No longer will you be able to buy anything larger than a 16 oz Coke when you eat out or go to a movie in New York City. No smoking, no trans fats, no large Coke, no choice.

Opponents vow to fight on, "It's sad that the board wants to limit our choices. We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink," Liz Berman, a business owner and chairwoman of New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, said in a statement."

One board member wasn't satisified, Dr. Sixto R. Caro abstained from voting because it didn't limit choice enough.

Still, the ban is a historic occasion and apparently reason to celebrate the continued erosion of our freedoms. "This is a historic step to address a major health problem of our time," said Health Commissioner Thomas Farley (if only they would address the major health issues faced by unborn children like, death by abortion - but I digress).

Interesting how when the left limits choice it's bold and historic, but when the right balks at buying your contraceptives it amounts to blocking access in a war on women.

Me? I rarely drink big sodas but I wouldn't impose on your right to do so because I'm pro-choice. So what's next to banned, bacon?

The thing that frosts me is the bad math that the proponents use to argue their position. For example take this quote from the article you cited:

Farley recently said that if the law results in "shrinking only one sugary drink per person every two weeks from 20 ounces to 16 ounces, New Yorkers could collectively prevent 2.3 million pounds gained per year. This would slow the obesity epidemic and prevent much needless illness."

Lets' see... 2.3 million pounds spread over 8 million New Yorkers = 1/4 of a pound per person. Seriously - is 1/4 of pound weight loss going to prevent "much needless illness?" Give me a break.

And for some obscure reason the 7-Eleven Big Gulp is exempt.

Good math. I bet you can still get refills and buy as many as you want, too so for the most part this is just something to make them feel proud of themselves.

Another storm in a teacup. For something like this to be effective it needs to be nation wide or it is a waste of time, and there needs to be a massive reduction in serving sizes. The way to do this is to set a maximum calorie count for any fast meal, not focus on one specific component of the meal

I have to ask... do we really need politicians deciding how much we can eat and drink? This is absolutely bogus. I can't have the large soda because it's too much, yet I bet I can get back in line and buy another one.

You're right you don't need politicians deciding such things, however this is a public health issue with consequences for costs of health care, this is why politicians are getting involved, they see the health care system collapsing due to the cost of caring for people with serious health issues related to sugar consumption. The fact is many people are too stupid to get out of their own way, let alone be responsible for the content of the food, etc they consume

First it's food that they will decide for us but where does it end? Will they also decide what I can wear? Government already has their hands too deep in everything as it is.

Yes we will all be put in grey uniforms and sensible shoes, no joggers

I'm OK with grey but I prefer boots.

Hob nail no doubt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odinn7

First it's food that they will decide for us but where does it end?

---

Hello o:

Yeah, pretty soon they won't let me smoke what I want to smoke... Oh, that's right. They already do. Are you OK with that, odinn?? How about you, Steve? Is banning stuff you DON'T like OK? But, stuff you LIKE, they should NEVER ban?? That's pretty one way.

excon

Don't put words in my mouth, ex, you know where I stand on that. Go ahead, get it legalized.

Meanwhile, can we stop this progression to a nanny state? Oh wait, you're OK with that. You think we should be forced to buy contraceptives for helpless twits that can somehow get a $50,000 a year education whose grads START at $160,000 a year but can't swing $9.00 for birth control pills.

You're OK with letting an unelected bureaucracy manage my health care and banning the church from carrying out its ministries. I bet you're OK with smoking bans and silencing free speech such as comes from the mouth of that Jones idiot in Florida, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Don't put words in my mouth, ex, you know where I stand on that. Go ahead, get it legalized.

Meanwhile, can we stop this progression to a nanny state? Oh wait, you're ok with that. You think we should be forced to buy contraceptives for helpless twits

---

Hello again, Steve:

You OK with cocaine and heroine?? Nahhh... The nanny state is doing GOOD there...

In terms of Sandra Fluke.. I'm fine with her INSURANCE covering women's health care just like they do men's.. That IS is what the issue is about. It was NEVER about FREE contraceptives... But, of course, the right wing NOISE machine got to you.. I thought you paid attention.

Excojn

I paid attention, her insurance coverage odyssey evolved into a MANDATE on religious institutions to violate their beliefs over a cure looking for a disease.

And you want to compare a cola to heroin and cocaine? Dude.

First they took away sodas... then circumcisions .
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/ny...on-ritual.html

Baby formula, salt, popcorn, 100 percent juice and milk-containing beverages and giving food to homeless shelters.

What's not on their radar? I know, hot dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

First they took away sodas... then circumcisions .
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/ny...on-ritual.html

---

Did you read the article? They are not at all trying to take away circumsisions, from the article:

Quote:

---

The New York City Board of Health passed a regulation on Thursday that will require consent from parents before an infant can have a form of Jewish ritual circumcision, prevalent in parts of the ultra-Orthodox community, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to remove blood from the incision.

Infectious disease experts widely agree that the oral contact, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh, creates a risk of transmission of herpes that can be deadly to infants, because of their underdeveloped immune systems. Between 2004 and 2011, the city learned of 11 herpes infections it said were most likely caused by the practice. Two of those babies died; at least two others suffered brain damage.

---

I agree with the regulation wholeheartedly.

It's still a roadblock to choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's still a roadblock to choice.

---

Yea, both parents consenting is a real roadblock to choice. Oy vei.

Planned Parenthood believes parental consent for teens to get an abortion is a roadblock to choice. What's the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And you want to compare a cola to heroin and cocaine? Dude.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Ahhh, I see. For the stuff YOU think is dangerous, the nanny state is cool.. But if YOU think it isn't, the nanny state is trampling on your rights.. I understand...

excon

No I don't think you do. The truth is everyone believes in restricting choice, your side just won't admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Ahhh, I see. For the stuff YOU think is dangerous, the nanny state is cool.. But if YOU think it isn't, the nanny state is trampling on your rights.. I understand...

excon

---

Heroin and such have been illegal for quite some time so I don't see this argument... soda is not illegal.