Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Who Should Be Mayor? | What's the Difference Between a 5-H… »

Monday, March 11, 2013

Chow Double Gulps Are Still Legal in New York City

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Bad news for Bloomberg's war on Big Soda's Big Sodas:

A judge has halted New York City’s ban on large sugary drinks just a day before it was to go into effect, handing a major victory to the American beverage industry, which had feared that soda bans could spread across the country.

The regulations imposed by New York are “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences,” New York Supreme Court judge Milton Tingling wrote in his opinion today.

"Judge Milton Tingling" is one of the best names I've ever heard.

FacebookShare

Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

How banning them if they're put into a plastic bag?

Posted by Unbrainwashed on March 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM

I get conflicted feelings about laws like this.

On the one hand, it seems dumb and wasteful to pass a law banning large drinks when someone can simply drink the same amount in multiple cups.

On the other hand, people really are stupid and simple-minded, and the fact that it may actually get people to drink less corn syrup - even though it's done by means of a moronic and ham-fisted law - makes me grudgingly approve of it.

Posted by Urgutha Forka on March 11, 2013 at 2:50 PM

That judge is a shoe-in for the Congressional Medal of Freedom Award.

Posted by raindrop on March 11, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I'd rather educate people on the shit they put into their bodies. Sure, some people are still going to drink gallons of sugar water every day. It's not the Government's place to stop them.

Posted by very bad homo on March 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM

@4 - Yes, but we should stop subsidizing the crap, too. Let people eat or drink what they want, but not fucking aid and abet their behavior.

Posted by Mike in Olympia on March 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM

It's not about "freedom" (unless one means the freedom of advertisers to brainwash viewers) but about the health care cost of people eating too much sugar ($245 billion per year for diabetes alone).

Posted by anon1256 on March 11, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Should we remove the laws that restrict putting lead and other toxins into food as well? Don't those laws restrict your freedom to poison yourself?

Libertarianism has it's limits. This is one of them.

Posted by Tacoma Traveler on March 11, 2013 at 5:57 PM

@7: This has nothing to do with libertarianism or even public health for that matter. This has to do with a law being arbitrary and capricious, as the judge said.

Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on March 11, 2013 at 7:17 PM

What a stupid law.

Posted by CPN on March 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I wonder what the percentage of obese people there are who do not drink soda in large sizes, compared obese people who do?

The mayor should recall his high school biology, the body turns all fats and sugars into glucose. Hence that is the fundamental reason this law is arbitrary.

Posted by raindrop on March 11, 2013 at 7:56 PM

I'd like to point out that his actual title is "Justice" Milton Tingle.

Posted by Marooner on March 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM

For what it's worth, Double Gulps will STILL be legal, even if the law passes. The law applies only to food-service establishments that get more than 50% of their income from ready-to-consume food and drink. Grocery and convenience stores are exempt, so 7-Eleven is sitting quite pretty.

Posted by nixor on March 12, 2013 at 7:39 AM

“Already, one in three Medicare dollars is spent on people with diabetes. It’s an enormous cost to our health care system and to our economy,” says Cynthia Rice with Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International.

Robert Ratner believes the key to reducing diabetes is reducing obesity.

“Clearly we have a food industry that is out to sell food that people want to eat, not necessarily looking at the health qualities of those foods,” says Ratner.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/econom…

Posted by anon1256 on March 12, 2013 at 7:40 AM

@13: Education is inherently far more healthy than regulation.

Posted by raindrop on March 12, 2013 at 11:10 AM

@14 - Did education without regulation work for tobacco? No. Quit peddling corporate self-regulation. It doesn't work. How many examples of self-regulatory failure do you need before you start questioning your ideology?

Posted by anon1256 on March 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM