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.
Mountain Dew? I see people drinking the stuff. What's the appeal? The only worse-tasting drink is Dr. Pepper, which seemingly is modeled on black cherry flavored cough syrup. The thing about Mountain Dew, though, is that it doesn't taste like anything identifiable, which is kind of scary. I would guess artificial orange flavoring adulterated with some sort of industrial solvent.
At least, a somewhat discerning palate like mine, can taste some of the ingredients in Coke: water (duh!), sugar (duh!), lime, vanilla (another duh). Those are for sure. I'll also guess orange and cinnamon. There are probably trace elements of other spices like nutmeg, cardamom, and cayenne, but that's really guessing.
I thought it was the meth, oxy, and poverty rotting their teeth out of their heads. I am so glad my family left the Appalachians a couple generations back. What a rough life.
Funny thing you mention about the correlation between soda and tooth decay. That is the reason I gave up drinking soda. Nowadays, once in a blue moon, will I ever drink soda.
Might makes right. If the "State" enacts a "Law" it has the power to enforce it, all you can do is acquiesce or get tromped upon.
You must not be following the news.
What you consume is your own business.
Bloomberg should bugger off.
Well the short answer is, apparently not.
what they could do, however, is see if they could apply a state tax on servings over a certain size. However, in my limited experience of the USA, most restaurants offer unlimited refills, so its all a bit daft really.
The Federal government has a constitutional duty to promote the public welfare, which would seem to include its health. However, I don't think the Constitution REQUIRES the government to force people to be healthy. I would assume it's much the same with the New York state Constitution.
Like a lot of do-gooders, health nuts don't realize how close they get to fascism when forcing their views on the public.
The state has absolute power, so it can do whatever it damned well pleases.
As to the case in hand, it is based on a very good idea to alleviate the obesity epidemic. However, I think the execution is flawed, he should rather have used his power of taxation to make refined sugar and HFCS prohibitively expensive, thus reducing demand. A ban is inherently illiberal and tend to be the favored solution to any issue by left-wingers, hopefully he will deal the issue with a conservative approach next.
Well he was a conservative Republican, but then he became an Independent and went all weirdo on everyone. I think he generally has a good motive but the way he executes his plans, do not always come out like a great intention as planned it,
I get that there is public health concern. But, I balk at the idea that we must legislatively force people to make better dietary lifestyle choices. This seems like such an attempted overreach by government to force its will on the people, Of course, I'm assuming that public health was the intention here.
Or anyone owning a gun being unable to report a weapons incident.