Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling has struck a victory for sanity (as well as individual choice) in striking down New York Mayor Bloomberg’s widely ridiculed ban on large sugary drinks. As we previously discussed, the law was a poorly drafted and poorly conceived ban that allowed a host of higher caloric drinks to be sold in bars and other establishments. Tingling found the law to be “arbitrary and capricious.” Bloomberg has appeared to have developed an insatiable appetite to dictating what others can eat, including a proposed crackdown on popcorn and milk. After the soda ban, a long list of items have been put forward to Bloomberg to ban before Judge Tingling put a halt to the feeding frenzy.
Tingling focused on the obvious “loopholes” in the law that barred sales for some establishments while allowed the drinks to be sold by other establishments “even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole.” The judge also found that the law created a an administrative Leviathan and violate the separation of powers doctrine” by sweeping into areas of legislative authority with the city council.
As we discussed earlier, 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.
Bloomberg insisted 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. Then there are those other items like 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. Then there are those high calorie alcoholic drinks being served with the loaded stuffed potatoes in bars around New York.
After the ruling, Bloomberg insisted “I’ve got to defend my children, and yours, and do what’s right to save lives.” Sixty percent of New Yorkers opposed the limit and clearly believe that they do not need Bloomberg making choices for them or their families. However, most parents feel that they can defend their own children and make choices for them. Moreover, Bloomberg did not ban sodas for school children, he dictated what adults can drink. The ban was facially absurd from the start since it would only force customers to buy multiple drinks if they wanted the same amount. Then there was the confusion of the lines of exemptions. The ban did not apply to pure fruit juice or fruit smoothies or drinks that are more than half milk. Starbucks yesterday vowed to continue to serve sweetened coffee drinks before the ruling, causing an outburst by Bloomberg.
Undeterred, Bloomberg has decided to spend more money in fighting the ruling and affirm his right to control the diets of people in the city. He rejects the widespread objections over individual choice and insists that New Yorkers must be required to comply with the dietary demands of his government. However, that Tingling feeling yesterday was the voice of reason.
Source: WSJ
Bob Esq, I think i have been called just about every name that passes censorship on this blog except a communist until now. My grand father in law was a Russian Jewish Menshevik so I guess we are just following in his footsteps. 🙂
Bron,
“You want the government to tell people what to do. I do not, man should be free to make his own choices about what is good or bad for him.”
Do you believe there should be laws against driving while intoxicated?
****
BTW,
I thought Bloomberg’s beverage ban was stupid.
Bob, Esq. I am not a communist but I definitely have socialist leanings. 😉
Swarthmore mom: “Okay, The judge is probably right in that the ban in the way it was to be administered was “arbitrary and capricious”, but that is not to say another ban that if drafted differently won’t past muster. It is an idea whose time is coming. The health related costs are exorbitant.”
SWM,
You do know that within your metaphysics of morals the individual is seen as a cancer; don’t you?
Seeing you and your ilk obviously have no regard for the individual’s “struggle for moral and spiritual integrity against the mass psychology generated by political fanaticism, scientific materialism and technological triumphalism on a global scale” (Anthony Stevens) I’m keen to guess why you’re not a full fledged communist.
http://www.epa.gov/smokefre/healtheffects.html
Bron, Do you think the EPA should be eliminated?
elaine:
read what Bob Esq posted.
You want the government to tell people what to do. I do not, man should be free to make his own choices about what is good or bad for him.
If I own a pub, I should be able to decide if people can smoke inside. I am the one who should determine if having a smoking pub is good for my life. And you should determine if it is good for your life to eat or drink at my pub. If you determine it is not fine, you are free to dine at another establishment.
And everyone is free to act to their benefit, there is no coercion.
That is moral.
I am sure some fool reading this will now say something about what if it is to my benefit to murder someone, shouldnt I have the choice?
I don’t want to talk about Palin’s gulps. She’s like an opportunistic infection.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/03/mississippis_an.php Sarah Palin with her “faux consumer libertarianism” celebrated the big gulp victory.
Okay, The judge is probably right in that the ban in the way it was to be administered was “arbitrary and capricious”, but that is not to say another ban that if drafted differently won’t past muster. It is an idea whose time is coming. The health related costs are exorbitant.
For all those folks who endorse Bloomberg’s agenda, here’s the proof that ALL the founding fathers would spit on Bloomberg and his supporters for even suggesting this type of legislation.
John Locke:
“We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man’s soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop?”
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/11/1700421/bloomberg-soda-ban-right-direction/ The city’s health board unanimously approved the ban and big soda was its largest opponent.
Then what point are you trying to make when you say it’s a moral issue?
eLAINE:
No.
Bron,
Are you implying that smokers are immoral people?
Thirdhand smoke: What are the dangers to nonsmokers?
What is thirdhand smoke, and why is it a concern?
Answer
from Lowell Dale, M.D.
Thirdhand smoke is generally considered to be residual nicotine and other chemicals left on a variety of indoor surfaces by tobacco smoke. This residue is thought to react with common indoor pollutants to create a toxic mix. This toxic mix of thirdhand smoke contains cancer-causing substances, posing a potential health hazard to nonsmokers who are exposed to it, especially children.
Studies show that thirdhand smoke clings to hair, skin, clothes, furniture, drapes, walls, bedding, carpets, dust, vehicles and other surfaces, even long after smoking has stopped. Infants, children and nonsmoking adults may be at risk of tobacco-related health problems when they inhale, ingest or touch substances containing thirdhand smoke. Thirdhand smoke is a relatively new concept, and researchers are still studying its possible dangers.
Thirdhand smoke residue builds up on surfaces over time and resists normal cleaning. Thirdhand smoke can’t be eliminated by airing out rooms, opening windows, using fans or air conditioners, or confining smoking to only certain areas of a home. Thirdhand smoke remains long after smoking has stopped. In contrast, secondhand smoke is the smoke and other airborne products that come from being close to burning tobacco products, such as cigarettes.
The only way to protect nonsmokers from thirdhand smoke is to create a smoke-free environment, whether that’s your private home or vehicle, or in public places, such as hotels and restaurants. From the Mayo Clinic
Elaine:
Of course this is a question of morality.
Smokefree Dining is Best
http://www.njgasp.org/c2a_why.htm
(This information was created by the Tobacco Control Policy and Legal Resource Center of New Jersey GASP.)
Smokefree Dining Is Best was a single-sheet brochure created by GASP before the passage of the 2006 NJ SFAA, when restaurants and bars were smoking permitted but could voluntarily choose to go 100% smokefree. This brochure gave restaurant owners and managers a quick outline of the advantages of smokefree dining.
The text of the brochure was:
You can increase profits and customer satisfaction.
More than 85% of New Jerseyans don’t smoke. Many are offended by smoke but say nothing — they just don’t return.
Secondhand smoke is a health hazard. It causes heart disease and lung cancer and kills more than 50,000 Americans every year.
Restaurants are often smokier than other places — two to five times smokier than the typical workplace, even six times as polluted as a busy highway. Restaurant employees – often young people and people without health insurance – have much higher rates of lung cancer and heart disease than employees in other workplaces.
Smokefree dining is popular. Studies by the National Restaurant Association, the Gallup Poll, Zagat Surveys, plus an Eagleton Institute survey in New Jersey, and others show customers want smokefree dining.
Smokers accept smokefree policies at work, in other public places, and in restaurants. In fact, one out of every four New Jersey smokers say they’re bothered by secondhand smoke in restaurants (Eagleton survey). Smokers can dine without smoking. Nonsmokers can’t hold their breath throughout a meal.
Smokefree dining is good for business. Thousands of proprietors have discovered the business benefits. And there’s proof:
Nonsmokers spend 2.5 times more than smokers. (Cornell University study)
A study of every community in the United States with smokefree restaurant ordinances concluded that they “do not adversely affect restaurant sales.” (American Journal of Public Health)
Cut costs. No more cigarette burns. Less cleaning and repainting. Cut air cooling, heating, and ventilation costs. Negotiate lower fire and property insurance.
Reduce problems. Eliminate disputes among customers about smoking. Reservations and seating are simpler. Tables turn over faster when there’s no lingering to smoke cigarettes.
Keep up with the competition. There are several thousand smokefree restaurants in New Jersey and dozens of smokefree bars. New ones are added at the rate of more than one a day.
Protect yourself from legal liability. The National Restaurant Association has advised members they can be held responsible for employees who develop disease from secondhand smoke. In one case, a nonsmoking waiter was awarded almost $100,000. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), customers can also sue.
Keep up with the law. A dozen states and hundreds of cities and counties, including some in New Jersey, have smokefree restaurant and/or bar laws. New Jersey law requires you to inform patrons about your policy regarding smoking. (PL 1985, Chap. 186) State law underwrites your smokefree policy and gives it legal status. (PL 1985, Chap. 187)
Smokefree policies mean free publicity. New Jersey GASP will give you a free listing in 100% Smokefree Dining in New Jersey, free listings on the Internet, and promote smokefree dining in advertising and press releases. (Please see below.)
Smokefree policies protect children. Secondhand smoke is very dangerous for children. Young people are more likely to be healthy and free from addiction to nicotine if they grow up in a smokefree world.
Bron,
It has nothing to do with morality. Did I say it was immoral to smoke? Please don’t put words in my mouth. To me it’s a health issue.
For years, smokers invaded the space of non-smokers with their carcinogenic and offensive secondhand smoke. During those times, nobody seemed to care about the rights of non-smokers.
Gene H:
you give the mayor to much credit, he only wants them in better shape to keep his health insurance costs lower and to get more work out of them. He doesnt really care.