Government Regluations: New York Soda

By now we’ve all heard about Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to ban large sizes of drinks that are high in sugar or calories.  This would include soda, energy drinks and sweetened teas.

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

This has to be a clear cut example of what the government CAN do, but what it SHOULDN’T do.  There’s no question that American are getting bigger and becoming obese at alarming rates.  There is no question that eating/drinking less garbage and working out more often would greatly contribute to reducing this problem.

However, at some point, there has to come a time when the government oversteps its bounds.  Are we really ready to accept living in a state where the state can dictate such personal freedoms?  Perhaps we are.  We already accept the fact that we can’t smoke in certain places.  We acknowledge and accept that the government can dictate seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

As much as I’m appalled at the regulation of soda-pop, I am equally sure that most of our citizens will accept it and we can just chalk it up to another example of people eschewing personal liberty in the name of removing any semblance of personal responsibility.

8 responses to “Government Regluations: New York Soda

  1. How about, in the alternative, a 50 cent tax on sodas over some threshold size?

    The reason places sell giant sodas is because it doesn’t cost them significantly more to fill a 24 oz cup than a 12 oz cup, so whatever extra they get you to pay is almost pure profit. The tax would discourage people from buying and places from selling large size drinks but without banning them.

    • How about, in the alternative, a 50 cent tax on sodas over some threshold size?

      That is certainly a better idea.

      I understand that we ban certain things. We don’t allow certain drugs, we don’t allow certain drinks. I further understand that this is the ultimate in want us Libertarians want:

      Allow the smallest forms of government to pass laws or regulation, keep it away from the larger forms.

      There’s just something about all of this banning/limiting of slat and soda that smacks of something not right.

      But yes, taxing is a better solution.

  2. This is all the voters fault. If you are stupid enough to elect people like Bloomberg you deserve what you get . Obviously the kommissars do not have enough to do . Another big argument for small government .

    • This is all the voters fault. If you are stupid enough to elect people like Bloomberg you deserve what you get .

      Totally agree. The people of New York did this to themselves.

  3. This has to be a clear cut example of what the government CAN do, but what it SHOULDN’T do.

    Did everybody else miss this?!?!? Pino just acknowledged that the government can ban large soft drinks!!!

    • Pino just acknowledged that the government can ban large soft drinks!!!

      🙂

      That’s fair, I am pretty sure I err on the side of too few regulations from government in general and the Federal government for sure.

      However, I acknowledge that Massachusetts CAN implement Romneycare. I do NOT think that the Federal government can implement Obamacare. There is a difference in what states and local governments can do and what the federal government can do. And even if you think it’s good policy [hard to do] it is hard to argue that the feds can actually do it.

  4. Pino,

    ” But yes, taxing is a better solution. ”

    Can’t believe you are for that . Don’t take my arm, but here is a finger . Banning and taxing is only different by degree. Taxing should be about raising necessary revenue. It should not be about social engineering . Big gulp people should not bear any special burden . Just as smokers should not .

    I would love to see the study that shows how many obese people got that way because of big drinks. This crap only results in citizens finding inventive ways around another idiot tax or regulation that our lords and masters impose upon us their lowly servants .

    I don’t smoke so let them over tax the smokers. I don’t drink big gulps so let them screw the big fat gulpers . One day they will come after something I like and the smokers and gulpers will tell me to go screw myself .

    • Banning and taxing is only different by degree. Taxing should be about raising necessary revenue. It should not be about social engineering . Big gulp people should not bear any special burden . Just as smokers should not .

      Whoa Nellie.

      My first preference would be that the government stay out. If we wanna drink large sodas, let us. And when we get fat and need medical care, don’t give it to us “for free” either. I am way more of a “government get out” kinda guy than I am a meddler.

      However, IF we are going to allow the government in, free market solutions are always better than fiat ones. Tax soda. Tax smokes. Tax bourbon.

Leave a Reply