NYC Plans Ban On `Large` Sugary Drinks [Pic+]

Submitted by: lisalynn 4 years ago

The mayor plans to ban of any deemed "sugary drink" over 16oz anywhere in NY. A step in the right direction, America?
There are 101 comments:
Male 5,811
[quote]punished by the unconstitutional TSA.[/quote]
And here I am taking you less seriously by your blithering ignorance. TSA doesn`t make law dummy. Also, I wasn`t just referring to air travel, if you looked you would have seen me write "by ground or air." I need a passport if I DRIVE into the US from Canada. No TSA there, think before you comment.

[quote]They tell the doctor you are MOST PROBABLY obese from a bad diet and the first thing they tell you to do is to CHANGE YOUR DIET.[/quote]
I feel like I`m arguing with a brick wall. Your proposal that people who are obese through diet pay for their own health care means that doctors would have to PROVE they were eating unhealthy, which they can`t do. If they then tried to make people pay without proof, let the lawsuits commence.

Need me to explain it further?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Don`t be ignorant on purpose, it`s only making me take you less seriously with every post. [/quote]
Well if you thought a little harder you might understand, but if I must I`ll hold your hand and walk you through it.

[quote]How you got from "take personal responsibility" to "blame it on the corporate companies" we will never know.How you got from "take personal responsibility" to "blame it on the corporate companies" we will never know.[/quote]
If companies are complicit in helping you make those choices, especially by sublimiinal means, then effectively they have helped you make the choice and should share cost of health care.

[quote]No, they`re making the right choice for themselves[/quote]
So EVERY choice someone makes about themselves is the right choice? And you say you take me less seriously with every post. Where do you come up with garbage like that?
0
Reply
Female 39
i cant live with out my big drunks :(
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"That a few people perform a terrorist act so all must be punished with requiring passports?"

A few people preform a terrorist act so all must be punished by the unconstitutional TSA. Don`t be ignorant on purpose, it`s only making me take you less seriously with every post.

"can tell a doctor if you are LIKELY obese from bad diet"

They tell the doctor you are MOST PROBABLY obese from a bad diet and the first thing they tell you to do is to CHANGE YOUR DIET. Again, ignorance on purpose, taking you less seriously, etc etc.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"Well if that`s the case, you`re suggesting the drink companies, fast food companies etc. should pay health costs for the people that get fat off of their products."

I don`t know how you came to that asinine conclusion other than that you have absolutely no reading comprehension. If I DON`T want health care to cover obesity, then I want the people making their own conscious bad food decisions to pay for their own medical bills. How you got from "take personal responsibility" to "blame it on the corporate companies" we will never know.

"As it turns out, people ARE too dumb to make the right choice."

No, they`re making the right choice for themselves which may not be what you consider the right choice, which is why they should be punished by taking personal responsibility for the effect their choices have on themselves instead of punishing the majority of people who manage to comprehend moderation.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Oh, and @notorious98: New York smokers ARE on the decline.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Those Taxes on cigarettes BTW patch have done a great job funding organized crime smuggling them accross the border much like the prohibition.[/quote]
True, there is an increased presence of cigarette smuggling, but our smoking rates are on the decline, so overall it`s working. The problem is bigger in the US because state taxes can vary considerably, but that`s a problem for the ATF.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
notorious98: "And look at what taxation has done to cigarettes. Nothing."
Well it has up here.

notorious98: "If you`re not harming anyone else, why is it anyone else`s business what you do to your own body?"

Because you all subsidize their health care.

McGovern: "Before 9/11 you needed a passport to travel many places. Passports have exsisted for ages in many countries. I fail to see the point."

The point is that now EVERYONE needs one, by ground or air, even though a fraction of a percent of people entering your country have terrorist intentions. Sounds pretty clear to me that all are being punished.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Those Taxes on cigarettes BTW patch have done a great job funding organized crime smuggling them accross the border much like the prohibition.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]So you`re saying that a minority of people breaking the law punishes everyone with stricter laws?[/quote]

Gun control.

[quote]That a few people perform a terrorist act so all must be punished with requiring passports? [/quote]

Before 9/11 you needed a passport to travel many places. Passports have exsisted for ages in many countries. I fail to see the point.

[quote]You make me lol.[/quote]
Ignorance is bliss. I can think for myself I don`t need the government involed.
0
Reply
Male 151
@Patchgrabber

And look at what taxation has done to cigarettes. Nothing. People still smoke at the same rates as before. Look at what laws have done to marijuana smokers. Nothing. Over 50% of people in the United States have tried marijuana in their lifetime. Look at what effect laws had during prohibition. Extremely negative consequences while the alcohol market continued to boom and crime rates rose considerably. People are going to do what people want to do. The problem is the lack of freedom to do so. If you`re not harming anyone else, why is it anyone else`s business what you do to your own body?

And there`s plenty wrong with forcing people to pay taxes. But that`s a debate for another time and place.

And the government`s job isn`t to ensure the safety of one person from him/herself.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Because this punishes all for the bad decisions of a few. All the things you stated have a use this tells you how to live.[/quote]

So you`re saying that a minority of people breaking the law punishes everyone with stricter laws?
That a few people perform a terrorist act so all must be punished with requiring passports?

This law also has a purpose, whether or not it will be successful is up for debate though.

You make me lol.
0
Reply
Male 376
It`s funny that people are equating not being allowed to buy the megasize, all sugar/sodium, non-nutritional, 1/4 their caloric intake soda with totalitarianism. Meanwhile in Ethiopia...
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@patchgrabber

Because this punishes all for the bad decisions of a few. All the things you stated have a use this tells you how to live.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]What`s wrong with the beginning of this sentence: "What`s wrong with forcing people to..."[/quote]
I don`t know, let`s try:

What`s wrong with forcing people to...pay taxes?
What`s wrong with forcing people to...obey the law?
What`s wrong with forcing people to...require a passport to enter the country?
What`s wrong with forcing people to...have car insurance?

Need I go on?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote] the millions and millions of people fleeing the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York.[/quote]
Millions and millions? At this rate there will be no one left there...woe, is me!
0
Reply
Male 1,059
What`s wrong with the beginning of this sentence: "What`s wrong with forcing people to..." Are we living in a free country or a Communist dictatorship? I know which one Obama would prefer, but I think I`ll go with freedom, as would the millions and millions of people fleeing the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Up here in Canada we tax the poo out of cigarettes, partially to get people to quit, partially to cover health care costs of smokers. Since soda has zero nutritional value, indeed it is actually bad for you (at least the sugary ones, and if anyone whines about aspertame they should link a study showing its harm or be quiet), why not treat soda the same as cigarettes? Bloomberg already has large cigarette taxes, and a government`s job is to ensure the safety of its people, and since obesity is an epidemic down there, I think that the government is validated in taking a response.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Yes, this is. This is not an advertisement saying BEWARE OF SUGARY DRINKS.[/quote]
Ah, so it has to be a tit-for-tat thing then does it? Well if that`s the case, you`re suggesting the drink companies, fast food companies etc. should pay health costs for the people that get fat off of their products. I thought you were more American than that...

[quote]what you`re implying is that there`s no way to tell the difference between someone with hypothyroidism or diabetes and someone who just eats a ton of crap food.[/quote]
Not what I`m saying really. Tests for cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. can tell a doctor if you are LIKELY obese from bad diet, but since all those symptoms have other causes as well such as genetic makeup and family history, they can`t PROVE you are obese without admission of a bad diet/no exercise. Like I said, I see lawsuits galore if you try to make obese people pay when it may not be their fault.
0
Reply
Male 1,048
The argument about this could never stop. It does conflict. But it`s also necessary. People always want more bang for there buck do they not? It`s all natural. So clearly we need help. some people can`t handle their sugary carbonated concoctions. So you gone and drated it up for everybody else! seriously just blame the fat people..Imagine this at parties haha you have to have a ton of 16 oz. bottles. damn fat people!!
0
Reply
Male 5,413
What`s wrong with forcing people to live healthily. But, what`s wrong with letting people live how they want to?
0
Reply
Male 21
@leesah: As it turns out, people ARE too dumb to make the right choice. Either they need a ban, or jack the prices up to cover the cost to society of their dumb choices.
0
Reply
Female 1,205
I definitely think this is a great idea.
0
Reply
Male 197
They will get around it... They could sell "buy one, get one" 15oz drinks.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"It`s not as black-and-white as you claim it to be."

Yes, this is. This is not an advertisement saying BEWARE OF SUGARY DRINKS. This is a law banning you from having to make that choice altogether, because it assumes you`re too dumb to make what it considers the "correct" one.

"And what are these tests exactly?"

I`m not sure what the exact medical procedures (blood tests, etc) are but what you`re implying is that there`s no way to tell the difference between someone with hypothyroidism or diabetes and someone who just eats a ton of crap food. Which is, of course, absolutely ridiculous, yet here you are implying it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]There are a few medical conditions that cause obesity and they are all very easy to test for. It would be simple to differentiate the fat clogged arteries of a greedy pig and someone suffering a disease they need assistance controlling.[/quote]
And what are these tests exactly? You seem quite confident about them. I see an endless bout of lawsuits if you call people liars, whether they are or not.
You say it`s the government taking away your choice, but what about the companies, grocery stores, etc. that are making you more likely to choose in their favour? There are many ways advertisers can influence your decisions unbeknownst to you. Obviously they aren`t forcing you to do anything, but they`re also stacking the deck. How much advertising are you bombarded with on a daily basis? It`s not as black-and-white as you claim it to be.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"if you people were responsible enough to make your own decisions then your politicians wouldnt have to make laws like this,"

We are responsible enough to make our own decisions, some people make the decision to buy the Big Gulp, but now we don`t have that choice, do we? No, now the only choice we have is what the Democrat has deemed "the right choice".
0
Reply
Male 1,045
@PinkHomicide

It is, unless you`re allergic to phenylalanine.
0
Reply
Female 355
"The measure would not apply to diet sodas" Because aspartame is SO much healthier
0
Reply
Male 4,793
Stupid idea. What will we see fromt his?

Burger with 16 oz drink - $1
Burger with 2 16 oz drinks - $1.25

Waste of cups.
0
Reply
Male 481
Good god would at least one of you please read the article before forming your outspoken opinions about it. At least then you`ll know what to complain about.
0
Reply
Male 151
@Groogle

That`s a stupid ass post. If Pepsi or Coke was only offering those choices, your post would make sense. Since it`s the government dictating to us what we can and can`t buy, it makes no sense at all. It`s the only option, not because free market dictates, but because tyrannical rule does. Stop being a retard.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Is he f**king nuts? That is a ridiculous idea.

Don`t get me wrong, I hate fat people too. I just don`t want to be deprived of my Big Gulp.

I`ve got a better idea. Let`s round up all the fat people and make them wear some kind of tag on their clothing... I don`t know, maybe tattoo a number on them... or something. Then we can ban THEM from big sodas.

No?

OK, I got it! We`ll load them up into railroad box cars and ship them off to "fat" camp.

"Time for your shower, fatty..."
0
Reply
Female 734
so now they will just buy more than one at a time, way to go
0
Reply
Male 2,172
"It`s our decision what we do with our money."

So it`s your decision to buy or not buy the only format that those people are selling / the format that cost you the least per ounces / the format that is the more publicised / the only format left that`s available...

You could always drink water from the tap if you get tired of having to make decisions... but you`re probably just going to buy the bottled version of that so never mind. Act like I said nothing at all.
0
Reply
Male 224
Shaustin, that`s why exactly why laws like this are so ridiculous. Just like more or less every country in the world that isn`t the USA, I think this country is filled to the rafters with idiots. I wish our government would repeal all these laws meant to save people from their own stupidity and let evolution start taking hold again. While they`re at it, lets ban all warning labels too. Sure we might lose the odd kid to a bottle of bleach but hey, lets face it, that kid wasn`t exactly going places was he?
0
Reply
Male 453
Probably a good idea. Except that it tramples on our freakin freedom. Guns for all, Big Gulps for none.
0
Reply
Male 1,832
If you think a step towards fascism is a step in the right direction. The government can`t tell people what they can and can not do to their own bodies. You can`t punish everyone just because most people don`t have self control.
0
Reply
Male 143
Haha love reading comments... americans are so against this! if you people were responsible enough to make your own decisions then your politicians wouldnt have to make laws like this, which can have nothing but positive long term results
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Not only is Bloomberg a Nazi, he`s an arrogant, condescending prick for thinking New Yorkers are too stupid to figure out that they can by 2 drinks.

On the other hand, he might be right. After all, these are the same geniuses who voted for this @$$hole in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 907
As we slide ever closer into becoming a totalitarian state, all for our own good, of course.
0
Reply
Female 735
Dude, let us drink what ever the drat we want. Government`s job is not to force us to live more healthy. It should remind us occasionally that it is bad, but not ban us from doing that which is bad.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
Why should the government be trying to tell people how to live? Period. This is wrong, and in my opinion, unconstitutional.
0
Reply
Male 376
"Some people legitimately exercise and eat healthy but are still overweight."

Unless they have a legitimate medical condition that makes weight loss near impossible, and are eating fewer calories than you burn, they will lose weight. Otherwise, they`re consuming too much. It really is that simple.

@leesah - Soda has no nutritional value and contains roughly 1/10 the amount of calories you need per day (thats one can of coke), so it isn`t a scapegoat. But you`re right. If you want people to change their behavior there need to be consequences for that behavior.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]People will just buy two drinks. Not gonna stop people from over eating. You just aren`t.[/quote]
No, it probably won`t, but their goal here is to make you conscious of how much crap you`re putting into yourself. Most people probably won`t care, unless the restaurants decide to charge extra...
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"I tried telling them that it doesn`t apply to grocery stores which means you can still buy 2 liters but no one listens..."

You`re the one losing out. Do you enjoy not only paying for refills, but paying for an entire new drink? Simply because some mayor has decided that you don`t deserve the right to make your own decisions. People buy the large size because the medium size isn`t enough, right? So now instead of ordering the medium 16oz drink they`re going to buy two 24oz bottles, enabling them to drink 8oz more than they would have originally.

The greatest part is that Starbucks will have to jack up the prices on plain old coffee and tea, but they can sell their sugar and fat packed lattes and cappuccinos in 30oz sizes because they`re "51% milk".
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"If they told the hospital "I never drink soda," what are they going to do?"

There are a few medical conditions that cause obesity and they are all very easy to test for. It would be simple to differentiate the fat clogged arteries of a greedy pig and someone suffering a disease they need assistance controlling.
0
Reply
Male 28
What would stop restaurants from doing a "buy one, get one free" deal with 16 oz. soft drinks?
0
Reply
Male 187
People will just buy two drinks. Not gonna stop people from over eating. You just aren`t.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]You punish people by making them take personal responsibility for their choices, not by scapegoating certain foods. "You`re paying your own self-inflicted obesity bills" will inspire skipping soda for a water bottle instead of the slight inconvenience of buying two drinks.[/quote]
And how exactly would you know if they did it to themselves? If they told the hospital "I never drink soda," what are they going to do? Make everyone who`s fat pay for every problem they can link to obesity?

The problem is that no one wants to take personal responsibility. Everyone wants the freedom to do as they please, but then they complain when health care costs are high. Some people legitimately exercise and eat healthy but are still overweight.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
"There ought to be limits to freedom."

-Dubya
0
Reply
Male 2,630
In the dark, dank back-alleys behind seedy movie theaters of the Big Apple, skulks a most nefarious character- What foul business is he attending? Pushing soul-killing narcotics? No. Selling some young innocent into a degrading life of Prostitution? No.Worse, this dastardly creature of the night... 32ounce soda pop!
Oh, the humanity!
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@penguinazul - Apparently people like to comment on posts without reading the whole thing and/or other comments first. I tried telling them that it doesn`t apply to grocery stores which means you can still buy 2 liters but no one listens...
0
Reply
Male 481
No, it`s alright. Don`t bother reading the article. Just go ahead and go nuts with assumptions and wild speculation. It`s the American way.

I don`t think the idea is terrible, myself. We always want more food and drink than we actually require to be full. `Your eyes are bigger than your stomach` as the old saying goes.

Or you can go to the store and buy a crate of Mountain Dew, No change there.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"but we can`t ignore the effects this has on our health care system and economy."

You punish people by making them take personal responsibility for their choices, not by scapegoating certain foods. "You`re paying your own self-inflicted obesity bills" will inspire skipping soda for a water bottle instead of the slight inconvenience of buying two drinks.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
First they came for the smokers and I said nothing...
0
Reply
Male 658
drat that, soda`s delicious.
0
Reply
Male 376
A new report finds diabetes accounts for nearly $1 out of $4 spent on hospital care.

Diabetes is becoming an epidemic in this country. I don`t like the idea of government regulating what we eat but we can`t ignore the effects this has on our health care system and economy.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
Nanny Bloomberg responds!

"We`ve got to do something. Everybody is wringing their hands saying we`ve got to do something. Well, here is a concrete thing. You can still buy large bottles in stores. But in a restaurant, 16 ounces is the maximum that they would be able to serve in one cup. If you want to order two cups of the same time, that`s fine. It`s your choice. We`re not taking away anybody`s right to do things. ~~~~We`re simply forcing you to understand~~~~ that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup," NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said about his proposal to ban sugary drinks 16oz or larger.


You`re too god damn stupid to make the connection for yourself, we`re simply forcing you to understand!!
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I predicted this years ago. Going after smokers was the tip of the iceberg, now they`re going after `sugary drinks`, next it will be something else you enjoy. This cradle to grave nanny state bullsh|t has to stop.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Where did all the "This is why you`re fat, America" posters go?
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Why has Leesah got a new account?
0
Reply
Male 1,625
[quote]Who the hell rejected that?[/quote]

clearly the politicians who have investments in corn syrup
0
Reply
Female 470
Do you people not read? The ban doesn`t apply to grocery stores.
0
Reply
Male 228
It`s a bad idea. Sure, drinking that much soda is bad for you, but no one should be able to force you to stop.

Now this part of the article: "he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators." That would have been a damn good move. Who the hell rejected that?
0
Reply
Male 528
country for the free they said
america = freedom they said
0
Reply
Male 1,625
all this will do is create more trash from packaging

you take away someone`s 20oz drink and leave them with a 12oz can, they`ll just buy 2 12 oz cans and drink those

and what about parties? are you going to ban 2L? if not, why not just upgrade from 20oz bottles to 2L bottles?
0
Reply
Male 2,143
The Mayor of New York is a Nazi.
0
Reply
Male 2,034
Welcome back, Prohibition.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
Of course I just checked MSNBC and they are all for it.

And if it`s such a good idea why all the loopholes?
0
Reply
Male 3,894
No. This is not a step in the right direction. If you`re a fatass, that`s your own choice and you`re welcome to it. Don`t place restrictions on what people can and can`t sell or buy just because it`s not good for them. They know it`s not good for them. Treat them like adults and allow them to reap the effects of their own choices.
0
Reply
Male 3,578
so i cant buy a 1 lt so no i would just have to get 3 12oz can
that will be very porftable for the bottling company but no help to anyone else
0
Reply
Female 470
No, this is a bad move. Do you really want the government to dictate what you can and cannot drink? If you choose to drink 5 gallons of soda a day, that`s your own damn business and you should have the right to do so. Otherwise, the US (or any other country) won`t be considered a "free country" anymore and they`ll start telling you where to buy your clothes and where to work and where to go to the doctor, etcetcetc.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
Sometimes the triple face palm is necessary.

0
Reply
Female 1,566
"and why the new account just to post this?"

Mods said my submissions from this account weren`t going through reliably so I made that one to submit from. Now I can spam live submission, although I still can`t figure out how that works because it never updates with anything when I check it, I never saw this in there at all. The core of this site has something against me.

"What is happening to our freedom???"

Democrats.
0
Reply
Male 151
Minute Maid OJ per serving (8 oz)

26 carbs, 22 sugars

Coke per serving (8 oz)

27 carbs, 27 sugars

I know that OJ has more nutritional value, but aren`t they both considered sugary drinks? As a diabetic, I know that I can`t really drink either.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
"No, my caption said "Nanny Bloomberg plans ban of any deemed `sugary drink` over 16oz anywhere in NY" but I guess it wasn`t flame baity enough. "

IAB mods changing captions to suit their own agendas? That would never happen :D

and why the new account just to post this?
0
Reply
Male 1,931
The government shouldn`t have any hand in limiting consumer choice. Should they limit corporations ability to drat the consumer? Yes, they certainly should. But they should never limit what the consumer can get, it`s basic liberties.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"A step in the right direction? Are you serious?"

No, my caption said "Nanny Bloomberg plans ban of any deemed `sugary drink` over 16oz anywhere in NY" but I guess it wasn`t flame baity enough.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

I wish I had a gazillion dollars, just so I could afford the lawyers needed to challenge the constitutionality of this stupid law and others like it.

"Freedom" to those idiots means "freedom to choose from our approved list of bahaviors. Deviation from this list is not allowed."
0
Reply
Female 1,566
My first IAB link. My mother would be so proud.
0
Reply
Male 151
@pooptart19

They may hate him, but God damn if he doesn`t get re-elected every time.
0
Reply
Male 148
A step in the right direction? Are you serious? I agree that something needs to be done to try and reduce obesity, but banning large drinks? I really do believe the whole world is just turning into a dictatorship.
0
Reply
Male 151
Bloomberg is going to ban large sugary drinks at restaurants. Nearly all of which have free refills. Good game, Bloomberg. Good game.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Freedom isn`t free! There`s a heavy dratin` fee!
0
Reply
Male 311
Yay, more government telling us what we can and can`t put in our own bodies! More please!
0
Reply
Male 1,008
A step in the right direction? Maybe, if you want/need the govt to do all of your thinking for you.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@McGovern1981 - No, they said it will apply to restaurants/fast food, movie theaters, food carts/vendors, etc. Grocery stores and places like that will be exempt.
0
Reply
Male 662
It`s not a step in the right direction. The government has no right to tell us what size to buy.Yes it is stupid to drink that much soda, but education is key
0
Reply
Male 2,440
It`s no wonder New Yorkers hate this intrusive f#ck.
0
Reply
Male 1,511
They`ll have to put a 1 per person ban too with a registry of soda purchases. Maybe they should make a national soda registration card to keep track of cross-state-line soda purchases.
0
Reply
Male 1,511
This is so stupid. "oh big government save me from myself." What is happening to our freedom???
0
Reply
Male 835
ROFL. Oh wow. WOW. This is awesome. First our food, now drinks, next...? Next? I don`t even wanna think about it.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
So will they ban 2 liter bottles too? God politicians need to get the f**K out of peoples business!
0
Reply
Male 340
No good. People who want to drink that much soda will just buy more containers of it.
0
Reply
Female 4,039
Oh gubbament - this is why I give up on you. So he bans a giant SODA, but you can still buy a 24 ounce milkshake, alcoholic drink, "smoothie", or juice -

THEN he exempts diet soda from the ban. I guess Mayor Bloomberg needs to take a trip to the local grocery store and see all the fatties pushing their carts LOADED TO THE BRIM with diet soda.

I`m sorry, I don`t know what is making people so fat, but it ain`t sugary soda.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Not gonna happen...
0
Reply
Male 37,888

stupid stupid stupid
You cannot legislate stupid.
If people are dumb enough to eat themselves into an early grave, you can`t legislate common sense into them.

Mother: "Oh, no big soda`s... here, have this Milk Shake instead baby, and I`ll buy you an extra cheeseburger to make it up to you."

0
Reply
Male 14,330
This is a step to dictating everything in your life wrong direction.
0
Reply
Male 658
no good. fda just said hfcs isn`t sugar.
0
Reply
Female 2
Link: NYC Plans Ban On `Large` Sugary Drinks [Pic+] [Rate Link] - The mayor plans to ban of any deemed `sugary drink` over 16oz anywhere in NY. A step in the right direction, America?
0
Reply