NYC's ban on suggary drinks overturned

[Lambsbread]

F**K YEAH FREEDOM

[bedstuy]

America is based on the freedom to turn yourself into a diabetic walrus by drinking cheap liquid candy.  Right.  We'll see how this turn out on appeal.

Meanwhile, NYC is over-regulated in 10 thousand other ways.  This is the least of our worries.  Some day, I hope we can move to a tax on all forms of sugar and we can live a Bloombergian utopia where everyone is skinny, rich and unarmed. 

[Lief 🗽]

It's not even the right to be a diabetic, one-legged obese that these people are defending. It's the right to not have to get off your fat ass to buy a second cup of fizzy syrup water that is so dear to their clogged hearts.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Good.

You have a right to ruin your life.

[dead0man]

good the government shouldn't limit soda cup size, but the government should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup.

Best amount of damn sense I've heard so far in this thread.

Indeed.  The authoritarians in this thread are disgusting.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

good the government shouldn't limit soda cup size, but the government should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup.

Best amount of damn sense I've heard so far in this thread.

Indeed.  The authoritarians in this thread are disgusting.

Yes; if there is one tarriff I support ending, it is the tarriffs on real sugar.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

That law was suppose to go in to effect this week, wasn't it?  Good to hear.

I've heard that New York is one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to unnecessary laws.  Pushing for intrusive things like this just makes liberals look bad, IMO.

[Obamanation]

good the government shouldn't limit soda cup size, but the government should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup.

Best amount of damn sense I've heard so far in this thread.

Indeed.  The authoritarians in this thread are disgusting.

Libertarians are disgusting.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, liberals should just stop trying to regulate anything. Restaurant health inspections? Intrusive! Laws against pollution? Intrusive! Food safety regulations? Intrusive. Just let corporations poison ignorant and uninformed people. After all, the freedom for poor people who don't have the time or energy to learn about nutrition to ruin their lives is much more important.

It's disgusting that people think that their "right" to not have to buy a refill is more important than protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of people.

[Old Man Svensson]

good the government shouldn't limit soda cup size, but the government should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup.

Best amount of damn sense I've heard so far in this thread.

Indeed.  The authoritarians in this thread are disgusting.

Libertarians are disgusting.

Excuse me, but are you against things like SOPA, the PATRIOT Act, and the NDAA? If so, you are in some capacity libertarian and, thus, have proven yourself to be a horrible hypocrite.

Also, just as a tip, non-sequitur personal attacks have no place in intelligent debates.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Yeah, liberals should just stop trying to regulate anything. Restaurant health inspections? Intrusive! Laws against pollution? Intrusive! Food safety regulations? Intrusive. Just let corporations poison ignorant and uninformed people. After all, the freedom for poor people who don't have the time or energy to learn about nutrition to ruin their lives is much more important.

It's disgusting that people think that their "right" to not have to buy a refill is more important than protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of people.

[Lief 🗽]

What other "intrusive things like this" are liberals pushing for then? You can't suggest that there are a whole other list of (un-named) regulations you oppose and then get made at me when I make a reasonable guess as to what these are.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Wait, some people actually thought Bloomberg's ban was a good idea? Man, liberals make me shake my head sometimes.

[Lief 🗽]

It would have reduced people's consumption of obesity-causing sugary drinks without infringing on anyone's ability to drink as much soda as they want, and with little cost to the government and no increased cost to consumers. How is it not a good idea?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

What other "intrusive things like this" are liberals pushing for then? You can't suggest that there are a whole other list of (un-named) regulations you oppose and then get made at me when I make a reasonable guess as to what these are.

You're missing the point.  I never said that liberals should "just stop trying to regulate anything," but I think we can all agree that there are some things you really don't need a law for.  Even the NAACP and Hispanic Federation opposed the ban on the grounds that it will hurt small, minority-owned businesses.  Aren't progressives suppose to be supporting those businesses, last time I checked?

I guess I'm just surprised to see liberals taking the "we need to regulate society" type of position that conservatives normally do.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It would have reduced people's consumption of obesity-causing sugary drinks without infringing on anyone's ability to drink as much soda as they want, and with little cost to the government and no increased cost to consumers. How is it not a good idea?

If people can drink as much soda as they want anyway, why have a ban at all?

[Lief 🗽]

What other "intrusive things like this" are liberals pushing for then? You can't suggest that there are a whole other list of (un-named) regulations you oppose and then get made at me when I make a reasonable guess as to what these are.

You're missing the point.  I never said that liberals should "just stop trying to regulate anything," but I think we can all agree that there are some things you really don't need a law for.  Even the NAACP and Hispanic Federation opposed the ban on the grounds that it will hurt small, minority-owned businesses.  Aren't we suppose to be supporting those businesses, last time I checked?

I guess I'm just surprised to see liberals taking the "we need to regulate society" type of position that conservatives normally do.

Yeah, but liberals should also be about protecting the health of the poor instead of the profits of mega-corporations like PepsiCo. The law could have been better written, but its fundamental goal of protecting public health through an incredibly non-intrusive regulation (most people will not notice the difference and will not change their purchasing habits (i.e. not buy a second cup)) is a good one.

It would have reduced people's consumption of obesity-causing sugary drinks without infringing on anyone's ability to drink as much soda as they want, and with little cost to the government and no increased cost to consumers. How is it not a good idea?

If people can drink as much soda as they want anyway, why have a ban at all?

Because for most people "as much soda as they want" just means as much soda as is in the cup. Reducing portion size reduces consumption. Plenty of studies have shown this: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_research.pdf

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Bloomberg is appealing. The reason this was struck down was that the executive branch did something that the legislature had the power to decide. And based on NY precedent, Bloomberg will probably losw on appeal.

[Obamanation]

good the government shouldn't limit soda cup size, but the government should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup.

Best amount of damn sense I've heard so far in this thread.

Indeed.  The authoritarians in this thread are disgusting.

Libertarians are disgusting.

Excuse me, but are you against things like SOPA, the PATRIOT Act, and the NDAA? If so, you are in some capacity libertarian and, thus, have proven yourself to be a horrible hypocrite.

Also, just as a tip, non-sequitur personal attacks have no place in intelligent debates.

I was responding to a personal attack and no, I don't have a problem with the aforementioned legislation.

I want people to stop being fat and ugly so that I don't have to pay for their emergency room bills when they go in for a heart attack. Conservatives should agree, but alas they just want to pick fights.

[Old Man Svensson]

good the government shouldn't limit soda cup size, but the government should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup.

Best amount of damn sense I've heard so far in this thread.

Indeed.  The authoritarians in this thread are disgusting.

Libertarians are disgusting.

Excuse me, but are you against things like SOPA, the PATRIOT Act, and the NDAA? If so, you are in some capacity libertarian and, thus, have proven yourself to be a horrible hypocrite.

Also, just as a tip, non-sequitur personal attacks have no place in intelligent debates.

I was responding to a personal attack and no, I don't have a problem with the aforementioned legislation.

Well, that certainly explains a lot. At least you're honest.

[Maxwell]

good the government shouldn't limit soda cup size, but the government should stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup.

Best amount of damn sense I've heard so far in this thread.

[Rooney]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Sopranos Republican]

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.

A victory in the war on stupid.
[/quote

Wait, some people actually thought Bloomberg's ban was a good idea? Man, liberals make me shake my head sometimes.

Best quotes in this thread.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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