Why are you addressing your posts to me, and not to tsar? He's the one who raised certain issues with you, including the issue of smokers.
And you still didn't answer tsar's question.
And you still show no awareness of the fact that widespread public health problems, like obesity, create economic problems, for both the government and individual citizens, by increasing the demand for needed medical treatments and hospitalizations, which results in higher expenditures by both the government and private insurers. to cover those costs, and those increases wind up being passed along to, and affecting, everyone
So once more the state should have the power to interfere with adult’s choices if they can make any kind of case that it needed to reduce health care cost!!!!
Stop being so hysterical.
The state isn't interfering with anyone's choices. That's a red herring. People will still be able to guzzle as much soda, or other sugary drink, as they wish--even in restaurants, theaters, stadiums, etc. Someone who craves 32 oz of soda can get two 16 oz size glasses, or three, or four, 16 oz glasses. The ban just limits the maximum serving size of a single portion to 16 oz.
This ban really isn't aimed directly at the consumer, the patron in a restaurant or theater, it's aimed at the seller, with regard to portion size-- and with good reason. It's the sellers of these beverages who have manipulated, and distorted, the public perception of portion size over a period of decades. Where a serving of coke in a glass used to be 8 ozs, it gradually became 12 oz, and then 16 oz, just for the small
size. A "medium" became 24 oz and a "large" a whopping 32 oz. Naturally, doing that increased the amount of soda sold, and it allowed more to be charged, and more profits to be made. But it also insidiously altered public perception of portion size, and what constitutes a small, medium, or large portion--all in the direction of considerably larger amounts, as a marketing strategy.
And portion size, in general, is a major contributory factor in obesity. Our notion of a "portion" has grown considerably--and, consequently, so have American waistlines.
So I feel this ban is aimed exactly at the right group--the sellers who have manipulated and distorted the portion sizes of sugary beverages--so they're not going to be allowed to continue pushing mega-sized servings on the public. They can still sell as much as they want, and the public can still drink as much as they want, the only thing affected is the portion size of each serving by limiting it to 16 oz.
Hopefully, when the public is no longer accustomed to being offered mega-sized drinks, they may become aware that a smaller size can be just as satisfying, or, if they have to order more than one, to get a larger amount, that will heighten their awareness of intake. But everyone is still free to buy and drink as much as they want.
The success of Bloomberg's other initiatives, such as the ban on trans-fats in foods, led to nationwide changes which removed these harmful substances from foods--something individual consumers could not accomplish for themselves without government intervention--and removing the trans-fats did not affect the test or appeal of the food, it just made it a little healthier. It is hard to fault Bloomberg for doing something that positive in terms of public heath.
And while this soft drink "ban" might make only a tiny dent in the obesity problem, a tiny dent is better than nothing. It's also raised awareness of the enormous amounts of sugar in those mega-sized drinks, and that's all for the good as well.
You obviously have as little concern for public health as you do for public safety on the roads. Some of us actually see ourselves as connected to the larger society, you don't seem to feel that way.