Sorry to see New York soda restrictions slapped down
Barb Shelly
Score one for the supersized soda.
New York City’s move to scale back oversized servings of sugary drinks unfortunately was a loser in its first round in court. New York Supreme Court Judge Milton A. Tingling overturned the law this afternoon, less than 24 hours before the restrictions were to take effect.
In his ruling, Tingling falls back on the timeworn “arbitrary and capricious” rationale. And I have to admit, he’s got a point. The size limits on sodas and other calorie-saturated drinks would have applied to establishments regulated by the city, like restaurants and movie theaters. But places regulated by state government, like convenience stores and supermarkets, were free to sell beverages in any size container they wished.
The ruling really isn’t a surprise, and it probably isn’t the end of this issue. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has the will and resources to continue the fight.
Personally, I’d like to see limits. Obesity is an expensive problem, and sugary drinks are a prime culprit. Sorry, nobody needs a 24-ounce Coke in one sitting.
It would be great if the industry would show some sense and cut back on sizes, but the trend seems to be moving in the other direction. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s getting harder all the time to even find a 12-ounce can of soda.
Sure, this is America and we don’t like government or anybody else telling us what to do. But those of us who don’t indulge in obesity-causing drinks and snacks pay for the health care costs of those who do in the form of increased insurance premiums and public health costs. We have a right to favor sensible limits.
George Hunsucker
Northland
2 months, 1 week agoYou lib fascists lost a round ms. shelly… You should be celebrating your cherished “choice”, but no, you are bemoaning not being able to tell me what to do….
Your loss, my gain!!!!!
Kent Mueller
2 months, 1 week agoI truly don’t understand the mindset that allows a person to think it is OK for Americans to be told they cannot buy a 17 oz soft drink.
Seriously, where would this lead? Only quarter pound beef patties in hamburgers? And then, only if the cook pats it dry with a paper towel before serving? No more cheeseburgers, and bacon burgers will have to go, too. If someone thinks that is OK, then we have very different views of permissible amounts of freedom and liberty we should be allowed to have from the government. By the way, no more salt on potato chips…no no no.
In short, the do-gooders out there need to stop telling me how to live my life.
Kent Mueller
2 months, 1 week agoAlso, I agree that Bloomberg has the resources to fight the court ruling. Unfortunately, he won’t use “his” resources as you say. He will use the resources that belong to the citizens of New York.
Mary Niday
2 months, 1 week agoI don’t think it’s liberal fascism. People today just want to tell others how to live. This goes for right wing conservatives too. Food ,beverages, tobacco….if I think it’s wrong or unhealthy, nobody should be allowed to do it, that seems to be the mindset. Mind your own business people and stop judging everyone else.
John Franson
2 months, 1 week agoOther countries have the type of regulations tried by Bloomberg. They have resulted in lower incidence of obesity and diabetes, and lower public health costs. We should be emulating other countries’ best practices, not attacking them.
Kent Mueller
2 months, 1 week agoJohn, get out of my personal choices. OK?
Justin McConkey
2 months, 1 week ago“Sorry to see” it overturned, are you? Even though overturning it is quite clearly the most logical [and Constitutional] thing to do, that’s how you feel? Ms. Shelly—do you know why “those of us who don’t indulge in obesity-causing drinks and snacks pay for the health care costs of those who do in the form of increased insurance premiums and public health costs?” It’s because of things like the “Affordable Care Act” which distribute the cost of that to the rest of us, and—in turn—give us a “right” to tell other people how to live their lives. Yes, we do “have a right to favor sensible limits”—but we also have a right to not have them shoved down our collective throats!
William R. Nelson
2 months, 1 week agoMayor Bloomberg: SODA JERK.
Mike Henggeler
2 months, 1 week agoI suppose the notion that people should be able to pursue their personal choices has, on the surface, a certain amount of appeal (sort of like candy—tastes good but is it good for you). But the question I have is this—if I am supposed to stay out of their personal choices, at what point do I get to ask them to stay out of my wallet?
Put another way, I am tired of working my backside off to support people who can’t/won’t act responsibly yet have no problem tapping into my money to solve their mistakes. The mathematics of the current situation are not sustainable—anyone should be able to see that.
Kent Mueller
2 months, 1 week agoMike, it is sad that you equate liberty with candy. The root of the problem is one of a lack of personal responsibility. But the answer is not to take away personal responsibilities.
This ban is no different than limiting the amount of meat, cheese and bacon in a bacon-cheese burger. Now, how silly would that be? No more 16 oz. steaks? I haven’t had either of those in a long time, but I should be able to buy one if I choose.
Steve Carithers
2 months, 1 week agoThis ruling is the best thing that could have happened in this STUPID ordinance that the Jewish Nazi Mayor of New York wanted to inflict on it’s residents and visitors. Bloomberg should have protesters around his home and city hall. He is nothing but a totalitarian Jewish Nazi. Anyone who thinks like them should have to face Nuremburg trials of their own conscience. They are not fit to live in a free society.
George Hunsucker
Northland
2 months, 1 week agoGood one William….
Kent Mueller
2 months, 1 week agoWhether Steve Carithers is serious, and is therefore a bigot, or if that is his attempt at sarcasm, that is a very sad posting. However, I rather live in a country where people have the freedom to say that, no matter how foolish it may be. Freedom must also extend to being able to offer legal goods in any amount demanded by the public, as well as the purchase of those good.
Curt A. Hodapp
2 months, 1 week ago24 oz drink? Remember 2/3 of the volume if that cup is ice Therefore, even a 32 oz cup normally contains less than 12 oz.
Richard L Wagner
2 months, 1 week agoKent, I was all set to agree with you, on the folly of Bloomburgs interference in our personal dietary decisons. However, in the comments posted by Steve Carithers, I have to speak out against his ignorant rants. True, he has the First Amendment Right to be an a*hle, but the Star has always had the right to not publish bigotted comments. It is a private publisher and not restricted by the First Ammendment.
Barbara Shelly is very predictable, however. First she says aknowledges that “…this is America, and we don’t like the government telling us what to do…” So then, why “but..”??
Richard L Wagner
2 months, 1 week agoGood point by George Huntsucker. Ms Shelly would defend a woman’s right to choose, unless it involved soft-drinks.
Kent Mueller
2 months, 1 week agoRichard, why would stupid comments buy Steve Carithers affect your feelings? I think there is a 50/50 chance that he is either a stupid bigot or is stupidly sarcastic.
And yes, Barbara Shelly uses that method fairly often. She faints to the right to create the mirage of equitable thinking, but then turns back to skewer the right to maintain her consistency of opinion. It’s fine that she is consistently liberal. That is her right. But, I do get tired of that bone being thrown and then taken back.
Mike Henggeler
2 months, 1 week agoKent, the candy reference is sound whether you’re capable of seeing it or not. Our liberties are not without limits. I do not have the liberty to do whatever I want and neither do you—and we shouldn’t. I also see that you chose to be completely unresponsive to my main point, which is that I am tired of paying for the irresponsibility of others.
Another way of looking at that is this: others are infringing on my liberties through their stupid choices. So it is OK for others, in the fulfillment of their liberties, to limit mine? I think not.
Kent Mueller
2 months, 1 week agoMike, I get your point, and it is valid. That is how it is with things that are insured. And now that everyone is to be forced to own health insurance, we will all be paying more. And I also get what might be your next argument, that society pays regardless of the presence of insurance. That is true, but not to the same extent.
Where do you propose we stop the restrictions? We all know that half pound bacon cheese burgers aren’t good as a regular lunch. Should we restrict those? What about the size of bags of potato chips? And besides, the soft drink serving size restrictions won’t change anything. People will find ways to consume what they want. New Yorkers will just go to the nearest convenience store, or buy two.
In short, the root problem isn’t one of behaviors, but rather one of bad behaviors brought on by a general lack of personal responsibility. Limiting the size of the cups does nothing to touch the lacking of personal responsibility. And that makes that ordinance another example of feel good regulation that only places costs onto our economy with no benefit.
Richard L Wagner
2 months, 1 week agoWhere do we stop the restrictions? I predict maybe next will include bicycle helmets. In Lawrence, bicycle helmets are required for adults.
I am an avid bicycle rider. I always wear a helmet when I ride. However mandated helmet laws are similar to the New York Soda Laws, in that our choices are being controlled by others.
Mike Henggeler
2 months, 1 week agoKent…I don’t know where the limits stop, but I bet it will be about the same time that people start to act responsibly. Look at gun control…if everyone who had a gun used them responsibly, would there be any clamor at all to regulate them, take them away or whatever?
Sometimes the situation comes down to a lesser of two evils. That’s not ideal—we always want a “good” solution that is clearly better than all the others. If it were only that simple. For me, I would prefer the possibility of some additional regulation v. being ground into the dirt by societal irresponsibility.