Mayor Bloomberg 's controversial ban on large, sugary sodas fell flat Monday when a judge shredded nearly every legal argument advanced by the mayor’s lawyers and tossed the regulation out.

The sweeping ruling, a day before the ban was to take effect, was a stinging setback for Bloomberg, who won national acclaim in pushing the regulation — and condemnation that he was creating a nanny state.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling dismissed the rule as “arbitrary and capricious,” with too many loopholes and exemptions, siding with soda companies and business groups that had taken the city to court.

Tracing the Board of Health’s powers more than 300 years to the late 1600s under Britain’s King James II, the judge said the city agency simply had no authority to issue it. Only the City Council had that power, he said. “One of the fundamental tenets of democratic governance here in New York, as well as throughout the nation, is the separation of powers. . . . No one person, agency, department or branch is above or beyond this,” the judge said.

Judge Milton A. Tingling put the kibosh on Mayor Bloomberg's ban one day before it was to go into effect.

The rule “would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it,” the judge said.

The rule would have banned sales of sugary sodas larger than 16 ounces by restaurants, movie theaters, pushcarts and sports arenas. (read the whole article here)

Personally, I find it curious that, if Bloomberg wanted to limit the intake of sugary drinks, there was no exemption for sugar-free drinks.

Views: 808

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Actually stop signs and traffic lights have a purpose unlike frivolous laws such as ban of sugary drinks or prevention of medical treatment for those who drink sugary drinks. These have no real purpose.

So if the person doesn't wear a helmet, that should mean they shouldn't deserve medical treatment if they in bicycle related accident where they didn't where one? Since that was your intended logic earlier. As you said: "How about a law, that anyone caught drinking a 16oz. soft drink, cannot have bypass surgery, or have insulin" Because that is the part where many people feel the law has no real purpose. 

Actually, some towns have removed virtually all traffic regulation devices and seen steep declines in accident rates. Too detailed rules can dull the senses, leading to complacency and indifference. 

I'm not too fond of this eagerness to regulate everything, especially not by law. It often falls into the political truism that "something needs to be done, this is something, therefore let's do this."

Yet drug use is still prohibited, despite your logic, and none has yet to be killed by someone not driving, no matter their intoxication level.

You might want to look up the mortality rate of accidents caused by DUI and DWI. Both are very prevalent in the states. 

"Actually it doesn't affect me directly."

Then you do not pay taxes. Taxes affect you directly, and the level of taxation is dictated by health care spending to a large degree (around 1/3). 

I am really confused here. Is there a language barrier here or I did not clarify properly. If you read the next sentence from what I said earlier, you would see that when I talked about "affecting me", I was talking about in terms of actual health. Yet for some reason you keep bringing up taxes when I have already said that in terms of taxes I am affected but not in terms of health.

"part of my taxes does go towards healthcare for those [who are obese due to drinking sugared sodas]"


Incorrect. Taxes going towards healthcare has nothing to do with being obese or not, it has do with being insured or uninsured and employers getting tax deductions as a result of providing insurance. If you count that deduction that employers get as a subsidy , meaning lower income is offset by higher premiums elsewhere. then even insured people are subsidized. So in the end it wouldn't matter one bit if a person is going to the hospital because they are obese from drinking sugared drink or not, because either way you would end up paying for it anyways. So I am not sure why you think that enacting frivolous laws that deny people medical treatment because of their choices, would exactly somehow benefit you in terms of paying taxes. As long as anyone is insured in this country, taxes will go towards tax deductions of those who provide it.

Then why bother with laws in the first place, by following that train of thought.

Laws are put in for conduct for moral consequences (Consequentialism). As Newton once said "For ever action there is an opposite or equal reaction. You are less likely to go rob a bank knowing that it is wrong and the penalty for the crime is very severe than breaking the speed limit on a highway. But nowadays laws have become more for the use of resources. Control the resources and you can enforce the consumption and use of it, by strict regulations (but that''s a whole different story for another time).

Btw I see you didn't comment anything about the "freedom of choice" discussion above, after I showed you the truth

Oh btw awareness does work. September is the national Child Obesity awareness month. Thanks to the effects of awareness, the First Lady of the USA  with collaboration of US Military leaders, have now been able to provide a much better and healthy school lunches for children.

"You might want to look up the mortality rate of accidents caused by DUI and DWI. Both are very prevalent in the states. "

Which would be valid if I was talking about the driver drinking. I wasn't, I was talking about the passenger drinking. 

"If you read the next sentence from what I said earlier, you would see that when I talked about "affecting me""

So it doesn't affect you at all, but it still affects you? I don't think we have a language barrier, I do believe we have a logic barrier.

"Taxes going towards healthcare has nothing to do with being obese or not"

It does either via first order effects, public health care, or through the second order effects you described, private health care. You are confusing the process with the outcome.

"Laws are put in for conduct for moral consequences"

Laws are made for a wide variety of reasons. Or are you arguing that laws prescribing the maximum curvature of cucumbers are made with moral consequences in mind?

Newtonian mechanics are hardly applicable in the social sciences, where reactions seldom are equal and opposite to actions. By using your same analogy, the US should have a much lower murder rate than Norway since the former has capital punishment and the latter has a max of 21 years. Since that isn't the case, your premise doesn't hold and your argument fails. 

I did comment on freedom of choice. You didn't make a case for it, you merely stated that it was a subset of freedom of expression, which was a subset of freedom of speech. Primo, you have it the wrong way around, speech is a subset of expression. Secundo, choice is not related to either. Tertio, freedom of choice deals with the ability to choose between options unconstrained by external forces. That's hardly something which is possible to legislate as a right, though it should be an ethical ideal underpinning laws and regulations.

So it doesn't affect you at all, but it still affects you? I don't think we have a language barrier, I do believe we have a logic barrier.

Yes that would be your inability it comprehend two different scenarios. 

-->The ends justify the means.

That's why we have a constitution that says other wise or else the majority would have engulfed the minority long time ago.

Yes the majority in many instances are favored since they have numbers. But that is not always the case. For example you and I are not closet Atheists. If we were truly ruled by the Christian majority in this country, then you and I would be closet Atheists praying to Jesus every Sunday in church. 

That's the difference between the Western Atheists and the Middle Eastern Atheists. Middle Eastern Atheists would end up dead for apostasy because they don't have any Constitution saving them from being persecuted by the majority

Ah yes, the greater good for the greatest number. If throwing someone under the bus profits the mob, do it.

Needs of the many, are greater than the needs of the few.

Nope, and this isn't star trek.

They served and sacrificed for the many,

Because those who call their orders - not the generals, but those who REALLY call the shots higher up - wanted to sacrifice the many for the few. Themselves.

I'm also not a fan of platitudes.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service