In case you missed it, a judge has struck down Michael Bloomberg’s big sugary drink ban, partly due to Bloomberg sidestepping the city council, partly because it was “arbitrary and capricious” in what was banned and what wasn’t. Bloomberg vows to fight the ruling, because NYC has absolutely no other problems
(Newsday) New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said a judge was “clearly in error” for blocking the city’s ban on jumbo-sized sugary drinks and vowed a vigorous fight to overturn the ruling and highlight the “deadly” scourge of obesity as a public health problem that inordinately affects the poor.
“If we are serious about fighting obesity, we have to be honest about what causes it and we have to have the courage to tackle it head-on,” Bloomberg said during a City Hall news conference Monday after the State Supreme Court justice’s ruling in Manhattan.
Right, because instead of getting a big sugary 20 ounce drink (or bigger), people can’t purchase two 16 ounce instead. And could possibly end up drinking more. And who’s this “we”? That’s the problem with Progressives (fascists): they always want to tell you what to do.
“It’s not enough to talk and it’s not enough to hope,” Bloomberg said. “We have a responsibility as human beings to do something to save each other. While other people will wring their hands over the problem of sugary drinks, in New York City we’re doing something about it.”
In other words, he knows what’s best for you, so your freedom of choice should be taken away when it comes to drinks that are legal under the law everywhere but in his own mind. Perhaps Nanny B should spend more time trying to eliminate serious problems like, oh, say, gangs, rapes, drugs, and violence in NYC.
“I’ve got to defend my children and you and everyone else and do what’s right to save lives,” he said in response to a question. “Obesity kills. There’s just no question about it … It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives.
That way lies totalitarianism. For your own good. And Nanny B intends to spend lots of time fighting the ruling, because it’s not like he and NYC have other pressing issues, especially when they waste lots of taxpayer money on the judicial proceedings.
Diabetes is a public health concern. Most of the 100s of billions spent each year treating diabetes comes from Federal tax monies. Seat belts, warnings on tobacco products, children’s clothes that do not burn, air dafety rules Teach do you consider all of those to also be intrusive on “peoples choice”? Should the government be involved in reducing the precursors to chronic health problems? Most Americans say yes.
If *anyone* is wringing their hands over the “soda problem,” I say their real problem is a lack of a sense of perspective.
John takes the common liberal position that the rights of people are based on popular vote or popular whim. That belief is contrary to every idea upon which this country was founded.
Even his economic argument is flawed. John says that because diabetes cost the government money, the goverment has the right to regulate activities. The problem with this position is that john is trying to play both sides. John advocated for universal / government control of health care because it would lower costs. As conservstives pointed out, health care costs would rise and they have. Facing the higher costs that the government caused, john now believes the government has the right to control activities (further increasing costs to citizens,) but not looking at how their activities caused the increase to begin with.
But to further show the idiocy of john’s position on costs, we should remember that the cost of people getting hurt on the job is higher than the costs of diabetes. Using john’s logic, we should outlaw people working. There are more costs involved with people getting hurt by exercising than compared to the costs of diabetes. Therefore, we should outlaw exercise. In a move that will cause john’s head to explodes, lesbians are more likely to be obese than gay males or hetersexual people. Using john’s thinking, we should outlaw lesbians.
The bottom line us that people like john think others should not have the right to make informed decisions when it comes to their lives and the exercise of their rights. He would rather the goverment make those decisions.
The only conclusion one can draw is that john, like most liberals, hates true freedom.
It’s funny, because the minute any conservative talks about abortion and contraception, liberals like John will immediately go ballistic and start talking about “my body my choice”, yet they don’t mind limiting other’s freedom. Of course, NYC liberals weren’t particularly happy with Bloomberg’s big drink ban since it affected themselves.
And, no, I do not beloved I’m seat belt mandates for the driver. For passengers, yes. If someone wants to take the chance, that’s their problem. People are entitled to be jackasses.
Teach- exactly right again!
I’m a little late commenting here but Bloomberg is a very interesting character. Instead of wasting time and public money with laws, which represent the pitfall of government, he should be have teachers spending less time on teaching to the test and more time tackling social issues such as healthy eating. Education is always a better alternative than laws. People SHOULD be free to decide what they want to consume and allowing utopians like Bloomberg to force people to decide what the government approves of as your only choice is a dangerous precedent. This is the point many “quality of life” people miss. We (the people of New York City and America for that matter) would be unwise to let politicians or bureaucrats make totalitarian-style laws that are presented for the people’s own good. This soda ban is crossing the line. Ideologues like Bloomberg think they are so important but just in case have to manufacture a “need” for their own “services” for Americans. Everything is always about helping or protecting people. Then you have America’s biggest city as the best place to get a Pandora’s box pink summons from some cop society sees as a hero and there are 100s of ways to get in trouble for nonsense. not exactly a good example for freedom. The problem with men like Bloomberg is that either they need to have more children or get a boyfriend, the latter being the more probable solution for Bloomberg. This may cure his desire to be everyone else’s father. I am a bit of a hypocrite here because the soda ban wouldn’t effect me because I know it’s all chemical-based diabetes juice but it really bothers me that we have so many potholes in the street and this jerk of a mayor is abusing his power by making believe he is so worried about our health so much. I don’t think so Mr. Bloomberg (and I won’t call you Mike because you’re not my buddy), the issue to about CONTROL. I can’t stand Bloomberg and can’t stand politicians who try to copy his nonsense. Don’t forget Bloomberg was a Republican and what pejorative terms “liberal” and “conservative” can really be today.