NYC's ban on suggary drinks overturned

[Lief 🗽]

Disgusting decision from an activist judge.

[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.

[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.

Overturning draconian regulations on how much soda I'm allowed to drink. That's not corporations wielding massive influence, it's the rare emergence of some amount of sense in government.

There are no regulations on how much soda you're allowed to drink.

[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.

Overturning draconian regulations on how much soda I'm allowed to drink. That's not corporations wielding massive influence, it's the rare emergence of some amount of sense in government.

There are no regulations on how much soda you're allowed to drink.

There are regulations on cup size, which is just as ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Obesity is a huge public health problem that is only getting worse, people are still allowed to drink as much soda as they want, and the regulation makes use of the "default bias" to ensure that people will drink less calorie-rich soda.

[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.

Overturning draconian regulations on how much soda I'm allowed to drink. That's not corporations wielding massive influence, it's the rare emergence of some amount of sense in government.

There are no regulations on how much soda you're allowed to drink.

There are regulations on cup size, which is just as ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Obesity is a huge public health problem that is only getting worse, people are still allowed to drink as much soda as they want, and the regulation makes use of the "default bias" to ensure that people will drink less calorie-rich soda.

Then why don't we focus less on allowing the government to control everything, right down to diet, and more on instilling worthwhile values in people, like health-consciousness and self-control, so our future generations aren't as terrible as the current one?

Because that doesn't work, at least not as well as simply making the default size smaller and eliminating a few hundred calories from people's diets without them noticing the difference.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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/

[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.