17
   

Mayor Bloomberg proposes super-sized soda ban

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 02:18 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/11/soda-ban-new-york-city/1979653/

Judge strikes down NYC sugary-drinks limit
Laura Petrecca, USA TODAY4:09p.m. EDT March 11, 2013
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to limit New Yorkers' sugar consumption, but his ban on large drinks -- set to take effect Tuesday -- was put on hold by a state judge.


(Photo: Mario Tama, Getty Images)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Ban on over-16-ounce drinks was set to take effect Tuesday
Mayor Bloomberg called it "portion control"
A judge said loopholes defeated the purpose
A New York State judge has halted the controversial New York City ban on large sugary drinks.

The ban was set to take effect Tuesday.

It would put a 16-ounce cap on sweetened bottled drinks and fountain beverages sold at city restaurants, delis, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. The size limit applies to beverages that have more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. It doesn't include 100% juice drinks or beverages with more than 50% milk.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been going full force with his efforts to show the detriments of sugary drinks. On Monday, he released data that showed a correlation between sugary drink consumption and obesity.

On Sunday, Bloomberg defended the regulation. "We're not banning anything," he said on CBS' Face the Nation. "It's called portion control."

"All we're doing in New York is reminding you that it's not in your interest to have too many empty calories," he said. "You can have some. If you want to have 32 ounces, just buy two 16-ounce cups. Take them back to your seat. If you want 64 ounces, take four cups back."

But on Monday, a judge said no.

Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling wrote that loopholes "effectively defeat the stated purpose" of the rule.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:36 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health's mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that 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.' "

The board may supervise and regulate the city's food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken: According to Judge Tingling, the city must face imminent danger due to disease.

"That has not been demonstrated," he wrote.

Judge Tingling also suggested that Mr. Bloomberg overstepped his powers by bringing the sugary drink rules before the Board of Health, which is solely appointed by him. The City Council, he wrote, is the legislative body "and it alone has the authority to legislate as the board seeks to do here."

City health officials, he wrote, aren't assigned the "sweeping and unbridled authority to define, create, authorize, mandate and enforce" the health code.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.html

this is one hell of a smack down.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
a zero vote for a good post= another A2K fail.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Mar, 2013 09:26 am
@hawkeye10,
What are you babbling about Hawkeye? Your post is late considering you're not the first to post that news of the legal delay of the soda ban. Heck, BillRM isn't the first person to have posted that breaking news.

You can fantasize about being oppressed here/AKA a free speech martyr at a2k but that's just a paranoid delusion.
Ice Demon
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Mar, 2013 09:40 am
@hawkeye10,
In my opinion, a zero is better than one because zero is so unique that nothing can be dividable by it, not even zero itself. This peculiar funny numbers is a neutral rebeller. You should feel honored when you get a zero, so stop yer complaining.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Mar, 2013 01:21 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

What are you babbling about Hawkeye? Your post is late considering you're not the first to post that news of the legal delay of the soda ban. Heck, BillRM isn't the first person to have posted that breaking news.

You can fantasize about being oppressed here/AKA a free speech martyr at a2k but that's just a paranoid delusion.

That the ban was struck diwn is only a small part of the story, the seeping condemnation on how the ban came to be is huge, and it fits my long running storyline of examples of abuse of power by American government. A zero rating on such a post is an A2K fail, there is no
valid reason for it.

My point is not that I am oppressed, the point is that increasingly A2K is not a place that welcomes ideas which don't conform to coventional wisdom. My condemnation of the new A2K was never about me either, a point that I made often but don't bother making much anymore because Set and a bunch of others don't care, they will not be swayed from their fantasy that I consider myself to be a victim.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 04:42 pm
The primary reason for the Court's decision is not so much an aversion to the Progressive Nanny State, but a recognition of the utter inequity of this foolish law...always to be expected from the Progressive Nanny State.

Starbucks is exempt from this idiotic ban. Why? Can you say Latte Liberals?

All animals are equal; some animals are more equal than others.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 04:59 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Starbucks is exempt from this idiotic ban. Why? Can you say Latte Liberals?


Class standing not political position seems to be the likely reason that Starbucks is not view as the same as 7/11 as you are not likely a member of the unwashed masses who is in need government oversight if you can afford to drink coffee at a Starbucks.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 05:03 pm
@BillRM,
In New York City, as in most places, class standing and political position goes hand in hand. In NYC, the upper-crust are liberal.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 05:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
In NYC, the upper-crust are liberal.


That is one hell of a claim as off hand I can think of a number of New Yorkers who are movers and shakers that are far from being liberal.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 06:50 pm
@BillRM,
A "number" of New Yorkers who are far from being liberal do not the City's movers and shakers make.

Bloomberg runs the city. Sufficently upper-crust for you?
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2014 12:59 pm
The Soda Ban Is Really, Truly Dead
http://www.grubstreet.com/2014/06/soda-ban-defeated-new-york-city.html?om_rid=AAAgmh&om_mid=_BTrGatB864MbiB
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2014 01:04 pm
@tsarstepan,
GOOD NEWS

The bad news is that the efforts of a few fanatics holding the right jobs got so far along in their plans to control what we put into our mouths. This is almost never any of the governments business.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2014 02:50 pm
@tsarstepan,
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Seemed rather insane anyway since it meant people would end up purchasing 2 of the 16 ounce drinks if they couldn't get the 22 ouncer.

Now let's bring back public smoking!
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 11:38 am
@tsarstepan,

As a political policy, it was pretty much a failure from the get go. As a PSA (public service announcement) or health science based awareness project, I wonder if it in fact had some positive impact (larger scale wise) on lowering the consumption of calorically heavy/High fructose corn syrup based beverages? Or was it already riding the wave of an existing movement to lower consumption of these types of sugary drinks?
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 03:05 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:



Seemed rather insane anyway since it meant people would end up purchasing 2 of the 16 ounce drinks if they couldn't get the 22 ouncer.




I don't care about the ban one way or the other, but this above doesn't make sense.

No, people wouldn't purchase 2. They would purchase one smaller one, and drink it and be satisfied.

tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 04:04 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

Sturgis wrote:



Seemed rather insane anyway since it meant people would end up purchasing 2 of the 16 ounce drinks if they couldn't get the 22 ouncer.




I don't care about the ban one way or the other, but this above doesn't make sense.

No, people wouldn't purchase 2. They would purchase one smaller one, and drink it and be satisfied.



Well, you don't live in NYC and missed out on the big stink this brought up by many particularly vocal blue collar peeps.

Quote:
and be satisfied.


Didn't really expect you to be moderately Canadian or European. That's one of the least anti-American sentiments you've posted on a2k (not being derogatory but missing the mark by a few thousand miles).

If you read the remainder of the thread, clearly not enough people were satisfied with the ban as … it was officially abandoned several years after it began. I provided the link to the policy update and all.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 04:33 pm
Oh I understand the ban never came to be. I meant I didn’t care in that it doesn’t effect me personally.

I didn’t realize that being satisfied with enough made one unamerican. I thought it made one a reasonable person.

Considering I’m in the early stages of countdown mode for permanently leaving the US, and all it’s excesses, and beliefs that American ways are the only ways, and superior, it certainly doesn’t bother me to be accused of being going against generally accepted sentiments.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 07:09 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

I didn’t realize that being satisfied with enough made one unamerican. I thought it made one a reasonable person.

You couldn't figure out that I was being facetious in that point? Do I really have to post winky emoticons for every silly notion I post (after years of posting here). I know my sense of humor is dry. It's still not as dry as the surface of the sun (and still pretty reasonable to figure out by now).

Moderation is the best way to go about it. Yet it's almost impossible to make moderation a legit thing via public policy especially in the United States of Overindulgence.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2019 07:14 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

Yet it's almost impossible to make moderation a legit thing via public policy especially in the United States of Overindulgence.


Because in my anti-american opinion (no I'm not joking) There are far too many Americans who are just too ******* stupid to figure out a policy like this is actually good for them, and instead want want to whine how they can't get something.

Then they'll whine when they get diabetes that no one told them.

btw, I figured you were joking. I'm just feeling imperious.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/20/2019 at 11:19:46