Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-want-the-jumbo dept.

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.

40 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 TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

      It isn't harming anybody else.

      It is when the centre of mass of Earth is drifting towards North America. Won't somebody please think of orbital nutation?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Let them drink! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That kind of crap can be used to justify anything any government anywhere ever wanted to do.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Let them drink! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By all means make them buy two 22oz drinks instead. That will definitely solve the problem.

    5. Re:Let them drink! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the solution is for the government and the taxpayers to tell the fat asses and poor people to fuck off and pay for their own healthcare.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:Let them drink! by russotto · · Score: 3, 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.

      Those of us opposed to government-provided health care have been pointing this out for decades; that once you have the government providing health care, that can be used as an excuse to control everything and anything which could affect anyone's health. Of course proponents poo-poohed that and said we were paranoid and yelled "slippery slope fallacy".

    8. Re:Let them drink! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the US, virtually nobody is getting free healthcare.

      Arguably people on Medicaid who have never had a job before are getting free health care, Very few adults are in that category.

      --AC

    9. Re:Let them drink! by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming others.

      FTFY

      And before you go there, there is also "In civilized society we do not impose rules that force people to harm others."

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    10. Re:Let them drink! by terrab0t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:Let them drink! by jeIlomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While it's true that Republicans tend to use proven facts and make decisions based on them (unlike liberals)

      What? Anyone who votes for either party (Republican or Democrat) is voting for evil scumbags who only seek to take away our rights. They're idiots fooled into accepting a false dichotomy. The only proven fact is that both parties want to shred the constitution and our fundamental liberties, so if people truly opposed that, they wouldn't be voting for the scumbags put forth by The One Party.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:Let them drink! by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The many other countries in the west with proper healthcare have managed to limit their meddling to a few PSAs urging healthy eating and such.

      When is the last time you saw the health police whipping overweight joggers through the streets of London?

    13. Re:Let them drink! by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And lo and behold, NYCs attempt to bring your fears to life were promptly shot down by the courts. So I guess it's not actually the problem you thought it was.

    14. Re:Let them drink! by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The many other countries in the west with proper healthcare have managed to limit their meddling to a few PSAs urging healthy eating and such.

      When is the last time you saw the health police whipping overweight joggers through the streets of London?

      If the US taxed corn syrup, instead of subsidizing it, that would be a start. Soft drnks are very modestly sized in every foreign country I have been in. Coincidentally, all those foreign countries use real sugar instead of corn syrup in their fizzy drinks.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    15. Re:Let them drink! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    16. Re:Let them drink! by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For each one of those arbitrary laws that are stopped at least a couple more pass. The number of absurd laws that try to protect people from themselves is inexorably growing.

    17. Re:Let them drink! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there a per jump tax on skydiving or how do you'll handle that?

      No, as it is not proven to be a measurable burden on the system beyond the cover provided by the base rate funded by taxpayers.

      Is there a per mile tax on mountain biking or how do you'll handle that.

      As above.

      Is there a tax on watching TV (instead of exercising)?

      No, watching TV is not in itself unhealthy.

      On reading (instead of exercising)?

      As above.

      Is there a tax on flab?

      No.

      How, exactly, does all this work?

      A base rate is funded by the taxpayers, activities (like smoking) that provide a significant and measurable burden to the system beyond what is funded by the taxpayers is taxed to reduce that additional burden.

      A simple google search should help you to understand further details about how the Canadian system works.

    18. Re:Let them drink! by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there a per jump tax on skydiving or how do you'll handle that?

      How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from skydiving?

      Is there a per mile tax on mountain biking or how do you'll handle that.

      How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from mountain biking?

      Is there a tax on watching TV

      How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from watching TV?

      How, exactly, does all this work?

      Well first of all I shoot down your hyperbole. Then I explain how horribly wrong you are

      None of the things you listed are inherently unhealthy. Every cigarette does damage, there is no healthy way to smoke and it does cost a lot of money. Significant portions of your health insurance goes to keeping smokers alive, in places like Canada and Australia where tobacco is heavily taxed this is recouped directly from the smokers and not from me (a non-smoker). In places like the US, this comes from general revenue collected from everyone.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:Let them drink! by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That ongoing march has been happening for decades. Well before even a hint of a public conversation about universal healthcare. Whatever is to blame, it's not healthcare.

    20. Re:Let them drink! by mattack2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with getting rid of the subsidy (and all other subsidies, even ones I like), but why tax it any more than sugar? Are you one of those who have unscientific beliefs that corn syrup is worse than any other sugar?

    21. Re:Let them drink! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, I know when I bring this up, it's bound to be controversial. But the research is easily found. Here's a reasonable summary (for a popular media story). Some interesting passages:

      [S]mokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

      Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

      [SNIP]

      Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.

      A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

      The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

      Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.

      "We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."

      So, what's the REAL reason governments do this?

      The goal of the U.S. health care system is "prolonging disability-free life," states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. "Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."

      In other words -- governments deliberately avoid talking about the issue, lest it seem to encourage people to smoke.

      By the way, there are similar studies about obesity -- in the end, it's not about savings.

    22. Re:Let them drink! by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bad voting habits are associated with the lower class, and the lower class is likely to vote for measures that are neither sustainable nor healthy for society. So yes, their voting does have an affect on the people around them, and should be regulated.

      Wait, this is starting to sound like a really terrible line of reasoning.

    23. Re:Let them drink! by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess believing in governmental boundaries makes me a republican.

    24. Re:Let them drink! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many hospitalisations per 100,000 pop are there from mountain biking?

      According to the British Medical Bulletin, people racing mountain bikes experience 4 serious injuries per 100 hours of riding.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:Let them drink! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      You may want to take that study that says smokers save society money with a MASSIVE grain of salt

      I do. Which is the reason I provided the subsequent post which references a couple more studies. And I've seen at least three or four more studies on this topic which came to similar conclusions (and most of these done by people who have no relation to the tobacco industry).

      If you've seen an economic analysis of smoking effects that comes to a different conclusion about overall lifetime healthcare and societal costs for smoking (not per year), please cite it for comparison.

    26. Re:Let them drink! by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, current healthcare laws are certainly not THE thing to blame, they are just part of the problem, a problem that started decades ago, when people began to naively think that the government is a magic entity with infinite resources and can solve all of humanities problems.

    27. Re:Let them drink! by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Informative

      we levy a tax that the government uses to cover the extra public healthcare costs that come from smoking.

      The US had that too. It's called the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. The idea was that tobacco companies would pay a one time fine(s) and a portion of their revenues in perpetuity, ostensibly to fund health care costs incurred by states providing care to those with tobacco related health problems and also for anti-smoking campaigns to discourage young people from taking up the habit. That was over 20 years ago now. What happened you ask? Well, the states were greedy and impatient. They wanted money now to spend on other things, so they bundled up most of their rights to the periodic payments into a series of bonds and sold them to get a lump sum now with the added benefit that the proceeds from the bond sales escaped the spending restrictions on the settlement payments. They could spend the bond money on whatever they wanted and they did on just about everything but health care and anti-smoking The part that they didn't sell off, now goes towards shoring up their budgets, although many states still run deficits, with very little actually spent on health care or anti-smoking. This perpetuates a perverse arrangement whereby the states are incentivized to have more young people start using tobacco so that those settlement payments keep rolling in. Not only that, but because the payments are based on tobacco company revenues it's bad for the states if tobacco profits decline because their remaining share then pays even less and they've already anticipated and spent that money in their yearly budgets. The tobacco companies now feed the money addiction of the states, just as they do the nicotine addictions of their smoker customers. The whole thing is just too damn funny, but there's a good lesson in this for the leftists out there. Government is perverse. It subverts any good intentions that you thought it had or wanted it to have and becomes instead a corrupt mockery of high minded liberal ideals. Like smoking, large government is a bad habit that's hard to kick once you get started, even though you know that it's harmful.

    28. Re:Let them drink! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure about you but for me

      It's not about you, nor about me. It's about statistical averages of economic outcomes in society at large.

      the difference would be made up in about 2 years of additional taxes that I get to pay on account of actually being alive not to mention the benefit to the economy of my general activities. Those monies would generally contribute to healthcare effectively repaying the cost of smoking.

      Not on average. When you think of "smokers dying young," you probably think of some tragedy where some 40 or 50-year-old dies of lung cancer and leaves a family behind with some young kids. While that happens, so do random heart attacks (particularly for young males), even if they aren't smokers.

      That's not the typical situation. On average, assuming you survive childhood in a developed country, you're now looking at a life expectancy of over 80 years. So, when we say that smokers lose a decade of lifespan, on average we're talking about people dying on average at 70-75 years old, rather than 80-85 or something.

      How many people are still economically active and still contributing a net positive to society when they're over 70? Not many. They're often receiving Social Security, Medicare, pension or retirement benefits, etc. For the average non-smoker, we're not getting an extra 10 years of economic activity -- we're giving them an extra 10 years of retirement.

      So, no, non-smokers will NOT repay society on average for living longer.

      Otherwise one should consider the best option for society is banning new life altogether.

      No -- that's the wrong conclusion. If you want to be heartless, the "best option" would be killing old people immediately after they retire and cease to be a net contributor to the economy. The "cheapest" person is the active productive smoker who works until he's 65 and drops dead immediately. The "most expensive" person is the non-smoker who lives to be 95 and goes through a litany of knee replacements, convalescence due to hip fracture, treatment of various minor cancers, then spends the last 10 years unable to care for himself due to dementia.

      I'm NOT encouraging people to smoke. I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't value older people and encourage them to live long healthy lives.

      What I am saying is that if we want to discourage people from smoking and ask them to pay more taxes, etc., we should be HONEST about the motivations and say -- "we're punishing you economically because we disapprove of the behavior, we think it's harmful to self and others, and we'd like you to live a long life." We should NOT try to justify such arguments by saying "Well, you cost more, so you have to pay in your fair share," because that's just not true.

    29. Re:Let them drink! by dskoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We here in Canada have government-provided health care, and we don't have restrictive or silly laws that I'm aware of regarding the consumption of unhealthy foods, etc.

      I find the attitude of Americans to government perplexing: They seem to hate government and are viciously opposed to any and all taxation. Well, sorry... you simply cannot run a modern society without some government services and government participation in the economy. IMO, any rich industrialized country that does not provide subsidized health care for its citizens is abdicating its responsibility.

      You also can't run a modern economy properly without some government regulation. The under-regulated US financial system melted down in 2008, costing Americans trillions. The "over-regulated" Canadian banking system sailed through without a hiccup; our banking system is far more robust than that in the US.

      Sometimes it takes government regulation to control the worst instincts of corporations. Corporations are interested only in what benefits them, not in what benefits society.

  2. In other news ... by chuckugly · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next they will outlaw the sales of 2 liter bottles and a straw.

  3. 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

  4. Praise the Courts by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thank you! Government has no business telling us what we can eat and a whole host of other things. Government should be only doing big things like fighting off alien invaders, building interstate highways, governing on a meta scale, etc. What a person does with their own body is not the government's business. And no, it doesn't matter if they're providing healthcare either.

    Bloomberg is an ass and an intrusive one at that.

    1. Re:Praise the Courts by bunratty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just to be clear, you're talking about making all drugs, prostitution, abortion, and gambling all completely legal, right?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. 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.

  5. Surgeon General's warning. by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What they should do is the same thing they alread do on tobacco packages. A message warning it is hazardous to your health over a picture of Jabba the Hut.

    1. Re:Surgeon General's warning. by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What they *should* do is just get it over with already.

      Either ban them completely or stop restricting them at all.

      Because prohibition doesn't work.

      The US has bans of marijuana, has that disappeared? the little experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 30? Banning a substance means you lose all control over it. You end up with backyard smokes cut with woodshavings to make it cheaper (even more unhealthy than straight tobacco).

      OTOH The problem with unrestricted smoking is that a lot of people who dont smoke will be affected by it. This is what Libertarians always ignore, almost everything you do has an effect on someone else.

      Ultimately the people who dont smoke will outnumber those who do and smokers are so extremely unreasonable. Here's what happened in Australia.
      Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking in the office please.
      Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet)
      So smoking was banned indoors.

      Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking near the entrance?
      Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet)
      So smokers must now smoke 5 metres away from building entrances.

      Ultimately, smoking restrictions came about due to the extreme discourtesy of smokers.

      The ban on large soft drinks did not come about because we dont have the same problem. If someone is drinking a large coke near you, you're not going to have to smell it on your clothes for the next 4 hours, if you're working in a place where people drink soft drinks, you're not forced to breathe it in. This is the bit Libertarians always ignore, then again reality and Libertarians were always at odds.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. 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).

    1. Re:Not about consumption, but about sales by meeotch · · Score: 5, Informative

      >> 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.

      This. Are people enraged and screaming "Tyranny!" about smoking bans and requiring cigarette packages to bear warnings? Largely, no. Why? Because aside from a lot of us either disliking second-hand smoke, or being a smoker and being unable to quit, the general consensus is that Big Tobacco was pretty evil - peddling a harmful and addictive product, and Big Government was the only one who could stop them.

      See the analogy here? The (mostly large) corporations that provide our food have been pumping more and more high fructose corn syrup & fat into their products, and making them bigger and bigger. o.k., so you argue that they're just giving the people what they want. But that shit is *addictive* - just ask your local fatass sysadmin who lives on Monster and Doritos. Or go somewhere poor and count the obese people. Those people have a lot less "choice" - because Coke and McDonald's is *cheap*, in addition to being delicious.

      In NYC (I think it's local), all chain restaurants are required to put calorie counts right next to the food on signs/menus, just like the cigarette companies. I fucking love McDonalds, but I stopped eating there. I'm a supposedly educated, well-off person with a relatively higher amount of "freedom" than some citizens. And I didn't know that almost everything on their menu was a *full day's* allotment of calories, until the Gubmint made them advertise it. (Since then, they've tacked on more lower-cal items, which is good.)

      The reality is, advertising, doctoring of products to be addictive, and good ole' disingenuousness ("serving size: 8oz, servings per package: 2" on a can of Monster. What - do I put the other half in the fridge for later?), etc. is used to peddle crap to us all.

      o.k., this is the basic nature of selling, you say. (Except for that goofy "make a better product" idea that some nuts espouse.) It's been that way forever. Fine. But when fully *one third* of us are obese, including tons of kids, and when the entities that are selling the stuff are so large that we couldn't possibly take them on, even together, then it's time for the one giant entity that exists to look out for us to level the fucking playing field. Who's going to argue that HFCS and ubiquitous advertising is somehow not manipulative? The gov't is just doing it's (relatively tiny) bit to help us choose to not be manipulated, just like with cigarettes & liquor.

      I see the slippery slope - really. I used to be a card-carrying conservative. I'm still registered Republican, for crissake (though I've voted third party in every election since G.W.) But *everything* is a goddamn slippery slope - and a lot steeper in many cases. Why not take the energy you're wasting going full Enraged Libertarian on fucking soda issues, and point it at eternally renewable copyright legislation, or anti-pot laws - or, you know, the police state - by calling your congressthingies.

      TL/DR: The gov't has a mandate to provide for the General Welfare. Obesity is an epidemic problem in this country. Making people think about their choices is *helping*, not fascism. Even at the cost of corps making slightly less money. Even if it's more expensive for the country, not less (see other posts for numbers.) And you can still drink 70oz. of Mountain Dew if you want, fatass.

  7. New Yorkers are weird... by Entropius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.