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.

11 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: 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  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).

    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.

  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.

  5. 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.