Opinion of Michael Bloomberg

[bedstuy]

One of the best mayors in NYC history.  I don't understand the hate for Bloomberg.  You must be overrating a few political issues, I don't think being a mayor is like being a governor or Senator.  It's mostly about being an executive who manages a bureaucracy, makes deals and markets your city to the rest of the world.  On the major issue, land use, Bloomberg was actually been great in rezoning the city and supporting a more bike-friendly-pedestrian friendly city.

The soda thing is really silly, I mean come on does anyone think just limiting the max size is going to cause a decrease in obesity in NYC? Imagine if Bushie was limited to the max soda size he could order and how much of an effect that'd have. Very pointless regulation.

However that is far from the main reason he's a HP.

It actually might make a difference though if people just tend to buy smaller sodas.  If you drink one soda per day, a 20 ounce coke is 234 calories vs. a 16 ounce coke is 187 calories.  Considering those are just empty calories, 47 Calories or 100 calories if you drink 2 sodas per day, that would make a difference over a long period of time.  The question is whether people would just find other ways to drink more soda. 

[bedstuy]

Yeah, you'd very quickly stop cycling like that here- either because you've learnt otherwise or been run over.

Tell that to delivery guys in Manhattan.  Seriously, I think the suburban auto-chauvinist arguments against riding bikes are always dumb, but especially in the NYC context.  This is not a convenient city to drive a car around every day.  Bicycles can be parked more easily, they don't pollute the air and they don't usually kill people.

The soda thing is really silly, I mean come on does anyone think just limiting the max size is going to cause a decrease in obesity in NYC? Imagine if Bushie was limited to the max soda size he could order and how much of an effect that'd have. Very pointless regulation.

However that is far from the main reason he's a HP.

It actually might make a difference though if people just tend to buy smaller sodas.  If you drink one soda per day, a 20 ounce coke is 234 calories vs. a 16 ounce coke is 187 calories.  Considering those are just empty calories, 47 Calories or 100 calories if you drink 2 sodas per day, that would make a difference over a long period of time.  The question is whether people would just find other ways to drink more soda. 

How many people drink one soda per day in the type affected by the regulation though? Even those that want more would just buy more in bottles unaffected by it. I myself never buy the max size of a fountain drink anyway because drinking all that at once gives me a stomachache. I can't see how it can make any actual difference in total consumption.

That's a silly argument.  People are not that logical when it comes to eating/drinking.  If people were logical, they would never drink soda at all.  Nobody is saying, I want between 18-20 oz of soda, I need to buy a that much to quench my thirst.  People just grab something and if what's in front of them is slightly smaller, they'll probably just drink less.  If what they grab is bigger, they'll drink the entire thing, even if it gives them a stomach ache.  So, it does make sense that the ban would have reduced soda consumption at least somewhat.  How much is debatable and you might be right that it wasn't worth regulating.

[bedstuy]

The soda thing is really silly, I mean come on does anyone think just limiting the max size is going to cause a decrease in obesity in NYC? Imagine if Bushie was limited to the max soda size he could order and how much of an effect that'd have. Very pointless regulation.

However that is far from the main reason he's a HP.

It actually might make a difference though if people just tend to buy smaller sodas.  If you drink one soda per day, a 20 ounce coke is 234 calories vs. a 16 ounce coke is 187 calories.  Considering those are just empty calories, 47 Calories or 100 calories if you drink 2 sodas per day, that would make a difference over a long period of time.  The question is whether people would just find other ways to drink more soda. 

How many people drink one soda per day in the type affected by the regulation though? Even those that want more would just buy more in bottles unaffected by it. I myself never buy the max size of a fountain drink anyway because drinking all that at once gives me a stomachache. I can't see how it can make any actual difference in total consumption.

That's a silly argument.  People are not that logical when it comes to eating/drinking.  If people were logical, they would never drink soda at all.  Nobody is saying, I want between 18-20 oz of soda, I need to buy a that much to quench my thirst.  People just grab something and if what's in front of them is slightly smaller, they'll probably just drink less.  If what they grab is bigger, they'll drink the entire thing, even if it gives them a stomach ache.  So, it does make sense that the ban would have reduced soda consumption at least somewhat.  How much is debatable and you might be right that it wasn't worth regulating.

There's nothing "illogical" about drinking soda anymore than it's illogical to eat Big Macs, logic doesn't dictate you can only consume things that are healthy. What would be illogical would be to eat or drink something that is quite unhealthy when someone that's less unhealthy and that have at least equal preference to the taste is available but yes there are plenty of cases where people would do that regardless. As far as the rest of your example goes, that sort of scenario still makes up a very small percentage of soda sold and drunk. I'm sure an overwhelming majority is bought and consumed at home, and even for ones bought on the go bottles are far more common.

But this isn't something that just has a neglible impact, it's also harmful in that sense as well. It sparked an outrage against Bloomberg that yes while silly, did destroy the credibility of public health regulations including ones that would be more effective. It's similar to how the Assault Weapons Ban and other ineffective gun control laws hurt gun control overall. Plus I'm sure the small decrease in consumption was offset by the idiots who decided to drink more in protest. And then there's how Bloomberg used a pretty undemocratic method to put it in place which is why the courts later threw it out, thus making the whole thing a pointless attention wasting spectacle. So it is something Bloomberg deserves criticism for, being well intentioned is not an excuse for such bad policy.

It is however quite low on the list of negative things I'd say about Bloomberg.

Yeah, nobody is going to argue that the "Soda Ban" was handled well.  It didn't go through in any case.  But, I do think it's legitimate to think about how society can encourage people to eat smaller portions or fewer portions of unhealthy food.  Direct government regulation is not generally the answer. 

But, that's only a part of the Bloomberg health department legacy.  You also have the smoking ban, trans fat ban and greater emphasis on grading restaurants' sanitary conditions.  Those were successful for sure.

[bedstuy]

Don't like him or hate him, I certainly don't approve of his purely political move of becoming an independent.  However, I voted FF out of protest because of how bad of a rap he's gotten in this forum...

He was a registered Democrat before he ran for Mayor, so his whole existence as a "Republican" was purely political ANYWAY, so your point is stupid.

Exactly.  And, it's not like New York City politics is partisan anyway.