NYC's ban on suggary drinks overturned

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, that's ridiculous.

This is not even a liberal v. conservative issue, it's mere judicial overreach.

[patrick1]

I hope Bloomberg doesn't comply. It's a shame no executives ever go full-on Jackson on the fascists in black robes.

Fascism=not allowing the government to control things?

Letting corporations control the government, as they are doing here by using the judiciary to overturn sensible regulations on soda serving sizes.

Considering that the regulation would have allowed 64 oz Big Gulps to still be sold because they were being sold in a convenience store, this regulation was anything but sensible.

Exactly Ernest. It was full of loopholes that favored some businesses over others. That is setting aside the nanny state nature of this anyway.

Lief, drinking beer is bad for you and full of calories and carbs.  It makes you fat and a danger to others and the health care system.  Therefore, I propose we limit all bars and beverage stores to selling 6oz glasses or cans.  Hey, you can just buy more, (for more money o/c) amirite? The drunks can just stagger their way to the store or fork over their shaky fists across the brass rail to buy more after all....

[DC Al Fine]

Glad to see it gone.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

All nanny state points aside I don't really think that decision of Judge Tingling (has there ever been a better name for a judge?) is all that good for liberty lovers or classical liberals. Tingling wrote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This reads to me that Judge Tingling would be okay with the 20 ounce soda ban in NYC if it was extended to every business in NYC that served any type of beverage in a 20 ounce cup. This would apply to coffee shops, I would assume where massive amounts of high calorie drinks are sipped by enlightened progressive law school students every minute of the day.  The judge writes that the law is "arbitrary" if every aspect of beverage drinking in NYC is not covered by a similar law.

Furthermore, Judge Tingling also commented that supermarkets and large chain stores don’t fall under city regulations and wouldn’t have been impacted by the ban. But local, mom-and-pop bodegas would have been forced to adhere to the 16-ounce ban. Thus he is arguing that the law DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH and should be enforced on ALL businesses that engage in beverage sales all the way down to grocery stores.

What is worse is that the judge argues for the city council and the state legislature to pass a ban along the draconian lines he dictates. “There is no rational argument purporting to demonstrate legislative inaction in this area,” Tingling wrote. His decision is no win for libertarian minded individuals but a sounding declaration for more state intervention in individual diets.

Tingling is not making an argument for or against some sort of law regulating soda. He is saying that the inconsistency of the law undercuts the claim that it is a measure responding to an epidemic, which is the legal basis for the Board of Health's authority.   I think you also misunderstand the phrase "demonstrate legislative inaction," which is a descriptive argument about what legislators have or haven't done and is relevant to the case law.

[Lief 🗽]

I hope Bloomberg doesn't comply. It's a shame no executives ever go full-on Jackson on the fascists in black robes.

Fascism=not allowing the government to control things?

Letting corporations control the government, as they are doing here by using the judiciary to overturn sensible regulations on soda serving sizes.

Considering that the regulation would have allowed 64 oz Big Gulps to still be sold because they were being sold in a convenience store, this regulation was anything but sensible.

Exactly Ernest. It was full of loopholes that favored some businesses over others. That is setting aside the nanny state nature of this anyway.

Lief, drinking beer is bad for you and full of calories and carbs.  It makes you fat and a danger to others and the health care system.  Therefore, I propose we limit all bars and beverage stores to selling 6oz glasses or cans.  Hey, you can just buy more, (for more money o/c) amirite? The drunks can just stagger their way to the store or fork over their shaky fists across the brass rail to buy more after all....

Beer is literally the worst counter-example you could think of. There are tons of regulations concerning beer, plenty of which are far, far more draconian than Bloomberg's on soda.

[patrick1]

I hope Bloomberg doesn't comply. It's a shame no executives ever go full-on Jackson on the fascists in black robes.

Fascism=not allowing the government to control things?

Letting corporations control the government, as they are doing here by using the judiciary to overturn sensible regulations on soda serving sizes.

Considering that the regulation would have allowed 64 oz Big Gulps to still be sold because they were being sold in a convenience store, this regulation was anything but sensible.

Exactly Ernest. It was full of loopholes that favored some businesses over others. That is setting aside the nanny state nature of this anyway.

Lief, drinking beer is bad for you and full of calories and carbs.  It makes you fat and a danger to others and the health care system.  Therefore, I propose we limit all bars and beverage stores to selling 6oz glasses or cans.  Hey, you can just buy more, (for more money o/c) amirite? The drunks can just stagger their way to the store or fork over their shaky fists across the brass rail to buy more after all....

Beer is literally the worst counter-example you could think of. There are tons of regulations concerning beer, plenty of which are far, far more draconian than Bloomberg's on soda.

Just demonstrating that the serving size portion of your argument is a red herring.  You don't like the idea of sugared soda so you want to ban it.  There is a problem with obesity but this is not a solution to that, it punishes consumers, is counter productive and favors large business over independent stores.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Good.

You have a right to ruin your life.

Not when your obesity-related Medicare/Medicaid costs come out of my taxes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

To Anotnio and whoever Parks And What You Meant To Me is (I'm assuming BRTD), how are youy saying there's no good legal basis behind the ruling? Did you even read the opinion? The precedent seems pretty solid here.

[Reaganfan]

Republicans: Large sodas are unhealthy, so I choose not to drink them.
Democrats: Large sodas are unhealthy, I want them banned for everyone.

Then liberals claim they're for individual rights. Hypocrites.

[King]

Republicans: Large sodas are unhealthy, so I choose not to drink them.
Democrats: Large sodas are unhealthy, I want them banned for everyone.

Then liberals claim they're for individual rights. Hypocrites.

And your position on marijuana...

[Reaganfan]

Republicans: Large sodas are unhealthy, so I choose not to drink them.
Democrats: Large sodas are unhealthy, I want them banned for everyone.

Then liberals claim they're for individual rights. Hypocrites.

And your position on marijuana...

One's illegal, the other's not, "King".

[King]

Republicans: Large sodas are unhealthy, so I choose not to drink them.
Democrats: Large sodas are unhealthy, I want them banned for everyone.

Then liberals claim they're for individual rights. Hypocrites.

And your position on marijuana...

One's illegal, the other's not, "King".

So, if large sodas were made illegal, you would flip on this issue?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Republicans: Large sodas are unhealthy, so I choose not to drink them.
Democrats: Large sodas are unhealthy, I want them banned for everyone.

Then liberals claim they're for individual rights. Hypocrites.

And your position on marijuana...

One's illegal, the other's not, "King".

Erm yes, that's the point. And you want to keep it that way.

For the record Bloomberg was originally elected as a Republican, and I oppose this law. Not only is it unnecessary nanny statism, it's meaningless and isn't going to solve anything. Other opponents include Bloomberg's 2009 Democratic opponent and much of the City Council (almost all Democrats).

To Anotnio and whoever Parks And What You Meant To Me is (I'm assuming BRTD), how are youy saying there's no good legal basis behind the ruling? Did you even read the opinion? The precedent seems pretty solid here.

OK I see it wasn't so much the law itself that was the issue but how Bloomberg passed it and just using the city's Board of Health as a workaround the City Council. That makes more sense now.

[Lief 🗽]

I hope Bloomberg doesn't comply. It's a shame no executives ever go full-on Jackson on the fascists in black robes.

Fascism=not allowing the government to control things?

Letting corporations control the government, as they are doing here by using the judiciary to overturn sensible regulations on soda serving sizes.

Considering that the regulation would have allowed 64 oz Big Gulps to still be sold because they were being sold in a convenience store, this regulation was anything but sensible.

Exactly Ernest. It was full of loopholes that favored some businesses over others. That is setting aside the nanny state nature of this anyway.

Lief, drinking beer is bad for you and full of calories and carbs.  It makes you fat and a danger to others and the health care system.  Therefore, I propose we limit all bars and beverage stores to selling 6oz glasses or cans.  Hey, you can just buy more, (for more money o/c) amirite? The drunks can just stagger their way to the store or fork over their shaky fists across the brass rail to buy more after all....

Beer is literally the worst counter-example you could think of. There are tons of regulations concerning beer, plenty of which are far, far more draconian than Bloomberg's on soda.

Just demonstrating that the serving size portion of your argument is a red herring.  You don't like the idea of sugared soda so you want to ban it.  There is a problem with obesity but this is not a solution to that, it punishes consumers, is counter productive and favors large business over independent stores.

No one is banning soda. No one is advocating banning soda.

Meanwhile, the fattest state in the country comes to the defense of large soda corporations by condemning Bloomberg for trying to make his own citizens healthier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/12/mississippi-comes-to-the-defense-of-large-sodas-with-anti-bloomberg-bill/

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

I hope Bloomberg doesn't comply. It's a shame no executives ever go full-on Jackson on the fascists in black robes.

Fascism=not allowing the government to control things?

Letting corporations control the government, as they are doing here by using the judiciary to overturn sensible regulations on soda serving sizes.

Classic far-left hypocrisy.

The corporations are always evil, but big-Daddy government always has the best intentions.

Yeah right. 

[angus]

Thank you.  Libertarians rarely win any court cases nowadays--with the high unemployment rate and the successful War on Terror and War on Drugs and War on Adipose Tissue scams perpetrated by the government--and it's nice to see the rare ruling objecting to "arbitrary and capricious" laws.  Whether it's excessive masturbation, weed, over-the-counter antibiotics, or sugar-laden sodas, I think it's nice that merchants occasionally be free to sell our customers what they want.  Like they do in China, for example. 

How do you spell irony? 

[King]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

[Obamanation]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

That would be awesome! And make the poor much healthier.

[AkSaber]

The law was stupid, but I don't see a basis to strike it down.

True. There's no right to colas in the Constitution. The mayor was merely exercising his 10th Amendment right.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The law was stupid, but I don't see a basis to strike it down.

True. There's no right to colas in the Constitution. The mayor was merely exercising his 10th Amendment right.

I'm ashamed I just had to look up the Tenth Amendment on Google, and while this Amendment seemingly backs Mayor Bloomberg, the law also seems useless and a waste of time, especially if 7-11 can serve the huge 44 or 64 oz Big Gulps without restriction.  Could someone inform me if this bill limits the number of free refills that one can get at the area restaurants?  I would say that if the number of free refills are not limited or restricted, then this law is even more pointless as it would be just as easy to keep going back for refills to achieve the same amount and the same result.  With all that said, it would seem pointless for both the creation of the law and the striking down of the same.

[SPC]

The law was stupid, but I don't see a basis to strike it down.

True. There's no right to colas in the Constitution. The mayor was merely exercising his 10th Amendment right power.

States (nor cities for this matter) do not have rights, as the 10th Amendment makes no mention of rights. It may seem like a semantic issue, but otherwise it sounds as though government officials have special rights instead of designated powers.

[Lief 🗽]

The law was stupid, but I don't see a basis to strike it down.

True. There's no right to colas in the Constitution. The mayor was merely exercising his 10th Amendment right.

I'm ashamed I just had to look up the Tenth Amendment on Google, and while this Amendment seemingly backs Mayor Bloomberg, the law also seems useless and a waste of time, especially if 7-11 can serve the huge 44 or 64 oz Big Gulps without restriction.  Could someone inform me if this bill limits the number of free refills that one can get at the area restaurants?  I would say that if the number of free refills are not limited or restricted, then this law is even more pointless as it would be just as easy to keep going back for refills to achieve the same amount and the same result.  With all that said, it would seem pointless for both the creation of the law and the striking down of the same.

99% of people won't go back for seconds. Most people are satisfied with the default size of what they drink/eat, regardless of how big or small it is. And if they do want a refill, they'll have to make the conscious choice to drink more empty calories, and many of them will choose not to.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The law was stupid, but I don't see a basis to strike it down.

True. There's no right to colas in the Constitution. The mayor was merely exercising his 10th Amendment right.

That's not relevant here. It wasn't on the basis of the US Constitution, and it wasn't a federal judge. 

[King]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

That would be awesome! And make the poor much healthier.

There's so much that can done with sales taxes without creating a government bureaucracy that could solve all of our nations problems.  Cash registers and bar code pricing is so advanced these days that these things could be collected and redistributed without any sort of meddling.  It's a shame there's no place on the political spectrum for it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The law was stupid, but I don't see a basis to strike it down.

True. There's no right to colas in the Constitution. The mayor was merely exercising his 10th Amendment right.

I'm ashamed I just had to look up the Tenth Amendment on Google, and while this Amendment seemingly backs Mayor Bloomberg, the law also seems useless and a waste of time, especially if 7-11 can serve the huge 44 or 64 oz Big Gulps without restriction.  Could someone inform me if this bill limits the number of free refills that one can get at the area restaurants?  I would say that if the number of free refills are not limited or restricted, then this law is even more pointless as it would be just as easy to keep going back for refills to achieve the same amount and the same result.  With all that said, it would seem pointless for both the creation of the law and the striking down of the same.

99% of people won't go back for seconds. Most people are satisfied with the default size of what they drink/eat, regardless of how big or small it is. And if they do want a refill, they'll have to make the conscious choice to drink more empty calories, and many of them will choose not to.

That is very true, people often don't go back for seconds, so I guess in that respect, the law is effective, but I know for myself personally, and I know from looking at the obesity epidemic that I'm not alone that getting a refill is only a minor "inconvenience" in being able to completely wash down my food after every one or two bites if needed.