New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “War on Soda” was dealt a major defeat this week when an Empire State Supreme Court judge ruled his ban on sugary drinks unconstitutional.
New York Supreme Court justice Milton Tingling said Bloomberg’s “Big Gulp Ban” was “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences.” As a result, Tingling ruled that the Big Apple was “enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations.”
Good …
There’s nothing wrong with public officials trying to encourage healthier living, but they cannot make dietary decisions compulsory – at least not when it comes to private citizens making choices with their own money.
“Bloomberg’s proposal is a dangerous infringement on individual liberty – and another example of government treating the symptoms as opposed to the broader disease,” we wrote last year in opposing this ban.
It’s good to see the courts agree with us …
Unfortunately, Bloomberg is doubling down on his Nanny Statism.
“I’ve gotta defend my children, and you, and everybody else and do what’s right to save lives,” he said in announcing his intention to appeal the ruling. “Obesity kills. There’s just no question about it. There’s no question that it comes from overeating and there’s no question that empty calories contribute to the problem.”
Again, we’re not disagreeing with Bloomberg’s basic premise but usurping individual liberty in the name of “protecting citizens from themselves” is never the answer.
***
14 comments
I don’t know which is worse, the fact that government is trying to stop people from getting a large sugary drink, or that the government is pissing away resources to determine whether it can do so or not in court. Way to go Bloomberg you massive dick, you’ve given us the double whammy of dumb government thumb-twiddling with your nanny-state bullshit. What’s next on the list? Banning refills on anything except water? Limitations on how many Little Debbie snacks you can buy in a day? Requiring a special license to sell candy bars?
You can’t force people to be healthy, and all this shit does is ruin it for the rest of society.
I don’t know which is worse, the fact that government is trying to stop people from getting a large sugary drink, or that the government is pissing away resources to determine whether it can do so or not in court. Way to go Bloomberg you massive dick, you’ve given us the double whammy of dumb government thumb-twiddling with your nanny-state bullshit. What’s next on the list? Banning refills on anything except water? Limitations on how many Little Debbie snacks you can buy in a day? Requiring a special license to sell candy bars?
You can’t force people to be healthy, and all this shit does is ruin it for the rest of society.
When the lawmakers started putting tight restrictions on where you can and cannot smoke cigarettes, I knew it was a matter of time before they started telling you what you can and cannot eat or drink.
No offense– but some people need to be told what to eat or drink. There are a lot of dumbasses out there that find nutrition with a Pepsi and pork skins.
If it affects other members of the public, like smoking, the public has everyright to be involved.
When the lawmakers started putting tight restrictions on where you can and cannot smoke cigarettes, I knew it was a matter of time before they started telling you what you can and cannot eat or drink.
No offense– but some people need to be told what to eat or drink. There are a lot of dumbasses out there that find nutrition with a Pepsi and pork skins.
If it affects other members of the public, like smoking, the public has everyright to be involved.
I hope the South Carolina Legislature will pass a law banning peeing between the hours of 11PM and 7AM
I am tired of getting up every morning around 3AM
Try “DEPENDS” — an excellent product that never fails you.
I hope the South Carolina Legislature will pass a law banning peeing between the hours of 11PM and 7AM
I am tired of getting up every morning around 3AM
Try “DEPENDS” — an excellent product that never fails you.
At first, Bloomberg’s action on this pissed me off – and basically, the thought of the government limiting large sugary drinks still does. However, after stepping back and viewing this policy through the prism of home rule and local government, I’ve come to a different conclusion. I mean, why should I care what those idiots in NYC choose to do regarding large sugary drinks (as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution)? After all, if they’re truly aggravated with Bloomberg over this action, then they’ll vote him out and repeal his initiative.
At first, Bloomberg’s action on this pissed me off – and basically, the thought of the government limiting large sugary drinks still does. However, after stepping back and viewing this policy through the prism of home rule and local government, I’ve come to a different conclusion. I mean, why should I care what those idiots in NYC choose to do regarding large sugary drinks (as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution)? After all, if they’re truly aggravated with Bloomberg over this action, then they’ll vote him out and repeal his initiative.