The BANNING of things.

[SuperG]

I am watching the latest news coming out of the media, namely the the new soda or soft drink ban in New York.

I was a firm believer that the banning capital of the God Ol' USA was California, but now the scale is tipping toward New York.

 

It seems New York is quickly jumping on things like the assault gun ban high capacity magazines, and now soda.

My immediate reaction or flashback was when in the movie "Demolition man" with Sylvester Stalone and Sandra Bullock, society banned everything that was considered "bad for you" including salt.

 

Where I live, Austin TX, plastic bags were just banned in retail stores. If I go to Walmart, I need to buy paperbags at 10cent /each, or buy the reusables.

 

I am watching this New York ban of soda with great interest and wide eyes as I find it humorous and sad at the same time.

 

As society advances how far can and will banning of things go?

 

A side note: if soda is so bad that it needs banning ( i guess do to health care cost / obesity issues costing the sate big money?) I wonder... how about tobacco, alcohol and the spreading legalization pot?

[KTM Doug]

You can thank us Kalisfornistans for what you are now seeing elsewhere. They are now finding that reusable bags for food products can be harmful and wreak with bacteria if not washed regularly. Our county law states that stores must charge 10 cents for paper.

 

I don't smoke, but some legislator wrote a bill banning smoking in your own home. He was asked by a commentator on FOX news about then what did he intend to do about smoking pot for medicinal purposes in your home and bothering neighbors with the smell. The reason he stated that the bill was written. He had a deer in the headlight look. How dare they ask him a tough question!

[Dave McReynolds]

These things go in waves. You can ban anything you want, but where the rubber meets the road is the cost of enforcement. When local law enforcement is being cut and can't respond to emergency calls as quickly as needed, and when local sheriffs are advising citizens to arm themselves (yes, in California), then all these feel good measures aren't worth the paper (the reams and reams of paper) they're printed on. Eventually, people realize that, and like prohibition, start repealing things.

[Sweendog]

The banning of large volume single-sale sodas in NYC happened many months ago, long before the NY State ban on certain weapons and magazines.

 

The regulating and banning of things in general will never end, because it's but one tool in how society tries to manage the world we live in. Some bans you might like, some you won't. With the exception of completely totalitarian governments, pretty much nothing gets banned no reason, only reasons you may or may not agree with.

 

 

[Skywagon]

We tried that with prohibition....I can see it now...people selling 24oz cups out of the back of there trunk, solo cups bootlegger, and most important a reality show about same....They may not be able to sell the cup, but suspect people will bring their own device to hold....and in true gubnet form...you can probably sell them if you buy a license and pay a tax....

[DiggerJim]

I am watching the latest news coming out of the media, namely the the new soda or soft drink ban in New York.

Actually not new. Been months in the wings - today was when it was supposed to be effective. However a state judge overturned it (Bloomburg is promising to waste more city tax money appealing the decision). What was surprising is just how much the judge must not have liked the new law - spent 30-something pages ripping it to shreds

[Peter Parts]

I think we need to think a little more clearly about "they" and "us."

 

The mysterious forces called "they" (as in "they are banning....") is really (or often) a majority opinion... which you (as a minority) may not share. Too bad. But it isn't like some secret cabal somewhere is trying to screw you around.

 

So before moaning all over the place about "they are doing this to us...." please remember, "they" just might be MOST people who show up to vote and you might be just a handful of "old white guys," as today's popular description goes. Too bad, but you are entitled to state your opinion loud and clear.

 

Ben

[Quinn]

That's what the Constitution is for---To prevent the tyranny of the majority.

 

 

------

 

 

[Peter Parts]

That's what the Constitution is for---To prevent the tyranny of the majority.

 

 

------

 

You seem to forget the Constitution establishes rule by majority. And everybody is expected to peacefully respect that.

 

You hear a lot of seditious talk these days from people who think the Constitution allows them the talk that way.

 

B.

[Skywagon]

Well...no majority vote...was approved by NY Board of Health...which all members were appointed by Bloomberg....I guess one could say Bloomberg was elected so his appointed board is majority; and one could say the judge was elected and therefore he is majority of the people...will be interesting for sure to see how much money is consumed on this versus helping people from Sandy..... Here is a snip it from the rags...

 

The measure, which bars the sale of many sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces, is to take effect on March 12, unless it is blocked by a judge. The vote by the Board of Health was the only regulatory approval needed to make the ban binding in the city.

 

 

“By imposing this ban, the board has shown no regard for public opinion or the consequences to businesses in the city,” Mr. Hoff wrote, noting a recent poll that showed 60 percent of New Yorkers believed the plan was a bad idea.

 

(The board has 11 members, all appointed by Mr. Bloomberg. One was absent from Thursday’s hearing and another retired from the board this summer and has not yet been replaced.)

[Dave McReynolds]

I don't agree, Peter. Most people go to work and come home and attend to their families. Right or wrong, they don't get involved in politics because they have higher priorities in their lives. Laws get made by minorities who feel strongly enough about an issue to get involved, and thereby have a disproportionate impact. Mostly, the majority just puts up with this and rolls with it. Sometimes, however, the sleeping giant gets poked a little too hard and then there is a correction. When that happens, the propeller heads in charge begin running around in circles looking for a new center. I doubt this will happen over the issue of soft drink containers. People will easily cope with whatever ridiculous measures are imposed. Spy drones within the US? Who knows?

[Downs]

Banning alcohol worked so well..........oh wait.

[Mike]

It's all somewhat cyclical, though over time there tends to be an accretion of these things, each enacted with the belief that the masses are inherently incapable of making intelligent decisions for themselves.

 

Personally, it seems to me that the further that government strays from its core responsibilities of providing for the common defense, facilitating transportation, providing fire and police protection, and the like, the greater the chance that it will muck things up.

[tallman]

I support a ban on bans.

[SuperG]

I am with TIM, support the ban on bans,

I hardly drink soda, so it is not really an US vs. THEM, I care less.

What I am repulsed by is that the banners or propeller heads as Dave called them( funny) get emboldened and say : hey if we can ban this and no uprising , lets ban some more things that we feel needs banning. <--- to lamely put it.

 

Plastic bag ban... please. Who benefits by it? Environment?

Those walmart bags got good reuse and service life. office trash bin liner, also frequently used to pick up doggy poop form the yard. All the extras unused plastic baggies get collected and returned to the recylebin by the wallmart front entrance door.

10 cent paperbags...argggg! not the 10 cent but the wastefulness.

 

[CarrotNC]

Bear in mind that in cases of behavioral bans the common public is deemed incapable of managing their own lives, and must be protected from their own actions.

Who will protect them but the people elected FROM the common public? The hypocrisy is amazing: a man incapable of managing his own affairs is somehow imbued with the ability to manage mine simply by being elected.

 

The way I was raised is that if my actions are not unlawfully depriving someone else of life, liberty, or property then butt out.

 

Calvin Coolidge: “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”

 

Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to have a law repealed is to faithfully enforce it to the letter."

 

[Quinn]

Baptist joke time:

 

Woman and her husband go to church. The minister is preaching on Sin.

"All you people who drink the liquor are Doomed and you're going to Hell!"

The woman, getting into the spirit of things, says "Amen, Brother. Tell it like it is."

"All you people who run around and watch that pornography are Doomed and you're going to Hell!"

Now she's rocking back and forth with the Holy Spirit, "Amen, Brother! Make'm see the light!"

"And all you people who gossip and look down on their neighbors...."

 

She punches her husband in the ribs, "Come on George, let's go. He's quit preaching and gone to meddlin'."

 

-----

[Ohio48]

I am with TIM, support the ban on bans,

I hardly drink soda, so it is not really an US vs. THEM, I care less.

What I am repulsed by is that the banners or propeller heads as Dave called them( funny) get emboldened and say : hey if we can ban this and no uprising , lets ban some more things that we feel needs banning. <--- to lamely put it.

 

Plastic bag ban... please. Who benefits by it? Environment?

Those walmart bags got good reuse and service life. office trash bin liner, also frequently used to pick up doggy poop form the yard. All the extras unused plastic baggies get collected and returned to the recylebin by the wallmart front entrance door.

10 cent paperbags...argggg! not the 10 cent but the wastefulness.

 

But do these plastic bags ever go away for good like paper bags do?

[SuperG]

I think they have a life span and degrade, much slower than paper. But we must have plastic bag, right? don't want to collect kitchen garbage in paper?

Nor the frozen red meet coming home from the store and may leak a little blood as it get unfrozen.

 

This is the "plastic age" we are living in isn't it?

plastic and internet age to be more precise.

 

But the point is - banning the wrong things. Does society decides what is wrong for all of us? guns, magazines, plastic bags, soda, loud bikes?

[Ohio48]

I think they have a life span and degrade, much slower than paper. But we must have plastic bag, right? don't want to collect kitchen garbage in paper?

Nor the frozen red meet coming home from the store and may leak a little blood as it get unfrozen.

 

This is the "plastic age" we are living in isn't it?

plastic and internet age to be more precise.

 

But the point is - banning the wrong things. Does society decides what is wrong for all of us? guns, magazines, plastic bags, soda, loud bikes?

 

The most money usually wins

[SuperG]

Isn't that the truth?

Once a wise-man said: If something is incomprehensible or hard to figure out why(?) just follow the money trail.

 

soda is out, bottled water is in ! I don't know..

[Antimatter]

I had a whole screed written up, but erased it because it made me sound very cranky. The upshot is that so many more of us are living in the same area, that it's impossible to exist without more laws and regulations. It's a shame, but as long as we keep increasing the number of folks, this will be the reality.

[upflying]

You can thank us Kalisfornistans for what you are now seeing elsewhere.

Very true..

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun

 

[russell_bynum]

You can thank us Kalisfornistans for what you are now seeing elsewhere. They are now finding that reusable bags for food products can be harmful and wreak with bacteria if not washed regularly.

 

No. That fact was always known. It was brought up over and over by those of us who oppose such idiotic laws.

 

We switched to plastic because the ecoterrorists convinced everyone that paper was evil. Now they're saying that plastic is evil and we have to switch to cloth.

 

Next cloth will be evil because of the water/soap it takes to keep them clean.

 

No measure will ever be enough.

[Ron_B]

That's what the Constitution is for---To prevent the tyranny of the majority.

 

 

You seem to forget the Constitution establishes rule by majority. And everybody is expected to peacefully respect that.

 

B.

 

Quinn is right.

 

Unless you specifically mean congressional votes, no, the Constitution does not establish rule by majority. (of the people) The Constitution establishes democratic elections and procedures. Democratically elected politicians are still expected to govern (not “rule”) within the confines of constitutionally defined enumerated powers. Said politicians are NOT constitutionally required to do the majority's bidding if they think the majority is wrong.

 

 

And everybody is expected to peacefully respect that.

 

We are expected to be peaceful, i.e. obedient of laws, but are NOT required to “respect” anything.

 

 

You hear a lot of seditious talk these days from people who think the Constitution allows them the talk that way.

 

Opposition to politicians banning large soft drinks = sedition?

 

“Give Me a Big Gulp or Give Me Death!!!”

 

No, the Constitution does allow me to talk this way. If you had the political power, would you have me arrested for this reply?

 

[CVA-42]

The ban on big gulp drinks in N.Y.C. was imposed in an effort to protect the public health. Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in this country and I believe one could argue that it is even taking a toll on our budget and National debt as associated health expenditures spread and rise, not to mention the other consequences of obesity such as heart problems, knee replacements, and cancer. I have mixed feelings about the ban and they have mostly to do with civil liberties. In a way, it just seems outrageous that such a ban could ever be imposed and yet, in very real ways, I can agree with it as at least some attempt to stem the tide of obesity and what it is doing to our society. When I think about it, I see similarities between the ban on big-gulp drinks and helmet laws. Is it, or isn't it, the business of government to protect me from myself? If I suffer some horrible head injury because I refuse to wear a helmet while pursuing an activity that I choose to indulge in should I expect my health insurance company to bail me out? Should I expect Medicare to bail me out? Similarly, if I let myself become obese, should I expect my insurance company or Medicare to treat the ailments which will almost inevitably follow? Where is the line??

[SuperG]

Valid points CVA,

 

The part that is invalid is soda and obesity.

Obesity in America simply comes down to lifestyle choices (lack of movement /exercise, everything is remote controlled) and most importantly our abundant access to excess (food).

Have lots of everything (food) available all the time at arms reach. The body wants to hoard it and store for later use.

 

soda ban is absurd(!) without cutting the 1/4lb of grease burger available on nearly every street corner.

who's idea was that soda gets you obese?

 

 

[Boffin]

Soda (in the US at least) contains a _lot_ of corn-syrup. The sugars in this may have been designed to trigger type-2 diabetes. There are certainly ingredients intended to drive a craving for the soda.

 

Andy

[tallman]

Well if they hadn't banned Olestra we wouldn't need to ban HF syrups.

[Skywagon]

And how many do-nuts can I buy, what size Ice Cream Cone should my mayor allow, my french fries, my hamburger, beer size..should liter beer be restricted to 10oz.......

 

Yes there are some good things about regulating soda cup size, but imho government should not be regulating what quantities of food I consume. Personally I haven't had a soda in almost 5 years...personal choice based on recent publications on artificial sweetners. I didn't need the mayor to help me help myself.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

The ban on big gulp drinks in N.Y.C. was imposed in an effort to protect the public health. Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in this country and I believe one could argue that it is even taking a toll on our budget and National debt as associated health expenditures spread and rise, not to mention the other consequences of obesity such as heart problems, knee replacements, and cancer. I have mixed feelings about the ban and they have mostly to do with civil liberties. In a way, it just seems outrageous that such a ban could ever be imposed and yet, in very real ways, I can agree with it as at least some attempt to stem the tide of obesity and what it is doing to our society. When I think about it, I see similarities between the ban on big-gulp drinks and helmet laws. Is it, or isn't it, the business of government to protect me from myself? If I suffer some horrible head injury because I refuse to wear a helmet while pursuing an activity that I choose to indulge in should I expect my health insurance company to bail me out? Should I expect Medicare to bail me out? Similarly, if I let myself become obese, should I expect my insurance company or Medicare to treat the ailments which will almost inevitably follow? Where is the line??

 

The problem I see is that those in favor of banning activities don't ask questions beyond the most superficial: Excessive comsumption of super-sized drinks, cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc., causes health problems, the costs of which to society are significant; therefore, we should ban the product.

 

These are the questions I would like to see addressed:

 

1. What level of increased enforcement costs would actually stop the use of the product?

 

2. Is there any level of enforcement costs that would significantly eliminate the use of the product? For example, the penalty for picking pockets in Victorian England was hanging, but there were still plenty of pickpockets. The penalty for stealing in some countries is loss of a hand, but there is still plenty of theft in those countries. There were significant penalties for bootlegging during prohibition, but there were still plenty of bootleggers.

 

3. If the enforcement cost is too high or the ban is impossible to enforce, what is the impact on society of passing a law that will not be enforced. For example, here in Sacramento, a law is being considered to ban smoking in apartments or even owner occupied units if the units have any common walls. From the inception, it was known that no money exists in the municipal budget to enforce this. When asked, a spokesman for the proponents stated his belief that the law would be "self-enforcing." (Whatever that means).

 

4. Are there alternative ways to eliminate the cost to society brought on by the use of the product?

 

5. Are there alternative ways to diminish the use of the product other than by regulation?

 

6. Assuming the ban can be at least partially enforced, what is the effect on the behavior or morality of citizens when society regulates or bans the use of a product that had previously been accepted and is still in high demand? That is, will the overall effect of the ban be to discourage future use of the product, or will it be to create a popular counterculture that will actually increase demand for the product over what it was before the ban?

[TyTass]

When I think about it, I see similarities between the ban on big-gulp drinks and helmet laws.

So do I ... only it is not to my mind a good thing.

 

Is it, or isn't it, the business of government to protect me from myself?

Good grief, No, No, and NO! It's your job to protect yourself from yourself. Regardless of what restrictions the government puts in place, you still have to choose (or remember) to observe the law.

 

If I suffer some horrible head injury because I refuse to wear a helmet while pursuing an activity that I choose to indulge in should I expect my health insurance company to bail me out?

In a free society, that would be between you and your insurance company when you signed the policy (bought insurance for XYZ). I think the insurance company has every right to to not underwrite policies for high risk ventures, but if they choose to they must honor them. While we're on this subject, how come I must buy uninsured motorist insurance when it's a law to have auto insurance? The answer is ... because LOTS of people don't follow the law AND that the law is not enforced in any meaningful way whatsoever. So, how is the law protecting me?

 

Should I expect Medicare to bail me out?

Now you're getting to it to the heart of what's wrong with state-controlled anything! Because the law is written to apply to all people ... and fund all those people equally ... IRRESPECTIVE OF INDIVIDUAL VARIANCE OF RISKS ... there can be no resolving it except with an influx of more money. Because they can't turn anyone down or charge people with a higher risk factor higher premiums, it can't possibly be adequately funded. So instead we look to increase taxes and reduce expenses.

 

Similarly, if I let myself become obese, should I expect my insurance company or Medicare to treat the ailments which will almost inevitably follow? Where is the line??

If you don't believe people can be held even reasonably responsible there is no meaningful line you can draw!

 

Now all that said, if you were to ask me is it the government's role to provide me/us with information I/we can use to protect myself/ourselves, well that's a different subjec ... not one of banning but of study and education.

[CarrotNC]

...For example, here in Sacramento, a law is being considered to ban smoking in apartments...

 

Had a quick look at the legislation and it only addresses lighting a nicotine containing product intended to be burned or heated, so there could be a market for canned smoke!

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB746

http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/business/current/btlg/vol3/ctptl/ctptl-code-104556.html

 

Given the language in the legislation it would be acceptable to light up any nicotine-free product and smoke away. A fattie made from poison ivy would be fine, assuming you're not allergic. Could even smoke a tire if it didn't violate another law.

 

Noticed as well that the legislation addresses only cylindrical forms, so a cigarette that's shaped into a rectangle would be exempt, even though it should have been captured by the intent of the legislation. Poorly written laws should never be passed...

[SuperG]

Given the language in the legislation it would be acceptable to light up any nicotine-free product and smoke away. A fattie made from poison ivy would be fine, assuming you're not allergic. Could even smoke a tire if it didn't violate another law.

 

Noticed as well that the legislation addresses only cylindrical forms, so a cigarette that's shaped into a rectangle would be exempt, even though it should have been captured by the intent of the legislation. Poorly written laws should never be passed...

 

YOu are very good at this....

I will look you up when I need help with a ban that needs circumventing

[kmac]

I've GOT IT...buy a jumbo soda, a cigarrette, cigar, "medicinal" marijuana, a double Chili Cheese burger, a motorcycle, more than one beer at a time, hard liquor...and you have to sign a medical waiver releasing the government and all insurance companies from having to ever treat you for anything...

 

Get cancer and want to treat it later...pay for it yourself out of YOUR own smoking, drinking, burger eating pocket.

 

Crash on your indulgant high risk dirt bike or freeway lane splitting commuter bike and pay for it out your OWN, obviously wealthy to be able to afford such extravagance as a motorcycle, pocket.

 

You sign a waiver when you bungee jump, skydive, ride at a motocross track....why not waiver life in general?

 

[Bob Palin]

Arguments about cost of enforcement

 

The ban however is on the sale of large sodas not the consumption, that would be much easier and cheaper to enforce. Roving bands of Big Gulp roach coaches might spring up...

[CarrotNC]

My local sports arena is not allowed to sell a double shot of hard liquor. So if you want a double Crown & ginger (my favorite) they'll serve one mixed drink that's a little short on ginger, and hand over a second cup with just the extra shot and you have to mix it yourself. Asinine? Wasteful?

[kmac]

Gary,

That stuff is just dumb.

I could see if they had a 1 drink per person rule and that drink could only have one shot in it...but to make you a single and then a second cup with a second shot defeats the intent of the rule and is just dumb.

[Bob Palin]

My local sports arena is not allowed to sell a double shot of hard liquor. So if you want a double Crown & ginger (my favorite) they'll serve one mixed drink that's a little short on ginger, and hand over a second cup with just the extra shot and you have to mix it yourself. Asinine? Wasteful?

Nowhere in Utah is allowed to sell you a double shot, and they are not allowed to sell you two drinks at once either.

[Huzband]

Nowhere in Utah is allowed to sell you a double shot, and they are not allowed to sell you two drinks at once either.

 

So, like I witnessed in Chicago last month, you can't buy two drinks & pass one off to your friend?

 

I wondered what was wrong with that when I was, oh...never mind.

[tallman]

"Nowhere in Utah is allowed to sell you a double shot"

 

how do you get to Nowhere in Utah?

[kmac]

Here in Kaliforniakistan we can, oddly enough, buy multiple drinks and pass them to a buddy, although they may want to see that persons ID. And we can buy Double shot drinks or about anything else we want as long as we pay for it. Some stadiums may individually choose to limit the anount of drinks one person can buy, usually it is 2 drinks max but sometimes more.

 

The problem is getting into or onto a motor vehicle after having said drinks...as it should be though.

[kmac]

"Nowhere in Utah is allowed to sell you a double shot"

 

how do you get to Nowhere in Utah?

 

Isn't ALL of Utah "Nowhere"...lol

Just kidding, I love Utah. Beatiful place.