Mns wrote:
The costs of obesity are already in the tens (if not hundreds) of billions per year and its only going to go up. I don't understand between this and the minimum wage debate why people who are against things like welfare are so adamantly opposed to measures that will reduce the need for people to go on welfare (via obesity-related costs or getting paid nothing).
If this had been a ban on SNAP money be spent on junkfood/soda,
which is something Bloomberg wanted the USDA to try in NYC, you'd have a point. Not spending tax dollars to make a problem worse makes sense, but telling people who are spending their own money on Big Gulps (which Bloomberg couldn't even regulate because convenience stores are regulated by the state) is just unnecessary meddling. If I'm going to drink 32 oz. of soda while I stuff my face with Meximelts, I'm either going to do it with one 32. oz cup or I'm going to walk my fat ass back to the soda fountain two or three times with a 12 oz. cup...or if I'm doing it at a regular restaurant, it just means some waiter has to work that much harder keeping my glass full. The ban is a piss-poor idea pragmatically because it doesn't really do anything to curb consumption except make it a minor inconvenience and is an even worse idea politically because no one seems to like it and makes Bloomberg look like some petty tyrant.
Ten years from now all anyone is going to remember about Bloomberg is going to be the soda thing, and it will probably be as much of a joke then as it is now.
Your Pal,
Jubber
