Bloomberg Soda Ban Blocked

Status
Not open for further replies.
Too much nanny stateism (is that even a word?), too much of it in the north east. Mind your own business and let people do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else. Who the hell is this guy to ram these types of restrictions down people's throats. This is not the 1st time he has done this, there is a list of this type of thing coming out of him re bans.
 
Just because that may not have worked in the past does not make it a bad idea, maybe just a new/better approach is in order.

-ERD50
It seems to have worked pretty well with cigarettes. In most circles, they have become a loser badge, and smoking drops steadily. Replacing the Marlboro Man with pictures of diseased lungs is hard to ignore.

Ha
 
It seems to have worked pretty well with cigarettes. In most circles, they have become a loser badge, and smoking drops steadily. Replacing the Marlboro Man with pictures of diseased lungs is hard to ignore.

Ha

But, (butt?) I don't think the anti- tobacco programs were directed at 'serving size', were they? You can still buy a carton, if you can cough up (there I go again) the dough. That's what I'm talking about.

From what I've read, the increased cost (taxes) have been a big factor. I don't know if they have measured the effect of the diseased lung pictures. I'm not promoting the idea, but maybe if they had a tax on soda (per ounce) that made water/coffee/unsweetened-tea look attractive, and water was an easy, cheap substitute - it would have an impact. Water is fine for most meals, but it sure isn't pushed at any fast food place, for obvious reasons.

A big sign - Soda $4.50; Water $0.10 for the glass w/free refills - would likely motivate a lot of people to choose water. I don't know if it would impact obesity rates though. Probably wouldn't hurt, but it's complex.

-ERD50
 
Too much nanny stateism (is that even a word?), too much of it in the north east. Mind your own business and let people do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else. Who the hell is this guy to ram these types of restrictions down people's throats. This is not the 1st time he has done this, there is a list of this type of thing coming out of him re bans.
+1
 
But, (butt?) I don't think the anti- tobacco programs were directed at 'serving size', were they? You can still buy a carton, if you can cough up (there I go again) the dough. That's what I'm talking about.

From what I've read, the increased cost (taxes) have been a big factor. I don't know if they have measured the effect of the diseased lung pictures. I'm not promoting the idea, but maybe if they had a tax on soda (per ounce) that made water/coffee/unsweetened-tea look attractive, and water was an easy, cheap substitute - it would have an impact. Water is fine for most meals, but it sure isn't pushed at any fast food place, for obvious reasons.

A big sign - Soda $4.50; Water $0.10 for the glass w/free refills - would likely motivate a lot of people to choose water. I don't know if it would impact obesity rates though. Probably wouldn't hurt, but it's complex.

-ERD50
Did you specify that only size mattered? I thought you were just asking about cases where social persuasion has been important. It is easy to see how important social factors are- look at the hold that fashion has on people.

When something becomes uncool, its days are numbered. And regarding high tobacco taxes-effective only because cigarettes are a vice of poor people. Do you think people who will pay $60 for a bottle of cognac or $10 for a single cigar would care what their cigarettes cost?

Ha
 
Seems to me there was another controversial cause that used the slogan "my body my choice". Why shouldn't that also apply in this case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom