Slashdot Mirror


NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks

mpicpp writes with good news for every New Yorker who needs 44oz of soft drink to be refreshed. New York's Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that New York City's ban on large sugary drinks, which was previously blocked by lower courts, is illegal. "We hold that the New York City Board of Health, in adopting the 'Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule,' exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority," the ruling said. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had pushed for the ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces as a way to fight obesity and other health problems.

6 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. Let them drink! by exomondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people want to smash down 44oz of sugar like that then let them. If you need to regulate that then really you have to wonder about the intelligence of the sort of people you are imposing the ban on, the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice! It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.

    1. Re:Let them drink! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that something has an indirect effect on others is no reason to ban it, especially in the so-called "land of the free." Just about everything has some indirect effect on others. Hobbyist mountain climbing? Can't do that, as you might hurt yourself and damage your family emotionally and cost taxpayers money. Ice skating? Video gaming? Same thing. Get rid of all unnecessary activities, because otherwise you might indirectly affect others!

      Nah. I'd rather pay more taxes, thanks.

    2. Re:Let them drink! by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know if the above poster was sincere or sarcastic, but this does illustrate a slippery slope. Nobody would care about bad eating habits, if they had decided, for example, to let everyone fend for themselves.

      But having decided that free health care should be extended to people who have bad eating habits (and make other poor decisions), now the rationalization exists to regulate and control those peoples' eating habits. An act of tyranny follows a supposed act of charity.

      It's never just accepted that some people will make bad decisions in a democratic society and to just suck up the cost of that.

  2. The Sugary Slope by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As well-intentioned as the prohibition on large, unhealthy soft drinks may sound, we are generally better for less government intrusion into our everyday lives.

    Remember, every intrusion will sound good to some segment of the population.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  3. Not about consumption, but about sales by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people want to smash down 44fl oz of sugar like that then let them. If you need to regulate that

    But it wasn't going to regulate people drinking 44fl oz of whatever, or even 16.5fl oz

    If a patron wanted, there was nothing stopping them from buying, say, 3 x 16fl oz drinks and gulp that all up. Alternatively, there was nothing stopping them from getting one 16fl oz drink and going for refills.

    This was entirely on businesses, disallowing them to sell anything over 16fl oz.

    Changing it to say that they wanted to prohibit people from drinking more than that certainly incensed people who are against government intrusion into personal affairs - but that really only helped the case of businesses who would rather sell you one bigger drink of which more is likely to just get tossed anyway or drank because people didn't want to toss it so they drank more than they actually wanted, than that they sell you a smaller drink and then have more people realize that they really don't want any more than that.
    There's a reason that the other party was "the American Beverage Association" and not, say, the ACLU or some rights group that defends individuals' personal freedoms (rather than business' freedoms).

    That's what the goal was, which as a side-effect may have been that people would drink less of it - but if they really wanted to, they could always go and drink more.

    Well, that and of course tell people what to eat, when to eat, and how to eat. /sarcasm

    So if there's any argument to be had, it should be about whether businesses should be free to serve whatever size drink they damn well please, no matter the content (aside from those regulated already, like liquor).

  4. Re:Praise the Courts by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I feel abortion is wrong but have come to conclude it is pointless to argue the point. Instead maybe we could agree to do something to make it unnecessary. The number of unplanned pregnancies in the US every year is Insane. Maybe we could just work together on that and then most of these abortions need never happen.