snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12 March 2013, 05:49 PM
Roadie's Avatar
Roadie Roadie is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2005
Location: California
Posts: 8,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
It was (and is) a silly law, and it seems to have been enacted improperly. But I wonder--if they called for a public vote and the majority were in favor of banning large sodas, would that be constitutional?
I would hope not. Or a ban on other things - like interracial or gay marriage - could conceivably be up for a vote. I know that gay marriage had been voted on, but I still hope to see the constitutionality of a vote like that addressed in some final way some day.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12 March 2013, 05:51 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
It was (and is) a silly law, and it seems to have been enacted improperly. But I wonder--if they called for a public vote and the majority were in favor of banning large sodas, would that be constitutional?
The public would never vote in favor of such a measure. However that does not answer your question. Since I believe people should run the government and not the other way around then yes it would be constitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:13 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebobo View Post
Originally, yes. Pundits,IIRC,began to refer to the 'Village' as the government.
The last time I checked we the people were the ones who elect those who run the government.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:14 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
It was (and is) a silly law, and it seems to have been enacted improperly. But I wonder--if they called for a public vote and the majority were in favor of banning large sodas, would that be constitutional?
I don't know much about New York's state constitution, but it would almost certainly be permitted under the U.S. Constitution. State and local governments have very few limits on what they can do under the U.S. Constitution; it primarily limits the federal government.

Except for the convenience store loophole, I don't think this law was a terrible idea. I think it's fine to exempt 2-liter and other soda bottles if they are reclosable, because unlike a Big Gulp, those are meant for sharing and leftovers can be saved for another day. If I buy a cup of soda in a fast-food joint, I tend to finish it no matter how big it is. It's fine to talk about personal freedom and responsibility, but the unavoidable fact is that we all pay the price for the public health consequences of obesity--even those of us who manage to stay thin.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:25 PM
Stan The Man's Avatar
Stan The Man Stan The Man is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
It's fine to talk about personal freedom and responsibility, but the unavoidable fact is that we all pay the price for the public health consequences of obesity--even those of us who manage to stay thin.
That point is, at the very least, debatable. And certainly not a fact.
Quote:
It’s a common enough argument around the world at the moment, that various unhealthy behaviours increase the costs to health care systems. Thus those unhealthy behaviours should be taxed more heavily so as to pay for the costs to those health care systems. The only problem with the argument is that it is entirely gibbering nonsense, unhealthy behaviours reduce costs to health care systems: if we are to accept the initial logic then we should subsidise them, not tax them.
Link.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:38 PM
Stan The Man's Avatar
Stan The Man Stan The Man is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
Except for the convenience store loophole, I don't think this law was a terrible idea.
But why stop there? Shouldn't they just ban soft drinks all together? Outlaw bacon? Mandate community exercise programs?

I'd prefer that everyone make their own decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:38 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan The Man View Post
If regulating the size of soft drinks (only at certain establishments no less) is appropriate, why not regulate the size of steaks that can be sold, the amount of cheese that can be put on nachos, the number of scoops allowed on an ice cream cone, etc., etc...?
But one can engage in that kind of "slippery slope" extrapolation about any form of legislation, no matter how generally reasonable the initial step onto the slope was.

If banning cigarette advertising from television is appropriate, why not the banning of soft drink advertising? If prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors is appropriate, why not prohibiting the sale of soft drinks to minors? If making it illegal for bars to serve alcohol to intoxicated customers is appropriate, why not make it illegal for them to serve soft drinks to overweight customers?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:47 PM
Stan The Man's Avatar
Stan The Man Stan The Man is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,772
Default

If the law prevented advertising of soft drinks, individuals could still make their own decisions as to whether or not they wanted to partake.

I think alcohol is a bit different since alcohol can and does have a direct affect on others (e.g. drunk driving).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:50 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
. It's fine to talk about personal freedom and responsibility, but the unavoidable fact is that we all pay the price for the public health consequences of obesity--even those of us who manage to stay thin.
And we fatties pay for the public health consequences of those who manage to stay thin as well. So what?

Obesity does not cause illness. Some diseases may correlate to obesity, and an extreme level of obesity will cause issues. But obesity that isn't in the extreme range does not cause disease. Period.

Nor does the occasional purchase of a large soda, which may even be intended to be shared amongst two or more people, cause obesity or illness.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:52 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan The Man View Post
If the law prevented advertising of soft drinks, individuals could still make their own decisions as to whether or not they wanted to partake.
If the law imposed a 16-ounce limit on the size of soft drink servings, individuals could still make their own decisions as to whether or not they wanted to partake.

Quote:
I think alcohol is a bit different since alcohol can and does have a direct affect on others (e.g. drunk driving).
Then why shouldn't minors who are too young to drive be allowed to buy alcohol?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12 March 2013, 06:54 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan The Man View Post
But why stop there? Shouldn't they just ban soft drinks all together? Outlaw bacon? Mandate community exercise programs?

I'd prefer that everyone make their own decisions.
I really hate these slippery slope arguments. If you disagree with a law, explain why it's wrong. A laundry list of other laws that might possibly also be proposed in the same spirit does nothing to advance your argument. If those laws are wrong, you can argue against them when and if they are proposed.

Every individual consumer is still free, under this law, to drink as much soda as he or she chooses. The law simply exerts some slight pressure to consume less soda, which, if that pressure works, could result in a healthier population. It's important to strike a balance between personal freedom and achieving objectives that serve the collective interest, and I think this law walks that fine line. A complete ban on soda, assuming it worked (instead of creating a black market like every other instance of prohibition has done) would be more effective at advancing the cause of public health, but at a much greater cost to personal liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12 March 2013, 07:00 PM
Stan The Man's Avatar
Stan The Man Stan The Man is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,772
Default

I guess my point is, I don't believe the government should be in the business of mandating what people do when the thing being mandated does not impact the rights of others.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:03 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan The Man View Post
I guess my point is, I don't believe the government should be in the business of mandating what people do when the thing being mandated does not impact the rights of others.
Then, for example, you're opposed to child labor laws? After all, if my six-year-old wants to work in a factory, that doesn't impact anyone else's rights.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:31 PM
RocMills RocMills is offline
 
Join Date: 29 October 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Then, for example, you're opposed to child labor laws? After all, if my six-year-old wants to work in a factory, that doesn't impact anyone else's rights.
I would think that if the six-year-old and the LEGAL guardian of said six-year-old wanted that child to work and the environment was safe... why not? I don't mean forced labor or sweat shops, but I don't see anything wrong with a young person who wants to work being allowed to do so if it does not interfere with their development or safety.

It's a tricky situation, just like all the others previously mentioned in this thread. Where to draw the line, and what the line should be.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:36 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RocMills View Post
I would think that if the six-year-old and the LEGAL guardian of said six-year-old wanted that child to work and the environment was safe... why not?
The issue is that a child is not capable of giving consent to any sort of contract nor agreeing to policies or procedures nor signing sworn statements

Last edited by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.; 12 March 2013 at 08:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:37 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by RocMills View Post
I would think that if the six-year-old and the LEGAL guardian of said six-year-old wanted that child to work and the environment was safe... why not?
What difference does it make if the environment is safe? Whose rights are impacted if someone chooses to work in an unsafe environment?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:43 PM
Stan The Man's Avatar
Stan The Man Stan The Man is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,772
Default

As Ryda said, I think children fall into a different class. That being said, I don't completely disagree with RocMills. If the kid WANTS to, and the parents support it, why not? After all, there are other exceptions to the child labor laws. Acting, for example. I'm not exactly sure why that is OK, but other jobs are not.

Of course, I wouldn't have allowed my kid to have done it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:46 PM
RocMills RocMills is offline
 
Join Date: 29 October 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
What difference does it make if the environment is safe? Whose rights are impacted if someone chooses to work in an unsafe environment?
Sticky wicket, and not something (since i am not a parent) that I really want to argue with anyone about as there are too many qualifying conditions and variables. Do I think that no human being under the age of 16/18/21 should ever be allowed to work, under any conditions for any reason? No, I do not.

This isn't a conversation about child labor laws, though, so I'd like to just quietly step away and let folks get back to arguing about whether or not the government has the right to tell me how much soda I can buy at one time/in one container. Sorry for the interruption.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12 March 2013, 08:52 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan The Man View Post
If the kid WANTS to, and the parents support it, why not?
I do think it's difficult to ascertain what the child really wants to begin with. One could easily see a child being manipulated by a guardian into expressing a desire to work.

Quote:
After all, there are other exceptions to the child labor laws. Acting, for example. I'm not exactly sure why that is OK, but other jobs are not.
I think there are different standards for a job that only a child can reasonably perform (i.e. playing a role in a production of some sort or modeling clothing made for children). We even have precedent for that sort of distinction, such as when we allow for sex discrimination in hiring for certain jobs, like being a wet-nurse.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12 March 2013, 09:15 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,654
Default

I almost feel this very legislation was intended as a launching pad for other legislations. In other words an intended slippery slope.
The law was illogical from the get go. It only prohibited certain restaurants but not others. It is my opinion that this was Bloomberg's way of seeing how far he could go. If this passed and there wasn't much resistance then other laws restricting personal choices and freedoms could be enacted. Maybe a junk food tax. Maybe a ban or limit on big over sized sandwiches. The list is endless.
Fortunately it was struck down and now maybe Bloomberg can focus on more important matters instead of how one choses to eat or drink.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge again forces ‘idiot’ sign on defendant snopes Moot Court 2 08 March 2013 08:56 AM
Federal judge strikes down Idaho ban on late-term abortions snopes Moot Court 0 07 March 2013 04:24 AM
Sugary drinks 'worsen vomit bug' snopes Medical 8 06 October 2009 06:11 PM
Retired judge endorses Obama? snopes Politics 5 10 August 2008 02:03 AM
Foot size equals penis size. Myth or reality? snopes NFBSK 36 20 December 2007 03:21 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.