Soda Ban

Mayor De Blasio Looking to Ban Large Sugary Drinks Because That Went So Well the First Time

|

Wikimedia Commons

The more things change, the more they stay the same. New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is reportedly mulling a large sugary drink ban 2.0, according to The Wall Street Journal:

Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration is exploring new ways to regulate the size of large sugary drinks in New York City, holding high-level meetings behind closed doors with health advocates and beverage industry executives.

"Mayor de Blasio has made clear he supports a ban on large sugary drinks," his spokesman, Phil Walzak, said on Thursday. "The administration is currently considering plans on the best way to reach that goal."

Earlier this year, a New York State court gave the beat down to former mayor Michael Bloomberg's ban on 16-ounce sodas. The court found that the city's Board of Health did not have such wide-sweeping authority.

But that victory might be shortlived. The court's findings didn't put the kibosh on bans qua bans: It merely found issue with the procedural methods the administration pursued to achieve its intrusive goals. Only the elected City Council has the authority to ban saccharine libations, the court said. The door for new prohibitions was left wide open—a door the de Blasio administration is looking to slink through

De Blasio is treading softly and carrying a big soda, however. He realizes that at the moment the City Council would probably not sign off on a large sugary beverage ban:

While Mr. de Blasio said last year he would pursue legislation if the state's highest court agreed the council was the proper body to impose such regulations, the administration has been wary of introducing a bill. A majority of council members, including Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, voiced opposition to the Bloomberg-backed regulations.

Yet if Councilman Corey Johnson is a reliable bellwether, the Council won't take too much convincing:

He opposed Mr. Bloomberg's ban largely because of jurisdictional reasons. Mr. Johnson also said he was concerned Mr. Bloomberg's plan treated "similar businesses in an uneven way." "I am completely open to looking at a fair and healthy way" to regulate sugary beverages citywide, he said.

Dr. Thomas Farley, health commissioner under Bloomberg and the Oz of the first soda ban, thinks the uphill battle to convince the Council to meddle even further into personal affairs is winnable. He "said the council could approve regulations that are broader than the original Bloomberg proposal."

The effectiveness of such soda bans is debatable, to say the least. What isn't debatable is that de Blasio is trying his best to keep alive a cherished NYC tradition of banning everything in sight. Gone are the days of smoking flavored cigarettes in public while stuffing your face with salty trans-fat flavored French fries. Now even horse-drawn carriages and Big Gulps are (once again) under threat.

Advertisement

NEXT: Florida Supreme Court Rules Cell Phone Location Data Protected by 4th Amendment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Remember his campaign slogan – “DeBlasio: I’ll make you nostalgic for Bloomberg!”

    1. Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel went to speak with Rehoboam. “Your father was a hard master,” they said. “Lighten the harsh labor demands and heavy taxes that your father imposed on us. Then we will be your loyal subjects.”

      […]

      But Rehoboam spoke harshly to the people, for he rejected the advice of the older counselors and followed the counsel of his younger advisers. He told the people, “My father laid heavy burdens on you, but I’m going to make them even heavier! My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with scorpions!”

      Substitute De Blasio and Bloomberg where appropriate.

      1. heh heh

      2. That policy didn’t turn out so well for Rehoboam.

        1. Damn reactionaries lacked the vision to appreciate Rehoboam’s plan for High Speed Chariots.

  2. “I am completely open to looking at a fair and healthy way” to regulate sugary beverages citywide, he said.

    Goddam you all to hell

  3. With Bloomberg, I can see him wanting to do this purely for ego and control. De Blasio is a different animal, though, so I have to wonder which special interest this serves. Like Obama, De Blasio only does shit for one reason, and that’s cronyism to further his own power.

    1. Yeah. Bloomberg was smart and a nanny. De Blasio is dumb and power mad.

      1. As I keep saying…
        Follow the money?
        Follow the power?

        No, Follow the Desire to Control Others.

        de Blasio has become a caricature of himself.

    2. I’m guessing this is largely driven by unelected career bureaucrats.

      He’s got a very active “public health” department who keeps goading him (and Bloomberg too) into these things during meetings.

      Also, from a constituency standpoint, the push cost Bloomberg absolutely bupkis in terms of votes or support, so you do what works.

    3. De Blasio has always been cozy with the far left. Why do his actions have to serve “special interests”? I’m not saying he doesn’t sometimes, but pure ideology is all I see here: “The masses are too fat, so reduce the soda pop rations!”

  4. Seems like a good spot for this…

    **NYC Reasonoid Meet-up!!**

    When: Wednesday, 10/22/14, 6:00PM
    Where: Rattle N Hum
    14 E 33rd St
    http://www.rattlenhumbarnyc.com/home

    1. Fuck all of you De Blasio-electors.

      1. Hey don’t blame me, I live in the cultural wasteland of suburbia!

        1. Fuck all of you the De Blasio-electors.

  5. Mayor De Blasio Looking to Ban Large Sugary Drinks Because That Went So Well the First Time

    Operation Inherent Resolve

    1. But you know that the progtards will persistently misread/mis-hear this as ‘operation inerrant resolve’.
      How can they be questioned? They’re *right* dammit!

      ‘Fuck off slaver’ is becoming too mild a rejoinder.

    2. Operation Incoherent Response

  6. Is there anything — anything?! — that De Blasio actually does right? If so, I haven’t found it.

  7. Add a few drops of Ebola patient vomit to them and it’s problem solved!

    1. “Lose weight fast, the Ebola way!”

  8. Something, something, good and hard

  9. Xeones hasn’t been here in a long while, so I guess it’s up to me:

    Yo, fuck Bill de Blasio.

    1. Can I delegate that?

      Preferably to a boar or a goat?

  10. The court’s findings … merely found issue with the procedural methods the administration pursued to achieve its intrusive goals.

    I would expect nothing else.

    It’s regulations, procedures, and protocols all the way down.

    Just fucking ban sugar already and be done with it. 8-(

  11. I really can’t get worked up about this. Compare Bloomberg’s proposed restriction to all the restrictions on alcohol. All Bloomberg’s proposal did was say that if you wanted 32 ounces of soda, you had to buy two cups. Why is that such an egregious interference? No action is really being restricted, you are free to drink as much as you want, but society is going to subtly tell you hey, that might not be a very good idea.

    1. No action is really being restricted

      The action of my being able to sell you a 64 oz. cup of liquid sure as hell is being restricted, as is your action of buying 64 oz. of liquid from me to drink on the go.

      Besides, if ‘no action is being restricted’ then the law is ineffective and therefore unnecessary, as well as being an overreach. Those who are lawmakers should have to explain their reasoning rather than relying on intention (in this case, a vague public health/healthy living appeal) — rather than us having to adapt to their piss-poor legislation.

      You sound like nothing more than Ezra Klein praising the intentions of ‘affirmative consent’ and downplaying any negative consequences as being exceedingly rare (which even if true, are not mitigated by non-existent positives or good intent).

      1. if ‘no action is being restricted’ then the law is ineffective and therefore unnecessary, as well as being an overreach. Those who are lawmakers should have to explain their reasoning rather than relying on intention

        Well said.

    2. but society is going to subtly tell you hey, that might not be a very good idea

      next time you see society, tell em i said fuck you.

    3. Society =/= Whatever power mad fuck is currently in a position to make these decrees.

    4. I won’t restrict Moses Mandel Thwakovich 3rd?’s right post here, but his posts can only be 16 words. If he wants to say 32 words, he has to create two posts.

      “Why is that such an egregious interference? No action is really being restricted.”

    5. It is not an egregious interference. Most of us simply don’t want to live in a society where Government can do anything it wants if it’s “not an egregious interference.”

      And the fact that you think society=government is laughable.

  12. I wonder why neocons are making a big deal out of this. It’s not like they give a damn about individual liberty or anything like that. Perhaps its just a self interested appeal to the fat working class man who isn’t responsive to “the rich are being drowned in taxes” type arguments, but might get all angry when he is told what he knows, that his lifestyle is unhealthy. Or maybe neocons want a fat populace because who ever heard of a fat man leading revolutions?

    1. This is so mindlessly elitist and oblivious, that it must have been written Ezra Klein. No wait, SadBeard.

    2. Or maybe you’re retarded? Yeah, that’s definitely it.

    3. I think you’re on to something! Obviously anyone who doesn’t want to ban large sugary drinks wants everyone to drink them! And I mean everyone! Because not wanting something banned is the same as mandating it! And since all libertarians are really Republicans, this means libertarians want to force people to suck down large sugary drinks! Down the hatch, fatso!

    4. C-
      Lacks originality, cohesive thought, and supportable conclusions.

    5. You know, I haven’t really heard from any neocons on this. If you see any, send them around and we shall taunt them a second time.

  13. De Blasio and The Nannies are new age Puritans. The only difference is that the Puritans wanted to save your immortal soul and De Blasio and The Nannies want to save your body.

    1. More like they want to save your ability to pay taxes and/or vote them into office. This ban is not intended as a public health measure, the often repeated claim in support of it is that “health care costs are rising due to obesity so to save money we need to ban big gulps.” It won’t do that either, but that’s their justification for it.

      The REAL reason I suspect they want this ban is the ever increasing encroachment of power. They want to control every single part of your life.

  14. And such a tour de force for New York politicians… considering what, only 25% (at most) of New Yorkers vote for these guys. That’s a mighty potent 25%.

  15. Okay, so the new Bill of Rights would have three rights–one forbidding laws against abortion, one mandating gay marriage, and one creating a positive right to other people’s money. Everything else is not a right but a government privilege, to be granted and withheld at will.

    1. You forgot the right to silence critics.

      1. Pro L made no mention of Freedom of Speech. Silencing critics is implied.

        1. I saw that.

          Perhaps I would have been clearer if I said “DUTY to silence critics.”

            1. Well, at least it’s on the front, not on the back side the way it is with the present version.

    2. You forgot pot and Mexicans.

      1. Those are privileges, not rights.

  16. Buttplug would suck this guys cock with relish.

    1. dill or sweet?

      you know what, dont answer that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.