State judge invalidates New York City's ban on large sugary drinks

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

State judge invalidates New York City's ban on large sugary drinks


www.cnn.com

A state judge invalidated a New York City law banning certain venues from selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. The ban was due to take effect on Tuesday. The judgement was a setback for Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has backed several laws aimed at improving the health of New Yorkers.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
online.wsj.com




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I personally think this is great. This law was absolutely ridiculous from the start, while costing businesses thousands of dollars to comply, and fining them if they didn't comply.

This law would never keep people from becoming obese due to sugary drinks. People are going to drink as much sugary drinks as they want no matter what size the drinks come in.

Earlier, Starbucks said they would refuse to follow the sugary drink ban, which Mayor Bloomberg called "ridiculous".

Other restaurant owners said there was nothing they could do about it but comply. That is just utter BS. There is something you can do about it: stand up for your and other peoples' rights and refuse to follow the ban. I know I would if I were a restaurant owner in NYC.



www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


At last...some one putting the brakes on the nanny state mentality.....


Des



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Finally one for the win column for Liberty and Freedom!



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Could it be? Bloomberg meets his match in the Judicial Branch. They may just be the hope we all need for change after all. It's off to a decent start anyway.

I'll bet it's a dark day with a miserable mood at the Mayor's Office.

edit on 11-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Off to bed after this.. lol..



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
We already knew this would be overturned anyway. Had this been allowed to proceed, this would have put another nail in the daisy garden of dictatorship.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I can not believe everything Bloomberg is trying to do in NYC.

This one though, banning the size of a soft drink, give me a break.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I just though about it. And a ban is the dumbest move they could make.
Now if they taxed sugary drinks a dollar an ounce.
They would not only profit but slow down consumption.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I can hardly believe the non-sense that comes from N.Y's dumbest nanny.

Fountain drinks are pretty watered down, an if they're not when coming out of the fountain, it will be soon as most people load those cups with ice. Two eight ounce cans of soda would be more lethal.

How do these people get into office



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Everybody knew the ban would not stand in court but, the ban was never the goal. The goal was to get people to start talking and thinking about what they consume and put in their bodies. I myself do not have many vices any more but, soda is one of them.
edit on 11-3-2013 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
hopefully they strike down the new gun laws and all the other shady stuff Cumo is up to! If starbucks refusing to comply had a part in this its a good sign...they cant even stop large drinks from being served and they wanna try to pull off the rest of their shady laws? heres to hoping the courts keep up the good rulings star and flag op



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


If the ban wasn't goal,why did this Idiot Mayor enact a ban to start?
I'll go that he wanted the ban.What a waste of tax payer money and tying up the court system on this ridiculousness.

If he wanted to get people talking..run ads..etc.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 





If he wanted to get people talking..run ads..etc.


Ya that, and maybe teaching nutrition in school.

How much did this little campaign cost the city, I wonder?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
If people want to poison themselves with these huge drinks they have a right to. Some people have no problem with drinking them, but it does harm most people to consume that much in a short time. This doesn't need a law. People can just say no on their own.
edit on 11-3-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Ya, the soda ban isn't going to help, unless there is a French fry limit, a burger ounce limit, a mayo packet size and number limit, chip bag size limit, etc etc etc.

Granted, soda is basically liquid sugar you are spraying in you...but its only a very tiny part of the problem.

How to overcome this obese epidemic is beyond me...I personally think the answer comes not in trying to scream moderation..but just a good diet pill. Lets be honest...moderation teaching is like abstinence teaching...it simply won't work for most people.

Nope...we need a pill. kick up the metabolism to insane amounts and let them eat cake (literally).



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Forgive me if I am not jumping up and down because they get to drink big gulps.

I will be jumping up and down when they get to drink a big gulp while emptying a 30 round mag from an "assualt rifle" at a shooting range.

1 down 1 more to go,
edit on 11-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I'm so confused, I can't remember when the "government" became responsible for make sure we don't hurt ourselves? Can anyone remember when the elected office folks, through codes, ordinances and a few laws decided their job was to protect us from ourselves?

This effort seems to be part of a very smart, sophisticated and effective marketing campaign that says, "if you do this or that, it hurts us all, so you can't do this or that anymore." What is remarkable is that is presumes that the absence of this or that, means everything is entirely different. So, "no sodas for you" simply means everyone is model thin, what kind of logic is this?

The government licenses businesses, meaning the act of business is owned by the government, so, when you license the use of the "act of business," you agree to let the government control your actions, fair enough, but the controlling of the selling of soda seems not to be business related, more; "you're too fat, we the government, know how to best make you thin!" Which begs the question, "when did an agreed upon standard of fat and thin come into play, and when did each of us become included in the demonstration of this parameters.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by mugger
 





If he wanted to get people talking..run ads..etc.


Ya that, and maybe teaching nutrition in school.

How much did this little campaign cost the city, I wonder?


nutrition?

first they have to actually teach students how to read!!

80% of nyc high school students can't read.

WTF



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I starred your post because it's a good idea, if one is an autocrat penalizing every ounce of life from the people, but I sure hope they don't read your post.





top topics
 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join