Critics dismiss the ban as yet another expression of Bloomberg’s nanny-state mentality and as a “feel-good placebo” that’s doomed to fail. They’re right that the ban is blatantly paternalist. But that doesn’t mean it won’t work.posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:25 AM on September 13, 2012 [19 favorites]
It’s true that the ban will be easy to circumvent: if you want to drink thirty-two ounces, you can just buy two sixteen-ounce servings. But Bloomberg’s proposal makes clever use of what economists call “default bias.” If you offer a choice in which one option is seen as a default, most people go for that default option.
My point being we KNOW tobacco kills, and yet I don't recall any limits on its sale, in NY or anywhere.Unless you're under 18, of course.
The possibility that high, long-term intake of carbohydrates that are rapidly absorbed as glucose may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes has been a long-standing controversy. Two main mechanisms have been hypothesized, one mediated by increases in insulin resistance and the other by pancreatic exhaustion as a result of the increased demand for insulin. During the past decade, several lines of evidence have collectively provided strong support for a relation between such diets and diabetes incidence. In animals and in short-term human studies, a high intake of carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (a relative measure of the incremental glucose response per gram of carbohydrate) produced greater insulin resistance than did the intake of low-glycemic-index carbohydrates. In large prospective epidemiologic studies, both the glycemic index and the glycemic load (the glycemic index multiplied by the amount of carbohydrate) of the overall diet have been associated with a greater risk of type 2 diabetes in both men and women. Conversely, a higher intake of cereal fiber has been consistently associated with lower diabetes risk. In diabetic patients, evidence from medium-term studies suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index carbohydrates with a low-glycemic-index forms will improve glycemic control and, among persons treated with insulin, will reduce hypoglycemic episodes. These dietary changes, which can be made by replacing products made with white flour and potatoes with whole-grain, minimally refined cereal products, have also been associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and can be an appropriate component of recommendations for an overall healthy diet.Haven't read it, maybe it's a shit paper, but the part in bold is consistent with what I've read elsewhere from reputable sources. The site you linked to appears to be advocating against a "myth" that has very specific wording and isn't particularly relevant here. Fat shaming is NOT OK, but reducing the intake of soda and similar empty calories is very likely to lower the rate of type 2 diabetes in the affected population.
One of the weirdest things about On Liberty is how hard Mill argues to ban alcohol.I seem to recall that his opposition to it is based on the effect that drunkenness has on others. So from his way of looking at it, a man who was a drunk neglected his duties to his wife and children, which weren't negotiable.
I was reading along this thread more or less undecided until I actually converted the sizes. These complaints are about not being able to buy drinks in 2-pint and 3.5-pint glasses? How on earth did these sizes become standard in America?It's interesting as the "normal" size bottles in shops in England are 500ml. The bigger ones which run to 1l of even 1.5l are labelled "share" sizes, openly saying that you should not be drinking all this by yourself. The 2l bottles in supermarkets are for taking home and teeming out when you want some. I'm a pretty mean pop drinker myself, but drinking a liter or more would take me hours and hours, and I would be pretty sick of the stuff by the end.
A lot of it, also crime, etc. but if I recall correctly he also mentions the health and dissolution of the drunk.He does use the example of drunkenness for why somebody exercising free choice might be reasonably rejected by society. In the way that while you shouldn't have any objections to being around an atheist, for example, you might have good grounds to stay away from drunks.
« Older 80s Muscle!... | According to the Guardian, Goo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Seriously, we get to vote this man out of office in November of 2013. So hopefully, this ban will last all of 10 months.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:12 AM on September 13, 2012 [1 favorite]