it says, I don't know how to decide for myself and what's good for me, therefore I'll let a paternalistic government do it for me. it also says "I don't know how spell diabeties".
I seems a lot of people have discovered a new word: paternalism. It's difficult to know how this will turn out, but it's my hope that the >16oz soda ban is reinstated. The beverage industry is using the same playbook the tobacco industry used, and they're on the same way down. Public regulation and market intervention are the only evidence-based mechanisms to prevent harm caused by the "unhealthy commodity" industries.
It's not about paternalism -- the ban just raises the price of the same quantity and directs sugar-lovers to 7-ELeven where the big gulp is marketed prominently. Sugary drinks, which are cheap, are favored by low-income consumers, so the ban is really an unfair burden as much as the drinks themselves are an unfair burden -- purveying dangerous low-quality goods to the bottom of the consumer chain.
The mayor's solution is sheer hypocrisy -- it's not a ban, he says, because the consumer can buy multiple servings. That's telling -- it's just a price hike and a support for 7-Eleven, which thrives in a recession. It's all about the revenue. Follow the money, folks.
Whatever the solution for eliminating unhealthy foods, it shouldn't unfairly burden low-income consumers. Take a look at the 6th Street Community Center and its produce co-op. Now that's the kind of effort where a solution should start.
The kidults and adultlescents of course will defend Daddy Bloomberg's sugary drink ban because they're used to mommy and daddy providing and giving them everything. They like to be coddled by helicopter parents or parental figures. And it says "Bloomberg will always love you, as long as you follow my rule."
"Sugary drinks, which are cheap, are favored by low-income consumers, so the ban is really an unfair burden as much as the drinks themselves are an unfair burden."
You just summed up the reason why government should do something to stop what is apparently in irresistable urge of certain people to eat 1 pound of sugar per day in soda. Either that, or tax the &*$#@ out of it until it is more expensive than milk. Water is free. In my poor-ass house growing up, soda was only available when we had company. This is not class warfare. It is regulating stupidity like anything else.
I don't see the analogy with tobacco. Sugar is available everywhere -- candy, cake, cookies and there's sugar in the kitchen at home. And there's the Big Gulp and the giant double liter in the supermarket, so what's the point of this ban? And Orange juice is three times as expensive as soda, so it's not in the same market.
I see the analogy with gasoline. When there's a cheap alternative, it might make sense to push people away from sugar. Right now virtually the entire food industry is marketing cheap sugars.
14 comments:
Someone lusts after a Chinese girl named Qian.
I think it's some sort of romantic math equation or the lyrics to the next Lady Ga Ga song.
Poap Shoots Coke!
I think it's meant to promote Arizona Fruit Punch awareness.
Because crop circles don't work well on cement...
Promoting can art.
it says "I love diabeties."
it says, I don't know how to decide for myself and what's good for me, therefore I'll let a paternalistic government do it for me. it also says "I don't know how spell diabeties".
^^ Arizona Ice Tea inc. loves assholes like you too!
I seems a lot of people have discovered a new word: paternalism. It's difficult to know how this will turn out, but it's my hope that the >16oz soda ban is reinstated. The beverage industry is using the same playbook the tobacco industry used, and they're on the same way down. Public regulation and market intervention are the only evidence-based mechanisms to prevent harm caused by the "unhealthy commodity" industries.
It's not about paternalism -- the ban just raises the price
of the same quantity and directs sugar-lovers to 7-ELeven
where the big gulp is marketed prominently. Sugary drinks,
which are cheap, are favored by low-income consumers, so
the ban is really an unfair burden as much as the drinks
themselves are an unfair burden -- purveying dangerous
low-quality goods to the bottom of the consumer chain.
The mayor's solution is sheer hypocrisy -- it's not a
ban, he says, because the consumer can buy multiple
servings. That's telling -- it's just a price hike and a support for
7-Eleven, which thrives in a recession. It's all about
the revenue. Follow the money, folks.
Whatever the solution for eliminating unhealthy foods,
it shouldn't unfairly burden low-income consumers. Take a
look at the 6th Street Community Center and its produce
co-op. Now that's the kind of effort where a solution
should start.
The kidults and adultlescents of course will defend Daddy Bloomberg's sugary drink ban because they're used to mommy and daddy providing and giving them everything. They like to be coddled by helicopter parents or parental figures. And it says "Bloomberg will always love you, as long as you follow my rule."
"Sugary drinks, which are cheap, are favored by low-income consumers, so the ban is really an unfair burden as much as the drinks themselves are an unfair burden."
You just summed up the reason why government should do something to stop what is apparently in irresistable urge of certain people to eat 1 pound of sugar per day in soda. Either that, or tax the &*$#@ out of it until it is more expensive than milk. Water is free. In my poor-ass house growing up, soda was only available when we had company. This is not class warfare. It is regulating stupidity like anything else.
I don't see the analogy with tobacco. Sugar is available everywhere -- candy, cake, cookies and there's sugar in the kitchen at home. And there's the Big Gulp and the giant double liter in the supermarket, so what's the point of this ban? And Orange juice is three times as expensive as soda, so it's not in the same market.
I see the analogy with gasoline. When there's a cheap alternative, it might make sense to push people away from sugar. Right now virtually the entire food industry is marketing cheap sugars.
Post a Comment