NYC board of health: Hey, maybe we should extend this soda ban to other foods

posted at 4:16 pm on June 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

Like I said a few weeks ago, this was always the goal of the otherwise dumb soda regs. A restriction on portion sizes makes no sense when it’s limited to one kind of beverage and a select few types of vendors except as a way to inure the public to more draconian regulations down the line. Ban big sodas now, let people get used to it, and then if/when the city’s obesity rate dips — for whatever reason(s) — flog the hell out of those statistics as proof that dietary nannyism works and should be pursued more aggressively. No surprise, then, that the city health board might be thinking about bold new frontiers in keeping you from stuffing your face.

What is surprising is that they’re doing it so soon. This strategy depends on going very slowly at first so that initial worries about a slippery slope will ease. Instead, sounds like they’re ready to turn this into a slippery water slide. Bad move:

“The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” said Bruce Vladeck, a senior adviser at Nexera Consulting and one of the mayor’s appointees to the 11-member board.

The board yesterday agreed to put Bloomberg’s big-soda ban up for a public hearing July 24, but also talked about the merits of limiting other high-calorie treats.

A large tub of movie-theater popcorn has up to 1,650 calories.

“There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories . . . and I’m not so sure what the rationale is not to include those,” said member Dr. Joel Forman, a pediatrics professor at Mount Sinai.

The rationale for skipping milkshakes — for now — is, I guess, that there’s some nutritional benefit to milk-based drinks whereas soda is pure crapola. But of course, it’s not the milk that’s doing the heavy caloric lifting in the average latte syrup bomb, it’s the sugar. Why not drop a portion-size restriction on Starbucks too and let customers supplement their lost milk with a cup out of the carton at home? (Why not just ban the sugar and syrup altogether?) Answer: Because the well-educated diet-minded liberals who sneer at soda consumption kind of enjoy their morning mochaccinos, and if the state starts coming after that now, then Bloomberg might have a real backlash on his hands. Paternalism’s for the rubes, not for the overclass.

The good news is that even in deep blue NYC, 51 percent oppose the soda ban. The bad news is that the future looks grim. Note the spread among age groups when New Yorkers were asked whether they support the ban or not:

Some of that may be due to older residents having grown up drinking soda as a staple whereas younger adults had more options at the supermarket, but that doesn’t explain all of it. As you’re about to see, there’s a similar spread on the broader question of whether “government should be getting involved in people’s eating and drinking habits to fight obesity”:

You’ve got a clear majority overall in support for that one overall despite strong opposition from seniors (libertarian grandmas!), which makes me wonder if part of the reason New Yorkers don’t like the soda ban is because it doesn’t go far enough. In any case, the fact that young adults are more gung-ho than other groups for this sort of meddling cretinism proves how effective the left’s messengers can be when they seize on some new health problem and hammer and hammer and hammer at it. New Yorkers have been listening to Bloomberg and his liberal allies in the media whine about obesity for years; go figure that kids who grew up here listening to it would start to bend because of it. Bear all of this in mind when the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare drops in a week or two, as we’ll be hearing again about how paranoid those wingnuts are to worry about Congress passing some sort of “broccoli mandate.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But they should target the St.Arbucks’ Java Chip Frappuccino which has more caffeine than a Mountain Dew or Jolt Cola, and pumps you up for an hour or so, then casts you aside like a cheap whore.

J_Crater on June 13, 2012 at 5:36 PM

There are about the same number of calories/ounce in a Startbucks Carmel Macchiato as in a non-diet soda. And a LOT more fat. Will be limit those to the 16 oz size also? Dunkin Donuts Coffee(Cream and sugar) is about the same.

OBQuiet on June 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

On the jnova post today on Ineptocracy, I discussed what the founders intended for our country, and touch upon how restricting sodas (and beef, and ?????) is a symptom of unchecked democracy:

In America, while today we “fight for Democracy” across the globe, we should understand that the founding fathers were insistent that they were fighting not for a democracy, but, as a revolution against tyranny, for a representative Republic.
A little bit of democracy was needed as a counter to tyranny, but, like too much oxygen, democracy in pure form was considered to be very dangerous, or, to use a fashionable word: unsustainable.
SO, while the constitutional system was also fashioned as an antidote to tyranny and monarchy, everywhere you look they built in things to curb “unchecked democracy.” To start, there is no national referendums (propositions). Also, we have House members that are elected by the people every 2 years, but, as a check against democracy, Senators were appointed by State legislatures every 6 years. Supreme Court justices gain lifetime appointments to further counter the “passionate swings of the mob.”
And, yes, at a time when Adam Smith understood the miracle of the free enterprise system, the founders’ paramount concern was that democracy would lead an inexorable push for a redistribution of property and income to the have-nots, and so to a resultant collapse of the economic system.
Unfortunately, nearly all the checks against the potential insidiousness of democracy have fallen away, or come under increasing assault.
Sure enough, today, with the rise of Obama, and the new demographics and the “new morality,” conservatives try to face down the seemingly unconquerable democratic movement toward a complete and communist style redistribution of income and property.
One check against democracy was literacy and age requirements for voting, on the grounds that those that were educated and mature were more likely to understand the system, and also to hold property, and thus not call for property redistribution. Now, even having to show your identification, is legislated against by the leftists / redistributionists.
And the critical check against system destroying property redistributions was, most obviously, property qualifications for voting. This qualification was essential, but now is 100% removed. Those that see what is happening now, and call again for reinstituting property qualifications, are, inappropriately, derided as crazy reactionaries. A system with property qualifications is said to be obviously unfair, BUT what is unfair is the tyranny of the majority… in so many ways. Let’s say 55% of the people don’t want restaurants to serve soda or beef… they can outlaw it, as well as countless other things, and the spirit and freedom of the people will in such a way be quashed. Most unfair, and deleterious, is when the lower 51% legislate laws to take away the assets of all the others, and give the $ to themselves. Redistribution will impede the economic system, and if taken to an extreme, destroy it.
Currently, there is some hope that a growing conservative feeling (as a reaction to the radical Obama) will allow a democratic triumph against the perils of democracy that the founders understood.
But this will be only a short-term victory. In the longer term, with the checks against unimpeded democracy removed, and with a rising tide of low income uneducated immigrants, the system is imperiled. We are talking about socialism, and frankly, full communism, democratically instituted, in the United States.
The long term hope, though, is that we do everything we can to educate the current conservative majority (barely!) about the dangers of unchecked democracy, and work to reestablish the required checks, or… no exaggeration … our govt and our way of life as we know it is doomed.

anotherJoe on June 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

What is surprising is that they’re doing it so soon. This strategy depends on going very slowly at first so that initial worries about a slippery slope will ease. Instead, sounds like they’re ready to turn this into a slippery water slide.

The NannySocialist Left is running out of time.

If you think this is Fast, wait until you see them go after guns, it’ll be Furious..

Chip on June 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I don’t know about that. Wasn’t it San Fran (or CA as a whole?) that banned toys in McD’s happy meals because kids get fat eating at McD’s?

dentarthurdent on June 13, 2012 at 5:14 PM

San Francisco. They banned the toys in Happy Meals, but not the food. (And McDonald’s promptly did an end-run around the ordinance by offering purchasers of Happy Meals the addition of a toy for only 10¢, which McDonald’s will contribute to charity. San Franciscans get their ban, screaming children get their toys, do-gooders get to do good, nobody starves, and everybody is happy!)

There’s always talk of secession from San Francisco in Southern California. You were better off for enjoying fresh seafood in Oxnard.

de rigueur on June 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I think they should ban hobos and panhandlers. It makes me so uncomfortable to walk down the street and have to divert my eyes from their pleas.
inthemiddle on June 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Hey,I see you’ve got one of those random comment generator apps.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 13, 2012 at 5:43 PM

We should eliminate everything that is unsafe or unhealthy for us.

Now if we could only just find a way to isolate ourselves in government approved cocoons, getting our perfect nutritional balance supplied intravenously while electrodes and tubes suck electricity out of our brains and worthless muscles to generate power so that the ruling elites can live in fun and luxury, it would all be good.

JellyToast on June 13, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I say they ban duck confit and fatty cuts of meat like porterhouse, t-bone, and all choice cuts of meat.

This is what people that want to belittle Nanny Bloomberg should present as prudent and necessary.

Theworldisnotenough on June 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

ernesto on June 13, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Who are you and what have you done with ernesto?!? That can’t be the real ernesto speaking that kind of sense!

Welcome to the dark side, ernesto. We have cookies!

gravityman on June 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I realize, here’s the money part of my longer comment above:

And the critical check against system destroying property redistributions [in a democracy] was, most obviously, property qualifications for voting. This qualification was essential, but now is 100% removed. Those that see what is happening now, and call again for reinstituting property qualifications, are, inappropriately, derided as crazy reactionaries. A system with property qualifications is said to be obviously unfair, BUT what is unfair is the tyranny of the majority… in so many ways. Let’s say 55% of the people don’t want restaurants to serve soda or beef… they can outlaw it, as well as countless other things, and the spirit and freedom of the people will in such a way be quashed. Most unfair, and deleterious, is when the lower 51% legislate laws to take away the assets of all the others, and give the $ to themselves. Redistribution will impede the economic system, and if taken to an extreme, destroy it.

anotherJoe on June 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Those who fail to comply shall be shot and their corpses recycled into compost for community gardens, in the interests of the public good.

AZCoyote on June 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

had to be said…

gravityman on June 13, 2012 at 5:52 PM

In any case, the fact that young adults are more gung-ho than other groups for this sort of meddling cretinism proves how effective the left’s messengers can be when they seize on some new health problem and hammer and hammer and hammer at it.

I don’t think “health” has anything to do with it.

Proof: OWS

The younger generation wants everything “controlled” by the nanny state…

ladyingray on June 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM

While the good Mayor is worrying about people drinking empty calories …

12 oz. Piña Colada – 586 Calories
10 oz Margarita – 550 Calories
10 oz. Long Island Ice Tea – 543 Calories
7.5 oz. Gin & Diet Tonic – 115 Calories
4 oz Dry Champagne – 105 Calories

just sayin’

Quisp on June 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Pretty soon the only thing New Yorkers will be able to eat is lettuce (organically grown on very small farms, of course).

OccamsRazor on June 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Hey when you supposedly hate the government in your bedroom but then turn around and invite them into your doctors office and kitchen be very careful….

CW on June 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Way to make me hate my generation even more guys….

Cyhort on June 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM

While the good Mayor is worrying about people drinking empty calories …

12 oz. Piña Colada – 586 Calories
10 oz Margarita – 550 Calories
10 oz. Long Island Ice Tea – 543 Calories
7.5 oz. Gin & Diet Tonic – 115 Calories
4 oz Dry Champagne – 105 Calories

just sayin’

Quisp on June 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

We could find out how recall elections are done in MYC!!

KenInIL on June 13, 2012 at 6:17 PM

When Bloomberg and his ilk on the NYC council are through with all this, all that’ll be left to eat there is Soylent Green. So, who’ll be the first to step up to the cook pot and offer themselves up to be the first entrée?

It won’t be me! I’ll be here in Oklahoma eatin’ a steak, a baked tater with all the fixins, lots of fried okra, and washing it all down with a size eleven boot full of Dr Pepper!

Come join me!

Woody

woodcdi on June 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Picture of the guy who wants to limit popcorn sizes.

You can’t make this stuff up.

VinceOfDoom on June 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I say they ban duck confit and fatty cuts of meat like porterhouse, t-bone, and all choice cuts of meat.

This is what people that want to belittle Nanny Bloomberg should present as prudent and necessary.

Theworldisnotenough on June 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

With apologies to dentarthurdent 5:14 PM, the above is a reminder that California has banned a food: foie gras. But it was an animal rights issue rather than a fatty food ban. Ban begins on July 1, which they’re calling Foie-mageddon. Let Bloomberg try that on the Upper East Side.

de rigueur on June 13, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Okay, 6:27 was supposed to be a quote, not a strike-through. Apologies, Theworldisnotenough.

de rigueur on June 13, 2012 at 6:28 PM

That guy reminds me of one of the bad guys in Buffy the Vampire slayer:

“Shallow cuts. Shallow cuts.”

Browncoatone on June 13, 2012 at 6:29 PM

But they should target the St.Arbucks’ Java Chip Frappuccino . . . .

J_Crater on June 13, 2012 at 5:36 PM

You can pry my Starbucks out of my cold, dead hand. And I’m gonna take a bunch of you down 1st!

Don’t even try to go there.

cmsciulli on June 13, 2012 at 6:44 PM

With apologies to dentarthurdent 5:14 PM, the above is a reminder that California has banned a food: foie gras. But it was an animal rights issue rather than a fatty food ban. Ban begins on July 1, which they’re calling Foie-mageddon. Let Bloomberg try that on the Upper East Side.

de rigueur on June 13, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I can see it now, foie-gras restaurants just across the border in Nevada, like fireworks shacks in gunpowder states. Snooty libs in their limos in the parking lots, stocking up.

slickwillie2001 on June 13, 2012 at 6:49 PM

This is typical of tyrants: make noises that you’re going to ban something “for your own good”. When you fail to bull—t the public into supporting your personal ego crusade by choice, you change tactics knowing that if you can’t get the public to accept your minimal action, you’re going to need to use the bureaucratic leverage you’ve bought to force your entire agenda down the public’s throat…fast. All at once. Can’t allow the democratic process to catch up to your dictatorial objectives.

fitzfong on June 13, 2012 at 6:53 PM

what if they ban cookies!! i’ll die!!! =(

Sachiko on June 13, 2012 at 7:01 PM

The bad news is that the future looks grim. Note the spread among age groups when New Yorkers were asked whether they support the ban or not:

I doubt it matters. The older you get, the less likely you are to want more government. That one factor should easily shift a few percentage points to the other side.

tom on June 13, 2012 at 7:04 PM

I think they should ban hobos and panhandlers. It makes me so uncomfortable to walk down the street and have to divert my eyes from their pleas.

inthemiddle on June 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Wouldn’t blinders be a quicker fix?

tom on June 13, 2012 at 7:05 PM

While the good Mayor is worrying about people drinking empty calories …

12 oz. Piña Colada – 586 Calories
10 oz Margarita – 550 Calories
10 oz. Long Island Ice Tea – 543 Calories
7.5 oz. Gin & Diet Tonic – 115 Calories
4 oz Dry Champagne – 105 Calories

just sayin’

Quisp on June 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Piña Colada? Now you did it! I hope it gets banned so that Newyorricans get reaaaally aanngryyy!!! As for me, pry it off from my cold, dead hands.

I wonder if socialist Jon Stewart will cover this one; I don’t know how big of a story will be compared to the soda ban. I sure hope so; anything that shows him having a conniption on Bloomberg will be good for me.

I got another idea: Why not ban Mika from Morning Joe?

ProudPalinFan on June 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM

You can pry my Starbucks out of my cold, dead hand. And I’m gonna take a bunch of you down 1st!

Don’t even try to go there.

cmsciulli on June 13, 2012 at 6:44 PM

THERE! I second that! I may have gone the Paleo way for a week and a half but I still must get my fix there.

ProudPalinFan on June 13, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Actually, if I was the NYC Board of Health facing a stupid, inevitable soda ban I would do exactly this. Make every single voter in the state start thinking, “wait, is my favorite food/beverage item next?”

Watch the opposition to the ban climb, then dare Bloomberg to pass it, knowing he’s immediately gone if he does.

sockpuppetpolitic on June 13, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Can we do a FOIA request for the information that reveals what the Mayor, the council and their staff’s eat?

I suspect there would be some “do as I say, not as I do” going on.

EdmundBurke247 on June 13, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Dennis Miller just had his say on O’Reilly by introducing

The Bloomburger:

Half the size, twice the price, and you get a really small drink with it.

stukinIL4now on June 13, 2012 at 8:48 PM

I said this a long time ago when they started on smokers. Once you open that box, there is NOTHING to stop them.

Instead, we sat around doing nothing, because there is a lot of us that think smoking is disgusting. So of course we did not mind either way.

Now look…. now they are after the next big thing. Its kinda like the whole slogan “for the children!!!!! elventy!!!!”…. now its in the name of health.

Yeah, I am going to enjoy watching the rest suffer and whine and moan about all these nice little “restrictions” and “bans”…. not only because it makes the rest suffer, in particular those that sat by and said nothing. I have a back yard with grass so I will have something to eat. Seeing people cry will at least make it taste better.

watertown on June 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I say that anyone who voted for this idiot to be in charge be locked on the island and not allowed to escape.

We’ve got enough refugees down here in NC trying to tell us how to do things like they did in NYC, which is the reason their job left in the first place.

LoganSix on June 13, 2012 at 9:26 PM

watertown on June 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Exactly! Don’t let them go after smokers. That is a “gateway” prohibition, and they get a big thrill in thinking that they are so magnanimous to save smokers from themselves.

Freedom counts. Just let people be. The rationalizations they have against smokers, soda drinkers, and whatelse next, sound impressive; but whatever they say, whatever benefit they hail, it is lesser than the cost to our freedom, of creating a society where we will feel our lives are infringed — by the liberal know-it-alls who think that we can’t decide for ourselves what to do.

anotherJoe on June 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I’m for banning lobster and freeloading in-laws from the White House until February, 2013.

/

viking01 on June 13, 2012 at 9:41 PM

The good news is that even in deep blue NYC, 51 percent oppose the soda ban.

Only 51% oppose Orwellian Big Brotherism, and you call it good news???

I can respect the eeyore tendency AP has for what actually is good news alone, but simultaneous pollyannaism for clear portents of doom suggest it’s time for a check-up from the neck-up.

CapnObvious on June 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM

As they go around banning this and that for the good of the proletariat; do not expect the mass of New Yorkers to do diddly-squat. If the government wants it, it will be done. They may grouse for a short while, but they will accept it. They are Liberal Democrats, at best [and they are probably worse] and obedience to their betters is bred into them. If you don’t believe that, then explain how they got into the current situation after seeing how screwed up it can get when the Hard Left runs the place [Dinkins].

While the majority of the NYC population can and will be ignored, there are two groups that can make reality drop into the 5 Boroughs. The fiscal reality is, there are a limited number of people paying the bulk of the New York City income tax.

The number, out of a population of 8 million plus, making over $500K is 34,245 [2009 figures from the NYC Controller]. Since 2009 and the financial collapse, I am pretty sure that the number has shrunk considerably. But let’s use those figures.

Of that number, 1916 make over $5 million. To be honest, that group has the money and clout to ignore pretty much any lifestyle restrictions Bloomberg puts on the proles. But there is another number. It is the 32,329 who make between $500k and $5 million.

New York City is one of the most expensive cities in the world. From the Composite Cost of Living Index, if Denver is 100, NYC is 212.1 [in 2005 pre-the recent inflation]. Thus those incomes equate to $250K – $2.5 million in purchasing power in the rest of the country. These are not a bunch of “Daddy Warbucks” types. These are skilled middle to upper management, which every company needs to survive. And they do not have the clout to totally get around the “lifestyle police”.

For that class, living in a city is a balancing act between the glamor, perceived sophistication, and availability of luxuries -v- the Schmerz im Tuchus factor involved in living there. Granting that in today’s economy, employers have the upper hand. But if you are in that 1,916 you still do have to deal with the morale and recruiting of those skilled people.

If you hack off the middle management, it will get upstairs. Eventually, someone is going to start running the numbers about how much less it will cost to run the business if they are NOT in the 5 Boroughs.

Of the 10 companies with the largest revenues in NYC, 8 are financial services companies. With robust enough internet connectivity and office space; they can operate literally anywhere. And all their business costs are up to 50% cheaper.

All it would take is for one major company to start the stampede. And New York City will be on the same road as California, Illinois [especially Chicago], Detroit, and other Democrat run areas.

Gratuitously hack off the wrong people, and you won’t have enough revenues to calm the welfare classes and rake off enough for the Nomenklatura.

Subotai Bahadur on June 13, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Oh please oh please let Bloomberg and Co. ban Starbucks grande Fraps. This will be delicious to watch the slippery slope slapping the libs right back in their faces.

Decoski on June 14, 2012 at 12:13 AM

But soft! Is that the Horst Wessel Lied I hear?

Dunedainn on June 14, 2012 at 1:10 AM

I’m not so sure what the rationale is

These are the words of someone who has never once in his life considered that he might be wrong.

Sharke on June 14, 2012 at 3:02 AM

The unabashed goal of the left -total control! Freedom is their arch-enemy!

Don L on June 14, 2012 at 6:23 AM

You know, I’ve lost 150 pounds through diet and exercise. Nobody had to tell me what I could or could not eat. My family expressed concern for years about my weight issue. I didn’t lose the weight until I finally decided that I wanted to be healthy and feel good about myself. The Nanny State will never force people to make the right decisions. I haven’t drank regular cokes in probably fifteen years and never was a sugary crap eater. You can get mighty big eating “healthy”. NO BANS on food. Portion control and getting off your butt are the only answer.

TXMomof3 on June 14, 2012 at 6:38 AM

I know, I know, the issue is bigger than NYC but here in NY as liberal as it is, this will probably down in flames. Sheldon Silver, Speaker of NY State Assembly and the defacto head of state government, and mayor wannabe Christine Quinn have both expressed opposition to the soda restriction and by default additional food size regs.
-
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_sugar_daddy_shelly_vs_mayor_qQlNyf4plTsZmDx0GJX95J

diogenes on June 14, 2012 at 6:51 AM

Nanny-Nanny Bloom-Bloom sure seems hell bent for leather to drive tourism out of his own city, not to mention his own residents.

There is going to come a point sooner or later where common sense is going to finally kick in with New Yorkers and they are going to start questioning, rather loudly, just who the hell this guy Bloomberg and his cronies think they are to encroach on what people can consume and not consume. Because the last time I checked, when you have it where leadership starts thinking they know what is best for people, it is when it becomes something known as tyranny.

pilamaye on June 14, 2012 at 7:39 AM

They do know that businesses who pay taxes need to sell these products in order to stay in business, right? If cigs are bootlegged why not popcorn and lattes? I see a whole new underground economic opportunity arising.

Kissmygrits on June 14, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Ban all food sales except for sales through government run cafeterias. Then only the cafeteria workers will be obese.

aloysiusmiller on June 14, 2012 at 8:39 AM

I think he should try to ban all alcoholic drinks. I’d love to see New Yorkers up in arms over no more wine! (It would serve them right!)

dominigan on June 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM

The youth support of the soda ban isn’t political and has no political implications. It’s just their healthy repugnance at the sight of fat people. Even in my middle age, I still am disgusted by fat college students, though I don’t seem to mind most overweight middle aged or older people. I evaluate college students as I would when I was their age.

thuja on June 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Picture of the guy who wants to limit popcorn sizes.

You can’t make this stuff up.

VinceOfDoom

Holy double chin!!

Makes perfect sense though. Something is missing in his life and cannot stop himself from trying to fill the void with food. Ergo, the Government must step in to control him and others.

8thAirForce on June 14, 2012 at 9:59 AM

thuja on June 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Stupidity like yours is truly repulsive. You miss the old Soviet Union, don’t you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 10:18 AM

It will never stop if the citizens of NYC let him get away with the pop restrictions.

Qzsusy on June 14, 2012 at 10:30 AM

First they came for the 20-ounce sodas but I did not speak out, because I did not drink 20-ounce sodas. Then they came for the popcorn, but I did not — Hey wait a second! Hold it right there. What are you doing with my popcorn? Are you nuts?

curved space on June 14, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2