Calling critics of the plan “ridiculous,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is defending his proposed ban on large-size sugary sodas. I have long been a critic of such measures, but this one is particularly presumptuous in my view. People should have a choice as to what and how much they wish to eat and drink. The ban is particularly illogical since it would simply require people to buy multiple cans of soda unless Bloomberg will next impose a drink limit for New Yorkers. You can have as many Manhattans as you want but do not reach for the super-sized soda. I am waiting for the next bumper sticker: “If Big Gulps Are a Crime, Only Criminals Will Have Big Gulps.”
I agree with critics that this is the ultimate example of the “Nanny state” where the government dictates the the proper lifestyle choices and risks for adults. I have no problem with banning sodas in school as many district have done. However, Bloomberg has decided that educational programs and warnings are not enough because adults are not meeting the expectations of the government. Bloomberg is quoted as saying “I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody’s willing to do something about it.” The solution therefore is to take away choice and to dictate Dr. Bloomberg’s diet for all citizens.
The soda ban will be introduced on June 12 at a New York City Board of Health meeting. It is expected to pass.
However, Bloomberg insists that when you are told that you cannot have that soda, “Nobody is taking away any of your rights. This way, we’re just telling you ‘That’s a lot of soda.'” Really? Sounds a lot like “you can’t have that soda.”
Honestly, if prohibition did not work for alcohol, it is likely to be even less successful for sodas. What is unclear is why Bloomberg is not also banning french fries, onion rings, and other unhealthy foods eaten in excessive quantities. How about requiring proof that a large stuffed pizza has no fewer than four persons willing to sign for it? I think people have a right to an unhealthy lifestyle. This is not like second-hand smoke that harms others. You can be around someone with a large soda and remain perfectly healthy.
There must be something to occupy the Mayor’s time beyond soda drinkers like serial killers. Forcing people to buy two ten ounce sodas rather than one twenty ounce soda is hardly a public interest triumph. However, it is not the sheer stupidity but the sheer hubris that I find remarkable about this proposed ban. Perhaps the good Mayor should stop “looking across the country” like some stern Satrap and focus on those harms that people do to others from crime to pollution.
In the meantime, I will soon issue a new bumper sticker for the soda patriots: “You Can Pry My Big Gulp From My Cold Fat Fingers.”
Source: LA Times
ANON,
If a peanut butter sandwich and a glass of milk is intoxicating then I’m high as hell. But one can be high on oneself, on nature, on women, on life, etc.
Mohammad in principle in the Koran banned all forms of intoxication. Many sufis and others were executed for their intoxication in Allah.
Guess the Holy Rollers don’t have any problem with that.
If you were RCC I’d ask if you’d ever seen an exalted priest, other than when he is entering the confessions boooth when a group of choir boys are standing in line.
Father, bless me for I have sinned. With apologies to true believers. The faith was given yee in order yee might be tried. Or am I just guessing.
On a roll. Time for bed. 2 AM.
Pssstt…Hey buddy, wanna buy a soft drink in excess of 16oz?
Bob,Esq.
Changed my mind about you. Damn fine elucidation.
In our company we called it the spirit of the boss, ie not ethics but the guiding goals as understood. And we all know that legislation has loopholes. But ethics committees do also.
Um, the Mayor of the City of New York wants to ban very big sodas, is that the issue? OMG. OMG. Could we start SMALL, perhaps, and just get a federal law to ban the use of TUBS of sugary soda in the practice of water-boarding during interrogations? Then we could kind of move up from there to non-torture misuse of sweet beverages, to size…
Oh, I get it. He’s telling us size matters!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIntjCkO9Tc
Sorry. He’s my favorite hypocrite.
Hey Mark,
Glad to see you’re doubling down. Stand your ground man!
“All duties are either duties of right, that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or duties of virtue, that is, ethical duties (officia virtutis s. ethica). Juridical duties are such as may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical duties are those for which such legislation is not possible. The reason why the latter cannot be properly made the subject of external legislation is because they relate to an end or final purpose, which is itself, at the same time, embraced in these duties, and which it is a duty for the individual to have as such. But no external legislation can cause any one to adopt a particular intention, or to propose to himself a certain purpose; for this depends upon an internal condition or act of the mind itself.” — Immanuel Kant
Deciding whether or not to ingest an excessive amount of sugary drinks is a duty of virtue; a duty that cannot be enforced by external legislation under any metaphysics of morals.
To promulgate a duty of virtue as if it were a juridical duty, or duty of right, is tyranny per se. Thus referring to Bloomberg as an immoral tyrant is not hyperbole.
“ANON,
Straight question: Who swept 9/11 debris under the rug? Giuliani or Bloomberg? Details.”
I don’t know all that much about either, so I’ll go with “They both did” but I could easily be convinced otherwise.
BTW, you do know when I kick your ass, it is a compliment for your orneriness and refusal to be like the asskissers here.
Where are you? Sweden? Must be drinking time already.
ID707,
Many states have disclosure requirements, but they will vary widely.
Don’t all holders of public office have to make annual declarations of ownership and transactions vv the stocks etc. markets.
Rafflaw, can you answer? Pretty please.
ANON,
Straight question: Who swept 9/11 debris under the rug? Giuliani or Bloomberg? Details.
BTW, you do know when I kick your ass, it is a compliment for your orneriness and refusal to be like the asskissers here.
I disagree with Bloomberg’s suggestion. Maybe he has stock in the Big Gulp competitors?
Juris said:
“idealist, I am curious… is that because there is a law in Sweden banning a larger size, because Swedes would not buy anything larger than that (IOW, no demand), or some other reason(s)?
BTW, Why is America “gross”?”
Thanks for the opportunity to expand, even tho’ that might be an ironic putdown you posted, just chuckle to yourself.
No, it’s part of the swedish philosophy so well summed up by the phrase: “lagom är bäst”. Like the baby bear’s porridge: “just right”. Details available.
Swedes don’t regulate sex, nature does that.
Swedes do regulate alcohol, for nature doesn’t.
And most people are decent and not grossing out at others cost because that’s the civilized way to do things.
Kinda boring. So I exceed the norms often: Cracking jokes at the pharmacy assistant. Giving compliments to women who pass and have chosen an item of apparel that “shines” like the sun.
So there is no demand for gross consumption. Even those who park their Lamborghinis in front of the outdoor bar, are regarded as gauche. For both reasons you are thinking of now. For owning and the conspicuous display.
Now the two last above are two steps to why I say America is gross. Another is having 20 percent poverty classed, while the one percent owns 80 percent of the wealth.
Ain’t that gross?
The list is long, and you aren’t dumb. Write it yourself.
Did I answer your challenge?
“Bloomberg literally bought his way into the Mayoralty and after Giuliani he seemed mild and sensible.”
It’s got to be a terrible idea to vote the owner of a press and an billionaire financier and friend of the banks into being a leader of the city.
If this had taken place in Gotham and not in New York, it would all be clear.
anon:
There a psychosis for those who insist on hanging around with people they hate. I just call it masochism.
I don’t hate you guys. I hate the idiot things you say.
And I greatly appreciate Professor Turley’s writings.
The odd juxtaposition for me is the huge number of times the so called regulars here, who seem to believe they are progressive, or liberal, or democrat, or unbiased can be seen advocating positions opposed to Professor Turley’s blog post. And how far and willing you guys are to bend over in ways that would impress a Chinese acrobat to defend egregious poor behavior because a Democrat did it.
As an example, if you remember last summer, when you Mark, made a homophobic joke at Marcus Bachmann’s expense.
Here’s Mark Esposito uber-lawyer, and you wander around arrogantly assuming you are enlightened and everyone knows what a uber-mensch you are, you couldn’t possibly be a homophobe.
I pointed out the nature of your remarks, and sure enough, almost everyone chimed in to say that it was okay to call Bachmann gay, and that no way could you be a homophobe.
But what I took away, is that you never even made the slightest concession that perhaps I had a point…
Well the truth is the attack on Bachmann that he is a closeted gay because he is effeminate is an attack that homophobic at its core. It was this way when you were in middle school, and it’s that way now that you’re a member of the Bar regardless of how you think you’re enlightened.
Here is a group of people from queer sites, feminist sites, liberal sites, mainstream sites to help you understand:
http://tab.bz/byp (goes to a page at tab.bz with 11 links (one basically a dupe) that I just found by googling. May open slowly)
Mark, I actually don’t think you’re a homophobe. I actually think you’re just an arrogant dumbass lawyer too stupid to not apologize or too afraid to apologize.
I come here Mark, because I appreciate what Professor Turley has to say. I come here because I have a case that wanders in and out of family court and it’s helpful to see how other lawyers approach various issues in the law and the courts.
And sometimes I come here to gaze at the trainwrecks, to see proudly, bragging, uber-liberals advocate against innocent until proven guilty, to advocate against strong privacy laws, to invade the privacy of all commenters on this blog, to blithely make homophobic attacks without ever conceding they might be wrong to do so. Hell, everyone likes to watch a trainwreck, and this blog commenters are full of them.
Bloomberg is a schmuck. But New Yorkers know everything so why would they vote for a guy who tells them to do something else than that which they know. Which means that another schmuck who admits and encourages New Yorkers in their know it all ness will beat him in the next election. Meanwhile, the cops are on the public trough and I say remove the donuts before it collapses.
I have been saying for years that the entire Bloomberg administration has been a disaster from the start. Bloomberg literally bought his way into the Mayoralty and after Giuliani he seemed mild and sensible. In truth he is more of a self righteous autocrat than Rudy ever imagined being. This concept if a total absurdity and I think unconstitutional. I say that even though I do not drink sugared sodas, nor eat donuts. Ingesting either of those items seems like a very bad idea to me, but I don’t have the right to make someone else’s choices for them, neither should a Mayor.
Hey anon! Ol’ Honest Georgie Z is heading back to jail in Florida. Seems he can’t count his money or his passports or else can’t tell the truth about them. Gene H broke the news. I get you some tissues.