Imzy
  • Discover communities
  • Log In
  • Sign up
  • Home
  • Discover communities
  • Log In
  • Sign up
  • About
  • Learn More
  • Contact
  • Community Policy
  • FAQ
  • Sitemap
  • Terms
  • Privacy Policy
  • Available on the App Store
  • Available on Google Play
Copyright © 2017 Saurus, Inc. All rights reserved.
Polls

Polls

Welcome to the polling community on imzy - for all your polling and public opinion purposes!

8179 members
Posted byblues_sevenfoldin/polls-Sep 20, 2016 at 11:56 AM

Is the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule a good example of authoritarian from the Democrats?

Just to be clear, I don't like authortitarian of any sort - no matter which side it's from. I can understand gun laws and tobacco laws, since they do tend to harm other people - but not the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule.

Comments29
  • clockworkcatSep 20, 2016 at 3:18 PM

    People have a right to do damaging things to themselves. That's what I say when my friends want pot legalized, so I have to say it about soda, too.

    Here's the problem NYC ran into when it tried to pass a soda ban: it would have put every delivery pizza company out of business. Think about it: you order a pizza, and a 2 liter of soda!...except now that's illegal. Nor could you switch to pizza and a six pack of soda (or other number), because those were also out of range. You could get an entire pizza...and one soda. Which is maybe okay if it's just you at home alone, but what if you're ordering pizza for a bunch of friends? Whether it's 'right' or not to ban large sodas, etc, the implementation REALLY has to be thought through.

    (I say this as someone who neither drinks soda nor eats pizza).

    • blues_sevenfoldSep 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM

      Good points. As for pot, I have no desire to smoke it myself - but people who smoke it shouldn't be criminalized for it. I did mention smoking in my post, but there's a difference between restricting where people can smoke (due to the effects that secondhand smoke can have on other people) versus telling them they can't smoke even when they're alone in the wide open spaces.

      • clockworkcatSep 20, 2016 at 3:54 PM

        Oh yeah, secondhand smoke is just the worst--people have no choice! I hate walking in public right into a wall of someone's smoke! GAG!! Honestly, I don't get why anyone smokes anything--it's just gross to me! But, lol, that's just me!

  • baffySep 20, 2016 at 1:10 PM

    Is there any scientific evidence this reduces obesity? I really doubt it.

    • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 1:25 PMΔ

      Probably not yet. It's just a thing to raise awareness that 1) this drink has A LOT of sugar and 2) should you buy this drink?

      It's just something to make people pause and think about things a bit more rather than just blindly consuming.

      • baffySep 20, 2016 at 1:43 PM

        You have much more faith in people than I do

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 4:06 PM

        Lol, I don't. I can see the logic behind it, even if I don't think people will follow through.

        These things provoke discussion, experts and journalists talk about it for a few days, ordinary people talk about it and everyone pats themselves on the back that we're doing something about obesity/health problems relating to sugar.

        But we need more than PR stunts tbh. Proper food education for all classes, changes in culture and family habits, research into why people overeat/binge eat/eat poorly, coping mechanisms, etc. But that's probably another 20 years down the line.

      • baffySep 20, 2016 at 4:12 PM

        PR stunts that clog up the legal code with petty BS, and waste the time of courts and legislators

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 4:18 PM

        Can't really comment on that. There would be something else in place of it if not this - like, the US has a department of Health, yeah? So they would be given space for this kind of stuff anyhow (I assume).

        The fact is, to actually get to the root of, and deal with the actual problem takes time and resources. PR stunt raises awareness, and might affect few lives (and it's doing something while minimally interfering in peoples lives). It might even inspire scientists/people who back scientists to invest in the research.

        It might just be a patch job on a sinking boat, it's something - and something is better than nothing.

  • AnonChairpersonsGracieSep 20, 2016 at 12:48 PM

    Honestly, sugary drinks like that do cause harm. Too much of anything can be harmful, but unlike water --where it takes a concentrated effort for someone to overdose on it-- people regularly blow right past the safe limit on sugar daily. Just because diabetes is not as fatal as lung cancer, that doesn't mean pricking your fingers multiple times a day while your feet rot off is something people should be aiming for.

    [watched too many people spiral into the deep end of diabetes]

    • blues_sevenfoldSep 20, 2016 at 1:08 PM

      The operative phrase here is "harm other people". I don't like when Republicans try to restrict one's personal decisions - so I don't like when Democrats do it, either. And, yeah, I know that Michael Bloomberg was "independent" at the time of the rolls - but polls show that more Democrats than Republicans supported it.

      BTW, I'm anarcho-communist - and a firm subscriber to the harm principle: i.e. Does it harm other people?

      • AnonChairpersonsGracieSep 20, 2016 at 1:16 PM

        And when your friends and family --even your kid--- has to watch you suffer and in some cases literally rot because you really wanted that unrestricted access to something all major health organizations agree should be limited, I guess that's just not very harmful?

        And I'm a socialist so your BUT MAH FREEDOM! and my "But government actually helping other human beings" are just not gonna agree on much.

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 1:33 PM

        Not to mind watching you suffer, but all the family members that end up caring for a sick person. It's so fucking miserable - physical labor aside, the emotional and mental toll is tough. And if you can't pay for a carer/home for a sick person, you're stuck doing it. The amount of resentment and mental hurt it can cause the carer isn't fair.

      • AnonFrequenciesRodSep 21, 2016 at 2:42 AM

        By that logic, we should ban alcohol, too. ´Cause others may see you drink your liver out of existence.

        At the end of the day, what I, or any adult, puts into our bodies, be it healthy foods, junk foods, soda, or even meth, it should be our own choice, not somebody else's. Even family shouldn't have the right to dictate our own lives. We should have the freedom to choose as healthy, or unhealthy a lifestyle as we wish to have.

      • AnonChairpersonsGracieSep 21, 2016 at 6:16 AM

        But the sugary drink law was NOT EVEN A BAN. It was just a law on sizes.

      • AnonFrequenciesRodSep 21, 2016 at 6:27 AM

        If the law said you must sell x smaller size alongside the larger options, you would be right. That's not the case, though. It forbade the sale of x larger size. And that is a ban. On the drink itself? No. But it is a ban on the size. More over its somebody else telling me what I should or should not consume, by preventing me from buying it. No thank you. I don't care what your reasoning is, if the only one harmed by my drinking a mountain dew is me, then the gov. can keep its nose out of my business.

      • blues_sevenfoldSep 21, 2016 at 8:22 PM

        Exactly! Not only should the government stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens (Looking at you, Republicans!), but the government should also stay out of the kitchens of its citizens (Looking at you, Democrats!).

        P.S. This is why Republicans and Democrats suck!!

      • AnonFrequenciesRodSep 21, 2016 at 8:36 PMΔ

        Aye. The gov. is, of course responsible for public health. BUT, if the issue at hand harms individuals, by no other means than their own actions, made of their own free will, the gov. should move against that passively.

        Make schools educate about the harmful effects, require stores and restaurants serve both smaller sizes alongside larger drinks, and be priced appropriately, as well as both offering healthier beverages, and advertising those over the unhealthy ones. I would even say to go so far as to bar the sale of massive amounts of soft drinks to anyone under the age of 16, unless their patents buy it for them. 18 is to much, and 21 is absurd, even for alcohol(I can smoke, sign up to go to war, and indeed am required to register for the draft at 18, where I could well die on the battlefield in truflun grizzly ways, but getting buzzed, or even shitfaced drunk is to much?)

  • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 12:14 PM

    The cap rule is due to the massive health risks associated with the modern sugar consumption. We're eating more sugar. It's leading to more health problems, exacerbating conditions.

    The cap rule is something done to deter people from consuming an excess that would do them harm - and given the addictive qualities of sugar, making people think twice about consuming highly sugary drinks (which are o-so easily consumable empty kilocalories) is a good thing.

    EDIT - it's not actually stopping them from consuming that much sugar, just making it more difficult.

    • blues_sevenfoldSep 20, 2016 at 1:08 PM

      The operative phrase here is "harm other people". I don't like when Republicans try to restrict one's personal decisions - so I don't like when Democrats do it, either. And, yeah, I know that Michael Bloomberg was "independent" at the time of the rolls - but polls show that more Democrats than Republicans supported it.

      BTW, I'm anarcho-communist - and a firm subscriber to the harm principle: i.e. Does it harm other people?

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 1:30 PMΔ

        Not directly. Like smoking, the effects aren't immediately obvious. It's the health consequences down the line that people are trying to prepare for. You grow up seeing your parents consuming it, and then follow, and then end up with health problems - not a direct link, but a cultural/familial influence that we need to examine and critique.

        And it's not like you can't buy more than the cap - go to another store if you want it that badly! It's just a schtick to make people think twice about unhealthy life choices - because being an old person with a poor quality of life due to poor health (which can be caused/exacerbated by high-sugar diet) is fucking miserable. And terrifying if you don't have the money to pay for it.

        Aiming to improve people's quality of life through regulation and culture change isn't a bad thing. They're not stopping you from consuming high amounts of sugar. They're just encouraging you to stop and think for a moment.

      • blues_sevenfoldSep 20, 2016 at 2:13 PM

        This is what I don't get, though. Why do people who are general "liberal" suddenly turn into conservatives when it comes to restricting other people's food choices?

        Not to mention that that's exactly what gives Republicans ammunition to go... "See what bloody hypocrites Democrats/liberals are?" For the latter, at least I can go "Democrat =/= liberal".

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 4:02 PMΔ

        It's not restricting though. It's just a measure put in place so you think more. You can buy more than 16 ounces, it's just saying that one lot of sugary drinks can't be more than 16 ounces. It's controlling the amount per bottle unit.

        You can buy more if you want. You can consume more if you want. There is nothing stopping you from consuming more than 16 ounces. Controls were simply put on the amount per bottle/cup to provoke thought.

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM

        And lol, I'm not liberal/democratic/whatever - I'm from outside the US, and while the US-centrism of most social media sites means I have a broad idea of those labels, I don't get the nitty gritty understanding.

      • AnonFrequenciesRodSep 21, 2016 at 2:48 AM

        Aiming to improve people's quality of life through regulation and culture change isn't a bad thing.

        Yes, yes it is. It's one thing to try and educate people on the effects. It's one thing to make it mandetory for schools to teach children what effects sugar can have. But once you start dictating to me what foods or drinks I can or cannot buy or sell, you've gone to far. That's straight up saying "Shhhh, listen to us, the gov. We know better than you. We're watching out fo you. We, the gov. are just saving you from evils you're to stupid to know, even if we were to try to educate you on the matter."

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 21, 2016 at 5:32 AM

        They're not dictating what foods or drinks you can/not buy or sell. They're regulating the size you can buy in one bottle unit. You can still buy as many bottles as you want. The bottles just can't be bigger than a certain size.

        And they need to do something - if/when medical services become overwhelmed with a generation of sick people, the gov will be the ones scrambling to deal with the issue (I know the US has a lot of private hospitals and healthcare, but that just fucks over those who can't pay).

      • AnonFrequenciesRodSep 21, 2016 at 6:36 AM

        If they must do something, then make stores, restaurants and such sell smaller sizes alongside the larger sizes, as well as healthier drinks. That's not what this is, though. This is just the government, and people supporting this law telling me what I should or should not consume. I'm an adult, I am the only one who gets to make that decision for myself. If I want to buy a massive bottle of mountain dew, that's for me too decide, and me alone.

      • AnonPlaceMiaSep 21, 2016 at 7:01 AM

        They're just trying to make it so that instead of one massive bottle, you have to buy two not-so-massive bottles - a tiny inconvenience to make you think/consider, "do I really want this?"

        They're not stopping you from buying a boatload of mountain dew. You can still do that. It just might not be as convenient.

      • BaxterSpotlightSep 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM

        But what is the limiting principle here? It sounds like we are debating whether or not this crosses so sort of line. The argument being put forward is "yes its restrictive, but it's not really that bad". Fine, but that's just an opinion. What is the limiting principle that dictates where the line ought to be drawn? It doesn't seem reasonable to say that if a policy makes consumers think then it's fine.

Polls

Polls

Welcome to the polling community on imzy - for all your polling and public opinion purposes!

8179 members
  • About
  • Sitemap
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2017 Saurus, Inc. All rights reserved.