• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY judge halts Bloomberg ban on large sugary drinks

Maybe you're right.

He could pretend he's a man of the people kind of guy by passing such a law while knowing it will eventually be struck down. But even if that were true he read it wrong.

What's happening with salt? Has there been a SALT treaty yet?

Nah.....he showed he was a man OF people. Specifically his own People! As He personally picked those that would approve of his ban. Thinking there is nothing wrong with this. Hopefully his Appeal with be throw out based on that alone. Let alone trying to think for others.
 
I agree. No government has the right or power to tell me what I can't eat or drink. But what was really stupid about Bloomberg's directive, was one could get all the refills you wanted.

Government has the right to ban businesses from selling harmful products, especially given taxpayers end up footing the bill on a lot of health care costs. Pass me the burrito and mountain dew.
 
Meanwhile, 80% of NYC high school students graduate practically illiterate.....priorities.

And obesity, cancer, diabetes, high health care costs run rampant. Take Tongan people, on the islands that are on traditional whole food diet the best athletes come from and there is no trace of cancer, diabetes, etc. The islands that have adopted the western diet have high rates of these diseases. Wise government would protect freedom and stop the for profit food and beverage industries from addicting people on sugar highs to maximize profits and slowly killing people. They kill far more people than we lose in wars like WWii and Vietnam. So I say kudos to Bloomberg.
 
Who really didn't see this coming from a mile away?

The idea that an individual can ban (or limit) the amount of what an individual can consume is down right crazy in my mind - however it is a Tenth Amendment issue and the SCOTUS smashed that setting more precedence they control all of us as a whole... So this is not a victory for us - it's a victory for them.

These crazy ass cats will look back on this case - point fingers and say "see the Tenth is moot."

No one should be clapping their hands here because this is a defeat in my book - but a win-win for the totalitarian Nazi's.
 
The idea that an individual can ban (or limit) the amount of what an individual can consume is down right crazy in my mind - however it is a Tenth Amendment issue and the SCOTUS smashed that setting more precedence they control all of us as a whole... So this is not a victory for us - it's a victory for them.

These crazy ass cats will look back on this case - point fingers and say "see the Tenth is moot."

No one should be clapping their hands here because this is a defeat in my book - but a win-win for the totalitarian Nazi's.

Exactly how is a court stopping a city from banning large soda's a victory for totalitarian Nazi's?
 
Exactly how is a court stopping a city from banning large soda's a victory for totalitarian Nazi's?

Because it sets precedence for federal superiority over the state.... Not like the federal government doesn't believe they can "pimp" states.

If we're a democratic republic then I'm Santa.
 
Because it sets precedence for federal superiority over the state.... Not like the federal government doesn't believe they can "pimp" states.

If we're a democratic republic then I'm Santa.

How does it do that? It was a state judge that shot this down, not a federal judge.
 
Good ruling IMHO
 
Just curious: How many people here ever drink 32oz's of soda at one sitting?

I can. I like getting them for road trips so I can sip on something the whole way.

But who cares? Shouldn't we have a right to drink whatever we want in the quantity we want? Or is that just too much freedom?
 
And obesity, cancer, diabetes, high health care costs run rampant. Take Tongan people, on the islands that are on traditional whole food diet the best athletes come from and there is no trace of cancer, diabetes, etc. The islands that have adopted the western diet have high rates of these diseases. Wise government would protect freedom and stop the for profit food and beverage industries from addicting people on sugar highs to maximize profits and slowly killing people. They kill far more people than we lose in wars like WWii and Vietnam. So I say kudos to Bloomberg.

Wow. So you are pro nanny state? Why not support healthy food choices? Why must you restrict someone from picking a drink of the size of their choice? Who cares about Tongan. We live in America and we have this thing called freedom. Arbitrary limits and laws with economic loopholes that are made so that certain people making the law can profit...are kind of a huge deal.

Obviously a judge recognized the idiocy of bloombergs little police state/dictatorship/nannyism and decided to smack it down. Justice system won't let the precedent for a dictatorship pass. Awesome.
 
Just curious: How many people here ever drink 32oz's of soda at one sitting?

I don't even drink soda, I can make big boy decisions call by myself. **** anyone who tries to make them for me.

I can. I like getting them for road trips so I can sip on something the whole way.

But who cares? Shouldn't we have a right to drink whatever we want in the quantity we want? Or is that just too much freedom?

For the likes of him and haymarket, any freedom is too much freedom. "You are free to do as we tell you!"
 
Because it sets precedence for federal superiority over the state.... Not like the federal government doesn't believe they can "pimp" states.

If we're a democratic republic then I'm Santa.

Hello Santa,

It wasn't the federal judge that did this, it was the STATE supreme court judge that did it.

Or perhaps is this just part of the time collapse that has already occured due to the future change in Florida going away from the DST that you are predicting?
 
I don't even drink soda, I can make big boy decisions call by myself. **** anyone who tries to make them for me.

For the likes of him and haymarket, any freedom is too much freedom. "You are free to do as we tell you!"

I know this isn't Bloomberg's reasoning behind doing this, however, the counter of not having a soda ban (Or any food ban for that manner) should be that obese people should pay higher insurance premiums for their "big boy" choices when their obescity starts to cause illnesses and diseases that need to be covered by medical costs.

If people are going to make bad choices on their health, other healthy people shouldn't be stuck with their bill and be charged at the same rate.

Again, just in case anyone is getting confused with what I'm saying, I don't want government intervention on food and drink. I just think that people should be responsible for their decisions as well.
 
I know this isn't Bloomberg's reasoning behind doing this, however, the counter of not having a soda ban (Or any food ban for that manner) should be that obese people should pay higher insurance premiums for their "big boy" choices when their obescity starts to cause illnesses and diseases that need to be covered by medical costs.

If people are going to make bad choices on their health, other healthy people shouldn't be stuck with their bill and be charged at the same rate.

Again, just in case anyone is getting confused with what I'm saying, I don't want government intervention on food and drink. I just think that people should be responsible for their decisions as well.

Good point. Why did PPACA outlaw using any health risk factors except for age and smoking? Any sane person knows that obesity and gender are very good predictors of medical care costs, especially when you "mandate" that all birth control and preventive care be given "at no added cost" to the insured. When the gov't makes decisions it is about what is politically popular not about what makes sense.
 
How does it do that? It was a state judge that shot this down, not a federal judge.

Once Obamacare is fully implemented the State will have control of what you eat and drink with the argument that you are a health risk and thus a cost to the State. There are millions of Bloomberg types in this world who want to manage other people's lives, and Obama care has provided a great opportunity for them.
 
NY judge halts Bloomberg ban on large sugary drinks

:lamo Bloomberg, what a jack ass. :lamo He should pay more attention to running the city rather than trying to tell other people how to live...But like most statists, he just can't help himself....No wonder people are fleeing the NE.
 
Just curious: How many people here ever drink 32oz's of soda at one sitting?

I do. And Im obese. My problem, no one elses. And its because I get far more calories from fried chicken and cookies, with no excercise. Soda is the least of my problems.
 
Last edited:
And obesity, cancer, diabetes, high health care costs run rampant. Take Tongan people, on the islands that are on traditional whole food diet the best athletes come from and there is no trace of cancer, diabetes, etc. The islands that have adopted the western diet have high rates of these diseases. Wise government would protect freedom and stop the for profit food and beverage industries from addicting people on sugar highs to maximize profits and slowly killing people. They kill far more people than we lose in wars like WWii and Vietnam. So I say kudos to Bloomberg.

People should be free to kill themselves. Telling them they cant is the opposite of freedom.
 
I know this isn't Bloomberg's reasoning behind doing this, however, the counter of not having a soda ban (Or any food ban for that manner) should be that obese people should pay higher insurance premiums for their "big boy" choices when their obescity starts to cause illnesses and diseases that need to be covered by medical costs.

If people are going to make bad choices on their health, other healthy people shouldn't be stuck with their bill and be charged at the same rate.

Again, just in case anyone is getting confused with what I'm saying, I don't want government intervention on food and drink. I just think that people should be responsible for their decisions as well.

What happened to that great American principle of equality under the law? Why stop at obese people? Besides, don't obese people, those who smoke, those who participate in risky activity, etc. already pay higher health insurance premiums based on their lifestyle choices? And since when in America are other people paying for a person's healthcare services? Do you think doing a knee replacement operation on an obese person costs more than a knee replacement operation on a fit jogger who blows out his/her knee? Why not charge more for operations on athletes since they're far more likely to break something than the average person.

There are very few people alive who won't avoid the purchase of healthcare services as much as they possibly can. People don't consume certain foods/beverages because they want to screw the healthcare system. Mostly, they consume them because they taste good and they cost less than many healthy choices.

This bylaw was struck down for the simple reason that it treated the same product differently in two different settings. You could buy a bottled beverage in the local grocery store but you couldn't buy the same product, the same size, next door at the McDonalds. It was also struck down because it was created by an unelected body that was not accountable to the public - the Bloomberg appointed health board.

I find it remarkable that some people in a free society think it's okay to have a single person or a small group of people dictate to over 8 million people in metropolitan New York what size softdrink they can purchase.
 
What happened to that great American principle of equality under the law? Why stop at obese people? Besides, don't obese people, those who smoke, those who participate in risky activity, etc. already pay higher health insurance premiums based on their lifestyle choices?

Smokers do, but in many cases higher risk people that are Obsese, or those who partisicpate in risky activities DON'T pay more and that is the issue.

And since when in America are other people paying for a person's healthcare services? Do you think doing a knee replacement operation on an obese person costs more than a knee replacement operation on a fit jogger who blows out his/her knee? Why not charge more for operations on athletes since they're far more likely to break something than the average person.

I was mainly refering to things like Diabetis, liver damage, etc. But yes, knee replacements could be included in that as well.

There are very few people alive who won't avoid the purchase of healthcare services as much as they possibly can. People don't consume certain foods/beverages because they want to screw the healthcare system. Mostly, they consume them because they taste good and they cost less than many healthy choices.

If obescity is not included, why have smokers pay more than?

This bylaw was struck down for the simple reason that it treated the same product differently in two different settings. You could buy a bottled beverage in the local grocery store but you couldn't buy the same product, the same size, next door at the McDonalds. It was also struck down because it was created by an unelected body that was not accountable to the public - the Bloomberg appointed health board.

Like I said, I don't buy Bloomberg's reasoning nor do I buy into having the government do that. However, I do think there are risky behaviors that should charge more than those that aren't doing those risky behaviors.

I find it remarkable that some people in a free society think it's okay to have a single person or a small group of people dictate to over 8 million people in metropolitan New York what size softdrink they can purchase.

I don't think it's okay for government to decide that.
 
Any free society must have rule of law. A lot of my political philosophy derives from understanding existence requires opposing forces in all things and laws that organize creations. In a broud spiritual/physical sense that means if there is light there must be darkness and laws organize each. Obedience to laws that organize light bring blessings and freedom, obedience to laws that organize darkness brings misery and slavery. So if there is good health of the body then there is bad health, laws pertaining to each, freedom is obedience to healthy nutritional laws, you avoid disease, have ability to live live like you want and not be enslaved by sickness and disease. The purpose of government is to protect freedom. Laws should mirror the laws found in nature of, speaking broadly, that of light, anything good. Shuld companies be able to have the "freedom" of massively polluting the environment or should laws be against it to protect the real freedom of everyone having clean air to breathe and pure water to drink. Obviously a no brainer real freedom here requires laws that restrict the negative actions of the polluting companies. The food and beverage industry knowingly designs foods that takes out key nutrients in order to keep the feeling full mechanism of the body out of the way and loads it with corn syrup and sugar so kids and everyone else get addicted to the sugar highs. This drastically increases demand and profits. We know these processed foods cause high rates of all kinds of diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Weakens the people of the nation. For example cancer, I have read where some doctors think pretty much most healthy people produce cancer cells but that the immune system in a healthy person destroys them before they spread. But sugar causes the immune system to sleep for up to 8 hours. So a diet high in sugar causes a weaker immune system. So we let these companies get pretty much all of our kids addicted for life to these products and lessen their freedom throughout life with weaker bodies and millions of people suffer horrible painful deaths from all the diseases from the diet. So yes, I would like to have government pass laws that turn the entire food and beverage industry to whole foods and water/natural juices. People will have the freedom of course to buy whatever whole foods they want, and they can create anything unhealthy they want in their own kitchens. load up on the lard, grease, whatever. But businesses should not be able to sell these things.

If you are against regulation of the food and beverage industries do you think they should be allowed to put anything in the food, cocaine, rat poison, etc? Are you against rules of behavior at your job, I mean that is restricting your "freedom". Do you have a problem with laws of gravity" It restricts your freedom from jumping off a cliff.
 
People should be free to kill themselves. Telling them they cant is the opposite of freedom.

Maybe but can you have the freedom to kill others. Food and beverage industry sells to kids their addictive and harmful products. Also healthy people pay for a lot of health care costs of people making bad nutritional choices.
 
I actually think life is a gift. We didn't create it so suicide is wrong. and should be illegal also. I'd be a big hit at Libertarian rallies. Freedom to do anything and everything we want YEAH!!! Too bad there must be cause and effect. Boo!
 
If you are against regulation of the food and beverage industries do you think they should be allowed to put anything in the food, cocaine, rat poison, etc? Are you against rules of behavior at your job, I mean that is restricting your "freedom". Do you have a problem with laws of gravity" It restricts your freedom from jumping off a cliff.

Your argument is not related to the issue at hand. This is not a case about regulating the food and beverage industry since the bylaw did not ban the sale of the product, it only banned the sale of the product in certain sizes at certain locations. Under the bylaw, I could walk into McDonalds and buy four 10 ounce Cokes but I couldn't buy one 40 ounce Coke. Likewise, I could walk into the local grocery store and buy a family size bottle of Coke but I couldn't buy the 40 ounce cup next door at McDonalds.

It would be an entirely different discussion if, like with smoking, it was determined that the product itself is inherently unhealthy and its sale should be regulated in all locations equally. With smoking, as an example, you can't freely buy 20 cigarettes individually yet not purchase a package of 20 cigarettes because if you smoke all 20 you do more harm to yourself than if you smoke just one.

I may be far more in line with your position if you were to be in favor of banning certain levels of sugar from all products - but then you'd have the good folks in Louisiana after you - I'm strongly opposed to any attempt to limit consumption of a legal product.
 
Back
Top Bottom