[theonefrombrum]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ry-drinks.html

What are your thoughts on this? Personally I think it's a good idea as I don't think that people would generally compensate for not having large drinks by buying two regular sized ones (which would cost more than the large one on its own did, it always is) and so they might just settle with what they can buy and hopefully lose some weight.

Some are opposing it on the grounds that it restricts 'New Yorkers' freedom to choose' but in my opinion that's silly as that's like saying that we should legalise cocaine because by not doing so we are restricting people's freedom to choose and it is essentially the same thing.

[whyumadtho]

What will prevent people buying two smaller drinks instead (or stores compensating by making special deals for two drinks)?

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
What will prevent people buying two smaller drinks instead?

What I said?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
What I said?

I overlooked that part.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

surely only the fattest of fat ****s are going to have a whinge about this

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
What will prevent people buying two smaller drinks instead (or stores compensating by making special deals for two drinks)?

In theory they would do this but apparently they won't as cinemas in New York are really worried about It and I don't see why people wouldn't buy two average sized drinks if it cost the same as one large one did so either they're worried that psychologically people will not want to buy two because it just seems more greedy than having one big one, or they don't want to carry it, or they have bizarrely overlooked doing this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...?newsfeed=true

[Stardust Mirage]

Doubt it's gonna be effective. If someone wants a large drink let them have it, it's their life after all.

[MrCarmady]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ry-drinks.html

What are your thoughts on this? Personally I think it's a good idea as I don't think that people would generally compensate for not having large drinks by buying two regular sized ones (which would cost more than the large one on its own did, it always is) and so they might just settle with what they can buy and hopefully lose some weight.

Some are opposing it on the grounds that it restricts 'New Yorkers' freedom to choose' but in my opinion that's silly as that's like saying that we should legalise cocaine because by not doing so we are restricting people's freedom to choose and it is essentially the same thing.

well, even though you ARE straw-manning here (sugar and cocaine really aren't the same thing), yes, we should legalise cocaine and all other drugs. if people are otherwise enabled by law to cut off their arms or legs, or even end their own life, who is the government to tell them what to put in their bodies?

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by MrCarmady)
well, even though you ARE straw-manning here (sugar and cocaine really aren't the same thing), yes, we should legalise cocaine and all other drugs. if people are otherwise enabled by law to cut off their arms or legs, or even end their own life, who is the government to tell them what to put in their bodies?

It's not about whether they're the same thing, it's about the argument that is restricting New Yorkers' freedom to choose. I was stating that this argument is rarely used with other thing because of their perceived lethal effects but that's not the point, the point is that people haven't. Been given the freedom to choose (the salient point) whether they want to inject lethal chemicals into their bodies and so I can't see how she can lament the banning of superflous amounts of sugary drinks in one cup based on that and not advocate for the removal of any thing which has been banned which restricts people's freedom to choose. It's not straw manning as I've not deviated away from the facts but just focused on one argument which is flimsy at best and easily refutable at worst.

I actually don't mind the banning of these things as people need help and often have a lack if willpower but if measures were imposed that would force them to have to not to do something bad, surely they'd eventually be grateful for it once the harmful effects do not manifest when they should have?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

The Nanny State strikes again.

Are people not allowed to make their own decisions anymore? I think people are fools to drink unhealthy drinks in such volumes, but surely if we respect individuals as their own moral agents they must be free to make such decisions for themselves?

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
The Nanny State strikes again.

Are people not allowed to make their own decisions anymore? I think people are fools to drink unhealthy drinks in such volumes, but surely if we respect individuals as their own moral agents they must be free to make such decisions for themselves?

No. People have psychological flaws that need third party intervention to help subdue and not be allowed to manifest. If people go to the cinema, see these huge drinks, they will want them as they just taste nice to them and they are often frankly ignorant about the health effects it could have and I find a lot of people don't think that bad things can happen to them, only other people. Why is it wrong to help prevent this? Just because its a Government or state imposed regulation? To you, the very thought of the state intervening in any way is despicable but you are failing to understand that people NEED That sort of intervention otherwise what should change often won't.

Also, it's not just going to affect the adults and teens who buy it now, but children in the future and people still yet to be born who now won't have to make that unhealthy choice and so you're thinking too present term.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
No. People have psychological flaws that need third party intervention to help subdue and not be allowed to manifest. If people go to the cinema, see these huge drinks, they will want them as they just taste nice to them and they are often frankly ignorant about the health effects it could have and I find a lot of people don't think that bad things can happen to them, only other people. Why is it wrong to help prevent this? Just because its a Government or state imposed regulation? To you, the very thought of the state intervening in any way is despicable but you are failing to understand that people NEED That sort of intervention otherwise what should change often won't.

Also, it's not just going to affect the adults and teens who buy it now, but children in the future and people still yet to be born who now won't have to make that unhealthy choice and so you're thinking too present term.

Why on earth should people not be entrusted to be the guardians of their own wellbeing? I don't see why anyone else has a duty to prevent someone engaging in possibly unhealthy or risky behaviour so long as they harm no-one but themselves.

[sugar-n-spice]

So much for personal freedom.

[Llamageddon]

Im not altogether sure im content with the principle here.

[Ham22]

oh god how will i get my litre of full fat coke now?!

[Friar Chris]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
No. People have psychological flaws that need third party intervention to help subdue and not be allowed to manifest. If people go to the cinema, see these huge drinks, they will want them as they just taste nice to them and they are often frankly ignorant about the health effects it could have and I find a lot of people don't think that bad things can happen to them, only other people. Why is it wrong to help prevent this? Just because its a Government or state imposed regulation? To you, the very thought of the state intervening in any way is despicable but you are failing to understand that people NEED That sort of intervention otherwise what should change often won't.

Also, it's not just going to affect the adults and teens who buy it now, but children in the future and people still yet to be born who now won't have to make that unhealthy choice and so you're thinking too present term.

I cannot neg you enough. I cannot find the words to describe just how reprehensible I find your views on this matter.

[concubine]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ry-drinks.html

What are your thoughts on this? Personally I think it's a good idea as I don't think that people would generally compensate for not having large drinks by buying two regular sized ones (which would cost more than the large one on its own did, it always is) and so they might just settle with what they can buy and hopefully lose some weight.

Some are opposing it on the grounds that it restricts 'New Yorkers' freedom to choose' but in my opinion that's silly as that's like saying that we should legalise cocaine because by not doing so we are restricting people's freedom to choose and it is essentially the same thing.

This is the reason the ridiculously large portions of everything were introduced to the US in the first place. It'll be interesting to see if reversing it has the desired effect now that people are used to over-consuming.


I support things like this. Too many people in developed countries (especially the US, UK, Germany, etc.) seem entirely incapable of feeding themselves in anything resembling a sensible manner and it has a massive and very serious effect upon not only the countries in which these lard asses live but the world as a whole.

[lukas1051]

I think it's a good idea. I don't think people realise just how much fat and sugar is in those mega sized drinks. Nobody needs a litre of coke with their meal, in fact I'd say most people don't want that much, but people buy them and drink them because they think it's a good deal. I'd say the majority of people who buy these drinks don't do it consciously, they do it because when they order a meal from McDonalds, the staff say "would you like a large for only $1 extra?" and they oblige. The portion sizes in the USA are insane.

[Sabertooth]

Worst idea ever.



Whatever happened to personal freedom and choice? "Abortion is a women's right, we need freedom over our own bodies. What? Large sodas? BAN BAN BAN."

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Why on earth should people not be entrusted to be the guardians of their own wellbeing? I don't see why anyone else has a duty to prevent someone engaging in possibly unhealthy or risky behaviour so long as they harm no-one but themselves.

THEN WHY DON'T WE LEGALISE COCAINE, HEROIN, PCP AND CRACK AND LET EVERYONE DIE AND BECOME DRUG ADDICTS YOU CLOWN.

You're just too ignorant and with an ignorance like yours your aspirations to be a law student will either hold you in great stead or will be your downfall. Why do they have a duty? How about human morality and empathy? How about the fact that banning these drinks now will mean that the kids of today will not have to choose them, which can only be good? How about the fact that people are admittedly weak and cannot summon up the willpower to do what they know they should do and so often need intervention to help them? Or how about the fact that they CAN STILL get the same amount of drink If they bought two regular sized drinks? If they do, then they always wanted the drinks and are willing to pay more for it but if they don't then they just had them as they were only slightly more expensive than the regular sized ones and because they were there.