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.
If people want to drive a car without wearing a seat belt then let them
In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming themselves.
How's that web hosting business you're spamming your sig line coming?
Well, I've used it for my own site for a number of years, as have a few of my friends, and we've all gotten good service. And, except for the fact that I get a little bit taken off my bill if somebody follows that link and signs up with them, I have no business relationship with them except as a customer. And, as far as my post being just an excuse to post something, I, at least, prefer to post only when I have something to say.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Bloomberg is a billionaire. I don't believe for a second he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart. If the guy really gave a flying fark about the poor there's a thousand and one things he could be doing. Maybe this is punishment to the local soda manufacturers? It's just too silly a thing to push when it means going up against companies like Coke & Pepsi, who aren't exactly well known for taking things lying down.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Here in Canada we have a strategy that works. For tobacco, which is clearly proven to cause a range of costly health problems, we levy a tax that the government uses to cover the extra public healthcare costs that come from smoking. All Canadians get the same public funded healthcare. The ones who are doing something that clearly puts a larger burden on the system pay for it.
Here in Canada we have a strategy that works.
Sure, it "works," if you want to arbitrarily punish smokers. (For the record, I'm NOT a smoker, not that it should matter.)
For tobacco, which is clearly proven to cause a range of costly health problems, we levy a tax that the government uses to cover the extra public healthcare costs that come from smoking.
So, do you also levy a higher tax on NON-smokers, since many studies on the issue have shown that any additional cost due to smoking is outweighed by the additional costs of living longer and needing extended medical care for decades into old age. (Lung cancer may be expensive, but it often kills before all those long degenerative diseases set in.)
Seriously, look it up. One study in the U.S. concluded that smokers save society 32 cents for every cigarette they smoke. (And that's only accounting for health care and such -- it doesn't include additional taxes like the one you're talking about that arbitrarily punish smokers.)
All Canadians get the same public funded healthcare. The ones who are doing something that clearly puts a larger burden on the system pay for it.
If you're charging an annual health premium (like American private insurance), you should be charging smokers more. BUT, if you're taxing people for life-long health care cost, you should be SUBSIDIZING smoking... because they're saving you all those long-term costs of various old-age diseases... well, that is if you really want everyone to pay according to their own "burden" on the system.
I guess believing in governmental boundaries makes me a republican.
You seem to forget that you can't smoke anywhere in NYC except your personal property. They've done everything they legally can do to ban them.
I'm in NYC right now, visiting for a physics conference.
To an outsider, New Yorkers seem uniquely willing to deal with (and, when in charge, impose) authoritarian rules that people from elsewhere would chafe at. Don't do this; do this; everything in New York seems over-regulated. It's not just from the government; it's everywhere. I'm staying in a dormitory at Columbia University, and the rules on how guest passes work are quite asinine. The plenary talks at the conference have free bottled water and coffee provided (the conference organizers have paid Columbia's chosen caterer for this already), but bring in any of your own water bottles and it's a $1000 (!) fine. [This is different from the standard "no outside food" rule at restaurants, since they want you to buy their stuff; in this case the catering is all already paid for.]
I was also fortunate enough to get to perform in Carnegie Hall a few months ago with a choir I sing with. During our rehearsal, the conductor wanted her podium moved a few inches to get out of the way of a troupe of dancers sharing the stage. She wasn't allowed to move this simple block of wood three inches; someone had to go get a union stagehand, since it was made very clear to us: the union stagehands, by the terms of their contract, are the only ones allowed to touch anything, including things as mundane as music stands.
For whatever reason, New York is full of rules. Maybe some of them are necessary to keep eight million people crammed into this sardine can from hurting each other, but this has so conditioned the people here to obey unnecessary rules that people go along with it.