Skip to comments.NYC lawyers spar with beverage industry in court over large soda ban
Posted on 01/23/2013 4:55:17 PM PST by SMGFan
New York City defended its groundbreaking size limit on sugary drinks today as an imperfect but meaningful rein on obesity, while critics said it would hurt small and minority-owned businesses while doing little to help health.
The first courtroom arguments in the closely watched case ended without an immediate ruling and with opponents saying they planned to ask a judge to delay enforcement during the suit, which has broached questions of racial fairness alongside arguments about government authority and burdens to business.
The NAACP's New York state branch and a network of Hispanic groups have joined a legal effort to block the first-of-its-kind restriction, igniting questions today about the groups' ties to the beverage industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
No, Bloomberg defended his dictate rubber stamped by his appointed lackeys.
Actually, I do think the poor are hit the hardest.
I ought to know, I’ve been statistically below various poverty lines most of my life.
Most of the time, a trip to McD’s or 7-11 is a TREAT. For most of my life it was never routine. If we stopped, we used the dollar menu. I still carry paper cups in my car, as we’d order a large drink and then split it up between the cups for everyone. For a big treat, I’d order a milkshake and do the same thing. This happened a few times a YEAR.
No one is banning giant mochas, giant blender drinks, big bottles of MacAdam scotch. . . all of which have far more calories than giant 7ups.
What’s the difference? The poor (who are disproportionately minority) use the big sodas and supersize fries for their treats.
The wealthy are tired of looking at ugly poor people. They figure, slim ‘em down, don’t let ‘em buy such big drinks. Meanwhile they’re off to Chez Pierre for Quiche Lorraine and Creme Brulee. Hey how about a double scoop from Ben & Jerry’s??
While I am disgusted that any government leader would think regulating beverage size is an appropriate role for the coercive power of the government, I find this complaint a little bit over the top. We need to start ignoring racial whiners, and then we need to get government out of the business of regulating shower heads, toilet tank volume, drink sizes, the diameter of oranges and cabbages (and many other fruits and vegetables), and the other nonsense that is way over the top.
They better put a “Purple Drank” exception to this rule.
We need a Multi-Jurisdictional Beverage Cup.
The cup itself has 64 oz capacity with gradations for various jurisdictions. A hash-mark at 16 ounces for NYC, etc.
Printed on the MJBC is the following warning, “It is a violation of applicable law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with it’s labeling”
Now available in large capacity 128 ounces.
I propose: The right of the people to ingest foods in whatever amount that suits them shall not be questioned.
Some of our Founders were very concerned that including a "Bill of Rights" would backfire on people by implying that anything not enumerated would not be protected. How right they were.
If there is an unalienable right to ingest whatever amount of foods that we wish, then any infringement of that right would have to meet the Courts own "strict scrutiny" criteria.
In the case of this stupid soda law, the government cannot claim it is being narrowly tailored since it applies to everyone and not just the obese. There ought to be a presumption in the law that people who are not obese are not going to become obese.
To be narrowly tailored, the law would also have to take into account the caloric needs of large athletes. An NFL lineman who is six-foot-eight and weighs 300 pounds ought to be able to have a drink that would be too large for a 90 pound woman.
I guess New York City is quite fortunate that there is no right to ingest whatever amount of food a person wants. Who knew?
While I understand your concern, don't you think it rather ironic that the Fourteenth Amendment, passed to prevent violations of the rights of newly freed slaves, would play such a pivotal role in securing our unalienable rights from infringement by the states?
A few days after all the shelves ran dry, I'll bet the torches and pitchforks would come out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.