities to one another, and to our community, form the underpinnings of a free society.

  20. Sorry, but I ran and played volleyball with people who knew a lot more than me, and they were downing mountain dew and gatorade. Maybe not coca-cola, but definitely sugar-filled drinks. Some of these  people were approaching professionalism in ability, so I’ll take their word.

  21. Here, for your drinking pleasure.

    Soda Jerk Michael Bloomberg Strikes Again (Nanny of the Month, May 2012)(Video)


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here