Ray, Did you hear a "clamor" for this??? The State-as-substitute-for-individual-thought and action doesn't want to hear what the people want, it simply speaks.

Ray, I was thinking the same thing. Funny how lawmakers and other pols never do anything regarding the health hazards of booze. Could be because most of them are boozers, ya think?

What's next with intrusion by the government into our lives - Outlawing the extra large popcorn with extra butter grease at the movies?

What a joke!!The Mayor probably owns stock in some of the Soft Drink Companies that will just raise prices and sell more soda making it yet more expensive to live in New York City. This will not make people drink less Soda and drinking Soda's will not stop people from being FAT!!! While some have medical issues, fat people people get fatter because they don't eat a "Balanced Diet", don't get proper exercise and generally Like to eat. You will always have "fat Kids" because some parents are lazy and really don't care about their child's health because they want the Government to raise their kids. The main problems with this ban is that it penalizes the ability of adults to make their own decisions and relies on a lot of "Junk Science" Science driven by highly paid health professionals who maintain their highly paid salaries by using "Junk Science".

what happened to the liberal mantra: "Government Keep your hands off my body"? hypocrites. So we should legalize drugs but make legal driks illegal? FFS Michelle O keep your business out of my body. I drink DIET soda - is it banned too? and I GUARANTEE that if this were a Republican initiative Mika would have her panties in a bunch over it.

Furthermore, go tell the food stamp nation that they can't buy all that junk food and see what sort of $#!+ stom you create with that. The ACLU will be ALL OVER IT.

well I can see city council has a real overload on their plate right now. so ban big bottles and we buy 2 or 3 small so big deal

oops next law you can only buy one bottle of pop at a ball game

what a bunch of dough heads you folks in NYC have for leaders

I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. The gay marriage issue I think is different because it is forcing members of society to recognize homosexuality as normal (legalizing it I mean). Choosing to be gay is not illegal and people have the freedom to do that. Government intrusion into people's sexual lives would be, for example, to make it illegal to be gay.

Let me get this straight, you're going to limit the consumption of Dr Pepper and Coke but exclude beer and other alcoholic drinks. You don't think excessive consumption of alcohol might be a bigger problem than obesity? What were you thinking? I would have to think there are bigger problems to worry about in NY than this. Not to mention the fact that cookies, ice cream, french fries, candy, etc. etc. etc. are far bigger causes of obesity than the 100-200 calories you might save by reducing the size of a drink. How come you're not banning all those items?

This is Mayor Bloomberg, acting like the as*h*le he is. He wants to tell you how to sleep with your wife because he wants to make sure it is safe for your health. In fact, he thinks he should be sleeping with your wife instead of you.

That's how come he forced his third term and changed the re-election laws to suit his needs. And all without a vote. He's one smart Napolean!

What's next? The government telling the people when to change their underwear?

Many times when we witness nonsensical laws being passed, there's usually more going on in the back rooms than we are allowed to see; such as, fruit juice lobbyists pressuring for more restrictions on their competitors in return for providing campaign funds.

This will probably decrease the amount of "sugary" drinks consumed but it still doesn't make it right to legislate diet. New York has plenty of other things to worry about, that are far more hazardous than soda and sweet tea! The growing problem of Obesity will not be tackled by a fat tax or by restricting sugary drinks. It starts in the home and in the school with activity. Shut down the television, restrict time spent on video games at home, and get your children into organized athletic activities. While your at it how about mom and dad set an example by going for walks, runs, or riding bikes as a family! Oh that's right, New York streets aren't safe in the evenings or at night for normal people to be out on them because their mayor is more concerned with limiting what they eat and drink than cleaning up the junkies and criminals on the streets! He rather pour money into the education system, giving teachers raises and benefits rather than making them accountable or giving them the authority to regain discipline in the class room.

The government needs to stay out of our lives and our bodies. Stop the nanny state!

New Yorkers aught to be insulted by this. Basically the government is telling them that they're too stupid to think for themselves.

A far more sensible way to cut down on obsecity would be to forbid food stamps to be used to purchase sugary soda, candy, and junk food.

exactly, it is a personal choice, maybe you got the big one because your wife or husband might drink half of it. What it comes down to is why do they think they should tell people what size to buy, a complete waste of taxpayer's money. If the people making these policies had any common sense at all they would know people will just buy 2 of the small ones, or buy a second drink sooner, in the end people will just consume more not less, two 16 oz drinks is 32oz, more than most of the larger size drinks. every politician should be subjected to a common sense test, and those who fail should be fired. (I think the 1% prefer having stupid politicians, they are easier to control, I mean lobby sorry.)

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

This the biggest point in the proposed band. It is a money maker option for businesses at the expense of the consumer. Prices on drinks will not go down just because the size limitation is reduced. Instead, more will be sold to a consumer in order for that consumer achieve the same level of satisfaction and it will be sold at the same price as before. Most studies have shown that the food service industries makes the largest profit margin on the drinks that it provides. Supposedly it costs the industry something like 5-10 cents per large soft drink with an average price of a $1.50 (unless you are in a movie theatre or sporting event where the prices is a small mortgage loan).

Did we not learn about unintended consequences of bans like this when laws were passed making it illegal to place toys in a "happy meal" as a way to prevent obesity, and its subsequent result being the selling of those same toys as a separate line item in a transaction?

This ban will have a greater impact on the poor and minorities as well, as implied in a couple studies known as "Food Deserts".

At what point do we actually work on fixing the problem rather re-directing it? For example, we cut school funding to a point where those schools are no longer able to afford physical education and extra-coliquerer activities as a part of their teaching program but instead redirect the money to passing and enforce a ban on toys with meals, trans-fats in food, and large soft drink. Is that even near the realm of smart application of public funds?

Raising the cigarette tax has shown to correlate with a decrease in smoking rates (obviously we cannot rule out confounding factors). Thus, by the extension of that logic it might be possible to tackle the obesity epidemic by limiting trans-fats, decreasing the size of sugary drinks/food portions and providing consumers with nutritional information. There is nothing wrong with limiting the size of the container of a unhealthy product. It does not take away your right to have that product and if you want more of it then you can pay extra. By paying extra it makes you more aware of what you are actually consuming. Buffet-style eating is mainly an American phenomena and if I were to eat at one I would want to eat at least 2-3 helpings to make it worth my money. However, if I were to order only one dish I would be less likely to overeat because the next dish would also cost me money.

If you look through fast food images over the decades you can clearly see that there is an increase in the the portion size of food and drinks. Is that necessary? Absolutely note. However, it is driven by the demand and thus maintains the cycle (increase the portion--> more people buy--> keep increasing portion sizes).

Furthermore, the argument that these anti-obesity policies are a waste of money is completely illogical. 1) Obesity costs a lot of money to manage because people are not dying, they are just living with chronic/expensive diseases and 2) larger portions of food actually cost a lot more money for everyone because of the waste that it produces (you are less likely to finish everything - including the stuff you buy for your own home).

If nothing else, restaurants should limit portions of food/drinks to save money (less would be wasted).

The most important thing is to REDUCE the size of meals. People can eat practically everything, if they use COMMON SENSE and eat small portions.

Those Restaurants that give you enough food in one plate to feed 4, should understand that whoever eats that food will only eat enough for 2 people -which is already too much- and the rest will go to WASTE. Also, fast food restaurants need to modify their menus and offer fat-free choices.

I don't think this is going to help anything. What is stopping a person from buying TWO 16 ounce sodas if they want more than 16 ounces to drink?

Is no one concerned that the government wants to take more control of our lives? This is not about obesity. It is about the government trying to control what we eat, what we drink and so on. This is a democracy and we have FREE CHOICE!!!!

I see why people were against the no smoking bans, but agree with the second hand smoke point (and love my hair and clothes not stinking after a night out.) while I sometimes wish I didn't know how many calories were in what I wanted to order, it is good to know. Same with the health grades. I don't go into anywhere that doesn't have an "a" rating-which to me is how the free market is supposed to work. Give people info and let them make choices.

I agree completely with the need to reduce obesity and believe that this plan will reduce the number is calories a lot of people consume. But how can government tell businesses the size of a legal product they can sell? I get that it is being done through the health dept as a health risk-but isn't this a pretty slippery slope? Can they also start saying a foot long sub is too much for a person to buy at one time, or bags of chips need to be under a certain size? And, as long as I have all of the info regarding what is in it-isn't it my choice, dumb or not, to make? I see the rising health costs due to obesity and how they effect us all, which is why I supported the tax on soda-but I think this goes to far.

Can't wait to see the soda industry's commercials about it. They had some doozies against the soda tax. Families not able to afford groceries and having to choose between things they need (between sugary soda and vegetables?)

....first they come for your cigarettes and force people to pay $12.00 a pack and then they come for your soda......Bloomberg wants to make sure all the thousands of fat illegal aliens stay healthy enough for their children to go to our public schools, use our public hospitals and take American jobs.....what a guy......

Who on this message board didn't predict the gvt. going after our diets years agoe when they started in on smokers?

Yea Maybe they will start going house to house and decide what you have in your pantry contraband after they ban all things "bad for you." When will everyone wake up and stop being so friggin lazy by letting the gov't make ALL the rules for you. Mayor Bloomberg is a disgrace.

I'm a Pepsi drinker and i drink alot of it. Thats my choice! I hate people that wants to tell me what to eat or drink. If Fat people are upset about getting fatter STOP EATING at fast foods, don't order 5 hamburgers 5 frys and a diet cokes thats is not going to help. If you dont want to get fat get off ur ass and do something about it. ban alcohol or do something about the pollution and lawmakers stop telling us what to eat or drink its are CHOICE!

Liberals Gone Wild.

Perhaps in this instance, Bloomberg is liberal-however, he is a conservative businessman who ran as a republican before becoming independent.

Well, voters of New York City, you're getting exactly what you deserve for electing this liberal esshole! If the mayor here tried to affect such a ban, we'd all die laughing at the odds of it's getting enacted!

Go right ahead!

If i drank them i would just buy 2 (or 3)

this will change nothing

I am a liberal and even i think this is stupid and wasteful

One more reason I will never go to NYC. Now I have a reason to boycott anything the Herr Bloomberg(sieg heil) says or does. Just because your name ends with berg does not mean you cannot be a tin plated despot in the making. The Nazis started down this same path as well, enacting draconian laws "for the public health" like the fact that Nazi Germany was the first nation in history to ban smoking within public buildings and pressured public workers to stop smoking. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.

The most important thing is to REDUCE the size of meals. People can eat practically everything, if they use COMMON SENSE and eat small portions.

I love it... AND this one:

New Yorkers aught to be insulted by this. Basically the government is telling them that they're too stupid to think for themselves.

What's next for "The Big Apple", or maybe we should say, "The "Trying to be less Big" Apple" LMAO

Sorry NY, Your Mayor is RETARDED!!! If a Person drinks too much surgery drinks and you band larger portions, "A" There going to buy double the amount of drink and suffer the cost. Or "B" Buy there drinks form only specific places and that offer them. The Mayor of NY doesn't not have any common cents. Doesn't this kinda fall into a category of discriminating from one type of business to another or play into a type of monopoly for certain business?

When will everyone wake up and stop being so friggin lazy by letting the gov't make ALL the rules for you.

That will happen when people realize that 1 in 8 children in this country are OBESE, not only fat but OBESE, and we need to do something about it. Perhaps we can stop being so "friggin lazy" and start cooking, instead of always reaching for the hamburgers and fried chicken at the fast food chains.

Bloomberg is acting diktator of NYC in Amerika. Vote every liberal out of office this November! Every Demokrat must go!!! People are leaving liberal states like New York in droves!

New York, Other High-Tax States Losing Residents

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/New-York-High-Tax/2012/05/29/id/440517

So, instead of buying one giant sugary drink, obese people will be 2 or 3 medium sized ones. Government regulations will not stop people from being fat.

What I find most interesting about this potential ban is that Bloomberg doesn't include diet soda (the kind that he personally favors). However Diet Sodas have been found to increase the want for more soda and sugary products within a short period after the bottle, can or glass is emptied. So if he is going to Ban Large Soda then he should do his reasearch and not make choices and public decisions based on personal preferences!

If he chooses to Ban Large Soda than it should be all sodas not just personally chosen ones.

And BTW: this may be a stunt to raise funds, for people may purchase more soda if large sizes are banned, then why not buy 2.

Overall this BAN is based on personal preferences nothing else! Oh and why isn't he banning Fruit "flavored" sugar water too. Before this ban goes through, Mr. Bloomberg truely needs a reality check, you want to ban large sugary beverages---then ban them all, not just those of preference based on personal issues!

This is totally ridiculous!! What if someone only wants a small 8 oz. glass of soda, which they can pour from the larger liter bottle? This way, you either have to drink the entire 16 oz. bottle, or put the rest back in the fridge (at which time, without a proper cover, will turn flat). This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard....but then, it's in New York! I always thought California had all the nutty ideas!

All of your posters who are blaming this on "liberals" or "Democrats" need to get your heads out of your butts.....this is a state decision. If you research a little, you'll see that our upcoming Republicans are the ones trying to push all the stuff like this down to the state level. I'm not sure that's a really good idea! But, trying to blame this on liberals or Democrats is totally ridiculous! I'd be interested in knowing how many Democrats and Republicans run New York's state government? And, how many voted for this ridulous ruling? Could be that we're ALL wrong in our pre-conceived judgments.

If anyone ever wanted to know what Conservatives meant by the label "Nanny State", well this is your answer. Usually it's Liberals doing this. Oh but that's what Bloomberg is even though he registered as a Republican, so never mind. Hey, he's worth $22 Billion, FAR more than Mittens Romney, but nobody does much whining and finger pointing over Bloomberg's wealth and saying he's "out of touch." Wonder why that is?

What is amazing to me is how these liberal politicians today, who want to control every aspect of our daily lives.........................were the same pot smoking acid dropping hippies from the 1960's who protested the government for telling them what to do.

I'd be interested in knowing how many Democrats and Republicans run New York's state government? And, how many voted for this ridulous ruling? Could be that we're ALL wrong in our pre-conceived judgments.

This is just Bloomberg for NYC-not the state. The only ones who will vote are the city board of health-who are appointed by Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is independent. He was a republican before he changed to independent.

You are correct-it is not a liberal or conservative issue.

Has New York become a complete Nanny state? Banning large sodas is not going to stop obesity. Next they will be requiring everyone to go out and run a few miles a day and companies will have to pay them while they do it.

Mr. Mayor, I agree we must do something to curb obesity, however down-sizing soft drinks makes no sense when the store shelves are full of an array of SUGARY mess, and while you're at it how about getting rid of air and water pollution, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs..........

The sound of laughter you hear from NYC is because everyone on here is calling Bloomberg liberal and a communist.

Bloomberg ran as a REPUBLICAN as he is a successful and conservative businessman. One of the most successful capitalists of our time. He is now an independent.

I don't agree with the ban, I liked the idea of taxing sugary drinks myself as I appreciate that obesity is costly to all of us in the form of higher insurance and tax prices for healthcare.

However-Bloomberg is no communist!

This only a ploy to get the big bulky items off the shelf. Everyone who buys "FAMILY SIZE" products are not shopping. The store wants you back in the store many times a week so you will spend, spend and spend. How can that happen if you buy large bulk.

I understand the weight issues with not only our children and adults too. That to me is not the real issue here. What country do we live in that one person can tell businesses what they are allowed to sell and consumers what they are allowed to buy?? So glad to see that my son risks his life for this country and this is what we have become... Right or left, both sides should see a problem with one man taking this kind of control!! Seems to me that this idiot in NYC could be stopped if the people step up... Just saying

Why doesn't Bloomberg just cut to the chase and outlaw fat people?

What will be next? I know that my health insurance now wants me to check in and tell them my "physical activities" while I am home under the threat of higher premiums next year. This seems illegal to me. But yet they are doing it.

Some people want to be told what to do. Not only that, they want others to be forced to think and do as they say as well. These type of people will never stop. It is like a religion to them. Also, most people are too weak to stand up to these types. They are conditioned to take it. They will let government run all over them. It is sad what has happened to Americans

I believe that this is similar to the smoking issue. The far left knew that they couldn't outlaw smoking. They witnessed the proof of failed businesses that no-smoking restaurants and bars wouldn't work. But, instead of dropping it (normally, in our country majority rules, right?) they came up with their ballot trickery to get the voters to pass smoking bans that violate our constitution by telling a private business owner that he cannot allow his customers to partake of a practice that is 100% legal in our country. And this law literally killed thousands of businesses. IMO, the absolute limit to the authority of the government should be to require that businesses post signs warning potential customers of potential health dangers pertaining to their products (signs on the entrance to a bar stating that this bar allows smoking, so if you object, then you are free to choose to go elsewhere.) The sign for large sodas could be required to inform customers that, according to whatever health organization, x-amount of sugar is the average amount in a daily balanced diet, and this 32-oz drink contains xx-amount. Short version - the government may take on the burden of trying to educate the citizenry, but it does not have the authority in any way control our legal activity (don't even get me started on the bogus DUI laws!)

HMMM I read this as a ban on large sized drinks at restaurants, fast food and otherwise, while convenience stores and groceries can sell any size they want. What I would like to know is WHAT IDIOT pays for a large size when just about every restaurant you can think of has free refills? I do think it's funny, though, that the ban doesn't extend to diet sodas. Have they not seen the studies that show drinking diet sodas actually lead to increased eating to satisfy ones urges and contribute to obesity?

So, if I go into a bar and order a rum & coke, do they have to measure the coke to make sure it's ONLY 16oz. And what about the sugar in alcohol, gum or candy bars, cakes and cookies.... Why ONLY sugary drinks? I really just don't get it... stupidity... that's what I don't get. I can get four candy bars at the movie theater but ONLY a 16 oz "sugary" drink...

People talk about a "slippery slope", well NYC is already there, how's the slide feel?

Not only didn't ban Diet sodas... didn't ban milkshakes either!!

they regulate restaurants better than wall-street

How many people that have drank a "six-pack" of soft drinks got on the highway and killed or maimed someone? I had rather be meeting a fat person on the highway than a drunk.

It's coming folks, the govt. will be looking in our refrigerator next.

Can you say "Free Refills"?

He won't be re-elected......all the "Sugaholics' will revolt !!!!!!... I heard a pack of cigarettes are $12 a pack, that is ridiculous, people still smoke, they just go to the Indian tribes........ when they figure out a way to tax you breathing, they'll pass a bill for it......... :)

And some can't understand why NYC's tax base is dissolving and disappearing? Those who can afford to leave are already gone. Sure there will always be some who are attracted to the lights, but it's like one of those purple bug lights.......they go towards it ....until.......ZAP....lol

Skull Bones, of course he won't be re-elected; he will not be eligible to run again. The position of Mayor is only for a maximum of 2 terms. He got special approval to run for a third term.

As for the issue at hand, sodas. It would be more prudent for the City to allocate more money to the schools to teach children at all levels about good nutrition. There are some people that do not know how to prepare a healthy meal. We are now at the point where there are parents who never had any form of nutrition instruction (read that as home ec., or a similar type of class) in school. That is why they go to fast foods or restaurants. Since many people believe that parents fall sway to what their kids want, would it not be better to start a health movement with the little ones?

More like Libtards Gone Wild. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Expect this law to be repealed after the soft drink industry sues them in court.

Thank God for the Government! They can make all of life's decisions for me. Gives me more time to watch TV.

This is honestly one of the craziest things i've heard of yet. What the hell are these clowns doing in their spare time to think of something so ridiculous... Geeeez, aren't there FAR more important things to be concerned about than large sugary DRINKS??? Whats next, a Government mandated exercise program? If people fail to abide by the exercise program they get cited.. I've always wondered what it'd be like to live in communist Russia, now i'll know!

It looks like the majority of people are against this ban.

The most important question is: If you are against this and live in NYC, what are you going to do about it??

Unfortunately, looking at what has been going on in our society lately when compared to getting people off of their couch to do something about it, the answer is: nothing, other than getting on some weboard to pound on your chest for awhile.

If you're too stupid to eat and consume in a healthy manner, then you're an adult child and need to be told what to do. I'm all for getting rid of the freedom to choose things that are obviously and in on way controversially bad for you.

Best way to make people do what you want them not to do is tell them they cant! What are they going to do search your car to see if you are importing two litres into NY. Have they never heard of prohibition. BTW to you anti liberal jerkoffs The Mayour is a republican moderate not a liberal. In fact he ran against a Liberal in the Democratic primaru and lost then changed to Republican.

WOW I can't get a 24 oz soda but I can still go buy a shot gun and do what ever I want with it ????????

Hey governor, I've got a scary disaster scenario for you. Imagine this: I get a jug, buy two 16 ounce soda's and fill the jug!

Or, say I just keep buying 16 ounce cans and drink them down, like a chain smoker!

Do you have a disaster relief committee in place for that? Will someone put a hole in the jug? What's the contingency plan?

Sorry, but this is the dumbest f**cking idea I've ever heard coming from a body of government in my life. Not only does it solve absolutely nothing it treats the very citizens it serves as mindless automatons.

"Yes, I will curb my diet with your new law. Thank you so much for telling me how to live. I couldn't do it without you, oh brilliant politicians!'

F*cking moronic.

This is simply a political government over-stepping it's function. What gives them the right to tell you what your caloric limit should be in your personal life plus how dare they tell you what is best for you at all.....if this ban flies, what's next? Also, I think this is just another ploy to raise more taxes, after all you can get around this caloric limit by just buying two drinks or asking for a refill. The thing here that matters is if you bought two drinks you would then be paying two taxes instead of just the one. So, if you think that government is just concerned for your health - you better think twice about it and about what you are letting them get away with. Are you intelligent enough to control your own life or do you just want to hold the door open for someone else (gov) to step in and take control of you?? I, for one will NEVER visit NYC - I don't believe in their tactics or their tax schemes or their attempt to control your life choices.

One more bit of vitriol to the fire, there are some here who think soft drink manufacturers will cry 'foul', but this is exactly the kind of thing that works in their favor. You have to buy twice as many units to get what you used to for half as much. The prices will still remain the same but you'll get less.

Same thing happened at McDonald's. That idiot made that film 'Supersize me' and what did McD do? They started calling a medium a large and selling it for the same price. Want what was once the old large? Buy three mediums at ten times the price.

NYC is SOOOOOOO over rated and it's government is laughable. But what's new?

The USA is fast becoming like the countries we like to criticize. You know those countries where the religious folks send down their edits and the citizenry must follow sort of thing. Even some Middle Eastern countries are moving away from this continuious interferrance in peoples lives giving them the opportunity to chose while here in the States we are regressing back to a time when you were told to jump and the only question you could ask was 'how high'.

This has been going on for some time now especially ramped up since the repcondinos took over with their anti- reproductive rights and in which they do not only reach into a woman's uterus, but up to her ovaries. They are also reaching up to a man's scrotum to make sure he did not get the snip snip etc. They have reached into couples bedrooms into the sex live to make sure the couple procreate in the correct manner, and if procreation is not wanted then abstainance or the rhythm must be used because condoms are a sin, much less an abortion because the fetus will be born without a brain. Mind you, once the baby or babies is born the mother and father are on their own, because that is when these repubcondinos will then talk about irresponsible behaviour, having children one cannot afford to feed, clothe, school, etc blah blah blah and that the govt is not a nanny state.

There have been more laws passed in this repulicondino congress regarding outlawing reproductive rights and choice than there were ever any jobs bills. That is all they have been working on since 2010 with their sex on the brain with the old if they aren't getting any then no one else should sort of mentality aided and abetted by the various religiousity groups who have done the same sort of thing in other countries to where the people in these countries are so poor that they live in absolute squalor but hey they sure can have those babies because contraceptives are a sin. Look at the Phillipines and some South American countris. Look at their poverty. Now these folks want that to happen here in the USA as well because they are probably so anti-woman with a brain anyway.

The did the smoking thing in the early 1990s and as we moved forward it was red wine then red wine was good after all-antioxidants are good for a person now- blah blah blah. Now everyone is trying to convince the masses that sweetner from corn is good for you because the body does not know the difference and it is just like sugar and breaks down like sugar blah blah, when it has been shown to have the opposite effect if I am not mistaken. Perhaps the corn sweetners would not be bad for the person causing them to put on belly fat, if it was from organic corn, but aren't most corn crops from genetically engineered seeds these days?.... hmmmm

Now here we go again...this time it is obesity and therefore it has to be from eating and drinking to large portions of whatever because the masses have no control thus must now be aided and must be controlled for their own good.

Yet look how many supposedly healthy athletes no matter how young are dropping dead and they were not even overweight? Anyone doing a research into that? Doubt it? HOw about research into the lasting effects of ingesting genetically engineered foods? Doubt that anything is being done either. How is it that so many children are near 6 feet tall and they are maybe 15 or so years old? How is that possible for so many children to be that tall even when their parents are or were neve not even as tall? Perhaps some children are growing wider than taller as eveybody is different, i.e. the height went sideways intead of upwards?. (LOL)

It always amuses me when I see fat polititians and medical folks talking about prevention of obesity and being healthy, excercising blah blah blah. What is their excuse for their fat with their bellies hanging over their belts or looking pregnant? It is not as if they have to eat cheap carbohydrates because they cannot afford expensive lean proteins and equally expensive veggies or do not have the time for a cooked meal at home because they must work another overtime shift, plus pick up the children, do the housework and the mirad of other things that people in the middle class and the lower socioeconomic levels must do on a daily basis including visiting that food bank to see if they can find some thing cheaper or free or dumpster dive etc or do without so their children can have soup made from packets of tomato catsup until that food assistance money comes etc etc, because what they earn is not enough to feed themselves much less a family plus pay for healthcare, dental care, school lunches and the rent..

So regarding these obese and fat polititians and medical folks sending down edits from on high to the masses/serfs ......is it because they can't control themselves and their intake either? LOL

After sugary drinks what then? They is already a tax on snack foods anyway so why this added push for sveltness of the population? And after the masses are all lean and mean, with gleaming well defined musclature....flexing their pex what then? People will still be living even longer than they are now, so isn't that going to be costly as the population continue to age anyway.

Who thinks that these fexing pexing people are going to be able to afford food, housing, clothes, heating , cooling, etc etc etc then if they are living longer and longer, if salaries are not increased and pension funds are not actually properly funded? Wouldn't we be having a bigger problem then seeing some folks in govt want the masses to live forever as death and sickness seem to be not a natural thing anymore.

Perhaps all that hair dye is soaking into some of these folks brains pickling it....Or they have another plan...Perhaps this is just another smoke and mirrors deal like the ones from the 1980-1990s and on.

Wonder if these polititians realize that the USA is not just one big plantation and that they are not the massa telling the serfs, slaves, indentured servants etc what they will do and what they are not allowed to do....?

One last thing.... it is easier to do this sort of thing, thinking that it will stop obesity instead of dealing with the real issues which are stagnated wages, coupled with enormous stress, lack of proper healthcare with followup, the people with jobs working too many hours without much down time to go on vacations and get to know their families again while teaching their kids how to eat healthy and get some real exercise and propper manners and how to behave in public and at home to help to prevent them from becoming bullies or getting pregnant as a teen or tweenager.

The republicondinos need to take care of the issues that affect us all like the environment, air, water, land, food, borders, serve and protect, not for profit healthcare plan, roads, bridges, housing, the electic grid, high speed rail/transportation, wireless etc even to the most rural of areas, and the mirad of other issues and problems plaguing all of the country.

If these things were addressed jobs in the USA would be plentiful and people would be working, including outside the office, thus getting enough vitamin D from being in the sunlight. LOL People would be able to buy including nutritious organic foods for a change as they would be able to shop local from the local farms etc......

PS...at somepoint in our lives we are going to die, turn up our toes, kick the bucket, become worm food, compost, mummys, an urn on the shelf of life...... or your inlaws or exes mantle.(LOL)

So accept this and live life, laugh, be joyous, show gratitude for even the smallest of blessings, practice a bit of moderation and furrgedaboudit...... cause no one lives forevva....except Dracula and zombies... LOL

Peace...blah blah blah.... and blah blah blah ..... ahh ment....

The rich 1-10%ers got their Bush taxs, loopholes, subsidies, and corporate welfare and their govt teat has not dried up... so where are the jobs that they said they would create as they promised in 2010 elections? Oh darn... they did create those high paying jobs .... only overseas.....oops... am I baaaad .... they did keep their promise ........ sorta ...after all.... Never mind.

This is simply a political government over-stepping it's function. What gives them the right to tell you what your caloric limit should be in your personal life plus how dare they tell you what is best for you at all.....if this ban flies, what's next? Also, I think this is just another ploy to raise more taxes, after all you can get around this caloric limit by just buying two drinks or asking for a refill. The thing here that matters is if you bought two drinks you would then be paying two taxes instead of just the one. So, if you think that government is just concerned for your health - you better think twice about it and about what you are letting them get away with. Are you intelligent enough to control your own life or do you just want to hold the door open for someone else (gov) to step in and take control of you?? I, for one will NEVER visit NYC - I don't believe in their tactics or their tax schemes or their attempt to control your life choices.

You inhabitants of NYC best be telling your King Mayor to take this ban and shove - or better yet vote this sob out of office before he makes you his controlled slave

I can get four candy bars at the movie theater but ONLY a 16 oz "sugary" drink...

Let us not forget the 42oz buttery popcorn with 3 sticks of oil added to it....but you only get 16oz. to drink!! But, heck, let's just get 2 of them, so instead of the 24oz your would have normally drank, now you'll drink 32!! But by all means, yes, let's limit the consumption of soda!! {sarc}

The kicker is, where do you draw the line.. So this ridiculous law gets passed.. Then what? Whats next? Give them an inch, they WILL take you a mile. Why not start with the most dangerous, legal subtance that is the most irresponsibly consumed... Alcohol. Why not start there instead of, say.... 7-UP?

Fact: cigarettes contain polonium 210, a highly radioactive isotope that emits radiation when it settles inside the lungs and remains there as it undergoes radioactive decay inside your body, regardless of whose cigarette it came from. If you are a non-smoker, you are allowing someone else, often a stranger to poison you with his or her smoke.

There are those who seem to think this proposed ban is just like the ban on cigarette smoking in public. Ignorance is bliss... the truth is that there is a major and fundamental difference; soft drinks don't emit toxic fumes that smell nasty and harm innocent people's health who are downwind from someone who is selfish and inconsiderate. Innocent people who don’t smoke have a right to not breathe the cancer causing combustion products, cyanide and radioactive polonium 210 that is in tobacco smoke. Did you know that RJ Reynolds knew that there is polonium 210 in cigarette smoke a long time ago and also knew what steps they could take to reduce the concentration to a very low value but they chose not to. They decided to suppress the information from the public and even the Government because it would make people think twice before smoking that first highly addictive cigarette if they really knew the real extent of the danger. RJ Reynolds decided to go with the quick and dirty method just like irresponsible manufacturers who once allowed all of their waste products to billow out of their smokestacks unfiltered because emission controls cost money. They were all about maximizing profits at any cost to the health of those who were unfortunate enough to breathe it and kept the truth from the public. They promoted cigarettes as stylish, sophisticated and even healthy even though they knew that to be false; false advertising is nothing new. If someone chooses to slowly commit suicide by smoking, at least minimize the collateral damage to the innocent people around them. Non-smokers are either unaware of the true danger of smoking and second hand smoke or are unable to do anything about the smoker's lack of consideration for the health of anyone else. Even if the smoker doesn’t care about his or her own health they should at least be considerate of others; that’s why there is a ban on cigarette smoking in public.

So let's see....now that you can't get a 32 ounce, people will have to buy two 16 ounce drinks to make up for it...two non-biodegradable plastic cups, two plastic lids, two straws, paper or plastic covering those two straws...

Silly liberals....now you want to make the environment worse just so you can tell those of us that like to have freedom what we can and can't buy?

Enough of the government intrusion into our lives. Time to start throwing out any politician that feels it's their right to dictate basic freedoms.

Re Wf:

Your argument is illogical. You state that majority rule in our country and yet you think that a minority, the smokers, should be allowed to rule in the issue of smoking. Most people don't smoke and to say that a bar or restaurant can post a sign that warns of the health danger and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere is wrong. So you're saying that if there are a few smokers in the place of business then the majority must put up with it or go somewhere else? What about majority rule? You want it both ways, your way; that is extremely selfish. Smoke does not stay in the "smoking area" that is the part that doesn't work for business; if you can solve that problem, you might have a case, otherwise you're wrong. Nice try, thanks for playing… maybe you should try out for the "sugar is sugar, your body doesn’t know the difference" commercial since that's bull s#%@ too.

@Joe-755363 he's not a liberal. he was elected Mayor as a republican in 2001 and 2005 but changed to Independent in 2009. Since most intrusion into my basic freedoms were enacted by republicans I must agree with your last statement (Enough of the government intrusion into our lives. Time to start throwing out any politician that feels it's their right to dictate basic freedoms.)

Just gose to PROVE how F'D UP NYC is.

Going to go get MY 52oz COKE NOW. Thank u, GOD!

'Nuff said, thank u very much.

What will be next? I know that my health insurance now wants me to check in and tell them my "physical activities" while I am home under the threat of higher premiums next year. This seems illegal to me. But yet they are doing it.

It's not fair that the rest of us keep getting high premiums on health insurance just because people do not want to eat healthy and drink water instead of soda. If you like soda so much, you need to pay the price, on insurance premiums too.

I am VERY GLAD that smokers now pay $50.00 more a month on my insurance. If people want to have bad habits, it's their choice. IT SHOULD ALSO BE THEIR MONEY.

Banning large sodas is only the first step. Americans cannot be trusted to make decisions about their diets themselves. We must also limit fattening foods. French Fries are saturated in oil, and should be limited to no more than 6 french fries per person, totaling no more than 2.3 oz. Hamburgers will only be sold with single patties. To prevent customers from consuming multiple burgers themselves, there will be a strict requirement of one burger per customer, all customers must be present at time of ordering. Also, placing bacon or cheese on hamburgers will be illegal. Restaurants selling hamburgers, will be prohibited from selling bacon in strips to prevent customers from adding the bacon themselves. This is for our own good.

The sound of laughter you hear from NYC is because everyone on here is calling Bloomberg liberal and a communist.

Bloomberg ran as a REPUBLICAN as he is a successful and conservative businessman. One of the most successful capitalists of our time. He is now an independent.

I don't agree with the ban, I liked the idea of taxing sugary drinks myself as I appreciate that obesity is costly to all of us in the form of higher insurance and tax prices for healthcare.

However-Bloomberg is no communist!

Uchusky99: Actually everyone in NY thinks Mayor Bloomberg is a democrat. The reason? He ran as a democrat first, couldn't get elected and then ran as a republican with "democratic" views. When he failed in his second term he ran as an independent and won.

So it doesn't matter what party he's from now, to the people in NYC he's still considered a democrat.

This is nothing but tyranny and if people don't like it then they can be thrown in jail for defying it for their own good. Defy that and be killed by the blue shirted government troops/thugs. It isn't about obesity. It is about oppression!

Why don't we curb that????? We should ban big sizes of dictatorship!

@IRESPOND-2315268

The most important thing is to REDUCE the size of meals. People can eat practically everything, if they use COMMON SENSE and eat small portions.

Those Restaurants that give you enough food in one plate to feed 4, should understand that whoever eats that food will only eat enough for 2 people -which is already too much- and the rest will go to WASTE. Also, fast food restaurants need to modify their menus and offer fat-free choices.

That's all well and good, the problem starts when governments force the issue and make people behave in a certain way. Educating the public should be the limit of government intervention in these matters, help people make the right choice, don't make the choice for them.

btw, posting in italics just makes your comments hard to read if it's more than a few sentences. I skip over most of your posts for this reason.

Tcola..... because 7-up can't make us drunk or cause or make us overlook or forget the fact that we are being serfed by plutocratism.....

Talk about a bunch of killjoys... can't even light a spliff without getting arrested, even as folks are being patted down by the police, looking for the maryj when the folks cannot even afford to buy or cadge any anyway. Now can't even get up to a 7-up....? LOL

Like the riddim goes..... ''something gotta give''... Think its by artist.. Assassin or some such singer. LOL

Peace...... redbull take me awayyyyyyyy..... (apparently it give you wings?) LOL

PS....wait until they start talking about coffee and caffeine....

Oops ...No .....they won't do that, the coffee lobbiests are too strong. LOL Now it is being said coffee drinking is good for ya... like help to prevent the big C or something like that. LOL

floyd:

"It's coming folks, the govt. will be looking in our refrigerator next."

As for your futuristic prediction, it's already happening. Many utility companies have installed "smart meters" which uses your private electrical wiring system inside your home (without the resident's permission) which tells them when and what type of appliance you are using. There are some refrigerators available which come with computers that tell you what food you are out of; thus telling the utility companies/government, also.

So, while heading home from an evening job last night, I heard a debate about this on Jersey radio (101.5)... The talk show hosts were saying that at this point, Bloomberg has gotten completely out of hand, and it's time his tenure as mayor comes to a close (aka no fourth term). The first term he was OK, the second, he began barking orders at people and telling them what to do, and now in his third term he's out of control... This issue is but one example. If a fourth term could result in him becoming even worse, it's time he's told no to securing a fourth term...

Another matter also got brought up, which bares consideration... So, in order to enforce this law, who's gonna pay the salaries for the cops and what not, to go around and make sure no one is selling or buying larger drinks? Expect this to come up in property taxes, as that tends to be how municipalities pays for such services... Aka the voter might end up getting more taxes, in order to have officers go around and "insure" they can't buy larger drink sizes, even if they want them.... With one caller, he was like "yeah, I lived the first 25 years of my life in New York city. This isn't the New York I remember... If this is the way Bloomberg is headed, why don't you head on over here. Yeah our property taxes are ridiculous and stuff, but you know that as long as Christie is govenor, something like this couldn't get pushed through without a straight face". You know, with the obvious "but given Christie's own weight, there's no honest way he could pass anti-fat laws for everyone else..."

Sadly though, we do have some other rather strange/ridiculous measures, which the way things are going, could end up with me moving over to PA; but this is one move we don't have as of yet...

This is simply a political government over-stepping it's function. What gives them the right to tell you what your caloric limit should be in your personal life plus how dare they tell you what is best for you at all.....if this ban flies, what's next? Also, I think this is just another ploy to raise more taxes, after all you can get around this caloric limit by just buying two drinks or asking for a refill. The thing here that matters is if you bought two drinks you would then be paying two taxes instead of just the one. So, if you think that government is just concerned for your health - you better think twice about it and about what you are letting them get away with. Are you intelligent enough to control your own life or do you just want to hold the door open for someone else (gov) to step in and take control of you?? I, for one will NEVER visit NYC - I don't believe in their tactics or their tax schemes or their attempt to control your life choices.

Ya know what can make this even worse, when the government starts minding everyone's business, butts in where they aren't necessarily wanted, all in the name of "but it's for your own good"? Not only does it take away from the principles of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded; but who's to say that what would be "right for one person" would be right for all? So let me see, if Eli Manning goes some place and wants a larger portion, or should eat more then 2,000 calories a day, should the government step in and tell him that he's eating too much food, because your "average" couch potato wouldn't burn more then that? Never mind one would be talking about a football player, and as such also a fair bit larger (and not in the being fat sort of way) and more musclular then that couch potato, who could probably burn a fair portion of that, during a football game...

And that's exactly where we end up. If one wants to really look for some possible causes of childhood obesity and what not, perhaps less has to do with people being able to make their own choices, as is they're own given right, and more to do with the fact that in the name of protecting them we've talked about restricting recess, banning dodge ball and other sports in schools "lest they get hurt", taken a lot of the physical acitivity from gym class and the like out, and generally have kids sitting in doors 24/7 not doing as much.

Hell when I was a kid, we didn't have as much of this, but far from having the government police everyone's lives, oh hell they served WHOLE MILK, not just skim and some of the greasiest stuff in the school cafeteria. Mr. Greesy's fish sticks, and the homeade pizza which had so much greese one could pat it down with paper towels and they'd be drenched in it was kinda nasty. But we didn't get fat, not because that stuff wasn't loaded in calories. We didn't get fat as much because we actually tended to get outdoors, where we actually engaged in some sort of physical activity. We were allowed to play, to put it bluntly, without all the "well you might get hurt playng this, if people play tag they'll get self esteem problems from being it", and the one school that wanted to ban someone for playing cops and robbers because it might make them into terrorists :o It's just more of a nanny state, added onto aspects of a nanny state, when it turns out the nanny didn't always know what was best....

seems pointless when they would still be available in bigger sizes at grocery stores. i drink a lot as i eat and would be very annoyed by running out of drink. toss this lame idea and worry about real problems instead. can't believe time wasted on this idea thus far. do your job.

Look, everybody was taught good nutrition several times throughout Grade School, Middle School and High School. Education is not the problem. Just like cigarette smoking, everybody knows that odds are being ill, and killed by cancer. Does that stop them? No, but taxing does. But, taxing and other regulating is taking away your freedom to chose.

Don't get me wrong really bad stuff like brain altering, though altering, body destroying stuff, addicting need to be kept illegal.

Regulating fat, salt and sugar is not a good thing. Each person's body needs differnent amounts. There is a study just out showing vegans suffer unnecessary muscular deteriation because they don't eat meat. Too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing, but, trying to set a standard just will never work.

We need a 64 ounce Massive Gulp so that we can get fatter.

Long live obesity, diabetes and 48 inch waistlines.

Americans make Buddha look slim.

There are those who seem to think this proposed ban is just like the ban on cigarette smoking in public. Ignorance is bliss... the truth is that there is a major and fundamental difference; soft drinks don't emit toxic fumes that smell nasty and harm innocent people's health who are downwind from someone

Sorry pal but this is just a load of anti smoker milarky that has been disproved. The most comprehensive study on second hand smoke was pereformed in England and lasted over ten years. The indiviuals in the study test group that were carefully not exposed to second hand smoke over that period did no better that the ones that were exposed to it. The anti smokers were prompted by industry in order to alleviate the pressure from their pollution. The English study was beat down by their propoganda. More or less they proved that a trip from you house to where you work and back again gave your lungs about as much pollution as a half pack of cigs does. BTW I have never smoked

This is about as dumb as it gets. What is next, ban purchasing two or three of the smaller sizes? Wouldn't a person who wanted more to drink, just purchase more containers of that drink? Even if the law made sense, which it does not, it would not work because people adjust to a situation.

The govt isn't banning anything but sizes. It's like how alcohol is regulated by size and proof.

Given how the % of obese and overweight individuals are growing at an uncontrollable rate - this is simply an effort to stop the country from eating itself to death (or at least uncontrollable health/infrastructure costs).

It's well documented how liquid calories have virtually no effect on satiety (sense of appetite). Hence why they went this route.

Interloper23, sure then they can regulate how many donuts you buy or portion size at a restaurant. What you want 6 donuts? You need to bring 3 people to the counter. Next we will see salt shakers that only dispense a "proper" amount of salt and then lock for 5 minutes.

I can give them the trans fat because you can't see the fat that something is cooked in. There is no missing a 32oz soda.

Honestly with all the ice that goes in you only get about 16 oz anyway.

Does anybody else think that this is an overreach of local power? How can this not affect interstate commerce?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Good point Karen, not to mention that Alcohol is loaded with calories as well! You'll still be able to buy a yard of beer but be limited to a pint of soda!

Congrats, Joe, for the first Nazi reference.

I don't really think it applies here-but way to prove Godwin's law!

If the public truly wanted something they vote with their dollars. The government taking action on something like this 'supposes" at least half the voters want it. If that was true, then we would see enough people making economic choices that would push business in that direction. Yet, what I see is people who say they want to do the right thing but refuse until a law is passed that forces everyone.

Sort of like those that favor higher taxes. What prevents people donating additional cash (Ted Turner gave $1 Billion to the UN, at least he put his money where his mouth was).

Karen,

It's called the liquor industry in the hip pockets of politicians.

I saw alcohol ruin the life of an uncle, but at least he didn't die fat.

This is completely absurd and will likely be struck down by the courts. This is the nanny state run amok. This is an intrusion on personal freedom trying to control how much someone can drink of a perfectly legal product. And some of the things being exempted make no sense and show the arbitrary nature of this proposed ordinance. I mean some milkshakes have just as many, if not more calories per ounce than soda as do a lot of sweetened fruit juices. What is he going to do next, outlaw the jumbo size popcorn at the movie theaters!?!? This will also going to end up costing people more money. When a couple goes to a movie they would not be able to buy a large soda and large popcorn to share and instead will have to buy two smaller ones of each which is more expensive. Thank you mayor for making taking a date to a movie even more expensive than it already is. What about starting to limit portion sizes and having maximum calorie counts for meals served in restaurants!?!? How far is Bloomberg going to take the nanny state!!! Is he going to say that ice cream cones can only have one scoop of ice cream!?!? People should have the right to decide how much they are going to eat or drink, it is not up to the state try and dictate to them!!

If passed this will without a doubt be challenged in the courts. Bloomberg will then no doubt spend millions of dollars in legal expenses and court costs, which the city can not afford, for his city attorney to defend this idiocy. Bloomberg needs to stop with this nanny state nonsense and start focusing on things that really are part of the mayor's responsibility like cleaning up the city, reducing crime, improving education, etc.

People of New York need to wake up and get rid of this tyrant. People are fat not only becaus of sodas but because they eat too much. Get Bloomberg out of office. Now, if this is how you want your city run then just sit back and keep your opinions to yourself. I was born and raised in NYC and I am glad that I don't live there any longer.

Karen, they tried banning alcohol. It was called Prohibition. It failed miserably. I totally agree that banning drink size is rediculous. A number of years ago, one of my friends would buy a large-sized drink that she would share with her 3 children. It was a lot cheaper than buying 4 small drinks and the fast food place usually just gave out very small cups for free.

Let's see now...
Bloomberg is a republiClown...check.

republiClowns scream less intrusion into people's private lives...check.

republiClowns are lying, hypocrite, two-faced cretins...check, check and check.

No surprises here, folks. Move along.

Bloomberg isn't trying to run a nanny state. He is however trying to run a "Nanny City with his never ending quest for more and more intrusive rules and regulations. He is after all just the Mayor of NYC. But God help "ALL" New York residents if he should ever get to be Governor!

Given how the % of obese and overweight individuals are growing at an uncontrollable rate - this is simply an effort to stop the country from eating itself to death (or at least uncontrollable health/infrastructure costs).

So how does this actually help? First, at a restaurant, I can get a free refill. As often as I want. Hmmm, think I'll probably be consuming more than 16 oz. Second, If I can't buy bigger than 16 oz at the movies, well then I'm just forced to by 2 16oz. beverages. Now, instead of the 24 oz I would have consumed prior to this stupid law, I will be consuming 32 oz!! Doesn't this add to the problem???? Oh, wait, now I see how it's beneficial!! I now pay taxes on 2 drinks as opposed to just the one!!! Oh, yes, very beneficial for the city!! Oh wait, this was about health, wasn't it????

More false advertising... "sugar is sugar, your body doesn't know the difference." Sugar isn't sugar; there are many different compounds that are called sugar; glucose, maltose, fructose, sucrose, etc. and they are all chemically different and how the body processes and uses them is different. The "high fructose corn syrup" in sodas is manufactured through a chemical process.

Leave me alone ok.......your post #2.11

Poor soul....so much anger - everyone should think like you right? Actually Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat but he switched his registration in 2001 to republican. He did that because he knew that he wouldn't stand a chance as a dem. to get elected - he is still far left in his ideology. But be that as it may. You really should learn to control that anger - here's an option - read!

Leave me alone ok.......your post #2.11

Just a few more facts for you to "READ".

Bloomberg left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007 and ran for his third term in 2009 as an INDEPENDENT candidate on the Republican ballot line.

I'm not a card carrying neo-con (well all Republicans aren't, as there's more to the party then this one voting block), but it's obvious this nanny state thing would be more associated to the Democrats.... I have no problem with calling a spade a spade here... No party has a monopoly on pitches like this. And if one can call out some of the Christian right wrt the issue of gay marriage, and telling people how they can live; then there would be nothing wrong with calling out the nanny state (which would also serve to tell people how to live), either... Fair is fair, and intrusion on people's lives and their own free will choices, is just that. Whatever party is involved.

But aside from all that, the troubling over-reach here, isn't because of whatever party Bloomberg ran for at this or that given time. It lies in the substance of what's being done here....

So how does this actually help? First, at a restaurant, I can get a free refill. As often as I want. Hmmm, think I'll probably be consuming more than 16 oz. Second, If I can't buy bigger than 16 oz at the movies, well then I'm just forced to by 2 16oz. beverages. Now, instead of the 24 oz I would have consumed prior to this stupid law, I will be consuming 32 oz!! Doesn't this add to the problem???? Oh, wait, now I see how it's beneficial!! I now pay taxes on 2 drinks as opposed to just the one!!! Oh, yes, very beneficial for the city!! Oh wait, this was about health, wasn't it????

Given the cost of concessions at a movie theater, if due to this I was forced to buy 2 drinks, that would about do it. A medium drink can cost $4.50, and the large 50 cents more. If one had to buy 2, and instead of $5, was left paying $9 in drinks, that would be enough to finally convince me to buy a 1 litre bottle from the grocery store, and smuggle it in... Besides, in a dark movie theater, it isn't like someone's going to see exactly what one is holding, and if they don't chuck the bottle there. I don't do this now, but if this was an effect of such a law, I'd sure start considering it....

$5 is already pretty high, though I understand why the theaters do it (given they don't make profits off of the ticket sales themselves). But this consequence to gov't intrusion making it almost double, would be just too much to accept. I could imagine a law like this convincing probably a fair few, to start bringing their own store bought bottles of soda, and just hiding them at the ticket booth....

Steve Miller Band 1969, great album.

Didn't they still have all the vices in BNW? If anything, I'd say 1984 or Demolition Man. Pray to whatever you worship that it's not Demolition Man because I will have meat or you tell them I'm coming and hell's coming with me.

Space Cowboy-

Pretty sure Pasha was reffering to the book written by Aldous Huxley in 1931.

What I find hilarious is that this does not apply to milkshakes, fruit juices and alcoholic beverages. So that's why I can't shake that stubborn 5 lbs. I should be downing those 20 oz cheesecake shakes and giant blue margaritas because apparently they are non-fattening and low in sugar.

?!?!?!?

You have the choice of eating healthy or not. Good or bad it's a choice I don't want the gov't making for me. What's next - are they going to set up a master switch that turns off all the lights, tvs and computers at 11 pm so that we get our mandatory eight hours of sleep?

Oops, you didn't hear about the Smart Meters? They already are moving towards that.

I encourage everyone to look up an article in Wired magazine called, "The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center."

A direct quote from that article, "The former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: “We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.'"

What happened to land of the free, home of the brave?

When are people going to stop and realize we have a problem here?

Are we so stupid that we dont see what is going on here? The politicians use this type of bs to instill fear into the public to get what they want when it comes to denying civil rights to is own people. HOw is stopping sales of large drinks going to stop people from becoming overweight? First of all - many that are overweight find its more of a genetic issue more so then what they eat. Secondly, if you stop one item based on its size - what else will they try to stop - the size of chips because there are to many in there? Get real people this is a socialist means to tell you what you can and cant not have. If you people allow the passage of this matter - you might as well hand over your guns your money and your freedom to the socialist who are trying to say you have to much so give it to others

The larger drink would cost less than the two smaller ones. Maybe the idea is not to "battle" obesity but to increase tax revenue from increased sales of smaller drinks.

They tried taxing sugary drinks. It was shut down by the state-though I agree it is abetter approach.

Bloomberg is such an idiot.

Agreed..........but what he has done has created more revenue from the taxes on the two smaller drinks while adding to the trash for New York Sanitation not to pick up......Why? just like you said, the consumer will buy 2 smaller drinks, but McDonalds will raise the cost of the new "legal" size, which will increase tax revenue for the city......this has dozens of implications and impacts on society as a whole.......what's next, no double quarter pounders with cheese, no bacon burgers, only small fries cooked in NEW YORK approved oils......yep, Bloomberg is a "RICH" idiot........when will people in this country, quit letting individual politicians pick and choose how we live our lives while under their control.

When it costs more than twice the amount to get 2 16oz drinks than 1 32oz drink, the city makes more in revenue. When someone who would have typically limited themself to a 20oz drink now has to buy 2 16oz, then you're more likely to drink more than before. So the consumer gets fatter.

Who would have thought that Bloomberg would be the face of Big Brother. Soon the cigarettes that are being shipped from CA to NYC will be accompanied by sodas, sports drinks and fruit juice. Apple juice is now being labeled as contraband. Ironic

Freedom is dying.

Because career politicians crave and thrive on power! They are constantly trying to find new ways to gather more to themselves using the excuse that is for the "common good"! That is why the founding fathers termed the representatives in government as citizen legislators. Their intent was to have normal citizens represent others in their area while still maintaining their normal professions. They were to be part time legislators and full time productive adults not coddled children with to much power. Our founding fathers clearly saw the effects of to much power in any one hand and deliberately sought out ways to limit it from happening. Unfortunately we have become lax and allowed it to happen. Term limits and a reduction in the size of government and it's functions needs to happen if America wants to remain free!

BigPicture, are you a terrorist??! You're having an original thought and you're opposing a government measure, somebody needs to call homeland security. Bans on sugary drinks, checkpoints, the end of Posse Comitatus, this is freedom man. Enjoy the new Amerika.

I love this country and seeing our freedoms deteriorate at the hand of tyrants is heartbreaking. My grandfather didn't fight WWII to see our country become North Korea. We need to get the spirit of America back, freedom and bravery and communities.

@Drosophila: My grandfather was a WWII USAF vet as well, and though he was always proud to speak up in the name of the very freedom he fought for, he always told me to keep myself healthy so that I could work. "Can't work, don't deserve to eat," he'd say. I'd just chuckle at him. I disagree with him on several points: there are extenuating circumstances; many people on government disability have legitimate reasons. Having type II diabetes because you are 350+ lbs and down 2500+ calories worth of soda every day (in addition to their solid diet) is not among those. I agree: the ban on large sizes will not keep people from drinking soda in excess, it will simply make the higher cost of drinking larger amounts of soda more unattractive. I for one know for a fact my grandfather would have applauded Bloomberg's efforts, radical though they are, to encourage New Yorkers (and other Americans, too, I would hope, through inspiration) to improve the quality of their lives.

Given the choice between the two sins of letting a soda conglomerate make my drink choices for me (admit it, people who drink soda to excess are incapable of resisting the urge) or a politician who, regardless of his motives, is trying to enact a bill that will only benefit my health in the long run, I think I'll choose the one that's going to improve the quality of my life.

That said, I am always amused at the "infringing on our freedoms" arguments that come crawling out of the woodwork when something like this is announced, yet not a word the rest of the time about the"more than $85 billion a year - about one in eight health care dollars - on treatment of people with diabetes, disability payments to them, research and related efforts." How about the freedom to not have to pay for other peoples' unwise nutrition choices?

citation:

"The measure would not apply to diet sodas"

Diet sodas are WORSE for you than regular sodas.

the government needs to concentrate on our economy this is stupid its not going to keep people from getting fat lol,whats next!!!!!!!!our freedoms to live in america are slowly being taken away,the government disregarding our constitution its the poeples choice to choose what size drink they drink now they are trying tell us what to do at mcdonalds if they are so worried about our health fix the health dept control what doctors and hospital charge for service and stop taxeing us to deaththere u go!!!!!!!!

I don't agree with the law-but it is pretty hard to call Bloomberg a communist (especialy since this has nothing to do with communism as the government is not trying to own anything.) He is one of the biggest, most successful capitalists of our time.

Yea, that's the kicker. Most places offer free refills. Is the dumb mayor going to ban free refills?

He will ban all soda and make you drink your Milk.

This is just the start. They want to see if they pass this how many people will complain so later they will know what to expect when they really take away something you care about. America is not free anymore. The government is focused on running peoples lives instead of running our government. Like a lot of people said, clean the streets, take care of crime, and the things out of the common persons control.

It is easy as an individual to criticize and chastise the decisions made by our government but talk is cheap, if the people in New York have a problem with this proposal or with their leadership they need to raise up and change it.

The same could be / should be said about the federal government.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Declaration of Independance.

well put, Comrade dagnesta!

Yes Comrade Dagnesta, very well put. You make such a good model communist.

Maybe you should move to California. Over there, the comunists have applied similar ideas long time ago and i guess our resident marxist Mayor is trying to emulate. And, dagenesta, citizens getting off their lifetime wellfare lifestile will produce more.

...and, is this the same mayor who banned food donations to shelters because they cannot asses the nutritional values? or banned bake sales in schools to raise money for schools projects? Welcome to Socialist Republic of NY.

My brain just exploded. Communism would mean the soda is produced and distributed by the state...

stay tuned, jeff.

You may disagree, as do I with the law-butreally people-this has nothing to do with communism!

Communism would have the state making the soda. Bloomberg-one of the most successful capitalists of out time-would never support that and is not moving us anywhere near that.

Regulations are not the same thing as communism-or is it like the nazi's for that matter.

Disagree with the law, but at least know about what you are saying before you say it.

Bloomberg is not a democrat! He was republican then became independent.

Welcome to the Communist State of New York!

Oh Please...Go ahead and buy a dozen doughnuts and a bucket of fried chicken in the next block. That will make you "freedom" spirit return...

The "comunist" mayor is trying to make you live longer by doing a small step, but you are welcome to reach out for every piece of junk food avaiable. Gee! Who knows! The "comunist" mayor may take away the fried chicken and the donuts too.

A Tragedy! You need to eat as many as possible RIGHT NOW!

I disagree with the bill, but please explain to me exactly what this has to do with communism?

Communism means the government owning corporations. It does not mean regulations.

Bloomberg is one of the most successful capitalists of our time. He is not a communist.

Because they are a huge revenue source for each state. It's all about the money.

Why aren't cigarettes and alcoholic beveages banned?

The article said nothing about banning soft drinks, just banning certain sizes. So why would you ask this question?

LOL @Ryan who is okay with not having the freedom to not have to pay for someone else's poor diet choices. The government spends over $85b a year on diabetes related treatment, disability payments to people with diabetes and research efforts. You still cool with that cool with that?

citation:www.forecast.diabetes.org

LOL @CapnShep who is probably just a deckhand.

So, CapnShep, how are you planning to differentiate between those people who suffer from juvenile diabetes as opposed to Type II diabetes?

Skip, Bloomberg is not a Republican, he is a liberal democrat that decided he could get elected easier on the republican ticket.

Bloomberg isn't a Republican, and he isn't a Democrat. He's a carpetbagger who will jump on the bandwagon of whatever party will suit him. He ran as a Republican when he first rode Rudy Giuliani's coattails into the Mayor's office, then switched to Democrat when he ran for re-election, and now I believe he considers himself an independent after he did an end-run around the law and gained his third term. He's a chameleonistic S.O.B.

Why are you surprised? repubs want to put us back in the dark ages, with serfs and lords and all that. They are all about taking our rights away, forget the patriot act already? Dems want a socialist gov. and the repubs prefer a police state, the choice is yours, unless the war mongering repubs can start ww3 and kill us all first.

well put, Comrade 'loper!

Interloper, this will do nothing to affect the obesity rate. This is just another silly liberal idea that government always knows best.

What you say may be true, but, people will not change their habits because of laws. What they need is education, not legislation. And even with education, many people will not change. Smoking is a good example.

What happened to the saying by the left to keep your government out of my body? Does it only apply when it is something they are against?

Smoking is an example of people not changing? On an overall % of Americans, smoking has had a precipitous decline over the decades.

And it's a fair assertion that discouraging soft drinks will affect obesity rates. Again, liquid calories don't register with a body's hunger signals of "fullness". If a person went from 3 cans, to 1 can of soda a day, they'd save 360-400 calories or so per day. Which may be enough to stabilize, or even lose weight.

Interloper23, you are right. People do have self control problems. That is why all the money they make should go to the govt. so the govt. can decide what is best.

People have too much debt, unlike our government.

People are lazy and inefficient, unlike our government.

People are hot tempered and resort to violence, unlike our government.

If only the government would take a more active role in our lives we would be better off. They could tell us how many children we could afford (have), They could tell us where to live and who would make good friends.

Now you're cooking, Comrade Joe!

Yes and the first cuts to education usually occur in recess, gym, and extra curricular activities that get children out from behind a desk or computer and into active healthy behavior! Parents come home from work to a quiet house usually because the children are absorbed in web surfing or a video game. While these activities are not necessarily bad things, they must be balanced by physical activity to burn calories and help the body stay strong.

The obesity problem in america was handled pretty well under kennedy...education and mandatory PE in our public schools. However, with all the cut backs these important educational factors have been eliminated. So, since they can't afford to educate us anymore, the will just try to control us. I remember having to take cooking in school and learning how to prepare healthy meals. That doesn't exist anymore either.

Drinking soda may not help with your health what about the people who order way to much food like going the a buffet and spending hours there and getting a diet soda. Doesn't the mayor have anything better to do than to tell me how much soda I can drink. It's not just soda that hurts whats next you can't have buffets anymore. When you get a large soda at the movies and other places it's mostly ice anyway. There is almost as much sugar in orange juice as there is in soda. So is that next we can only order or get a small OJk, or fruit juice. NO BANNING THE AMOUNT of soda we can order isn't going to stop the obesity rate in this country. When they tried to ban liquor it didn't work.

If setting a quantity limit resolves the obesity problem then why not tackle lung cancer at the same time with the same method? ---set a limit to the number of cigarettes a person can purchase to 1 cigarette a day. The reason we have not done this with cigarettes is the reality is it does not work.

The government setting an arbitrary limit is not going to resolve the issue, - lets talk about what is at the core of the problem. We as Americans over indulge as a culture. Whether it is too much soda, a car that is too fast, or a home we cannot afford the root cause is basically the same. Its available to us and we have the money available, cash or credit, we are going to buy. We feel we 'deserve it' whether it is good for us or not.

Arcihangel, don't forget the part where after cuttng recess, extra-caricular activities, and gym class, they then won't necessarily let them be kds anymore, and would suggest many have ADHD if they aren't content with never moving a muscle; even while they don't have the time to play or engage in physical activity, we had while we grew up. Then when it turns out, this whole loss of activity might not be healthy, rather then re-introduce these things, they'd rather control everyone's diet....

Decisions like this, regardless of whatever rationale is argued in favor of it, would make this less of a free country, founded upon the principles of freedom and liberty. It's almost as if some aspect of the American spirit is disappearing, when we start seeing big brother in this manner...

You make me sick cheese lover !!!! Take your sandwich and visit a hospital where you will see the destruction your precious meal causes.

OPEN YOUR EYES !!!

Grilled cheese will bring down this country. Banning Deathwiches is the only way to save this great country !!!

@joe...hahahahahahaaaaaaa

Just imagine if we were talking Philadelphia, and he were talking about cheesesteaks. Making issue with people eating them, would probably get them a few dirty looks :p

Now, now, D-1519975, we cannot discriminate against the welfare people by denying the use of food stamps to buy sugary sodas. I can just see the Supreme Court ruling on such a dastardly act.

Diet drinks are worse for you? Merely a conspiracy theory. After years of debate and searching, I have yet to see solid research of their harm in humans.

He's treating soft drinks like any other toxic substance. Alcohol is regulated by size and proof, soft drinks will be regulated by size and caloric content.

We, as a country, are essentially eating ourselves to death.

Only if we don't vote ourselves to death, first, Interloper!

Eating, drinking OR smoking yourself to death is a personal choice, Interloper. I bet you would stand up for that ban of extra large buttered popcorn at the movies. You want to hop on a bandwagon for the government to stop us from watching to much TV, being online to much? You want a tax on everyone who fails to have an annual physical? After all, we "all pay the price" of those things right?

I quit smoking 7 years ago, work out at least five times a week and follow a diet so structured at this point my friends wonder how I stand it. Those things are all MY choice, not the government's choices to make for me. Wow - outrageous.

Interloper, you haven't done enough research if you haven't found anything in Diet drinks that will harm you. Aspertame, contained in over 200 products, was pushed through by the president of Searle, Donald Rumsfield (familiar name?) this, after being turned down by the FDA for 16 years!! It caused cancer in labortory primates and was passed over the Delaney act AFTER Rumsfield pushed REagan to appoint a new head of the FDA. It's all in the records. It's about $$$. Aspertame turns to formaldihyde at high temps and amino acids in the drink spure the early release of insulin. All facts. Check out the obesity stats since 1980 (when aspertame was approved). Doubled! Do more research, put Diet drinks down.

If your idea of solid research is that which is endorsed by a government agency, then you likely will not find it. I don't need the government to tell me that aspertame gives me horrible headaches and visual changes.

Interloper is just a troll... Let him go.

People, there are studies that shows the aspartame in diet coke and pepsi actually increases appetite, so although it contains no calories it is going to make you gain weight. If you must drink something that tastes sugary drink diet rite, which contains sucralose. Besides, aspartame is also bad for us in many other ways, the stuff is poisonous. Rumour is that the FDA looked the other way on it when it was approved years ago,

When it costs more than twice the amount to get 2 16oz drinks than 1 32oz drink, the city makes more in revenue. When someone who would have typically limited themself to a 20oz drink now has to buy 2 16oz, then you're more likely to drink more than before. So the consumer gets fatter.

Who would have thought that Bloomberg would be the face of Big Brother. Soon the cigarettes that are being shipped from CA to NYC will be accompanied by sodas, sports drinks and fruit juice. Apple juice is now being labeled as contraband. Ironic

JohnF42: Tell me where in the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or in any of our civil liberties that aspartame voids our choices. If what you claim is true, then the public have the right to know. And then make their own choices. Our choices shoul

You are right about Aspertame. Causes migraines and visual changes. It also causes MS symptons in heavy users. Diet soda also has high amounts of sodium. I have diabetes and my doctor prefers that I use Splenda or sugar. Read a label on a pack of gum though....every one of them now contains aspertame. The government is not our parent and shouldn't be able to tell us what we can and can't eat. Beer has more empty calories than soda. More people are obese now due to our 'high tech' toys. Overeating and lack of exercise is the main cause of obesity...not soda. Check out how many calories are in juice..might just surprise you as to why it is not on the list.

Help me understand. You don't think switching to diet soda helped you to lose weight?