[Newsbot]

Title: New York City large-soda ban blocked by judge
Category: Business
Posted By: martin14
Date: 2013-03-12 03:05:22

[CrazyNewfie]

I'm thinking one of 3 things...1:This judge Tingling is a big soda pop drinker and doesn't like the idea of being limited to a smaller size when he's at a restaurant, 2:He's getting a little something from The American Beverage Association and is ruling in their favour because of it, or 3: Maybe he's just telling the truth and this is how he's interpreting the law.

[martin14]

CrazyNewfie CrazyNewfie:

3: Maybe he's just telling the truth and this is how he's interpreting the law.

This.

I can't imagine under any circumstances where a municipality could pass such a law.

Typical leftie, 'we'll protect you in spite of yourself.'


No thanks.

[raydan]

The lefties are just trying to protect the righties who can't control themselves.

[Gunnair]

martin14 martin14:

CrazyNewfie CrazyNewfie:

3: Maybe he's just telling the truth and this is how he's interpreting the law.

This.

I can't imagine under any circumstances where a municipality could pass such a law.

Typical leftie, 'we'll protect you in spite of yourself.'


No thanks.

I guess this would be a non issue if there was personal responsibility for their actions - a fault of both the left and the right.

Arguments against seatbelts and helmets likely started this way as well.

[martin14]

However did you know I am pro-choice on helmets ?

But that's another topic.



You could argue the ban is discriminatory, because it applies only to restaurants,
and not to supermarkets.
If you are going to ban something, then ban it... or not.


Kinda like the New York gun ban.



I found this comment rather interesting:

$1:

It reminds me of something that happened to me several years ago in the UK. I was in a pub and ordered a pint of very strong cider. The landlord said "The brewery only allows us to sell it in halves". "I'll have two halves then" I replied. "Yeah, okay, fair enough" he sighed and gave me a pint.

The "halves" rule was as stupid as a ban on large sodas is.

[raydan]

I shouldn't say it... but I will anyway.

I guess that those against the ban should be OK with legalizing pot.

[bootlegga]

This ban is/was a joke - if Bloomberg really wanted to influence people, he would have simply added a tax on Big Gulps and super-sized drinks.

[Gunnair]

bootlegga bootlegga:

This ban is/was a joke - if Bloomberg really wanted to influence people, he would have simply added a tax on Big Gulps and super-sized drinks.

Sin tax on pop in general.

[bootlegga]

I support sin taxes on all junk food.

If we tax cigarettes and booze to help pay for their negative effects, why should junk food be any different? And that's coming from a non-smoker who enjoys junk food.

[Gunnair]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I support sin taxes on all junk food.

If we tax cigarettes and booze to help pay for their negative effects, why should junk food be any different? And that's coming from a non-smoker who enjoys junk food.

Agreed. Coming from a wine/beer drinker that rarely touches junk food.

[Brenda]

CrazyNewfie CrazyNewfie:

I'm thinking one of 3 things...1:This judge Tingling is a big soda pop drinker and doesn't like the idea of being limited to a smaller size when he's at a restaurant, 2:He's getting a little something from The American Beverage Association and is ruling in their favour because of it, or 3: Maybe he's just telling the truth and this is how he's interpreting the law.

So from what I gather, you can order 20 pizza's, but not a 2 liter bottle of coke to go with it. Or so Bloomberg wanted.
You can order 2 14 oz glass of pop in a restaurant, but not a 16 oz.
You can order an extra extra extra large coffee (over 16 oz) at Starbucks, but you have to pour your own sugar.

It is the biggest bullshit thing Bloomberg has ever come up with.
For me personally, that whole ban would not have any effect, 16 oz is too much for me, I would never buy it.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I support sin taxes on all junk food.

If we tax cigarettes and booze to help pay for their negative effects, why should junk food be any different? And that's coming from a non-smoker who enjoys junk food.

Agreed. The only difficulty is defining junk food. But drinks with added sugar seems like a good place to start. And salt levels too.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I support sin taxes on all junk food.

If we tax cigarettes and booze to help pay for their negative effects, why should junk food be any different? And that's coming from a non-smoker who enjoys junk food.

Agreed. The only difficulty is defining junk food. But drinks with added sugar seems like a good place to start. And salt levels too.

And fats.

Conversely, drop the taxes on fruits and vegetables.

[andyt]

What taxes on fruits and vegetables?

Fats are more difficult. Olive oil - 100% fat, but good fat.