entremet
Member
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/new-york-city-soda-ban-88704.html?hp=f1
I hate soda, but the law is way too inconsistent. Diet drinks are also banned for example. Logistically it's a nightmare.
Judge strikes down NYC sugary-drinks size rule (Politico)
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/new-york-city-soda-ban-88704.html?hp=f1
I hate soda, but the law is way too inconsistent. Diet drinks are also banned for example. Logistically it's a nightmare.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Good. People should be free to choose what sized sodas they want. Portion control shouldn't be the domain of the government. Education and awareness is what's been done and is still needed. Instead of nanny laws they should just find better ways to get their message across to more people.
You can't legislate stupidity away.
You can't legislate stupidity away.
Escape Goat
Member
They can't my jerbs, guns or bladder-splatter sized sodas!
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
Everything in moderation. amirite?
Bloomberg should not be the person in charge of making rules for "portion control."
Bloomberg should not be the person in charge of making rules for "portion control."
EvilDick34
Banned
Knew this wouldn't pass in the courts, loophole or no loopholes.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Finally some common sense. If I lived in NYC, I'd be celebrating in the streets tonight with a 2 liter of Fresca.
Why would you do that?
Member
Personally, I didn't have any strong feelings for or against the ban until I learned that these venues couldn't even have closed bottles of soda. I don't have a real problem with blocking > 20 oz cups of soda, but I found it ridiculous that you couldn't even buy a cold 2L bottle from them.
(I don't care about the beverage industry, though.)
(I don't care about the beverage industry, though.)
A tax based on size likely wouldn't have been struck down and that money could have gone towards something worthwhile. Banning based on size was a stupid idea.
Didn't know that, good info.
Didn't know that, good info.
One problem with these articles "BLOOMBERG BANS SODA" is that they strip away all the context over years and decades.
The current administration tried over several years to pass a soda tax (starting around 2009). It's been a good policy goal for far longer. Obamacare was originally supposed to contain a tax on sodas as well (with the revenue funding part of the ACA, to be clear we're talking about billions of dollars per year from as little as a $0.03/container tax). In both cases, industry lobbyists were able to block the bill even though it meant reduced funding for other health-oriented programs. One industry group alone, the American Beverage Association, spent more than $10M last year just opposing this specific bill in NYC.
NYC has also run a series of ads (if you lived in the city, you've seen them) cajoling and educating residents on the danger of soda. Those can really only go so far, but at least they are trying.
Everyone would rather this be a simple soda tax to fund things like education and health programs. But that wasn't happening, so the container-size ban is a distant second or third best option given what is politically possible. Apparently even this is impossible.
Unfortunately banning container sizes doesn't generate the city any additional tax revenue. In fact it's probably a net loser since they'll have to spend money on education and enforcement.
The current administration tried over several years to pass a soda tax (starting around 2009). It's been a good policy goal for far longer. Obamacare was originally supposed to contain a tax on sodas as well (with the revenue funding part of the ACA, to be clear we're talking about billions of dollars per year from as little as a $0.03/container tax). In both cases, industry lobbyists were able to block the bill even though it meant reduced funding for other health-oriented programs. One industry group alone, the American Beverage Association, spent more than $10M last year just opposing this specific bill in NYC.
NYC has also run a series of ads (if you lived in the city, you've seen them) cajoling and educating residents on the danger of soda. Those can really only go so far, but at least they are trying.
Everyone would rather this be a simple soda tax to fund things like education and health programs. But that wasn't happening, so the container-size ban is a distant second or third best option given what is politically possible. Apparently even this is impossible.
Unfortunately banning container sizes doesn't generate the city any additional tax revenue. In fact it's probably a net loser since they'll have to spend money on education and enforcement.
Messypandas
Member
Don't most America eat-outs have a free-refill policy anyway? The whole thing seems redundant
They were enforcing the new soda rule at Madison Square Garden last Friday. I have to say I kind of really liked actually being given a human sized cup at a hockey game for a change. Before the ban the smallest size they even offered was well over the ban limit. They didn't even have a "small" 16 oz option. If you asked for a small, you would be given a "medium" 24 oz soda (25 cents more gets you a 32 oz). "Freedom of choice" my ass.
The judge is right, though, the law is all over the place, completely inconsistent and hypocritical, and has some obvious flaws. It's well intentioned, but it's bad law.
The judge is right, though, the law is all over the place, completely inconsistent and hypocritical, and has some obvious flaws. It's well intentioned, but it's bad law.
Where is education coming from though? People say this, but education in this country is -1000xp. The Corn/Soda Lobby is a bit large. Honestly, where are citizens going to get health awareness from? Laws are sometimes to protect people from their own stupidity.
I think Stupid in this country is serious, but its completely ignored. Can't educate anyone with a beyond broken and corrupt education system. We say let ignorant people make their own choices freely. But a lot of people don't make educated decisions.
Escape Goat
Member
A large coke at McDonalds has 312 calories and 86grams of sugar. The American Heart Association recommends a maximum of 45g for men a day. Keep that in mind next time you slurp one down.
entremet
Member
Not much in NYC. There are some places that do have fountains outside of the kitchen like Chipotles for example.
Yup, morons will be morons. Oh well.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Then this is a symptom of a much larger problem which is the corporate influence that has a stranglehold on the American political process. Companies can basically buy politicians that will do what's best for their corporate interests instead of what's best of the people.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
I want to be able to choose less than a liter of soda for small.
I don't care if its only 33¢ extra for more.
I don't care if its only 33¢ extra for more.
A slippery slope towards what? Complete government dictation on exactly what you should eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner?
I think on balance I agree with the court's ruling, but pointing toward extreme hypotheticals as a reason against soda laws isnt a strong argument
Mammoth Jones
Member
Agreed. Completely. That shit is disgusting.
But if someone wants to drink 8 of them, oh well. I don't think Bloomberg should stop them.
Diddy Kong
Banned
Good.
Neuromancer
Member
He will be pleased.
entremet
Member
There is an argument that obesity related complications drive up health care cost, though, with many in NYC with Medicaid or state issues insurance due to low incomes, I can see the logic. I just think the law was poorly implemented.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
He was never going to. I know you know this. No-one was going to stop anyone buying as much soda as they liked.
It really depends on the place. Most fast food places I've been to in Manhattan have fountains outside the kitchen (like 70% or whatever just speaking from experience). Go into the boroughs and it's much rarer though.
Messypandas
Member
The problem I have is people order a drink based off of thirstiness and then drink completely past the point of satiation because the portions are completely out of whack but they slurp it down anyway to finish it it off.
You probably have few people who bin a third of a drink because they don't feel compulsed to finish it off.
You probably have few people who bin a third of a drink because they don't feel compulsed to finish it off.
It's not being argued on these grounds/individual rights, though.
Instead, the judge is making a powers/preemption argument, that New York City is passing legislation that the state (through its constitution, and the charter it made with the city) did not authorize NYC to do. The judge is [correctly] making more of a federalism than substantive rights claim.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The Government shouldn't be forcing portion control. What could it lead to? More government regulated portion control.
I can agree with this. But at the same time it's also about principle of people being free to chose what they eat, and in what portions and not having their government pass laws to attempt to control that.
Word. I don't care what rationale is used to shut it down. Just glad it's overturned.
This is a disturbing sentiment. Now the public are children that need to be carefully taken care of and controlled in all facets of their life by Benevolent Government?
You can use that logic to justify stopping free people from doing a great many things that they are allowed to do that may end up "costing" society is misused and abused.
The government isn't a nanny and they shouldn't mandate laws to assert themselves as such.
ConfusingJazz
Member
You can't get a refill if you do drive through.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
Any talks of a tax on sugary drinks?
For years and years, always blocked by industry lobbyists (both in NYC and elsewhere).
perfectchaos007
Member
This is a minor, yet important, victory for the principals of freedom. I applaud Bloombergs crusade against abusing unhealthy substances, but the measures he wanted to impose clearly crossed the line of in regards to freedom of choice and freewill.
D
Deleted member 20415
Unconfirmed Member
I still say you sin tax the fuck out of it.
Diabetic healthcare costs will cripple us in the next decades. We're going to have to balance that budget when taxes are used to pay for the healthcare of people that can't seem to control themselves.
Diabetic healthcare costs will cripple us in the next decades. We're going to have to balance that budget when taxes are used to pay for the healthcare of people that can't seem to control themselves.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Gotta get corporate money out of politics first.
Fun fact: ACA (Obamacare) originally was supposed to contain a soda tax. At 3 cents per container, it would have raised billions per year.
Makes it more cumbersome to nuke their bodies with sugar in one sitting. They can still do it, however.
D
Deleted member 20415
Unconfirmed Member
I vote for scaled healthcare costs - fatties pay more per pound.
None of this flat fat tax shit either! Graduated fat taxes for everyone!
A tax that only hurts the poor. The people who have very little options on what to eat and drink. Will never pass. Failed miserably in Philadelphia.
You could apply that logic to anything. Everything you do costs someone else time or money in some way. You may not care about your freedom, but you are damn lucky some of us do.
This is completely true. Taxing is always more effective that outright banning, but some politicians don't really understand the effects the legislation they sign has.
- Status