Comments about ‘Make it a small: N.Y.'s ban on large sodas likely won't take in Utah’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 31 2012 6:23 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Afterglow Fanissimo
Salt Lake City, Utah

Heck no it won't take! We love our freedom and liberties too much to have some Washington burocrat dicatin' what food I eat. Go tea party!

SME
Bountiful, UT

I particularly like the last paragraph with the quote from the U of U student. If you are going to permit alcohol and tobacco, how can you possibly justify eliminating soda. I don't think that nanny state regulations are the correct response.

COGITOERGONIHILSVM
Salt Lake City, Utah

When I see the individuals pictured in the article, I can't help wondering if we Utahns really are the tip of the spear.

toshi1066
OGDEN, UT

I can't see where banning large drinks will teach anyone anything except that they need to buy two or three drink a day instead of one. Which makes the whole notion look less like a Big Brother concern for health and more of a sneaky way for New York to generate tax revenues by the increased sales of smaller drinks.

You really want to get people to lose weight, reward them with something like a reduction in their insurance premiums, but taking away their treats is not a great incentive to improvement.

RG
Buena Vista, VA

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." I always thought that meant death by gunfire in a war for independence, but it may mean death by obesity; nevertheless I agree with Patrick; it is better to have liberty and die than to not have liberty and live. We're on a slippery slope toward a more and more dictatorial government, and it starts with do-gooders like Bloomberg doing things to us "for our own good."

Vince
the boonies, mexico

In Utah the word is-Thou shalt not smoke or drink coffee, but you can drown yourselves is soda pop ,fast food junk, and we all will over look "obesity"! It's hilarious in this state when digesting and accepting health issues also.

JimInSLC
Salt Lake City, UT

A person has a right to destroy their body if they so choose. However, if they exercise that right they should forfeit the right to any future tax payer funded financial assistance for health care costs related to the consequences of doing so. It used to be that we only had one body and we needed to take care of it. We now live in a time when we can get replacement parts installed; If available and can be afforded. Should these people that consume mass quantities of soda ever break a bone, they should not be surprised if it takes forever to mend. Some with this habit/addiction may escape obesity, but osteoporosis is waiting in the wings. There is only one protection from the high cost of health care; Maintain your health through diet and exercise and good judgment to reduce risk of accident. Regarding the latter, YouTube chronicles the idiotic death defying stunts of many numbskulls that appear to think themselves invincible. Death comes to us all, but where is the wisdom in hurrying that day.

BOEING 717
SPANISH FORK, UT

OK, I get that this ban is good at heart. Yes I know I am guilty of drinking too much soda BUT. In a state where one can still smoke or drink beer and just about anything else, I do not understand this one at all. I guess they figure it will cost the party in power less votes and make them look like they care. What is next to be taken away from peoples rights

Linus
Bountiful, UT

The more important issue is the inclusion of addictive substances in the soft drinks, placed there for the purpose of ensuring the daily traffic for the daily fix.

SLC gal
Salt Lake City, UT

So this NYC law bans sodas, but does not have a cap on coffee sizes, nor alcholic drinks. It almost sounds like it's targeting Mormons. Unless we want milk with our jumbo tubs of popcorn at the movie theater. YUCK!!!!

Don Ira
St George, UT

JimInSLC, Right-On.

raybies
Layton, UT

I just don't see this as a solution, mainly because the real cause of overeating has nothing to do with the thing eaten...

But then government really can't fill up that sort of hunger...

milhouse
Atlanta, GA

The New York City ban, if it ever does take effect, is a silly solution to a very real problem. The 100 ounce men listed in the article are using their "freedom," but society pays for it economically through increased medical obligations (public or private, the effect is the same). I end up paying for his soda drinking; how is this liberty?

This is a classic example of an externality, and something ought to be done to ensure that we as a society don't end up paying for the irresponsible choices of others. The typical solution to this is a tax, and a non-linear tax could have the same effect in consumption as a ban on large containers. The revenues could be used to subsidize fruit, reducing the Coke-to-Apple price ratio. People could still get what they want, but they would be paying for it on their own.

Also, I think if Patrick Henry saw that the "liberty" he spoke of was applied to the drinking of sugar water, he might have reconsidered the value of that whole revolution thing.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Don't worry New York. Big Brother and Big Sister are watching out for you. They won't help you get a job, but, they'll make sure you have to make several purchases and pay taxes each time to ensure that you don't get as much sugar.

My guess is, the sugar lobbyists stopped supporting democrats and without the demos pockets getting lined with cash, they decided to penalize the industry. That's the real story.

If government was worried about our health, then they would be giving us tax breaks, so we don't have to work 2-3 jobs to stay afloat. And instead have more time to focus on our health. Why not remove taxes on fresh fruits and vegetables? Why not give tax breaks for gym memberships or purchasing sports equipment? Instead the democrats only line of thought is raise taxes, regulate it, create a government entity. Who cares it's not like it's their money that they're spending....

nobama2012

carman
Wasatch Front, UT

While the proposed large soda ban in NYC is ludicrous on many levels, we do need to educate folks on the huge negative health risks of sugared drinks, particularly in regular, large servings. One major, well-known obesity clinic for children says that if they simply remove sweetened drinks from their patient's diets, that the weight starts to drop off almost immediately.

The biggest problem drinks are: carbonated beverages, sports drinks, fruit juices (don't be suprised with this one - they are just concetrated sugar!), chocolate milk, sweet teas, and frozen drinks (slurpees/smoothies/icees). These drinks are a major contributor to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and gout. And obesity, diabetes and heart disease are three of the largest problems in the U.S. which are lowering life quality, life expectancy and are boosting health costs.

LVIS
Salt Lake City, UT

JimInSLC
Salt Lake City, UT
"However, if they exercise that right they should forfeit the right to any future tax payer funded financial assistance for health care costs related to the consequences of doing so."

milhouse
Atlanta, GA
"...something ought to be done to ensure that we as a society don't end up paying for the irresponsible choices of others."

I agree. But then,let's take those thoughts and apply them across the board. I shouldn't have to pay for the health care of smokers, drinkers, people who ride motorcycles (especially without a helmet), people who don't exercise (should be a government-mandated exercise program, don't you think?), people who overeat (should be a government-mandated 'max calories allowed per day', don't you think?), people who don't wear seatbelts, people who speed, people who 'super-size' at fast-food restaurants, etc.

And at the top of the list would most certainly be sodas, 'cause they are the absolute leading cause of our nation's health issues. And btw--while we're at it, no longer should you be allowed to buy a dozen donuts. Nope, max is 8. 'Cause, you know...

Go Big Blue!!!
Bountiful, UT

I think the positive result from this controversy is that it brings forth a healthy discussion. I love soft drinks but at 50 can start to feel what too much of a good thing is doing to my health. Check out all of the grocery carts next time you are in a grocery store. You are likely to see more 2 liters and cases of soda pop than gallons of milk. Coke is the cheap opium of this generation.

OneAmerican
Idaho Falls, ID

Obesity in America has much more to do with lifestyle changes from active to sedentary, from riding your bike around the neighborhood or playing cops and robbers all day to sitting in front of the TV playing video games or watching movies all day. Technically, it's not sugary sodas that have led to obesity in America, it has been the advent of the PC, X-Box, and Netflix (although gaming systems have attempted to create more physically-engaging games of late). So, you'd think the liberal/RINO response would be to tax the amount of time people spend using sedentary technology...taxing entities would make bank! Now that I've suggested it, just watch it happen...the new bandwith obesity surcharge. They lay awake at night thinking how to control our lives through taxation.

ulvegaard
Medical Lake, Washington

Personally, I don't care for soda and never have -- I simply don't like it. There are also many types of candy that I don't like, and several that I do. We are all individuals with personal likes and dislikes.

Joseph Smith explained on one occasion: "I teach them correct principals and let them govern themselves."

Someone stated here that we need more education regarding food choices, but to simply outlaw things. . . . I find it interesting that if saccharine is thought to cause cancer it's pulled from the market. Alcohol related incidents (drunk driving, etc.) are listed as one of the top killers in America and you'll never hear much of a discussion about pulling it from the shelves. The argument of the government looking out for our best interests just doesn't work.

Give us options and let us choose, and stop making healthy choices the most expensive option.

byu rugby
Crystal Lake, IL

Good to see from the past comments that Utah has it's share of "Nanny State'rs". We should all just sit down and wait for the Government Beaurocrates to tell us what is good for us and how we should live. Why exercise personal responsibility? Just wait for the government. They always know best.

It is OK to kill a baby in the third trimester but, don't you dare drink too much soda!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments