Transvaginal ultrasounds don't prevent anyone from getting an abortion :sneaky:
This regulation does not prevent anyone from consuming these beverages.
Think before you post.
Its a simple idea. The government cannot violate people's freedom without a valid reason.
The claimed valid reason is that they need to fit obesity by restricting unhealthy drinks.
But then they exempt some common unhealthy drinks which contradicts their reasoning for banning unhealthy drinks.
In essence by exempting diet sodas they are showing this is nothing more than a government power grab.
Transvaginal ultrasounds don't prevent anyone from getting an abortion :sneaky:
You have a point. I remember saying that real apple juice is just as sweet and sugary as coke, so telling people to drink juice instead of coke was retarded. The limit on soda should also limit apple juice. Then again, nobody orders 30oz of apple juice. You're right that you can't protect stupid people. If someone wants to kill themselves by drinking a gallon of coke or a gallon of milk, they'll find a way to do it.You could make the same argument for regular soda. Perhaps people who drink large amounts of soda just have a crappy diet in general?
In fact 1% milk has approximately the same amount of calories as Pepsi.
How are you this irrational? One of these regulations explicitly involves a medical procedure forced on someone in order to get a legal procedure done. The other makes no attempt to control what you put in your body, but regulates your cup size.
So you really are trying to argue that in order to regulate one, they must regulate all.
Even outside of what an utterly impossible thing that would be to implement, again I mist ask on what legal basis you are saying this?
That is why I said "reasonable effort". Obviously it would be impossible to ban every possible unhealthy thing, but if a reasonable effort is not being made then it is basically a refutation of what NY is trying to do.
The legal basis is that the government must show a reason for violating people's freedom. If that basis is banning unhealthy drinks then it makes sense to expect a reasonable effort at banning all unhealthy drinks as opposed to just arbitrarily banning some unhealthy ones.
Would it be legal to ban Pepsi, but not Coke. And if not why is it legal to ban Pepsi, but not Diet Pepsi?
And why are they regulating your cup size?
Its pretty clear it is to deter you from putting 44oz of a legal substance in your body.
It is in essence the same idea. Republicans cannot ban abortions outright so the make it more of a hassle to get one. NY cannot ban drinking 44oz of Mountain Dew, so they make it more of a hassle to do so.
Because one is a brand, not a class of drink.
You have basically invented a new legal standard of review so I'm trying to figure out where you are getting it from. There is no necessity for them to reasonably attempt to ban all unhealthy drinks. Period.
No they are not even remotely the same. One is an invasive medical procedure and one is a drinking cup.
This conversation is over, you have looked dumb enough already.
The government cannot just decide to ban soft drinks, because they don't like them. They must show a legitimate reason. I assume you agree on that.
Now, how do you determine whether they are banning soft drinks because of a legitimate reason, or just because they feel like it?
The answer would be to see if they are actually reasonably trying to ban unhealthy drinks, and not just soft drinks. As they are exempting diet soft drinks it appears they are not actually trying to ban unhealthy drinks and are just searching for an excuse to do what they want.
Banning is stupid. USA should just make healthcare public, legalize drugs and tax everything that's detrimental to health, with the taxes directly pumped into healthcare. Bam! Best healthcare in the world, and can even reduce most of the normal taxes!
No, they must show a rational basis for banning them, which they have.
Where is the legitimate reason standard of review located?
Legitimate reason and rational basis are the same idea.
Their supposed "rational basis" is shown to be a lie by not banning beverages which are shown to be more correlated with obesity.
Pretty much this. Look a non American that fucking gets it! Bravo and congrats.
Banning is fucking retarded and sets up bad precedent. Not to mention as I've said before, what might be unhealthy for one group of people isn't unhealthy for another. I mean there are cases of people having allergic reactions to Motrin so severe that they go blind and lose all their skin. We don't put bans in for Motrin because of that. One might argue then it's because it's a larger percentage of the population that is effected. But then how and where do you draw that percentage line? It's to fucking arbitrary.
I have no problem if New York wanted to pass a healthcare tax on sugary products. Anything with X amount of sugar per serving size gets the tax. X may be arbitrary, but now it's something applied equally among all products and vendors. Bam done. Taxes get used to promote educational programs for better living styles as well as increased healthcare costs for idiots that consumed too much of what they weren't suppose to.
MUCH better win win situation than randomly banning shit. Oh and don't put this crap on a federal scale either. That type of government regulation needs to be small and targeted to specific groups and areas with specific problems.
Politicians nowadays are first and foremost concerend about keeping their jobs. They'll never solve problems unless they're forced to.
First, correlation is not causation. There is a direct causal link between calories and weight, there is not between diet soda and weight that we have determined thus far. Reading your own links would have shown you that.
Secondly, not banning similar products does not in fact make a current ban irrational. If you would like to argue that the soda ban violates rational basis review please provide a legal opinion supporting this or a case that is similar.
Why don't they ban 22 ounce beers? Beer has a lot of carbs.
Why don't they ban 22 ounce beers? Beer has a lot of carbs.
Trust me, the authoritarian big government assholes that think they should tell you how to live, what to eat and drink, what you have to wear and what you can say will get around to that next. They think the only reason that Prohibition didn't work is because we didn't have intelligent, awesome people like they are to implement it.
Do you have a time frame for each of these new government intrusions? I just want to know when I can pick up my GI burlap sack.
No, they must show a rational basis for banning them, which they have.
Where is the legitimate reason standard of review located?
Are you arguing this ban wouldn't pass rational basis review? On what grounds? In order to do that you would have to show that it is irrational for the city to think that the ban will decrease soda consumption or that it is irrational to think that soda consumption contributes to obesity.
Which one is it?
You just said the same thing I did. Exercise of powers where other constitutional rights are not in play are subject to rational basis review, which basically means "are you insane or not". I thought that non insanity was assumed.