What will stop a person for getting 2 or 4 16-ounce size cups. 
What next only 400  kernels popcorn with no butter.   
They should make finding a clean "public" restroom at all eating places, a number one property.     

NYC proposes ban on sale of oversized sodas.

snip~
NEW YORK — Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks in the city's restaurants, delis and movie theaters in the hopes of combating obesity — an expansion of his administration's efforts to encourage healthy behavior by limiting residents' choices.

The proposal — expected to be announced formally on Thursday in a City Hall briefing — would take 20-ounce soda bottles off the shelves of the city's delis and eliminate super-sized sugary soft drinks from fast-food menus. It is the latest health effort by the administration to spark accusations that the city's officials are overstepping into matters that should be left in the hands of individual consumers.

"There they go again," said Stefan Friedman, spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, who called the proposal "zealous" in a statement. "The New York City Health Department's unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top. The city is not going to address the obesity issue by attacking soda because soda is not driving the obesity rates."

But City Hall officials, citing a 2006 study, argue that sugary drinks are the largest driver of rising calorie consumption and obesity. They note that sweet drinks are linked to long-term weight gain and increased rates of diabetes and heart disease.

The administration's proposal would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sugary drinks sold at food service establishments, including restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.

The ban would apply only to drinks that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. It would not apply to diet soda or any other calorie-free drink. Any drink that is at least half milk or milk substitute would be exempted.



more @
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120531/US.Big.Sugary.Drink.Ban/

You know, Mr. Mayor, there's this thing called ordering a "small". That's what I started doing when "medium" became "large" and "large" became something resembling a barnyard watering trough with a straw.

Bloomberg's out of control.

Here's my question. Are big cups going to be allowed for diet and sugar free drinks Mr Bloomberg?

If the answer is yes, are you going to hire more city workers to monitor each place that serves drinks, to insure that a sugary drink doesn't accidentally end up in a big cup?

NYC is an interesting petri dish to watch. It's more than a little concerning, to see the citizens of the city roll over and allow all of their rights to be taken away, without even a wimper.

I'm sure Mr Obama is furiously taking notes on the methods used.

The city's proposed ban on high sugar drinks is part of a Health Department goal to reduce obesity and would apply to service in nearly all restaurants, movie theaters, and street food carts. Corner stores and all other establishments that receive a letter grade on food service from the Health Department would have to follow the ban.

The Health Department is not seeking City Council approval to move forward with this plan but the ban does require the approval of the city's Board of Health.
http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/headlines/586310/nyc-mayor-looks-to-ban-high-sugar-drinks/

Bloomberg's administration is following a familiar path, eh?...a government agency pushing its agenda to take the effect of law without the city's elected legislature (City Council) ever voting on it.  The Board of Health, which will vote on the proposal, are all mayoral appointees...Gee, I wonder how that vote will go?

Quote from: bluelieu on May 31, 2012, 08:45:22 AM
The city's proposed ban on high sugar drinks is part of a Health Department goal to reduce obesity and would apply to service in nearly all restaurants, movie theaters, and street food carts. Corner stores and all other establishments that receive a letter grade on food service from the Health Department would have to follow the ban.

The Health Department is not seeking City Council approval to move forward with this plan but the ban does require the approval of the city's Board of Health.
http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/headlines/586310/nyc-mayor-looks-to-ban-high-sugar-drinks/

Bloomberg's administration is following a familiar path, eh?...a government agency pushing its agenda to take the effect of law without the city's elected legislature (City Council) ever voting on it.  The Board of Health, which will vote on the proposal, are all mayoral appointees...Gee, I wonder how that vote will go?

This sort of thing is happening across the board, on both the state and federal levels.

Question: Wouldn't the governor of NY be obligated to step in? If not, wouldn't the federal government? And if not the feds, doesn't the supreme court have an obligation to defend and uphold the Constitution, and put this kind of crap to a stop? or does it require a lawsuit?

Since Obama's doing the same thing, I wouldn't expect much from him, but it seems to me like the supreme court should be able to reach out and just say NO!!!!

Maybe I should have started a different thread.

I think Bloomberg's step is a pretty radical departure from the normal over-regulation.
Usually the ridiculus regulations are imposed either behind the scenes or on a group small enough not to be able to gain enough traction to stop it.

Say they pass some regulation on Monsanto effectively preventing them from using some compound in their manufacturing process, probably because some regulator has a brother in law that sells a competing but more expensive compound that does the same thing.
Monsanto isn't going to be able to generate enough support to stop this. Monsanto will argue that it makes the cost of man-made fabric increase - the government will argue that it makes the cost of a shirt go up a dime, isn't your health worth that? And everybody'll forget about it, the government tightens the noose, Monsanto raises prices and everyone just moves on.
The regulation and government control is the issue - and it stands.

Or they regulate transfats, as they did in New York - every restaurant meal goes up in price, if the increase is brought up, people just shrug and go - 'everything's going up'.
The regulation and government control stands.

Smoking is banned almost everywhere in New York - they regulated a group of people that's small enough not to be able to change it.
The regulation and government control stands.

But now! He's actually hitting a large group of people directly, so I think this is a whole different thing. He may very well have jumped the shark - remains to be seen.

About the only way it'll be supported is if a lot of people view it as applying to someone else - like HOA regulations - when they hear the proposal they'll picture the 300 person dressed in spandex that was in front of them in line at Walmart yesterday - they won't think about how it'll affect them when they're  making the 2 hour drive home from a hot day at the beach.

I propose a "workaround":

Buy the 16-oz soda.  Refills are free.  (That's the way it works at Burger King.)

Quote from: PeterR on May 31, 2012, 10:23:53 AM
I propose a "workaround":

Buy the 16-oz soda.  Refills are free.  (That's the way it works at Burger King.)

I've got a better one......................................tell the Occupy Wall Street people that they can't have any more Big Gulps and Giant Slushies.

Hell, they're all stoned and thirsty....................they'll go ape-shit!!!!!

If you're not allowed to buy what you want,you can always go over the state line to buy,if you live live near the state line.

That's what I used to do when my state said I couldn't buy the type of gasoline I wanted.Had no trouble and the merchants enjoyed the extra business.!

Quote from: walkstall on May 31, 2012, 07:58:33 AM
  What will stop a person for getting 2 or 4 16-ounce size cups. 
What next only 400  kernels popcorn with no butter.   
They should make finding a clean "public" restroom at all eating places, a number one property.     

NYC proposes ban on sale of oversized sodas.

snip~
NEW YORK — Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks in the city's restaurants, delis and movie theaters in the hopes of combating obesity — an expansion of his administration's efforts to encourage healthy behavior by limiting residents' choices.

The proposal — expected to be announced formally on Thursday in a City Hall briefing — would take 20-ounce soda bottles off the shelves of the city's delis and eliminate super-sized sugary soft drinks from fast-food menus. It is the latest health effort by the administration to spark accusations that the city's officials are overstepping into matters that should be left in the hands of individual consumers.

"There they go again," said Stefan Friedman, spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, who called the proposal "zealous" in a statement. "The New York City Health Department's unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top. The city is not going to address the obesity issue by attacking soda because soda is not driving the obesity rates."

But City Hall officials, citing a 2006 study, argue that sugary drinks are the largest driver of rising calorie consumption and obesity. They note that sweet drinks are linked to long-term weight gain and increased rates of diabetes and heart disease.

The administration's proposal would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sugary drinks sold at food service establishments, including restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.

The ban would apply only to drinks that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. It would not apply to diet soda or any other calorie-free drink. Any drink that is at least half milk or milk substitute would be exempted.



more @
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120531/US.Big.Sugary.Drink.Ban/

I don't know about New York, but most restaurants here in Utah give you free refills. Even convience stores give you a discount for a refill if you use the same cup!

-Dr Watt

Yeah, work-arounds are wonderful - ask a Russian.

Sounds like to me the mayor of New York City is a control FREAK.

Quote from: kramarat on May 31, 2012, 09:10:10 AM
This sort of thing is happening across the board, on both the state and federal levels.

Question: Wouldn't the governor of NY be obligated to step in? If not, wouldn't the federal government? And if not the feds, doesn't the supreme court have an obligation to defend and uphold the Constitution, and put this kind of crap to a stop? or does it require a lawsuit?

Since Obama's doing the same thing, I wouldn't expect much from him, but it seems to me like the supreme court should be able to reach out and just say NO!!!!

Maybe I should have started a different thread.

The governor? Why? The federal government? Certainly not! The Supreme Court? For heaven's sake, what part of this proposed regulation violates the US Constitution? What will "put this sort of crap to a stop" is massive civil action against the perpetrators. If enough people don't like it enough, they'll vote the asshole out of office. Knowing NYC, what they'll get in his stead will be another similar asshole.

More than 3 million people have packed their toys and vacated the Empire State in the past 10 years, according to data from the IRS. This is one of the many reasons.

Quote from: ccd2002 on May 31, 2012, 11:06:10 AM
Sounds like to me the mayor of New York City is a control FREAK.

If it were only that simple - and innocent.

Follow the money! I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Bloomberg or someone close to him stands to make money from this!

A lot of money!

-Dr Watt

what part of this proposed regulation violates the US Constitution?

I don't know. I'll admit that I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it sure seems to me that the government doesn't have any more right to tell us what we can't buy, than it does to tell us what we have to buy......................as in Obamacare.