.
March 8th, 2013
10:06 AM ET

Prepping for NYC’s ban on large sugary drinks

By Steve Kastenbaum, CNN

Follow on Twitter: @SKastenbaumCNN

Editor's Note: Listen to the full story in our player above, and join the conversation in our comments section below.

(CNN) – The term 'nanny state' can be heard echoing throughout New York City as the ban on large size sugary soft drink goes into effect next week.

Some businesses are figuring out ways to work around the ban.

[1:08] “What I don’t understand is this, they don’t want me to put a carafe of let’s say tonic or ginger ale, unless it’s diet, out which a carafe is a liter. But I can have ten 16 ounce bottles of it out on the same table,” said Paul Seres who runs the DL Restaurant and Lounge in New York City.

Eric Levine and his family own ten Dallas BBQ restaurants throughout the city. Twenty ounce drinks are popular items on the menu.

[3:17] “It could cost us tens of thousands of dollars for replacing glassware in ten restaurants. We’re not a chain; we’re a family run business. We’re not a large corporation. So it will take effect and we’ll absorb the cost and try not to trickle it down to our customers,” said Levine.

Dunkin Donuts is handing out flyers informing customers that they will still be able to buy some large and extra-large drinks. But, people will have to add their own sugar afterwards.

Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. And listen to CNN Soundwaves on our SoundCloud page.

soundoff (639 Responses)
  1. JJ

    Keep the sugar and ban Bloomberg!

    March 10, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • helenecha

      Oh, gosh! The guy doesn't look like that he is always willing to stay with his party and hold the hopes of his party. Not to mention how stupidly the ban is, because we don't want to see the producers are going to be interfered by the politician.

      March 10, 2013 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • helenecha

      And by the way, If people say the mayor is the dictator, I totally agree.

      March 10, 2013 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
  2. focus on things that count

    I don't see how changing the size of a product makes sense if people are able to purchase multiples. Are they still giving refills? Seriously, can we focus on things that matter more than large sugary drinks. Our government's focuses are off tangent and the people need to wake up and speak up.

    March 10, 2013 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • denim

      Don't worry about it, I'm sure it won't last. The courts will knock it off. Still, Bloomberg. What happened to NYC's mayoral term limit?

      March 10, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
  3. QZ

    I support the ban, becasue ultimately I share the healthcare cost because of sugary drink.

    March 10, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • KC

      You obviously didn't read the article and have no understanding of the issues here. Banning single large size drinks will have ZERO effect when you can buy multiples of smaller sizes or get free refills. Get it?? Now shut your pie hole (before Bloomberg bans the term for being "too sugary" as well).

      March 10, 2013 at 10:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rachelle

        I'm not saying that I support this ban necessarily, but usually people just stick with what ever the "default" is in many situations. It's likely that the average person WILL consume fewer oz overall.

        March 11, 2013 at 10:14 am | Report abuse |
  4. Thinkaboutit

    Im going to be selling 3 liter bottles of sugurary bliss instead of the soon to be legal weed. Thanks Bloomy 🙂 Legal and profitable.

    March 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm | Report abuse |
  5. GUIDO AMBROSI

    new yorkers in the city have become a bunch of lemings, who will have their mayor decide whats best for them. they have become a gutless society who wants the mayor to run their sorry lives.

    March 10, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Report abuse |
  6. IRONY

    Gotta love that irony. We live in NY city. My wife just got back from Target. A woman had a shopping card full of SODA, Oreo's, chips and what not. She paid for it with a food stamp card. Guess SODA IS healthy and important enough for the diet to have the taxpayers subsidize its consumption for the less fortunate. This is the same city that bans it for taxpayers........oh one second..only the city is ruled by the pompous emperor. He ought to have a talk with the federal gov't.

    March 10, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Report abuse |
  7. gottalovedisney

    Actions speak loudly... NYC is willing to stand up and ban sugary drinks... but not prostitution and pornography...

    March 10, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Graeme

      Why would you want pornography to be banned?

      March 10, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • john

        I like my adult pornograpy. The sugary drinks will kill you!

        March 10, 2013 at 9:25 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Meaghan

    Be healthy for yourself- drink water. It's okay to drink something unhealthy once and awhile! Having to add your own sugar could end up in people adding more. -___-
    The key to preventing obesity: make healthy options cheaper and more available. Teach lifestyle over fad dieting.

    March 10, 2013 at 7:53 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Barbara

    Well, Mayor "my way or the highway" Bloomberg has struck again, imposing his will on people. If they really want to help health, why don't they put a restriction on sodium in fast foods? Guess he doesn't have high blood pressure, just gives it to others. This guy is a dictatorial Napoleon pr**k. He makes me sick. Can't wait till he's out of office. Oh, unless he changes the rules so he can have another term.

    March 10, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa

      Why do New Yorkers vote for him?

      March 10, 2013 at 7:46 pm | Report abuse |
  10. reetsarama

    Interesting that Bloomberg is coming down on soda consumption and not alcohol consumption. And what about selling cigarettes? Alcohol and cigarettes have health warnings on the labels and sodas don't. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me!

    March 10, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldesalt

      Alcohol and cigaretts = Tax revenue

      March 10, 2013 at 7:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • john

      I think the idea is to protect our kids from buying the Red Bulls type of drinks that are not regulated but have been connected to a few deaths on our youth, let alone the obesity problem we have.

      March 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Chuck

    Sugary Drinks Ban, you know wine, beer, booze all are higher
    in sugar than soads. Try banning those

    March 10, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldesalt

      Tax revenue

      March 10, 2013 at 7:47 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Barrett

    Where are these coffee shops that add sugar in your coffee for you? In my 68 years of living in California and have drank coffee from just about every chain of restaurant and coffee chain, not one of them ever put sugar (or cream) in my coffee for me nor did any of them ever offer to. Those ingredients were always available for self serve only.

    March 10, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Jon

    Diet drinks are no better. The artificial sweetener is shaped like glucose. (That's why it tastes sweet.) It's water soluable. (That's why the diet soda tastes sweet.) That means it can get into one's bloodstream. Because it's shaped like glucose, the body thinks there is too much sugar in the bloodstream and releases insulin to remove the excess. But it can only remove real glucose. So there won't be enough real sugar in the blood and one will feel hungry and eat too much. The kidneys will have to remove the molecules of fake sugar, which are relatively large and hard on those organs.
    The federal government should require all bottlers to reduce the amount of sugar by small increments and put warnings on diet drinks. It should ban free refills.

    March 10, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Spaz

      Yeah. Sure. We need more regulation for our own good. F the Government.

      March 10, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Report abuse |
  14. George

    98% of the people complaining are over weight, uneducated, and living off of some form of government assistance pay your way and stop passing the bill on those of us who eat right and we would not have to vote people into office to force your fat uncaring tails to eat right!!!

    March 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Logan

      George, you sound like a closet fatty.

      March 10, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • bob cobb

      And you think the insurance companies are going to reduce rates if these types of idiotic laws are enacted, huh? Good luck with that.

      March 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Typical

      Why is there always a "George" in every comment section?

      March 10, 2013 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard Wolford

      George, could you please cite a source for your accusations. "Cause I said so" unfortunately can't be used in this case.

      March 10, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldesalt

      Goerge, you sound like a pompous a$$ whose greatest pleasure in life is using your rowing machine and looking at yourself in the mirror.

      March 10, 2013 at 7:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldesalt

      How about all the government services that those fat tax payers paid that you enjoy but they can't. How about he ones without children that paid to put your kids through school. How about the parks and other recreational sites you visit that many of these handicapped tax payers can't enjoy. Did you serve in the military or did you let some poor fatty take your place. You get my drift. The list could go on and on. Your are obviously just a taker.

      March 10, 2013 at 7:55 pm | Report abuse |
  15. George

    About time I am tired of fat over eating people running up my health insurance sitting back like the don't give a dam while I pay more and more every year for their eating habits! SCUM

    March 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • bad2worse

      What else would you like for the government to do?

      March 10, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rob

        We can start with mandatory sterilization of the obese and then perhaps euthanasia.

        March 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldesalt

      And you're just a perfect model citizen who doesn't do anyhing to impose on society. Get real.

      March 10, 2013 at 7:28 pm | Report abuse |
  16. ironwolf56

    New York City; the US municipality that looks at the idiocy of things in the UK like constant surveillance and cradle-to-grave control of their "subjects" (Brits are not actually citizens, look at their charter) and thinks "hey those are some great ideas!"

    March 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Skip

    This is only an attempt to farm more money out of people who suffer caffeine and sugar addictions!

    Sorry but regulation on this is only going to double these companies profits.

    LET PEOPLE BE FAT!

    People cry about health care cost cus of poor and unhealthy people. How about we have people who are 60lb over their "target weight", target weight is set by what the people in charge thing it should be, and open up power plants powered by fat people running on tread mills
    We can then send the poor to jail, where they can afford to eat better and get much better medical attention then they would ever get outside!
    You can even pay for how much energy they can generate!

    March 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      It doesn't just cost the individual. It also costs the rest of us who try to lead a healthy lifestyle. Because insurance companies can no longer deny at-risk people from health insurance, those costs will be passed onto us.

      Not to mention, there's a difference between enjoying a nice pop, and overdoing it. I love pop, and drink at least one bottle a day. Otherwise I go with tea or water, as it's a healthier alternative.

      In general, yes, it is the people in charge who define what "overweight" is. That, in turn, is usually based on science. 300 pounds is NOT healthy, and it is not OK. It doesn't just cost those individuals, it also costs the rest of us. Unless there is a medical reason as to why you are overweight, those who are overweight should have to pay more for things. They shouldn't be relying on us healthy people to pick up their medical costs.

      March 10, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • oldesalt

        Your problem is not the fat people, it's that you want everyone else to subsidize your medical expenses by buying health insurance and your greedy a$$ is not saving as much as you'd like. If you're so healthy, cancel your health insurance and you'll be way ahead of the game. Problem solved. Keep drinking those sodas everyone.

        March 10, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Nodack

    The dumbest thing I have seen in a long time.

    March 10, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
  19. Paul

    No one needs more than 7 oz.

    March 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nodack

      I suppose next we will ban sugar altogether and there will be the "war on sugar" with Mexican cartels supplying illegal sugar to America with thousands dying every day fighting the war. We could fill our prisons with Snicker junkies.

      March 10, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • George

        That would be a great start bet you and about 98% of the people complaining are over weight, uneducated, and living off of some form of government assistance!!

        March 10, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • samnet45

      Who are you OR the government to say what is enough for us to consume?! Why don't we just give up ALL of our freedoms now? I think as Americans we let the government put the ring in our noses and lead us around as they see fit too much. I can't believe that New Yorkers arent going nuts over this. I don't drink the stuff and this pisses me off!

      March 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Pantheist

    I feel for people who are extremely overweight and I'm sure they would rather not be! BUT, regulating the size of soft drinks isn't doing anything to help the overweight person who eats too much of the wrong food . . . nobody lives on soda alone and soda is NOT the problem, imho! It's fatty, sugary, unhealthy FOOD!

    March 10, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nodack

      It's everything. Your body is a machine that needs fuel. Some people keep filling up even though their body has enough fuel already. Banning large sodas is dumb. So they don't buy a large soda and instead keep ordering lots of smaller ones. Pfft.

      March 10, 2013 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  21. Zev

    Can you buy a lg. 24oz and have it served in two 12 oz. cups? hmm....

    March 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Zev

    OK. So Dunkin Donuts can sell you the large coffee but cannot put the sugar in or they'll be fined. So, how about if they take your money first or better they take your money and hand you the coffee, can you give it back to them for sugar. They should be able to add it since they are no longer selling it? Right?
    I mean how dumb is this?! King Bloomberg will go down as one of the nuttier monarchs to rule.

    March 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
  23. immortaliTEA

    I see a lot of back and fourth on here... if you're a heavy soda drinker your against it, if you're not you're for it. It is a good thing because a nation considered "super fat" obviously has lost its privilege to select their own portions. I don't want to keep paying for health care for the fat with my taxes so by all means lets cut them off!

    March 10, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • jangocat

      "if you're a heavy soda drinker your against it, if you're not you're for it."

      Not true, I don't drink soda. But I have enough common sense to be against the government deciding portion size. Anyone who thinks this will make the slightest difference is a fool. The problem is sedate lifestyles and cutting 4 ounces of soda out of a diet wont make a dent in the problem.

      March 10, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      That argument only holds water IF king bloomberg is going to front the entire cost of the medical bills. If he is not paying the medical tab, then it is unconstitutional to ban large drinks, just like it is unconstitutional to ban cigerettes, pot, and many other things the government has illigally banned.

      March 10, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
  24. JuJuBee

    Taken from CNN article on 1/25/13. Does this mean we have a ban because minorities are obese? And why is 7-11 and other grocery stores exempt?

    "The mayor's office reiterated its commitment to the ban on Wednesday, citing the prevalence of obesity among minorities as one of the very reasons why the ban is needed.

    The obesity crisis impacting the nation, and disproportionately affecting minorities, calls for bold action and we are confident support will grow as more people learn about the unique impact sugary drinks have on this epidemic," said Samantha Levine, a spokeswoman for Mayor Bloomberg.

    In their jointly-filed amicus brief, the NAACP New York State Conference and the Hispanic Federation repeatedly claim that small, minority-owned businesses will suffer from the ban while their much-larger competitors will get a pass.

    The ban will "selectively and unfairly harm small and minority-owned businesses by discriminatorily preventing them from selling large 'sugary beverages' while allowing their large competitors such as 7-11 and grocery stores to carry the banned sugary beverages," according to the brief.

    7-Eleven - manufacturer of perhaps the most iconic oversized drink vessel, the Big Gulp - and other grocery stores and convenience stores will indeed be exempt from the ban, because they are regulated by the state, not the city.

    The uneven implementation of the ban will harm the very businesses that can least afford it, said Hispanic Federation spokesman Jose Davila"

    March 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mr. Roach

      Those sugar drinks are killing a lot of people. It ain't right to see sick children because we [the adults] fail to provide them with appropriate diets. Never mind the corporations' financial interest, it's everubody's future we're talking about here!

      March 10, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • mickey1313

        It is not fair, or legal to punish the majority for the stupidity of the minority. Stop bith nanny government. Government needs to go regulate the banks and other companies wrecking this land, not people who want more pop.

        March 10, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • JuJuBee

        I don't disagree that the sugar content is harmful. The sugar content in juice (orange, apple, etc...) isn't that far off from soda and children drink this every day.

        The better way to go is instead of restricting the size – push for an "awareness" campaign. People won't change their habits merely because you've made the size smaller – they'll just buy two. Instead, educate people as to the dangers of sugar consumption all around – not just in soda. Frankly, it's the sugar in other foods that you don't know about that is more harmful mainly because people don't consider it or it's not called "sugar" – it's called something else. Teach people how to read labels and understand what the terms mean.

        March 10, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
        • Brian

          Or tax the crap out of pop and other sugary drinks... That would work too.

          March 10, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • JoAnMi

        Sugar drinks do not kill anybody! What do you want to do, charge them with manslaughter?!

        They don't pour themselves down your throat, they don't hop onto your platter. You don't have to drink them.

        People are the only one who kill themselves. They chose to drink them, and they wouldn't if they didn't want to. To use obesity as a reason to bring another burden to business owners, and to make government intrusion an everyday reality, is ridiculous.

        March 10, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mr. Roach

      Those sugar drinks are killing a lot of people. It ain't right to see sick children because we [the adults] fail to provide them with appropriate diets. Never mind the corporations' financial interest, it's everybody's future we're talking about here!

      March 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
  25. ted

    Hide your sugary drinks in your stash

    March 10, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
  26. JuJuBee

    I've read this his next target are earbuds.

    March 10, 2013 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
  27. Pablo

    Gee, how do you prepare for a sugary drink ban? Practice drinking water?

    March 10, 2013 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
  28. QZ

    I support the ban.

    March 10, 2013 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
    • alexusf

      Then you are an idiot. When you give up your freedom by choice, you get what you deserve.

      March 10, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      THen you are an evil jack azz, and I hope the king of your state steals a right you love. PR IC K

      March 10, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sugarcane farmer

      The only bigger idiot than you QZ is Bloomberg. I want to meet the first person that gets a summons for carrying a 32oz drink. What a f&@$ing waste of money.

      March 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
  29. billmelater1

    Simple how to fix an out of control mayor. Create a 15.9 Ounce drink.

    March 10, 2013 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Zev

      Love it!

      March 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      Just draw a lien on the 16 oz cup right at 15.9 oz. Problem solved.

      March 10, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
  30. barbara

    It's not just sugary drinks.... diet drinks are just as bad in other ways. It's basically all carbonated beverages that are bad for you.

    March 10, 2013 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
    • billmelater1

      Fine you don't have to drink them then. BUT don't tell me what I can and cannot drink or how much I can drink.

      March 10, 2013 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
  31. barfly

    stay fat america

    March 10, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
    • BaltoPaul

      Stay drunk, barfly!

      March 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
  32. Chris

    Ah! New York City. The greatest PITY in the world.

    March 10, 2013 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
  33. Libs R Liars

    Rapes and crime flourishes in NYC but those evil soda drinks are out. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    March 10, 2013 at 9:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Russell Thayer

      I know this may be difficult for your crude, narrow-minded, conservative mentality to understand, but when companies are able to profit off the suffering, misery, and poor health of others, it tends to make other, more informed individuals angry.

      The same goes for tobacco, alcohol, and fast food companies. They are no better than the average drug dealing peddling meth or crack cocaine on the street. They know their product is addictive, unsafe,and potentially fatal, but their minds are so warped with a profit-seeking mentality that they simply do not care how their products might negatively impact society.

      March 10, 2013 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
      • amity

        While I agree with your sentiments, banning things is never the answer.

        March 10, 2013 at 11:03 am | Report abuse |
      • Ken

        Glad you enjoy being told (ordered) what to eat and drink. Can't wait for the next shoe to drop. And don't even bother with a comeback siting some obviously outrageous comparison cause what this amounts to is an attempt to legislate common sense.

        March 10, 2013 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
      • Greg

        You mean like cars? Idiot. Typical liberal fascism "We know what is best for you." Hey Tom guess what? No one forces you to buy tobacco or extra-large drinks do you understand that? Profit off of suffering and misery? What the hell are you talking about? Larger sizes are cheaper dolt. How many people have died from a Soda overdose? You are comparing large sodas to illegal drugs? Wow man you are a really screwed up individual. You talk about narrow minded people you are too stupid or weak minded to make your own decisions so you want the state do it for you.

        March 10, 2013 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
      • Ethne

        The sad fact is that not every angle of this ban was considered. Now restaurants can no longer serve pitchers of soft drinks to families and they cannot get a two liter bottle with their pizza. Instead, they have to shell out extra money to treat their family. So, in a fact, this ban is contributing to the misery of the populace. Instead of spending the $ 1.69 for a two liter soda, they would have to spend $3 – 4 dollars for a six pack. How is that helping anyone?

        March 10, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • revolting peasant

        People who are commited to harming themselves can just get a refill. Meanwhile, this campaign raises awareness that these drinks are deadly. Our bodies are not designed to take in that much sugar. That's why so many peopel are obese, insulin resistent, and diabetic.

        March 10, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • I don't like hypocritical liberals OR conservatives

        " crude, narrow-minded, conservative mentality"

        you sound pretty crude and narrow-minded to me!

        March 10, 2013 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Libs R Liars

        Why is it liberals always seem to know what is best for everyone else. Shut the hell up already.

        March 10, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sane Person

          Mostly because repubs are idiots.

          March 10, 2013 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • JB in SD

          Yeah, like conservatives NEVER try to impose what's best on anyone else, right? Reproductive health under Republicans SURE IS SAFE. Give me a break.

          March 10, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Report abuse |
  34. Corncop

    Hey, maybe the NYC politicos and NYPD finally have it right! Guns don't kill people, surgary dirnks kill people! Watch out folks! You might get caught packin heat-a 6-pack of coke!

    March 10, 2013 at 9:11 am | Report abuse |
    • BaltoPaul

      If you are in the vicinity of a Big Gulp, it is considered the same as if you drank it.

      March 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Choir Loft

    The mayor is toxic. When are voters of NYC going to get rid of Him.

    March 10, 2013 at 9:02 am | Report abuse |
  36. Rico53

    The gov can`t do this , it`s a clear violation of your civil rights , are you people really going to let them tell you what you can drink? Stand up for your rights.

    March 10, 2013 at 8:55 am | Report abuse |
  37. AesopsRetreat

    Why are the Cowards of New York allowing this ultra-Rich dictator to order them around like Slaves who need to be told what they can or cannot drink? Yessah Massah !

    I had no idea that New Yorkers were such cowardly Pansies. Hey New Jersey, get a load of your competition. hahaha

    March 10, 2013 at 5:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Libs R Liars

      Damn right

      March 10, 2013 at 9:28 am | Report abuse |
  38. North Dallas Don

    Let's ban everything that might be hazardous. Cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, sports, hang gliding, sky diving, snorkeling, boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, Twinkies, soft drinks, fruit punch, jogging, biking, high heels, driving, and anything I left off my list.

    March 10, 2013 at 5:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      To be fair, Twinkies are no more..... Went out of business. 😀

      March 10, 2013 at 8:42 am | Report abuse |
      • J.B.B.

        Haven't you heard? Another company has purchased the Twinkie business: they're coming back! 🙂

        March 10, 2013 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Choir Loft

      You forgot the mayor. He's the most toxic element of them all.
      ***
      but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

      March 10, 2013 at 9:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Lee

      Geez!!! Don't give them anymore ideas!!!

      March 10, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
  39. chan MAc

    makes no sense at all, just like he said people will just order or use more... Why not got after the company's not the freaking people... Oh right,,, corporate America... How can he even get away with this crap.

    March 10, 2013 at 4:50 am | Report abuse |
  40. Mudshark

    Maybe Bloomberg should run for President of Venezuela. There is an opening for a new dictator.

    March 10, 2013 at 4:43 am | Report abuse |
  41. horsehead

    seems to me tobacco and alchohol are far more dangerous and costly to society than sugary drinks, LOL.......this is unbelievable that a gov't would try such a stupid stupid thing without first banning liquor and tobbacco.

    March 10, 2013 at 1:25 am | Report abuse |
  42. William

    If they would ban alcohol then they would be doing something constructive.

    March 10, 2013 at 12:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Jonus Grumby

      You must have missed the part about prohibition.

      March 10, 2013 at 1:09 am | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      Ya because prohibition worked great the first time, ya shmuck. why dont we mega banking bonuses and high risk derivatives markets, that is the stuff killing america.

      March 10, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      As others have pointed out, that worked out so great the first time. Also, you do realize that alcohol actually does have some health benefits, in small quantities. Just like everything else, the problem comes from overindulgence. Overindulgence is indicative of an entirely different problem that stems from societal views and patterns than from the substance itself.

      March 10, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Report abuse |
  43. jasonn13

    I'm more than a little surprised that Bloomie hasn't had to have one of those really large soda bottles surgically removed.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
  44. dutchtown

    Ronald may soon have to move out of new york.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • sandy c

      Remember the movie Demolition Man? where all things that were considered unhealthy were illegal? better get three seashells and start liking taco bell people......

      March 9, 2013 at 10:40 pm | Report abuse |
  45. Doctorstrangeluv

    That's the way your hard-core Commie works ! I can no longer sit back and allow communist indoctrination, communist subversion and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids ... especially my Big Gulp !!!!!

    March 9, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • michael

      Sen.Mcarthy is that you? I thought you were dead!

      March 9, 2013 at 10:18 pm | Report abuse |
  46. newyawka

    Soon after this passes, I am sure there will be dealers selling sodas and such, giving Coke dealer a whole new meaning.

    March 9, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Report abuse |
  47. john

    ...I am glad we have libs to tell us how to live...libs are weakest part of the gene pool..pathetic.

    March 9, 2013 at 7:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • lloyd roberts

      Whoa, like today's conservatives don't tell us how to live. Ban this and ban that. No online gambling for adults, no mature magazines and websites for adults. Banning books, censoring movies. You can drink yourself to death with alcohol, but can't smoke weed at home. Please, the true limited government, less intrusive government conservative is dead replaced by fake conservatives like you. If you want to know about true conservatism, read Reason Magazine or National Review and go to the Cato Institute website instead of listening to false Fox news and calling people names

      March 9, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • dutchtown

        I'll agree with you on weed part,it should be legalized.

        March 9, 2013 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • michael

        Agree. conservative was classically for the conservative use of government. Only have what government and laws are necessary for the operation of the country. Let people otherwise live their lives. Those conservatives are gone from DC now ..too bad.

        March 9, 2013 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Steven M

        Um dude, what are you talking about?. What conservatives have proposed banning dirty magazines or websites lately? Are you insane? If you are going to come on here and smear conservatives, at least be honest and don't make stuff up to try and prove a point. I'm pretty sure it was Tipper Gore who wanted to censor everything.

        Conservatives oppose weed legalization? Try everybody. President Obama is against it; Nancy Pelosi and nearly all CA dems were against it when their state voted on it. Here in Colorado, El Paso County, home to super conservative Colorado Springs, voted to allow it.

        Maybe you should get some education, since it seems that you judge people based off of stereotypes instead of reality. These "conservatives" you talk about simply don't exist, except in your imagination.

        March 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • PheaNiques

      One look at NYC and all the other Lib dominated cities and states, plus One look at all the Religeous Right dominated cities and states, can only lead to one logical outcome...The birth, and 1000 year political domination of the Libertarian Party...

      March 9, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Frank H.

        I think I love you.

        March 10, 2013 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
    • Atremus Kline Coniferious

      you are aware Bloomberg was a Republican when he was elected, yes? Nanny statism coming from both sides, get over your Us Vs. Them nonsense.

      March 9, 2013 at 10:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • PheaNiques

        Being a Republican doesn't make him a Conservative

        March 9, 2013 at 11:23 pm | Report abuse |
        • Atremus Kline Coniferious

          I don't think you know what 'liberal' means so here
          lib·er·al
          /ˈlib(ə)rəl/
          Adjective
          Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
          Noun
          A person of liberal views.
          Synonyms
          generous – bounteous – lavish – bountiful – free
          Bloomberg, not Liberal.
          Making blanket decisions that effect many people is neither 'liberal' nor 'conservative'
          as previously stated, get over your 'Us Vs. Them' mentality, it does not help, it makes things worse.

          March 10, 2013 at 9:41 am | Report abuse |
    • gggg

      You watch too much fox news. Just because someone is socially liberal does not mean they want to control lives or choices. I know many liberals and all of them believe a ban of this sort is stupid. It has zero impact on health and is too easy to work around. Especially nowadays when the free refill on soft drinks is common place. In a restaurant, all this does is cost money on glassware replacement and takes up a servers time bringing more refills. You know for a fact that to save time servers will start bring two or three glasses of the soft drink to the table to each customer who orders one. I think Bloomie is losing it. Sort of an anti-Caligula thing.

      March 10, 2013 at 1:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Kimono Kijiwa

      There are authoritarians of both sides. Kindly criticize the conservatives on your side that are moralistic

      I think taxes on sugary drinks are a far better idea

      March 10, 2013 at 4:48 am | Report abuse |
      • mickey1313

        Nice, a tax on sugar is a tax on the poor, class warfare at its finest. America is disgusting.

        March 10, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
  48. Republican Jesus

    For the millions of gluttonous US citizens that won't take responsibility for their health. Give them an option to participate in strict diet, and exercise and retain access to health care OR tell them that medical care in this country is off limits to them, and there will be no Medicare/food stamps, etc.. There are too many 2 legged hogs in this country, they will ALL get diabetes, have heart/pulminary problems, etc.. They made their choice, let them die as pigs.

    March 9, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      I'm fat, healthy (yes healthy) and happy. With the hate mongering you just wrote, you must be a skrony ugly prune. Your heart is empty, your life must suck and your soul is dog crap..

      March 9, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Republican Jesus

        I get 30 minutes of cardio everyday. I try to eat healthy, feel great, and have no medical conditions. Look, if you can pay for it without government money, knock yourself out. Chase those Ding Dogs with Blatz beer, while sucking on a generic cigarette....I don't care. But, I'm sick and tired of seeing 20 something hogs rolling around WalMart in an electric scooter scooping up ice cream and potato chips, while paying for them with a LINK card.
        This country needs to toughen up and take responsibility for itself...that means YOU FATASSS!

        March 9, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • JACK

          SO YOU WORK OUT AND EAT HEALTHY, ALL THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DIE HEALTHY

          March 9, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hadenuffyet

      It should be my choice , no one else.

      March 9, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Republican Jesus

        As long as I don't have to pay for it, I agree. Look, if people were able to take responsibility for themselves none of this would be necessary. If they can't we can either force them, or remove their ability to usurp costly healthcare resources brought on by their gluttonous, lazy lifestyle.

        March 9, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Integrity.Service.Excellence.

      Jesus preached love and forgiveness. How can you say such things and still use his name?! May He have mercy on your soul...

      March 9, 2013 at 7:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Republican Jesus

        It's called irony....get it. Jesus and republicans being diametrically opposing views on everything.
        Hey, my employer– Integrity Service Professionalism, AKA Illinois State Police.

        March 9, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doctorstrangeluv

      Wow, you're a Christian eh ?

      March 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • revolting peasant

      I think you miss a key point. Most people do not understand how caloric these drinks are and how sugar in these quantities affect their bodies. Moreover, sugar is addictive. Your stupid fat people probably don't realize that the impulses they cannot control are actual chemical additictions. The good news is that you can break the addiction by cutting down on sugar intake. The bad news is that 16oz is still too much.

      March 10, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • BaltoPaul

        No the bad news is that you have to ask your master if you can have a drink, you're a serf.

        March 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      Your name proves your ignorance. Jesus was about the people, your attitude is evil and hope that you burn for it. Next, I may be fat, but say it to my face, you will not like the results, hint, you go to the hospital.

      March 10, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
  49. Laughing

    Fire all of these ridiculous morons and find people who will actually do the work the city needs. Why do we tolerate these wasteful personal projects from out of touch politicians?

    So I can't drink buy an extra large anything that isn't diet but I can still buy a carton of smokes and a fifth of whatever? Did the soda companies not contribute enough to the felons campaigns?

    March 9, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Buzz

    If I understand properly–the ban doesn't limit the amount of soda (or other sugary drink) that you can buy. You may buy as many as you wish, without restriction. All that it does is that it requires the consumer to take note of the amount which is being consumed. Some people–many people–will consume exactly the same amount that they had consumed previously. But is it really so horrible to face the reality that some people may also decide to drink a larger amount of a healthier beverage, or only one can of soda instead of a liter, or only put two packets of sugar into their coffee instead of automatically being served a presweetened six packets? Everyone still gets to make a choice. Everyone still gets to drink whatever beverage they wish. I can't see that my freedom is going to be taken away.

    March 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laughing

      "All that it does is that it requires the consumer to take note of the amount which is being consumed" – we need politicians to REQUIRE us to do that? Next you're server will be asking you to step on a scale, and after calculating your dietary needs based off of a politicians recommendation, you will be served. What's that? You want to choose for yourself... No no, we know what's best for you, enjoy your meal resident number 435678123!

      March 9, 2013 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • Albert Z. Heimer

        They should change the signs entering the state to read: Welcome to "nanNY"

        March 9, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Buzz

        Respectfully–I don't think that the rule is asking the restaurant to judge my weight or anyone else's. I haven't seen any provision that suggests that restaurants are going to cut anyone off. I do think that this is a useful tool in making us aware of what is sometimes mindless consumption. (Were you also alarmed when chains were required to post calorie counts in order to allow us to make a more informed decision before we ordered?) In the end, law or no law, we're all free to eat and drink as much as we wish.

        March 9, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Report abuse |
        • Laughing

          You missed the sarcasm but that's ok, it will be illegal soon and this comment will be changed so it will be safe for everyone to consume regardless of their ability to comprehend it.

          March 9, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
        • Josh

          These decisions are viewed as being mindless, but there is evidence to back up these actions. People consume what is in front of them. It is ingrained in most of us to finish what we have, and if the product is high fat or high sugar, then the biology of our brains and bodies will not protest. On a population level, interventions that seem ridiculous can have major impact. We are just now starting to see the benefit of reduced tobacco campaigns started years ago.

          Companies have been using every strategy in the book to have people consume more and more of their product. The taxpayer and society pick up the tab on obesity, heart disease, and cancer. Preventive efforts are strategic and cost-effective. It seems like non-sense, but a lot of things seem like non-sense to people. Seatbelt laws seemed stupid to a lot of people at one time. Is this nanny state? No, its government implementing a proven tactic to counter a problem plaguing society. People are not changing their behavior in regards to food consumption. If you do not think this is a problem, look at the projected rates and costs of chronic disease in this country for the next 20 years. It's an enormous burden.

          I am glad government is starting to intervene. The free market in this case is a terrible regulator.

          March 10, 2013 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
    • john

      its a slippery slope...since when do we need ANY politician telling us what we can drive, eat, drink, smoke, live....well, if u are a lib u agree with this because u love the nanny state, but most of us love freedom...pompous libs think they know what is best for us peasants.

      March 9, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • revolting peasant

        Their not regulating what you can and cant' eat. They are regulating the container. Government regulates containers all the time.

        March 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • mickey1313

        So, you dont know what liberal means do ya? I know its hard to remember with faux openions being pumped into your tiny gop brain, but here it goes. Liberal means against restrictions. The democrats are no longer liberal, they are the republicans of the 80's, and now the republicans are the nazis.

        March 10, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
  51. Kevin

    It seems to me that this law is already being shot down. It seems like everyone, whether they own a business or not, is against this ordinance. If it isn't the intention they oppose, it's the fact that this is a government-led initiative. If they're OK with the government doing this, then the wording of the law and it's side effects are the problem. I don't see how a piece of legislation can succeed when so many people oppose it. It's an interesting idea but for now it's unworkable and should be either abandoned of altered significantly.

    March 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lou

      Someone or some group needs to sue the City of New York for violation of constitutional rights and freedoms. If it goes far enough, the US Supreme Court will need to weigh-in on its constitutionality. On the face of it, I think it violates our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, today, politicians at all levels – local to Federal – are acting without remembering their oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps they need to change the oaths to read "and I promise to consult the Constitution before bringing any new bill to the legislature – either city, state, or country."

      March 10, 2013 at 1:32 am | Report abuse |
  52. josh rogen

    so once the re-education/fat camps have converted the last holdouts in the US into fit, eco friendly vegans then what? how do we spread our healthy earth friendly lifestyle to other nations? we aren't going to be able to save the earth by converting the US and Europe alone. we'll need to develop renewable sustainable WMD's to keep other nations from harming themselves and our planet.

    March 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Fathater

      You must be fat....

      March 9, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • Fathaters Mom

        I told you to stay off the computer young man. Your grounded from the computer until your 9 years old.
        Wait till your dad gets home, you had better hope he isn't drunk again or he's gonna beat you to an inch of your life.

        March 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • Fathaters moms other son

          But since we live in NYC, he won't be hitting me with a 2 liter coke bottle any more. Thanks for something Bloomie!

          March 10, 2013 at 9:19 am | Report abuse |
  53. Dan

    That's right people, follow your fearless leader Bloomberg, right off the cliff like good sheep. You've just added another nail to your coffins of control.

    That's all its for, control, Bloomberg could care less about your health, it's just that picking sugar drinks was an easy place to start his control agenda on you. Why can't you folks see this?..

    March 9, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
  54. canada

    im laughing at all the angry fat people.... so many fat pig out there thinking its there right to be fat and drain healthcare even more.. sorry fatties you lose!

    March 9, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • cj

      Land of the free...wait till they decide internet access is unhealthy in large amounts.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • sumday

      I'm surprised at the stupidity of your comment. I'm not fat by any means and enjoy these drinks now you are banning me from them or at least forcing me to pay double for them for what reason? Bc someone else might get fat of them or bc you can't control yourself from drinking them without this? When you say you lose fatties all that tells me is YOU need someone to regulate what can eat or drink bc I don't. Yes my eating habits are not vegan yet I'm not fat still you feel like you have the right to infringe on my choices bc either you or others have a problem with it? Sorry but your logic on this matter is quite lacking.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave Seavy

      And I'm laughing at those who don't know the difference between there and their. Yep, there are fat people out and about, and there's also people who spell as though they flunked 3rd grade.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Someone who thinks before posting

      One of the biggest reasons people are overweight (and have diabetes) is because they consume too much corn-syrup and sugars.
      But the big question is WHY do they consume so much.
      Corn syrup is in almost everything people eat.
      Why? Because it is so cheap to produce. And since it's so cheap to make companies that make our food stuffs use it. And they use it A LOT. People then buy those foods because they are cheaper to buy compared to food that is actually good for you.
      Corn syrup and sugars are really not good for you. So why do companies use it. As I said before it is cheap.
      But here is the catch...
      WHY is it so cheap?
      It is so cheap because the US Government taxes people and then take a part of those taxes to give to corn farmers as subsidies.
      They don't give subsidies to farmers who actually grow food that is good for you, but corn farmers get tons of cash for growing corn that is turned into corn syrup and then used in almost everything most people eat making them fatter and sicker.
      And here is the kicker.
      They now want to tax you for eating the food they are promoting.
      That's right first they tax you and give that money to farmers to grow corn. That corn is turned into corn syrup and used in almost all of the cheap food that can be purchased.
      Then when you buy it and eat it they complain that it is making you fat and sick.
      The they tax you again for eating the very same food you were already taxed for to produce it.
      As far as your comment about the healthcare system. Sorry but that is also broke because of the US Government. Google US Healthcare and Richard Nixon. They have published the White House recordings that explain what happened to our healthcare system here in the USA.
      And the next time you feel like complaining about healthcare costs, complain about the real reason you get screwed on your healthcare insurance.
      I'll give you a hint. It not the fat guy sitting a few feet from you and its not because of the guy smoking a cig outside.
      Its all about greed.
      Why else do you think a single aspirin costs $25.00 or more (up to $75 in some hospitals) in some hospitals?
      Or why diapers are $100 each? Maybe it is all the fat smoking newborns.
      Why do 1cc insulin needles cost almost $40 for 100 here in the USA (and that's from a cheap online suppler) When in Canada the same insulin needles cost less than $20? And why is it illegal for people in the USA to buy their medications from Canada?
      Maybe I'm wrong and greed has nothing to do with any of this. And maybe Santa Claus really is real.

      March 9, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • JuJuBee

        Interesting post.

        March 10, 2013 at 12:49 am | Report abuse |
    • patthepatriot

      Hey fake Canada poser, why is it that you had to call people names ? Does that make you feel like a real man ? Your life so bad that you need call names to take the scrutiny off your lousy life ? And to name yourself Canada is such a scummy thing to do as Canadians DONT feel the need to call people Fatty and such just to deflect people away from their crappy life. Too bad you werent near me because I would love to lay a beat down on you for sheer enjoyment.

      March 9, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laughing

      Cool, don't fix the healthcare issue, put one tiny sliver of a proposed fix in place that in reality will do nothing but cost the taxpayers and small business money while real problems don't get solved.

      That's why I'm bothered, and yeah, if people want to be fat and unhealthy, it should be their right, however the cost shouldn't be shared with the rest of us who are healthy.

      March 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Report abuse |
  55. good

    everyone should ban sugary drinks. One step in helping to get rid of obseity

    March 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • josh rogen

      really? how does having to buy 2 – 16oz drinks instead of 1- 32 oz drink do anything but hurt the poor and add to NYC's tax revenue??

      March 9, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • lauren

        The likelihood is that people won't actually buy two 16 oz sodas. This isn't saying you can't have sugary drinks. This is trying to get rid of the "bigger is always better" mentality and encourage people to drink sugar in moderation instead of buying something that they don't necessarily want in the first place because of bigger equals better value marketing.

        March 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      Banning food would be even better then? Why punish everyone instead of only fat people who cannot control themselves. Lot's of people enjoy soft drinks without over-indulging and getting fat.

      March 9, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • BabySing59

      some people need sugar like me. i'm underweight, but if i go so many hours without some sugar, i get the shakes and a headache. this is just the beginning of our government telling us what to eat and what we cannot eat. what is next? where you can live and where you cannot? this is just the beginning of governmental control of every aspect of our lives.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • saganhill

      Because we all know how well prohibition works. Why don't we ban people who want to ban things?

      March 9, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Laughing

        You mean remove all the politicians from office?

        March 9, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laughing

      We should weigh people before they order and if they are outside of a healthy weight, you can only have half a portion, but don't worry, you'll be able to order as many as you want.

      March 9, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Moggie

    I'm getting the shakes from sugar withdrawl already. I am for freedom of choice. However banning large portions may help. Nobody needs to drink a super big gulp size of soda. If its available and the incremental cost of going to a 32 oz. size is 50 cents more, people are more inclined to upsize. I used to drink a can of soda every day but I went cold turkey and I don't really miss soda. I wish I could do that with cookies and cake. Maybe Bloomberg should limit the amount of cookies sold in a package to 6.

    March 9, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • evil_mike

      How many ounces of soda will a 32 ounce container hold after it has been filled with ice? How much soda could a family of 6 drink from a 2 liter container that they ordered from their local pizza hut? To argue the merits of this silly ban is to ignore the bigger picture. This is government out of control... More specifically one man who has lost his head.

      March 9, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laughing

      Don't worry ,it sounds like you in favor of being controlled by the government, not only will you be able to only buy 6 cookies at a time, but you'll be told what color flowers you can plant and what days you can wear plaid.

      Thank God he politicians are here to save us!

      How about this, charge people for health care based off their health issues that are controllable by lifestyle choices. Smoking, eating like he'll and drinking yourself into the grave is perfectly acceptable, just don't others pay for it. I'm healthy, but my premiums are sky-high because of others choices.

      March 9, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      My daughter is allergic to peanuts. Maybe I should get elected to office so I can ban peanuts for everyone

      March 9, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Report abuse |
  57. Laura Harrison

    Way to go Bloomberg! Not sure how wise it is to piss off every New York construction worker but I can't deny sugar and fructose corn syrup is hurting many people, however, what happened to freedom of choice? America the hypocritical, do-gooder's capital of the world.

    March 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anna

      Amen sister. This is so stupid.

      March 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Glenn

      +1

      March 9, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • MyOpinion

      I agree. I don't like seeing our rights restricted like this. And beyond that, banning soda size will do nothing to help with peoples sugar addiction. What a waste of time.

      March 10, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Report abuse |
  58. Tychi

    Next they will ban salt.

    March 9, 2013 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Fathater

      Hey fatties... You can't stop stuffing your mouths, so laws have to help you.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • sumday

        hey dumb butt not everyone is fat from these drinks. I know pleanty of people who drink large amts of soda who are not fat so what is your logic if some people have a problem we have to pass a law to regulate everyone else who doesn't have a problem with it? Exacly what gives you or others the right to force me to obey a laws whose intention has zero bearing on my genes? I could drink 4 large soda's a day and not gain a pound but you think it is exeptable to pass a law to keep me from drinking those soda's bc SOMEONE ELSE might get fat from them?

        March 9, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • saganhill

        You're an idiot.

        March 9, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • patthepatriot

        So does that make you feel like a man ? To call names sitting behind your computer ? Real tough guy huh ? I say your a little pussy who would cry for your momma if confronted by one of those you call names. Little school yard bully bi*ch.

        March 9, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
  59. motionlessinpink

    Are you serious, this is crazy. When did the government gain the right to tell me what I can eat and drink ? The justification for this fascist behavior is that it will decrease health care costs ??? That's insane. How did this bill get passed ? How did this nut get elected ? What's wrong with the people in NYC ? Not only is this a violation of the Constitution and clearly without a productive purpose, but don't these people know all the really bad stuff there is in diet drinks. Artificial sweeteners have been linked to cancer, neurological damage, and kidney damage. And the water in NYC will just flat out kill ya.

    March 9, 2013 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mycenia

      I'm pretty sure the Constitution mentions nothing about limiting the sale of soda... Be irate about a stupid ban, but don't bring the Constitution into it.

      March 9, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • motionlessinpink

        I disagree. I think anytime we are talking about people's rights or the government's ability to create laws or bans we need to consider the documents which set boundaries and state legal definitions. Those documents would include the Constitution. I think I'm more surprised than irate.

        March 9, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Actually, tap water in New York City is some of the cleanest–and best tasting–in the world.

      March 9, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • obesityisadisease

      not what you eat..how much you eat..

      March 9, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      this is the danger zealous liberals pose to freedom they feel they have the right to tell you want you can and cannot do for you won good as they see it. they have a lot in common with Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin. New Yorkers need to vote that meddler out of office ASAP before more freedoms are lost.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Report abuse |
  60. jerpell

    Why does Blooming idiot Bloomberg want complete control over the citizens of New York?

    March 9, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Mycenia

    Why ban them? People will just find ways around it. Instead, tax it into the ground. Make soda as expensive as beer. Make candy an equivalent to cigarettes. People who want it badly enough will still get it. More revenue, less cuts. And the possibility of a slightly healthier population.

    March 9, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • ArchieDeBunker

      And, however you do it, it still represents the government sticking its stupid nose into peoples' private business! The people who are in favor of this kind of thing are dumber than Jessie Jackson – and, brother, THAT'S DUMB!

      March 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mycenia

        I'm not in favor of it. Just saying, if you're going to stick your nose in you might as well make money off it. Bans never work. Price increases sometimes do.

        March 9, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • missy

      Beer really isn't that expensive. Bloomberg needs to get a check or reality. He's not mommy or daddy. He is a mayor. He shold be more concerned with crime in his and other issues. Adults can make choise on their own.

      March 9, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mycenia

        Agreed. Again, I was just wondering about a ban versus a tax. If you're going to meddle at least put it to use.

        March 9, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • advocatusdiaboli

          Typical liberal thinking—tax or ban something to punish everyone instead of addressing only those abusing it.

          March 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • motionlessinpink

      Why ? How is soda in the same category as alcohol ? How is candy in the same category as a documented carcinogen. Since when does the Government have the authority to dictate diet ? The premise is sugary soda is nutritionally bad for people and increases health cost by promoting obesity. Not all soda has the same amount of sugar. This is a consumption per day issue.How do we know how much soda that person has had that day. Diet Soda is not a healthy alternative. Obesity cannot be prevented by banning foods, or taxing foods, or telling people what they can and cannot eat. That's a violation of their basic rights.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
  62. Jeff_JT

    Uh, yes they are. They do it already through the fda. So, come back when you have some truthful info.

    March 9, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • motionlessinpink

      The purpose of the FDA in terms of food is to monitor accuracy of food labeling, police potability of food products, and gather data which is shared with CDC in order control food poisoning related issues. In other words, their job is to make sure food is safe to eat not necessarily healthy to eat.

      March 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
  63. JACK

    WHEN ARE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK GOING TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, THIS GUY ISNT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE MAYOR SINCE THERE IS A TWO TERM LIMIT ON THE JOB, DONT KNOW HOW HE GOT AROUND THAT BUT I BET IT WAS NOT CHEAP

    March 9, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
  64. DL

    Have any of you morons looked at the benefits of not consuming super-sized 2 gallon sugary drinks? NO, you just want your freedom, so fine, go die of diabetes.

    March 9, 2013 at 12:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • JACK

      NOT SURE WHERE YOU LIVE BUT I KNOW OF NO WHERE THAT SERVES TWO GALLON DRINKS, BUT I DO SEE HOW THIS SUBJECT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE MAYOR THAN THE 80% OF NEW YORK CITY HIGH SCHOOL GRADS WHO CANNOT READ

      March 9, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • massbytes

      Kneel to whomever you want to. I don't personally like sugary drinks, but for the state to dictate that! Outrageous.

      March 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      We'd save many more lives immediately by revoking the licenses of people who repeatedly run re lights, text while driving, and DUI.

      March 9, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • motionlessinpink

        Let's ban teenage pregnancy for individuals who have no insurance and no way to support a child. Take a look at the stats on what that does to insurance rates.Some of you are so quick to say that "fat people" can't control themselves and it's costing you money so you want legislation to stop it. OK, I'm sick of paying for fourteen year old girls to have one baby after another because they can't control their behavior. There is no consequence for them, only for society and the child.

        March 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  65. bergus

    do we really have no bigger issues facing us today? what a lack of priorities.

    March 9, 2013 at 11:56 am | Report abuse |
  66. JustaBloombergJoke

    This is just more hype as apparently Bloomberg likes publicity a lot. This is just another BS Bloomberg ban. He says he banned hydrogenated fats in restaurants. How not true. McDonalds, still the biggest chain in New York, has not abandoned the use of hydrogenated fats in its restaurants. If Bloomberg was really trying to help the common man's diet he would enforce his own pretend ban and make McDonalds in New York comply with his fake ban.

    March 9, 2013 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
  67. Jimmie Russells

    What a nanny state. Pathetic.

    March 9, 2013 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
  68. dutchtown

    Bloomberg is filthy rich,this is what rich people worry about.

    March 9, 2013 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
  69. mizzpicklezz

    One Question" How is this going to be enforced? Who is going to enforce this the beverage police?and whose fault is it really that the NYC healthcare system has to deal with obese tourists? The leadership on NYC allowed Times Square to turn into a place with M&M's stores, McDonald's and all kinds of fast food chains are in abundance....Why ban one specific type of beverage container? All Bloombers is doing is creating more garbage and litter. I am with the first guy- get rid of HFCS in the beverages- problem solved...

    March 9, 2013 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
    • timelord7202

      Since companies can regulate themselves, they can regulate customers too – right?

      March 9, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
  70. logikflux

    The answer is in education, not smaller containers. If you want people to consume less soda, they need to know why. People will continue to consume just as much as they want even in smaller containers, some people just don't care. That's why things like deep fried Snickers, and burgers called "The Widow Maker" exist.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
  71. dd

    Vending machines in schools will now be required to serve Bud Light and Marijuana cigarettes. That is the Democrat Way.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      the democrat way would be to send people like you to school...

      March 9, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • jetfuel4

        ya..and like....learn nothing...ya

        March 9, 2013 at 12:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick Bortz

      No one is going to tell me what I can and can't eat except my Doctor.....And even then it's more of a suggestion. Now if you'll excuse me I'll be enjoying my 44 ounce big gulp with wide mouth straw, While eating a triple bacon cheeseburger smothered in brown Gravy and a bucket of fries. while cleaning my scary weapon......with delight knowing that at least as screwed up as the politicians are running our country I can enjoy my soda from any vessel I please. Be it a boot, liter bottle, or between the large breasts of a 23 year old college girl named "Muffy". .........*Gives a one finger salute and takes a drink from his giant soda*

      March 9, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • timelord7202

      I'm a Democrat and am against kiddies having cigs and drinks. You know, trying to spin and lie like that... it's not 1938 anymore, so I recommend you actually get to know people instead of scapegoating them based on outright and outlandish lies.

      Just saying.

      March 9, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
  72. Sean T

    Bloomberg should go F himself in the face

    March 9, 2013 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
  73. are122

    Think it good or bad, Bloomberg is a perfect example of money and power running amok.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
    • Sean T

      Bloomberg is a effing tool. F the liberal agenda

      March 9, 2013 at 10:28 am | Report abuse |
  74. PaulG

    The people of NYC elect these nanny-state anti-freedom politicians. You deserve what you get.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:17 am | Report abuse |
    • NYer

      We do deserve what we get. NYC has the highest life expectancy in the US. Tell that to states like Mississippi who elect their "freedom loving" politicians.

      March 9, 2013 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
      • dutchtown

        Thats not true.according to (aneki.com) clear creek colo.has that honor.New york is the most populated,and most expensive city to live.

        March 9, 2013 at 11:05 am | Report abuse |
  75. Meh

    The cost of soda's been going up for the last year.. upwards of $2 for a 2 liter bottle in the stores. I'm not a fan of NYC water.. and the water used in most fountain drinks is horrid for various reaons. I only buy prepackaged soda so I can reduce the risk of getting poisined by contaminated water. BTW, if you are still a fan of fountain drinks, more vendors can just charge more and offer refills while you drink some or most of the soda there and take one "for the road" so to speak. Nevertheless, YMMV. IMO, the days of soda being consumed in the gazillion gallons worth is numbered. Soda companies seem to know this and keep raising the wholesale price anyway. Oh well, they'll learn sooner or later.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
  76. andersonee

    "If it can save just one life... " our government has gone awol.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
  77. Anthony

    Der Fuhrer has spoken!!! You will not drink sugar, you will not have guns, you will bow down to Der Fuhrer....Heil Bloomberg!!! Heil Blomberg!!!

    March 9, 2013 at 9:44 am | Report abuse |
  78. shayne hawkins

    this is our country. serve it anyway. its not theirs. we put them there. we dont have to listen to them or any corrupt government. period. its only weakness and money that stops you. as you can see obesity is a problem but this is just cause of the cost. not anything else. not caring. it always boils to money in the end.

    March 9, 2013 at 9:39 am | Report abuse |
    • LOL

      You obviously don't seem to care about the rising cost of healthcare.

      March 9, 2013 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
  79. Legal Permit to Carry

    So let me get this straight: New Yorkers are allowed to have a 750ml of alcohol on the table, but not a 750ml of soda?

    March 9, 2013 at 9:33 am | Report abuse |
    • Good job

      You got it straight, yes.

      March 9, 2013 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
  80. NoTags

    What affect does this ban have on my life? None! If the citizens of NYC are tired of this jerk they should elect a new mayor in the next election who will rescind all of Bloomberg's edicts.

    March 9, 2013 at 9:16 am | Report abuse |
  81. Arkmark

    If they can do it with the star wars cast the can do it with Smokey and the bandit ( the living ones anyway not even a new Firebird is available) I can see a run from Hershey PA to some fun fair in NYC with Bloomburg being Buford T justice

    March 9, 2013 at 8:57 am | Report abuse |
  82. Nj

    Does Hitler and Communism ring a bell? Wake up America.

    March 9, 2013 at 8:00 am | Report abuse |
  83. Sam

    Hey, NYC voted this guy into offfice and keeps him there. These are the choices they make. If you can't see by now that this guy has some sort of God complex then you are blind. He has a tremendous amount of cash, a large security force, and is now tickling the edge of oppression. We have seen this picture several times before in other countries. What is really frightening is that the state and federal governments are complicit by either similar (NY SAFE ACT) action or by deliberate non-response.

    March 9, 2013 at 7:28 am | Report abuse |
  84. loreebeeee

    I am not even sure WHY there are such large drinks in the first place. This county has lost all sense of what a serving size actually is.

    March 9, 2013 at 7:22 am | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      You're right that this country is all about gluttony now – consume, consume, consume. We consume a third of all the world's energy and obesity is killing is slowly but surely. However, these are the choices people make and it's not within the auspices of government to limit those choices. This starts a very slipperly slope – if NYC can limit beverages, what next? Will Bloomber decide that cheeseburgers or icecream are bad and outlaw them too?

      March 9, 2013 at 8:04 am | Report abuse |
      • Arkmark

        Its the frog in the pot scenario, if they get away with this then they will just keep turning up the heat until one day it is too late . At least the people still have the option to vote with their feet

        March 9, 2013 at 9:00 am | Report abuse |
    • evil_mike

      That is not the point. This is the mayor of a city telling its citizens that they no longer have the choice, then telling them it is for their own good. Whether or not you understand someone's desire for a larger drink container than you would buy does not matter. Don't you tire of one man telling you what you do or do not "need", then using the police power of government to force a ban of it? I, for one, happen to like a lot of ice in my soda, which requires a container somewhat larger than 16 ounces in order for me to receive the now legal 16 ounces of soda. Now that choice has been taken away from me. But Nanny Bloomberg did not consider this.

      March 9, 2013 at 8:05 am | Report abuse |
      • Legal Permit to Carry

        He didn't pass the ban all by himself. It's like a turtle on a fence post –he had help.

        March 9, 2013 at 9:22 am | Report abuse |
        • evil_mike

          He passed the ban with the help of his hand-picked health department. This issue was not put to the public nor even the city council for a vote. So yes, he pretty much did it by himself.

          March 9, 2013 at 9:38 am | Report abuse |
    • s

      i don't understand ppl who get them to drink all by themselves in one sitting, but for us, it's a matter of convenience. generally, when i get one of these sort of overly large drinks, it's to share with my daughter; it's one less cup to carry around, i don't have to worry that she'll spill, i carry it; i don't have to worry she'll suck down the whole thing by herself, she has to ask me for it when she wants a drink, i can monitor her intake without being a tyrant, she thinks she's got the better end of the deal, she doesn't have to carry it and can run around flapping her arms if she wants, lol. we don't buy soda to have at home, but i will occasionally get a super-sized beverage when we're out and about, usually sweet tea, and take it home. half today, half tomorrow, and my sweet tooth has been sated, without having a 2 liter or a 12 pack sitting there testing my will, lol. no, it's not healthy to have 4 or 5 of these 20 oz., or larger, drinks in a day, but how many ppl are doing that anyway? ppl are going home and gurgling thru multiple 2 liters, banning 20 oz cups from some public venues helps them how? the whole thing is just silly; there are people who DO drink way too much soda, and banning these drinks, and only in certain venues on top of that, isn't going to stop them, and the problem with ppl who are obese strictly due to diet is that they eat/drink too much of EVERYTHING, not just sugary drinks. the kind of ppl who snarf down a couple-three 20 oz. sodas on an outing are not going home and drinking water, they've got a stockpile of sugary garbage drinks at home, and if they really want to drink a total of 60, 70, 80 oz of soda in one sitting, they'll just buy more of the smaller sized drinks. how does this ban stop obese ppl from drinking as much soda as they want? all it does is make them buy more of the smaller sized ones. for those of us who want it to share amongst 2 or 3 ppl, like we do, we're crap out of luck, now we have to buy 3 drinks where we would have only needed one. 2 or 3 cups to wash/toss out rather than one.

      March 9, 2013 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
  85. Tom

    maybe that's why NYC cops can't shoot straight – too jittery from all the sugar. Nice job again Bloomberg -can't stop people from getting pushed on to subway tracks but will try to monitor sugar intake. NYC is turning into a police state.

    March 9, 2013 at 6:47 am | Report abuse |
  86. Lem

    How wonderful. Big government at it again.

    They are basically telling the people that they are too dumb to make their own decisions, therefore they have to step it and decide/think for you.

    It's an awesome direction we are heading, folks.

    March 9, 2013 at 6:47 am | Report abuse |
    • timelord7202

      See my responses below; think through the big picture of costs and benefits and to whom is benefiting. If you think government is as dumb as you claim, I don't think you're right. Given the loophole in the law, it's more likely a law pushed through by a lobbying industry that will cash in on the law being enacted.

      So how much does one 32oz drink cost?

      How much do two 16oz drinks cost? More? What a surprise...

      March 9, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
  87. john

    The true story here will be seen next election cycle. Are the sheep in New York dumb enough to re-elect this guy or will they toss him out of office for telling them what they can and cannot drink?

    March 9, 2013 at 6:39 am | Report abuse |
    • evil_mike

      It is unlikely that he will be able to extend the legal term limit a second time and run for a 4th term.

      March 9, 2013 at 8:15 am | Report abuse |
    • s

      oh, you didn't hear? bloomberg now backs term limits. he was only in favor of extending term limits for himself. i believe it's june or july of this year, isn't it, when the election is? have to see how it goes.

      March 9, 2013 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
  88. BigToe

    How many will be saved by this???? L.M.F.A.O.

    March 9, 2013 at 5:17 am | Report abuse |
  89. Let It Be

    Glad I don't live in a city like NYC. I wouldn't miss the drinks, I would miss the freedom to choose. Feel sorry for you folks...this is only the beginning.

    March 9, 2013 at 4:03 am | Report abuse |
  90. îvy

    What needs 2 be done is have a couple of citizians start petitions in resaurants/store/voters being affected by this & you will see how fast the ban gets repealed. Do we no longer have the right to life a live of freedom tyto do what we want as long as it does not affect another. If our forefathers where to see hear this they would cry revolution. SAD

    March 9, 2013 at 2:13 am | Report abuse |
    • timelord7202

      Charming words.

      I'll believe it the day labor is valued again. Since our pay determines much freedom we have.

      March 9, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
  91. îvy

    This is just the begininng of government rule, its no longer what the people want it what politicians & their coporate freinds want. So how little moms/pop store/restaurants loss out while franchises make the money . I would like to know when the people (citizians) vote for this ban are we njot in America where we vote for things before there passed into law. I say this bcause I know my represtative sure is not speaking for me. I must be dreaming that I'm in a communist country where I'm told what to do & told to shut up or die it must be a dream WAKE UP CITIZIANS OF AMERICA YOUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKE SLOWLY & SURELY.

    March 9, 2013 at 2:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Legal Permit to Carry

      This isn't the start of it by any means. This has been going on for decades! It's just that this is a obvious case to both parties.

      The biggest lobbyists for the smoking ban was the Johnson & Johnson, who coincidentally, is the maker of nicotine gum... And there is no doubt that smoking is horrible, but it's the fact that the government banned smoking in public for a constituent, not for the common good, which has been adopted by almost all the states now... More to come!

      March 9, 2013 at 9:27 am | Report abuse |
  92. wgaw345q234

    someone please shoot bloomberg already and end this joke

    March 9, 2013 at 1:46 am | Report abuse |
    • timelord7202

      Apart from your cowardice, what you said is an act of treason and is a terroristic threat.

      March 9, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
  93. North Dallas Don

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg has no business referring to himself as an American. He is of the ilk of the most facist leaders in world history. He and Donald Trump are a good reasons why too much money going to too few people is a horrible idea.

    March 9, 2013 at 1:38 am | Report abuse |
  94. The_Mick

    Next they're going to ban eating candy bars in less than 10 bites. It will end up saving about the same number of consumed calories.

    March 9, 2013 at 1:32 am | Report abuse |
  95. Capone

    I understand the desire to get people to make healthier choices, but this will have no effect on that.

    People can still drink as much soda as they want, they just have to have it in more containers. Instead of getting a 32oz soda in one cup, you have to get it split into 2 separate cups. What, exactly, has been accomplished other than increasing the amount of trash and litter?

    You can't force people to live a healthy lifestyle. You can certainly encourage it. You can reward it. You can provide the necessary information and resources for people to do it. But you can't force them into it.

    "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

    March 9, 2013 at 1:24 am | Report abuse |
    • timelord7202

      As I indicated below, perhaps what you say is the point? The smaller sized versions cost more money to the customer. The law seems woolly at best, and when fathoming who stands to gain the most... but I'm wearing one of those neat and shiny aluminum foil hats again. 😀

      March 9, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
  96. Beefburger

    We get all the government that we deserve.

    March 9, 2013 at 12:38 am | Report abuse |
    • timelord7202

      And we have the best government that money can buy 🙂

      After all, by limiting larger sizes, people will buy more of the smaller sizes... I'm no economist, but the larger sizes usually cost less than buying multiple quantities of the smaller size (1x32oz vs 2x16oz.) And some people are saying they or others will buy more of the smaller size, yippie skippie.

      Seems like a win for the soft drink companies, surely?

      March 9, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
  97. Evan

    Eh. It will be repealed shortly just like the smoking in parks ban was.

    March 8, 2013 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Legal Permit to Carry

      wishful thinking...

      March 9, 2013 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
  98. Tommygun

    I'm not a New Yorker and I don't know if you have to pay for refills up there or if this bans refills. But just refill the drink its that simple.

    March 8, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • evil_mike

      It would seem difficult to refill a bottle of soda that one orders as part of a pizza delivery.

      March 9, 2013 at 8:19 am | Report abuse |
  99. thelunarnote

    This whole thing smelled funny to me from the get go when Lord Mayor Dipshit was on some Morning News program about a month or so back talking about this. His remedy for you if you want more than 16oz is to go buy another 16oz bottle. I'd check this guy's stock portfolio!!

    Secondly, 90% of the fast food places in this country offer free refills when eating at their business, so how and who is this thing effecting other than retailers?? Oh! and this only effects any establishment considered an eatery or restaurant....you can still get yr fix with a Super Big Gulp at 7-11.

    March 8, 2013 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3