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

[fskimospy]

you're getting the burden of proof backwards.

This is incorrect. Under US law, laws and regulations subject to rational basis review are presumed rational. The challenger has the burden of proof.

again, you were backwards. you started with 'yes, unless' when the real answer is 'no, except.' that's not a minor distinction.

Again, this is factually wrong.

For details: www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There is no right to drink soda, but there are wide ranging rights protecting people's control over their own bodies.

People have control over their own bodies until it comes to their consumption of a legal product, and then it's the government's job to step in and say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, we didn't allow you freedom over your body so that you could do THAT with it fatty?" Authoritarianism is almost always the wrong approach to a perceived problem, whether it's obesity, gun violence, the war on drugs, etc. Education and raising public awareness of the links between unhealthy food, obesity and all the health problems obesity causes is going to be far more effective than telling someone they can have as much soda as they want, but only 12 ounces at a time.

 

[fskimospy]

People have control over their own bodies until it comes to their consumption of a legal product, and then it's the government's job to step in and say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, we didn't allow you freedom over your body so that you could do THAT with it fatty?" Authoritarianism is almost always the wrong approach to a perceived problem, whether it's obesity, gun violence, the war on drugs, etc. Education and raising public awareness of the links between unhealthy food, obesity and all the health problems obesity causes is going to be far more effective than telling someone they can have as much soda as they want, but only 12 ounces at a time.

No regulation here is in any way limiting how much someone may consume.

Period.

 

[nehalem256]

People have control over their own bodies until it comes to their consumption of a legal product, and then it's the government's job to step in and say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, we didn't allow you freedom over your body so that you could do THAT with it fatty?" Authoritarianism is almost always the wrong approach to a perceived problem, whether it's obesity, gun violence, the war on drugs, etc. Education and raising public awareness of the links between unhealthy food, obesity and all the health problems obesity causes is going to be far more effective than telling someone they can have as much soda as they want, but only 12 ounces at a time.

The government is free to tell people what to do unless it involves abortion which is holy right where a woman (or 14 year old girl) should never be questioned.

Its the liberal way.

No regulation here is in any way limiting how much someone may consume.

It is making it more difficult to consume the amount of soda that a person would like to put in their body. It is functionally no different than a transvaginal ultrasound.

My cup, my choice.

 

[monovillage]

Do you have a time frame for each of these new government intrusions? I just want to know when I can pick up my GI burlap sack.

They have all taken place within the last few years, but since you are one of the big government assholes I was referring to I doubt if you would admit to them.

 

[OutHouse]

No, they must show a rational basis for banning them, which they have.

Where is the legitimate reason standard of review located?

Some ban, 7-11's and grocery stores are excluded...

 

[cybrsage]

Some ban, 7-11's and grocery stores are excluded...

That is what makes it so rational...

 

[Oldgamer]

This N.Y. Mayor pushed for salt reductions in restaurants at some point back 2010.. and was trying to force restaurants to not put salt on their tables or some shit like that. This link was the only one I could come up with on that http://www.facebook.com/notes/myfoo...n-lauds-doctors-advice-for-immed/323369548080

Is he going to ban butter too? Can't have people eating food with butter, or cream, might make you fat!

Oh wells...

 

[OutHouse]

Eskimo, why in the world would you support a stupid law like this? Ddo really support a government telling its people they can ony have 16oz of pepsi? Dont you see a problem with this?

 

[ElFenix]

This is incorrect. Under US law, laws and regulations subject to rational basis review are presumed rational. The challenger has the burden of proof.



Again, this is factually wrong.

For details: www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test

i stand corrected on the first but the second wasn't about rational basis, it was about the difference in limited vs. police powers.

 

[fskimospy]

Eskimo, why in the world would you support a stupid law like this? Ddo really support a government telling its people they can ony have 16oz of pepsi? Dont you see a problem with this?

I don't really care about the law much either way to be honest, I am more annoyed by the horrible arguments of TYRANNY being made here.

But yes, in principle I have no problem with restricting the sizes of drinks for sale. My ambivalence mostly comes from that I'm not sure how effective it will be. If it succeeds in reducing obesity, I'm fine with it. I simply don't view the right to oversize novelty soda cups as being important in the slightest.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't really care about the law much either way to be honest, I am more annoyed by the horrible arguments of TYRANNY being made here.

But yes, in principle I have no problem with restricting the sizes of drinks for sale. My ambivalence mostly comes from that I'm not sure how effective it will be. If it succeeds in reducing obesity, I'm fine with it. I simply don't view the right to oversize novelty soda cups as being important in the slightest.

Clearly the government should not be involved in important matters like have children, but should instead be involved in trivial matters like determining proper beverages sizes.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No regulation here is in any way limiting how much someone may consume.

Period.

Then what's the point of it? It's literally "we will only allow you to purchase this product 16 ounces at a time (less space for ice) but you can have as many of those portions as you want." What good does that do? Ummm... four please. BAM, law averted, except for the inconvenience of carrying a lot of smaller cups instead of a large one. Where is the perceived benefit here? And the sizes are artificially small. I can understand saying that 64 ounces is a bit much to sell someone for a 2 hour movie, but the limit they've placed on it is smaller than the smallest size offered by my local movie chain, and that is so absurd that it's difficult for me to even express it without collapsing to the floor and sputtering profanity. I don't give a shit if someone wants to drink an unhealthy amount of soda while they watch a movie. It is NOT the government's job to protect us from ourselves as if we were children who are incapable of deciding what we want to do with our own bodies.

 

[fskimospy]

Clearly the government should not be involved in important matters like have children, but should instead be involved in trivial matters like determining proper beverages sizes.

How important something is in no way relates to my argument.

Regardless, I'm not interested in how much you hate women. Maybe start a blog.

 

[Doppel]

I don't really care about the law much either way to be honest, I am more annoyed by the horrible arguments of TYRANNY being made here.

But yes, in principle I have no problem with restricting the sizes of drinks for sale. My ambivalence mostly comes from that I'm not sure how effective it will be. If it succeeds in reducing obesity, I'm fine with it. I simply don't view the right to oversize novelty soda cups as being important in the slightest.

2L soda is not a novelty size.

This is a worthless law that will have no impact on obesity whatsoever and was borne of an addiction by Bloomberg and whomever supports this effort to nit pick stupid shit to exercise power over others.

Anybody outside of NYC looks sardonically upon this, but somehow the air in NYC is such that many of its inhabitants think this is actually good policy. That a person can still get a couple of fat slaps of pizza but will probably drink 50 calories less is rabidly idiotic. If Bloomberg is going to dictate over his little fiefdom, he should it right. Ban fast-food, shut down all the restaurants, that'll lower obesity for you. Drink sizes is just noise, hence the limitless mockery Bloomberg has received over this.

 

[nehalem256]

2L soda is not a novelty size.

This is a worthless law that will have no impact on obesity whatsoever and was borne of an addiction by Bloomberg and whomever supports this effort to nit pick stupid shit to exercise power over others.

Anybody outside of NYC looks sardonically upon this, but somehow the air in NYC is such that many of its inhabitants think this is actually good policy. That a person can still get a couple of fat slaps of pizza but will probably drink 50 calories less is rabidly idiotic. If Bloomberg is going to dictate over his little fiefdom, he should it right. Ban fast-food, shut down all the restaurants, that'll lower obesity for you. Drink sizes is just noise, hence the limitless mockery Bloomberg has received over this.

They might get 2, because after all now they are drinking 50 calories less so obviously they can have 2 slices of pizza right and not gain weight? And after all the government told them its soda that makes them gain weight. :sneaky:

Of course the actual research show that people who drink diet soda gain MORE weight. But hey lets ignore that and pick on regular soda. Because certain people just enjoy "exercising power over others".

 

[nehalem256]

How important something is in no way relates to my argument.

If the government needs to control your life over trivial matters isn't silly to let people have freedom over more important matters?

 

[OutHouse]

Then what's the point of it? It's literally "we will only allow you to purchase this product 16 ounces at a time (less space for ice) but you can have as many of those portions as you want." What good does that do? Ummm... four please. BAM, law averted, except for the inconvenience of carrying a lot of smaller cups instead of a large one. Where is the perceived benefit here? And the sizes are artificially small. I can understand saying that 64 ounces is a bit much to sell someone for a 2 hour movie, but the limit they've placed on it is smaller than the smallest size offered by my local movie chain, and that is so absurd that it's difficult for me to even express it without collapsing to the floor and sputtering profanity. I don't give a shit if someone wants to drink an unhealthy amount of soda while they watch a movie. It is NOT the government's job to protect us from ourselves as if we were children who are incapable of deciding what we want to do with our own bodies.

Exactly, whats scary is yhat more and more elected officials deem to think we are thier subjects not bosses

 

[waggy]

Exactly, whats scary is yhat more and more elected officials deem to think we are thier subjects not bosses

I find that to be the big problem. It goes from (my opionion) that far to many business's pretty much BUY them. they are looking out for them not us.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Clearly the government should not be involved in important matters like have children, but should instead be involved in trivial matters like determining proper beverages sizes.

The "Congress is reading your email without warrants" thread had 10 replies
Soda pop drink sizes is a serious issue here

 

[Svnla]

I am slurping a 44 oz of cold Polar drink from my local Circle K. It was $0.76 out the door and very nice. Come and take that from my very cold hand, Bloomberg.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
That a person can still get a couple of fat slaps of pizza but will probably drink 50 calories less is rabidly idiotic. ...

While I agree it's an unreasonable law, you've highlighted one of the issues that prompted it. Drinking that extra 16 oz of a regular cola is not just 50 calories, but around 200 calories. It's like drinking an extra candy bar, That's really one of the big problems here; too many people simply don't realize just how fattening sugared drinks are. I think the solution is education rather than arbitrary limits on drink size, but education is hard and still lets people make their own decisions.

 

[GoPackGo]

The FDA needs to restore the ban on HFCS in food. Butter in moderation is better for you than margarine. We have so many processed foods these days that include HFCS and MSG that you become chemically craven to the food.

 

[nehalem256]

While I agree it's an unreasonable law, you've highlighted one of the issues that prompted it. Drinking that extra 16 oz of a regular cola is not just 50 calories, but around 200 calories. It's like drinking an extra candy bar, That's really one of the big problems here; too many people simply don't realize just how fattening sugared drinks are. I think the solution is education rather than arbitrary limits on drink size, but education is hard and still lets people make their own decisions.

So this is a bad thing now?

 

[nehalem256]

The FDA needs to restore the ban on HFCS in food. Butter in moderation is better for you than margarine. We have so many processed foods these days that include HFCS and MSG that you become chemically craven to the food.

Obviously the solution to consuming to many chemicals is to start drinking diet soda :\

EDIT: And also since real sugar soda is generally considered superior tasting how exactly would selling it decrease consumption of soda?

It seems to me that some people have an unnatural hatred of HFCS as being "unnatural"