2 replies to this topic

[Luminosity]

Today I caught Christine Quinn, NYC council person on CNN. She was making a lot of arguments that didn't make sense against Mayor Bloomberg's large soda ban. I have found that when that happens, the person is often a shill for a special interest. She claims she received only $10,000 from Coke out of millions in campaign contributions, but I bet they found a back door way to get money to her. Meanwhile, America is the fatest nation on earth. We have sodas big enough to bathe a baby in and our kids all have ADD. The soda companies can more than afford fight Mayor Bloomberg in court and pay off politicians. The question is, can we afford to let them?

What do you think of the soda ban?

[npcomplete]

My politics lean heavily towards the libertarian view. One of the things that concerns me is the drip drip drip loss of freedom across the board, the same freedoms that our Founders fought for and codified in our Constitution (in the USA). Now the government wants to tell people in NYC how much soda pop they should drink in a "single order" (ordering several smaller glasses is ok, so it is also a stupid law).

While this is an issue that will never impact me (since I don't drink sugar water), it is just one more example of loss of freedom. IMHO, the government has no business whatsoever telling people what size of soda pop they can drink.

I am also a strong believer in State's Rights (Tenth Amendment) and that these rights have limits as recognized in numerous Supreme Court decisions like McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and others, so an individual state cannot just do as it pleases if found in violation of the overarching Constitutional guidelines. It will be interesting to see if this decision, if reversed on appeal, goes on to higher courts like the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://online.wsj.co...aruling0311.pdf

In the decision in which the court enjoined the Respondent (NYC Dept. of Health, et al.) from enforcing the law, Justice Tingling cited a separation of powers argument, basically stating that the Board of Health was an appointed board by the executive branch. Prior case law, like the NYC trans-fat ban, went through the legislative branch after the Dept. of Health action and thus avoided the separation of powers criticism.

This whole "soda pop ban/restriction" is an educational issue. Obviously the decision based on separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of NY government, and on the "arbitrary and capricious" nature of the law, will be appealed. It is also obvious that there is little question on whether or not there is an obesity epidemic and associated epidemic in type 2 diabetes. However, stepping on individual liberty should not be the legal remedy for this health epidemic... regardless of whether or not drinking sugar water is a stupid idea.

[Luminosity]

Thanks for responding.