LOL. Okay Marley.
Marley, why are you doing this? You already said you understand the argument against. It’s the same argument I already made. There is a limit to what should be controlled, and the soda ban crosses that limit. It is not something that is a danger to anyone else, and not a remotely immediate danger to the person partaking. Just because we all support the FDA doesn’t mean we support a drink size ban.
And, no, you can’t just bring multiple drinks. They are more expensive and more cumbersome. That’s the purpose of the ban, to try to annoy people into doing what they think people should do. Restricting soda has never been proven to help with obesity at all–it only helps if caloric intake remains otherwise the same, and it usually doesn’t.
Restrictions are okay if the substance is dangerous. They are not okay because some guy wants to force people to be healthier. That’s not why we regulate food and drugs. We do it for safety.
The whole argument for this hinges on the idea that fat people are too stupid to know how much soda they want, and we can limit it for their own good. That’s fucking insulting and wrong. People who want a smaller size can get a smaller size.
You are advocating removing choice from a group of peole. And any time you do that, you must have a compelling interest, or what you are doing is tyranny. Freedom is the default unless you have a compelling reason otherwise. And “I don’t want to let you get fat” is not a compelling reason.
That’s why people are calling it what they are calling it: nanny state, Stalinism, whatever. They are expressing extreme disapproval via hyperbole, like normal human beings. You know their position. Why are you quibbling?
Yes, it does. They did not have compelling interest to implement it, and so freedom of choice won out. Freedom won.
“Words have meanings.” Yes, they do. But arguing over them means you are having a semantic argument and are not discussing the actual substance of someone’s views. You are just as guilty in this thread of not actually discussing people’s objections. You just want to make fun of people for using the wrong words.
Discussing a political issue. More specifically I’m attempting to explain why this rule is not the random, pointless act some people insist it is, and I’m trying to explain why I think some of the complaints and comparisons people are using are wrong or inapt. Even if you think this is a bad rule or that it couldn’t work, it’s not that far off from tons of other regulations that already exist- many of which aren’t objectionable. I think that ought to illustrate that this isn’t a frightening totalitarian overreach. It’s an attempt to deal with a serious public health problem, and whether it’s good or not it ought to be dealt with on its own failings and merits, not exaggerations and slogans.
You’re correct that I’m also making fun when people compare this to dystopian governments and 1984. 1984 was a satire on the government of Stalin, which was responsible for tens of millions of deaths. This a rule about soda cup size. Give me a break.
[QUOTE=Martin Niemöller]
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
[/QUOTE]
…
No, Marley23 is right. The ban was overturned because the Board of Health did not have the power to enact a ban. It was an effort on the part of Bloomberg to circumvent the legislative process because none of the legislators were on board with the limit on soda sizes. It wasn’t overturned on something as nebulous as freedom. It was overturned because the executive branch overstepped it’s bounds and tried to do the legislative branch’s job.
If you’re willing to pay those prices, I say more power to you!
It would still have been overturned because such legislation has no basis within law.
It would have had a basis within the law had legislators actually enacted the soda serving limitation into law. And, honestly, I expect that will happen somewhere in the United States at some point in the future.
It’s not random but I believe it is pointless. Limiting the size of some sugary drinks in some circumstances is going to to do jack $#!% for reducing obesity. If it could be shown that the soda ban would make a measurable impact on obesity I’d consider supporting it but otherwise it is a useless regulation that potentially overreaches.