For every action, an equal and opposite overreaction

[Charles Kozierok]

The Constitutional basis for health care control was established by the approval of a punishment tax and the circuitous logic which makes anyone who uses a medical service at all an unwilling participant by virtue that they've ever had treatment. This is the payoff, a further inconsequential surrender to those who will decide for you. No one should be surprised.

Unfortunately this is what happens with any form of government involvement in health care, but you can't have a little bit without all of the rest following. Undoing this means we go all the way back to people dying in the ER if they don't have insurance coverage or a fat checkbook. Most people don't want that, but they don't want all of the things that getting rid of that implies.

 

[fskimospy]

So again Charles, you are saying that in order to regulate one unhealthy thing we mist regulate all unhealthy things. Or at least similar unhealthy things. Why? What legal basis are you using for this?

As I said before, incremental change is extremely valuable. Why not test if regulating some things helps and if it does, regulate others? Why on earth should governments have to either go full bore on everything or do nothing at all?

 

[ivwshane]

I think the root of the question is; Does the safety, security, and future viability of this nation require its citizens to be healthy?

If it doesn't then such laws are not needed, but if the overall health of the countries citizens are beneficial to the country then the laws might be necessary.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So again Charles, you are saying that in order to regulate one unhealthy thing we mist regulate all unhealthy things. Or at least similar unhealthy things. Why? What legal basis are you using for this?

Equal treatment under the law.

I see absolutely no reason why this law should target one industry and not many others that make products at least as problematic. I have no great love for Coke or Pepsi, but they are right that being singled out here is ridiculous.

And then there's the silliness of allowing it in grocery stores but not in restaurants.

The entire thing is completely arbitrary.

As I said before, incremental change is extremely valuable. Why not test if regulating some things helps and if it does, regulate others? Why on earth should governments have to either go full bore on everything or do nothing at all?

You do realize the irony in using this form of reasoning at the same time that you deride slippery slope argumentation?

 

[Screech]

The calorie count of a lot of restaurant food is wildly different than what one might assume, even with more healthy appearing options.

True, which is something I did not account for above. I have actually used such calorie counts and think they can be useful; I just don't think the people this is targeted to (as noted previously) would really care. I'm down with calorie counts for that reason though.

 

[fskimospy]

Equal treatment under the law.

I see absolutely no reason why this law should target one industry and not many others that make products at least as problematic. I have no great love for Coke or Pepsi, but they are right that being singled out here is ridiculous.

And then there's the silliness of allowing it in grocery stores but not in restaurants.

The entire thing is completely arbitrary.



You do realize the irony in using this form of reasoning at the same time that you deride slippery slope argumentation?

I actually mentioned before as to why it is not arbitrary. The city lacks the resources to inspect every establishment. As to other products, can you mention some that you believe to be consumed as frequently and that have similar or greater contributions to obesity without any health benefit?

Secondly, you will have to explain the irony to me. It is your argument that in order to regulate something that we must regulate other similar substances as well. You gave no exception for the practicality or ease of regulation nor any legal precedent for this being the case.

There are good arguments against the soda ban, but these are not good.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I actually mentioned before as to why it is not arbitrary.

You'll have to forgive me, but I've reviewed your posts and I'm not seeing it.

The city lacks the resources to inspect every establishment.

Since when is that justification for a law?

As to other products, can you mention some that you believe to be consumed as frequently and that have similar or greater contributions to obesity without any health benefit?

Sure. Start with beer.

Secondly, you will have to explain the irony to me. It is your argument that in order to regulate something that we must regulate other similar substances as well. You gave no exception for the practicality or ease of regulation nor any legal precedent for this being the case.

The irony is that you claim there is no such thing as a slippery slope, but then suggest that governments employ "incremental change" in pursuing these sorts of regulations. The two concepts are one and the same.

There are good arguments against the soda ban, but these are not good.

My main objection to the soda ban is based on principle, not pragmatism. There is no argument that I can give to you, someone who has different values, that will be convincing on that score.

In terms of the arbitrariness, if my argument there is not good, I'm not seeing you explain how.

 

[fskimospy]

You'll have to forgive me, but I've reviewed your posts and I'm not seeing it.

You addressed one right below.

Since when is that justification for a law?

Since when are available resources justification for the scope of a law? Since forever, basically.

Sure. Start with beer.

Good news, they already have. In general there are far more restrictions on the sale of beer and all alcoholic beverages than on any soda. Happy?

The irony is that you claim there is no such thing as a slippery slope, but then suggest that governments employ "incremental change" in pursuing these sorts of regulations. The two concepts are one and the same.

This is not correct. Slippery slope fallacies come from a form of reductio ad absurdum, taking things to an illogical extreme without justification. Having a pilot program that might expand is not a slippery slope, it is designed that way.

My main objection to the soda ban is based on principle, not pragmatism. There is no argument that I can give to you, someone who has different values, that will be convincing on that score.

In terms of the arbitrariness, if my argument there is not good, I'm not seeing you explain how.

If your objection is simply on principles there is really no argument to be had.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You addressed one right below.

I don't see where you've explained why it is reasonable to have a law that targets only soft drinks and not other fattening foods.

Nor the basis for the 16 ounce number.

Nor why one specific form of selling soda was targeted but not others.

Since when are available resources justification for the scope of a law? Since forever, basically.

It's never been a valid justification for arbitrarily applying a law to one group and not another.

Good news, they already have.

Pitchers of beer are legal in New York City.

How about donuts? I can buy a dozen donuts, nobody really needs that many. Shouldn't they be limited to only one at a time?

Why can I buy four Big Macs at a time from McDonald's?

And so on. There are countless other examples.

This is not correct. Slippery slope fallacies come from a form of reductio ad absurdum, taking things to an illogical extreme without justification. Having a pilot program that might expand is not a slippery slope, it is designed that way.

Yes -- it's a deliberate slippery slope. You start out with one restriction and say "oh, we're only doing it for X". And then you do it for something else. And something else again. And before you know it, you end up with a whole lot of things banned or restricted that, if they did it all at once, would never have been allowed to happen.

This is where we are right now with the "government has a right to control what you ingest because of healthcare" business.

If your objection is simply on principles there is really no argument to be had.

Not solely, but largely. This particular law I object to even more because it's, well, stupid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unfortunately this is what happens with any form of government involvement in health care, but you can't have a little bit without all of the rest following. Undoing this means we go all the way back to people dying in the ER if they don't have insurance coverage or a fat checkbook. Most people don't want that, but they don't want all of the things that getting rid of that implies.

Oh you can't undo it and make it right. This is the foundation that was ordered and will be built upon. Non political solutions were anathema.

 

[werepossum]

Oh you can't undo it and make it right. This is the foundation that was ordered and will be built upon. Non political solutions were anathema.

I agree, this is inevitable and in the long run irreversible. We as a society have decided that "someone else" is responsible for our health insurance and ultimately, our health care. Having ceded that power, we are no longer free individuals, but are government's property, and as such we should expect to be managed like property. Government has not only a need to decide what is good for our health, but also our tacit agreement that government knows best. There can be no benefits without also ceding control. If you decide that government shall furnish your cheese, then government will decide what kind of cheese you will eat. If you decide that government shall furnish your education, then government will decide what kind of education you receive.

 

[ivwshane]

I agree, this is inevitable and in the long run irreversible. We as a society have decided that "someone else" is responsible for our health insurance and ultimately, our health care. Having ceded that power, we are no longer free individuals, but are government's property, and as such we should expect to be managed like property. Government has not only a need to decide what is good for our health, but also our tacit agreement that government knows best. There can be no benefits without also ceding control. If you decide that government shall furnish your cheese, then government will decide what kind of cheese you will eat. If you decide that government shall furnish your education, then government will decide what kind of education you receive.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You were never as free as you thought you were. Our laws are based on what the majority of the people want. If you don't like the type of education the government provides then lobby for something different or go the private route. If you don't like they type of health care you have then lobby the government for the type you want, don't like government health care? the go then private route.

 

[Fern]

For every action, an equal and opposite overreaction

Is it really an "overreaction"?

Here is what the Dem congressman who wrote the bill says:

Rep. Gregory Holloway, a Democrat, ushered the popular bill through the state House. He says the goal is to create consistency in nutrition laws across the state. "We don't want local municipalities experimenting with labeling of foods and any organic agenda. We want that authority to rest with the legislature," Holloway says

That seems reasonable to me. And from what I understand, the authority of local govts flows from the authority of the state. There is nothing unusual in a state dictating to a local govt what it can and cannot do.

States have preexisting frameworks in many areas that permit, or deny, authority to local govts on many matters. This is for obvious practical benefits. It is inefficient to have to go to the state legislature for everything. Yet, here in NC my local has had to go to the state legislature on several occasions to seek permission for some sort of change or additional authority.

But it doesn't stop there. It also bans laws requiring posting of calorie counts on menus. What is the justification for that? If you think adults should make their own decisions about what they consume, as I do, isn't information to make smart decisions kind of important?

Yeah, I bet printing companies would love to have a new rule passed requiring all menus be reprinted to add info.

I'm for giving the info, but personally I don't think the menu is necessarily the place to post it. I seem to remember McDonald's having a big poster displayed that showed that type data. I could see a restaurant doing that, or having that data listed separately, similar to the wine menu.

Different menu rules in different communities is a PITA for chain or franchise. It could quickly become absurd.

Apparently it even restricts towns' ability to zone where restaurants may be built. And it's prompting its own reaction, in the form of local governments pissed off at what they see as the state usurping its authority.

That seems a bit odd, but hard to judge since the article is vague with no details whatsoever.

However, I can tell you that after many years in dealing with local govts that these people can be idiots or corrupt. What would you think if a city decided to limit the number of restaurants allowed within it's zone? I have seen many attempts by restauranteurs, antique shops owners etc. trying to prevent more competition through zoning laws. I.e., "now that we're here no more restaurants should be allowed because we feel that's too much competition."

But mostly, I can see good reasons for homogeneity within a state. E.g., regulation of nutrition and what's printed on menus would fall under the Health Dept. The Health Dept is a state agency. Having those inspectors enforce state laws makes sense, having them enforce both state and a bunch of different locals laws does not, IMO.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You were never as free as you thought you were. Our laws are based on what the majority of the people want. If you don't like the type of education the government provides then lobby for something different or go the private route. If you don't like they type of health care you have then lobby the government for the type you want, don't like government health care? the go then private route.

Our laws are based on what those in power will accept. At times the majority does not matter. No where is this more true as in my state where public opinion was not wanted and neither was official debate.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Is it really an "overreaction"?

I do think so, but you make some very valid counter-arguments about the potential for chaos if municipalities passed some of these sorts of laws.

Still, I think the point of this legislation is rather obvious. It wasn't created or passed out of legitimate concern that towns were going to suddenly pass laws limiting the sizes of sugary drinks -- Mississippi is not NYC. It was done as a thumb-nose at Bloomberg and anyone who supports anti-obesity measures, and given the state's record in that area, I found it rather galling.

I'm for giving the info, but personally I don't think the menu is necessarily the place to post it. I seem to remember McDonald's having a big poster displayed that showed that type data. I could see a restaurant doing that, or having that data listed separately, similar to the wine menu.

In New York it is right on the menus, and in fast food places up on their menu boards. It's extremely useful for people who actually do care about what they are ingesting.

However, I can tell you that after many years in dealing with local govts that these people can be idiots or corrupt. What would you think if a city decided to limit the number of restaurants allowed within it's zone?

Would that really be something novel?

I live in Vermont, where towns fight tooth and nail to keep chains out wherever possible. I'm sure the same is true in many areas.

But mostly, I can see good reasons for homogeneity within a state.

Again, a valid argument. But one has to ask, in this case: what sort of homogeneity are they really after?

I agree, this is inevitable and in the long run irreversible. We as a society have decided that "someone else" is responsible for our health insurance and ultimately, our health care. Having ceded that power, we are no longer free individuals, but are government's property, and as such we should expect to be managed like property. Government has not only a need to decide what is good for our health, but also our tacit agreement that government knows best. There can be no benefits without also ceding control. If you decide that government shall furnish your cheese, then government will decide what kind of cheese you will eat. If you decide that government shall furnish your education, then government will decide what kind of education you receive.

I share the lamentation to some degree, as I've posted earlier in the thread. But the thing is.. those of us who feel this way have to recognize that we don't really have a good solution either.

The only way to eliminate this situation is to keep government out of healthcare entirely. That carries with it tremendous social costs.. would you be willing to accept them?

I'm not sure I am ready to return to the days of "patient dumping". I definitely know that rolling back the clock in this area would not be supported by a majority of Americans.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see where you've explained why it is reasonable to have a law that targets only soft drinks and not other fattening foods.

Nor the basis for the 16 ounce number.

Nor why one specific form of selling soda was targeted but not others.

This is odd to me as we are in fact discussing exactly that. I'm unsure of how to be clearer but I will try again.

There is no need to simultaneously regulate all fattening things and do so in an identical manner. Not only would that be unwieldly to implement, but since different foods have different qualities and are consumed in different ways it would be nonsensical from a policy perspective.

The 16oz number is arbitrary, but who cares? So is the speed limit. We want to reduce consumption while taking advantage of existing standards. 16oz makes sense to me.

It's never been a valid justification for arbitrarily applying a law to one group and not another.

Of course it has. If you lack the means to enforce something universally you select how you can enforce it best with the tools at your disposal. I mean that's just common sense.

Pitchers of beer are legal in New York City.

How about donuts? I can buy a dozen donuts, nobody really needs that many. Shouldn't they be limited to only one at a time?

Why can I buy four Big Macs at a time from McDonald's?

All of these examples are really bad. Are you arguing that soda should be regulated exactly like beer, or that beer should be regulated exactly like soda? If you aren't, then you are simply endorsing applying different regulations to different fattening products, just like me.

As for donuts and big macs, that doesn't even make sense. You can buy a case of soda just like you can buy a box of donuts, and you can buy four sodas the same way you can buy four big macs.

So out of those three, two are unaffected and one seems to support my point.

Yes -- it's a deliberate slippery slope. You start out with one restriction and say "oh, we're only doing it for X". And then you do it for something else. And something else again. And before you know it, you end up with a whole lot of things banned or restricted that, if they did it all at once, would never have been allowed to happen.

This is where we are right now with the "government has a right to control what you ingest because of healthcare" business.

Well that's just common sense too. You don't make major changes all at once if you can avoid it. That doesn't mean that hyperbolic predictions aren't a slippery slope fallacy though.

Not solely, but largely. This particular law I object to even more because it's, well, stupid.

Hey, different strokes for different folks. I'm fine with trying this out. My only misgivings are that it might not be effective. In general however I'm perfectly fine with the principles, I'd go quite a bit farther really.

 

[CPA]

The "you didn't ban everything unhealthy" argument is a bad one. In order to regulate one unhealthy thing you do not need to regulate all unhealthy things. Incrementalism is an extremely valuable tool. As for the no 7-11 thing it actually makes perfect sense. The city lacks the resources to inspect every corner bodega for soda violations, but can fold this into larger restaurant inspections.

I find it highly likely that this policy will reduce per capita soda intake. How much is unknown. If you don't think it is worth it that's fine, but the arguments that it is irrational are not good ones.

Incrementalism is a tool of deception.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There is no need to simultaneously regulate all fattening things and do so in an identical manner. Not only would that be unwieldly to implement, but since different foods have different qualities and are consumed in different ways it would be nonsensical from a policy perspective.

I agree that you don't need to regulate all fattening things in an identical manner, but that's really a false dichotomy. I never said that all fattening things should be regulated identically, just that fattening things that are similar or even identical should be regulated identically.

So no, I am not saying beverages have to be regulated in the exact same way as, for example, potato chips. But having a law that targets only specific sizes of specific beverages sold in specific places is so far from "identical" as to be ridiculous, at least IMO.

Bloomberg's law is arbitrary in what it bans. And that's why it got struck down. (What happens on appeal, I have no idea.)

The 16oz number is arbitrary, but who cares?

I do. The reason focusing on the number matters is because it further demonstrates the arbitrariness of the law.

So is the speed limit.

No, actually, speed limits are not arbitrary, or at least, they're not supposed to be. Poor analogy there.

(Re: "It's never been a valid justification for arbitrarily applying a law to one group and not another."

Of course it has. If you lack the means to enforce something universally you select how you can enforce it best with the tools at your disposal. I mean that's just common sense.

Apply that same standard to other areas of the law and then tell me how much it's "common sense". This same reasoning could be used to justify racial profiling, for example...

"We don't have the manpower to search everyone at the airport, so we are only going to search people who look like terrorists. I mean, that's just common sense".

How about street cops?

"Blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites, so we're going to give them a lot more of our attention."

And so on. These are not ridiculous examples by any means. In fact, some would say that both already happen.

All of these examples are really bad. Are you arguing that soda should be regulated exactly like beer, or that beer should be regulated exactly like soda? If you aren't, then you are simply endorsing applying different regulations to different fattening products, just like me.

That's an incredibly weak argument.

We're supposedly banning the sale of large open containers of soda because they lead to obesity. But we don't ban the sale of large open containers of beer, which has about the same number of calories per ounce and contains a substance that has a greater risk of addiction and that is associated with another major public health problem.

Sorry, it just doesn't fly.

As for donuts and big macs, that doesn't even make sense. You can buy a case of soda just like you can buy a box of donuts, and you can buy four sodas the same way you can buy four big macs.

You're right, it doesn't apply to those because they aren't sold in enormous sizes. The equivalent would be telling restaurants they aren't allowed to serve meals above a certain size. I'm sure you'd be okay with that too.

Well that's just common sense too. You don't make major changes all at once if you can avoid it. That doesn't mean that hyperbolic predictions aren't a slippery slope fallacy though.

You're engaging in a fallacious application of a fallacy. Because I am not making "hyperbolic predictions", I am pointing out very real examples of one law leading to another. You are not only acknowledging that this happens, you are endorsing it. So it is not a slippery slope fallacy, it's reality.

Hey, different strokes for different folks. I'm fine with trying this out. My only misgivings are that it might not be effective. In general however I'm perfectly fine with the principles, I'd go quite a bit farther really.

I'm sure you would, because you're a liberal, and I, despite what you may have heard, am not.

 

[Wardawg1001]

All of these examples are really bad. Are you arguing that soda should be regulated exactly like beer, or that beer should be regulated exactly like soda? If you aren't, then you are simply endorsing applying different regulations to different fattening products, just like me.

I'm not aware of any legislation on beer products that were enacted due to its fattening effect or even its calorie count, do you have examples?

As for donuts and big macs, that doesn't even make sense. You can buy a case of soda just like you can buy a box of donuts, and you can buy four sodas the same way you can buy four big macs.

I think this is why the arbitrariness of the law becomes an issue. There was no real baseline for what made the law reasonable (i.e. a scientific study that said 16oz is a reasonable amount to drink in x period of time), and there aren't any provisions to really stop people getting around it anyways (as you said, its as simple as buying a second soda, or a case of soda's). It is a completely ineffective law, it will cost businesses across the board money to work around, and ultimately the consumer has numerous avenues to get around it with no legal repercussions for doing so. All it really does is establish a precedence for allowing the government to pass laws regarding personal intake of foods deemed 'unhealthy' without even having to support their position with more than 'soda makes you fat'. Whether you see this as a good first step or as a slippery slope really just depends on your personal view of government.

I can understand your argument that it could be used as an initial step towards raising consumer awareness and making Americans healthier in general, but I would argue that our laws should be based on more than 'soda is unhealthy'. How much of the obesity problem is soda really accountable for? Where is the basis for believing that limiting the quantity a person can purchase at a gas station will have any positive effect? Is there any evidence that gas station soda purchases account for a significant amount of overall soda purchases? Will people just start visiting the gas station more often, or buying two sodas instead of one? Will they simply consume more soda from other sources? Is there a more cost effective or efficient way to go about attacking the problem of soda consumption or obesity in general?

These questions should be answered before you pass something in to law, so that it has a defined problem, defined metrics, and a defined success criteria. Its a dangerous precedent to allow the government to start limiting the purchase of innocuous food stuffs like soda without holding them accountable to having a factual basis for their restrictions AND reasonable evidence that the restrictions will actually lead to a positive outcome.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not aware of any legislation on beer products that were enacted due to its fattening effect or even its calorie count, do you have examples?

No, but I am unsure why having an example of that would be relevant to my point. Is this purely an informational request?

I think this is why the arbitrariness of the law becomes an issue. There was no real baseline for what made the law reasonable (i.e. a scientific study that said 16oz is a reasonable amount to drink in x period of time), and there aren't any provisions to really stop people getting around it anyways (as you said, its as simple as buying a second soda, or a case of soda's). It is a completely ineffective law, it will cost businesses across the board money to work around, and ultimately the consumer has numerous avenues to get around it with no legal repercussions for doing so. All it really does is establish a precedence for allowing the government to pass laws regarding personal intake of foods deemed 'unhealthy' without even having to support their position with more than 'soda makes you fat'. Whether you see this as a good first step or as a slippery slope really just depends on your personal view of government.

Well that's not really accurate. There are numerous scientific studies about portion control and how smaller portions lead people to consume less. Having a specific scientific study about 16oz bottles in particular is totally unnecessary unless you believe that the average serving of soda is so far under 16oz that consumers are unlikely to ever come up against that limit. I doubt you would try to argue that though.

Also, nothing about this establishes any precedent. The trans fat ban passed by NYC several years ago did basically the exact same thing in terms of limiting personal intake of substances deemed unhealthy. In fact I would say that the scientific basis for the trans fat ban was weaker than this.

I can understand your argument that it could be used as an initial step towards raising consumer awareness and making Americans healthier in general, but I would argue that our laws should be based on more than 'soda is unhealthy'. How much of the obesity problem is soda really accountable for? Where is the basis for believing that limiting the quantity a person can purchase at a gas station will have any positive effect? Is there any evidence that gas station soda purchases account for a significant amount of overall soda purchases? Will people just start visiting the gas station more often, or buying two sodas instead of one? Will they simply consume more soda from other sources? Is there a more cost effective or efficient way to go about attacking the problem of soda consumption or obesity in general?

These are all very good questions, most of which could never be answered without implementing a program such as this. This is the best part of federalism, that limited areas have the freedom to experiment with new ideas.

These questions should be answered before you pass something in to law, so that it has a defined problem, defined metrics, and a defined success criteria. Its a dangerous precedent to allow the government to start limiting the purchase of innocuous food stuffs like soda without holding them accountable to having a factual basis for their restrictions AND reasonable evidence that the restrictions will actually lead to a positive outcome.

As I alluded to above, that's simply an impossible standard to meet so basically that would mean that no law like this should ever be passed due to a lack of evidence which you cannot credibly obtain without implementing such regulation. It's a catch-22. I imagine this court ruling will be quickly overturned and we'll get to find out. I personally am unsure about its results, but the more I read about it the more likely it appears that it will have a measurable effect. If it does, other cities will follow and we'll have a nice new tool against obesity. If it proves so TYRANNICAL as everyone on here thinks, the next mayor will repeal it. Either way, no big deal.

 

[Screech]

eskimospy: while I usually agree with you, I think you should step back and think how someone outside this thread might view the argument:

Saying we should not do X because it may lead to Y is a slippery slope fallacy. I would like to see X implemented so that we can later on implement Y, because incrementalism is good.

You don't seem to be arguing against the slippery slope so much as in its favor.

 

[Fern]

The "arbitrary" claim that bothers me, assuming I understand the NYC law, is that not all sellers of giant beverages are treated similarly.

1. Under the law some can still sell them, yet others are forbidden. That's not right. The one group may be getting an unfair competitive advantage in the soda selling business.

2. Sellers of large non-soda beverages are not restricted, even when their product is as fattening as sodas. That's not right. E.g., the milkshake or sweet tea 'industry' may get a competitive advantage over the soda industry if they can sell giant milkshakes or tea.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that you don't need to regulate all fattening things in an identical manner, but that's really a false dichotomy. I never said that all fattening things should be regulated identically, just that fattening things that are similar or even identical should be regulated identically.

So no, I am not saying beverages have to be regulated in the exact same way as, for example, potato chips. But having a law that targets only specific sizes of specific beverages sold in specific places is so far from "identical" as to be ridiculous, at least IMO.

Bloomberg's law is arbitrary in what it bans. And that's why it got struck down. (What happens on appeal, I have no idea.)

I do. The reason focusing on the number matters is because it further demonstrates the arbitrariness of the law.

No, actually, speed limits are not arbitrary, or at least, they're not supposed to be. Poor analogy there.

Actually speed limits are quite similar in their arbitrary nature. There's no need for it to be 65 exactly, it could be 64, 67, 55, etc. Its purpose is to limit driving at unsafe speeds. Similarly here it could have been 14oz, 18oz, etc. The purpose here is to limit the number of calories easily taken in in a soft drink serving. 16oz makes as much sense as any other number.

Again, the location restrictions in part come from the ability of the city to enforce it. I do not understand you keep mentioning that as being 'arbitrary'. You may not agree with that reason, but it is most certainly a rational reason, making their exclusion anything but arbitrary.

Apply that same standard to other areas of the law and then tell me how much it's "common sense". This same reasoning could be used to justify racial profiling, for example...

"We don't have the manpower to search everyone at the airport, so we are only going to search people who look like terrorists. I mean, that's just common sense".

How about street cops?

"Blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites, so we're going to give them a lot more of our attention."

And so on. These are not ridiculous examples by any means. In fact, some would say that both already happen.

I don't think they are ridiculous examples at all, cops profile all the time to conserve resources and rightly so. Racial and religious profiling is a poor idea because it 1.) conflicts with established law in most jurisdictions so... it's illegal and 2.) studies have shown it to have dubious benefits.

Limiting soda sizes at restaurants is nothing like police work however as I am not aware of any evidence that shows people would instead bring a soda into the restaurant with them from a non-regulated shop (fat chance, har), nor am I aware of any evidence that people choose to consume a steady amount of soda per day regardless of what their situation might be. If anything, evidence shows the opposite.

If you aren't writing law based on what you can accomplish with limited resources, you're writing a bad law. I'm really shocked that this would even be a point of contention.

That's an incredibly weak argument.

We're supposedly banning the sale of large open containers of soda because they lead to obesity. But we don't ban the sale of large open containers of beer, which has about the same number of calories per ounce and contains a substance that has a greater risk of addiction and that is associated with another major public health problem.

Sorry, it just doesn't fly.

Yes, many things have similar (or even greater!) concentrations of calories per ounce, but we don't regulate substances solely on their calorie counts. We regulate a substance in its totality, which is why beer is subject to numerous restrictions that go far beyond anything covering soda. While they might share caloric content they do not share many other attributes. This is actually an excellent example of why your argument here supports my point.

You're right, it doesn't apply to those because they aren't sold in enormous sizes. The equivalent would be telling restaurants they aren't allowed to serve meals above a certain size. I'm sure you'd be okay with that too.

Sure.

You're engaging in a fallacious application of a fallacy. Because I am not making "hyperbolic predictions", I am pointing out very real examples of one law leading to another. You are not only acknowledging that this happens, you are endorsing it. So it is not a slippery slope fallacy, it's reality.

I am acknowledging that there are logical further implications from this, but most of the reactions have been downright hysterical and hyperbolic, in particular the post that I initially mentioned this in reaction to.

I'm sure you would, because you're a liberal, and I, despite what you may have heard, am not.

I don't really care what anyone's ideology is, I only care as to what makes the best public policy. Really poorly thought out arguments also grate on my nerves, which is most of the reason why I involved myself in these threads to begin with.

 

[fskimospy]

The "arbitrary" claim that bothers me, assuming I understand the NYC law, is that not all sellers of giant beverages are treated similarly.

1. Under the law some can still sell them, yet others are forbidden. That's not right. The one group may be getting an unfair competitive advantage in the soda selling business.

2. Sellers of large non-soda beverages are not restricted, even when their product is as fattening as sodas. That's not right. E.g., the milkshake or sweet tea 'industry' may get a competitive advantage over the soda industry if they can sell giant milkshakes or tea.

Fern

Neither of those groups are in direct competition with those affected by this ban. You can't bring outside food or drinks into restaurants (with very few exceptions).

Additionally, tea is regulated the same way as soda. I don't view the giant milkshake industry as really in much competition here either. If it turns out all of NYC switches over to huge milkshakes I'd be glad to revisit this point.

As to the legal elements, very few people expect this ruling to survive on appeal. The legal arguments the judge made are awfully weak.

 

[fskimospy]

eskimospy: while I usually agree with you, I think you should step back and think how someone outside this thread might view the argument:

You don't seem to be arguing against the slippery slope so much as in its favor.

I'm not actually. The slippery slope fallacy isn't saying things can't have consequences down the road, it's when people take them to absurd extremes. Say... like the people earlier saying that such thinking will lead us to being forced to wear government ordered uniforms. That's absurd.