Mayor Bloomberg proposes super-sized soda ban

In fact the people of New York City will not regain the control of the government of their own city until some limits and safe guards are placed on the powers of their unelected board of health.

As I stated before the board have amazing powers if they declare a state of health emergency and given that they already had proven completely untrustworthy their teeth should be pull as soon as possible.

Most people in the colonies did not live in Boston when the their seaport was shut down by the British now did they and yet the people of the colonies did care about the fate of that city.

People who have far far less of a connection to Boston in that time period then I have with the now primary city of my nation.

To a degree every citizens of the US is a citizen of New York as that city is and have been for over 160 years or so a symbol of this nation.

That is why during WW2 when the Germen was dreaming of a long range rocket that could reach the US they name it the New York Rocket and why we had have those terrorists attacks and attempts attacks aimed at the people and the property of New York city.

Meanwhile, you are not a voting resident of NYC, Bloomberg is not your mayor, and that is not your Board of Health. And you do not need to regard the people who do live and vote in NYC as either children or incompetent adults who need your allegedly superior wisdom about how to deal with their government.

If the thought of having to buy two 16 oz drinks, rather than one 32 oz drink, sends you into spasms of paranoid hysteria about police states and government suppression of basic Constitutional freedoms, they must have had to wrap you in damp sheets when they passed smoking bans and seatbelt laws.

You're delusional....this BS brings back strong memories of Soviet central planning, a place I never dreamed Americans would be willing to go. The government deciding what drink sizes we can buy is HUGE...and alarming.

Sorry dear but I am a citizen of the US, as are the citizens of NYC and I do am not going to stand by in silent when the primary city of my nation have a city government that is tearing up the very concept that we are all repeat all are govern by the consent of the people at all levels of governments under the Constitution. I do indeed have skin in this game as do all US citizens.

Now there is no question that a lame duck mayor and a non elected board that is clearly acting outside their charter and against the clear wishes of the majority of the citizens of New York City had force a silly ban on soda container sizes and are interfering with the rights of women to breastfeed or not to breastfeed their infants in the city hospitals.

This same board that had already shown a willingness to disregards the wishes of the citizens and treat adults as children have must more power to do harm due to the powers that had been entrusted to them to deal with emergency health situations.

So to sum up I do not care if you are trying to claim I have no interests in what occur to my fellow citizens living in New York City but I do and so do most citizens of the US at least in my opinion no matter where they live.

Yes, I love the idea that Firefly is trying to float that harm done to the rights of US citizens in New York City is no concern of the rest of us living outside the borders of that city.

She and Bloomberg remind me of the bully who is saying "stop stalling asshole, all I want is your lunch money"......but you know damn well he will be taking more soon if he is not stopped.

Slug em early I say, there is no point in waiting.

Agree and take note all the assholes on this board appointed by Bloomberg voted for this ban but for one lady who did not vote for the reason that she wished to go further in treating New Yorkers as children.

Wish that I knew what she was wishing to imposed on the citizens of the city that would go far enough in her mind.

You surely can tell in any case how independent this board is from the mayor by the vote in any case.

Here is the website for the nanny state...............

If people are not already tired of reading Firefly defense of the government acting as a parent to adults you can get the material directly here.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/home/home.shtml

Who would have thought that Bloomberg would turn out to be a protege of Putin.....ya got to have a certain level of respect for those who are so skilled enough with the use of power that they can pull off the run over the citizens move.

Well the state govenment might make Blommberg ban null and void so this silliness is far from playing out.[see story below]

Second the most likely next mayor is against this ban also and as the mayor does appointed the health department board we might see a large turnover in that board when a new mayor that is against such silliness as this ban take over.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_sugar_daddy_shelly_vs_mayor_qQlNyf4plTsZmDx0GJX95J/0


State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver yesterday said he’s considering a plan to thwart Mayor Bloomberg’s attack on sugary drinks.

“We may be getting too close to Big Brother,” a clearly bothered Silver told The Post, adding that he’s considering legislation at the state level to stop the mayor’s plan to limit the size of sodas and other sugar-laden drinks sold in the city.

“I just think we ought to step back and look at the freedoms that we have been given in this country and reflect on them,’’ Silver said.

keep in mind that Albany has been a cluster **** for a very long time, which is a great part of the reason Bloomberg was able to turn NYC into is personal fiefdom. It does not help that Obama plays the same game Bloomberg does, namely running over the citizens while managing to get far too many people to believe that he is doing us a favor. There is no one to keep Bloomberg in line. I have yet to find even one legal expert who expects the courts to stand up for us either ....the expectation is that we will see as far as the eye can see rulings from that branch of government claiming that government efforts to pursue "SAFETY!" trumps our liberty. Isn't that just so handy when human life is a risky enterprise....what is boils down to is our government has asserted its claim that it has the right to take our liberty at will, that all it needs to do to have this right is to say the magic words " it is for your "SAFETY!".

Gilded cages can be nice, but I would rather have freedom tyvm.

Well the daily show did a great take off of the fact that the fine for selling a large soda will be 200 dollars in New York City and the fine for having an oz of pot will be a 100 dollars in New York State.

Then Bloomberg declared/supported a donuts day for the city where free donuts was given out.

You could not made this stuff up if you try to Hawkeye.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/bloomberg-pitches-soda-ban-in-appearance-to-celebrate-national-doughnut-day/

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken a lot of heat for his crusade against obesity, most recently for his proposal to ban large-sized soft drinks throughout the city.

In an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show on Friday — a day celebrated by Bloomberg as National Doughnut Day — he was challenged by host Matt Lauer on how effective the ban might be.

Lauer reminded Bloomberg that his administration came out in support of National Doughnut Day, which Lauer said “sounds ridiculous” in the wake of his attempts to ban large-sized sodas.

“It doesn’t sound ridiculous,” Bloomberg replied. “One doughnut is not going to hurt you. In moderation most things are OK. Number two, just think about what National Doughnut Day is. National Doughnut Day celebrates a lot of young ladies during World War I called ‘doughnut lassies’ who went and gave doughnuts to our soldiers while they were fighting to protect democracy.”

Lauer asked why Bloomberg’s moderation philosophy for doughnuts doesn’t apply to soft drinks.

“If anything in moderation works for doughnuts — why not with soft drinks?” Lauer asked, interrupting.

“That is exactly what we’re trying to do with soft drinks — is get you to drink in moderation,” Bloomberg replied. “Instead of the big 32-ounce, get two 16-ounces if you want. But history shows, all the tests show, what you’ll do is you’ll probably only drink one.” (SEE ALSO: NYC ban on unhealthy food at homeless shelters irks volunteers)

Bloomberg’s administration has not yet proposed a ban on multi-doughnut purchases to enforce eating them in moderation.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/bloomberg-pitches-soda-ban-in-appearance-to-celebrate-national-doughnut-day/#ixzz27jjfFB6P

the argument for portion control laws on soft drinks can be used without any changes to put in place portion control laws for all starches. It will not be long before NYC has a law on the amount of bread that can go into a pastrami sandwich if this is allowed to stand.

Of course this is just the toe under the tent but soon the whole camel will follow suit.

There is no logical stopping point to the nanny state.

look at how we run school lunches, with the focus on the foods that the central managers want us to eat with out a god damn care that the swill is so nasty that it is hard to get down nor that it no longer supplies the energy that active kids need. I am sure that there are some old Soviets reading about America these days laughing their asses off!

what is good enough for our kids is good enough for us though....the "Toe" happened when we allowed Washington to dictate what food is served in the school down the street.

watch out, the police state is on a mighty roll!

The New York Times
October 10, 2012
Anti-Soda Marketing Begins to Catch Up
By MARK BITTMAN

Depressing, touching, and effective, this CSPI music video features a family of marketed-to-death, soda-drinking polar bears.


http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/anti-soda-marketing-begins-to-catch-up/

WOW! Thanks Firefly. That really was a funny yet touching short film.
It does its job effectively.

And thanks for helping bring back this thread to its original message. I was dreading returning to this thread because it got a bit sidetracked.

Yes indeed the world would be a wonderful place but for sugar soda drinks and it just damn odds that I tend to be overweight without drinking one soda containing sugar in well over thirty years or more.

Yes we need a nanny state in our lives telling us what size sodas we can order and so on and there will be a so on as there is no logical stopping point to this silliness.

I think Bloomberg is barking up the right tree. The amount people are served impacts how much they consume, the science supports this. Serve less and they will consume less. Soda is also hugely responsible for obesity, especially for certain demographics (e.g. the % of daily calories consumed from soda and sweets by teenage boys is something like 25%).

At the same time, the libertarian in me doesn't like banning the sizes. Instead, what I prefer is a junk calorie tax, that goes toward supporting the societal cost* of the health problems they contribute towards.

*As long as we are to be a society that isn't going to just let the poor and sick just die off we will bear some of the costs of everyone's healthcare choices. Instead of prohibiting people from hurting themselves, however, I favor taxing the problematic behavior to cover the societal cost. It also has the additional benefit of raising the cost of destructive behavior and making it a bit less economically attractive. While I am also wary of "sin taxes" I think on soda we have it ass-backwards, subsidizing cheap corn syrup that has enormous impact to the nation's health, helping pay for it with public money.