It is evil.
"We believe this product is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
Really? On what authority?
Last I heard, only Mom had the ability to do that, when we were kids.
"We believe beef is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe chicken is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe pork is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe pizza is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe chocolate is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe beer is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe alcohol is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe bread is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
"We believe sugar is bad for you. Therefore, we are not going to allow you to buy it. It is for your health!"
You don't think diabetes and obesity are real problems that are often propagated by eating/drinking unhealthy foods in unhealthy proportions?
Of course they are real problems.
You know what else is a real problem? Angry people. Angry people shoot, stab, and beat other people up. I think we should remove the parts of their brains responsible for anger. Think about it! A world without anger! A world without wars, or hate, or bitterness, or bigotry!
Are you for abortion? Are you pro "choice"?
You are saying, "Get your hands out of my womb and onto my soda bottle!"
Your argument is that obesity is a problem, because of people's CHOICE and ABILITY to buy sugary drinks. So what do you do, you seek to control them by taking away their choice? You cannot see how wrong that is?
When people are dying everyday of obesity, which is a completely preventable disease? Yes, I think it is necessary to help people to make BETTER choices.
People are dying from anger and stress in far greater numbers. Heart attacks claim millions every year across the world! You know what causes our arteries to become clogged? Generally, things like cheese, meat, and even sugar. SO you are saying we should outlaw beef, pork, cheese, (And everything made from them)? And sugar, as it has been shown to cause cancer? Cancer is a serious problem, isn't it? I bet there are things YOU are doing that are unhealthy. How would you like it if the government stepped in and prevented you from doing them? You will, after all, end up hurting yourself, and becoming a burden to our healthcare system.
Lol. Everything in moderation, have you never heard of that before? A 16 oz soda is ridiculous. I can't even imagine having that in one or two days. But people have it in one sitting. I think it's a good idea to inform... I'm not banning soda- if they want to buy 2 8oz drinks to get 16 oz after all, they can. I just think portion control isn't a bad idea.
I rarely drink soda. But you know what hits the spot? A 16 ounce soda when I have been working in hundred degree sun all day. Yes, I drink it all, and I might get more!
Everything in moderation? You are saying that YOU get to decide what "moderation" is to millions of people. Do you not see how evil that is?
Your thesis is, that people cannot control themselves, so you (they) MUST step in and control them, for themselves. There are people who eat beef three times a day. Are you saying beef should not be available to therm because they might be clogging their arteries? Isn't heart disease as serious as obesity?
lol "unconstitutional" ...
Anyway I support the ban.
You don't think it's unconstitutional?
No, it's not unconstitutional; lol, I wish the constitution protected my rights to giant marshmallows!
Do you think a ban would really help though? Someone could just buy multiples of the drink rofl.
Well, yes. The reality is that money is finite so while people could buy 20 of something generally speaking people won't want to buy 20 of it; costs don't even have to be exceptionally prohibitive to be psychologically effective, it's why many restaurants that want to cut costs just charge for refills.
But they would only buy 2-3 more, not 20, so then maybe the cost wouldn't be enough of a detractor?
Well with smaller cup sizes to begin with buying less of something sounds nowhere near appealing; for instance if you could buy a $1 12oz soda or buy a $1 liter of soda which is the better buy? Then you come across the psychological weight of constantly shelling out money; the reason why the cost doesn't matter is because the act of paying for something repetitively matters. Most people will buy a DVD they really like rather than rent it when they are in the mood for it EVEN THOUGH it is more cost effective very often to only rent it when you want it; if you take Redbox which I believe is a $1 versus buying a blu-ray for $25 you would have to watch the movie 25 times to make it worth ownership, right? How long does that take?
Same mentality. The more often you have to refill and pay the less inclined you are thus why "Supersize" works.
I think I understand your argument... You would have to watch it 25 times to make it worth it. But no one would pay 25 times for extra soda. I really think the number of times you have to pay is critical here. Don't you? 2-3 times doesn't seem as repetitive as 25 times...
Well, let's be realistic: You get an 8oz glass of your favorite drink and it costs $1 every time. How many times are you willing to pay for? How long are you willing to pay that price for it every time you are in that spot?
To make it even more realistic if you've ever been to a restaurant that served alcohol and you had to pay for each drink how many times are you willing to buy more than one drink on average? Let's say they are about $5.
I wouldn't want to pay more for the alcohol, so once would be enough. But for the soda? I could pay that again.
How many times do you want to though? I mean you could, you would get 16oz of soda, which is about half of a $1 1-liter sprite. So equivalently you'd pay $4 for something you could just get a store for $1. Maybe that's just... how you roll?
Of course that's what free-refills are for too; the larger the item, the more perceived it's worth, the higher it's base cost to customer, and the more it can be utilized the greater the willingness to repeat the cycle.
Thank you, I understand what you mean now. What do you make of Brontosaurus' comment?
Taxing is actually one of the worst deterrents and education only works when you are proactive, not reactive, so it's not going to work. Let me explain:
When you get hungry the only way to fix this is to eat, right? It's the body telling you basically you need to do something, it's a reaction, so making certain foods cheap and making other foods expensive has a rather interesting effect in which the amount a food costs actually plays less than we think on what we eat. It's the immediacy that plays the greatest part so you actually are more inclined to pay for something upfront than you are to wait for it ( thus the $2 for the 16oz of soda with your meal making sense instead of waiting for twice as much at half the cost ) so the proposition of taxing unhealthy foods more only makes people pay more taxes. That's it.
When we have sin taxes on non-needs such as alcohol and other drugs or nicotine etc. not including the addicted we are less inclined to intake them because they are...
not needs. You have to proactively seek them out meaning instead of your body demanding alcohol (again, no addicts) or nicotine you have to want to imbibe them. This creates an entirely different reflection on how we work so education on the things you must pursue is obviously more effective than education on the things your body demands of you. This could be said of anything but going back the reason why you can't create a sin tax on sugar is because the body actually demands sugar.
Humans will easily pay that tax; in my state candy is taxed while no other food is, so in a sense it has the sin tax, does this harm candy sales? Heh, no, and are we ignorant that too much sugar has detrimental effects? Clearly not. So why do we do it? Cravings. Sugar makes us feel good, it is also a need, the body rewards eating it, and so forth and so on.
You cannot beat a reactive craving with money. It won't work. It never has. Portion control and psychological deterrents do however.
How is taxing one of the worst deterrents? Isn't what you wrote about sin taxes showing how it does work? Sugary drinks are a non-need too... I didn't understand your cheap/expensive foods example though =[ Are you talking about waiting for food at a restaurant (more expensive) as opposed to buying fresh food to make at home (cheaper but takes WAY longer)?
Sin Tax only works in a very specific realm of product. It won't work for food-types that your body naturally craves. So alcohol, a poison purposefully ingested for various effects, and other drugs, substances, and concoctions can be successfully curbed with Sin Tax and Education but those are the only things.
Also, yes, and actually I can give a really simple example:
You are hungry and your favorite fast food restaurant is around the corner. Even though you have food at home you won't be home for about thirty minutes that is equally delicious. What is the most likely thing you will do?
The business model of fast food franchise distribution is based entirely on the idea that you will buy something even if you don't logically or rationally have a reason to because human need demands you do and immediacy is the key. It's why in a desert or when trapped you'll be willing to pay 10x more for food and water than if you were free to move. It's the same situation.
Okay, I understand your arguments. Thank you for discussing this with me. I had not considered the psychological aspect of this issue and I think that was a large oversight. I have a great deal to think about now, thanks again.
Good luck. And remember: Sodapop is not a constitutional right!
I agree with what you said but I much rather prefer to get it 2 for 1.
And everyone has a right to eat/drink what they want people should be concerned about their selves and let people put their own life at risk.
Even if the ban was in the interest of the people?
Yeah I see no other reason why they would band large quantities of sugary drinks.
First they would have to banned fast food then remove anything unhealthy out of the grocery store.
Once I see that happens and people actually accept it and live a happy healthy life then and only then will I agree to removing excessive amounts of juice/pop.
It won't do much really. I think it's going to be a hassle to do all the paperwork for the banning and it sounds like a awful lot of time and energy wasted on something that is not going to change anything.
No ban. The government shouldn't be able to control what people can or can't drink. If you don't want to drink large, sugary sodas, don't drink them but don't force it on everyone else.
Even if the ban was in the interest of the people?
Even if it was for the people. It shouldn't be banned. I am smart enough to know what I should or shouldn't eat or drink and so is every other person. There shouldn't be a ban that can control if someone wants to drink a sugary drink. That's their decision and their freedom. If you don't want a large sugary drink, then just worry about yourself and don't get one.
Opinion
7Opinion
A ban seems pretty pointless for reasons already stated. The way to handle this is to tax sugary drinks and increase awareness about how bad they are for you.
Obesity has a social cost. It affects insurance rates. It affects the activities your child is asked to do in PE class. It affects children who aren't equipped to make responsible decisions about their own health. It affects the way spaces are used. It can be an additional safety hazard in emergency situations. The government is well within its right in my opinion to affect prices to reflect that social cost, the same way it does with cigarettes and pollution controls.
Can you elaborate on social cost? I have never heard this term before. And what do you mean by "the way spaces are used"?
What I'm really referring to is externalities. Social costs and externalities are economic terms that encompass costs beyond the "private costs" involved in the materials, labor, sale, and consumption of the product.
Pollution is the most common example. The products made by a local factory have a cost to produce, and a value to you, the consumer. However, to produce them, the factory also pours out tons of carbon dioxide and/or other pollutants into the atmosphere or local water sources. These byproducts negatively affect the health and well-being of the people near the factory, but they don't make it more expensive to produce. So the company is fine with charging the cost it does, and of course consumers are happy to pay as low a price as possible. Meanwhile, you are "paying" a price in your health, well-being, and enjoyment, because of the pollution. Governments make up the difference by instituting policies that ultimately raise the price of a product to reflect these costs.
"Governments make up the difference by instituting policies that ultimately raise the price of a product to reflect these costs."
Shouldn't the government make up the difference by making the factories pay more to produce what they do? I think I'm missing out on the logic of your last statement.
Obesity affects the way spaces are used because fewer obese people can fit comfortably and/or safely in the same space. To accommodate obese people comfortably, aisles, chairs, etc. also have to be wider (see airbus redesigning seats on its planes). Certain structures might have to be designed to hold more weight. Etc. All of these things have costs, whether real costs or opportunity costs (the costs defined as the alternatives given up), and in plenty of cases they affect the non-obese.
ttp:/.../detail.aspx
Thank you for the link... that was a bit... scary to read. I knew that obesity had become somewhat rampant, but I did not know of the statistics regarding the morbidly obese.
"Shouldn't the government make up the difference by making the factories pay more to produce what they do? I think I'm missing out on the logic of your last statement."
Yes, in plenty of cases that's exactly what they do, but now the product effectively costs more to produce, and the company is no longer okay with charging the price it did. So it raises the price, effectively passing on some of this new cost on to the consumer.
It the case of something like soft drinks or cigarettes, its the consumption of the product rather than the production that creates the externality. Would it be fair to make the company pay just because fat people or smokers buy their product? Some would say yes. To me that discussion is neither here nor there. Either way the consumer will end up paying more, thereby reducing the amount of the product being consumed, which is the goal.
Sex_Panther commented that taxation is one of the worst deterrents of a given behavior. It seems like you disagree with that... but I'm not sure who is "right."
"Sex_Panther commented that taxation is one of the worst deterrents of a given behavior. It seems like you disagree with that... but I'm not sure who is 'right.'"
I do disagree. As prices go up, fewer people are willing to buy a product at the given price (in most cases). That is the economic reality of the free market system. Fewer people will pay $2 for a can of pop than $1, and fewer still will pay $3. The price is determined by supply and demand. If demand were really so high that a tax wouldn't deter consumption, then the market price is foolishly low.
Not ban. Changing people should be done younger, and by parents. When children are given understandable reasons from the people they love and respect (hopefully a parent/guardian) about what they should and should not eat, they are much more likely to embrace those changes. When adults are told that they can't do something they are accustomed to doing by an authority they don't have any attachment to, they find loopholes. By all means, let authorities make available and easy to read all sorts of information on the health hazards of soft drinks. Just don't ban them.
Instead of trying to ban them, better to just try to educate people on the health consequences of drinking so much of those kinds of drinks.
Do you think people really listen when you explain that drinking such things are bad though?
Most people wouldn't listen, because most people aren't very smart.
So then how would educating them help? Lol.
Education, in the form of public service announcements or other health education, wouldn't help for those who are too dumb to learn. But the information would be absorbed by some people, and for those individuals it might lead to them making positive choices for their own health.
It would make shopping very inconvenient. If I want to buy a carton of OJ for the week and had to buy 6 smaller ones or something like that not only would it take up more shelf space in my refrigerator, but it would take 6 times as long to check out at the grocery story, and I'd use 6 coupons instead of one so all you fucks that voted for the ban would have to wait there and get mad as fuck. I think it would ultimately lead to more violence.
Prohibition and making drugs illegal sure works :-P
Exactly! It... doesn't work at all. Ever.
I know.
Bans don't work! The sooner people realize this, the sooner they'll stop suggesting it and try to think of REAL solutions.
Hahahaha!
Do you have any Dr. Pepper?
If there was a ban on large sizes, all it will do is have the smaller sizes sold at a much higher rate. Let's say everything 20 oz and higher is banned. All it will do is have people go from buying 1 20 oz to 2 12 oz, or 3 8 ozs...
Taxes and laws should never be used to alter non-violent behavior.
For those of us who work out and eat healthy id be pretty pissed because I love a good sugary drink once in a while.
Another example of government invasion of our private lives.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions