Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wetcoaster

NYC Ban on Large Sugar Laden Drinks Struck Down by Court

Recommended Posts

Well, it was clearly asinine in that it targeted some locations and not others, but the obvious problem here is that the government cares at all what people are drinking. Who cares if it's Coke, Captain Morgan, Pennzoil 5W30 synthetic, or the bong water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can you drink that garbage!? I find that Valvoline 10w30 to be more smooth and not nearly as filling. Sure I'll do a few synthetic shots now and then, but those are few and far between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look down upon adults who drink soda anyways. They can all die of diabetes. It's not the governments business to police stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC has now filed a notice of appeal against the ruling that set aside the Portion Cap Rule.

NEW York City challenged a ruling throwing out Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to restrict sales of large-size soda drinks, calling the decision by a state court judge “contrary to law.”

In a five-page notice of appeal, the city said it would fight the March 11 ruling by New York Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling before the court’s appellate division in Manhattan. Tingling barred the ban from becoming law on Tuesday, saying it had too many loopholes and violated the jurisdiction of New York’s City Council.

“We are moving forward immediately with our appeal,” said Michael A. Cardozo, corporation counsel of the city’s law department. “We believe the judge was wrong in rejecting this important public-health initiative. We also feel he took an unduly narrow view of the Board of Health’s powers.”

http://businessmirro...an-court-defeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it was clearly asinine in that it targeted some locations and not others, but the obvious problem here is that the government cares at all what people are drinking. Who cares if it's Coke, Captain Morgan, Pennzoil 5W30 synthetic, or the bong water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban was due to go into effect today, but a New York judge struck it down, describing the regulation as "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban was due to go into effect today, but a New York judge struck it down, describing the regulation as "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5W30 helps line my digestive tract better for both vodka and the Captain Morgan. If I was bored I might do some Shell 10W40 and chase it with some Prune juice, except I'd spend all week on the john.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even understand how half of the stuff offered by "food" companies gets approved by the government. I also don't understand why people choose to ignore the fact that they are essentially poisoning themselves.

It seems like Bloomberg has been taking an extremely proactive approach in NYC to try and change things and make his city better. Hopefully he'll be able to get something accomplished. The US has got to have the most stubborn population on the face of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even understand how half of the stuff offered by "food" companies gets approved by the government. I also don't understand why people choose to ignore the fact that they are essentially poisoning themselves.

It seems like Bloomberg has been taking an extremely proactive approach in NYC to try and change things and make his city better. Hopefully he'll be able to get something accomplished. The US has got to have the most stubborn population on the face of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some, like me, see it was utterly stupid.

First off, there's a blatant bias as to what they're going after.

Secondly, in New York and even here in Canada, you can flout your liver drinking yourself silly, no problem, but somehow there's an issue with buying products like soda from certain vendors because of the issue with sugar and diabetes, or hypertension? Really?

This is a politically motivated issue with certain companies, selective outrage, and excessive government influence of both individuals and the economy. Some of us see this for what it is, and it's little to do with concern for health.

Simply put, I hope this appeal fails, leave people alone to "poison" themselves. If it were merely a measure to protect children who aren't yet capable of making intelligent choices for themselves, I can understand, but this law is for adults. It makes no sense that we have respect for an individual's right to their own body when determining whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, whether or not to fill themselves full of booze, or drugs, but don't dare fill yourself full of sugar? Bull.

People knowingly walk into fast food restaurants knowing they are eating quite unhealthy food. Let them drink (or in your term, "poison themselves" with) their 64oz of carbonated sugar water if they so see fit. I think adults have earned the right to make that decision for themselves. Or, if you are going to say that they can't, then be consistent and take away these other freedoms. But I know this is simply an anti-globalist/anti-capitalist backlash on a specific industry much the same way with cigarettes. So, simply dismiss the appeal, give it the finger, and tell these people trying to ban soda, and sugary products to go find another rope to piss up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A large Coke at McDonalds is 26 oz. and you have unlimited refills. Each large Coke would be 320 calories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some, like me, see it was utterly stupid.

First off, there's a blatant bias as to what they're going after.

Secondly, in New York and even here in Canada, you can flout your liver drinking yourself silly, no problem, but somehow there's an issue with buying products like soda from certain vendors because of the issue with sugar and diabetes, or hypertension? Really?

This is a politically motivated issue with certain companies, selective outrage, and excessive government influence of both individuals and the economy. Some of us see this for what it is, and it's little to do with concern for health.

Simply put, I hope this appeal fails, leave people alone to "poison" themselves. If it were merely a measure to protect children who aren't yet capable of making intelligent choices for themselves, I can understand, but this law is for adults. It makes no sense that we have respect for an individual's right to their own body when determining whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, whether or not to fill themselves full of booze, or drugs, but don't dare fill yourself full of sugar? Bull.

People knowingly walk into fast food restaurants knowing they are eating quite unhealthy food. Let them drink (or in your term, "poison themselves" with) their 64oz of carbonated sugar water if they so see fit. I think adults have earned the right to make that decision for themselves. Or, if you are going to say that they can't, then be consistent and take away these other freedoms. But I know this is simply an anti-globalist/anti-capitalist backlash on a specific industry much the same way with cigarettes. So, simply dismiss the appeal, give it the finger, and tell these people trying to ban soda, and sugary products to go find another rope to piss up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except we're on the hook for medical costs for people who treat their bodies like waste disposal sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone dies of something. Are you able to show a person who has diabetes and a heart attack at 65 costs any more than a person who dies of liver cancer at 90?

My guess is probably not. The longer you live past retirement, the more money you are costing (not just health care) vs earning. Ideally, from a purely economic point of view, people would drop dead the day they retire. I can't imagine living to be 90 reduces health care costs in any way.

From a purely anecdotal experience, I had one grandfather who died instantly of a heart attack at age 72. He was overweight but rarely visited the doctor. He cost the health care system next to nothing. I had another grandfather who lived to 99. He was extremely fit and thin. In the last 5-10 years, his health deteriorated in every way. He had issues with his eyes, bladder, skin, etc... In the end, he had several different types of cancer, and the doctors just stopped treating him. He was perfectly healthy in every way until the last few years of his life. He didn't have any genetic or health problems, he just got old...really really old.

Taxing calories doesn't make any sense either. For some people a high calorie diet is healhy. Everyone has individual needs when it comes to calorie consumption. It's not universally bad for you, like smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except we're on the hook for medical costs for people who treat their bodies like waste disposal sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even understand how half of the stuff offered by "food" companies gets approved by the government. I also don't understand why people choose to ignore the fact that they are essentially poisoning themselves.

It seems like Bloomberg has been taking an extremely proactive approach in NYC to try and change things and make his city better. Hopefully he'll be able to get something accomplished. The US has got to have the most stubborn population on the face of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.