NYC considers a ban on large sodas

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
However did New Yorkers manage to survive without ol' Mike there to save them?

I'm waiting for him to press on a ban on earbuds next.


Earbuds are obviously dangerous. What if you've got your volume too high and don't hear the bus horn after you step off the curb without looking? Pedestrian pancake!

Plus, now the city has the expense of bus repair, street cleanup, and if you survived, your healthcare.

Obviously earbuds should be next on the Supreme List of Bannination.
 

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
9,615
Reaction score
1,852
Location
East Coast
If we're going to ban earbuds, we must also ban cell phones. On the chance that someone will text/check email/look at his or her phone while walking/running/riding a bike/skating/standing on the street corner.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
It was a silly law to begin with, just an attempt to regulate behaviour...even if it can be proved to be self-destructive.
If all a behavior needs is to be proven self-destructive, then there are a bazillion laws to be passed!

I wonder what the penalty would be for not brushing one's teeth.
If we're going to ban earbuds, we must also ban cell phones. On the chance that someone will text/check email/look at his or her phone while walking/running/riding a bike/skating/standing on the street corner.
That idea is so two-years-ago:
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202853
 

CrastersBabies

Burninator!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
I'd be okay banning cell phones. When you get a cell phone, your IQ drops like 50 points, especially on college campuses. I can't tell you how many students just wander out into the middle of the road while walking and texting. A guy who was texting AND on his skateboard, shot out into the street, hit my CAR, then tried to blame me for it. (I was stopped at a stop sign and not moving.)

I also see people on bicycles texting.

I hear people texting in the bathroom stall next to me (and talking on the phone).

I see them driving.

I see people on "dates" who just sit across from each other and text.

Maybe it's texting that should be banned. Hmmmm.....
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Rather than all these bans, how about this: If you use your cell phone in an irresponsible manner, you will be subject to a fine -- anywhere, doing anything. For instance, an example that happens to me four or more times a week -- you are walking down the street while texting and you are not looking up at all to see what's in front of you, until the point where, due to narrow sidewalk or large crowds, I have no way to avoid you and I am forced to say out loud, "Watch where you're going." A cop who witnesses such a moment should be able to issue you a citation, even though you are pedestrian. Maybe then people will learn to watch where they are going. Also, if you cause an accident of any kind because you are using your cell phone irresponsibly, whatever insurance policy you have covering the accident will be voided and you will lose the ability to defend against lawsuits for damages, i.e. full and automatic liability due to irresponsible behavior. If the accident you cause due to your fully cognizant decision not to pay attention causes someone else's death or serious injury, you face the same manslaughter charges you would if you were, say, driving drunk.

And in regards to overindulgence with junk food, which would be better -- to ban super-big drink sizes, or to open the restaurant and food industries to the same tort liability that the tobacco industry faced? I'd be good with either.

People can either be nannied, or they can be responsible adults. Responsible adults suffer the consequences of their bad decisions. Which sounds like more fun -- nannying or responsibility? Because having neither should not be an option.
 
Last edited:

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
Mississippi passes "Anti Bloomberg Soda Bill" it has passed the legislature and is on the Governor's desk.
A bill now on the governor's desk would bar counties and towns from enacting rules that require calorie counts to be posted, that cap portion sizes, or that keep toys out of kids' meals.
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
Mississippi passes "Anti Bloomberg Soda Bill" it has passed the legislature and is on the Governor's desk.
There's so many different levels of idiocy there. I'll start with one they generally don't think about, the free market. Isn't something that helps the consumers make informed decisions good for the free market? Or is it good for the free market to let companies con their consumers into thinking an item has less calories than it really does (like the salad at McDonalds)?
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Isn't something that helps the consumers make informed decisions good for the free market? Or is it good for the free market to let companies con their consumers into thinking an item has less calories than it really does (like the salad at McDonalds)?

Depends what you think a "free market" is.

I'd say the former is a fair market, and the latter is a free market.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
New York court deals final blow to city's proposed ban on sugary drinks
New York's highest court has dealt a final blow to former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's quest to ban the sales of large sugary drinks.

In 2012, the city's health department passed a ban on sugary drinks bigger than 16 ounces. A lower court judge quickly issued an injunction against the regulation, stopping its enforcement. Both a trial court and appeals court ruled against the city.

Nevertheless, the Bloomberg and then De Blasio administrations pursued the ban's reinstatement to New York's highest court, where a divided seven judge panel struck down the "portion cap rule".

"Regardless of who or which arm of government first proposed or drafted the Portion Cap Rule, and regardless of whether the board exercised its considerable professional expertise or merely rubber-stamped a rule drafted outside the agency, the Portion Cap Rule is invalid," wrote Judge Eugene F Pigott Jr for the four-judge majority.