Bloomberg's Soda Ban Blocked by Judge

[Axil]

Originally Posted by copernicus

Thank you my friends. Thank you for seeing what a disconnected leader Michale Bloomberg is.

I feel it took something as trivial as the "soda ban" for ALL NY-ers to realize what an arrogant, condescending, disconnected leader Michael Bloomberg really is.

Originally Posted by copernicus

The mayor stands for whatever will get him more power.

Do really not see the disconnect between these two statements? People who swing with the wind, and amass power at all costs don't spearhead initiatives that are wildly unpopular.

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Clearly we have drawn lines drugs would be a good example. Alcohol is restricted to those over 21, cigs to those over 18, heroin to those who are willing to buy from criminals, etc., etc., etc...

I think drawing the line for alcohol at 21, while handing over the rights to operate a vehicle, vote, and die for your country at 18 and earlier is asinine. I agree, it's hypocritical to support the current status quo regarding alcohol and be incensed over the soda ban.

Disallowing children from consuming harmful substances is different. I believe the government has a responsibility to protect children from irresponsible parents. I do not believe children should be prohibited from drinking soda, or even limited to 16 ounces (though that's a fair debate), but I'd be in favor of the sarcastic comment you made earlier. At some level of obesity the government ought to investigate and see if the child is in a safe environment. There is a point where a child being morbidly obese constitutes parental incompetence and neglect. Do i trust the government to draw that line appropriately and enforce it well? No. But i acknowledge it is within their purview.

I think the greatest disconnect between those who feel that Bloomberg is justified and those who feel like myself is this: I don't feel like freedom is "overshadowing" the issue. I feel like freedom is the issue. I feel as though freedom is more important than health, safety, or anything else up to some threat that would threaten the very existence of our species.

It wasn't very long ago that the majority of American's agreed with these sentiments. Sure there was always hypocrisy, on the right it mostly involved censorship of things that were considered crude, irreverent, or unpatriotic. On the left it tended towards protecting people from themselves. Overall however Americans have valued freedom very highly, and the fact that we're even discussing trading it for at best a lesser rate of the occurrence of diabetes is a very sad thing indeed in my eyes.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by 32green

Or beer, or liquor or ice cream, or cigs or fatty steaks or french fries or fast cars or steep stairs or knitting needles or matches or high bridges with low railings or.......

Where do you draw the line?




-

you forgot scissors and raccoons.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by Axil

Do really not see the disconnect between these two statements? People who swing with the wind, and amass power at all costs don't spearhead initiatives that are wildly unpopular.




I think drawing the line for alcohol at 21, while handing over the rights to operate a vehicle, vote, and die for your country at 18 and earlier is asinine. I agree, it's hypocritical to support the current status quo regarding alcohol and be incensed over the soda ban.

Disallowing children from consuming harmful substances is different. I believe the government has a responsibility to protect children from irresponsible parents. I do not believe children should be prohibited from drinking soda, or even limited to 16 ounces (though that's a fair debate), but I'd be in favor of the sarcastic comment you made earlier. At some level of obesity the government ought to investigate and see if the child is in a safe environment. There is a point where a child being morbidly obese constitutes parental incompetence and neglect. Do i trust the government to draw that line appropriately and enforce it well? No. But i acknowledge it is within their purview.

I think the greatest disconnect between those who feel that Bloomberg is justified and those who feel like myself is this: I don't feel like freedom is "overshadowing" the issue. I feel like freedom is the issue. I feel as though freedom is more important than health, safety, or anything else up to some threat that would threaten the very existence of our species.

It wasn't very long ago that the majority of American's agreed with these sentiments. Sure there was always hypocrisy, on the right it mostly involved censorship of things that were considered crude, irreverent, or unpatriotic. On the left it tended towards protecting people from themselves. Overall however Americans have valued freedom very highly, and the fact that we're even discussing trading it for at best a lesser rate of the occurrence of diabetes is a very sad thing indeed in my eyes.

Maybe they should start taking kids away from people with too many points on their licenses or who smoke in their own houses or who own guns or sharp knives or who are narcoleptic or poor or .... Read the constitution. Taking fat people's kids away is NOT in the government's "purview".

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Trades

Maybe they should start taking kids away from people with too many points on their licenses or who smoke in their own houses or who own guns or sharp knives or who are narcoleptic or poor or .... Read the constitution. Taking fat people's kids away is NOT in the government's "purview".

I'm not talking about taking away fat people's kids. I'm talking about taking away fat kids from parents who do not address a health problem the child has. If you allow your children to drive a car, or play with the gun or sharp knives, then yes, perhaps you could make a case for government intervention. I don't believe the constitution has much to say about the parent/child relationship. If i am wrong please feel free to educate me by quoting or linking to the relevant sections.

My point was that in my opinion the government ought to play a role in protected children from irresponsible parents who endanger them. They should not play a role in protected adults from themselves. The government already takes some decisions away from parents. The government tells me my child must wear a seat belt, and my young child or infant must wear a special restraint in the car. The government tells me I may not allow my child to smoke or drink alcohol. The government tells me my child must be educated, even if that education is done in the home.

Again, i am wary of the government having this power. I believe they misuse it and do so often. However i do not disagree with them having it, and i believe that there is a certain level of obesity that could be considered child abuse/neglect. At some point it becomes far more dangerous than not wearing a seat belt. So while i don't believe the government should be telling parents they can't take their child to McDonald's. I believe it is reasonable for the government to tell parents that they can't let their children become so fat that their bodies start to deteriorate.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by Axil

I'm not talking about taking away fat people's kids. I'm talking about taking away fat kids from parents who do not address a health problem the child has. If you allow your children to drive a car, or play with the gun or sharp knives, then yes, perhaps you could make a case for government intervention. I don't believe the constitution has much to say about the parent/child relationship. If i am wrong please feel free to educate me by quoting or linking to the relevant sections.

My point was that in my opinion the government ought to play a role in protected children from irresponsible parents who endanger them. They should not play a role in protected adults from themselves. The government already takes some decisions away from parents. The government tells me my child must wear a seat belt, and my young child or infant must wear a special restraint in the car. The government tells me I may not allow my child to smoke or drink alcohol. The government tells me my child must be educated, even if that education is done in the home.

Again, i am wary of the government having this power. I believe they misuse it and do so often. However i do not disagree with them having it, and i believe that there is a certain level of obesity that could be considered child abuse/neglect. At some point it becomes far more dangerous than not wearing a seat belt. So while i don't believe the government should be telling parents they can't take their child to McDonald's. I believe it is reasonable for the government to tell parents that they can't let their children become so fat that their bodies start to deteriorate.

That is the beauty of the American Constitution. It outlines the powers the government HAS not the ones it doesn't have. Everything else is supposed to be off limits.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Trades

That is the beauty of the American Constitution. It outlines the powers the government HAS not the ones it doesn't have. Everything else is supposed to be off limits.

And gave states their own voice as well.

[32green]

Originally Posted by quantum

you forgot scissors and raccoons.

lol

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Axil

Do really not see the disconnect between these two statements? People who swing with the wind, and amass power at all costs don't spearhead initiatives that are wildly unpopular.




I think drawing the line for alcohol at 21, while handing over the rights to operate a vehicle, vote, and die for your country at 18 and earlier is asinine. I agree, it's hypocritical to support the current status quo regarding alcohol and be incensed over the soda ban.

Disallowing children from consuming harmful substances is different. I believe the government has a responsibility to protect children from irresponsible parents. I do not believe children should be prohibited from drinking soda, or even limited to 16 ounces (though that's a fair debate), but I'd be in favor of the sarcastic comment you made earlier. At some level of obesity the government ought to investigate and see if the child is in a safe environment. There is a point where a child being morbidly obese constitutes parental incompetence and neglect. Do i trust the government to draw that line appropriately and enforce it well? No. But i acknowledge it is within their purview.

I think the greatest disconnect between those who feel that Bloomberg is justified and those who feel like myself is this: I don't feel like freedom is "overshadowing" the issue. I feel like freedom is the issue. I feel as though freedom is more important than health, safety, or anything else up to some threat that would threaten the very existence of our species.

It wasn't very long ago that the majority of American's agreed with these sentiments. Sure there was always hypocrisy, on the right it mostly involved censorship of things that were considered crude, irreverent, or unpatriotic. On the left it tended towards protecting people from themselves. Overall however Americans have valued freedom very highly, and the fact that we're even discussing trading it for at best a lesser rate of the occurrence of diabetes is a very sad thing indeed in my eyes.

A Majority of NYC residents elected Mike Bloomberg Mayor of NYC. NYC and NYS pre-date the Constitution which when written did little to restric local government.

General wellfare along with regulating commerce are legitimate functions of government under our constitution.

The question isn't so much do you have the right to buy a 20 ounce soda, the question is does a corporation doing business in NYC have the right to sell poison with no restrictions when a large percentage of society health is is impacted, a legitimate public health issue. I'm pretty sure if you want to drink 20 ounces of Coke Bloomberg law didn't prevent you from doing it.

Now personally I think Bloomberg's approach isn't the right way to go about educating the public to make good informed choices. However, I don't think companies should be allowed to sell poison in any size just because.

[24]

I can't believe there are actually people that support Bloombergs soda ban.... Only at JI!

Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk 2

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

However, I don't think companies should be allowed to sell poison in any size just because.

But they can sell it in small sizes and allow you to buy multiple injections at a time?

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

A Majority of NYC residents elected Mike Bloomberg Mayor of NYC. NYC and NYS pre-date the Constitution which when written did little to restric local government.

General wellfare along with regulating commerce are legitimate functions of government under our constitution.

The question isn't so much do you have the right to buy a 20 ounce soda, the question is does a corporation doing business in NYC have the right to sell poison with no restrictions when a large percentage of society health is is impacted, a legitimate public health issue. I'm pretty sure if you want to drink 20 ounces of Coke Bloomberg law didn't prevent you from doing it.

Now personally I think Bloomberg's approach isn't the right way to go about educating the public to make good informed choices. However, I don't think companies should be allowed to sell poison in any size just because.

"General Welfare" is an ambiguous term. You could use "general welfare" to justify nearly anything. "Regulating commerce" is equally broad, ambiguous and dangerous.

I think referring to coke as poison is a bit extreme, but yes, i do think corporations have the right to sell poison... Cigarettes are sold every day.

For the record plenty of people consume large amounts of soda without any negative consequences. From the age of 15 to 22 i probable averaged 3 trips to Wendy's a week, i always got a fountain soda that was bigger than 16 ounces, and sometimes i even refilled it! I was very active, swam a lot, visited the gym regularly, never was overweight. Now I'm older and i very rarely consume soda with sugar in it. I'm about 10lb overweight, and overall i eat a lot healthier. As my metabolism slowed, and changing diapers replaced pick up basketball at the gym, i had to make changes to keep myself healthy.

How many people do you think are going to have a significantly lessened overall calorie reduction if they limited soda sizes at 16oz? Many people gain weight when they switch from soda to diet soda because thier sugar cravings cause them to consume higher calorie foods instead of just drinking the sugar. It's very possible that limiting soda size could increase the average BMI of New York!

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Axil

"General Welfare" is an ambiguous term. You could use "general welfare" to justify nearly anything. "Regulating commerce" is equally broad, ambiguous and dangerous.

I think referring to coke as poison is a bit extreme, but yes, i do think corporations have the right to sell poison... Cigarettes are sold every day.

For the record plenty of people consume large amounts of soda without any negative consequences. From the age of 15 to 22 i probable averaged 3 trips to Wendy's a week, i always got a fountain soda that was bigger than 16 ounces, and sometimes i even refilled it! I was very active, swam a lot, visited the gym regularly, never was overweight. Now I'm older and i very rarely consume soda with sugar in it. I'm about 10lb overweight, and overall i eat a lot healthier. As my metabolism slowed, and changing diapers replaced pick up basketball at the gym, i had to make changes to keep myself healthy.

How many people do you think are going to have a significantly lessened overall calorie reduction if they limited soda sizes at 16oz? Many people gain weight when they switch from soda to diet soda because thier sugar cravings cause them to consume higher calorie foods instead of just drinking the sugar. It's very possible that limiting soda size could increase the average BMI of New York!

I happen to think what Bloomberg did was a brilliant publicity stunt to bring attention to a real health issue. The actual ban was so crazy it got national attention. The underlying issue of people making good individual choices to have a healthy society has to be balanced with good choices being as readily available as bad choices. When you go into a Supermarket, it gets harder ever day. This crazy stunt got tremendous publicity and put a little scare into the big food companies that routinely put poision on the shelf in supermarkets across are country every day.

You are absolutely right, people have to make choices for themselves. I'm not focused on his bat **** crazy idea of banning large soda. What isn't a bat **** crazy idea is that people should think twice about consuming sugar at the rates our society is consuming it and Bloomberg in his crazy way made the point.

Put down the bread and cheese and give me 20. That extra 10 pounds isn't doing you any good.

[detjetsfan]

Sorry guys Big Gulp Sodas are now the cause celebre among the far-right, I mean libertarians? This country is being overrun by fat people and this was not a ban on soda like the media was making it out to be it was a ban on insanely ridiculously large sodas that would kill a horse.

And I drink soda.

[copernicus]

Originally Posted by detjetsfan

Sorry guys Big Gulp Sodas are now the cause celebre among the far-right, I mean libertarians? This country is being overrun by fat people and this was not a ban on soda like the media was making it out to be it was a ban on insanely ridiculously large sodas that would kill a horse.

And I drink soda.

So with all the things that need to be improved in this city I'm supposed to believe that Mayor Billionaire cares about people who drink too much soda? But alcohol, illegal drugs, drugs use in clubs, young people abusing over the counter drugs, bars that serve alcohol to people who have obviously driven there, chips, candy, etc, etc is ok?

This soda ban was to deflect all the shortcomings of Mayor Bloomberg.

Mayor Billionaire's whole platform was how he was going to drastically change education for the better and it has FAILED MISERABLY.

Lots of people outside the classroom making tons of money on the backs of school kids. The school day has become MISERABLE for students and teachers under his reign with no real learning.

Mayor Billionaire has succeeded in creating another gerneration of young people who hate education.

What this mayor has done to children's education is crime.

I beg those who are eligible in this great city to vote for a mayor that has a pulse on the people and workers of NYC.

Mayor Billionaire has TRIPLED his worth since becoming mayor of NYC?

If being mayor and improving the lives of NYers was his priority then how did he profit so much?

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by copernicus

If being mayor and improving the lives of NYers was his priority then how did he profit so much?

He owns tangible assets and in order to keep the Union pension funds from going broke the Federal Reserve has had to print oodles of money so towns, cities, States and the Federal government can pay them. That has made the asset holding class which includes Mike Bloomberg even richer while making the working class who live paycheck to paycheck poorer.

Thanks UFT you screwed the working man again.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

He owns tangible assets and in order to keep the Union pension funds from going broke the Federal Reserve has had to print oodles of money so towns, cities, States and the Federal government can pay them. That has made the asset holding class which includes Mike Bloomberg even richer while making the working class who live paycheck to paycheck poorer.

Thanks UFT you screwed the working man again.

Basic economics. Don't go there.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

A Majority of NYC residents elected Mike Bloomberg Mayor of NYC. NYC and NYS pre-date the Constitution which when written did little to restric local government.

General wellfare along with regulating commerce are legitimate functions of government under our constitution.

The question isn't so much do you have the right to buy a 20 ounce soda, the question is does a corporation doing business in NYC have the right to sell poison with no restrictions when a large percentage of society health is is impacted, a legitimate public health issue. I'm pretty sure if you want to drink 20 ounces of Coke Bloomberg law didn't prevent you from doing it.

Now personally I think Bloomberg's approach isn't the right way to go about educating the public to make good informed choices. However, I don't think companies should be allowed to sell poison in any size just because.

What is this poison of which you speak?
BTW, relative to the state of NY and NYC pre-dating the U.S. Constitution: Does that mean that slavery which existed in South Carolina and other states all of which had constitutions is/was ok?
Bloomberg is way outside his authority.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

What is this poison of which you speak?
BTW, relative to the state of NY and NYC pre-dating the U.S. Constitution: Does that mean that slavery which existed in South Carolina and other states all of which had constitutions is/was ok?
Bloomberg is way outside his authority.

Clearly the founders had no real issue with Slavery and the civil war was as much caused by the Supreme Court upholding the right to expand it into the territories based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Clearly the founders had no real issue with Slavery and the civil war was as much caused by the Supreme Court upholding the right to expand it into the territories based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

The point being local officials CAN NOT do whatever they want.
Bloomberg made a fool of himself again. The city is a mess and people are bailing out of there for obvious reasons.

[copernicus]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

He owns tangible assets and in order to keep the Union pension funds from going broke the Federal Reserve has had to print oodles of money so towns, cities, States and the Federal government can pay them. That has made the asset holding class which includes Mike Bloomberg even richer while making the working class who live paycheck to paycheck poorer.

Thanks UFT you screwed the working man again.

Riggggghhht, because big business and politicians have a strong history of treating workers fairly throughout history.

We wouldnt need unions if politicians and big business acted human.