For every action, an equal and opposite overreaction

[Craig234]

I don't really care what anyone's ideology is, I only care as to what makes the best public policy.

Which makes you a liberal.

By today's definitions.

 

[Craig234]

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.

That's not what he said and you posted a false quote, which is against the rules.

Your paraphrase did not accurately represent what he said.

 

[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.

Even if a 'milkshake' or 'tea' industry are poor examples the point still stands about potential competitive advantage and it being arbitrary. If I go to a McDonalds and can't get a big soda, but can go to a gas station/convenience store to get one the latter now has an advantage for those customers. The law is easily thwarted and becomes less about what you consume and more about where you buy.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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.

I cannot believe you are really trying to use this as an argument.

Very well:

1. You're conflating small-scale number choices with large-scale number choices. The issue isn't why 65 instead of 67 or 16 instead of 18. It's why 65 instead of 125 or 35, and why 16 instead of 8 or 32.

2. You're mistaken even in focusing on the small-scale number differences. There are very good reasons why speed limits are multiples of 5, and good reasons why, if you want drink sizes to be about 16 ounces, you choose 16 and not 17.

3. Speed limits are based upon the characteristics of the road and the area where it is located. They aren't always perfectly matched, but there is science behind it. There is none here -- they pulled 16 ounces out of their collective legislative asses. There is not one argument you can make for 16 ounces that you can't make as readily for 12 ounces or 24 ounces. That's not generally true of speed limits.

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.

This has been explained numerous times. Whether or not they have an excuse for arbitrarily deciding that a 32 ounce drink is banned in one establishment but not in the one next door because it falls into a different category, that choice is still arbitrary.

Here's another example of how the law is arbitrary: drinks that contain alcohol are specifically excluded. So if I have a 32-ounce soda with 400 calories, or a 32-ounce mixed drink with 600 calories, the former is banned and the second is fine. Please explain to me how that makes any sense whatsoever?

And another: the fruit juice exclusion. Processed apple juice is just as much empty calories as soda -- in fact, it is used as a sweetener in all sorts of commercial products. It has no nutritional value other than calories -- they even have to add vitamin C to it so they can pretend it is nutritious. Why is that excluded?

Now let's address your claim of practicality here. Am I really to believe there are more grocery stores than restaurants and bars in New York City? Even including 7-11s? I find that a stretch.

There are fewer than a hundred 7-11s in the New York City area. (Yes, I looked.) It's unlikely there are more grocery stores than 7-11s, and overall this is a tiny fraction of the hundreds, if not thousands of restaurants in the same region.

So that pretty much takes out every aspect of your argument against the arbitrariness of the law.

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.

If it's "rightly so" then why is it illegal?

Because we don't want people arbitrarily deciding to apply the law to people based on their appearance -- it's unfair.

More to the point -- we really don't give a rip of they try to justify that on the basis of "limited resources". I can think of not one case where unfair treatment is acceptably justified based on "limited resources".

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.

And I'm shocked that you would consider it acceptable to violate principles of equitable treatment under the law because of practicalities -- especially ones that are backwards anyway.

Yes, many things have similar (or even greater!) concentrations of calories per ounce, but we don't regulate substances solely on their calorie counts.

But that is what Bloomberg is doing here. In fact, there's even a specific calorie value that they came up with: 3.125 calories per ounce.

Where did they get that number from? I have no idea. I'll be surprised if they do, either.

Beer? At least 8 calories per ounce; that's for light beers. Most are 12 or more.

But they're excluded. Why? Because they felt like it. Who knows? Maybe Bloomberg got a big donation from Anheuser-Busch.

We regulate a substance in its totality, which is why beer is subject to numerous restrictions that go far beyond anything covering soda.

I've already shown that this is not true. Pitchers of beer are legal; pitchers of soda are banned. So "far beyond" is not correct, at least in that respect.

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.

No, actually, it's not. I'm kind of disappointed that you're using this sort of wording, to be honest.

Beer is not identical to soda, but it is equal or worse in terms of caloric content. In addition to that, it is also potentially dangerous in other respects.

From a public health standpoint, a pitcher of beer is strictly more of a concern than a pitcher of soda. Therefore, there is no rational reason why it should be excluded from a law that targets obesity based on a calories-per-ounce standard. Whatever other characteristics it doesn't share with soda just make this exclusion even worse, because it would make more sense to target the beer and not the soda than the other way around.

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.

You might want to review page one of the thread.

You wrote this: "I think the most concise way to argue this is that if you want the government to pay for your health you must accept some control by the government over your health or your pocketbook."

And that is when I brought up the slippery slope -- because that comment is an example of a slope we have already slid down. By your own admission!

Despite that, you immediately labeled it a fallacy and have continued to use the word "fallacy" ever since without showing in any way how it applies to the actual arguments being made here. This has nothing to do with "hysterical reactions", because I haven't had any -- in fact, I posted this thread in the first place, criticizing one myself.

Yet you keep tossing that word at me. A quote from the Princess Bride just popped into my brain...

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.

Well, from where I sit, your arguments have been thoroughly shredded. There is no reasonable justification for this law from a fairness or principle perspective, and it's also completely impractical and wholly unlikely to have any real effect on anything. You have absolutely nothing to hold up this law other than deciding that it's a great way to incrementally impose further restrictions on people later on.

In fact, I would argue that Bloomberg has set back the cause of fighting obesity with this law. Specifically because it is so arbitrary, poorly backed by any scientific basis, and so easily ridiculed, he has made the very valid idea of trying to get Americans to cut down on consumption into a big (if I may) fat joke. He's given people like our friends in Mississippi a reason to thumb their noses at the entire idea. And they aren't the only ones.

The fight against obesity would be better off if this law had never been suggested, much less imposed.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's not what he said and you posted a false quote, which is against the rules.

Your paraphrase did not accurately represent what he said.

He used quote tags but there was no name in them, and I think it's pretty clear it was a paraphrase of how he thought someone might view eskimospy's arguments. If eskimo disagrees (and I'm sure he does) he can rebutt, but I don't see any attempt to be deceptive here.

 

[Wardawg1001]

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

You seemed to be implying that because we regulate beer we should also be able to regulate soda, despite the fact that beer regulations have never had anything to do with calories or their fattening effect (as far as I know, thats why I was requesting an example of beer regulations related to their fattening effects). If this wasn't your intent, please disregard.

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.

I'll assume you are talking about portion control in related to meals, as I have perused some of those, but I don't recall hearing of any regarding soda or other 'junk food'. I'm not sure studies related to meal portion size are entirely relevant. Sure we can draw upon them for this issue, but meals are vital sustenance, something everyone needs at least a couple times a day to continue living. Soda consumption is purely desire driven, and I don't think you can simply logically deduce that forcing people to buy soda in smaller quantities will not lead them to just buy the same amount spread across more containers, especially when its as easy as grabbing two 16oz cups instead of one 32oz cup when you stop by the gas station.

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.

The precedent is not banning a substance deemed unhealthy (we do it all the time, ever heard of drugs?). The precedent is not holding the lawmakers accountable for providing sufficient evidence that the thing they are banning (soft drinks sold in open containers larger than 16oz) is actually the cause of the problem, or even a significant cause of the problem - and also no evidence that this ban will actually produce any kind of beneficial outcome.

Trans fats is an entirely different matter. Excuse the source, but a quick search on Wikipedia shows that as early as 1994 there was a study done on trans fats indicating that its consumption is directly responsible for as many as 30,000 deaths per year in the United States, with more recent (but still dated) estimates putting that toll at 100,000 deaths per year. Trans fats have been under fire for along time, and the complications seem far more dire than those related to soda consumption, as well as much more directly attributable. Additionally, trans fat has been regulated and or outright banned in several countries.

The trans fat ban was also quite different than what is being proposed. It had a clear goal (reduce trans fat intake), it was enforceable, and its effects could be easily measured. With this ban on selling sodas larger than 16oz in 7/11's, yes you can force the 7/11's to do it, but how are you going to even know if it accomplished anything? If its not a significant amount of soda intake, then its effects on society will be unnoticeable. If it is a large amount of the soda intake, then how will you know if people just went elsewhere to get their soda?

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.

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.

I reject your premise that none of these questions could be answered or at least explored without being written in to law. In fact many of them don't seem possible to answer EXCEPT in the context of a controlled experiment. I also don't think laws should be used as experiments.

I don't think the concern is it being tyrannical so much as ineffective. My biggest issue is I see a much larger potential for unintentional harm or intentional abuse, while I see very little possibility for any actual good to come of this. I'm willing to change my mind, but I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence, which has been my point all along. Where are the studies that link soda consumption directly to obesity (I know these are out there, but I want them presented in context with the following questions), what percentage of the obesity problem is soda related, will reducing soda consumption actually help the issue or will these 'soda abusers' simply find another unhealthy avenue, where is the evidence that putting a limit on the size of a soda bought from a specific vendor has any actual possibility of making a difference, etc?

 

[Craig234]

The courts are not a second bite at the legislation apple, a chance to say 'well, I was against that law, so since it passed into law, I'll use the court to get rid of it'.

The court is not the place to re-debate the merits of the law the same way they are debated in the legislative process.

Governments are allowed to pass mistaken laws, they are allowed to experiment and they are allowed to do things you are against and don't want.

The role of the court is more narrow in limiting what the government can do than to say 'hey, that doesn't sound like a good idea, so let's find a way to get rid of it'.

The standard for example of a 'rational basis' when needed is lower than 'I like the idea'.

 

[fskimospy]

I cannot believe you are really trying to use this as an argument.

Very well:

1. You're conflating small-scale number choices with large-scale number choices. The issue isn't why 65 instead of 67 or 16 instead of 18. It's why 65 instead of 125 or 35, and why 16 instead of 8 or 32.

2. You're mistaken even in focusing on the small-scale number differences. There are very good reasons why speed limits are multiples of 5, and good reasons why, if you want drink sizes to be about 16 ounces, you choose 16 and not 17.

3. Speed limits are based upon the characteristics of the road and the area where it is located. They aren't always perfectly matched, but there is science behind it. There is none here -- they pulled 16 ounces out of their collective legislative asses. There is not one argument you can make for 16 ounces that you can't make as readily for 12 ounces or 24 ounces. That's not generally true of speed limits.

This is getting to forehead slapping levels of silliness. Of course there is an argument you can make for 16 ounces that you can't make for 24 ounces. 16 ounces has fewer calories. Similarly a lower speed limit has better reaction time/less kinetic energy. ie: both placed an upper limit on what they found acceptable.

This has been explained numerous times. Whether or not they have an excuse for arbitrarily deciding that a 32 ounce drink is banned in one establishment but not in the one next door because it falls into a different category, that choice is still arbitrary.

You need to go look up the definition of arbitrary.

Here's another example of how the law is arbitrary: drinks that contain alcohol are specifically excluded. So if I have a 32-ounce soda with 400 calories, or a 32-ounce mixed drink with 600 calories, the former is banned and the second is fine. Please explain to me how that makes any sense whatsoever?

We're going in circles now, this is getting boring. Items are regulated in their totality, not just on one aspect. Since we can regulate substances for more reasons than just how many calories are in them, not all substances with identical calorie counts need to be regulated in the same way.

That 32oz mixed drink can also only be sold by places with certain licenses, to people over certain ages, at certain times of day, requiring photo identification to get, etc, etc. e.g.: it has all sorts of regulations on it already. Those mixed drinks are also not commonly consumed in 20oz+ containers, so why you are even bringing this up is beyond me. I'm going to guess you've been to a bar before, so I can't help but feel like you are being deliberately obtuse here. Is your argument against the regulation that it isn't banning something that very rarely happens anyway? Why would controlling such rare events help with obesity in any measurable way?

And another: the fruit juice exclusion. Processed apple juice is just as much empty calories as soda -- in fact, it is used as a sweetener in all sorts of commercial products. It has no nutritional value other than calories -- they even have to add vitamin C to it so they can pretend it is nutritious. Why is that excluded?

Is this going to be a thing where you scour New York City for things you think should have also been included in the regulation but that weren't, thinking that if you find one it invalidates the whole principle? It doesn't. While there might be some drinks that are at least 70 percent fruit juice which are similarly lacking in nutrition to soda, that is certainly not the case for all of them.

Now let's address your claim of practicality here. Am I really to believe there are more grocery stores than restaurants and bars in New York City? Even including 7-11s? I find that a stretch.

There are fewer than a hundred 7-11s in the New York City area. (Yes, I looked.) It's unlikely there are more grocery stores than 7-11s, and overall this is a tiny fraction of the hundreds, if not thousands of restaurants in the same region.

So that pretty much takes out every aspect of your argument against the arbitrariness of the law.

From this I'm going to assume you have not spent much time in NYC.

NYC already has inspection regimens in place for restaurants and delis... anywhere that serves food really. This simply adds a check box to inspections that are already happening. There is not a similar inspection system for bodegas (corner grocery stores), of which there are THOUSANDS. If you were going to add them to the list you would need to vastly expand inspection resources for the city.

So not only are you not defining arbitrary correctly but you're speaking to something of which you clearly have limited knowledge. I think this has become more about pride and principle at this point, which is unfortunate.

If it's "rightly so" then why is it illegal?

Because we don't want people arbitrarily deciding to apply the law to people based on their appearance -- it's unfair.

More to the point -- we really don't give a rip of they try to justify that on the basis of "limited resources". I can think of not one case where unfair treatment is acceptably justified based on "limited resources".[/quote]

It isn't. Cops profile based on behavior, which is effective, unlike race which is not. I'm sure that you can also think of at least one recent case where people were treated differently because of limited resources. Obama prioritized immigration enforcement action against criminal aliens vs. non criminal ones. Now they were both guilty of the same crime, but because one was guilty of a different, unrelated issue he is now subject to having a law enforced against him that would otherwise not be. This is due to limited resources. Basically go look at any regulatory agency and you will see prioritized enforcement due to limited resources.

But that is what Bloomberg is doing here. In fact, there's even a specific calorie value that they came up with: 3.125 calories per ounce.

Where did they get that number from? I have no idea. I'll be surprised if they do, either.

Beer? At least 8 calories per ounce; that's for light beers. Most are 12 or more.

But they're excluded. Why? Because they felt like it. Who knows? Maybe Bloomberg got a big donation from Anheuser-Busch.

I'm sure they do know where they got that number from, but whatever. You are just retreading the same old arguments here and plugging your ears to the explanation. The reason why they are regulated differently is that beer and soda are not the same thing. Grocery stores and restaurants are not the same thing, etc, etc.

Nice attempt to throw in an a wild accusation of corruption now too. This is flailing.

I've already shown that this is not true. Pitchers of beer are legal; pitchers of soda are banned. So "far beyond" is not correct, at least in that respect.

Yeah they aren't regulated far beyond sodas... all you need to do is ignore the huge piles of other regulations on them. This is really exceptionally poor reasoning.

No, actually, it's not. I'm kind of disappointed that you're using this sort of wording, to be honest.

Beer is not identical to soda, but it is equal or worse in terms of caloric content. In addition to that, it is also potentially dangerous in other respects.

From a public health standpoint, a pitcher of beer is strictly more of a concern than a pitcher of soda. Therefore, there is no rational reason why it should be excluded from a law that targets obesity based on a calories-per-ounce standard. Whatever other characteristics it doesn't share with soda just make this exclusion even worse, because it would make more sense to target the beer and not the soda than the other way around.

You're repeating yourself. Beer is subject to large numbers of regulations that soda is not subject to, and beer and soda are not the same thing (again!). Just because they share one attribute does not mean that they should be regulated in the same way.

You might want to review page one of the thread.

You wrote this: "I think the most concise way to argue this is that if you want the government to pay for your health you must accept some control by the government over your health or your pocketbook."

And that is when I brought up the slippery slope -- because that comment is an example of a slope we have already slid down. By your own admission!

Despite that, you immediately labeled it a fallacy and have continued to use the word "fallacy" ever since without showing in any way how it applies to the actual arguments being made here. This has nothing to do with "hysterical reactions", because I haven't had any -- in fact, I posted this thread in the first place, criticizing one myself.

Yet you keep tossing that word at me. A quote from the Princess Bride just popped into my brain...

I stand by what I've written on that. Not much else to say.

Well, from where I sit, your arguments have been thoroughly shredded. There is no reasonable justification for this law from a fairness or principle perspective, and it's also completely impractical and wholly unlikely to have any real effect on anything. You have absolutely nothing to hold up this law other than deciding that it's a great way to incrementally impose further restrictions on people later on.

In fact, I would argue that Bloomberg has set back the cause of fighting obesity with this law. Specifically because it is so arbitrary, poorly backed by any scientific basis, and so easily ridiculed, he has made the very valid idea of trying to get Americans to cut down on consumption into a big (if I may) fat joke. He's given people like our friends in Mississippi a reason to thumb their noses at the entire idea. And they aren't the only ones.

The fight against obesity would be better off if this law had never been suggested, much less imposed.

I feel like you have become personally invested in this argument and you're just repeating yourself. I'm pretty tired of it at this point. Beer, soda, wine, and liquors are not the same, nor have they ever been regulated in the same manner. They never will be. You might want to declare that there is no scientific basis for this, but that's just false. I don't know why you would even try to make such an argument except because you're wound up about this.

The actions of stupid people in Mississippi is not a good reason to alter policy in New York. The judge's ruling in this will most likely be overturned, the ban will likely go into effect here (pending mayoral election politics!), and once it does I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 10 years or so other municipalities start to emulate it. Such is life.

I don't really feel like continuing this back and forth on this, so I'll let you get the last word in. Needless to say I find your arguments on this to be pretty poor.

 

[Craig234]

You need to go look up the definition of arbitrary.

I looked it up in several dictionaries, and found totally different definitions in each one, having nothing to do with each other.

The definitions seemed totally arbitra...

nevermind.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is getting to forehead slapping levels of silliness. Of course there is an argument you can make for 16 ounces that you can't make for 24 ounces. 16 ounces has fewer calories. Similarly a lower speed limit has better reaction time/less kinetic energy. ie: both placed an upper limit on what they found acceptable.

I specifically said "There is not one argument you can make for 16 ounces that you can't make as readily for 12 ounces or 24 ounces". You're deliberately only addressing one side of my argument, knowing full well it doesn't apply to the other side. Is that really reasonable?

Also, let's recall here also that you previously said: "Actually speed limits are quite similar in their arbitrary nature." Now you are saying that they are based on scientific analysis. Your position appears to be, shall we say, rather fluid.

You need to go look up the definition of arbitrary.

Okay, here's what Google shows:

• Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
• (of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

Doesn't fit perfectly here, but it's pretty close.

We're going in circles now, this is getting boring.

It would be less so if you would address my arguments directly.

Items are regulated in their totality, not just on one aspect. Since we can regulate substances for more reasons than just how many calories are in them, not all substances with identical calorie counts need to be regulated in the same way.

Yes, I already addressed this. I'll repeat: "From a public health standpoint, a pitcher of beer is strictly more of a concern than a pitcher of soda. Therefore, there is no rational reason why it should be excluded from a law that targets obesity based on a calories-per-ounce standard. Whatever other characteristics it doesn't share with soda just make this exclusion even worse, because it would make more sense to target the beer and not the soda than the other way around."

Something being regulated "in its totality" doesn't mean you ignore one aspect of it while regulating that same aspect in something else, with no justification whatsoever. At least, you don't if you have any interest in consistency and fairness.

Beer is regulated in terms of access because it contains alcohol. There is no logical reason why that would preclude it from also being regulated in terms of caloric content, if the goal of this law is to prevent overconsumption of high-calorie beverages.

I'm sorry, but you simply have no leg to stand on with this aspect of your argument.

That 32oz mixed drink can also only be sold by places with certain licenses, to people over certain ages, at certain times of day, requiring photo identification to get, etc, etc.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the matter under discussion, which is people consuming oversized calorie-rich beverages.

e.g.: it has all sorts of regulations on it already.

Which are no reason to exclude calorie-based regulations, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

Those mixed drinks are also not commonly consumed in 20oz+ containers, so why you are even bringing this up is beyond me.

Seems pretty obvious why I am bringing it up: it demonstrates nicely the inconsistency of this law, which is one of my two primary objections to it.

The better question is why you keep using arguments that are pretty obviously weak. "Not commonly consumed in 20 oz plus containers"? I specifically mentiond pitchers of beer. Those are not common? Since when?

And if they aren't common, what does it matter if they are regulated the same way as soda?

I'm going to guess you've been to a bar before, so I can't help but feel like you are being deliberately obtuse here. Is your argument against the regulation that it isn't banning something that very rarely happens anyway? Why would controlling such rare events help with obesity in any measurable way?

This is pretty amusing, because where has Bloomberg shown that the law itself would help with obesity in any measurable way?

Wardawg1001 addressed this to you specifically: "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?"

And your response was: "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."

So it's okay to implement a program with no science behind it to limit soda container sizes, but not to do this to limit beer container sizes? Why?

Arbitrary. Inconsistent.

Is this going to be a thing where you scour New York City for things you think should have also been included in the regulation but that weren't, thinking that if you find one it invalidates the whole principle? It doesn't.

That looks more like a complaint than a counter-argument.

The entire point that people are objecting to is that this law is inconsistent. Why then would you be surprised that I bring up examples of its inconsistency?

While there might be some drinks that are at least 70 percent fruit juice which are similarly lacking in nutrition to soda, that is certainly not the case for all of them.

Then why are all of them excluded?

What difference does it make if someone gets fat off a huge soda, a huge fruit drink or a huge iced tea?

NYC already has inspection regimens in place for restaurants and delis... anywhere that serves food really. This simply adds a check box to inspections that are already happening.

Okay, good argument, I'll concede that point.

There is not a similar inspection system for bodegas (corner grocery stores), of which there are THOUSANDS. If you were going to add them to the list you would need to vastly expand inspection resources for the city.

But not this one. The level of work required here is not anywhere near that required for a full health inspection of a restaurant.

It takes only a few minutes to go into a place and see what sizes of beverages they are selling.

Furthermore, many grocery stores are in chains (like 7-11) and only sell beverages in specific container sizes. They'd only need to check at the corporate level to see what SKUs were stocked.

Further furthermore, one could argue that including grocery stores would be more consistent even if no additional resources were added to ensure compliance, because most stores would follow the law simply out of a desire to be law-abiding.

Further further furthermore, if the law were in place, and no resources were devoted to inspection, stores would tend to comply because it would be ridiculously easy for customers to tell if they were not, and they could report if they saw oversized containers being sold. That's not true of health inspections (except for the most egregious cases).

If NYC isn't willing to devote a few extra resources to nannying people about their beverage sizes, they shouldn't pass nanny laws.

So not only are you not defining arbitrary correctly but you're speaking to something of which you clearly have limited knowledge. I think this has become more about pride and principle at this point, which is unfortunate.

You're entitled to your opinion on my motivations, but I don't see how that's relevant to my arguments. Just seems like an ad hominem.

I'll concede a point when I'm shown wrong. But you really haven't properly addressed the vast majority of my points.

Let's also remember that I've said from the start that I don't consider the amount of work required to be a valid justification for an inconsistent law. So, even if I concede that this would require more work, that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable.

Cops profile based on behavior, which is effective, unlike race which is not.

But my example was profiling based on race, and there are statistical justifications for that, yet it's illegal. Now you're changing the subject.

Obama prioritized immigration enforcement action against criminal aliens vs. non criminal ones. Now they were both guilty of the same crime, but because one was guilty of a different, unrelated issue he is now subject to having a law enforced against him that would otherwise not be. This is due to limited resources. Basically go look at any regulatory agency and you will see prioritized enforcement due to limited resources.

Prioritizing enforcement is not the issue under discussion here. It is whether or not the law itself is uniformly applicable. That's the entire point here -- they made it legal for some places to sell large sodas, but not others. They made it legal to sell large milkshakes but not large sodas. And so forth.

Your point would be valid if Obama said that criminal aliens were to be prioritized, and that non-criminal aliens would now be considered legal under the law. He didn't, so your example doesn't apply.

I'm sure they do know where they got that number from, but whatever.

Nobody has been able to provide any scientific basis for it, so that's hand-waving.

You are just retreading the same old arguments here and plugging your ears to the explanation. The reason why they are regulated differently is that beer and soda are not the same thing. Grocery stores and restaurants are not the same thing, etc, etc.

I'm repeating my arguments because you aren't addressing them. Saying "not the same thing" is only a valid argument if you can explain how their differences apply.

Two things being different in one respect doesn't mean they aren't similar in another respect. The fact that beer and soda are different in several respects doesn't change their very similar caloric profiles.

There are many items that are different in certain characteristics but are treated the same way because of their common characteristics. The common characteristic here is caloric content, and that's the focus of the law.

You simply don't want to accept this because it goes to the heart of why this law is unreasonable, and, yes, arbitrary.

Nice attempt to throw in an a wild accusation of corruption now too. This is flailing.

I was joking, obviously.

You're repeating yourself. Beer is subject to large numbers of regulations that soda is not subject to, and beer and soda are not the same thing (again!). Just because they share one attribute does not mean that they should be regulated in the same way.

When a regulation targets a specific attribute -- calories per ounce -- the fact that items are different in other respects is not a reason for any of the items to be excluded. Period.

I stand by what I've written on that. Not much else to say.

Well, I explained in detail why I think you are using the word inappropriately. You respond here with a few words of hand-waving.

So, yeah, not much else to say on that -- you provided a classic example proving that slippery slopes exist and there is no fallacy here.

I feel like you have become personally invested in this argument and you're just repeating yourself. I'm pretty tired of it at this point. Beer, soda, wine, and liquors are not the same, nor have they ever been regulated in the same manner. They never will be.

Asked and answered.

You might want to declare that there is no scientific basis for this, but that's just false. I don't know why you would even try to make such an argument except because you're wound up about this.

"That's just false" -- classic handwaving.

If it's false, where is the scientific background for this? Where are the studies showing this law would be effective?

The actions of stupid people in Mississippi is not a good reason to alter policy in New York.

Really? But wait, I thought the point was to do what's effective. You think making a big joke out of portion control is a great way to fight the obesity problem? Seems pretty counterproductive to me.

I don't really feel like continuing this back and forth on this, so I'll let you get the last word in. Needless to say I find your arguments on this to be pretty poor.

And I feel the same way about yours, but at least I am explaining why instead of using ad hominems like "you have become personally invested in this argument". (For the record, I get personally invested in lots of arguments. )

Several other people here also don't find your arguments compelling, including people who more often agree with you than disagree. You might want to consider what that means. I would.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Even if a 'milkshake' or 'tea' industry are poor examples the point still stands about potential competitive advantage and it being arbitrary. If I go to a McDonalds and can't get a big soda, but can go to a gas station/convenience store to get one the latter now has an advantage for those customers. The law is easily thwarted and becomes less about what you consume and more about where you buy.

I'll also point out, since I don't think anyone has so far, that this law increases costs for consumers who used large servings of soda in an intelligent way.

When I take my family to the movie theater, typical pricing is roughtly along these lines: small $3, medium $3.50, large $4. This is nearly all profit, as the variable cost of a soda is negligible. A large soda is typically double the size of a small one.

At best, we're going to buy two of these to share -- probably a coke and a soda water. Sometimes, only one. I sure have no interest in shelling out $12 to buy four small sodas when I can pay $8 for two large ones.

But with this sort of law on the books, I have to.

Is that a reason by itself to disqualify it? No. But it's just one more point not in its favor.

The courts are not a second bite at the legislation apple, a chance to say 'well, I was against that law, so since it passed into law, I'll use the court to get rid of it'.

Heh.. since when? Seems to me a fundamental purpose of the court system is to do exactly that -- re-examine laws that may overstep their creators' legal authority.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sorry Charles, I find your arguments here poor. I generally agree with you, but in this thread you've based your argument on the idea that because two products share an attribute that all regulations that involve such an attribute should apply equally. I don't find that at all compelling.

If you are interested in scientific studies linking soda consumption and obesity there are many available. I won't go around in circles again with you as I am quote sure you will just repeat the same failed arguments.

If we are bringing up what other people think about our relative positions I am also willing to take wagers on if the appellate courts will share your opinion on if the regulations are arbitrary or not. (doesn't have to be money, maybe an epic poem of how wrong the other person is!)

 

[Screech]

That's not what he said and you posted a false quote, which is against the rules.

Your paraphrase did not accurately represent what he said.

As Charles noted, I meant no ill will or deceptive intent. I'll reply to eskimospy's response:

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.

The is indeed absurd. However, the question must be asked of what it is, exactly, that makes banning *this* thing currently under discussion of a ban "OK" but keeps the government from banning an 8oz drink, or any regular soda, or......? Once it is deemed that a government has this power, there is no difference between banning one and banning the other, legally, just a matter of shades of gray. This is the same reason I am always against drone strikes against american citizens who are not literally shooting at our soldiers in a shooting war: once you grant the government that power, is there any real way to decide "actually, you had that power in this *one* case, but not in *these other ones*"? Usually better, IMHO, not to go down the road to begin with.

That is why I tend to be against these laws and why *I* believe them to be "arbitrary". FWIW

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm sorry Charles, I find your arguments here poor. I generally agree with you, but in this thread you've based your argument on the idea that because two products share an attribute that all regulations that involve such an attribute should apply equally. I don't find that at all compelling.

Honestly, I don't really think whether you personally find it compelling or not is very important, when you can't give a good reason why it should not be the case. You simply have not rebutted my points here.

As I said, two things don't have to be identical to be treated the same way with respect to one of their characteristics, when that characteristic is the one being targeted by the legislation. There are countless examples of this; one would be the list of drugs on Schedule I, which vary tremendously in terms of how they work and how they are administered, but are all there because of characteristics they do share.

If you are interested in scientific studies linking soda consumption and obesity there are many available.

You're changing the subject again here. The point is not studies linking soda to obesity. The point is studies indicating that this ban would be effective.

There aren't any, because they really didn't give a damn. They just did it because they wanted to. And that is what the objections are based on.

I won't go around in circles again with you as I am quote sure you will just repeat the same failed arguments.

If the arguments were so "failed", you'd be able to rebut them rather than just engaging in still more handwaving. I could list all of the specific points you just decided not to respond to, but since you'll just respond with even more handwaving about how I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong, it would be a waste of time.

If we are bringing up what other people think about our relative positions I am also willing to take wagers on if the appellate courts will share your opinion on if the regulations are arbitrary or not. (doesn't have to be money, maybe an epic poem of how wrong the other person is!)

I'm not a lawyer, and whether it is upheld on appeal or not has no bearing on whether or not the law is actually fair or reasonable (cf. Citizens United), so I see no point in that.

The is indeed absurd. However, the question must be asked of what it is, exactly, that makes banning *this* thing currently under discussion of a ban "OK" but keeps the government from banning an 8oz drink, or any regular soda, or......? Once it is deemed that a government has this power, there is no difference between banning one and banning the other, legally, just a matter of shades of gray.

Not only does he know that, he's effectively endorsed that as a method of instituting creeping nannyism in all walks of life. But it's not really defensible, so it's just easier to dismiss the entire issue with bogus allegations of "fallacies", despite not actually showing anything fallacious.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Unfortunately I suspect we're ultimately going to have Hilarycare, where "go the private route" equals go to prison. Power inherently wants to be exercised and to grow, and the more power government has, the more power government wants.

SNIP

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.

Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to practically remove government from health care. Even without considering the entitlement mentality now in vogue, forces such as increasing health care complexity and cost, outsourcing, and automation are increasingly lowering the number of people with acceptable health insurance furnished as part of their employment. We have record numbers of people depending on government for all their support, and the federal government now has the bit and is adding mandatory requirements for everyone. All these factors combined virtually guarantee that the private sector cannot handle health care without government, which means government WILL be in charge.

My own preference would be to limit health insurance to unexpected expenses, like any insurance. That would help keep down the cost of routine care, although even then government would be free to pull its Medicare/Medicaid trick and force part of the cost it covers onto routine care. But that's all moot because a majority has decided it is entitled to health care at someone else's expense, perhaps without realizing that we are all someone else to other people.

As Charles noted, I meant no ill will or deceptive intent. I'll reply to eskimospy's response:

The is indeed absurd. However, the question must be asked of what it is, exactly, that makes banning *this* thing currently under discussion of a ban "OK" but keeps the government from banning an 8oz drink, or any regular soda, or......? Once it is deemed that a government has this power, there is no difference between banning one and banning the other, legally, just a matter of shades of gray. This is the same reason I am always against drone strikes against american citizens who are not literally shooting at our soldiers in a shooting war: once you grant the government that power, is there any real way to decide "actually, you had that power in this *one* case, but not in *these other ones*"? Usually better, IMHO, not to go down the road to begin with.

That is why I tend to be against these laws and why *I* believe them to be "arbitrary". FWIW

This argument is especially valid given that five years ago, the ideas of government banning a certain size of soft drink or using armed drones to kill American citizens on American soil would have been laughable. I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but I do recognize that all slopes are to some degree slippery and every infringement of freedom invites another, greater infringement of freedom - for our own good, of course.

 

[fskimospy]

Charles, I responded to all your points, you just didn't like the answers. I think the difference might be that you are arguing what you think is right and I am arguing what is permissible under the law. (and what is practical to regulate). Perhaps that is the source of your confusion.

Either way, I'm quite confident that my opinion on what is considered arbitrary, etc is the one that will prevail in the actual adjudication of this. The fact that courts can sometimes make bad decisions is really a poor way of trying to explain away why someone would tell you that you're wrong.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My own preference would be to limit health insurance to unexpected expenses, like any insurance. That would help keep down the cost of routine care, although even then government would be free to pull its Medicare/Medicaid trick and force part of the cost it covers onto routine care. But that's all moot because a majority has decided it is entitled to health care at someone else's expense, perhaps without realizing that we are all someone else to other people.

Your statements confuse me here. If health insurance only covered unexpected expenses, how would that cut down on the cost of routine care? Wouldn't it make it more expensive for people to use? And would that not increase the incidence of ailments that cause more to treat than to prevent?

Charles, I responded to all your points, you just didn't like the answers.

No, actually, you didn't.

One of my core points is that saying a sugary drink is fine if it has alcohol in it but not if it is alcohol-free is arbitrary, and frankly, stupid. You tried a couple of times to say that this didn't matter because they weren't the exact same thing, and I counter-argued that a bill that targets items based on a specific attribute should apply to all items that fit that criterion, even if they differ in other respects.

You have not addressed that issue.

Here's another example: drinks made with 50% milk are exempt, but drinks made with soy milk or other milk substitutes are not. How is that not flatly discriminatory against people who can't drink milk? What rational basis can you come up with to justify this? ("They aren't exactly the same" is not a rational basis.)

You have not addressed the issue of the arbitrariness of choosing 16 ounces as a target.

You have not addressed the fact that no studies were done to show that this law would be effective. ("That's just false" is not responding to a point.)

You have also not explained why it should be legal for the city to discriminate because of "limited resources" when we don't allow that as an excuse in other situations.

I think the difference might be that you are arguing what you think is right and I am arguing what is permissible under the law. (and what is practical to regulate). Perhaps that is the source of your confusion.

Most of this discussion has been about whether or not the law is fair and reasonable, not whether or not it is legal. So I'd say you are the one who is confused.

You asked me early in the thread what my legal basis for objection was, and I said equal treatment under the law, as well as overreach in terms of what the city has a right to tell people they can and cannot do. Which, uncoincidentally, are the same objections the trial judge had. The rest of the discussion was about whether the bill makes sense, not whether it will ultimately be held legal by some appellate court, a subject I have no expertise on, and frankly, not much to say about.

 

[fskimospy]

I have REPEATEDLY addressed just that. We should not regulate milk in the same way we regulate soda just because they have similar caloric density. That would be, frankly, stupid.

I have addressed the arbitrary nature of 16oz sizes. Freedom vs. Government interest, same as speed limits. You didn't like the answer, but it was a perfectly valid comparison. Your are free to not accept it, but your reasons for rejecting it were...unimpressive.

If you have a research design for a study that would speak to the efficacy of such a ban without actually implementing one I would love to hear it.

I have always been speaking to the law and to practical governance. Since you seem to have the problem with what I'm saying, I'm quite sure it isn't me that is confused.

Regardless, stop saying I haven't addressed things I have explicitly addressed repeatedly. These are the reasons I think you are arguing out of personal investment and not rational consideration.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I have REPEATEDLY addressed just that. We should not regulate milk in the same way we regulate soda just because they have similar caloric density. That would be, frankly, stupid.

Yes, I understand your position. However, "that would be stupid" is not an argument.

And that is all you have ever offered.

I compared soda to beer, not milk. Both are empty calories -- that's why I chose beer. And so you change the comparison. Not cool.

And here you ducked yet another point -- why milk but not milk substitutes? Ignoring that is really not debating in good faith.

I have addressed the arbitrary nature of 16oz sizes. Freedom vs. Government interest, same as speed limits. You didn't like the answer, but it was a perfectly valid comparison. Your are free to not accept it, but your reasons for rejecting it were...unimpressive.

You said speed limits were arbitrary.. and then you said they weren't. I pointed out that there was no reason to choose 16 oz over 24 oz or 12 oz, you addressed only the 24 oz part and ignored the 12 oz part.. and then ignored it again when I pointed it out.

If you have a research design for a study that would speak to the efficacy of such a ban without actually implementing one I would love to hear it.

The onus is on the party making the proposal to demonstrate why it is justified.

I really expected better than this from you. I will not be responding on this stuff again.

 

[werepossum]

Your statements confuse me here. If health insurance only covered unexpected expenses, how would that cut down on the cost of routine care? Wouldn't it make it more expensive for people to use? And would that not increase the incidence of ailments that cause more to treat than to prevent?

SNIP

Same argument as with birth control. I know that once or twice a year I'm going to get a cold. I know that periodically I'm going to get a physical. If I budget for those things, and pay for them, then the doctor gets his money right away and does not have to prepare paperwork, send it off, and frequently revise and resubmit it. The doctor's cost is much less and his need to finance his operations (no pun intended) in the interim is removed. Therefore the overall cost to society is lower, and since even not-for-profit insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield have to at least break even and have considerable expenses, the average individual's cost for those services is lower as well. Compare it to automobile insurance; how much would that cost if all routine maintenance had to be included? If a $50 oil change had to be priced at $200 because the amount paid by the insurance company would be $60 after an average three month wait, how affordable would oil changes be to those without insurance? How affordable would oil changes be to those with insurance, since the insurance company's costs and the mechanic's extra costs must now be paid along with the cost of the actual service? Insurance is a wonderful tool for copying with risk but a horrible tool for expected expenditures, something we used to know until wage freezes made employer-provided health insurance desirable and we began to see our health care as something rightly paid by "someone else". On the other hand, I have no reason to suspect I'll have an automobile accident or a heart attack. Knowing this, the insurance companies can offer me a rate far below the cost of such an event, because they know that in any given year most people will not have an automobile accident or a heart attack.

Everything for which health insurance pays has to go through multiple hands to file the paperwork, guarantee compliance with a myriad of governmental regulations, and demonstrate that compliance. None of those people work for free; all that cost has to be added to the true cost of the product or service, and the more regulations added to protect us, the higher that cost must be.

 

[werepossum]

I have REPEATEDLY addressed just that. We should not regulate milk in the same way we regulate soda just because they have similar caloric density. That would be, frankly, stupid.

SNIP

You say that NOW, but I very seriously doubt there is a single person here who believes that when government inevitably begins limiting the size or availability of whole milk to fight obesity, you will not be 100% behind that too. The concept is exactly analogous; government knows best, so government should limit our choices for our own good. In fact, one could make a much better argument for limiting the availability of whole milk; one can and is probably likely to drink the same amount of soda regardless of size limitations, but one is highly unlikely to drink the fat equivalent of whole milk if limited to skim milk.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The main difference between soda and alcohol is the intent of the drinker and the ability to self-regulate. Too many people drink soda simply because they're thirsty and dare I say most people know when they've had enough alcohol far sooner than when they've had enough soda. Hence the argument for container sizes. There's nothing arbitrary about a rational serving size of soda.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I understand your position. However, "that would be stupid" is not an argument.

And that is all you have ever offered.

I compared soda to beer, not milk. Both are empty calories -- that's why I chose beer. And so you change the comparison. Not cool.

Ah ah ah, in previous arguments you acknowledged differences between beer and soda, but said that because they had similar caloric density that they should be regulated on those measures similarly. Now you're putting in an exception, which is if things are nutritious in other ways... e.g: they have other attributes. You have now implicitly accepted my position that substances should be regulated on all their attributes, not just one. Thanks for finally owning up to that.

It appears that you are also arguing that beer's other regulations should not be taken into account when assessing whether or not this one should apply (which has of course been my actual argument all along). That's just baffling to me, as of course you take into account the overall regulatory structure when deciding whether or not to include something. This is just really bad public policy you are advocating. So in case you miss it yet again: I don't think beer should be included because it already is HEAVILY regulated in other ways.

And here you ducked yet another point -- why milk but not milk substitutes? Ignoring that is really not debating in good faith.

Ahh, so now you're accusing me of debating you in bad faith. Don't accuse someone of ad homenium attacks in a thread and then call them in effect a liar a little bit later on. For shame, not to mention not in the spirit of the discussion club!

At this point I'm not interested in addressing each small distinction you want to bring up. If you would like to advocate for including soy milk, I'm all for it! Let's work together to make the world a better place.

You said speed limits were arbitrary.. and then you said they weren't. I pointed out that there was no reason to choose 16 oz over 24 oz or 12 oz, you addressed only the 24 oz part and ignored the 12 oz part.. and then ignored it again when I pointed it out.

I actually said that the exact number was arbitrary, but the overall goal was not. This is why speed limits and this ban are so alike. I have (yet again) answered this previously, although you appear not to have understood my point. It is a freedom/utility vs. government interest question. A speed limit was designed to promote public safety. Clearly the roads would be safest if everyone traveled at 0mph, however this would not be very useful or very respectful of the public's freedom. We have decided that 65mph is the appropriate highway tradeoff there.

With soda the determination was made that 16oz was the appropriate tradeoff between limiting caloric intake and accommodating what people wanted. Hope that clears things up.

The onus is on the party making the proposal to demonstrate why it is justified.

I really expected better than this from you. I will not be responding on this stuff again.

Not in this case, friend.

I'm saying that such research is not possible. You appear to believe otherwise, therefore you need to show how such a thing could be accomplished. Failing that you just have circular reasoning where you don't implement a ban because there's no study... which you can't do without a ban.

I am so terribly sorry to have disappointed you, but your arguments in this thread have been horrible. You can do better, and in the future I hope you do.

 

[fskimospy]

You say that NOW, but I very seriously doubt there is a single person here who believes that when government inevitably begins limiting the size or availability of whole milk to fight obesity, you will not be 100% behind that too. The concept is exactly analogous; government knows best, so government should limit our choices for our own good. In fact, one could make a much better argument for limiting the availability of whole milk; one can and is probably likely to drink the same amount of soda regardless of size limitations, but one is highly unlikely to drink the fat equivalent of whole milk if limited to skim milk.

Actually research on portion sizes disagrees with your hypothesis on soda consumption.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Ah ah ah, in previous arguments you acknowledged differences between beer and soda, but said that because they had similar caloric density that they should be regulated on those measures similarly. Now you're putting in an exception, which is if things are nutritious in other ways... e.g: they have other attributes. You have now implicitly accepted my position that substances should be regulated on all their attributes, not just one. Thanks for finally owning up to that.

As I said, I am done arguing about this. But just as a point of order, I think that if they are banning beverages based on calories per ounce, it should apply to all beverages, milk included. So this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't turn around well in the other direction. Because while you can name a positive health attribute that milk has but soda does not, you cannot do that with beer.

And that's why swapping them in my argument was not fair play. So yes, I am disappointed in your argumentation style here, which I do not believe has been reasonable.

I don't have a problem disagreeing with people, but I do take exception when they start playing these sorts of games.