• 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

from my remote vantage, i had viewed bloomberg as a very bright man dedicated to public service
but wondered if i had over-estimated him after his no-large-soda decree
it appeared to be a solution in search of a problem
that he would appeal this ruling confirms my over-estimation
 
laska said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kids, or rather their parents, arent forced to buy soda. Therefore the food and beverage industry arent responsible. They offer something someone else wants.

Youre right on health costs though. The govt forces healthy people to pay for others health needs through taxes. Im perfectly ok with ending those taxes and subsidies of healthcare.
 
laska said:
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!
Click to expand...

Libertarians would not support govt paying for healthcare, so there is no effect on others.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course my argument goes beyond Bloomberg's policies. And yes I am speaking of banning across the board.
 
jonny5 said:
Libertarians would not support govt paying for healthcare, so there is no effect on others.
Click to expand...

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.
 
stonewall50 said:
I think that it is an important question. It tells this little dictator wannabe that we aren't North Korea and he can't make regulations like he pleases. That there are laws and judges will smack him down for being ridiculous. He may be head honcho in NYC...but not in the court of another man.
Click to expand...

In the context that I presented, the question, whether or not it is important, is moot. Bloomberg issued an edict that is impossible to enforce, because people would be buying 2 small drinks, as opposed to 1 large drink. He is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on this lunacy too.
 
laska said:
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.
Click to expand...



Do you agree with this man?

 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ.

Excellent well-reasoned post. I particularly like the cigarette reference. Since you're forced to buy them in packs of 20, you are going to smoke all 20, albeit one at a time. I wonder if selling them individually would have any effect on smokers' cutting down on tobacco use, or if it would be like the 40-ounce drinks versus four ten-ounce drinks?
 
polgara said:
Good morning, CJ.

Excellent well-reasoned post. I particularly like the cigarette reference. Since you're forced to buy them in packs of 20, you are going to smoke all 20, albeit one at a time. I wonder if selling them individually would have any effect on smokers' cutting down on tobacco use, or if it would be like the 40-ounce drinks versus four ten-ounce drinks?
Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P - hope you're well and enjoying a few spring days before the cold hits again tonight/tomorrow.

I'm sure, for some, limiting one time access to a product like cigarettes or softdrinks would be a disincentive to use of that product but likely those who are addicted whether to cigarettes or sugar will find a way to satisfy their need. The softdrink one is really asinine though, since it assumes that if a person doesn't buy a large drink at a fast food place they won't consume the product in large amounts at home.
 
I like the "Do you have a problem with the Law of Gravity" argument.



Yes, I object to the so-called "Law" of gravity. It's unconstitutional and only serves to limit law abiding citizens (as others have ceilings with locks). Further, it's pseudo-science based on "empirical" evidence like "dinosaur" bones and global warming.

In sum, I'd say the "law" of gravity doesn't jive with my observations, research, personal experience or scientific consensus.

There. Now what.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good morning Lady P - hope you're well and enjoying a few spring days before the cold hits again tonight/tomorrow.

I'm sure, for some, limiting one time access to a product like cigarettes or softdrinks would be a disincentive to use of that product but likely those who are addicted whether to cigarettes or sugar will find a way to satisfy their need. The softdrink one is really asinine though, since it assumes that if a person doesn't buy a large drink at a fast food place they won't consume the product in large amounts at home.
Click to expand...

And that's what drones are for....:devil:
 
danarhea said:
In the context that I presented, the question, whether or not it is important, is moot. Bloomberg issued an edict that is impossible to enforce, because people would be buying 2 small drinks, as opposed to 1 large drink. He is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on this lunacy too.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Sadly voters won't see that about Comrade Bloomberg.
 
406301_345694285540789_471283134_n.jpg
 
laska said:
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.
Click to expand...

More to the point it doesn't have to be harmful. There is nothing that I can think of stopping the Legislature from banning big sodas or any soda or anything else for that matter. The judge's ruling pointed out that much. It might be stupid or get all of New York up in arms (the soda ban is very unpopular) and get the legislature voted out of office but it is well within their legal authority to do so.
 
Last edited:
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...

Libertarians beleive in forming groups to mutually protect others, so yes, if they saw someone getting assaulted they would stop it. Same with a bomb in a house. Whats that got to do with healthcare?
 
laska said:
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.
Click to expand...

If so, then have the government ban the sale of all coke, pepsi and any other cola products. The government deemed smoking bad for ones health, yet didn't ban it. I suppose that is because the sale of cigarettes generates so much tax revenues that that revenue took precedence of health issues. The government did increase taxes on tobacco around 10 fold over time.

Perhaps government can ban the sale of legal products, all they can do is require a label.
 
Was a stupid law to begin with. Could of saw this coming.
 
stonewall50 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Doesn't the soda get flat before you finish it, and couldn't you just buy the drink in bottles, so it's sealed before you start drinking it?

As far as the ban goes, no one was banned from buying as much soda as they wanted. The only thing that was banned was cups larger than 16oz. Nothing stopped anyone from buying two 16oz drinks
 
sangha said:
Doesn't the soda get flat before you finish it, and couldn't you just buy the drink in bottles, so it's sealed before you start drinking it?

As far as the ban goes, no one was banned from buying as much soda as they wanted. The only thing that was banned was cups larger than 16oz. Nothing stopped anyone from buying two 16oz drinks
Click to expand...

Then theres no point to the law. People can still drink as much as they want. All you get is more govt inspectors.
 
sangha said:
Doesn't the soda get flat before you finish it, and couldn't you just buy the drink in bottles, so it's sealed before you start drinking it?

As far as the ban goes, no one was banned from buying as much soda as they wanted. The only thing that was banned was cups larger than 16oz. Nothing stopped anyone from buying two 16oz drinks
Click to expand...

Though 2 16 oz drinks would generally cost more than a single 32 oz drink would. Hmmmmmm......I wonder..........
 
Gaius46 said:
Though 2 16 oz drinks would generally cost more than a single 32 oz drink would. Hmmmmmm......I wonder..........
Click to expand...

It would be funny if we found out that Mayor Bloomberg was a major shareholder of Coca Cola. LOL.
 
Aww....Poor baby dictator Bloomberg is sad now.
 
Perotista said:
If so, then have the government ban the sale of all coke, pepsi and any other cola products. The government deemed smoking bad for ones health, yet didn't ban it. I suppose that is because the sale of cigarettes generates so much tax revenues that that revenue took precedence of health issues. The government did increase taxes on tobacco around 10 fold over time.

Perhaps government can ban the sale of legal products, all they can do is require a label.
Click to expand...

Government has the right and it would be wise to ban cola products but then there is the reality that it is likely politically impossible. On those items that this is the case I think they should ban all advertising of the product, make the containers something like all bland plain brown packaging, raise the income taxes on the sellers on the profits of the items and charge added sales tax on users enough to cover the long term health care costs.

My ideal plan(many parts obviously likely politically impossible to enact): regulations that turn food and beverage industry to whole foods and water/pure juice. That would be a drastic change, no cokes, no junk food, no unhealthy fast foods. Make men strong like bull. Drug policy: illegalize cigarettes, alcohol, weed, hard drugs. Allow businesses to sell cigs and alcohol but they get a misdemeanor, have to pay high percentage of profits in taxes, no advertising of any kind, and they must card users to make sure they have registered with the government as users to pay 5% extra income tax each year and/or community service. Users also get a yearly misdemeanor besides paying 5% extra income tax. Weed, users no jail time also and pay the same 5% extra income tax and get misdemeanor but sellers get 3 to 5 yr jail sentence. Hard drugs, users must pay total of 10% of income and/or community service, no jail time, sellers get automatic 7 yr jail time. Any user who turns in a dealer to police gets immediate small financial award and if dealer is convicted gets his or her yearly income tax/community service penalty for that year reimbursed. The tax revenue raised from all these penalties will go to subsidized, free rehab clinics that people can voluntarily go to if they want to beat their addictions as well to cover health care costs.
 
laska said:
Government has the right...
Click to expand...

Government does not practice rights, so no chance of that. Regardless, people have the right to consume whatever they desire. In order for the government to act they would need to violate this right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom