Judge strikes down NYC sugary-drinks size rule (Politico)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deified Data said:
Where then do we draw the line? A great many things in life are dangerous. Where do you stand on the safety versus happiness spectrum?

I don't even disagree with you, not entirely. Many will, however, and they'll probably have good grounds to do so.
Click to expand...
It's true, there are persuasive arguments on both sides, and I'm sure I could be swayed to take the opposite position given the right reasons. Where we draw the line would have to be arbitrary. That's why I'm mainly in favor of legally enforced dietary restrictions for what reasonable people would consider extreme indulgence. Banning the largest portions of fast food and soft drinks would be a decent start.

There would always be loopholes and there would always be cases where the laws were misapplied, but obesity is serious epidemic now and this country's health care system is woefully inadequate to handle the burden of so many preventable conditions associated with overconsumption. Millions of people are eating and drinking themselves to death. Maybe banning large portions isn't the best way to go. It's something, though. It would compel some fraction of the public to adjust their habits, and if nothing else, it would give health a more prominent place in the national conversation. Sometimes controversy is the first step toward solving a messy problem. Give people an unpalatable solution and they might just be motivated to find a better one.
 
Adult behaviour could be defined as behavious that considers consequences, relies on logic and understands the concept of short term pain long term gain.

If someone is ordering a large pop at a restaurant, they are not acting like adults, at least not responsible rational ones. Their thought process is akin to a child, who wants what they want that second without regard to the effect of their actions, or the junkie looking for their fix.

Even then if they wanted to be so stupid then let them. After all, freedom right? Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else?

The issue with that is that they do. They do it by being models for their children, for creating a culture of acceptance for the young or the weak. They do it by using up resources that could have been used in so many better ways. They do it by being ill and hurting productivity, driving up costs and holding others back.

For a society to function properly, there need to be some controls on people's behaviour. We are not perfectly rational beings who make great long term decisions, and even if we did we don't have the time or mental capacity to fully understand every issue we are presented with. We can't coordinate and plan as a group to enact strategies like ecological prevention, public works or managing natural resources. We need a centralized infrastructure to help. Not control every detail of our lives, but to provide guidance and warnings, to inform us and guide us and place reasonable restrictions on our behavious so our society can flourish indefinitely.

The pop ban is a reasonable warning. If people desire they can buy more. It doesn't prevent the purchase of as much sugar as you can drink. What it does do is guide you. I don't consider that fascist or outside of a good government mandate.
 
Monocle said:
It's true, there are persuasive arguments on both sides, and I'm sure I could be swayed to take the opposite position given the right reasons. Where we draw the line would have to be arbitrary. That's why I'm mainly in favor of legally enforced dietary restrictions for what reasonable people would consider extreme indulgence. Banning the largest portions of fast food and soft drinks would be a decent start.

There would always be loopholes and there would always be cases where the laws were misapplied, but obesity is serious epidemic now and this country's health care system is woefully inadequate to handle the burden of so many preventable conditions associated with overconsumption. Millions of people are eating and drinking themselves to death. Maybe banning large portions isn't the best way to go. It's something, though. It would compel some fraction of the public to adjust their habits, and if nothing else, it would give health a more prominent place in the national conversation. Sometimes controversy is the first step toward solving a messy problem. Give people an unpalatable solution and they might just be motivated to find a better one.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. For the record I don't even think the so-called "soda ban" negatively impacted anyone's quality of life. At the end of the day they could just buy another soda if they wanted more. But the world is filled with people who, in the absence of drastic and immediate positive change, instantly declare such policies "failures" for not changing the world overnight. See just about every recently-proposed gun control measure.
 
Bloomberg is at a press conference right now. He says that the judge's ruling was in grave error, and that he's confident they'll win in an appeal.

Until Bloomberg wins at appeal, offering large sugary drinks is still voluntary.
 
Bombadil said:
Ha. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Educators have their funding cut on a yearly basis. They have more children in their classrooms and less resources with which to teach them.

On the other hand, beverage companies and snack companies increase their marketing budget on a yearly basis, and hire scientists to formulate more addictive products. They spend hundreds of billions of dollars on billboards, radio ads, television ads, online ads, and celebrity endorsements.

On top of all of that, you believe soda is not inherently harmful. That's just the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Even if people moderated their soda consumption - which is impossible because cola drinks are specially formulated to bypass the natural satiation mechanisms of the human brain - they'd still be consuming (most likely) HFCS. HFCS is basically poison.

But I've seen more commercials promoting its inclusion in our diet than commercials advising me to avoid it.

2008_09_16-hfcsAD.jpg


26 million Americans have diabetes.

79 million Americans have pre-diabetes.

This is an epidemic, and your solution is to tell children with undeveloped prefrontal cortices that something is bad for them and expect them to make the right decision?

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

grumble said:
Adult behaviour could be defined as behavious that considers consequences, relies on logic and understands the concept of short term pain long term gain.

If someone is ordering a large pop at a restaurant, they are not acting like adults, at least not responsible rational ones. Their thought process is akin to a child, who wants what they want that second without regard to the effect of their actions, or the junkie looking for their fix.

Even then if they wanted to be so stupid then let them. After all, freedom right? Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else?

The issue with that is that they do. They do it by being models for their children, for creating a culture of acceptance for the young or the weak. They do it by using up resources that could have been used in so many better ways. They do it by being ill and hurting productivity, driving up costs and holding others back.

For a society to function properly, there need to be some controls on people's behaviour. We are not perfectly rational beings who make great long term decisions, and even if we did we don't have the time or mental capacity to fully understand every issue we are presented with. We can't coordinate and plan as a group to enact strategies like ecological prevention, public works or managing natural resources. We need a centralized infrastructure to help. Not control every detail of our lives, but to provide guidance and warnings, to inform us and guide us and place reasonable restrictions on our behavious so our society can flourish indefinitely.

The pop ban is a reasonable warning. If people desire they can buy more. It doesn't prevent the purchase of as much sugar as you can drink. What it does do is guide you. I don't consider that fascist or outside of a good government mandate.
Click to expand...

Two very good posts, and I would like to add that there are very real public health dollars at risk here. The obesity epidemic in North America is very real. The government has taken measures in the past in the interest of public health. Banning soft drinks above a certain size is not unreasonable.

Also, a reduction in health care costs would also mean less taxes in the long run. Food for thought.

DS-61-5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that it could be re-introduced as a state bill then? That's... almost better in the long run.
 
GremlinFool said:
This doesn't affect anyone's livelihood. You can still drink soda if you want. But, as with all market externalities, you'll have to pay extra for it. That's how a real economy functions.
Click to expand...

But if it is a tax increase, just call it that. A tax increase, based on size. Because ultimately, that is what it effectively is. A tax increase, that acts as a deterrant for those that do not want to pay extra, and extra profit from those that can afford it.

But they cant call it a tax increase, because that "would not be as good for their popularity" - so it is smoke and mirrors again, from a different angle.
 
Deified Data said:
Where then do we draw the line? A great many things in life are dangerous. Where do you stand on the safety versus happiness spectrum?

I don't even disagree with you, not entirely. Many will, however, and they'll probably have good grounds to do so.
Click to expand...

All laws are about drawing lines. Even those against murder, which do limit individual freedom. I'm obviously not comparing this to rules against murder, but I am using an extreme example to make the point that drawing lines is basically what we do in society. Every law is a trade-off of individual liberty to achieve something for the whole.

Monocle said:
That's why I'm mainly in favor of legally enforced dietary restrictions for what reasonable people would consider extreme indulgence.
Click to expand...

That's some good line-drawing, in my opinion. But even this doesn't quite capture one relevant factor: the significance of the liberty interest involved. For example, if this were an outright limit on the amount of ounces an individual could consume within a certain amount of time, then that's a respectable hit to individual liberty that should make us collectively pause before doing it. Just think of the enforcement mechanisms alone that would be required and how intrusive they would be. But the issue here is simply about the vessel sizes that vendors are allowed to sell. This is a much smaller burden on individual liberty.

grumble said:
The pop ban is a reasonable warning. If people desire they can buy more. It doesn't prevent the purchase of as much sugar as you can drink. What it does do is guide you. I don't consider that fascist or outside of a good government mandate.
Click to expand...

Agreed and well put.
 
Henchmen21 said:
No it's not
Click to expand...

Where is it, out of curiosity? Incidentally, it's not just Bloomberg's heart we're talking about, it's these folks' collective heart:

Thomas Farley, MD, MPH, Chair
Dr. Farley was appointed New York City Health Commissioner in May 2009. One of the world's oldest and largest public health agencies, the department has an annual budget of $1.6 billion and more than 6,000 staff. Before joining the agency, Dr. Farley was chair of the Department of Community Health Sciences at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. Trained as a pediatrician, he served in the Centers for Disease Control's Epidemic Intelligence Service and worked for the CDC and the Louisiana Office of Public Health from 1989 to 2000. During that period he directed programs to control various infectious diseases. He served as Senior Adviser to New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden in 2007 and 2008. Dr. Farley has conducted research and published articles on a wide range of topics, including Legionnaires' disease, prevention of HIV/STDs, infant mortality, and obesity. He is coauthor, with RAND Senior Scientist Deborah Cohen, of Prescription for a Healthy Nation (Beacon Press).

Marlon E. Brewer, M.D.
Dr. Brewer is an assistant professor of medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Associate Director/Chief Physician for ambulatory care at Elmhurst Hospital. Dr Brewer had been providing care to patients in Queens for more than 15 years and received recognition for his work in improving diabetes care. He was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2006.

Pamela S. Brier, M.P.H.
Ms. Brier, president and CEO of Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, is widely recognized as a leader in health care in New York City. An expert in both public health and hospital administration, she is credited with significantly improving patient care and using information technology to improve the speed, effectiveness and safety of medical treatment. Ms. Brier was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2002.

Sixto R. Caro, M.D.
Dr. Caro is a private practitioner in Brooklyn and Manhattan, specializing in internal medicine. He has worked to promote the health of the Hispanic population in New York City and served as president of the Spanish American Medical and Dental Society of New York in 2006. Dr. Caro was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2002.

Joel A. Forman, M.D.
Dr. Forman is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community and Preventive Medicine at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine as well as an Attending at Mt. Sinai Hospital. He also serves as the Chairman of the Mt. Sinai Health Information Management Committee, Pediatric Residency Training Program Director, Co-Director of the Pediatric Environmental Medicine Fellowship, Vice-Chair for Education in the Department of Pediatrics, and is a faculty member in Mount Sinai's CDC funded Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit and Pediatric Environmental Fellowship. He has worked with the NYC Health Department in the past. From 2002-2004 he collaborated with our Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and from 2007-2009 he worked as an external clinical advisor to formulate Clinical Guidelines for Children and Adolescents Exposed to the World Trade Disaster. He received his BA from University of Pennsylvania and his MD from University of Vermont College of Medicine. Dr. Forman was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2010.

Sandro Galea, MD, MPH, DrPH
Dr. Galea serves as Professor and Chair at the Department of Epidemiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. His primary research interests are on the causes of mental disorders and the role traumatic events play in shaping population health. Dr. Galea also runs a research program that seeks to uncover how social, molecular, and genetic factors shape the health of urban populations. He has previously served on the faculty at the University of Michigan and as an epidemiologist at the New York Academy of Medicine. Dr. Galea was appointed by Mayor Bloomberg to chair the Community Services Board in 2012 and serves as its representative on the Board of Health.

Deepthiman K. Gowda, MD, MPH
Dr. Gowda is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine and Co-Course Director at Columbia University. He received his Doctorate of Medicine degree from the University of North Carolina and his Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Gowda is a scholar of the Glenda Garvey Teaching Academy and has been recognized for his outstanding teaching at Columbia University’s medical, dental, nursing and public health schools. Dr. Gowda was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2011.

Susan Klitzman, DrPH
Dr. Klitzman is a professor and director of the Urban Public Health Program at Hunter College. As an environmental epidemiologist, she has focused on issues of health and safety at home and at work, including efforts to reduce lead, mold and pest exposures in New York City. She previously directed programs in childhood lead poisoning prevention, occupational and environmental epidemiology, and employee health and safety at the Health Department. She was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2002.

Lynne D. Richardson, M.D., F.A.C.E.P.
Dr. Richardson is an associate professor of emergency medicine and vice chair of Academic, Research and Community Programs at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. She is known nationally for her research in emergency medicine, focusing specifically on health care access and barriers to care. Dr. Richardson serves on the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Healthy People 2010 Task Force and the American College of Emergency Physicians Public Health Committee. She was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2002.

Bruce C. Vladeck, Ph.D.
Dr. Vladeck is a senior advisor at Nexera Consulting. Previously, he was Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, the federal agency responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, and related programs. He spent ten years as President of the United Hospital Fund of New York, and has served on the faculty of Columbia University and Mount Sinai School of Medicine. He was appointed to the Board of Health by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2002.
 
GremlinFool said:
Classic GAF: the ability to guzzle liters of soda is tantamount to liberty.
Click to expand...
If I want to fire my assault rifle into the air every morning and then drink three liters of Dr. Pepper and vodka out of the empty magazine, I'll damn well do it you fucking commie. This is the land of the free, not the home of the slaves.
 
My "liberty" to buy any size soda I want is non-existent anyway. I can't buy a container with 4 ounces of soda. I can't buy a container with 150 ounces of soda. I have to buy soda in pre-allotted amounts and either drink less then or purchase multiple containers. The only difference is that if the private market "restricts this freedom" its apparently fine but if the government does it it an "intrusion on liberty"
 
If people want to have the choice to stuff their bodies with whatever garbage they like, then we the tax payers, should also have the choice to not have to pay for the aforementioned people's hospital visits, when those choices catch up to them.
 
JABEE said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hurts the poor?

No, helps the poor. They shouldn't be wasting their money on over-priced bubbly-sugar water as is. Reducing their intake will reduce healthcare and dentalcare costs.

Very little options? I'm pretty sure they have safe running water.
 
Excellent news. Fuck politicians trying to pass that nonsense; it isn't governments business whatsoever. It's disgusting that there are people out there who rationalize and actively advocate for such things.
 
Vilam said:
Excellent news. Fuck politicians trying to pass that nonsense; it isn't governments business whatsoever. It's disgusting that there are people out there who rationalize and actively advocate for such things.
Click to expand...

But it is the business of private interests with an interest in selling you as much soda as possible? Because they exert much more control over this size issue. Why are they virtuous?
 
Vilam said:
Excellent news. Fuck politicians trying to pass that nonsense; it isn't governments business whatsoever. It's disgusting that there are people out there who rationalize and actively advocate for such things.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely the government's business to correct for market failures. Are you against excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco as well? Surely you also advocate for uninhibited burning of coal?
 
Vilam said:
Excellent news. Fuck politicians trying to pass that nonsense; it isn't governments business whatsoever. It's disgusting that there are people out there who rationalize and actively advocate for such things.
Click to expand...

It's disgusting people get so worked up over legislated inconvenience with clear potential benefits to a healthy society.
 
The govt's not banning or restricting the consumption of anything, they're putting regulations on the size of a container.

Is that really a problem?
 
KHarvey16 said:
It's disgusting people get so worked up over legislated inconvenience with clear potential benefits to a healthy society.
Click to expand...

Hey there are plenty of ways Government can make an impact without directly telling people what they can and cannot do. They could just as easily tell the corn lobby to fuck off on subsidies that make HFCS etc. so cheap
 
antonz said:
Hey there are plenty of ways Government can make an impact without directly telling people what they can and cannot do. They could just as easily tell the corn lobby to fuck off on subsidies that make HFCS etc. so cheap
Click to expand...

New York City can do that?
 
antonz said:
Hey there are plenty of ways Government can make an impact without directly telling people what they can and cannot do. They could just as easily tell the corn lobby to fuck off on subsidies that make HFCS etc. so cheap
Click to expand...
Eliminating corn subsidies (which should 100% happen) and imposing restrictions on soda consumption will work in tandem to comprehensively help the obesity problem and should not be mutually exclusive.
 
antonz said:
If old Bloomberg feels so strongly about it he can take his billions and go to Washington on the issue.
Click to expand...

Or he could choose to make the most impact possible in the position he's in currently. And this legislation doesn't somehow preclude all other efforts to curb obesity.
 
The Technomancer said:
He was never going to. I know you know this. No-one was going to stop anyone buying as much soda as they liked.
Click to expand...

So then wtf was the point? Oh that's right, to get people to stop and think? A law is a piss poor way to do that.

Opiate said:
The awareness/education on this front is already ongoing. It simply isn't sufficient.

Oh, you definitely can. Social Security is one example. Amortized tax refunds are another. But you certainly have to do them right.
Click to expand...

Those still aren't done right. But I get your point :)


Opiate said:
People do not respond well to simply being told "don't do that," as this law is an example of. If you frame the choice right, though, you can get people to do things without them really knowing you pushed them in to it.

That's certainly how marketing works, and I hope the government cajoles people in this way more often in the future. It's important to remember that people do not make independent choices and that what choices we perceive as "our own" are heavily influenced by our peers and, yes, by marketing.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with the "Right" part. But you'd have to go full ball deep. No rubber into *properly* rationing someone's nutritional intake for this to work. It would require a system to vast that it defies belief we'd see it in our lifetimes. I don't think we're gonna have a USA where everyone has their caloric intake via food & drink "properly" monitored by the government. And if we do I don't think that's a place many would want to live in.

I think treating overeating and the obesity that goes with it as a mental conditioning and providing counseling at an early age would help a ton. People medicate with food. That's something as a society we need to address. Not just "Hey, don't drink that 2 liter, fatty! Bloomberg knows best!"
 
Mammoth Jones said:
So then wtf was the point? Oh that's right, to get people to stop and think? A law is a piss poor way to do that.
Click to expand...

It's an inconvenience. Psychologically there's a lot to the idea that people will buy something because it's available. 20oz for $2? 12 more ounces for only a quarter? Well of course I want the best value, give me the big one! But now 32 ounces requires two trips or a refill or makes you have to carry two bottles. You can still have those 32 ounces if you really want them but it's going to require the person overcome the inconvenience. Again I don't think anyone can really argue that this works to disincentivize purchases of more beverage than you might actually physically want.
 
GremlinFool said:
You're empirically wrong about this.
Click to expand...

Well, show me the articles. I do remember Bloomberg stating multiple times this law wouldn't *stop* someone from indulging. That it was a measure to get them to think about portion control.

But I'll concede right now that I could be wrong about that entirely. But that's what I remember hearing.

Please correct me :)
 
antonz said:
Hey there are plenty of ways Government can make an impact without directly telling people what they can and cannot do. They could just as easily tell the corn lobby to fuck off on subsidies that make HFCS etc. so cheap
Click to expand...

Government tells me I can't kill you. Is that wrong?
 
More people to teh hospitals plz

On a more serious note though, health wise I'd just keep the soda around only if it fits my fridge or if I needed it for a party. Then again, I don't drink as much pop as I used to so the size of it doesn't matter (I'd probably let it go flat lol)
 
KHarvey16 said:
It's an inconvenience. Psychologically there's a lot to the idea that people will buy something because it's available. 20oz for $2? 12 more ounces for only a quarter? Well of course I want the best value, give me the big one! But now 32 ounces requires two trips or a refill or makes you have to carry two bottles. You can still have those 32 ounces if you really want them but it's going to require the person overcome the inconvenience. Again I don't think anyone can really argue that this works to disincentivize purchases of more beverage than you might actually physically want.
Click to expand...

There's a serious obesity problem in America. I think we can all agree on that. This law does jack to deal with that. Bloomberg may be the most benevolent mayor in history but it's just piss poor policy.

Like I've said. Gotta get the corporate money out of politics. This way soda companies can't just shower politicians with money via brib-- um, "lobbing contributions."
 
Mammoth Jones said:
There's a serious obesity problem in America. I think we can all agree on that. This law does jack to deal with that. Bloomberg may be the most benevolent mayor in history but it's just piss poor policy.

Like I've said. Gotta get the corporate money out of politics. This way soda companies can't just shower politicians with money via brib-- um, "lobbing contributions."
Click to expand...

But it does have an effect. You don't think less people will drink 20 or 32 or 64 ounces of soda in a sitting if it's more inconvenient to get that much? No one is looking for this to solve all of the problem but it's not a bad step given the negligible impact on freedom.
 
Oh well, not like it had any chance of ever spreading to Georgia anyway, whether or not it would be successful elsewhere. Ban one-gallon jugs of sweet tea and there would probably be hell.

Unsweet tea > Sweet tea
 
It's sad when you go to a deli anywhere in NYC and see parents buying their kids a bottle of Coke and a bag of Doritos for breakfast when taking them to school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Anandtech is shutting down
39
3K
notseqi replied
Best non alcoholic drinks of the world!
2
50
2K
Trogdor1123 replied
  • Locked
Why doesn't the boss close down this place??
34
1K
EviLore replied
TIL - AMD is over twice the size of Intel
12
2K
diffusionx replied
Top Bottom