Massachusetts City Considers Ban On Large Sodas At Restaurants

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has found an ally in his battle against sugary soft drinks, as the mayor of Cambridge, Mass., announced last night that she’s also considering a ban on large sodas served at the city’s restaurants.

“It seems like the way we have to go is look at the environment, look at the temptations that are out there for people,” Mayor Henrietta Davis, who mentioned the plan at last night’s city council meeting, explains to WBZ NewsRadio 1030. “See if that can be easier on all of us by not having bottomless pits of soda.”

The mayor did not go into any specifics on the ban, other than to say it would be similar to what’s been proposed in NYC, where any food establishment regulated by the city’s health department — restaurants, theaters, delis — would not be allowed to sell drinks larger than 16 oz. if they contain more than 25 calories per 8 oz.

“Banning smoking in the workplace, and banning smoking in playgrounds, all those kinds of things have been helpful to everyone,” said Mayor Davis.

Cambridge Considering Ban On Sale Of Large Soda At Restaurants [WBZ]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Torgonius wants an edit button says:

    Big Daddy Gubmint to da rescue!!!!!!!!

    • Jawaka says:

      Judging by all the fatties I see on a daily basis it looks like we need a Big Daddy.

      • Torgonius wants an edit button says:

        So you want to control how other people live their lives? How cool.

        Do you also serve on the board of an HOA, by chance?

        • Driblis says:

          Yeah the government can’t control how I live MY life. So what if the way I want to live is stomping on babies? Get your laws off my baby stomping feet!

          Idiot. There’s all kinds of laws that restrict behavior. They’re in the broad set called “All Laws”. Yeah, maybe this one is restricting something you don’t agree with. Get over it or do something about it.

          • Zowzers says:

            first off, reductio ad ridiculum arguments are a bad way to try and win a debate.

            And second, this is a bad law because it will be totally ineffectual as to how much people consume. Free refills come to mind…

            so why back a pointless law?

            • Driblis says:

              You know what, you’re right. I’m in a bad mood and I don’t like people implying that laws shouldn’t be allowed to forbid behavior.

              Sorry for the idiot post, everyone. I’m going to shut up from now on when I’m in a foul mood.

          • Bladerunner says:

            Wouldn’t vociferously condemning it be “doing something”?

            Also, I think the real gist and complaint against the law is that it restricts freedoms and for no good reason, as opposed to stomping babies legislation.

          • dush says:

            You’re actually equating a violent act against another human to freely purchasing a legal product? Are you ok in the head?

          • Cerne says:

            Tell me is it difficult to function in everyday that life when your so stupid? Baby stomping effects others, drinking soda doesn’t.

        • Jawaka says:

          I’d be just as fine with not having to pay taxes that go towards fat people’s medicare and medicade if that’s an option.

          • frank64 says:

            I kind of get your sentiments about not wanting to pay for others peoples unhealthy habits, the huge problem with that is it opens the door for the government having almost total control over what we do. Most everything affects our health. And as I an others have posted, there are many worse things that we can buy in restaurants than soda. Should all of those be banned? If not how can you advocate for the lesser of the evils be banned and not the other worse things?

            • bluline says:

              Should riding a motorcycle be banned? How about mountain climbing without a safety harness? Water skiing? Skydiving? Cycling? Crossing the street without looking both ways? Swimming within an hour of eating? Using power tools without safety glasses? Climbing stairs without using the railing? The list is endless.

          • Maximus Pectoralis says:

            Alright, that’s fine as long as my tax dollars don’t go to pay welfare checks for drug dealers, gang members, people who don’t feel like working and other degenerates.

      • Matthew PK says:

        How about we ban motorcycles? Or all cars that go over 65?

        • Jawaka says:

          I’ve always thought that it was silly that cars were designed to go 100+mph when speed limits were generally 65-75ish. I’d have no problem at all if they designed cars to only go 70.

      • 99 1/2 Days says:

        But it’s wrong when the right wingers ban porn shops for our own good, right…?

  2. caradrake says:

    Have you seen the sizes of fountain drinks these days? A ‘large’ these days used to be a medium or a small a few years ago. Every time I go to BK and ask for a drink, I have to double check with “I ordered a small, not a large…” and be told that what I got was actually a small (shows how frequently I go there).

    So ban ‘large’ drinks. Customers can still do unlimited refills, or buy extra sodas.

    • mbz32190 says:

      Agreed. Fountain drinks are ridiculous. I ordered a “medium” combo at Wendy’s a few days ago and I could barely squeeze the cup in the cup holder (older car, but still..). I drank maybe half of that. I personally still can’t see how someone can finish any liquid in that quantity or larger…

      • chefboyardee says:

        Yeah, we should definitely all change our habits because you don’t understand how to order the amount you’re going to drink.

        • crispyduck13 says:

          Seriously? This happens to me whenever I order a combo at a drivethrough (which is very infrequent). In my mind I have an idea of what a medium fountain drink cup looks like but more often than not a “medium” is my mind’s idea of a “large.”

          I also fail to understand how a person can physically consume that amount of liquid in, say an hour’s time.

          • Platypi {Redacted} says:

            Different strokes for different folks. I admit I have a bit of a Diet Coke thing. I don’t smoke, drink, gamble, womanize, etc, so I will take that one vice. But 12 oz of soda is a warmup for me. I like a nice “Big Coke” for work or whatever, and can hammer a 44 oz drink in an hour or so, no problem. Just because someone else can’t imagine drinking til you slosh, doesn’t mean you should tell me I can’t!

            Where does it stop? I can’t imagine anyone actually eating Indian food, because I don’t like it and food makes you fat. So let’s ban it!

            • crispyduck13 says:

              I agree that banning drinks or foods is stupid, and government shouldn’t do it if the only one you’re hurting is your damn self. I was more responding to chefboyardee’s comment about understanding “how to order the amount you’re going to drink.”

            • Bagels says:

              i can hammer through 44oz pretty quick too when it has a 1/2 pint of vodka added

          • tralfaz says:

            Rest assured that you’d die of dehydration if you lived here.

            Most people don’t drink enough liquids. If your pee isn’t basically colorless, you don’t drink enough.

            • exit322 says:

              That’s why I now rock the 32-ounce hospital mug to fill up at the water cooler. Today I’m on pace to plow through three of those.

              Coincidentally, it’s also why it takes me what feels like 3 minutes to pee now, too.

      • frankrizzo:You're locked up in here with me. says:

        It just depends on the person. For years I had to hydrate during workouts, practices or games. Even today on a 90degree day like last Saturday I can down three 20 oz bottles of water in a couple of minutes.

        Of course I was the anchor on our beer relay team, too.

    • Bladerunner says:

      Disagreed. You have to give a better reason than your own preference when you start telling people what they are or are not allowed to buy.

      • caradrake says:

        What I was trying to suggest with my last line was that this wouldn’t actually help. You can say you’re banning large drinks, but customers will get around it by doing other things. So it’s a waste of time/money/litigation.

        True, it likely shouldn’t pass at all. But if it does, I don’t see it succeeding – either the establishment or the consumer will find alternative means.

    • Coffee says:

      Hmmm…I understand your sentiment, but are you sure that drink sizes have really changed much in the last couple years? When I was a teenager fifteen years ago, 7-11s still had 32-oz, 64-oz, and maybe even the 128-oz monster that they have now. When I went to Burger King back then, I can’t even recall if they sold a small soda…I think their only sizes were medium, large, and extra large. Today, if I go to Wendy’s, I order a soda off the value menu and it can’t be more than 16 ounces, with ice.

      I’m not trying to be argumentative here, only pointing out that it’s quite possible that our tendency to assume that everything is getting bigger all the time may not be true.

      • Alan says:

        I’ll agree with Caradrake on this one. seems like all the fast food places moved up a size. I worked fastfood 10-15 years ago and what a small is now, was a medium back then. When you now order a combo and get a medium… you get the large size. And if you order a large, you got the supersized size.

        • Coffee says:

          That’s a reasonable response…I really don’t have a perfect recall of how much soda I got “back then”…I always felt like it was plenty, though.

          • Eicherweiss says:

            It’s true. When I was a teenager working at a fast food place in the mid-90s, a Small was 16 fl oz, a Medium was 20 fl oz, and a Large was 32 oz. I remember when 44 fl oz was introduced as a Super Size. Nowadays, Small, Medium, and Large have been bumped up to 20, 32, and 44 fl oz, respectively. I wonder if 16 fl oz is still sold, but now as a kids’ size.

        • Bladerunner says:

          That’s not true at McDonald’s at least. Their large may be bigger (don’t know for sure), but it’s definitely not the same size as the “supersized”, a size they got rid of because of public pressure. The supersize was one of those cups that has a narrow base then abruptly swings out after the cupholder, the current large does not, and at least appears to me to be the same size as 10 years ago when I worked fast food.

      • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

        Ahhhh the 7-11 “Bladder Burster” those were the days. The problem was getting a full 128 ounce Dew’sky and having it cold. Wouldn’t want to dilute it with ice.

        Can’t we just switch over the city water system to Mountain Dew?

        Our form of government has some systemic flaws. The nanny creepage like this is one of the issues that need to be fixed in the system. Libertarians are looking more and more center, politically. (& less and less wacko as well)

    • Snaptastic says:

      I went on a trip to Japan recently–and they would be appalled by the sheer amount of crap we drink. Over there, the small drinks are tiny–with the largest being the equivalent of our medium. The government never had to regulate it–society decided that going much bigger was not necessary. They also encourage drinking water and tea.

      On a side note, it was refreshing to fly there and back. Everyone fit in their seats with no problem.

      Since our society is not capable of controlling our own gluttony, I am all for the government doing it.

      • imasqre says:

        But this is America…. bigger is better!!

        Of course restaurants would want this to happen, now they still get to charge extra for refills and profit more since the ounce size is smaller. Smart business, stupid cause.

        Drink water, nature’s fruit juice. ;)

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        i tried drinking water in the netherlands and belgium when i was there and was told that they don’t serve tap water or plain water, just bottled sparkling water. even when i offered to pay for tap water, i was declined by over a dozen restaurants. i wish they had encouraged it like you say japan does.

      • samjung23 says:

        Japan is also a very expensive country to live in! People have to cut costs to survive!

    • bluline says:

      “Have you seen the sizes of fountain drinks these days?” I have, and my response is, so what? If you don’t want to buy it, don’t. But don’t tell me I can’t because you think you know better than I do what is and what’s not good for me.

    • BBBB says:

      “Have you seen the sizes of fountain drinks these days?”

      Back when I drank soda more often, I used to get a “large” drink and share it with my girlfriend. Saved money compared to two “smalls” with the same total amount. [and no, we did not do this when the place had free refills]

    • Cerne says:

      Or here’s a crazy idea. You buy the size of soda you want and let others make the same choice.

    • smo0 says:

      I say let people drink what they want to drink.

      I say let insurance companies deny people because they are fat unless they can prove severe medical condition instead of over eating.

      I don’t want to tell people what they can and cannot have, but I also don’t want to pay for their medical bills when they can’t control themselves.

  3. Jules Noctambule says:

    Every time I see ‘sugary’ soft drinks I think of delicious cane sugar sodas and wonder where in the hell I can buy these instead of the ‘high fructose corn syrupy’ drinks I find everywhere.

    • caradrake says:

      Target always seems to have a large selection of Jone’s soda.

    • Coleoptera Girl says:

      If you ever decide to run along Route 66 there’s a wonderful place called Pop’s that boasts a selection of over 300 different sodas, more than a few using cane sugar as opposed to HFCS. Also? Glass bottles!

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        If they’re bottled in the US, the sugar is more than likely derived from beets and not cane.

    • greggorthechamp says:

      I use a sodastream to carbonate my own water, but the sodastream brand syrups are terrible and tend to include splenda even in the non-diet sodas. William-Sonoma has a excellent cola syrup that I use instead, that is made using cane sugar.

      tl;dr – I make my own soda at home.

  4. frank64 says:

    Life is better if we are allowed to do stupid things and you can’t stop all of them anyway.

  5. Bladerunner says:

    Now, I’m not the biggest fan in general of slippery slope arguments. But there have been some relating to consumer choice laws that are looking like they might have been valid…

  6. costanza007 says:

    Free refills?

  7. Snapdragon says:

    Because we all know banning something immediately and irrevocably solves the problem!


  8. BigHeadEd says:

    So does the ban include those bodacious Starbucks milkshakes-disguised-as-coffee or just carbonated fountain drinks?

    • FigNinja says:

      It sounds like it would if they follow NYC’s pattern.

      “The mayor did not go into any specifics on the ban, other than to say it would be similar to what’s been proposed in NYC, where any food establishment regulated by the city’s health department — restaurants, theaters, delis — would not be allowed to sell drinks larger than 16 oz. if they contain more than 25 calories per 8 oz.”

      I’m pretty sure those coffee shakes have more calories than that.

  9. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Can I still by a pitcher of beer? And will they have sandwiches in the future?

    • Torgonius wants an edit button says:

      No, there will only be Taco Bell

      and three sea shells to wipe your ass

      • DarthCoven says:

        I’m pretty sure you didn’t “wipe” with the sea shells, so much as…well..

        fuck. How did those damn things work?

        *Ding* “You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.”

  10. crispyduck13 says:

    “It seems like the way we have to go is look at the environment, look at the temptations that are out there for people,”

    It may seem that way to you ma’am, but that doesn’t make the assumption correct. While we’re at it let’s ban cars that are physically able to go above the speed limit, bottomless fries at Red Robin, the Never Ending Pasta Bowl promotion at Olive Garden, and pitchers of beer specials at bars.

    It’s people like her that make me hate people.

    • frank64 says:

      “….and pitchers of beer specials at bars.”

      All of Mass already bans alcohol specials, and Cambridge is even out there compared to the rest of the state, so they are very likely to fulfill your other examples.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        Well then, add Massachusetts to the list of State’s I’ll Never Live In.

        • frank64 says:

          But we are very PC, so from your other posts you might like it. Cambridge would be a good place for you if you can get beyond the soda thing. Also, try Northhampton.

        • BorkBorkBork says:

          Move a little further north to NH instead. It’s muuuuch better.

    • HFC says:

      A pitcher of beer is larger than 16 oz. and more than 25 calories per 8 oz. and should, therefore, be banned.

  11. Emerson7 says:

    Empty gestures of meaning allow me to feel I’m 1) Special, and 2) Better than less special people.

  12. krantcents says:

    Although I do not drink soda nor would I buy a large drink anyway, I think a little self control goes a long way. Do we really need more laws? Smoking in public bothers me much more than you drinking a large sugery drink. Smokers in general are very self centered and do not care who they affect. Second hand smoke does affect other people’s health.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      I agree with this, except not all smokers are that way. When I smoked, I always kept it away from others as best I could. If I was in a place that allowed smoking, then I smoked, but if not, I was happy to go outside and stand where I wouldn’t blow it on people. I didn’t smoke in my own house or car either. I knew plenty of other polite smokers as well.

      As far as the places that allowed it, well, if you didn’t like it you didn’t have to go there. I don’t go there now that I’m a non-smoker and the smell bothers me. There are plenty of non-smoking places to hang out.

    • Laura Northrup says:

      On the plus side, smoking helps keep people from getting fat.

    • BorkBorkBork says:

      I wish smokers would toss their butts in trash cans, and not on the ground.

  13. fsnuffer says:

    Enough already. I drink diet sodas but I really don’t need Henrietta controlling what tempts me. Now about she work on keeping the city’s budget balanced, the streets safe, and things generally cleaned up. I read her statements and can’t help feeling sorry for her husband. That poor guy must be henpecked to death.

    • crispyduck13 says:

      I read her statements and can’t help feeling sorry for her husband. That poor guy must be henpecked to death.

      I was with you until you wrote those last 2 dumbass sentences.

      • Bladerunner says:

        Why? She is married, and her public behavior here does mean it’s reasonable to infer that by some estimations she’s likely very unpleasant to live with. “Henpecked” may be a kind of misogynist word, in that it generally only applies to women, but in this instance it seems to get the specific point across (that she’s probably someone who constantly finds fault and nags with the intent of “improving”). I can understand disagreement, but why is it dumbass?

        • crispyduck13 says:

          Her marital status is not mentioned at all in the article, and it doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion. What did you Wikipedia her or something? “it’s reasonable to infer that by some estimations she’s likely very unpleasant to live with.” Why is that reasonable? Would you do the same thing if she were a man? You’re right it is misogynist and I stand by my label of “dumbass sentences.”

          If you’re not a woman who works in a male-dominated field you simply will not understand why that comment would be taken so seriously and personally. It’s because dudes let shit like that fly all the time about aggressive or dominant female co-workers who speak up or are otherwise not doormats (whether or not the ideas are good). Problem is if a male coworker (or politician) does the same thing that conversation simply does not come up. You can sit there and say that it does but you’re wrong, you’re assuming that it does. Have people said anything about how Bloomberg treats his wife lately? I sure haven’t read anything.

          It’s stupid, personal, and off-topic, but that shit really shreds me. Sorry for the rant.

          • Bladerunner says:

            I did look her up, because assuming she’s married (or straight for that matter) would be unfair. But she is married. Therefore, the comment is fair in that it’s a standard “must be hard to live with” joke.

            And while you may say “would the comment still be made if it was a man”, well, that might be a fair criticism. A fair criticism of you might be that you encounter those things because you’re unpleasant to deal with and assume sexism everywhere. I’m not saying that’s true, you might also be a wonderful person who has been treated unfairly (people suck).

            The fact that you equate this woman with others who might be treated unfairly, however, shows a cognitive bias on your part. “It’s because dudes let shit like that fly all the time about aggressive or dominant female co-workers who speak up or are otherwise not doormats (whether or not the ideas are good).” — if their ideas are not good, they will face criticism. That’s that. It’s when a person has good ideas and is dismissed anyway that we can point to sexism. To say that women who have bad ideas should not be criticized for those ideas just because they are women who are speaking up (and I’m hoping that you aren’t advocating that), would itself, be sexism. And “like that”? Like what? That someone who wants to control the soda size people are legally allowed to buy must also be hard to live with?

            And for the record, I probably wouldn’t say it about Bloomberg, because Bloomberg’s not married (though, I will grant you, he has a live-in girlfriend…which is why he can’t live in Gracie Mansion).

            The OP might well have been sexist, but your comment was unfair as well. Do what the courts do in defamation cases: if there’s two ways to read something, and one of them isn’t defamatory, the courts usually use that interpretation. In this case, if there’s a sexist and a non-sexist way to read it, try to read it non-sexist.

            Oh, and “If you’re not a woman who works in a male-dominated field you simply will not understand why that comment would be taken so seriously and personally. ” is both a sexist comment, and flatly wrong. It presumes lots of things about me, and acts as though empathy doesn’t exist. But I have assumed you did not really mean to be sexist, and would have ignored the comment if I wasn’t trying to illustrate a point.

            • Peacock (Now In Extra Crispy) says:

              Wait,what? Bloomberg’s having a live-in GF is not why he doesn’t live in Gracie Mansion. He doesn’t live in Gracie Mansion because it’s a falling-down relic of the past and the guy’s a bazillionaire witan perfectly lovely Multi-million dollar apartment that he’d much rather live in, instead.

              His marital status (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with why he doesn’t live in Gracie Mansion.

        • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

          I guess my wife is cockpecked.

      • fsnuffer says:

        sorry. In my attempt to be funny I missed the mark.

  14. Brontide says:

    It’s not a cure, nothing is, but when one foodstuff consistently stands out as the single largest source of empty calories in the American diet don’t act shocked when government steps in to curb the “tub-o-calories” because Americans can’t curb your own behavior voluntarily.

    BTW: All you HFCS haters, soda companies don’t use “sugar” even in their “sugar” formulations, they generally use invert sugar go ahead, google it and tell me that’s really all that different.

    • fsnuffer says:

      Agreed. Regulating “tub-o-calories” is definitely one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. I guess you also agree with China’s one child policy and forced abortions because the average Chinese citizen can control being tempted by their spouse and keep cranking out children.

      • Brontide says:

        Have fun chewing on your lead toys, they are sweet too.

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        The constitution reserves all functions of government not explicity assigned to the federal government for the states. So technically the states or their subdivisions should be allowed to do this, unless their laws or constitutions prohibit it.

        Of course that hasn’t stopped the federal government for engaging in massive and intrusive overreach (like “individual mandate”). It is perfectly legal for the states to do such things though, unless they are pre-empted and therefore prohibited by the constitution.

        Part of the idea of having separate states is that if you don’t like the laws of one state, you can either try to have them changed or go to a different state with better laws. So if big brother nanny-state systems of control are not appealing to you, maybe a state that values individual liberty over centralized control would be more suitable.

    • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

      I googled. It’s not used in soft drinks and is much more expensive than sugar and HFCS.

      • Brontide says:

        You might want to try a little harder.

        even if they did use granulated it would invert in the beverage long before it got to you.

        • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

          Your sources are not trustworthy and some of the statements they make do not make scientific sense. Even if they did, they depend on a very limited set of ‘studies’. (approximately 1)

          Cherrypicking your sources from internet blogs to back up your preconceived notions doesn’t turn sucrose into invert sugar. I was on a medical program where I bought invert sugar because it metabolizes more slowly than sucrose. Why would medical professionals have me go through that if it’s the exact same thing before it hits my lips? I’ll trust my clinical dietician long before some wacko with a blog. One took years of study at an accredited institution, the other…. clicked on a WordPress start page.

          • Brontide says:

            It’s not cherry picking unless you can show an alternative study that shows that sucrose does not break down in the acidic environment of a coca cola as would be expected based on basic chemistry.

  15. ZenListener says:

    We’ll ban cigarettes, because it’s good for you. We’ll ban trans-fats, because it’s good for you. We’ll ban sodas over a certain size, too, because it’s good for you.

    But we won’t ban alcohol; not yet. We tried that once and it didn’t work out very well. Plus, it keeps you happy and disoriented and that lets us think of new ways to convince you that we should ban more things you like. The more things we legislate, the more you get used to it, the more you start to accept it. The more you accept it the more you think people that try and warn against it are conspiracy theorists. Crazy people. That makes our job easier.

    We learned from the Prohibition, you see. You can’t take things away all at once, you have to start slow. Start with things that “don’t matter.” Start with things that can be rationalized by making it seem like a good thing for the general public. Things you’ll _agree_ with.

    Go on with the rest of your day now, in your smoke-free environment. Remember that we’re looking out for your health and pretty soon you won’t even have to worry about that health care coverage, you’ll be so healthy. Just show us your papers and move along.

    • blueman says:

      Using your (silly) analogy the government would not ban alcohol (it hasn’t banned soda cigarettes, trans-fats, etc. — look up the word ban). It might prevent a bar from serving huge pitchers of beer, or a store from selling 40-oz. malt liquors that appeal mainly to alcoholics.

      You could make the case that those, too, are reasonable restrictions.

  16. CrazyEyed says:

    If they are going to ban large sodas, whats to stop these imbeciles from banning large pizzas, large orders of sesame chicken, large orders of fries……

  17. dolemite says:

    “look at the temptations that are out there for people”. Yeah, I’ll decide what to do with my temptations. You keep the potholes filled and fire department stocked.

    • CrazyEyed says:

      Its a vicious cycle. The government will be crying later that there’s not enough tax dollars generated because people weren’t willing to spend an extra $0.50 to upsize their drink order.

  18. BigHeadEd says:

    How about we ban war? That stuff is deadly.

    • vastrightwing says:

      Oh No! You can’t do that! What would happen to all the military contractors? Think of the children! Geezzze!

  19. Brontide says:

    Threaten to regulate people’s sugar water and they sure get testy!

    • Coleoptera Girl says:

      Indeed… and the truly foolish thing is that you’ll still be able to buy 2 liter bottles of soda at the grocery store and free refills at restaurants will still be available. I don’t think that limiting the size of the cup is going to do much to curb Calorie intake via beverages.

  20. sp4rxx says:

    Geesh – it’s just soda.

    Everyone who is up in arms about this subject may want to lay off the excessive amounts of what they are trying to ban!

    Yeah you can talk all day about the “principle” of the argument, how this could/can lead to the big bad gov’t taking over all of our decisions – but realistically, it won’t happen. So what if the ban succeeds? Just buy 2 of the smaller sizes…. DUH!

    If this is all you people have to worry about in life, then I want your life – there are far greater things to worry about and get upset over other than how much soda you consume.

    • Torgonius wants an edit button says:


      The gubmint in Cambridge has far more important things to worry about in Cambridge than how much soda people are allowed to buy at one time.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        I do not understand what this “gubmint” is that you speak of? Are you trying to spell government? Is it possible you are a redneck?

        I actually agree with your comment here, but can’t stand these stupid internetz words like “gubmint”, “libtard”, “repug”, etc. Indeed, we need an edit button.

        • Torgonius wants an edit button says:

          Government is a group of elected officials that act within their scope of power to ensure that the services that allow for civlization and prosperity are provided for at a level deemed acceptable by those who elected them. These are the people the founding fathers would hold in high esteem.

          This is usually found on the smaller, localized scales (except in states like New Jersey), and very rarely at a higher level, like state or national.

          At the state and national levels, you have Gubmint, whose dual intentions are to hold on to the power they already have and then to acquire more power. They are almost often comprised of ‘libtards’ and ‘repugs’. They will do and say anything that serves the purpose of getting them re-elected.

        • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

          You’re offended by ‘gubmit’ but then use an equally offensive word, ‘redneck’?

  21. HFC says:

    “…would not be allowed to sell drinks larger than 16 oz. if they contain more than 25 calories per 8 oz.”

    This would also include such evil beverages as milk and fruit and vegetable juices (pure juice, no sugar added), but not diet soda?

    • CrazyEyed says:

      Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

      Soon the government will be mandating these places serve water only if we let them.

      This will put a huge dent in Movie Theater concession sales as they do not make much money off the tickets they sell. I’d be willing to bet they make a greater profit on drinks than any other food item sold. Not to mention the behemoth size of the drinks. A small is the size of an extra large drink nearly anywhere.

    • HFC says:

      I guess this should apply to wine, as well. No more bottle sales at restaurants, by the glass only.

  22. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    How can she even think about comparing it to smoking? Smoking has a negative effect on others, especially people with allergies and asthma. Drinking large sodas affects no one but the drinker. My husband is really fit, muscular, and at his ideal weight and he has large sodas to drink when we go out. He drinks 2-3 of them there as well. He eats right and exercises and has zero chance of becoming obese. Soda is only a contributor to obesity when people are doing other things that cause it, like not eating right and sitting on their butts all day.

    • Brontide says:

      We all pay for obesity. It’s insidious how many ways the costs are passed on to everyone even if you exclude direct health care costs.

      * Cost of travel
      * Cost of doing business
      * Sick leave
      * Cost and size of seating in public venues
      * Fuel costs
      * Retrofitting every level of medical transport to have staffing and equipment to handle the morbidly obese

      Everything is being redesigned to deal with the new american norm and it picks the pocket of everyone who actually gives a crap about staying health.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        One of the downsides of living in a free society is that some people are free to make terrible choices. Is there anyone alive who doesn’t do something, even something seemingly minor, that in some way adversely effects others?

        • Brontide says:

          On great thing about a democracy is we are allowed to tax and regulate business activities.

          • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

            I agree, it’s definitely fun to regulate people who enjoy things that I don’t.

    • saifrc says:

      I agree with you, except for the part about the drinking of soda only affecting the drinker. One person’s type 2 diabetes can lead to increases in other people’s insurance premiums, as well as Medicare/Medicaid costs (assessed through taxes). On the other hand, reduced life expectancy can save us money in terms of private retirement benefits and Social Security…

      I’m speaking only of the hyper-extreme cases, of course. Soda can totally be part of a healthy person’s diet, as long as it’s commensurate with the person’s activity level and lifestyle, like you said. I only took issue with the part about it only affecting the individual.

  23. Torchwood says:

    When did soda become more evil than alcohol? You are discriminated against us non-alcohol drinkers who hang out with friends, and have a ginger ale or root beer while they have their beer. Funny how us non-alcohol drinkers keep avoiding Driving Under Influence / Driving While Intoxicated.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      Good point. Free sodas should be banned too, especially when they’re given to DDs. Why should sugar laden, fizzy, poison water consumption be encouraged by big soda?

  24. frank64 says:

    There are many things worse than large sodas, even if we stick to food. There is the bloomin onion, large fries. Any type of potato skins. Many types of smoothies have over a thousand calories.There really isn’t any logic in just looking at the soda.

    Diet soda would be allowed, any places have self serve. How will they be able to distinguish where one goes?

    They also are saying now that diet soda is worse, it tricks you body into eating more sugar later. She may be steering people to actually get more fat.

  25. InsertPithyNicknameHere says:

    Comparing a ban on soft drinks to a ban on smoking is pretty ridiculous. Smoking impacts more than just the person with the cigarette, so prohibiting people from exposing non-smokers to second-hand smoke is not that unreasonable. But if I order a large soda, that directly impacts me and me alone. I’m not forcing anyone else to drink it, I’m not impacting the blood-sugar levels of anyone but myself.

    • BorkBorkBork says:

      I’ve been affected by 2nd hand soda binging.

      I got diabeetus by watching some guy pound a Big Gulp.


  26. ExistentialThreat says:

    The funny part about all this is that those same restaurants serve Entrées that can reach 5,000
    calories or more… that’s enough for a grown man to eat for two whole days.

  27. shinseiromeo says:

    In response to CrazyEyed, as well as my opinion on this:

    Good! Years ago when I was a kid and teen, I drank a ton of soda, usually 3-4 cans a day. While in high school I was 250lbs, since I was a teen I didn’t have to listen to no one, right…? When I hit my 20s I realized I was a fat pig, eliminated any sugar in my diet (food & drink), studied fitness/health, developed a diet program, and hit the gym. I dropped 80lbs back then and have maintained ever since.

    To answer directly about banning everything, here’s my rebuttal: SODA SERVES NO PURPOSE. Pizza, fries, etc all have some nutrients. They all do something for you, even if they are ‘bad’ calories. Sugar soda serves ZERO purpose, there benefit… NOT ONE. So in the end, I have no problem with eliminating something that only exists to harm and maim someone. Who needs to drink 100grams of sugar in a cup… that’s just insane!

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      I agree with you about soda. However, it’s not up to Bloomberg to police what I put in my mouth. That is MY choice, just like your decision to change your diet and lifestyle was YOUR choice. We’re adults; we can make those decisions for ourselves.

    • Bladerunner says:

      Soda serves several purposes. Just ones you don’t agree with. Caffeine perks one up, and sugar is a necessary nutrient. It is also hydrating.

      So you are, in fact, wrong.

      And more to the point, I disdain anyone who thinks that the position should be “give me a reason for x to be legal”. No. There needs to be a reason for X to be illegal, and it better be a good one.

      • Lisse24 says:


        Making something illegal has a lot of consequences – those intended and those unintended. We can see most of the intended consequences, but it’s impossible to foresee all the unintended ones. Therefore, we must be sure that we have a lot of good reasons for what we make laws for.

      • wade says:


        I don’t even drink non-diet soda (so therefore wouldn’t be directly affected by this ban), but I don’t want to get started down this path. I do wonder, though, if all the pro-soda-banners would still be as pro-banning-things when the next thing on the chopping block is something they like. It’s just a guess, but for some reason, I have a feeling that many of those people are hypocrites and would suddenly decry the overreaching.

    • Torgonius wants an edit button says:

      Who, exactly, are you to decide what anyone else does with or puts into their body?

      You don’t ever, ever, ever have to drink a soda or anything else you don’t want to. I stopped drinking it 15 years ago. But I’d never think to tell someone else they aren’t allowed to drink it.

      There are shitloads of things in our culture that serve no purpose whatsoever to me, like reality TV. But as mush as I decry its vapidity, I won’t go so far as to ask the gubmint to ban it because I deem it serves no useful purpose.

    • Ilovegnomes says:

      “While in high school I was 250lbs, since I was a teen I didn’t have to listen to no one, right…? “

      You are right. And thinking back to when I was a teen, if someone would have made it illegal to sell a large, as a kid, I would have found a way around it by ordering multiple small drinks. People are going to do what they are going to do. So why waste tax payer dollars putting such bans in place? They are pointless, a waste of time and take away our right to choose what is right for us.

      Just another thought on impact… I don’t give my kids soda very often (only as a treat) but when I do, I go order one large to split between 4 people (4 straws). It’s way more economical than ordering 4 smalls. So now I would have to pay more because a few people can’t learn to control themselves? Booo!

    • Kuri says:

      Can we ban televised sports too then? I don’t believe they sere a beneficial purpose so we should ban it.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      My Body, My Choice.

      Oppose gay marriage? Don’t marry someone of the same sex.
      Oppose abortion? Don’t get an abortion.
      Oppose alcohol? Don’t drink alcohol.
      Oppose soda? Don’t drink soda.

    • shinseiromeo says:

      I agree, it’s everyone’s choice and you’re right. You drinking a gallon of soda doesn’t affect me directly, per se. Though overall in reality it does. Look at health care and the obese. Why would I pay the same rates for healthcare as someone who willingly hurts their body? Then what happens when patients are expensive to care for… rates go up.

      So in the end, people who abuse themselves also abuse the public in the long term.

      • Laura Northrup says:

        Why should I pay higher rates because someone who’s a competitive runner needs knee surgery? I don’t want to be in the same insurance pool as someone who willingly abuses their body like that.

  28. dullard says:

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

  29. Joesph Mama says:

    This is retarded. It is as bad as seeing some lard ass going into McVomits order up a Super Mac extra large grease fries and half a dozen fried apple pies. All with a small diet coke! The soda is only a small part of the problem.

  30. No Fat Chicks says:

    Move South! Eat what you want, where you want and when you want. If someone wants to get into your business, knock the crap out of them.

  31. Kuri says:

    So, um, going to do anything about getting the city in better shape, or are these vanity projects that much more important?

  32. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    Milkshakes need to be banned, too, under this logic. But I don’t see that listed.

    If I want to drink 32 oz of Diet Mountain Dew with my lunch, why can’t I do that? I love going to Sheetz in the summer and picking up a big cup of Diet Dew on a hot day when I’m done with grocery shopping. Limit that to 16 oz, and I’ll just buy a 2 liter bottle at the grocery store, take it home, and guzzle it anyway.

    I don’t have any other vices. I have maybe one alcoholic drink per year, if that, I don’t smoke, and I eat very little fast food. I am frugal to the point of painfulness sometimes. I enjoy a big, cold cup of Diet Dew and it aggrevates me to no end when busy bodies start this shit.

  33. Sean says:

    So could they sell a “pitcher” of soda advertising it as multiple servings, but knowing it will probably be drank by one person?

  34. WalterSinister2 says:

    There’s no such thing as secondhand soda, Nanny Davis.

  35. Schildkrote says:

    Sorry, but “personal responsibility” is only a concern if the people in question are actually exercising it. One look at the average obese American’s dietary habits will make it clear that they are not. If they’re not concerned with the financial burden they place upon society, society doesn’t need to be concerned with revoking their privilege of purchasing tubs of sugar water at a time.

    • Zowzers says:

      This issue has to come down to personal responsibility in the end. As there is nothing about this law, or any other similar law, that will stop people from over consumption.
      AKA: The size of the drink is irrelevant in a world of free refills.

      The only real fix is to teach people to be aware of what they are eating and hopefully get them to care about it & control it. You are not going to be able to legislate a diet for the country. So why back a completely ineffective law?

  36. crazymikie says:

    Hypocrites. When it comes to abortion, it’s a woman’s right, but when it comes to something like soda, it’s no longer peoples’ right?


    Please save me from this hellhole.

  37. oldwiz65 says:

    gawd. We’re turning into a nanny state.

  38. Miss Malevolent says:

    For all the people playing apologist for these intrusions into our daily life…cause, “fatties are ruining this country”

    Why don’t we bring Prohibition back as well…I mean, alcohol…empty calories…and…drunk driving…obviously this is detrimental to the public welfare as well.

    I can’t believe that we have so many people who are so willing to give up their freedoms so easily….

  39. ILoveBacon says:

    Will they also be banning free refills at those restaurants? Otherwise, they’re just creating more work for servers.

  40. Nobby says:

    Give me two 16 oz drinks please.

  41. SilverBlade2k says:

    Customers would just order the regular size and get a free refill, which would be far more soda than a large drink.

    A useless law that would only lead to a worse problem.

    It’s like politicians don’t know human mentality at all.

  42. missminimonster says:

    At a lot of restaurants, though, you get free refills if you eat in. Is she going to ban those too?

    This mayor needs to get her priorities straight. I’m sure there are other, more pressing issues in Cambridge.

  43. kataisa says:

    Has anybody noticed that all of these soda/sugar bans are coming from the cities and states that have the LEAST obesity problems? (new york city, massachusetts)

    I’d like to see how well these bans go over with the public if politicians were to ban soda in states like Texas or Louisiana.

  44. samjung23 says:

    I have suggested not banning sodas, but banning free refills. That’s the real problem. Restaurants would not have a problem with this. Banning large sodas is ridiculous. You pay for one drink, and have to pay for another one. People, psychologically, will not want to keep getting refills if it costs money.

  45. Libertas says:

    Why don’t someone tell the twat to mind her own business? Maybe her and Michelle Bloomberg’s husbands to start.

  46. Cerne says:

    So the mayor wants to protect people from second hand soda consumption?

    What bullshit. The freedom to choose what we eat and drink is fundamental to living in a free society.

  47. Buzz says:

    Is it me, or are people just getting stupider? Crap! I mean dummy-er. At least my punctuation is correct. Or, is it?

  48. Buzz says:

    Is it me, or are people just getting stupider? Crap! I mean dummy-er. At least my punctuation is correct. Or, is it?

  49. central_ny_dude says:

    Banning something is just a challenge to people to figure out how to get around it. Don’t ban things, tax them! Then take that tax revenue, and put it to good use. Use it to help fund healthcare, and treatment of diabetes. Use it to offset the prices to make healthy alternatives cheaper! Psychology + Economics. The more you tell someone “don’t push that big shiny red button”, the more they are going to want to push it! Instead, phrase it “If you push that big shiny red button, it will cost you $100.” “if you don’t push the button for a whole 24 hours, we will pay you $20.” Money makes the world go ’round!

  50. I Love Christmas says:

    Its about personal freedom and personal responsibility. I want the right to make my own decisions, even if its not good for me. In the city I live in you can still smoke in many of the bars in surrounding smaller cities. I don’t smoke but I’m fine with that. If you don’t like 2nd hand smoke don’t go in. Go to someplace that won’t allow smoking. But I get to make that decision, not some bureaucrat.

  51. Tombo says:

    Smoker here. All I have to say is Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I drink diet soda, so Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is only the beginning for soda drinkers. Wait till the taxes come. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Sucks, doesn’t it?

    (message not intended for any proponent of smokers’ rights)

  52. Mad Monk says:

    I waiting for the banning of stupidity…..