|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
nogods 
Group: Members
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:25 pm |
|
   |
Judge Blocks New York City’s Ban on Big Sugary Drinks
QUOTE The decision by Justice Milton A. Tingling Jr. of State Supreme Court in Manhattan blocks the city from putting the rules into effect or enforcing them.
Justice Tingling said the rule banning the drinks was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The judge also appeared to be skeptical of the purview of the city’s Board of Health, which the Bloomberg administration had maintained has broad powers to seek to better the public’s health. That interpretation, the judge wrote, “would leave its authority to define, create, mandate and enforce limited only by its own imagination,” and “create an administrative Leviathan.”
After the judge imposed a stop to the ban, the Bloomberg administration quickly said it would challenge the decision.
“We plan to appeal the decision as soon as possible, and we are confident the Board of Health’s decision will ultimately be upheld,” Michael A. Cardozo, the Bloomberg administration’s chief counsel, said in a statement. “We believe the Board of Health has the legal authority – and responsibility – to tackle” the causes of obesity.
Seriously, how stupid was Bloomberg going to look having soda police patrolling the city.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39553
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:29 pm |
|
 |
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
YayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYayYay
Sorry. Sugar rush.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:32 pm |
|
|
I think people are idiots for drinking themselves into obese fat asses. But it's their freedom to do so as adults (children should not have the same freedom -- it's why they have parents to guide them).
The law is absolutely a cure worse than the disease. But freedom and responsibility should go hand in hand. If there is a medically sound methodology -- the obese should be made to pay "their far share" of medical insurance premiums -- like smokers currently do. With few exceptions (those need to be accounted for differently) -- diseases from smoking and obesity are self-inflicted, at least to some degree.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4056
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:33 pm |
|
|
Hop on Pop!
Dr. Seuss predicted this over 2000 years ago.
What a country!
Good to see checks and balances hard at work. This is why our crazy democracy has survived as long as it has. 225 years is a good start!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:34 pm |
|
|
Activist judges at work again.
I'm not sure why then, under these terms we have, say, the ability to limit the sale of alcohol to minors, or of cigarettes for that matter.
All laws are essentially "arbitrary and capricious" in that they limit the ability of certain people to act in a certain way. It's just a matter of whether there is support for them in the populace at a whole.
I don't really agree with the law, but the courts should not be deciding policy in the way they are now.
Can you honestly tell me that limiting drinking to those over 21 is and less "arbitrary and capricious"? What about the ridiculous Sunday restrictions on selling alcohol in much of the country?
If they wanted to overturn this it should be done at the ballot box.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
CampinCarl
Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: May 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 5:17 pm |
|
|
Hey guys, whoa, big gulps, huh?
--------------
"Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where Nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike." - John Muir
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39553
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 6:09 pm |
|
|
(Land Rover @ Mar. 11 2013, 1:34 pm)
QUOTE Activist judges at work again.
I'm not sure why then, under these terms we have, say, the ability to limit the sale of alcohol to minors, or of cigarettes for that matter.
All laws are essentially "arbitrary and capricious" in that they limit the ability of certain people to act in a certain way. It's just a matter of whether there is support for them in the populace at a whole.
.....
In the case of alcohol and cigrarettes i's not "some" alcohol or cigarettes and not just in some stores but not others: ALL alcohol or all cigarettes to all who do not meet the stated age requirement. Equality under the law then.
Rather than "In his opinion, Justice Tingling specifically cited a perceived inequity in the soda rules, which applies to only certain sugared drinks — beverages with a high milk content, for instance, would be exempt — and would apply only to some food establishments, like restaurants, but not others, like convenience stores.
“It applies to some but not all food establishments in the city,” Justice Tingling wrote. “It excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories.”
The judge also wrote that the fact that consumers can receive refills of sodas, as long as the cup size is not larger than 16 ounces, would “defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose the rule.” The judge also appeared to be skeptical of the purview of the city’s Board of Health, which the Bloomberg administration had maintained has broad powers to seek to better the public’s health. That interpretation, the judge wrote, “would leave its authority to define, create, mandate and enforce limited only by its own imagination,” and “create an administrative Leviathan.”"
Refills, some establishments but not tohers etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 6:11 pm |
|
|
(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 11 2013, 5:19 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Mar. 11 2013, 2:32 pm)
QUOTE If there is a medically sound methodology -- the obese should be made to pay "their far share" of medical insurance premiums -- like smokers currently do. Something like this, I'd support.
Not sure I would. It's just part of this ludicrous "market solutions to everything" mindset that we seem to be in. The imaginary world where you treat humans like pigeons or lab rats. Peck on the correct tab for your reward. Peck too often and you get punished.
I find it tough to grasp the fundamental elements here. Impeding the sale of soft drinks - terrible affront to freedom. Handing insurance companies the power of life and death - fair and reasonable.
Do we honestly think the "methodology" is going to be any less arbitrary and capricious? Few pounds on over the holiday, higher premium for you?
I assume we're suggesting that they will have to buy insurance?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14069
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 7:27 pm |
|
|
(Land Rover @ Mar. 11 2013, 4:11 pm)
QUOTE
(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 11 2013, 5:19 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Mar. 11 2013, 2:32 pm)
QUOTE If there is a medically sound methodology -- the obese should be made to pay "their far share" of medical insurance premiums -- like smokers currently do. Something like this, I'd support. Not sure I would. It's just part of this ludicrous "market solutions to everything" mindset that we seem to be in. The imaginary world where you treat humans like pigeons or lab rats. Peck on the correct tab for your reward. Peck too often and you get punished. I find it tough to grasp the fundamental elements here. Impeding the sale of soft drinks - terrible affront to freedom. Handing insurance companies the power of life and death - fair and reasonable. Do we honestly think the "methodology" is going to be any less arbitrary and capricious? Few pounds on over the holiday, higher premium for you? I assume we're suggesting that they will have to buy insurance?
I think you read more than I said (or agreed with Ben about). I wasn't suggesting folks buy insurance before they're allowed drink a large soda.
Right now, cigarettes are taxed heavily to include the resulting costs to states down the line such as Medicaid payments for lung cancer victims, etc. That's the main reason cigarettes are $4-5 a pack instead of $0.80. The cost includes the costs to the public down the line. Wanna smoke? You get to pay those costs up front.
Something like that, I'd support. Please don't presume more than you read.
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 8:00 pm |
|
|
(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 11 2013, 7:27 pm)
QUOTE
(Land Rover @ Mar. 11 2013, 4:11 pm)
QUOTE
(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 11 2013, 5:19 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Mar. 11 2013, 2:32 pm)
QUOTE If there is a medically sound methodology -- the obese should be made to pay "their far share" of medical insurance premiums -- like smokers currently do. Something like this, I'd support. Not sure I would. It's just part of this ludicrous "market solutions to everything" mindset that we seem to be in. The imaginary world where you treat humans like pigeons or lab rats. Peck on the correct tab for your reward. Peck too often and you get punished. I find it tough to grasp the fundamental elements here. Impeding the sale of soft drinks - terrible affront to freedom. Handing insurance companies the power of life and death - fair and reasonable. Do we honestly think the "methodology" is going to be any less arbitrary and capricious? Few pounds on over the holiday, higher premium for you? I assume we're suggesting that they will have to buy insurance? I think you read more than I said (or agreed with Ben about). I wasn't suggesting folks buy insurance before they're allowed drink a large soda. Right now, cigarettes are taxed heavily to include the resulting costs to states down the line such as Medicaid payments for lung cancer victims, etc. That's the main reason cigarettes are $4-5 a pack instead of $0.80. The cost includes the costs to the public down the line. Wanna smoke? You get to pay those costs up front. Something like that, I'd support. Please don't presume more than you read.
I was factoring in the ACA GBH.
I did run on a little assuming we just don't want to see the obese priced out of the insurance market altogether.
You accuse me of the same thing you just did  I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting etc etc.
I think it's one thing to tax an optional item in life. I think that given the complex nature of obesity varying health premiums based on weight is far more arbitrary than on consumption of a certain product.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 9:27 pm |
|
|
Good. I want the government out of my lunch box, my bedroom, my marriage ceremonies and anywhere else where consenting adults are only hurting themselves at worst and more likely living much happier while being treated like adults.
(Who knew that soda brought out my libertarian streak, I don't even drink the stuff) First they came for the soda drinkers, but I said nothing because I'm a coffee drinker... 
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 9:32 pm |
|
|
Yeah. I think it's a bit far. I have no issue with them taxing it, but outlawing cup sizes is a little silly really.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
big_load
Group: Members
Posts: 21830
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 10:18 pm |
|
|
I thought it was going too far from the start, but it got personal when I learned it would affect the sales of coffee larger than 16 oz. I drink my coffee black, but I would have had to endure additional interaction to obtain it. I would also have had to endure everyone else's interaction in front of me. Everbody just shut up and give me my !@#$# coffee!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39553
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 10:25 pm |
|
|
Given there is NO sugar in coffee (its got to be added) how'd that get rationalized?
Black coffee dodged it
http://m.nbcnews.com/busines....8781253
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1110
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 10:33 pm |
|
|
Think it's kind of like Prohibition, yes alcohol kills, hurts damages and numerous bad things like soda does, but prohibiting it is just not a practical, reasonable thing to try and stop by that method IMO.
I feel taxing soft drinks and dedicating those funds in a lock box vehicle towards advertising against, educating against and informing the consumer is a much more pragmatic approach. However, I think an army of lobbyists would overwhelm the politicians and any bill would fall to pieces.
No easy answer and the sadness, disease and suffering caused by ingesting (in my opinion) this addictive poison like drink, will unfortunately continue. 
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39553
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 10:35 pm |
|
|
Well and from the experience with the tobacco settlement and taxes the raid on all that "free" money would start before the ink was dry on the bill's signature.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4056
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 1:44 pm |
|
|
Naw, life rocks!
Dying sucks.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
Roger
Group: Members
Posts: 1893
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 2:35 pm |
|
|
and Mississippi just pass a bill that would bar counties and towns from enacting rules that require calorie counts to be posted, that cap portion sizes, or that keep toys out of kids' meals. Mississippi has the highest obesity rate in the county where one of three adults is obese.
--------------
“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
