Judge strikes down NYC's sugary drinks ban

[g8trjax]

Instead of banning sugary drinks, why doesn't the mayor just mandate by law, 30 min. of exercise per day?

[JohnC1908]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

Instead of banning sugary drinks, why doesn't the mayor just mandate by law, 30 min. of exercise per day?

This would actually be fun to watch.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

Instead of banning sugary drinks, why doesn't the mayor just mandate by law, 30 min. of exercise per day?

Or he could just do something completely different and just STFU and get off of people's backs.

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Or he could just do something completely different and just STFU and get off of people's backs.

Yes, that's an option, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Dreamliner]

And it's not like New Yorkers aren't already in good stead. By dint of living in the city, they're probably on their feet more than most Americans. And new studies show that 'feet time' is ever so much more crucial for health than exercise is. In other words, regular exercise is not sufficient to undue the ill effects of prolonged sitting.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

And it's not like New Yorkers aren't already in good stead. By dint of living in the city, they're probably on their feet more than most Americans. And new studies show that 'feet time' is ever so much more crucial for health than exercise is. In other words, regular exercise is not sufficient to undue the ill effects of prolonged sitting.

30 minutes of exercise is certainly not enough to burn the calories from a 44-ounce soda ...

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by rivergator

30 minutes of exercise is certainly not enough to burn the calories from a 44-ounce soda ...

That's very true. Further, the 44-ounce soda may be sufficient to keep New Yorkers in the overweight or moderate obese categories that actually live longer than normal weight and underweight.

Bottom-line: chubby and (incidentally) active is the ideal state-of-affairs.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Bottom-line: chubby and (incidentally) active is the ideal state-of-affairs.

Damn I hope so ....

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Of course its judicial activism. No one wants to call it that when they agree with it, though. The judges seemed to rule on the basis that the law was bad ("capricious and arbitrary") and nullified it, rather than that it violated the power granted to Bloomberg and the city health officials.

Judicial activism, FFS... a judge stopped a man from acting like he is the mother to a city of 10 million people. I am honestly horrified and revolted that our society has devolved and degraded to a point that actual human adults think the government has any power to control the food and drink portions of members of a free society.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Damn I hope so ....

[adamgator96]

Originally Posted by rivergator

30 minutes of exercise is certainly not enough to burn the calories from a 44-ounce soda ...

Do you really want your mayor to regulate your soda intake at a sitting? You're an adult who will be limited to a 16oz soda to wash down the nine cheeseburgers you follow with a pack of Kools.

Doesn't make sense.

Get serious about what we feed our kids in schools. Bloomberg should make a difference there and make NY kids the best fed in the nation.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Judicial activism, FFS... a judge stopped a man from acting like he is the mother to a city of 10 million people. I am honestly horrified and revolted that our society has devolved and degraded to a point that actual human adults think the government has any power to control the food and drink portions of members of a free society.

Bloomberg wanted to save people from themselves, and so did the judge. The acts of both are fundamentally the same - removing agency from the citizen to do something about a problem or a bad law. Maybe being bailed out by a judge is better (there a plenty of "activist" decisions I agree with), maybe a soda ban would have countered obesity? The point is, they didnt have the freedom to fail or do something about an unpopular law. No consequences for bad choices in either case.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Bloomberg wanted to save people from themselves, and so did the judge. The acts of both are fundamentally the same - removing agency from the citizen to do something about a problem or a bad law. Maybe being bailed out by a judge is better (there a plenty of "activist" decisions I agree with), maybe a soda ban would have countered obesity? The point is, they didnt have the freedom to fail or do something about an unpopular law. No consequences for bad choices in either case.

Judicial review is a proper mechanism to shut down gross and overreaching and morally indefensibly provincial tyranny. When rule of law is premised on the rights of individuals, it shouldn't take a democratic process to stop gross and obvious violation of those rights.

I am going to put this to you as well -- other than who people have sex with and in what orifice, can you name any human lifestyle choice you consider at least as far outside the reach of government? I think it is downright depraved and immoral for any adult to think themselves qualified or entitled to tell another adult that they can't have a 17th oz of soda at a sitting.

Maybe we need a kickstarter for hundreds of people to stand outside Gracie Mansion and outside 1 Police Plaza casually drinking out of those very convenient 1.25 L bottles of coke or 1.5 L bottles of Pepsi. Who the hell does Bloomberg think he is. Mayor, not Mother. He is an expert in nothing who considers himself expert in everything. He is a dilettante.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by adamgator96

Do you really want your mayor to regulate your soda intake at a sitting? You're an adult who will be limited to a 16oz soda to wash down the nine cheeseburgers you follow with a pack of Kools.

Doesn't make sense.

Get serious about what we feed our kids in schools. Bloomberg should make a difference there and make NY kids the best fed in the nation.

maybe you should read my earlier comments on the law before claiming you know what I think about it.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Judicial review is a proper mechanism to shut down gross and overreaching and morally indefensibly provincial tyranny. When rule of law is premised on the rights of individuals, it shouldn't take a democratic process to stop gross and obvious violation of those rights.

I am going to put this to you as well -- other than who people have sex with and in what orifice, can you name any human lifestyle choice you consider at least as far outside the reach of government? I think it is downright depraved and immoral for any adult to think themselves qualified or entitled to tell another adult that they can't have a 17th oz of soda at a sitting.

Maybe we need a kickstarter for hundreds of people to stand outside Gracie Mansion and outside 1 Police Plaza casually drinking out of those very convenient 1.25 L bottles of coke or 1.5 L bottles of Pepsi. Who the hell does Bloomberg think he is. Mayor, not Mother. He is an expert in nothing who considers himself expert in everything. He is a dilettante.

Perhaps it is. I go back and forth. I mean, I'm certainly glad the courts weighed in on civil rights, and the "provincial tyranny" of various Southern states. But I'm not going to pretend it was democratic either. Nullification via judicial review may be its own form of playing mother. I think you're fooling yourself if Bloomberg is the only one you accuse of some form of mothering or knowing what's best for everyone. The judge is the mirror image of Bloomberg. They are both elites who would protect us from the consequences of our actions, whether it be drinking big sodas or electing dummies like Bloomberg.

[adamgator96]

Originally Posted by rivergator

maybe you should read my earlier comments on the law before claiming you know what I think about it.

I was confused. You said you didn't like the ban but then you mentioned 30 minutes of walking being insufficient to burn off a 44oz soda.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by adamgator96

I was confused. You said you didn't like the ban but then you mentioned 30 minutes of walking being insufficient to burn off a 44oz soda.

I don't, and it isn't.

[Dreamliner]

30 minutes of exercise isn't enough to burn off a wholegrain veggie wrap, for that matter. And for some, it is probably barely enough to burn off a large banana.

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Do you really think this was a law that was going to stop someone from being fat? You can't think for people.

did you really read what I wrote?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

did you really read what I wrote?

Yes, and it appears you believe like Bloomberg that good health can somehow be legislated.