Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s ban on big sugary sodas fell flat Monday after a state judge invalidated the rule.

New York Supreme CourtJustice Milton Tingling in Manhattan said the regulations, which were set to take effect Tuesday, are “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences.”

“The court finds that the regulation herein is laden with exceptions based on economic and political concerns,” the judge wrote in his 36-page opinion.

Since its conception, Mr. Bloomberg’s bid to regulate consumption of sugary drinks to help fend off the city’s climbing obesity rates has been criticized as an example of a government “nanny state” run amok while becoming a focus of jokes by late-night television talk shows and radio hosts.....

....A coalition of labor unions, along with theater, beverage and grocery trade associations and the New York Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, filed a request for a permanent restraining order in October.....

.....The rule bans certain venues, including restaurants, theaters and sports parks, from serving sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. At the same time, other venues such as convenience stores and supermarkets are exempt from the restriction.

“t applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweetener and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the rule,” Mr. Tingling wrote.

The judge also said the ban should have been approved by the elected City Council, instead of the city health board, whose members are appointed by the mayor......"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -soda-ban/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I pay $18 for a movie ticket in NYC I want to be able to buy a $12 popcorn & $10 40oz soda to go with it dammit. You can take my guns but you'll never take my large non-diet soda!!!!!

The War on Drugs hasn't been effective, but maybe the War on Soda will work differently.

That's all they need in Riker's Island - forget the axe murderers and serial rapists when you've got REALLY dangerous, moderately overweight Coke and Pepsi drinkers jonesing for a fix.

ASUG8 wrote:The War on Drugs hasn't been effective, but maybe the War on Soda will work differently.

That's all they need in Riker's Island - forget the axe murderers and serial rapists when you've got REALLY dangerous, moderately overweight Coke and Pepsi drinkers jonesing for a fix.

As long as conks like BDK are consistent.

Poorly constructed law - too many places were exempt. You could still buy a Big Gulp at a 7-Eleven that could literally be right next to a movie theater where an exact same size drink would be banned. Come on, that's just lazy legislating.

But then again, to think that obesity is mainly or largely caused because of large, sugary drinks is pretty lazy too.

GannonFan wrote:Poorly constructed law - too many places were exempt. You could still buy a Big Gulp at a 7-Eleven that could literally be right next to a movie theater where an exact same size drink would be banned. Come on, that's just lazy legislating.

But then again, to think that obesity is mainly or largely caused because of large, sugary drinks is pretty lazy too.

And to think you can legislate away obesity is just plain retarded. Like everything else NY does.

ASUG8 wrote:The War on Drugs hasn't been effective, but maybe the War on Soda will work differently.

That's all they need in Riker's Island - forget the axe murderers and serial rapists when you've got REALLY dangerous, moderately overweight Coke and Pepsi drinkers jonesing for a fix.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Poorly constructed law - too many places were exempt. You could still buy a Big Gulp at a 7-Eleven that could literally be right next to a movie theater where an exact same size drink would be banned. Come on, that's just lazy legislating.

But then again, to think that obesity is mainly or largely caused because of large, sugary drinks is pretty lazy too.

And to think you can legislate away obesity is just plain retarded. Like everything else NY does.

Well, I agree with that too. The intention is noble, but you can't legislate people to get off their fat asses and exercise every now and then. Obesity is pretty simple - you take in more calories than you burn. Besides, once you start passing 250 lbs, then 300 lbs, then 350 lbs, alarm bells should be going off in your head. Nothing can legislate out stupid.

"Mississippi passes 'anti-Bloomberg bill,' banning local limits on portion sizes and requirements to post calorie counts
The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall’s BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Lawmakers in Mississippi — the most obese state in the nation — have overwhelmingly approved what they’re calling the "anti-Bloomberg bill."

It would ban communities from requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on menus or limit portion sizes, as Mayor Bloomberg tried to do with his proposed ban on large sodas. Also forbidden: any local rule banning toys from being distributed with kids’ meals.

The governor is expected to sign it........"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1286804" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Speaking of Bloomberg, never let a crisis go to waste..

"After Aurora: How Mayor Bloomberg Planned to Make the Next Massacre Count

When the smoke cleared at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in the wee hours of a Friday morning last July, 12 people were dead, 58 were injured and Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in New York, readying an assault of his own.

The campaign that Mr. Bloomberg and his “gun team” came up with in the hours and days after Aurora involved carpet-bombing Washington with millions from the mayor’s immense fortune and a media blitz that would be deployed following the next massacre.........

.......In his years building the business empire that made him a billionaire, Mr. Bloomberg developed a unique fluency for numbers and learned to view the world through a statistical prism. Multiple people close to Mr. Bloomberg have said that the figure he’s most preoccupied with is the number people in his city who die of preventable causes. This obsession with bringing down the death rate has driven the mayor’s notorious crusades against smoking and sugar, and according to John Feinblatt, the mayor’s chief adviser, it was a major factor behind his decision to step into the national gun control debate several years ago......

......On December 14, 21 weeks after the Aurora shooting, Adam Lanza opened fire on an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., killing 26 children and teachers. This time, Mr. Bloomberg was ready......"
http://politicker.com/2013/03/after-aur ... cre-count/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:"Mississippi passes 'anti-Bloomberg bill,' banning local limits on portion sizes and requirements to post calorie counts
The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall’s BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Lawmakers in Mississippi — the most obese state in the nation — have overwhelmingly approved what they’re calling the "anti-Bloomberg bill."

It would ban communities from requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on menus or limit portion sizes, as Mayor Bloomberg tried to do with his proposed ban on large sodas. Also forbidden: any local rule banning toys from being distributed with kids’ meals.

The governor is expected to sign it........"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1286804" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't get the resistance to post the calorie counts - if McDonald's was able to post the calories on everything they sell (they do and they are very helpful) then why can't everyone? I'm all in favor of information (i.e. posting calorie information), and I'm all in opposition to people taking away choice (i.e. regulating serving sizes). That's a pretty clear line IMO.

GannonFan wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:"Mississippi passes 'anti-Bloomberg bill,' banning local limits on portion sizes and requirements to post calorie counts
The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall’s BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Lawmakers in Mississippi — the most obese state in the nation — have overwhelmingly approved what they’re calling the "anti-Bloomberg bill."

It would ban communities from requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on menus or limit portion sizes, as Mayor Bloomberg tried to do with his proposed ban on large sodas. Also forbidden: any local rule banning toys from being distributed with kids’ meals.

The governor is expected to sign it........"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1286804" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't get the resistance to post the calorie counts - if McDonald's was able to post the calories on everything they sell (they do and they are very helpful) then why can't everyone? I'm all in favor of information (i.e. posting calorie information), and I'm all in opposition to people taking away choice (i.e. regulating serving sizes). That's a pretty clear line IMO.

So the rib/steak house has to figure out what the calorie and fat content are for their meals????

I like Mississippi's thinking but not that bill. It's one thing to prevent adults from buying large soft drinks with their own money, but if you are talking about taxpayer-subsidized school lunch and breakfast programs I have no problem ensuring that meals are balanced and nutritious. The bill could prevent that.

grizzaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't get the resistance to post the calorie counts - if McDonald's was able to post the calories on everything they sell (they do and they are very helpful) then why can't everyone? I'm all in favor of information (i.e. posting calorie information), and I'm all in opposition to people taking away choice (i.e. regulating serving sizes). That's a pretty clear line IMO.

So the rib/steak house has to figure out what the calorie and fat content are for their meals????

Just the caloric content. Even McDonald's doesn't post fat content (at least not on the displays over the counter - they may put more on the actual container the food comes in). And with each law like this there should be guidance from the government setting the law how to calculate the caloric content to make it easier. But yes, all in favor of more information.

How about this. America's citizens man up and take some PERSONAL responsibility for once. It is always someone else's problem. If you want to live in your apartment eating Big Mac's by the case and drinking 2 liters of Mountain Dew all day, fine for me, just don't blame Pepsi or McDonald's when you have a heart attack. This issue shouldn't be something the politicians in this country have to worry about and waste all of their time, when much more important issues are at hand.

grizzaholic wrote:How about this. America's citizens man up and take some PERSONAL responsibility for once. It is always someone else's problem. If you want to live in your apartment eating Big Mac's by the case and drinking 2 liters of Mountain Dew all day, fine for me, just don't blame Pepsi or McDonald's when you have a heart attack. This issue shouldn't be something the politicians in this country have to worry about and waste all of their time, when much more important issues are at hand.

I don't disagree with that. But I still like having caloric information posted.

GannonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:How about this. America's citizens man up and take some PERSONAL responsibility for once. It is always someone else's problem. If you want to live in your apartment eating Big Mac's by the case and drinking 2 liters of Mountain Dew all day, fine for me, just don't blame Pepsi or McDonald's when you have a heart attack. This issue shouldn't be something the politicians in this country have to worry about and waste all of their time, when much more important issues are at hand.

I don't disagree with that. But I still like having caloric information posted.

I look at it this way. If I am worried about counting calories, I will choose something else. If I need to look at what is in my burger, I probably shouldn't be eating it and should get something else OR eat somewhere else.

grizzaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't disagree with that. But I still like having caloric information posted.

I look at it this way. If I am worried about counting calories, I will choose something else. If I need to look at what is in my burger, I probably shouldn't be eating it and should get something else OR eat somewhere else.

Huh, people who want to watch what and how much they eat can't have a burger? What about the fancy salads that actually have more calories than a seemingly more caloric item? What do you have against information?

GannonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
I look at it this way. If I am worried about counting calories, I will choose something else. If I need to look at what is in my burger, I probably shouldn't be eating it and should get something else OR eat somewhere else.

Huh, people who want to watch what and how much they eat can't have a burger? What about the fancy salads that actually have more calories than a seemingly more caloric item? What do you have against information?

Pretty sure I didn't say they shouldn't have a burger. But if they are so damn worried about calories there are other choices out there...if not, fuck it, get the damn burger and don't bitch to me about it.

grizzaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Huh, people who want to watch what and how much they eat can't have a burger? What about the fancy salads that actually have more calories than a seemingly more caloric item? What do you have against information?

Pretty sure I didn't say they shouldn't have a burger. But if they are so damn worried about calories there are other choices out there...if not, fuck it, get the damn burger and don't bitch to me about it.

You're underestimating how many dumb people there are...and they will bitch about it.

How about instead of a ban, Bloomberg invests in nutritional education?

grizzaholic wrote:How about this. America's citizens man up and take some PERSONAL responsibility for once. It is always someone else's problem. If you want to live in your apartment eating Big Mac's by the case and drinking 2 liters of Mountain Dew all day, fine for me, just don't blame Pepsi or McDonald's when you have a heart attack. This issue shouldn't be something the politicians in this country have to worry about and waste all of their time, when much more important issues are at hand.

The problem is that he/she won't quickly die from a heart attack. There will be other complications that occur first that will require medical attention for this uninsured scumbag. This is something that will cost you and me.
I see this similar to the seat belt law. The idea is that if people wear seat belts, there will be less injuries and less deaths. Therefore there will be less liability for the insurance companies and policy holders. This, theoretically, will keep premiums low. Yeah, yeah. I know what you are going to say but you can prove something that didn't happen, and neither can I.

While I am against legislation that would limit choice, I like the fight for saving "me" money in the future.
Especially in this case. If I want 48 oz of soda, I'll buy 4 12 oz cans.

CAA Flagship wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:How about this. America's citizens man up and take some PERSONAL responsibility for once. It is always someone else's problem. If you want to live in your apartment eating Big Mac's by the case and drinking 2 liters of Mountain Dew all day, fine for me, just don't blame Pepsi or McDonald's when you have a heart attack. This issue shouldn't be something the politicians in this country have to worry about and waste all of their time, when much more important issues are at hand.

The problem is that he/she won't quickly die from a heart attack. There will be other complications that occur first that will require medical attention for this uninsured scumbag. This is something that will cost you and me.
I see this similar to the seat belt law. The idea is that if people wear seat belts, there will be less injuries and less deaths. Therefore there will be less liability for the insurance companies and policy holders. This, theoretically, will keep premiums low. Yeah, yeah. I know what you are going to say but you can prove something that didn't happen, and neither can I.

While I am against legislation that would limit choice, I like the fight for saving "me" money in the future.
Especially in this case. If I want 48 oz of soda, I'll buy 4 12 oz cans.

Get back on the treadmill and negate the 20,000 calories of Pizza you've consumed this week.

I'm all for posting calorie info if the business wants to. But I am not for a law requiring a business to do so. Let the market decide if people prefer knowing the nutritional information of their food. Requiring all businesses to do so is unfair to smaller restaurants that barely make enough to get buy, much less perform research on their recipe's calorie count and pay for new displays and menus to convey that info.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: The problem is that he/she won't quickly die from a heart attack. There will be other complications that occur first that will require medical attention for this uninsured scumbag. This is something that will cost you and me.
I see this similar to the seat belt law. The idea is that if people wear seat belts, there will be less injuries and less deaths. Therefore there will be less liability for the insurance companies and policy holders. This, theoretically, will keep premiums low. Yeah, yeah. I know what you are going to say but you can prove something that didn't happen, and neither can I.

While I am against legislation that would limit choice, I like the fight for saving "me" money in the future.
Especially in this case. If I want 48 oz of soda, I'll buy 4 12 oz cans.

Get back on the treadmill and negate the 20,000 calories of Pizza you've consumed this week.

I'm still in winter mode. My fat ass is still on the couch for another 2 weeks.