• 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

Perhaps Bloomie will get inventive and take a page from Obama.

You can buy that 32oz. beverage, but the City of New York will put an excise "tax" on the soda itself, leaving you with only 16 oz or less. This "tax" you pay at the fountain in the form of 16 oz. cups. You can buy 32, 64, 128 oz. cups of soda all you'd like, however the only portion which is yours after the soda "tax" will be 16 oz.

There ya go Bloomie, may your tyrannical reign never be darkened again...
 
CanadaJohn said:
Courts should not be wasting time righting the wrongs of old nannies trying to dictate private behavior.
Click to expand...

This has been standard U.S. policy since the early 20th century, yet in this case Bloomberg is not prohibiting soft drinks.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's sad that the matter had to go to court to be tossed out as ridiculous. What happened to the savvy, independent, strong willed people of New York who at one time would have forced Bloomberg to rescind this nut-case bylaw without going to court? Courts should not be wasting time righting the wrongs of old nannies trying to dictate private behavior. If this man still foolishly harbors any ambition to run for President, hopefully this stunt will forewarn the American people.
Click to expand...

They need to run that dumb son of a bitch out of town, next election.
 
laska said:
Ok all the donuts and big gulps you want.
Click to expand...

Good. I don't like big gulps and I'm not a huge donut fan (I'm not a New York cop). But as long as I have the freedom of choice I am happy.
 
I apologize for the tone and personal attacks I've had in this thread. Me hate politics. Adios good amigos.
 
Probably the right choice. Not that people shouldn't be drinking such awful crap in large quantities, but this was an overreach.
 
American said:
They need to run that dumb son of a bitch out of town, next election.
Click to expand...

NYC has a three term limit for mayor and Bloomberg is in his third term, which ends at the end of this year. NYC used to have a two term limit but Bloomberg successfully lobbied to have that changed so he could get his third term.

( The two term limit btw was passed via voter referendum in the early 90s. The city council overturned the referendum in 2008 allowing Bloomberg his third term.)
 
sangha said:
Just curious: How many people here ever drink 32oz's of soda at one sitting?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I do rather often when I eat lunch in fast food joints such as McDonalds, Wendy's, etc.

I usually just get the biggest sized cup they have (32oz? 42oz? or whatever it is) and fill the cup about 3/4ths of the way up with ice. Then go back for refills as necessary. And get another refill for the road on my way out the door. And sometimes I'll have a flask of Captain Morgan or JD to mix with it because generally they don't serve alcohol at fast food joints in the USA. You have to bring your own.
 
pbrauer said:
The Free market wins. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

The same statement should be a common mantra with healthcare, and all businesses. Instead we have a nanny state sticking their fingers in business at every turn... and guys like you who are defenders of it. It's funny... a soda size is intrusion... but all the others are "assistance" for the "common good".

Dis-con-nect.

PS. I'm not talking about having anarchy, but the embracing of socialist over reach... and the negative consequences associated with it. BUT... if the size of a drink can get the most ardent Commi-Libs to scream Nanny State... at least we have start or reference point to help you folks understand the loss of Liberty.

That is Bloomberg's greatest gift... and perhaps a few of the badly informed Socialist of Amerika Partei (SAP) members will begin to catch on to the damage Parasite Nation breeds.
 
The legal question really isn't about "sugary drinks." It is about whether Bloomberg can bypass the city council and instead use his own bueacracy to circumvent the elected city council to unilaterally create laws.

The court noted that the board that Bloomberg had outlaw large drinks but only for certain businesses was by a board 100% appointed by him declaring it an administrative code - completely bypassing the city counsel, which is who has the actual authority to establish city ordinances.

So the issue really isn't "sugarery drinks." It is whether Bloomberg could declare himself God of New York City in defiance of the elected City Council members.
 
joko104 said:
The legal question really isn't about "sugary drinks." It is about whether Bloomberg can bypass the city council and instead use his own bueacracy to circumvent the elected city council to unilaterally create laws.

The court noted that the board that Bloomberg had outlaw large drinks but only for certain businesses was by a board 100% appointed by him declaring it an administrative code - completely bypassing the city counsel, which is who has the actual authority to establish city ordinances.

So the issue really isn't "sugarery drinks." It is whether Bloomberg could declare himself God of New York City in defiance of the elected City Council members.
Click to expand...

Thats the legal issue. The fundemental issue is whether govt should be telling people how much water and sugar they can drink. Personally, I cant even wrap my head around why anything thinks this was ok.
 
Muhammed said:
I'm pretty sure I do rather often when I eat lunch in fast food joints such as McDonalds, Wendy's, etc.

I usually just get the biggest sized cup they have (32oz? 42oz? or whatever it is) and fill the cup about 3/4ths of the way up with ice. Then go back for refills as necessary. And get another refill for the road on my way out the door. And sometimes I'll have a flask of Captain Morgan or JD to mix with it because generally they don't serve alcohol at fast food joints in the USA. You have to bring your own.
Click to expand...

Oh that's great....And when your drunk arse kills someone on the way home, I am sure you'll say it's Mickey-D's fault for providing you the mixer, and ice.
 
MMC said:
yes.gif
A defeat for Bloomberg. Judge layed into him too!
icon_thumright.gif


In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health's mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don't include the authority to "limit or ban a legal item under the guise of 'controlling chronic disease.' "

The board may supervise and regulate the city's food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken: According to Judge Tingling, the city must face imminent danger due to disease.

"That has not been demonstrated," he wrote.

Judge Tingling also suggested that Mr. Bloomberg overstepped his powers by bringing the sugary drink rules before the Board of Health, which is solely appointed by him. The City Council, he wrote, is the legislative body "and it alone has the authority to legislate as the board seeks to do here."


It's also good to know that Bloomberg would overstep his bounds.....especially if he decides to run for the Presidency. ;)
Click to expand...

Underlined and red: If this is true then it could be made into a case against Bloomberg's rules on smokeing in open areas like parks and such. Hope it is true and that it does happen. Sick and tired of people always targeting smokers.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Underlined and red: If this is true then it could be made into a case against Bloomberg's rules on smokeing in open areas like parks and such. Hope it is true and that it does happen. Sick and tired of people always targeting smokers.
Click to expand...

But they still need those Cigarette Taxes.....huh? ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Underlined and red: If this is true then it could be made into a case against Bloomberg's rules on smokeing in open areas like parks and such. Hope it is true and that it does happen. Sick and tired of people always targeting smokers.
Click to expand...

The no smoking laws were passed by the City Council, unlike this soda ban
 
laska said:
They should ask Ron Paul if a woman say is getting assaulted in front of you do you have a moral obligation to stop it as an individual if you can. Libertarian flaw is they support survival of fittest instead of laws pertaining to civilization. Age old question are we our brothers keepers. Also ask Ron Paul sometime if he was president and there was reason to believe there was a nuke in a suitcase in a house that has 30 minutes before it blows, no time for legal search, would he go ahead and let the bomb squad in. I could be wrong but I have a feeling he may say the latter is illegal search and against individual rights and let an entire city get blown up. His philosophy seems to be by the letter, and certain situations common sense would be put aside.
Click to expand...

Umm.... You apparently have no clue about the actual laws pertaining to search and seizure.

That situation you described is already covered by laws/precedent pertaining to the search under exigent circumstances....... granted the information on the nuke being in the home was credible information and not some whack job going up to a random cop and saying, "Thar be a nucululear grenad in da haus!"
 
sangha said:
Just curious: How many people here ever drink 32oz's of soda at one sitting?
Click to expand...
I do. In fact, 32 oz is small for me. I don't drink coffee. I rarely drink alcohol anymore. I rarely drink milk or juice. But, I am a soda-holic. Diet soda (if that makes a difference). That and ice water are my two main drinks.
 
Yesterday Mayor Bloomberg said that he was only, "...encouraging people to make better choices.". (I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty damn close)

Which sounds good on its surface. I just cannot figure out how taking away the ability to make a choice qualifies as being allowed to make a choice. :shrug:
 
sangha said:
The no smoking laws were passed by the City Council, unlike this soda ban
Click to expand...

The fact that the soda ban was enacted by that council is only part of the reason that the judge rejected it. The part that I underlined and put in red is the part that I was talking about. Here..."the city must face imminent danger due to disease."
 
Kal'Stang said:
The fact that the soda ban was enacted by that council is only part of the reason that the judge rejected it. The part that I underlined and put in red is the part that I was talking about. Here..."the city must face imminent danger due to disease."
Click to expand...

The two are linked. The City Council has not obligation to show that the ]"the city must face imminent danger due to disease." in order to regulate the sale of a product. The BoH does.
 
I guess NYC will soon ban beef from being eaten within city limits due to mad cow creating "imminent danger due to disease".

In the Big Apple, you have no right to high cholestrol.
 
sangha said:
The two are linked. The City Council has not obligation to show that the ]"the city must face imminent danger due to disease." in order to regulate the sale of a product. The BoH does.
Click to expand...

Banning cigarette use, a legal product, in certain area's is not regulating the sale of a product.

And yes, the city council still has to prove that there is a state interest in support of any law that bans something. That is something that is determined by the courts, not some legislative body. The city council could ban the sale of something, but banning the use of a federally legal product is something else entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom