• 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!

Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstitutional

Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

radcen said:
No. Seat belt requirements don't restrict you from driving a high-powered sports car. You still have the right to drive said sports car as much as you want, even though it's probably more dangerous than a plain Honda Accord.
Click to expand...
but its the law in some states of the US I have been to so by not wearing a seatbelt you are breaking the law.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
but its the law in some states of the US I have been to so by not wearing a seatbelt you are breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Right. Just because something is illegal does not automatically mean that said law is reasonable or justifiable. The laws we are using for example purposes here are indeed currently valid laws, but they all have differing intents and/or differing ramifications. Some laws overstep their legitimate bounds, as is the case with the soda law as it limits an otherwise legal activity, and some are legit, as is a seatbelt law as it provides safety without otherwise affecting any activity.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

radcen said:
Right. Just because something is illegal does not automatically mean that said law is reasonable or justifiable. The laws we are using for example purposes here are indeed currently valid laws, but they all have differing intents and/or differing ramifications. Some laws overstep their legitimate bounds, as is the case with the soda law as it limits an otherwise legal activity, and some are legit, as is a seatbelt law as it provides safety without otherwise affecting any activity.
Click to expand...

I don't know to be honest I think this ban was completley justifed when you look at the level of overweight people within the US, I recently saw a list a foods banned in most of the western world but yet was legal in the US. Eventually you will have to face up to your obesity crisis and for me the only way your going to combat it is with big government laws.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
I don't know to be honest I think this ban was completley justifed when you look at the level of overweight people within the US, I recently saw a list a foods banned in most of the western world but yet was legal in the US. Eventually you will have to face up to your obesity crisis and for me the only way your going to combat it is with big government laws.
Click to expand...

We agree that obesity is an issue. We disagree on what is the legitimate bounds of government involvement.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

radcen said:
We agree that obesity is an issue. We disagree on what is the legitimate bounds of government involvement.
Click to expand...

But do you think people can solve the issue themselves?
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
But do you think people can solve the issue themselves?
Click to expand...

If it's important enough to them, then yes. If it's not important to them, then no, and if it's not important to them they'll skirt the laws anyway.

Be that as it may, it's simply not the government's legitimate business to intrude that deep into individual people's lives.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
but its fine to tell women what they can do with their wombs. Odd country.
Click to expand...

sorry but you not stating that right, people on the opposite side of abortion, are concerned about the life inside the woman....not her body.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

ernst barkmann said:
sorry but you not stating that right, people on the opposite side of abortion, are concerned about the life inside the woman....not her body.
Click to expand...

It always seems that those on the left decry those on the right "telling women what they can do with their bodies", then turn around on other issues and use abortion as justification for telling others what they can do with their bodies.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

radcen said:
It always seems that those on the left decry those on the right "telling women what they can do with their bodies", then turn around on other issues and use abortion as justification for telling others what they can do with their bodies.
Click to expand...


those on the right who oppose abortion, only care about the life inside of a woman, they dont care about her body in general.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

radcen said:
If it's important enough to them, then yes. If it's not important to them, then no, and if it's not important to them they'll skirt the laws anyway.

Be that as it may, it's simply not the government's legitimate business to intrude that deep into individual people's lives.
Click to expand...

its the governments business when it becomes a national security issue which of course it will be in about 20-30 years when your workforce is depleted and the number of obese people claiming disablility, using gov paid healthcare etc is too high to fund.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
its the governments business when it becomes a national security issue which of course it will be in about 20-30 years when your workforce is depleted and the number of obese people claiming disablility, using gov paid healthcare etc is too high to fund.
Click to expand...

thats ridiculous...because that would mean government is opened ended to do anything becuase they think using security as an issue....

government is limited to 18 powers.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

I find it refreshing that a court can still do something that makes sense. however, it won't stand forever. The idiots that elected someone such as hizhonor will turn right around and elect someone just as bad or worse. And the next mayor will feel compelled to control peoples lives just like Doomburg does. And the idiots will fall in line because big brother knows best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom