Judge stops Nanny Bloomberg's soda ban!

[SilentFeathers]

Big Gulps are still legal in New York City folk's!!!!!!

Judge Halts New York City Soda Ban

A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration from banning the sale of large sugary drinks at New York City restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for a mayor who has made public-health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure.

The city is "enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations," wrote New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling, blocking the rules one day before they would have taken effect. The city's chief counsel, Michael Cardozo, pledged to quickly appeal the ruling.
MORE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...929974394.html

[ScubaMonkey]

No way! There's never a need for a drink that big! Unless it was beer. Ooh, do they come in Beer?

[SilentFeathers]

I think somebody should photoshop Bloomberg's head into this photo!

[Snookie]

Anyone else sick and tired of the nanny state? I rarely drink pop, but it sure as hell isn't up to some doofus mayor to tell anyone what size of drink they are "allowed" to have. They start restrictions on the "bad" stuff, and before you can turn around ALL your freedoms and choices are gone.

[ghostrider]

howbout some restrictions on how many billions ONE man can have ??? I say three is plenty ... if you can't survive on that , you have issues ... the whole city of NY suffers to pay bills and the mayor sits on a personal wealth of 17 billion ??? he could make everyone in NY a millionaire and still not be broke or have to work for a living... He could end poverty, hunger , and homelessness ... in one day ... and challenge other cities, it would make him a hero instead of a zero ... there's some good PR for ya mike ... you surely would be re-elected...

[Operator]

Besides ... what's next? prohibit buying 2 smaller ones?

[Hypothetical]

I'm a firm believer in fat and sugar taxes. If people choose to drink and eat fatty sugary foods then they should pay more taxes to cover their costs when they need to go to the Hospital and become a burden on society. The benefits are clear the users are offsetting their costs and proactively people would likely drink and eat healthier options.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_tax

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by Hypothetical (here)
I'm a firm believer in fat and sugar taxes. If people choose to drink and eat fatty sugary foods then they should pay more taxes to cover their costs when they need to go to the Hospital and become a burden on society. The benefits are clear the users are offsetting their costs and proactively people would likely drink and eat healthier options.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_tax

Why don't they just ban cigarettes altogether? or do they make more money taxing them and letting people get sick and or die from them?

So if more people die in compact car accidents than in full size models, should the government raise taxes on compact cars only and or ban all compact cars????

Should the government make all our choices for us?

Just saying.....

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Soda does contain water and I think it could be argued that the state should not limit the amount of water available to human beings....

[Hypothetical]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
Why don't they just ban cigarettes altogether? or do they make more money taxing them and letting people get sick and or die from them?

So if more people die in compact car accidents than in full size models, should the government raise taxes on compact cars only and or ban all compact cars????

Should the government make all our choices for us?

Just saying.....

Banning cigarettes or making the tax too high on them will simply create a black market. People will always abuse their bodies in some fashion be it from smoking, eating badly or doing dangerous activities. So why not make revenue from it to offset the risk. This is how insurance works today. The premium you pay covers your risk to the insurer. Why should this be any different. In Canada our taxes on cigarettes would scare an American to death. However there is a reason why we can afford universal healthcare this being a perfect example of that.

In regards to the small vehicle you can be rest assured that insurers charge you for your risk appropriately. Although the parts are more expensive for the most part for a larger vehicle the smaller vehicle is more apt to have more damage and cause the most harm to the driver which is reflected in the premium charged.

I agree the government shouldn't make all of our decisions I see this as one where this no different than an insurer charging more for the risk and I'd say it's acceptable.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by Hypothetical (here)

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
Why don't they just ban cigarettes altogether? or do they make more money taxing them and letting people get sick and or die from them?

So if more people die in compact car accidents than in full size models, should the government raise taxes on compact cars only and or ban all compact cars????

Should the government make all our choices for us?

Just saying.....

Banning cigarettes or making the tax too high on them will simply create a black market. People will always abuse their bodies in some fashion be it from smoking, eating badly or doing dangerous activities. So why not make revenue from it to offset the risk. This is how insurance works today. The premium you pay covers your risk to the insurer. Why should this be any different. In Canada our taxes on cigarettes would scare an American to death. However there is a reason why we can afford universal healthcare this being a perfect example of that.

In regards to the small vehicle you can be rest assured that insurers charge you for your risk appropriately. Although the parts are more expensive for the most part for a larger vehicle the smaller vehicle is more apt to have more damage and cause the most harm to the driver which is reflected in the premium charged.

I agree the government shouldn't make all of our decisions I see this as one where this no different than an insurer charging more for the risk and I'd say it's acceptable.

Perhaps....

If Bloomberg was so concerned about the health of his cities people, he should ban GMO foods and diet soda's with aspartame first before worrying about sugar in some soft drinks....

[Hypothetical]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)

Posted by Hypothetical (here)

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
Why don't they just ban cigarettes altogether? or do they make more money taxing them and letting people get sick and or die from them?

So if more people die in compact car accidents than in full size models, should the government raise taxes on compact cars only and or ban all compact cars????

Should the government make all our choices for us?

Just saying.....

Banning cigarettes or making the tax too high on them will simply create a black market. People will always abuse their bodies in some fashion be it from smoking, eating badly or doing dangerous activities. So why not make revenue from it to offset the risk. This is how insurance works today. The premium you pay covers your risk to the insurer. Why should this be any different. In Canada our taxes on cigarettes would scare an American to death. However there is a reason why we can afford universal healthcare this being a perfect example of that.

In regards to the small vehicle you can be rest assured that insurers charge you for your risk appropriately. Although the parts are more expensive for the most part for a larger vehicle the smaller vehicle is more apt to have more damage and cause the most harm to the driver which is reflected in the premium charged.

I agree the government shouldn't make all of our decisions I see this as one where this no different than an insurer charging more for the risk and I'd say it's acceptable.

Perhaps....

If Bloomberg was so concerned about the health of his cities people, he should ban GMO foods and diet soda's with aspartame first before worrying about sugar in some soft drinks....

I agree that would be awesome. At minimum having GMO labeling would be great. It's sad how much power corporations have over our governments.

[jookyle]

This just goes to show that in capitalist society, consumerism=freedom

[Akasha]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
If Bloomberg was so concerned about the health of his cities people, he should ban GMO foods and diet soda's with aspartame first before worrying about sugar in some soft drinks....

Maybe he's got shares in Aspartame.

[risveglio]

Posted by jookyle (here)
This just goes to show that in capitalist society, consumerism=freedom

This makes me so sad. Capitalism gets blamed without any practice. Now I understand why the Socialists get so angry.

Posted by Hypothetical (here)
I agree that would be awesome. At minimum having GMO labeling would be great. It's sad how much power corporations have over our governments.

Whole Foods is going to label GMO in 2016 regardless of what the governments decide. I don't know why it is 3 years away though.

[SilentFeathers]

Doesn't this guy have anything better to do?????

Bloomberg wants to ban tobacco on display


Source: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/2167109...co-legislation