Hah!
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...romises-appeal
******
Tuesday was supposed to be the first day of New York City's ban on large sodas. But on Monday afternoon New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling put Mayor Michael Bloomberg's pioneering regulation on hold, ruling that the ban was "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences."
******
Go away nanny state.
I think the ruling brings up some valid points about due process and the "Leviathan" bureaucracy. If only this kind of scrutiny were applied to other things.
Though he said the City's legislature could pass a law like this if they wanted.
You just hate descriptive thread titles, don't you Lewk?
Heh - I admit I was hoping people would think it was another criminal dying thread.Originally Posted by Wraith
The only way to encourage good eating habits is to use taxes or prohibitions that mutate the supply and demand curve, create a market inefficiency, and still fail at their intended effect.
I myself thought the legislation of this went a bit too far. On the other hand I DO firmly believe that enforcing smaller portions will by and large improve public health. I also fail to understand why some coffee based Sugar and Fat bombs were exluded from this ban (if it should be legalized at all)
Congratulations America
Rubbish; people who over-eat do so because the food is available all the time and everywhere. A diet starts with making choices about not having to face the choice whether or not you should eat something only after you have gotten it put in front of you. What is not present can't be consumed.
Congratulations America
Time and time again, it has been proven that prices matter; blanket intervention like this does modify behavior, but it also makes people thirsty. What about gatherings/parties? Fewer gatherings OR now people buy more sodas at more expensive prices for the same amount of liquid -- clearly inefficient and more difficult for the delivery guy. Some people will buy in the supermarket, meaning now they have less fridge space since they have to store unopened soda (or throw it away after using since the fizz goes away). Guess what goes in the fridge? I'll give you a hint: it's not candy or chocolate, at least in New York.
Tons of unintended side-effects... and unlawful/freedom-destroying to boot, according to the judge.
Orders for those soda generating machines would have skyrocketed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you accept my argument, we're back to taxing sodas, but that's still a policy failure!
You can't even say that healthier foods are more expensive, or less expensive (though that's generally the case) -- the market is just such a distorted mess right now anyway from a plethora of factors which I won't discuss here.
In Massachusetts:
* Candy/chocolate/cookies is/are expensive. Premium candy/chocolate/cookies is/are EXTREMELY expensive.
* Sodas are not expensive.
* Juice is expensive, especially higher-quality/more exquisite fruit flavors or combos.
* Donuts are relatively cheap and Dunkin' Donuts is often out of any good varieties. Pound for pound I'd say Dunkin Donuts (addictive food) are 3-5 times less expensive than Milano cookies (Milanos are less addictive, on the highest end in price, but high quality).
Maruchan Ramen noodles are cheap and filling, but leaves you with the taste of cheap food afterwards.
* Vegetables/fruit are very expensive.
* Rotten vegetables/fruit are slightly cheaper.
There are very logical reasons for all of the above, and if we want to encourage healthy food lifestyles (since we're now going to pay for every fat slob's health care costs under ObamaCare, as Mayor Bloomberg admits), we should try to lower the cost of healthy foods in smart ways.
One good way would be to initiate a study on the safety of irradiation of vegetables and fruits (to keep it fresh longer). If more fresh veggies/fruits can be shipped cross-country without major spoilage, the price would plummet considerably.
Sidebar: under ObamaCare, why is there no provision to force fat people (unless it's mostly genetic.. hmm..) or smokers to pay some sort of tax? Am I getting this all wrong? I didn't read ObamaCare...
Last edited by agamemnus; 03-13-2013 at 08:37 AM.
Smokers pay a lot of extra taxes, not related to obamacare though.
Should pay more now.
They'll win the appeal unless the situation here is very different from the trans-fat ban (apart from the arbitrariness that is)
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I believe there are some substantial underlying differences, in that the ban was an outright ban and it applied pretty evenly to every restaurant. The "soda ban" said that some drinks couldn't be sold in some quantities by some establishments. If you were a restaurant, you had to buy new glasses. If you were a grocery store next door, you could sell as much soda as you want. Etc. etc.
Buy new glasses? That sounds like an outright lie, drinks of that size are sold in single use cups. Also whereas a cup is specifically intended to be consumed by a single person, a 33 ounce bottle of cola is not specifically intended for individual use by a single person. Same rules for similar situations I agree with, but there is no need to apply the same rule to situations that are fundamentally different.
Congratulations America
The Leviathan State doesn't have to justify itself to you and me.
Some restaurants are wasting no time in bringing themselves into compliance with the measure, intended to lower obesity and its impact on public health. Brother Jimmy's BBQ CEO Josh Lebowitz said the 1,000 new glasses were ordered for soft drinks at their five New York City locations. Currently, the restaurants serve soda in 24-oz. glasses—8 oz. more than the new limit. Finding the new glassware wasn't simple, Mr. Lebowitz said. His soda distributor doesn't make 16-oz. glasses.
"All of our sodas were in large glasses—it just seemed appropriate. We tend to serve everything oversized," said Mr. Lebowitz. "It's a little bit funny that it's actually happening, I never thought this would be legislated."
Russell Levinson, general manager of Movieworld, said the independent theater is still working with its fountain soda distributor, Coca-Cola, KO -0.90% to figure out how to comply. The movie house is smarting at the cost and inconvenience.
"Almost all of our sizes, including the bottles that we sell, are at least 20 oz.," he said.
The theater might offer a deal for customers who want to buy two of the smaller-size sodas—a legal way to circumvent the ban—but he hasn't hammered out details.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...130776308.html
I loved Nanny B's response to the question: What if a movie patron wants more soda? Then go buy another.
Apparently Moneybags Nanny B didn't think that through...that costs $$$, so he hates the poor.
Just like birthday party places and patrons got screwed, they can't sell pitchers of soda. So 12 oz cans it is, which is more $$$ and more waste. Domino's can't sell 2Lt bottles with their pizza's. But the supermarket can sell them.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
No he loves the poor that's exactly why he doesn't want them to be able to buy giant sodas
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Really?
A lower income family saves money to by a larger soda to split amongst them. Now they have to buy more smaller soda's and that cost more, and also can mean MORE soda is being purchased and thus consumed as to not 'waste' the soda (thus money).
It's not well thought out, will NOT impact obesity, but STILL costs people more money (so a regressive tax in the end) that does nothing for health in the end.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Even assuming this makes a difference and people are healthier... it doesn't matter. This country is founded on the concept of FREEDOM. The idea that I can't buy a large coke from a restaurant is blatant big brother nanny state.
Anyone who defends this probably thinks we should ban alcohol, tobacco and continue to keep other drugs illegal. After all people need big brother to protect them from their own stupidity.
Maybe a lower income family has no business going to a fast food place in the first place?
Congratulations America
You caught one fish, that's exactly what I thought it was heh.Heh - I admit I was hoping people would think it was another criminal dying thread.
Ah and of course its big brother's job to correct this behavior?
No, there is also no reason treating over eating and over drinking as something that should be actually be encouraged.
Congratulations America
I know that rings quite close to what I said about min wage, but misses the mark.
A family of 3 of even average means may get a small soda for the kid, and split a large. Now they can't. Now they have to by 3 sodas, more waste. Never mind all the other impacts I noted.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Yes, price matters. Fresh fruits and vegetables are very expensive in certain areas, particularly where the urban poor live....since there aren't grocery stores or farmer's markets, but corner-bodegas. That's why inner city 'community farming' initiatives are so important.
Don't delude yourself. We've been paying those care costs for decades already, as a society. They're either buried in public taxes or private insurance premiums, with price-shifting at every turn -- often at the most expensive emergency/urgent delivery level.There are very logical reasons for all of the above, and if we want to encourage healthy food lifestyles (since we're now going to pay for every fat slob's health care costs under ObamaCare, as Mayor Bloomberg admits), we should try to lower the cost of healthy foods in smart ways.
I disagree with that strategy. We already know about bulk buying discounts, and transportation/distribution efficiency, by looking at the Walmart Super Store model. Their fresh fruits/veggies are among the cheapest....but they also pay their "associates" crap wages, promise to buy local farmer's total harvests (but renege on contracts when their trucks don't arrive on time), and exploit zoning codes and tax breaks to situate their big box stores ON farmland. They also predominantly rely on driving....which means more oil use, more public roads, etc.One good way would be to initiate a study on the safety of irradiation of vegetables and fruits (to keep it fresh longer). If more fresh veggies/fruits can be shipped cross-country without major spoilage, the price would plummet considerably.
IMO a better model would be supporting local food, or "slow food", so every community has access to healthy and fresh garden produce. Especially for poorer areas that also have transportation costs and little-to-none public transit. Overall, I think it comes down to better, more comprehensive community planning efforts. With access to fresh foods by walking or biking, "killing" two birds with one stone.
How can you comment on it if you don't know what it entails?Sidebar: under ObamaCare, why is there no provision to force fat people (unless it's mostly genetic.. hmm..) or smokers to pay some sort of tax? Am I getting this all wrong? I didn't read ObamaCare...
You have a pretty odd definition of "encouraging", when not banning something is considered encouraging it.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, he's correct in saying what's not present can't be consumed (fresh produce). But he's wrong in suggesting obesity is a "choice", especially for people buying cheap vs healthy (starches and carbs).
Haven't we had this debate before?
You're misinterpreting what I said; people are very bad judges of what quantity of food is enough for them. The judgement of the average person becomes even more clouded if the quantity of food in front of them is excessively much more than what they really need. People don't get fat from overeating a lot once, they become fat from overeating a little all the time.1Well, he's correct in saying what's not present can't be consumed (fresh produce). But he's wrong in suggesting obesity is a "choice", especially for people buying cheap vs healthy (starches and carbs).
Haven't we had this debate before?
Also; 3 happy meals at McDonald's are $16.50. You'd have to be a pretty bad shopper not to be able to buy some potatoes, vegetables and some meat-product to feed three people for less than that. Even if you throw in a 1l bottle of soda.
Congratulations America
Totally a choice. Even if you eat like crap you could exercise even more. Gaining or losing weight is simple mathematics - calories used and calories consumed.Well, he's correct in saying what's not present can't be consumed (fresh produce). But he's wrong in suggesting obesity is a "choice", especially for people buying cheap vs healthy (starches and carbs).
Haven't we had this debate before?
Yet people are limited by TIME. Some people grab fast crap because they can only squeeze out so much free time and exercise can fall into the low priority column. It's not as easy as you make it out Lewk.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I didn't say it was easy. I'm no paragon of fitness here but it is a choice.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote