Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the I-want-the-jumbo dept.

Government 532

mpicpp writes with good news for every New Yorker who needs 44oz of soft drink to be refreshed. New York's Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that New York City's ban on large sugary drinks, which was previously blocked by lower courts, is illegal. "We hold that the New York City Board of Health, in adopting the 'Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule,' exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority," the ruling said. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had pushed for the ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces as a way to fight obesity and other health problems.

cancel ×

532 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

My thirst can only be quenched... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328911)

By first post.

Let them drink! (5, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 months ago | (#47328923)

If people want to smash down 44oz of sugar like that then let them. If you need to regulate that then really you have to wonder about the intelligence of the sort of people you are imposing the ban on, the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice! It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.

Re:Let them drink! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328949)

Bad eating habits are associated with the lower class, and the lower class are also likely to use hospitality emergency rooms for their illnesses, sticking the taxpayer with the bill. So yes, their choices do have an effect on the people around them.

Re:Let them drink! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328977)

That kind of crap can be used to justify anything any government anywhere ever wanted to do.

Free stinky anus access card! Act now!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329143)

For today and today only, I'm giving you Slashdotters a free access card that will allow your fetid cocks to unlock the mysteries of my rancid asshole! Just swipe the card through my smelly asscrack as if you're sliding a credit card through a credit card reader and gain immediate access to the wondrous world that is my putrid, feces-filled anushole! Come on, let's party down in my asshole! I invite all your disgusting, disease-ridden cocks to the party! And to make things even more enticing, my feces is filled with... pinworms! That's riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! It just got even better! Now, begin mixing your diseased cum with my appalling feces so we can have some rectum soup! Let's get this feces fiesta started!

What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you?

Re:Let them drink! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328979)

Actually the cheapest alternative is for those people to die early and avoid a long slow decline on medicare

Re:Let them drink! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329009)

The fact that something has an indirect effect on others is no reason to ban it, especially in the so-called "land of the free." Just about everything has some indirect effect on others. Hobbyist mountain climbing? Can't do that, as you might hurt yourself and damage your family emotionally and cost taxpayers money. Ice skating? Video gaming? Same thing. Get rid of all unnecessary activities, because otherwise you might indirectly affect others!

Nah. I'd rather pay more taxes, thanks.

Re:Let them drink! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47329223)

The fact that something has an indirect effect on others is no reason to ban it, especially in the so-called "land of the free." Just about everything has some indirect effect on others. Hobbyist mountain climbing? Can't do that, as you might hurt yourself and damage your family emotionally and cost taxpayers money. Ice skating? Video gaming? Same thing. Get rid of all unnecessary activities, because otherwise you might indirectly affect others!

Nah. I'd rather pay more taxes, thanks.

Bicycling. Think of all those broken collar bones. And why do we allow children on bicycles at all? Let's start with requiring back braces, wrist, knee, elbow, hip armor, neck braces, and by the time we ban it altogether, people won't want to ride anymore anyway. Don't get me started on skateboards. And who thought it was safe to put wheels on the bottom of shoes?

I mean, you see things going that direction. Drive by a grade school playground these days and see how many kids are just standing around.

I don't think it's just about sugary drinks. That's just the low hanging fruit. As it were.

Caveat: I can't stand soft drinks and don't understand what people see in them. But inevitably, the eye of the government will turn towards some activity that I *do* want to do, and I'd rather not wait until then.

Re:Let them drink! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329011)

By all means make them buy two 22oz drinks instead. That will definitely solve the problem.

Re:Let them drink! (2)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 2 months ago | (#47329013)

Diabetics (and smokers) also have shorter lifespans. So sure, the 10 or so years of ill health at the end of their lives do cost some money, but nothing compared to the 30+ years of declining health and constant illness that the elderly face.

It's unpleasant, but compare the costs of diabetes (insulin, chopping off a foot, heart attack, maybe a pump?) to Alzheimer's.

Re:Let them drink! (-1, Flamebait)

Morky (577776) | about 2 months ago | (#47329317)

So we should be encouraging habits that kill people at early ages to save money? You must be a Republican.

Re:Let them drink! (0, Flamebait)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47329403)

While it's true that Republicans tend to use proven facts and make decisions based on them (unlike liberals), I don't see anything in GP that supports your assumption that he encourages an unhealthy lifestyle. He just pointed out (correctly) the folly of assuming an unhealthy lifestyle is more expensive to taxpayers.

Re:Let them drink! (3, Insightful)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 2 months ago | (#47329437)

While it's true that Republicans tend to use proven facts and make decisions based on them (unlike liberals)

What? Anyone who votes for either party (Republican or Democrat) is voting for evil scumbags who only seek to take away our rights. They're idiots fooled into accepting a false dichotomy. The only proven fact is that both parties want to shred the constitution and our fundamental liberties, so if people truly opposed that, they wouldn't be voting for the scumbags put forth by The One Party.

Re:Let them drink! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329015)

Then the solution is for the government and the taxpayers to tell the fat asses and poor people to fuck off and pay for their own healthcare.

Re:Let them drink! (5, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 2 months ago | (#47329029)

I don't know if the above poster was sincere or sarcastic, but this does illustrate a slippery slope. Nobody would care about bad eating habits, if they had decided, for example, to let everyone fend for themselves.

But having decided that free health care should be extended to people who have bad eating habits (and make other poor decisions), now the rationalization exists to regulate and control those peoples' eating habits. An act of tyranny follows a supposed act of charity.

It's never just accepted that some people will make bad decisions in a democratic society and to just suck up the cost of that.

Re:Let them drink! (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 2 months ago | (#47329095)

I don't know if the above poster was sincere or sarcastic, but this does illustrate a slippery slope. Nobody would care about bad eating habits, if they had decided, for example, to let everyone fend for themselves.

Those of us opposed to government-provided health care have been pointing this out for decades; that once you have the government providing health care, that can be used as an excuse to control everything and anything which could affect anyone's health. Of course proponents poo-poohed that and said we were paranoid and yelled "slippery slope fallacy".

Re:Let them drink! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329113)

This is the US, virtually nobody is getting free healthcare.

Arguably people on Medicaid who have never had a job before are getting free health care, Very few adults are in that category.

--AC

Re:Let them drink! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 months ago | (#47329229)

True. I should have said free or subsidized health care.

Re:Let them drink! (4, Interesting)

terrab0t (559047) | about 2 months ago | (#47329341)

Here in Canada we have a strategy that works. For tobacco, which is clearly proven to cause a range of costly health problems, we levy a tax that the government uses to cover the extra public healthcare costs that come from smoking. All Canadians get the same public funded healthcare. The ones who are doing something that clearly puts a larger burden on the system pay for it.

Re:Let them drink! (2)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 months ago | (#47329359)

people who have bad eating habits

None of this precludes bad eating habits though. It just makes it more expensive or cumbersome (nor does it help people who drink several medium drinks throughout the day). So sounds like pointless grandstanding

Education is the way to help. I think the rules requiring posting calories on the menu had done a lot more to improve health than any such stupid ban. And no one contested that in court.

You can't really force people to make healthy choices by legislation. Information/labeling helps though.

Re:Let them drink! (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 months ago | (#47329443)

The many other countries in the west with proper healthcare have managed to limit their meddling to a few PSAs urging healthy eating and such.

When is the last time you saw the health police whipping overweight joggers through the streets of London?

Re:Let them drink! (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 months ago | (#47329035)

sticking the taxpayer with the bill. So yes, their choices do have an effect on the people around them.

I see your point, but you could ban any activities that are potentially dangerous under that same premise. If they do have a proven, measurable negative effect on the taxpayer-funded system then tax them higher, over-regulation by banning them is not the answer.

Re:Let them drink! (1)

Greg Heller (3031971) | about 2 months ago | (#47329059)

So how long have you been a Nazi? Do you hear yourself, bad eating habits are not bound to any one class of people let alone the lower class(as you put it) And really tell us what a hospitality room is? Isn't that something found at a convention or trade show? What a moronic statement.

Re:Let them drink! (2)

nickittynickname (2753061) | about 2 months ago | (#47329367)

A hospitality room is a hastily spelled hospital room - go to one some time, there filled with poor people with minor illnesses (colds, flues, things like that) because the hospital emergency room is required to treat people if they can pay or not. Your right that eating habits arn't limited to the poor, he is saying that poor eating habits are more common in lower class. They are generally less educated, including education on nutrition, and are more likely to buy cheaper and less nutritional meals. What he is saying is not wrong nor being a "nazi". http://www.gallup.com/poll/163... [gallup.com]

also over worked people / working lunch's (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47329173)

also over worked people / working lunch's end up with Bad eating habits as well.

Re:Let them drink! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329189)

You mean, as opposed to Obamacare sticking taxpayers with the bill?

Re:Let them drink! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329273)

hospitality emergency rooms

Where can I find those? I'm in desperate need!

Re:Let them drink! (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 months ago | (#47329413)

On the other hand, few in the lower class end up on disability after skiing and skydiving accidents.

Re:Let them drink! (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 2 months ago | (#47329441)

Sure.

Only, to entertain an appropriate ad hominem this time -- Bloomberg's car's exhaust also has an effect on the people around him.
Difference is, his effect is an externality affecting other people's health directly, whereas the sugar-addict's externality has a monetary
effect on others at worst.

Now, keeping in mind the gentle dictum 'noblesse oblige', go define the 'lower' of the two classes you implicitly distinguished.

Re:Let them drink! (5, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 2 months ago | (#47328969)

It isn't harming anybody else.

It is when the centre of mass of Earth is drifting towards North America. Won't somebody please think of orbital nutation?

Re:Let them drink! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328981)

It does harm taxpayers to allow/condone/facilitate things that obviously DIRECTLY contribute to nationwide epidemics that didn't exist before the product.

Re:Let them drink! (0)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 months ago | (#47329041)

If you'll just stop and think for a moment, you'll realize that people aren't smashing down 44oz of sugar. They're drinking 44 fluid ounces of a soft drink, sweetened with sugar and/or high-fructose corn syrup. I agree with your basic idea that the US shouldn't try to be a nanny state, but I think that your point comes across better without the mistake.

Re:Let them drink! (0)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 2 months ago | (#47329089)

If you'll just stop and think for a moment, you'll realize that people aren't smashing down 44oz of sugar. They're drinking 44 fluid ounces of a soft drink, sweetened with sugar and/or high-fructose corn syrup. I agree with your basic idea that the US shouldn't try to be a nanny state, but I think that your point comes across better without the mistake.

I've stopped and thought. I realized I am not interested in this subject, and that your correction of exomondo's post is little more than an excuse to post something. How's that web hosting business you're spamming your sig line coming?

Re:Let them drink! (1, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 months ago | (#47329181)

How's that web hosting business you're spamming your sig line coming?

Well, I've used it for my own site for a number of years, as have a few of my friends, and we've all gotten good service. And, except for the fact that I get a little bit taken off my bill if somebody follows that link and signs up with them, I have no business relationship with them except as a customer. And, as far as my post being just an excuse to post something, I, at least, prefer to post only when I have something to say.

Re:Let them drink! (2, Interesting)

Snufu (1049644) | about 2 months ago | (#47329047)

If people want to drive a car without wearing a seat belt then let them

In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming themselves.

Re:Let them drink! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329091)

In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming themselves.

Like the 18th Amendment, for example.

Re:Let them drink! (1, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 months ago | (#47329153)

In oppressive regime we impose rules upon people to destroy their freedom. FTFY.

Re:Let them drink! (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 2 months ago | (#47329271)

So, the government becomes the equivalent of a helicopter parent.

Re:Let them drink! (4, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 months ago | (#47329299)

In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming others.

FTFY

And before you go there, there is also "In civilized society we do not impose rules that force people to harm others."

Re:Let them drink! (2)

crbowman (7970) | about 2 months ago | (#47329303)

That's your opinion of what constitutes a civilized society. I don't agree. In my equally valid opinion, a civilized society ought to protect us from each other. If a civilized society would like to educate me as to why it believes what I'm doing is bad for me that's great. If it wants to tell me what to do, I don't consider that civilized.

Re:Let them drink! (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 months ago | (#47329405)

In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming themselves.

And you don't see a problem with fighting natural selection?

Re:Let them drink! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329107)

I think anyone should be allowed to buy a 128oz drink and drink it all immediately, but your health insurance company (or now - Obamacare) should definitely be able to know about it.

Re:Let them drink! (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 2 months ago | (#47329125)

If we get nationalized hellcare it IS gov't's bizness. In such a single payer system you have to weed out those who are an excess burden on the body politic.

Re:Let them drink! (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 months ago | (#47329151)

So just tax it more.

Re:Let them drink! (1, Insightful)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 2 months ago | (#47329421)

Which sounds like a great argument against nationalized healthcare...one I mentioned on here a long time ago

Re:Let them drink! (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 2 months ago | (#47329203)

Actually, the solution is better pay and less hours :(. The people I knew who were slamming down 44 oz of soda were doing it to keep going just 1 more hour in their 10 hour shift...

Not about consumption, but about sales (5, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 months ago | (#47329295)

If people want to smash down 44fl oz of sugar like that then let them. If you need to regulate that

But it wasn't going to regulate people drinking 44fl oz of whatever, or even 16.5fl oz

If a patron wanted, there was nothing stopping them from buying, say, 3 x 16fl oz drinks and gulp that all up. Alternatively, there was nothing stopping them from getting one 16fl oz drink and going for refills.

This was entirely on businesses, disallowing them to sell anything over 16fl oz.

Changing it to say that they wanted to prohibit people from drinking more than that certainly incensed people who are against government intrusion into personal affairs - but that really only helped the case of businesses who would rather sell you one bigger drink of which more is likely to just get tossed anyway or drank because people didn't want to toss it so they drank more than they actually wanted, than that they sell you a smaller drink and then have more people realize that they really don't want any more than that.
There's a reason that the other party was "the American Beverage Association" and not, say, the ACLU or some rights group that defends individuals' personal freedoms (rather than business' freedoms).

That's what the goal was, which as a side-effect may have been that people would drink less of it - but if they really wanted to, they could always go and drink more.

Well, that and of course tell people what to eat, when to eat, and how to eat. /sarcasm

So if there's any argument to be had, it should be about whether businesses should be free to serve whatever size drink they damn well please, no matter the content (aside from those regulated already, like liquor).

Re:Let them drink! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329363)

If you need to regulate ...

That's the point, there is no reason to regulate except for greed. It's the only reason half these nanny laws exist. Seat-belt laws, anti-firework laws, motorcycle helmet laws were all pushed by insurance lobbies in order to boost profits.

Fighting your own subsidies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328943)

Only in America can they subsidize an industry that's killing them.
Then spend even more money in other branches of government to fight the same thing..

Re:Fighting your own subsidies (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47328995)

Not only USA

Fighting your own subsidies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329333)

Are you kidding? European agricultural subsidies are substantially higher than Americans, and also on bad foods, but most Europeans don't know, and the ones who do don't give a f*ck.

Only in America do people actually care and talk about this. And in another 5-10 years, this will be a big deal in Europe and then, maybe, Europeans will copy whatever the Americans decided to do.

In other news ... (4, Funny)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 2 months ago | (#47328953)

Next they will outlaw the sales of 2 liter bottles and a straw.

Re:In other news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329353)

But, only if you buy them in a gas station. If you get them at a grocery store, your cool.

Re:In other news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329433)

If you get them at a grocery store, your cool.

His cool what?

The Sugary Slope (5, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 months ago | (#47328955)

As well-intentioned as the prohibition on large, unhealthy soft drinks may sound, we are generally better for less government intrusion into our everyday lives.

Remember, every intrusion will sound good to some segment of the population.

Re:The Sugary Slope (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329241)

They had to overturn the law, fat merkins would have had a heart attack if they had to make 2 waddling rips to get the same amount of soda!

Re:The Sugary Slope (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47329253)

> Remember, every intrusion will sound good to some segment of the population.

That is brilliant and succinct. I may ask to borrow it.

Re:The Sugary Slope (1, Troll)

Morky (577776) | about 2 months ago | (#47329291)

Were we better off by not heavily taxing cigarettes, putting warning labels on cartons, and banning smoking in public places? How many children have living parents because of that? And yes, the analogy does hold. Nobody should be drinking 20oz. sodas. It's obscene and has become the norm. We are all paying for the dialysis via higher insurance premiums so it's a case where the government should have a mandate to act for the public good.

Re:The Sugary Slope (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 months ago | (#47329337)

The analogy doesn't entirely hold. Analogous would be if they put extra taxes on sugary soft drinks, put warning labels on the bottles/cups, and banning their consumption in public places.

Vice versa, the analogy would be that places that sell cigarettes can only sell the filter-less cigarettes in packages of 10, forcing those who want to buy more cigarettes at a time to buy two packs.

( The analogy doesn't quite hold as cigarettes tend to be consumed over a longer period of time, rather than gulped down in one sitting at a restaurant/movie theater, say. )

Though this bit off of wikipedia makes me curious:

In the United States of America, the quantity of cigarettes in a pack must be at least 20.

I guess that was enacted to keep cigarette companies from dropping 2 out of a pack without people really noticing while still paying a similar price. I can only imagine there's strict rules on length and diameter, too.

Re:The Sugary Slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329451)

Smoking in public places directly impacts others in the same place.
Drinking 2l of coke doesn't.

Re:The Sugary Slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329409)

What good intention is domination?

Re:The Sugary Slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329449)

We've already got helmet laws and seatbelt laws for adults, and that's training younger generations that laws that have no purpose other than "for your own good" are perfectly legitimate restrictions on your freedom. Combine that with society teaching them to live every day in fear of evil terrorists such that twice now we've had local panic attacks and police actions due to cartoon-related products -- the Aqua Teen Hunger Force sign in Boston, and now a Bender (from Futurama) head craft project in CT -- and we've got kids indoctrinated in a way great for any potential fascist who comes into office and wants to stay there.

Praise the Courts (4, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 months ago | (#47328963)

Thank you! Government has no business telling us what we can eat and a whole host of other things. Government should be only doing big things like fighting off alien invaders, building interstate highways, governing on a meta scale, etc. What a person does with their own body is not the government's business. And no, it doesn't matter if they're providing healthcare either.

Bloomberg is an ass and an intrusive one at that.

Re:Praise the Courts (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 2 months ago | (#47329019)

Just to be clear, you're talking about making all drugs, prostitution, abortion, and gambling all completely legal, right?

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329043)

Don't know about him, but that's my position.

Re:Praise the Courts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329109)

all but abortion, because abortion kills an innocent person, but in the big picture, yes, we shouldn't legislate morality that doesn't directly harm other people.

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 2 months ago | (#47329179)

all but abortion, because abortion kills an innocent person

That's in someone else's body. The government should screw off.

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47329283)

all but abortion, because abortion kills an innocent person, but in the big picture, yes, we shouldn't legislate morality that doesn't directly harm other people.

This is interesting. This is where libertarians traditionally split, with about half believing abortion is a mother's rights issue and should be entirely legal, and the other half believing abortion is a child's rights issue and should be forbidden. We generally agree to shelve the issue and work on something else instead.

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47329263)

For most of those, me too.

Re:Praise the Courts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329061)

sounds good to me

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47329075)

If he's not, I am.

There are needs for regulatory agencies, of course, in that even in the land of the free, we'd happily fish to extinction if it meant better Q3 profits, but the idea that we need a nanny to tell us not to do heroin or get a tattoo before we're 18 is nonsense.

I'm sure the new heroin and handjobs store next to the Circle-K will have to meet proper zoning requirements - but that doesn't stop me from managing my body, my self.

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

blue9steel (2758287) | about 2 months ago | (#47329165)

Drugs, prostitution and gambling are a no brainer since they're victimless crimes.

Abortion should be legal up until the point we consider the fetus to be a human being, which is generally what all the arguing is about. For me personally I'd define that as being roughly in the late 2nd trimester when the thalamocortical connections are formed, a requirement in order for it to have a nervous system developed enough to feel pain. Obviously there other opinions on that issue.

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 2 months ago | (#47329235)

Abortion should be legal up until the point we consider the fetus to be a human being, which is generally what all the arguing is about.

Women should be able to get abortions at any time during the pregnancy. People who say it's about the right to control one's own body and then want to ban it after some amount of time has passed are nothing but hypocrites, and to me, hardly better than the anti-abortion nutters.

Re:Praise the Courts (0)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 2 months ago | (#47329357)

Jumping off a bridge is not a medically approved method, but we would argue less about it. It also has the advantage of making the abortion retroactive. If all baby killers practiced retro-active abortions on themselves, I promise not to judge them. Just sayin.

Re:Praise the Courts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329187)

Absolutely, yes.

Re:Praise the Courts (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 2 months ago | (#47329275)

Yes, and homos too, why do they always get left out? And just to be clear, he is not saying make it legal. He is saying the government has no right to make it illegal.I could give a damn about the governments morality imposed on me. Morally speaking, I oppose each of these things, mostly because the police and the government make too much money as the top extortionist of it all. So as long as drug addicts and corrupt government both stay far away from me, I'm a happy guy.
So, what i am saying is if you don't like drugs, prostitution, abortion, and gambling, (and homos) - Don't do it. NOW, get off my lawn.

Re:Praise the Courts (2)

labnet (457441) | about 2 months ago | (#47329245)

. What a person does with their own body is not the government's business.

Well it does matter in the rest of the developed world that has socialised health care systems.

For example. Smoking in Australia, although not banned, is now incredibly invonvenient. The goverment banned all advertising; smoking in workplaces, all public enclosed spaces, outdoor eating places, street malls; jacked the price up to $20 a packet; hid the packets under counters; removed all branding from the packets themselves. Why? because the government (ie the tax payer, ie me) bears the burden of providing their health care. The same can be argued for huge serviving of HFCS drinks.

The trick is striking a balance between restricting an activity that reduces your lifespan and costs society $$ vs the individuals freedom.

inb4 "news for nerds?" whining (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328975)

inb4 "news for nerds?" whining

Court to New York: (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 2 months ago | (#47328985)

"It's not up to you, New York, New York."

Good Riddance to bad rubbish (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 2 months ago | (#47328987)

What saddens me is that the people of NYC tolerated Nanny Bloomberg so long and proved they didn't care the slightest about the concepts of liberty and personal freedom.

Re: Good Riddance to bad rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329123)

Yea the freedom for corporations to exploit our addictions for sugar and fat. Go America

Re: Good Riddance to bad rubbish (0)

ichthus (72442) | about 2 months ago | (#47329313)

Neither of which is a real addiction.

Although... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47328991)

I do agree that restricting portion sizes on one of the main causes of obesity and general poor health (soda) would be beneficially for society as a whole, but if I was a fat fuck who loved soda, I'd be pretty damn pissed, and I'd be rightfully pissed.

So for all you fat gluttonous bastards, I disagree with your lifestyle choices, but I am on your side when it comes to defend your right to choose.

Bloomberg doesn't understand this.

Re:Although... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329093)

Right to choose my ass. Either restrict soda size (buy two fatty) or be forced to subsidize someone else's poor choices. In the name of freedom you've chosen for me to subsidize you. Thanks, merica. Freedom!

Re:Although... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329199)

All of your wealth and every ounce of property you own should be stripped from you. Not by the government.
By someone who can do it and "get away" with it and not give a fuck.
Your job goes to someone else.
You'll never know what they did with your stuff, and you'll be naked, literally.
Then they'll donate it all to a thousand children in Africa, but you won't know this.
They'll split it up evenly as best as they can.

You won't be complaining about healthcare after this happened to you.

You'll be complaining someone broke the law and stole all your stuff, and how it's not fair and justice should be sought on the person who did this.
You'll ask the government to assist you because who else would?

You'll expect them to help too, because it's "yours", then you'll talk about how you "earned" all of it...maybe.
Most people who think like you would react that way if it was just done to them.

But those 1000 kids in Africa will be so happy. Some would have new clothes.
Their first pair of socks and shoes.

They'll thank the random person(s) who gave them these things.
Respect them, maybe.
Some may not, who knows, but most will.

I'll be happy for sure.
That much is guaranteed.

Re:Although... (1)

crbowman (7970) | about 2 months ago | (#47329351)

First I'm not fat and I don't drink 44oz of soda at a time, thanks for the ad hominem attack. I have not chosen for you to subsidize me or anyone else. You've decided that you want to pay for people who have no health insurance (I assume that's because you think that's what a fair, just or civilized society does) and that as a result of your choice you now get the right to tell those who do and don't have health insurance what to do so that your choice to pay for people who don't have health insurance isn't so costly for you. I understand your choice I'm just not willing to let you take away my rights to fix the problem you created (and with a law that does't really fix the problem but simply inconveniences people, see your buy two fatty comment.)

Re:Although... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329127)

I do agree that restricting portion sizes on one of the main causes of obesity and general poor health (soda) would be beneficially for society as a whole, but if I was a fat fuck who loved soda, I'd be pretty damn pissed, and I'd be rightfully pissed.

So for all you fat gluttonous bastards, I disagree with your lifestyle choices, but I am on your side when it comes to defend your right to choose.

Bloomberg doesn't understand this.

"I disagree with what you consume but I'll defend to the death your right to consume it"

Surgeon General's warning. (4, Insightful)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 months ago | (#47329001)

What they should do is the same thing they alread do on tobacco packages. A message warning it is hazardous to your health over a picture of Jabba the Hut.

Re:Surgeon General's warning. (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47329115)

What they *should* do is just get it over with already.

Either ban them completely or stop restricting them at all.

I enjoy knowing that smokers exist, in that it's a quick IQ test for me. I despise what cigarette companies do (sell death), but I respect people's freedom to kill themselves slowly while enjoying nicotine and menthol.

The big "L" on my voter's card says, let them kill themselves. Whee! ...but I'd prefer they stop raising the "You must be born on or under this date" day. Tomorrow it can be 18y1d, until the last legal smoker dies -- just like wearing helmets in the NHL.

Silly internal conflicts with principle and reality.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Re:Surgeon General's warning. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329305)

> What they should do is the same thing they alread do on tobacco packages. A message warning it is hazardous to your health over a picture of Jabba the Hut.

Turns out that sort of thing tends to encourage smoking. Collect the freaky cool labels, etc.

What they should have done is fiddle with the taxes. Tax the big ones more, or tax the little ones less. Some would bitch that it is a "sin tax" but obesity is an epidemic the costs of which are born by public health services so it is not out of line to put some small fraction of those costs back on the most obvious causes of those costs.

It might have been good enough (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 2 months ago | (#47329033)

Maybe if the ban had been in place and functional for a few years before such a ruling, people would have gotten used to smaller sized non-diet soda drinks anyway, and food service businesses would come up with a way to accommodate the new rules.

At a minimum, it would have brought the issue right to the fast-food counter that the health issues were big enough to consider taking action on.

You could still make your own (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329049)

A massive sugary drink is unambiguously bad for you, regulating will not create a massive black market vis a vis drugs. I think in this case it would have been a good idea to ban them, it is protecting the poorest in society who are not well enough informed and cannot access healthier food due to its cost.

Déjà vu (2)

Trevin (570491) | about 2 months ago | (#47329067)

Reminds me of San Angeles circa 2032

Feel good legislation vs. cost (1)

spiritgreywolf (683532) | about 2 months ago | (#47329087)

It would be nice if someday before our elected officials try passing dumb-ass legislation, they take into consideration all the time and effort the taxpayers are going to pay to implement and then summarily rescind the stupid things - especially on one or more appeals.

Just like the laws requiring you to proffer a drivers license to track and purchase over the counter decongestant containing the base element for meth. It hasn't stopped the number of meth labs, but boy has it bolstered revenues for various IT groups managing that boondoggle via our tax dollars.

If it was really key they ban large sized soft-drinks - just put your money where your mouth is (literally) and just outright ban non-nutritive foods altogether. Of course that won't happen nor would it work, but the road leads to the same conclusion - or wall if you're using Apple maps. (Oh c'mon. That was funny.)

If they really wanted to make a difference on the war against obesity, how about laying the smack-down on High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in general? Or putting parents on naughty lists who have overweight children? "What? Little Johnny's BMI is in the "obese" range? Then off to FOSTER CARE!!! Oh wait. Dad who is drunk and beats his wife apologizes and the court will give him back the kid anyway having something to do with biological parent vs. best interests of the child... but I digress...

I know, make being overweight _illegal_!! Just like trying to ban guns! Make being fat illegal and owning a gun illegal. Being naked in public is already illegal so let's make it a tri-fecta!! PASS A LAW TO MAKE NAKED GUN CARRYING FAT PEOPLE ILLEGAL! THINK OF THE FAT NAKED CHILDREN! No. Wait. That involves a whole set of other laws...

(Yes. I am being facetious on several of those points. You get to guess which ones, though) :-)

 

Re:Feel good legislation vs. cost (1)

rwa2 (4391) | about 2 months ago | (#47329239)

Eh, all good points.

I think the mistake was just in making it a heavy-handed ban. Bringing out the ban hammer just turned it into a joke.

I'm sure they will successfully reintroduce the behavior-modification measure by creating a higher sales tax on large drinks. Which will probably have an as good or better impact as a silly ban that people would gladly find ways to circumvent just to "stick it to the man".

We have these luxury taxes on alcohol that corresponds to the proof (one tax bracket for wine and beer, another for hard liquor). It could certainly work like that, and not come across as freedom-limiting nanny-statism.

So what is the penalty for being a fascist? (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 2 months ago | (#47329111)

Surely harm was done to our freedom. Surely any reasonable person laughed at the asinine way these pigs spit on our constitution, which clearly forbids the state from passing laws they have not been given authority over? Pepsi tastes like freedom.
Bloomberg should have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail but the citizenry just doesn't have it in 'em any more. Too busy hiding from the police? This is just one example of the nothing we've become. People don't even laugh at us any more. I say The bottling companies sue for triple damages. That's the way we roll in America baby.

Don't half-ass it, go all the way (1)

kgamiel (514048) | about 2 months ago | (#47329155)

Turn away the diabetic fat asses that turn up at public hospitals and clinics, right? Why should the state all of a sudden be a nanny when we're sick, particularly due to our own bad decisions?

soda pricing schemes encourage over-consumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329201)

Many places with soda fountains use pricing schemes that encourge consumers to buy the next size in order to get a better value.

My local movie theater charges $3.50 for a small drink (20 oz / 591 ml), $4.00 for a medium (32 oz / 946 ml) and $4.50 for a large (44 oz / 1301 ml).
If you divide out the prices, you get: small = $0.175/oz, medium = $0.125/oz, large = $0.102/oz.
Normalizing, you see that small = 1.71, medium = 1.22, large = 1.00.
In other words, consumers see this as paying 71% extra per ounce for a small drink or 22% extra per ounce for a medium drink.

If you want to combat obesity, you could offer merchants tax discounts if they keep all of the prices within 10% per ounce of soft drink (or of whatever).
For example, small = $2.25, medium = $3.50, large = $4.50 is normalized as small = 1.10, medium = 1.07, large = 1.00.

Anyone know what the real reason for the ban is? (1, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 2 months ago | (#47329237)

Bloomberg is a billionaire. I don't believe for a second he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart. If the guy really gave a flying fark about the poor there's a thousand and one things he could be doing. Maybe this is punishment to the local soda manufacturers? It's just too silly a thing to push when it means going up against companies like Coke & Pepsi, who aren't exactly well known for taking things lying down.

ban was wrong way to go about it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47329257)

a local or city $0.10 per ounce tax on all beverages containing added sugar (or corn syrup, etc), which would include non-100% juice ''cocktail'', sunny d, sweetened teas and coffees, etc, would have cut consumption of that category of foodstuff and raised some local tax revenues at the same time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>