NEW YORK — A judge struck down New York City’s pioneering ban on big sugary drinks Monday just hours before it was supposed to take effect, handing a defeat to health-minded Mayor Michael Bloomberg and creating confusion for restaurants that had already ordered smaller cups and changed their menus.
State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling said the 16-ounce limit on sodas and other sweet drinks arbitrarily applies to only some sugary beverages and some places that sell them.
Comments
Only judges like Sonya Sodermayor Elena Kagan would think that Dictator Bloomberg's "Appeal" has any legal merit at all. If Bloomberg were to win he could tell NYC people they have to do anything he asks for simply because "It's Good for them". Hugo Chevez told Venezuelan people that he was always acting in their best interests, too.
Score one for common sense.
The judge in his ruling makes the point that if this "law" stood, then it would have given the BOH in NYC the ability to control virtually anything in NYC by declaring it to be a health issue of some sort.
This sort of thing is becoming very typical in government. Anti gun people out west want to control guns by having the EPA find that lead bullets are an environmental problem. This idea started with the helmet and anti smoking laws years ago. The idea being that these laws were for the "common good" because without them insurance costs and health care costs were higher. With that type of idea, pretty much anyone can make a case against something they do not like, like large SUV's being more dangerous. Or large families leave a bigger carbon footprint than smaller ones, etc. It is dangerous thinking at best.
You can do whatever you want, but someone else should not have to pay more because you want to be a rebel.
Interestingly enough...there are quite a lot of behaviours that lead to health issues..... that liberals love.... smoking pot for example, or certain types of sexual activites that rupture skin and allow disease transmission and are very, very, very expensive to treat.
Might those be banned?
Obesity, especially in age groups where it did not exist in generations past, is driving healthcare costs up. Limiting the size of drinks that contain 12-16 teaspoons odd sugar/16 ounces is not the way to lower these costs. However ignoring the reasons for this rise is not either. Education and possibly added premiums for those who are obese not do to the canard, "it's genetic," are one solution. Please no genetic disposition excuses. Look at film of large gatherings from our recent past generations, ie., the end of WWII, World Series stadium crowds, parades, middle and high school full class photos ( see the walls of Johnny's Luncheonette in Newton ) etc., and we're considerably, consistently thinner. The seats at Fenway Park and the various downtown theaters and concert halls have comfortably accommodated generations of average people. That, folks, is our DNA. When we overeat, we get overweight. I'm often amazed that people who are so vociferous about Big Government interference ( and in this case, rightly so ) do not get just as agitated and angry about Big Business manipulating their behaviors. Remember the Tobacco Companies' powerful lobby.
Here's a hint. Put the video game down, grab a basketball and go shoot hoops, throw a football, run some bases. Then you can drink all the soda you want. The nanny state strikes again.