Tag: gilroy soft drinks

• No, do we really need government regulating the size of our soda cups but allowing marijuana sales, alcohol sales and cigarette sales? Give me a break. • Yes. Not sure why we need to have more than 16 ounces. Also, there would be less waste. • No, 16 oz. seems to be a bit of an overreach. HOWEVER, I wouldn’t mind seeing action taken on much larger sized drinks. Banning huge drinks, locally, would be a small step taken in the right direction in getting citizens to recognize the physical and financial impacts on being fat and unhealthy for no other reason than eating poorly.  Some will argue that government should not interfere with culinary choices. However, when those decisions have huge financial impacts on our health care system, and inevitably all taxpayers, then government is obligated to act. 20 years ago, San Luis Obispo, made national headlines when it banned smoking in ALL buildings. Many argued against it in the name of individual freedoms. This once, outrageous government intrusion, is now widely accepted as common sense. • No. The idea is ridiculous just as it is in NYC. There is an equally ridiculous idea before the council now regarding smoking in parks and the big issue is enforcement, which would also be the case for soft drinks  Banning soft drinks over 16 oz. would be another law to punish business. • Too much “Big Brother” for me.  NO!! What happened to “This is a free country?” Let people decide for themselves whether or not they want to super size their drink. Who would enforce this ban anyway? The police need to be addressing real crime, not something as stupid as this. • Oh sure why not, then everyone will lose a lot of weight and stop cracking the sidewalks and the city’s problems will be over. NO! • No. Free choice is something we value, and if people choose to drink that much soda it is their choice. Wrong, but their choice. • No. This is government overreach. I do agree with limiting nutritionally questionable items within the K-12 school campus. That said, obesity is an epidemic in our country, and all of us are bearing the health care burden for those who choose to do harmful things to themselves, including eating junk food, smoking and drug use. A cultural shift through comprehensive public communications programs is a better way for our government to promote health in our communities. • No. Unlike smoking, soft drinks don't give off “second hand calories”. I believe it would be infringing on a person's personal rights. I don’t think anyone should drink sugary soft drinks very often, but that is my personal choice. • NO! I do think it would be very responsible for theaters/fast food establishments to offer smaller sizes and if they were really responsible they would make the larger sizes less attractive by increasing the price differentials between small and BIGGIE. • Hell no! I think our taxpayers have a lot more to be concerned about then limiting soft drinks over 16oz.n Pretty Big-Brother-silly. Let's educate. We have made the diabetes epidemic ourselves. Parent education, removing empty calories from school lunches, community gardens, youth physical activity opportunities, good health education. I support all, but the legal rout? No thanks. • No! Consider the source (Michael Bloomberg). According to da Mayor “One doughnut’s not damaging; it’s lots of doughnuts that are damaging. All we’re trying to do with full-sugared drinks is to give people encouragement to do things in moderation.” If you follow his faulty logic to its reasonable conclusion, we will have to downsize all food packaging and limit the purchase quantities. I see individually wrapped tofu cubes in our future!