Judge Blocks New York City\\\'s Limits on Big Sugary Drinks

[Charlotte Little]

47. What are you?...

...a fitness trainer, with all the "get a grip," "go for a walk?"

First you shrug your shoulders asking where you made the claims, then you tell me that it's none of my business what people eat. I don't know now what your argument is (just a defense of obesity? Or are you someone who thinks what Bloomberg did was "nannying" New Yorkers?)

I thought (and still do based on this last response) that you're against the law. I think it's a stupid law too, but not because it takes away excessive sizes of sodas, but that it only does it in certain restaurants and not in all convenient stores, etc. I still stand behind my view and argument that we were not born with the right to gorge ourselves to death, especially when it impacts the society as a whole (if you want to move to Siberia and eat/drink yourself into diabetes/stroke/heart attack, etc., go for it). And that is what is happening. I don't have the statistics in front of me and I'm too lazy to go dig them up for you, but diabetes (especially in children) has been and still is on the rise. Unless you want to argue for that to continue, I don't know what the hell you're so worked up over (after all, if you think me worked up, you must be too as you're continuing to counter argue).

And why won't you address my point about how the right of the individual should not trump the good of all? We live in a world of rising health costs - that's a fact. Diabetes has been on the rise and that disease not only can lead to death but it causes all other kinds of health problems, many (most) of which cause a high cost impact to not only the patient but to all of us consumers. There's no way around it. As the costs increase, the insurance companies will continue to pass them along into the system where all of us pay. (To provide a personal example - my uncle lost part of his left leg due to diabetes and just continued right on drinking rum and coke to excess and smoking until he finally died. Many of his medical bills were just "written off" because he had no health insurance at all. Who do you think absorbed those costs?)

So, I have an idea (let me see if this will sit well with you) - I will mind my own business and not "worry" myself or get all "worked up" over what people eat just as long the system changes so that those who develop disorders/diseases/conditions directly related to their unhealthy habits, be it eating, drinking, smoking, inactivity, pay a higher percentage of the premiums where I work. This means, I pay less each month for my insurance fees than the coworker who has not taken care of him/herself and has a disorder/disease/condition because of it. How does that sound?

And if someone can't afford health insurance, how about we just don't treat them at all? How about that? That's fair, don't you think? That a way, the food industry can maintain their "rights" to sell as much junk in as big containers at a "valued price" as they please, and Americans can continue to exercise their rights to buy it, consume it and suffer/die from it. But those of us who don't want to exercise our right to eat/drink ourselves into a state of disease/higher healthcare costs/suffering/death, can choose not to, pay less of the burden in the overall healthcare system, and we all live happily ever after.

Something else to consider - Bloomberg isn't taking away anyone's right to drink all the soda they want. He is just trying to make it a tiny bit less convenient for the poor (who, let's face it, want and will buy in bulk to save what little money they have) and children/teens. That may beg for a whole other argument over what right do we have to tell the poor what they can buy, but in my opinion, it's not the point of this law. And, whether you like Bloomberg or not, he has gotten people to at least think about the notion that we as a nation really don't need to super size the hell out of junk food (or any food for that matter) just because someone did along the way to trick us into paying just a little bit more and now everyone expects it.

Lastly, and sorry to sound like a broken record - but when I was younger (I'm talking the 80's), there were three sizes at most (I'm pretty certain all) restaurants: Small, Medium, Large. There were some places that were "all you can drink," but the cup sizes weren't so big it took two hands to maneuver them. No one suffered. No one was denied any rights.

The silly argument here is not the one for Bloomberg's law, but for the one that champions for the gluttony some humans just can't help themselves from enjoying and for the consequences we all pay when they do.