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

[nehalem256]

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.

So why are diet sodas exempted?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

 

[fskimospy]

First, I think the primary problem here is a lack of accountability. America, in my mind, stands for freedom without accountability. We all want our health insurance costs to be low, but we want to retain our freedom to act in ways that raise the cost of health care and not pay for it. That isn't real autonomy, that is irresponsibility.

Additionally, many of your scientific arguments are poor. Someone getting heart disease without trans fats does not mean that trans fats do not cause heart disease. In fact most science accepts there is a link. Your other arguments were straw men as no one is trying to stop people from eating, forcing them to exercise, or stop getting older. They are attempting to pass regulations that encourage people to eat better however, and I welcome them.

The role of government is whatever we say it is. In this case a local government enacted regulations that seem well within its powers. I haven't seen any legal analysis that thinks this ruling will survive on appeal.

I thought the beauty of federal governance is that if you don't like local laws you can live somewhere else?

 

[fskimospy]

So why are diet sodas exempted?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Are you trying to argue that if someone wants to regulate an unhealthy drink they must regulate ALL unhealthy drinks? If so, why and on what legal basis?

 

[Svnla]

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.

Three? Wasteful bastard. Should be only one (1). I am going to sue his ass for not being green enough.

<tongue in cheek>

On the serious side, it is no doubt that too much/excessive intake of sugary drinks is bad for your health but banning them is not the answer IMO. Should be moderation, as in anything in life.

 

[fskimospy]

Three? Wasteful bastard. Should be only one (1). I am going to sue his ass for not being green enough.

<tongue in cheek>

On the serious side, it is no doubt that too much/excessive intake of sugary drinks is bad for your health but banning them is not the answer IMO. Should be moderation, as in anything in life.

They aren't banning them though.

 

[nehalem256]

Are you trying to argue that if someone wants to regulate an unhealthy drink they must regulate ALL unhealthy drinks? If so, why and on what legal basis?

If your goal is to combat obesity you should at least make a reasonable attempt to ban drinks that cause it.

It seems awfully stupid to exempt a common drink that is MORE likely to cause obesity.

Basically you cannot violate people's freedom just because you feel like it.

 

[fskimospy]

If your goal is to combat obesity you should at least make a reasonable attempt to ban drinks that cause it.

It seems awfully stupid to exempt a common drink that is MORE likely to cause obesity.

So you would like to expand the ban to cover more?

 

[nehalem256]

First, I think the primary problem here is a lack of accountability. America, in my mind, stands for freedom without accountability. We all want our health insurance costs to be low, but we want to retain our freedom to act in ways that raise the cost of health care and not pay for it. That isn't real autonomy, that is irresponsibility.

Funny when I say the same thing people say I hate women :sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

So you would like to expand the ban to cover more?

If your goal is to truly combat obesity you should either

(1) Cover diet and regular sodas
(2) Cover diet soda and not regular soda

There is no justification for banning just regular soda.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny when I say the same thing people say I hate women :sneaky:

No, for half of the times you say that you are trying to saddle women with a disproportionate share of the burden for perpetuating the species, a common goal. For the other half you stream out a series of incoherent babbling.

But yes, I doubt many people here don't realize that you hate women. Keep on topic though.

 

[nehalem256]

No, for half of the times you say that you are trying to saddle women with a disproportionate share of the burden for perpetuating the species, a common goal. For the other half you stream out a series of incoherent babbling.

But yes, I doubt many people here don't realize that you hate women. Keep on topic though.

We are on topic. Can the government regulate people engaging in irresponsible behavior in order to reduce costs to society?

Yes or no?

 

[ShawnD1]

So why are diet sodas exempted?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Because you suck at reading?

Fowler is quick to note that a study of this kind does not prove that diet soda causes obesity. More likely, she says, it shows that something linked to diet soda drinking is also linked to obesity.

"One possible part of the explanation is that people who see they are beginning to gain weight may be more likely to switch from regular to diet soda," Fowler suggests. "But despite their switching, their weight may continue to grow for other reasons. So diet soft-drink use is a marker for overweight and obesity."

 

[fskimospy]

If your goal is to truly combat obesity you should either

(1) Cover diet and regular sodas
(2) Cover diet soda and not regular soda

There is no justification for banning just regular soda.

So again, you are arguing that the ban should be expanded. Okay.

If you are arguing that the ban should be invalid because it does not include diet soda you are once again back to arguing that in order to regulate one unhealthy drink they must regulate all.

 

[fskimospy]

We are on topic. Can the government regulate people engaging in irresponsible behavior in order to reduce costs to society?

Yes or no?

Yes, so long as it does not violate other constitutional protections. There is no right to drink soda, but there are wide ranging rights protecting people's control over their own bodies. Stop trying to turn this into yet another equality bashing woman hatred thread.

 

[Svnla]

They aren't banning them though.

Banning as banning the 17 oz or larger sizes, correct? Not meaning outright ban of everything as in Prohibition Era banning alcohol.

 

[nehalem256]

Because you suck at reading?

You could make the same argument for regular soda. Perhaps people who drink large amounts of soda just have a crappy diet in general?

In fact 1% milk has approximately the same amount of calories as Pepsi.

Or perhaps people who drink diet soda feel they are "dieting" and can order the large fries instead of the small fries.

So again, you are arguing that the ban should be expanded. Okay.

If you are arguing that the ban should be invalid because it does not include diet soda you are once again back to arguing that in order to regulate one unhealthy drink they must regulate all.

You have to make a reasonable attempt. Exempting diet soda, but not regular soda is not a reasonable attempt to ban unhealthy drinks.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

Broad powers of enforcement still need a reasonable basis for exercise of those powers, govt isn't supposed to do things just because it can.

Fatties drink diet.

 

[fskimospy]

You could make the same argument for regular soda. Perhaps people who drink large amounts of soda just have a crappy diet in general?

In fact 1% milk has approximately the same amount of calories as Pepsi.

Or perhaps people who drink diet soda feel they are "dieting" and can order the large fries instead of the small fries.



You have to make a reasonable attempt. Exempting diet soda, but not regular soda is not a reasonable attempt to ban unhealthy drinks.

Oh do you? Why? Can you point to legal precedent where it was said that in order to ban one unhealthy thing you must make a "reasonable effort" to ban all unhealthy things?

 

[kache]

Banning is stupid. USA should just make healthcare public, legalize drugs and tax everything that's detrimental to health, with the taxes directly pumped into healthcare. Bam! Best healthcare in the world, and can even reduce most of the normal taxes!

 

[fskimospy]

Broad powers of enforcement still need a reasonable basis for exercise of those powers, govt isn't supposed to do things just because it can.

Fatties drink diet.

Are you arguing this ban wouldn't pass rational basis review? On what grounds? In order to do that you would have to show that it is irrational for the city to think that the ban will decrease soda consumption or that it is irrational to think that soda consumption contributes to obesity.

Which one is it?

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, so long as it does not violate other constitutional protections. There is no right to drink soda, but there are wide ranging rights protecting people's control over their own bodies. Stop trying to turn this into yet another equality bashing woman hatred thread.

The answer for the feds actually goes "no, unless there it is through the exercise of a power granted in the constitution and it meets whatever level of scrutiny the supreme court requires for exercising the power in that manner."

 

[nehalem256]

Oh do you? Why? Can you point to legal precedent where it was said that in order to ban one unhealthy thing you must make a "reasonable effort" to ban all unhealthy things?

Its a simple idea. The government cannot violate people's freedom without a valid reason.

The claimed valid reason is that they need to fit obesity by restricting unhealthy drinks.

But then they exempt some common unhealthy drinks which contradicts their reasoning for banning unhealthy drinks.

In essence by exempting diet sodas they are showing this is nothing more than a government power grab.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, so long as it does not violate other constitutional protections. There is no right to drink soda, but there are wide ranging rights protecting people's control over their own bodies. Stop trying to turn this into yet another equality bashing woman hatred thread.

Oh I'm sorry but choosing what beverages/food to consume is not part of having control over your body?

 

[fskimospy]

The answer for the feds actually goes "no, unless there it is through the exercise of a power granted in the constitution and it meets whatever level of scrutiny the supreme court requires for exercising the power in that manner."

You just said the same thing I did. Exercise of powers where other constitutional rights are not in play are subject to rational basis review, which basically means "are you insane or not". I thought that non insanity was assumed.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I'm sorry but choosing what beverages/food to consume is not part of having control over your body?

This regulation does not prevent anyone from consuming these beverages.

Think before you post.