New York To Ban Sugary Drinks Over 16 Oz - Update - Stopped by courts 3/11

[fskimospy]

Yes, because requests for clarification go over so well in this forum.

Call it a heuristic detection I'm pretty sure is accurate. Not the first time I've seen it by far.

No, it was wrong. What's weird is that my posts were not at all ambiguous. The constitution was written for the express purpose of increasing federal power. The fact that it did not increase it to limitless levels does exactly zero to change its purpose. Had federal power been sufficient, it would never have existed.

The fact that it had such a purpose of course doesn't mean that it was intended to be a vehicle of ever expanding power. I've rarely heard a more ridiculous idea.

Thanks for your posts Wolfe, even if they didn't seem to put much of a dent in them.

 

[Incorruptible]

This is just idiotic but what else would you expect from liberals. The government has no right to ban drinks

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Both you and Hayabusa above are arguing straw men. Look at what he precisely wrote. Indeed, the purpose of the Constitution was to increase federal government power over what had pre-existed under the Articles. Your response would be relevant had he actually argued that it was "meant to spur a continuous increase/expansion in federal power...." However, it isn't what he wrote. What he wrote was correct. You're trying to refute something else entirely.

For my part I said exactly what I meant. It was what I considered an important amplification. If a poster makes a statement no one is obligated to restrict comment to precisely that point. Note that he hasn't objected to my "strawman" argument because he's most likely sufficiently clued in to the fact that I didn't say that he was claiming that the Founders created the Constitution for the purpose of dominating the citizenry. I believe you would find it hard to claim that

If the Articles of the Confederation had worked then it or some derivation thereof would still be the controlling document of government. It however did not because there was no ultimate binding authority that had served a cohesive function.

says or implies that argument. It isn't difficult to understand that to provide the necessary cohesion the government created has to have greater powers than the AoC, which in no way I disputed. Notwithstanding, one is not compelled to leave a statement without context and providing a basis for them as I have. Yes, he and I see things differently as I do with you, however that does not mean I cannot engage in commentary, nor does it provide you with a special insight into my motives for doing so. If I wish to say that he is claiming that the Federal Government was set up by the Founders for the purpose of usurping the rights of the governed or anything similar I would have come out and done so. Since I judge that not to be true I didn't say it. If you want to cry "strawman" that is upon you.

 

[cliftonite]

Saying that the Constitution was created to give the federal government greater power is true but incomplete. If the Articles of the Confederation had worked then it or some derivation thereof would still be the controlling document of government. It however did not because there was no ultimate binding authority that had served a cohesive function. Now while there wasn't unanimous agreement there was concern that a centralized authority could subvert liberty, which was not just limited to the bill of rights. This is seen in the construction of the document. If the purpose was to increase the power of government over the citizens then we wouldn't have governmental powers enumerated and the rights of the people reserved with noted exceptions.

Are you saying that they can not legislate something that is in the public interest?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you saying that they can not legislate something that is in the public interest?

Not at all. I am saying that the public interest was never seen as a means to allow most anything.

"Can not"- well if one has unopposed power one can do anything. The question is it proper and what defines that. It's certainly one thing to say that there is a compelling interest in defense or infrastructure and many other things, but it's very hard indeed to make the legally approved stretch that you can be told that you cannot raise your own food because food is seen in interstate commerce. In essence I believe that in general the government serves a better as a facilitator than as a strict enforcer of arbitrary rules. Much depends on context.

 

[Viper GTS]

And tossed:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/judge-tosses-out-nycs-planned-ban-sugary-drinks-1C8809186

Viper GTS

 

[CPA]

as I stated in the other thread:

BTW, does this comment by the judge also pertain to trans-fats law on the books and the target that salt has on it's back?:

Quote:
In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health's mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don't include the authority to "limit or ban a legal item under the guise of 'controlling chronic disease.' "

 

[fskimospy]

as I stated in the other thread:

BTW, does this comment by the judge also pertain to trans-fats law on the books and the target that salt has on it's back?:

From what I see that appears unlikely.

While I imagine the city will win on appeal in totality, the best argument against the ban was that it did not include certain classes of drinks in a somewhat arbitrary manner as well as certain food establishments.

If you look into other statements the judge appears to be arguing that the board of health needs to be targeting imminent threats of disease. Trans fats are directly linked to a number of different diseases. Sugary sodas on the other hand are a proximate cause. The link for soda is:
soda -> obesity -> diabetes, bad stuff, etc.

for trans fats it is:
trans fats -> heart disease.

 

[OutHouse]

And tossed:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/judge-tosses-out-nycs-planned-ban-sugary-drinks-1C8809186

Viper GTS

Bottom line, Tingling ruled, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city's Board of Health did not have the authority to issue the soda ban.

case closed! go fuck yourself Bloomberg fuck-face.

Dunkin' Donuts shops, meanwhile, have set out colorful fliers explaining the complex rules surrounding coffee.

Lots of lattes are exempt because they're more than half milk. And it's OK for customers to load their large and extra-large coffees with all the sugar or sweet flavoring they want. But the chain will no longer do it for them, for fear of running over the limit of roughly three calories per ounce (30 milliliters).

Starbucks interprets it completely differently, arguing that their baristas can add however much they want as long as the customer asks first. The chain won't really comply with the ban anyway.

and this is why government needs to back off with the nanny state bullshit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Heh, I was just coming to post the news here.

This ain't over by a long shot, unfortunately.

 

[Smoblikat]

LOL, but not to diet sodas...................

 

[Anarchist420]

I heard that Bloomberg now wants to ban headphones.

 

[bradley]

The NY Supreme Court Judge labeled the 16oz+ soda ban "arbitrary and capricious"... it's a perfect common sense ruling to this non-soda person.

 

[Svnla]

I am going to get a Polar cold drink of 44 oz for $0.76 (including sale tax and free refill) from my local Circle K just to say F*** you to Bloomberg.

 

[cubby1223]

I heard that Bloomberg now wants to ban headphones.

He's beginning an ad-campaign to "inform" people that loud headphones could cause hearing loss.

Though I am curious about the three seashells he's having installed in each public restroom.

 

[ShawnD1]

He's beginning an ad-campaign to "inform" people that loud headphones could cause hearing loss.

Though I am curious about the three seashells he's having installed in each public restroom.

I have a better idea: execute people who crank their headphones on the bus.

 

[cubby1223]

That's it, I'm turning progressive and am against money in politics. Bloomberg can kindly go fuck himself.

"We have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other, to save the lives of ourselves, our families, our friends, and all of the rest of the people that live on God’s planet. And so while other people will wring their hands over the problem of sugary drinks, in New York City, we’re doing something about it," Bloomberg declared. "We believe it is reasonable and responsible to draw a line... As a matter of fact, it would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives."

 

[cubby1223]

Like a "for instance", the way you go after the giant drinks at movie theaters is not to take away the giant drinks in movie theaters. The problem is the reasonable sized cup is $6 and the mega-ultra over-sized giant cup is $6.25! You're a dumbass to buy the small drink. If theaters priced their products more in line with the quantity received, people would buy the smaller drink at the theater. Nothing is banned. Everyone is happy and healthier.

 

[Zorkorist]

Welcome to the blue pill, cubby.

-John

 

[monovillage]

It's just more of the authoritarian liberal Democrats. The assholes that believe they know better then you do about how to run your life or spend your money and have no qualms about passing laws and regulations and taxes and fees to force other citizens to do what they believe is right. We see it here with the drink ban, we see it with smoking bans and taxes, we see it with kids and toy soldiers and food bans in schools with carbon taxes and sin taxes and politically correct speech everything else.
Just a bunch of fucking left wing authoritarian assholes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The NY Supreme Court Judge labeled the 16oz+ soda ban "arbitrary and capricious"... it's a perfect common sense ruling to this non-soda person.

Authoritarianism loses for the moment. It's supporters won't give up though.

 

[fskimospy]

case closed! go fuck yourself Bloomberg fuck-face.



and this is why government needs to back off with the nanny state bullshit.

It is really hard to see how this judge's ruling will hold up, as it doesn't seem to have much legal basis in the city charter. His primary complaint is that this is something the city council should have enacted instead of the board of health.

While as a matter of principle I agree, as a matter of what actually exists...it seems like the judge is just wrong. If you go read the city charter section 556: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/NYC/22/556. The health board is given vast authority to regulate all matters related to human health in the city, and that seems to quite comfortably encompass unhealthy drinks.

Now you can certainly argue that the board shouldn't have such power or that they shouldn't exercise it in this way, but it seems highly likely this ruling will be smacked down in short order, at least to me.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't know where I stand on this topic.

On one hand, I think people need to accept that there are a lot of laws out there that they don't complain about, which are entirely in the interests of public health. Most forms of medication have to be stringently tested before approval for use on citizens of a country. There are a heck of a lot of laws in place to try and ensure that food products meet certain standards. What would the freedom-loving crowd prefer exactly?

Obesity is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States#Prevalence_by_state

I can see why a government would want to take steps to tackle it.

Having said that, I think "simple solutions" are rarely going to fix complicated problems. Nearly two thirds of people in America according to those stats are overweight, and it's not going to be simply because they drink too much soft drinks, so any sort of restriction on the sales of soft drinks isn't the solution here. It's not as if this law would make a significant percentage of fat people wake up in the morning, see that there aren't any soft drinks in the fridge and think, "I'll drink water instead and then go for a run, and after that I'll walk/cycle to work". I think a lot of overweight people don't realise how many small changes can be made to their lifestyle which would help them considerably, like increasing the time between meals, planning a day's food (in terms of meals and snacks), etc.

I wonder whether a similar-ish technique to what has happened to the UK with regard to smoking. No adverts, products have stark health warnings on them, and people can't smoke in buildings that are accessible to the general public. In recent decades, as far as I'm aware, the amount of people smoking in the UK has dropped like a stone, except in one age group - the youngest, who apparently still think it is a cool and rebellious thing to do. IMO the solution to that particular problem is obvious (for parents not to take a hard line on it and give their kids the facts, put down a few rules like 'no smoking in the house', and present it as an option rather than a symptom of rebellious behaviour).

So, after writing all of that, I definitely think the "FREEEEEDOM!" crowd here are quite naive, but I think the law is a bad idea, certainly on its own.

 

[SaurusX]

Though I am curious about the three seashells he's having installed in each public restroom.

LOL. Next stop, banning of all toilet paper... for the environment, of course.

 

[HumblePie]

From what I see that appears unlikely.

While I imagine the city will win on appeal in totality, the best argument against the ban was that it did not include certain classes of drinks in a somewhat arbitrary manner as well as certain food establishments.

If you look into other statements the judge appears to be arguing that the board of health needs to be targeting imminent threats of disease. Trans fats are directly linked to a number of different diseases. Sugary sodas on the other hand are a proximate cause. The link for soda is:
soda -> obesity -> diabetes, bad stuff, etc.

for trans fats it is:
trans fats -> heart disease.

The problem with that is that there is correlation with trans fat -> heart disease, but no actual causation link. That's the problem with most of this diet crap.

First off, heart disease can happen regardless of ethnicity, diet, exercise level, or anything else. A recent study of mummified remains from many cultures and date ranges up to thousands of years has shown this. There are remains from people that solely eat nothing but fish and green vegetables having calcium clogged arteries and most likely dying of heart disease. These are people that had very little access to salt, trans fat, sugar, complex carbs, or any of these big "no-no" diet pushing. That most of the diseases that people from as they get older are more directly related to being OLDER. Much of the break down of our bodies is because of age. We die because we get old. Simple and absolute.

We can prolong life by trying to influence certain things in our every day lives as they directly relate to ourselves. If trans fat or sugary drinks is directly impacting the health of one person and not another, why does the government need to step in and tell the person not having problems that he/she can not do anymore what they used to? Everyone is different, and everyone's bodies respond differently. Some people have massive problems with sugar in their systems, some have less problems but exaggerate them because they can't control themselves, and others have no problems what so ever.

Obesity is more directly linked by correlation to over eating, aging, and sedentary life style than any other variable out there. Those are the 3 main factors to obesity and thus health problems related to obesity. Are we going to have government regulate those next? Hey Joe, I order you to stop getting older, it's causing too many health problems for society to deal with. Yah that will work.

What has always made the US a great nation is one of personal freedom's and accountability. We are not historically the nanny state that other countries have always been. That's been changing massively in the past 100 years or so. Too much power to the federal government, and even state level government. While at the same time too many people willing to let those in power tell them what to do.

The government has a role and a place. I always have thought the role of the government was the adult supervising kids on a playground. Let the kids run around, have fun, and play however they like. Only step in when there is a problem, altercation, or something else that the kids themselves can't resolve. Once the problem is solved, back off and let the kids play again. Instead we now have a government regulating more and more on that play ground.

Basically I'm glad the law was struck down, and other nanny laws like this need to be struck down every time. That is NOT the role of government.