Like 'sugar-sweetened' beverages?

[Blitzkommando]

Then you might be interested in a proposal by the Cambridge Public Health Department. They've proposed to one-up New York City's planned size limits on sugary drinks by banning them outright in the city's restaurants. The proposal is rather ambiguous so it's impossible to say if the ban would include coffee, tea, and juice as well given that they all can be sugar-sweetened as well.

http://blitzkommando.com/storage/not-ice-cold-coca-cola.jpg (http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=35515)
Source link in the image.

[BIG OLAF]

Well, I don't live in NYC, so whatever. But, even if they did ban sugary drinks around these parts, that would be okay. I only ever order water in restaurants anyway (you don't fill up fast when you drink water, and can eat more).

[blace]

That would be fine with me, sweetened beverages makes things taste off anyway, although I don't live anywhere close to New York.

[Blitzkommando]

The city in question is Cambridge, you know, that college town in Massachusetts. NYC already has proposed a limit on their sweetened beverage sizes, this is an outright ban of all of them in restaurants.

[Blue-Hawk]

Kind of makes you wonder as to what happened to 'The Land of the Free' and our right to choose as a free people. These proposals are more ways to throw more of our freedoms of choice and rights to do so out the window.

[Mike]

Doesn't beer have sugar in it too?

[.Rusty.]

Doesn't beer have sugar in it too?

Sugar is a ingredient but the yeast eats it all up. Some beers do get sugar added in after that tho.

[Scrub]

The man who stands between me and my mountain dew, stands shortly.

[DoctorShanks]

Meh, I don't care, even if I WAS living there. I mean, sure it tastes good and stuff, but I haven't drank a sugary beverage in months, and I'm proud of myself for doing so. Last time I checked, those drinks provide no nutritional value whatsoever and I therefore approve of this change, especially so if it spreads to other areas.

"I'll just have Water, please."

[FOODFOOD]

Kind of makes you wonder as to what happened to 'The Land of the Free' and our right to choose as a free people. These proposals are more ways to throw more of our freedoms of choice and rights to do so out the window.

I think it's because people are generally stupid. I should know - I live in 2011's "Most Obese Town in the Unites States."

I personally think caffeine is worse than sugar, since it can rip up your throat/stomach, as well as substitute an "upper" drug. However, when I see someone come out of Thorton's with their 64 ounce Mountain Dew mug filled to the brim, I really want to shake them.


PS.... this is in Cambridge. In New York City, they're limiting sugary soft drink portions to only 8 ounces (I believe).

[Outrider]

My brother lives in Cambridge. I'll have to ask him what he thinks about this (though I can probably guess.)

I'd be surprised if this passes. One thing I'm curious about is how specific the 'sugar-sweetened' ban is, since most sodas use high-fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar and diet sodas use artificial sweeteners.

I imagine they're trying to include high-fructose corn syrup (since I think I've heard people refer to it as 'corn sugar'), but I wonder if the intended bill excludes diet sodas.

[Sayara]

If soda co.s had some lobbyists Im sure they're in fullswing to dismiss the bill.

[Blitzkommando]

My brother lives in Cambridge. I'll have to ask him what he thinks about this (though I can probably guess.)

I'd be surprised if this passes. One thing I'm curious about is how specific the 'sugar-sweetened' ban is, since most sodas use high-fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar and diet sodas use artificial sweeteners.

I imagine they're trying to include high-fructose corn syrup (since I think I've heard people refer to it as 'corn sugar'), but I wonder if the intended bill excludes diet sodas.

That's what is so bad about the proposal. The wording is literally 'sugar-sweetened beverages' which could include pretty much anything that isn't water. And, yeah, diet sodas don't have sugar so they, by the wording, would be exempt. I don't know enough about the city workings of Cambridge to form an accurate estimation of the survivability of the proposal, but based on what I know of the city it doesn't suprise me that the proposal has been made.

[Randomness]

My brother lives in Cambridge. I'll have to ask him what he thinks about this (though I can probably guess.)

I'd be surprised if this passes. One thing I'm curious about is how specific the 'sugar-sweetened' ban is, since most sodas use high-fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar and diet sodas use artificial sweeteners.

I imagine they're trying to include high-fructose corn syrup (since I think I've heard people refer to it as 'corn sugar'), but I wonder if the intended bill excludes diet sodas.

They'd probably hit hot chocolate too, because almost all chocolate products use sugar to offset the bitterness of the chocolate...

[Uncle_bob]

Well, I don't live in NYC, so whatever. But, even if they did ban sugary drinks around these parts, that would be okay. I only ever order water in restaurants anyway (you don't fill up fast when you drink water, and can eat more).


That would be fine with me, sweetened beverages makes things taste off anyway, although I don't live anywhere close to New York.


Meh, I don't care, even if I WAS living there. I mean, sure it tastes good and stuff, but I haven't drank a sugary beverage in months, and I'm proud of myself for doing so. Last time I checked, those drinks provide no nutritional value whatsoever and I therefore approve of this change, especially so if it spreads to other areas.

"I'll just have Water, please."


Jesus Christ.

"It doesn't directly have an impact on me, so I don't care!"

You have to realise that not only is this wrong for them to do, but it also sets a very dangerous precedent for other such laws in the future. The government has no business doing this.

Even though this sort of thing may not affect you right now, it very well may do so down the road if these kinds of laws become a trend.

[BIG OLAF]

Even though this sort of thing may not affect you right now, it very well may do so down the road if these kinds of laws become a trend.

Yes, woe is us if they keep putting a limit on unhealthy food and drink.

If it was something that was good for people, then I'd be concerned.

[Mike]

Yes, woe is us if they keep putting a limit on unhealthy food and drink.
Indeed. A government getting to decided what people do with their bodies is always a good thing.

[Peejay]

I think the point he was trying to make is that the government has, is trying to, and will continue trying to encroach upon human rights that were set aside from the very first declarations, like with SOPA and PIPA and all that. It doesn't matter whether it's municipal, provincial, or federal.

But yeah, Sugary drinks needed a punt in the butt anyways. Half the reason for obesity now is probably going to be just people stress-eating anyways, and caffienne itelf doesn't really help that! Good game.

[Xefi]

i have a co-worker here that drinks a liter of coke a day; that's just nuts.
if this law comes over here in Southern Cali, he'll probably cant live without
his sweet drinks. also, he lost about 5 of his teeths...probably gotten too much
cavities from drinking too much coke. that's not going to stop him though as he
still continues drinking a liter a day regardless.

[FOODFOOD]

In case no one read the article....


ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.

This is only for restaurants, so you can still get all the stuff you want at any store.

[.Rusty.]

I thought banning things instead of educating people about a problem was the america way :p

[Randomness]

In case no one read the article....



This is only for restaurants, so you can still get all the stuff you want at any store.

It probably applies to coffee shops and the like too. There's one with really good hot chocolate near my house. I'd hate for someone to pass a law that unintentionally banned them from selling it.

[Xefi]

In case no one read the article....



This is only for restaurants, so you can still get all the stuff you want at any store.

oops, thanks for the info. i totally forgot that this was meant for RESTAURANTS. i must have been day dreaming about FOOD again...f*ck me!

[DoctorShanks]

Jesus Christ.

"It doesn't directly have an impact on me, so I don't care!"

You have to realise that not only is this wrong for them to do, but it also sets a very dangerous precedent for other such laws in the future. The government has no business doing this.

Even though this sort of thing may not affect you right now, it very well may do so down the road if these kinds of laws become a trend.

I believe all three of us had stated we wouldn't give a shit if this DID impact us. And personally I hope this particular law becomes a trend. umad?

[Uncle_bob]

Yes, woe is us if they keep putting a limit on unhealthy food and drink.

If it was something that was good for people, then I'd be concerned.

You're missing the point entirely. Or maybe you actually aren't, which would be more disturbing given the context.


It probably applies to coffee shops and the like too. There's one with really good hot chocolate near my house. I'd hate for someone to pass a law that unintentionally banned them from selling it.

No more hot chocolate for you, and no more business for the coffee shop.


I believe all three of us had stated we wouldn't give a shit if this DID impact us. And personally I hope this particular law becomes a trend. umad?

I didn't mean this particular law would have such an impact on you, but similar laws in the future could if they remain unchecked.

[Randomness]

No more hot chocolate for you, and no more business for the coffee shop.


And when you're in a state with bitterly cold winters (usually - I don't know what the hell happened this last winter), hot chocolate is so nice...

[Mike]

And when you're in a state with bitterly cold winters (usually - I don't know what the hell happened this last winter), hot chocolate is so nice...
Gonna go off topic realy quick and ask if they make your hot chocolate with water or milk.

[amtalx]

America. Freedom.

Nope.

Also, this probably won't pass.

[Kent]

And when you're in a state with bitterly cold winters (usually - I don't know what the hell happened this last winter), hot chocolate is so nice...
This last winter? You mean the one encompassing January of 2011?

Because we didn't have winter this year. Road construction stopped in preparation, then resumed when they realized winter wasn't happening.

[.Rusty.]

I dont think anyone will lose business if it did pass. They will just focus on getting the formula for diet/sugar free stuff closer to the original.

[Blackheart521]

Gonna go off topic realy quick and ask if they make your hot chocolate with water or milk.

A mod derailing a topic? Crap, Paradox PARADOX!!!! :-o

[Kylie]

And, men will begin to carry purses in the masses, as they will find the usefulness in carrying over-sized bags in which to conceal large bottles of soda like the womenfolk have been doing for years. It'll be a fashion revolution.

[Powder Keg]

Cigarettes are still fine, though. Although removed from quite a few public places, this just shows how you can't make this shit up.

8 or so years ago I've been saying that all of these stupid laws people are trying to pass are going to start to slip through in the future--and here they are. I'd really, really hate to see what society is like beyond our time. I guess those growing up in it just won't feel it.

[Zyrusticae]

I'll just say that I'm glad I'm living in Texas.

But I feel for the folks that this sort of idiocy could possibly affect (assuming it actually passes, which I must say seems rather doubtful in the face of its SHEER IDIOCY).

[Sinue_v2]

It's absurd, yeah, but these kinds of laws pass all the fucking time - especially on the local level (which this is). It's business as usual, and if it passes - which I doubt, it'll probably be shortly thereafter repealed (or simply not enforced)... which again, is business as usual. I don't know, maybe it's because lawmakers feel it is their elected duty to... you know... make laws, even wherein no laws/regulation are necessary. Which is worse for a politician... incompetence or impotence? Perhaps it's a personal health agenda of a select few crusaders who have managed to get their ideas to catch on... you know, kind of like Eugenics or Prohibition?

Who knows, the law (if passed) may be a huge success and will meet the societal goals it was designed to accomplish. Maybe it'll even scale up to the national level and improve the nation's health across the board? Or maybe it'll work for Cambridge, yet fail to scale up? Or perhaps the whole fucking thing will implode in their faces? One of the nice things about America is that local governments can enact local laws through their local governments to try out new ideas and see how the local populace reacts. Every township, county, and state is a little governmental experiment lab coming up with new things... both sensible and absurd, that either succeed or fail. You'd be surprised, even, how often it is the absurd ideas which are the ones to succeed.

One thing I do know for sure... although I don't agree with the law, it's not my place to get incensed over it. Being from Indiana, it's none of my business. Maybe if it was enacted in Illinois, Michigan, or Ohio... places with strong economic ties to my local area (thus possibly affecting me)... or like Texas's influence on the contents of the nation's school textbooks, I could muster some concern. Still, I find it disgustingly hypocritical when people bitch and moan and complain about "Big Brother" Federal Government sticking their nose into their business... yet will happily raise their voice in opposition to matters of local governments half a continent away from them.