Lawsuit Challenges New York Sugary Drink Ban 642
An anonymous reader writes "Soda makers, along with other trade organizations, filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the New York soda ban that is about to be implemented in the city. 'Last month, the board voted eight to zero, with one abstention, to ban restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums and arenas from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. The ban, designed to reduce obesity, is slated to begin March 12. ... The lawsuit also claims that new regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” violating a section of the New York Civil Laws and Rules. Opponents have specifically said it’s unfair that convenience stores, including 7-Eleven and its famous Big Gulp drink, would be exempt.'"
Silliness (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, New York City can do more to improve its citizens' health than banning certain sizes of HFCS drinks (because calling them "sugary" simply ignores the fact that soda can be made using real sugar).
That is seriously an unhealthy amount (Score:5, Interesting)
The daily reference intake for sugar states that added sugar should nto exceed 25% of calories.
For a 2000 Cal intake that is 500 Cal. The 7-eleven shitty "super gulps" and whatever exceed this
in a single serving.
If you ask me they should just go and make a law that a single serving cannot contain more than
50% of the reference intake. That way you can sell those stupid 5 pint "drinks". You just would not
be allowed to have half a pound of sugar in them.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think so. (Score:4, Interesting)
I seem to be able to decide for myself which products I buy. I can't recall the last time I bought something and later regretted it, but then again I don't buy much. I don't have some superhuman form of free-will. I just take the time to think about what I'm doing before I do it. Just because some people don't do this doesn't mean that everyone lacks self-control. If you were to legislate to the lowest common denominator, you'd have to legally prescribe every action a person can take to make sure they were all safe.
On the other hand, I do seem to be incapable of resisting the government. The threat of imprisonment is enough to compel me to pay my taxes and conform to federal rules and regulations. So you can see why I'd be concerned by frivolous government interventions such as this ban. Every one of them has the potential to harm me.
There's nothing wrong with enlisting the support of others to stop abuse, but there are other ways of doing that which don't have so much collateral damage.
16 oz is less than 500ml (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
The solution is to make you purchase your half pound of sugar in 3 cups. If making giving yourself diabetes slightly inconvenient is "government tyranny" then we probably need more of it.
Mod parent insightful.
Here's a great New Yorker [newyorker.com] article about why the law will probably work very well.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's public support for a law, it's not tyranny. It's a law in a democracy.
I find it strange that there's so much coverage of a simple law designed to reduce consumption of what amounts to a cup of poison that is enormously expensive for our society in the long run. If you really want to fill your body with empty calories and caffeine, you are free to do so. It's just slightly less convenient.
And now I get it. You can take away an American's right to due process. You can take away their right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. But don't make the ultimate mistake and deny their right to idiotic convenience.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
In a democracy, the government is accountable to the people. A corporation is only accountable to its shareholders.
As unpopular as this opinion may be in the USA, I'd rather have the government making these sorts of rules rather than leaving it up to the private sector. At least you get a chance to vote out the government every few years.
The New York law is a very sensible public health measure that is (alas) doomed to failure because of corporate power and the inability of the US system of government in recent times to actually achieve anything worthwhile.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
find it strange that there's so much coverage of a simple law designed to reduce consumption of what amounts to a cup of poison that is enormously expensive for our society in the long run.
Because its fundamentally not the job of a government to tell me how to live my life. Its job is to enforce law and order (keeping others from doing me harm), maintain basic infrastructure, and keep foreign countries from invading.
Im not sure where anyone got the idea that democracy should extend to voting on how I live my life, but that sounds awfully oppressive to me.