The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[strike]Big Gulps[/strike] and the Legitimacy and Limits of [State Coercion]
Hamurabi
MiamiRegistered User regular
MiamiRegistered User regular
So I guess the NYC ban on enormous sodas goes into effect soon. I'll admit that I haven't looked into the issue itself per se, and only kinda heard vague things about the executive ban by the NYC Board of Health.
But the specific issue of banning large sugary drinks is, perhaps not surprisingly, not actually what I'd like to talk about. I'd like to talk about the larger issue of states' (in the international relations sense of that term, not as in the state of New York or Florida) use of their coercive power to influence people's behavior. It seems fairly obvious that states shouldn't just exercise their power arbitrarily or despotically... but what about cases where structural factors inhibit "real" democratic action on an issue?
What about cases where special interests so thoroughly dominate the conversation related to a specific issue that action through a representative legislative body becomes impossible? For instance, the U.S. currently has very generous corn subsidies that make high-fructose corn syrup artificially cheap, and their ubiquitous use in processed food products has a host of knock-on effects on public health. The American public, however, doesn't really seem to care about corn subsidies; afaik, no one but Iowans actually care about corn subsidies as a public policy. This fact combined with the power of people like Chuck Grassley and Big Agg lobbyists makes a real public discourse on the subsidies all but impossible.
So would the executive be in the wrong the cut the subsidies through an executive action? (For argument's sake, let's assume this is not impossible due to Constitutional constraints.)
But the specific issue of banning large sugary drinks is, perhaps not surprisingly, not actually what I'd like to talk about. I'd like to talk about the larger issue of states' (in the international relations sense of that term, not as in the state of New York or Florida) use of their coercive power to influence people's behavior. It seems fairly obvious that states shouldn't just exercise their power arbitrarily or despotically... but what about cases where structural factors inhibit "real" democratic action on an issue?
What about cases where special interests so thoroughly dominate the conversation related to a specific issue that action through a representative legislative body becomes impossible? For instance, the U.S. currently has very generous corn subsidies that make high-fructose corn syrup artificially cheap, and their ubiquitous use in processed food products has a host of knock-on effects on public health. The American public, however, doesn't really seem to care about corn subsidies; afaik, no one but Iowans actually care about corn subsidies as a public policy. This fact combined with the power of people like Chuck Grassley and Big Agg lobbyists makes a real public discourse on the subsidies all but impossible.
So would the executive be in the wrong the cut the subsidies through an executive action? (For argument's sake, let's assume this is not impossible due to Constitutional constraints.)
Hamurabi on
0
Posts
"This drink contains 117 grams of sugar and will give you the diabetus and your legs will rot off if you drink it"
I am against govt stepping in on things like this, but frankly when advertisements have it so engrained in you that you need soda at every meal and in between, including mountain dew that has a breakfast soda line(mixed with juice for extra 'betus!), people don't understand the shit they are doing to themselves and someone has to do something about it. I am use instantly this mentality will be used on something I dont agree with, so it makes it very rough.
In this particular issue (lower amount of pop people drink) I think that NYC would be better served by a public health policy that discourages purchasing larger sizes of drinks 'just because'. For example instituting, a 1 cent per ounce tax on all carbonated beverages. Or a 5 cent tax on all drinks containing HFCS under 20 ounces, 10 cents for drinks 20-30 ounces, 20 cents for drinks 30 - 50 ounces, and 50 cents for drinks > 50 ounces.
I have a bit of a problem when people bring up 'Special Interests' as if they are universally some evil and manipulative force. Granted, some special interest / lobbying groups are pretty awful, but some (MADD, ACLU) have a very important role in politics. There are always a variety of interests aligned in any sort of debate like this.
For example, opposing restrictions against pop you would probably see agricultural producers, restaurant and movie theaters, gas stations and convenience stores, some support from cup manufacturers, etc. You would probably see public health groups, some groups of citizens / parents, maybe a group of doctors or dentists, etc be for the restrictions. You might even see some surprising outcomes...you might see Coke / Pepsi's lobbying groups support this, because the law is written to only apply to fountain drinks, and they make far more profit off bottled drinks. That drags in the Teamsters, who see more trucking / distribution jobs because bottled pop takes more trucks. On top of this, you will see some peripheral special interest groups that don't really have a stake either way, but are backing an alliance for benefit in their own battles.
Basically, it's politics. Everyone jockeying for position. If people don't care about an issue, in most cases getting them to care is more important and 'right' than taking unilateral action that may 'fix' the issue at the cost of political capital and goodwill.
In your example, maybe the NYC Public Health group would be better off raising awareness of the problems of diabetes and HFCS to get support behind a tax / ban, rather than enacting it through executive action. Simply banning it may get many people against them who would be reasonable and support them if they did try and drum up support first. Obviously it's not nearly that simple, and sometimes people just aren't going to do the right think unless they are made to...but it's all about finesse. Maybe you cut those corn subsidies for the health benefits, but tell people it's because it's unnecessary spending and deficit.
my right to eat SHIT TONS OF TERRIBLE FUD
is a HUMAN RIGHT
next they will take CHEEZBURGER, and DEEP FRIED CHEESEBURGER, and BACON FRIED DEEP FRIED CHEESEBURGER PIZZA
petition da un
Agreed. It's pretty easy to avoid tobacco, less so to avoid HFCS. That crap is in everything. I didn't really notice until they recently came out with "Pepsi Throwback" and I wanted to know why I liked the taste of it so much better than regular Pepsi, and I got lost in wikipedia for about 4 hours.
they did that too
these were all over the subways for a while
The government totally has the right to do so, but they're still pretty dumb.
A better move would be to really put money behind a nutrition education program, and give people incentives for eating healthy. But that's hard and doesn't let people puff themselves up about teaching fatty how terrible he is so *shrug*
I honestly was pissed John Stewart got the internet all a tizzy on this issue, because I do not think it is bad policy.
Also, low cost restaurants are the primary pusher of you spending 25c more to add 500 calories of insulin-shocking terribleness to your meal. So this policy reduces the number of low-income people succumbing to diabetes, and as a result having high cost health issues that get passed on to the taxpayers.
People say "they can just buy a two liter" or "they will buy two drinks" but seriously? you and I both know they are the outliers, and the overwhelming majority of people will eat their fries, drink their 16 oz soda and choke down their McHorse before moving on to the rest of their day.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Whatever happened to education and positively influencing people to better lifestyles, and giving them a hand in it without restricting something?
Still, of the things to ban, they're banning ridiculously sized sodas. The only people who are going to miss those are people who need a real goddamn intervention. It's just too bad the local government has to do it and not their friends & family.
It was just an example....and bottlers / distributors tend to be relatively local regardless.
I'll also say that I think pop and fast food should have restrictions on advertising. It took a generation plus, but that was a huge part of changing public perception of tobacco. I don't think they nakedly advertise to children like they used to (Pepsi Harrier and Ronald McDonald ads during cartoons spring to mind) but it's still heavily influencing kids.
The biggest problem is that, unlike smoking, people need to eat and drink. Even if you don't drink a lot of pop, most people drink some, sometimes. It's not harmful / addictive in the same way as tobacco, and in moderation nothing is wrong with some fast food / pop.
Pretty much. As other people have said, there aren't going to be hordes of people going across the street to the grocery to get a 2 liter for their meal, since they have a much smaller soda handed to them. They'll drink the smaller soda with their meal and just consume that much less sugar.
And my railing on the corn lobby doesn't mean I think HFCS is worse than sugar, I haven't seen a definitive piece on that yet. The problem is that the cheap price of corn and Big Ag's maneuvers on this front have resulted in HCFS sugar being a low cost food additive to goddamn everything, and people expecting a certain amount of sugar/fullness from every $5 purchase.
It's irrational, but dividing enormous portions of food or drink into several smaller portions will make it more likely for a person to be ashamed of ordering so much. For example, people only buy gigantic servings of popcorn and soda at the movies because gigantic portions are available (and consumers are encouraged to buy them). If you get rid of the oversized portions people won't buy multiple smaller portions to get the same amount of product as they would have before because 1) it isn't as convenient, and 2) carrying around multiple bags of popcorn and cups of soda will make people feel more ashamed than carrying around one tub of popcorn and one large drink.
If mcdonalds wants to sell me a GALLON of soda, and I want to buy it, that is between me and mcdonalds. Big Brother shouldn't burst in through the wall after having subdued the koolaid man to tell me that I'm not allowed to make that purchase because thier lab boys say tea is a healthier alternative.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
Because like it or not you're part of our society and your medical bills end up getting paid by everyone else directly or indirectly.
So when you have a coronary at 35 you're driving up everyone else's insurance costs. Even if you have insurance it drives costs up.
Governments have always had the power to regulate things you can do to yourself. You will never not see a government with this power.
Because choice doesn't exist in a vacuum?
And the institutional effects long term can have deleterious effects on the nation, or target group. Or are you suggesting that there's literally nowhere you think the government should draw the line on peoples ability to make self destructive choices?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bHhCP5ad-zM
Among other things, it's the government's job to ensure the public's health and well being. Among other things, they have the power to regulate food and drugs. There is literally an entire Federal Agency that 'administers' just this, and at state and local levels there are many agencies whose entire responsibility is 'Public Health'.
So it's well within the government's purview to govern this.
Nobody is telling you that you can't go home and drink pop out of a 5-gallon bucket until you pass out from insulin shock. That's your right, I guess.
What the government can do is tell McDonalds that they can't sell pop in a 5-gallon bucket for $.08, because that's detrimental to public health. Same way that McDonalds can't sell you an arsenic burger even if you really, really want it. Or, as a better example, a uncooked hamburger even if it's what you order.
Here's what people do with numbers in regards to a big gulp:
"Hmmm, there are 520g of sugar in this big gulp, and it lists 512 calories from just that sugar. I'll just have 1 big mac, fries and a drink and of course some ketchup and salt, but only 1." Completely ignorant to the fact that besides the calories, the sugar is drastically over the daily, hell even the weekly limit. That's just the sugar, here's the sodium: 91mg in one serving.
How much is one serving? 8 fl oz. How much fluid is in a big gulp? Around 32 fl oz. So there are around 364mg of sodium is just that 1 drink. That's 15% of your recommended daily intake of sodium in a single drink. Coupled with 520g of sugar (enough sugar for 13 days) it's a setup of failure: You are straight up starving your body of proper nutrition and flooding it with utter shit. Your body starts panicking and stores up the sugar because it believes it's being starved, and it believes it needs access to that sugar for later.
Given the information, people know absolutely nothing in context. Like the NYC subway add about 40 packets of sugar is in your soda. Well, how many people who will see that add know how much sugar that actually is? Or what the difference is between raw sugar and refined sugar? Nutritional information/education in the United States is utter bullshit. People know nothing only that for some 40 packets of sugar might be much, so "I'll just pour myself 1 or 2 drinks instead; or I'll drink a few smaller ones instead of the big one."
Good luck trying to couple it with awareness and education. You'll run into heavy resistance trying to raise awareness with labels and ads and pamphlets or whatever from organizations and lobbying groups representing the industry that you are defaming their name and ruining their business and they already have put out the required information. These have deeper pockets and more backing than the tobacco industry and their media arm is stronger. You'll run into even heavier resistance trying to raise the education by some of the very same people and then parents and legislators saying you have no right to tell their kid what's acceptable or not and that it's up to them to decide how to raise and properly teach their kid nutritional information; or that the information you're putting out to try and educate people is straight up wrong because here's a report from this other non-profit independent group that shows that the amount of sugar I'm getting is totally acceptable and mind your own fucking business.
This is why only a ban in my eyes is acceptable. We are reaching a threshold on obesity and it's impacting everything we do, from nutrition, health services and health costs, to markets and things you buy. Obesity is quickly outpacing smoking as the number one preventable death in the United States, but smoking is still the singular fear that strikes people. We ban smoking in public, why can't we start doing executive action to tackle obesity? Why, because it's your weight? It affects everyone even those who aren't obese.
Because you are, in a number of small ways, being tricked into making a decision that is bad for you in every way. You really need to be reading this not as "customers cannot buy too much soda" so much as "McDonalds cannot push excessive soda on customers". You are nowhere near as rational of an actor as you think you are.
Think of it more as protection from a scam. Perhaps not totally malicious, but still along the same lines.
This is my favorite ad campaign. They have them plastered on the back of fucking Pepsi trucks.
but really; banning anything for just being a sub optimal choice is wrong, and it says a lot about how screwed up our government is that it would try to ban large sodas while permitting sales of cancer sticks.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
Cancer sticks that legally cannot be sold to anyone younger than 18, has huge labels warning about the death you will suffer from smoking them, made by companies that are forced to pay for ads out of their own pocket that shows people without voice boxes putting their fake teeth and wigs on that they have to wear because of their product?
Forcing soda sellers to limit the quantity to 16-20 oz is getting off easy compared to what has happened to cigarettes.
Oh, and guess what? Significantly less people are smoking due to these government regulations, and lung cancer / emphysema is on the decline!
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Um, we have restrictions on the sales of cancer sticks. Remember, they're prohibited from advertising specifically to children, they must carry warning labels, you can't sell to minors, etc. But obesity, even though it's outpacing tobacco deaths and is raising the cost of healthcare for everyone, forget the government from intervening.
We've all but obliterated smoking in the US. You can't advertise cigarettes on TV anymore, or on billboards, or in print. You can't smoke in bars and restaurants, and you generally can't smoke in public places that don't have designated areas for smoking. You can still smoke (much like denizens of NYC can still drink godawful soda, only now in less-than-ridiculously-served portions), but the government does its best to discourage you from doing so. And rightly it should: smoking, like consuming large amounts of soda, is hideously bad for you, and should not be done.
The question if soda bans are effective or good policy is another one, but in principal I fully support the states right to regulate personal lives in order to prevent future state expenditure. Especially since it's pretty well proven that education alone doesn't help much with the lower rungs of society.
Holy hyperbole batman!
The government isn't handling any of our decision making. They are eliminating a class of products that are harmful to public health.
Preventing companies sell products that have no benefit, significant downsides, and people are too ignorant to stop purchasing on their is a responsibility of the government. It's the same reason you can't buy radium suppositories.
Additionally, I would be quite happy if the government - rather than banning large volumes of pop - instituted the same policies and regulations on purchase and advertisement that you have on tobacco. Very, very happy. Must be 18? Can't provide to children? No advertising? Works for me.
If I were better at Photoshop, I'd replace them all with a realistic silhouette.