Nanny New York

February 26th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

24N_SODA_IPAD--525x510

 

The New York Post reports:

Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.

Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.

They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Absolute fucking madness.

This is what some taxpayer funded lobby groups push for in New Zealand. It isn’t the thin end of the wedge – it is the thick end.

Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.

Imagine how many cans you will need to drink 10 litres a day!

Tags: ,

29 Responses to “Nanny New York”

  1. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Also illegal to collect rain water in America now

    Man Arrested For Collecting Rainwater On His Property

    July 30, 2012 by Bryan Nash
    Man Arrested For Collecting Rainwater On His Property
    PHOTOS.COM
    Guy Harrington was sentenced to 30 days in jail and forced to a pay a $1,500 fine for collecting rainwater.

    When it rains, it pours. A man in Oregon has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater on his property. The government determined he had “illegal reservoirs.”

    Guy Harrington of rural Eagle Point, Ore., collects rainwater and snow runoff in three locations on his property. Harrington believes a 1925 law is behind the ruckus. The law established that the city of Medford would hold the rights to all the sources of water in the Big Butte Creek watershed and tributaries

    http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/30/man-arrested-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Emperor Bloomberg’s bureaucracy gone mad: City inspectors hassling heroes who feed Sandy victims

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hamill-emperor-bloomberg-bureaucracy-mad-article-1.1205428#ixzz2LxlH1y51

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,749 comments) says:

    Bloomberg is a repugnant do-gooder and liberal progressive to the core.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Liberals sure aren’t very liberal.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Social Democrats – helping people to not think for themselves since 1869

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    Bloomberg may be over the top here, but there is an epidemic in the Western World today of obesity and diabetes. Something has to be done as health systems are not going to cope if it gets any worse. In NZ, Maori and Pacific Islanders do not have the genetic make up to cope with large intakes of sugar. Renal dialysis centres around NZ are over loaded with Pacific Island and Maori patients who have renal failure due to diabetes from excessive sugar diets. It is a debilitating disease that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, and very very expensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. edhunter (546 comments) says:

    FYI 16oz = 473mls

    Truly a Bizarre law!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    I’m trying really hard to care about this hideous imposition on important hard-won freedoms.

    …nope! Nothing.

    If FREEDOM is the thing then you need to oppose Plain packaging too. Or else you are getting into a Don Brash zone of complexity…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Manolo (13,749 comments) says:

    Jimob, who is forcing these people to drink?
    Do they know the notion of self-responsibility and have any willpower or are we talking about zombies?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    yep jimbob, there will now be no more fat people in New York, brilliant, this law has solved the problem of fatt lazy bastards, awesome

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    Well said RRM.

    Being able to guzzle gallons of pop from one vessel was a key freedom that the founding fathers intended when creating the USA.

    When I grew up coke only came in small cans or bottles along side the massive “family sized” one litre bottle. It makes me realise we were savages back then, I don’t know how we coped, it was like living in soviet Russia.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    @hinamanu I thought New Zealand had problems but that is just disgusting…they should have thumped the little weasel and then told him to explain to the queue of starving people that they couldn’t eat!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Fat end of the wedge. Implying that this is the end of their aspirations, rather than the start. I’m not sure that’s true. Perhaps it’s sort of the middle of the wedge – or even just a little bit beyond the point?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    All because the state mussled its way into healthcare and taxes you for the inconvenience….get them out…..solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    They should’ve gone the smoking route first and put photos of fat children on the cans. And then photos of 300kg behemoths being removed via crane through a hole in the side of their house.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Jimbob – are you saying maori and pacific islanders are too stupid to realise they could just buy 6 cans instead of the 2 litre bottle?

    groups get traction because of moron people out there “oh i dont drink soft drinks, gross. they should ban them”.

    problem is morons, eventually they get to something YOU enjoy and then how do you like it?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Marketing opportunity in Times Square: Bring your thirst to New Zealand :D

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    It comes back to fundamental rights, and it is one of the things I like about the USA (notwithstanding that this example is actually from the USA).

    A strict utilitarian argument leads us to the conclusion that it’s OK to feed the Christians to the lions, so long as enough Romans enjoy watching it to outweigh the extreme displeasure that the Christians feel.

    To put it another way, there are some things that shouldn’t be decided by majority vote, because they are a matter of freedom – the many don’t have the right to oppress the few.

    Sure, the size of your soda bottle isn’t exactly a red line issue, but there’s a reason there’s a saying about death by a thousand cuts. I believe that:
    1. Policies of this nature don’t have any useful affect on obesity – the fat people just buy multiple drinks, the skinny people who are really thirsty get disadvantaged
    2. The deadweight cost of regulation is quite substantial
    3. There is a substantial impact on freedom of people starting to think it’s OK for the government (meaning a few well meaning lobbyists) to tell you what to do every minute of the day

    As always, it’s the chardonnay socialists who come up with these ideas. And funnily enough none of these ideas involve restricting consumption of chardonnay. Like those of my friends who are convinced that the planet is coming to an end through global warming, but still personally drive an SUV because it’s much more convenient with the kids. NIMBYism in another form.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    @dime. They are not banning them. They are simply saying that, as a bunch of fat fucks, the sepo’s obviously don’t get what a personal serving of soda should be and the restaurants aren’t helping them with this info by offering massive 3 litre buckets as being a legitimate personal serving for consumption at one sitting.

    If you want to drink 3 litres of coke then no one is going to stop you but if you are in a restaurant you will have to do it from 6 different glasses which might help you realise what a fat, greedy cunt you are being.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Last time I was in the USA a 3 litre bucket of coke had about 300mls of coke and 2.7 litres of ice in it. Things are not necessarily as they seem.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    new york, new york- you can buy a whore and boy, or crack till die but on manhatten street corners but you can’t buy a tub of coke to drown in , good god.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    I’d prefer my pizza to be served with beer…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. shoreboy57 (140 comments) says:

    Have no doubt this is what Robyn Toomath and her friends at Fight the Obesity Epidemic (FOE) want and more. They are seeking a complete ban on sale of Coca Cola and similar beverages.
    Their latest argument is obesity is a genetic issue. Some are wired so to be incapable of making good food choices (their means of getting round the personal responsibility issue -it is impossible for these people to help themselves.
    Couple that with the famed Dr Doug Sellman who is now peddling the line that such products are addictive and agin you have teh message that the public cant help but stuff themselves with bad food
    Media lap up these fools

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mara (784 comments) says:

    Whatever happened to civil disobedience? Democracy has its good points but when the elected go mad and become overbearing, rational citizens should laugh and ignore them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. pq (728 comments) says:

    hinamanu (2,184) Says above : February 26th, 2013 at 2:04 pm first response

    Also illegal to collect rain water in America now , Man Arrested For Collecting Rainwater On His Property
    July 30, 2012 by Bryan Nash, Man Arrested For Collecting Rainwater On His Property
    PHOTOS.COM Guy Harrington was sentenced to 30 days in jail and forced to a pay a $1,500 fine for collecting rainwater.
    When it rains, it pours. A man in Oregon has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater on his property. The government determined he had “illegal reservoirs.”
    Guy Harrington of rural Eagle Point, Ore., collects rainwater and snow runoff in three locations on his property. Harrington believes a 1925 law is behind the ruckus. The law established that the city of Medford would hold the rights to all the sources of water in the Big Butte Creek watershed and tributaries

    http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/30/man-arrested-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/

    pq says
    I went to Medford, it was so hot in july they fine sprayed us with water from above to hotel seats outside.
    I washed my shirt and put it on, and I walked ourtside and my shirt was dry 40 degrees immediately
    The above agument is about the City and State reataining control of water fall off,
    It is disgraceful of course, you can not collect water from your own fall down there in Oregon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    You probably can order a pitcher of soft drink, as long as you then serve the soft drink in individual cups, which I’m guessing is the purpose of using a pitcher in the first place. Although I suppose you could drink straight from the pitcher, but that would be unusual. The NYP is a Murdoch paper, so we shouldn’t expect a high standard of journalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    Check out this nannying as well – banning deer meat being served to the homeless. It’s a disgraceful waste!

    The Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals would rather the homeless go hungry than let them eat deer steaks provided by generous hunters.

    That law has hunters across the Sportsman’s Paradise outraged after health officials ordered a rescue mission to destroy $8,000 worth of deer meat because venison is not allowed to be served in homeless shelters.

    The Dept. of Health and Hospitals ordered the staff at the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission to throw 1,600 pounds of donated venison in garbage bins – and then ordered then to douse the meat with Clorox – so other animals would not eat the meat.

    “Deer meat is not permitted to be served in a shelter, restaurant or any other public eating establishment in Louisiana,” a Health Dept. official told me. “While we applaud the good intentions of the hunters who donated this meat, we must protect the people who eat at the Rescue Mission, and we cannot allow a potentially serious health threat to endanger the public.”

    That statement set off a firestorm among hunters and lawmakers who called it outrageous and insulting.

    “That’s a mild understatement,” said Richard Campbell, one of the founders of Hunters for the Hungry, a group that has been donating wild game to shelters since 1993. “Hunters are going nuts over it. It’s created an outrage across our state and even over into Mississippi.”

    The controversy started when someone being fed at the rescue mission complained about being fed deer meat.

    Henry Martin, executive director of the mission, told me they’ve been serving deer meat for years – from deer chili to deer spaghetti.

    “This was really good meat,” he said. “It’s high in protein and low in cholesterol. It’s very healthy.”

    Martin said he was extremely bothered by the way state health inspectors handled the situation.

    “You would think we would have due process,” he said. “But they meant to destroy the meat – that’s for sure.”

    The mission’s chef asked if they could at least return the meat to the processing plant – but the state officials said no.

    “They actually took it out to the dumpsters, split the packages open and poured Clorox on it,” Martin told me.

    He said the rescue mission serves 200,000 meals a year – without a single dime of assistance from the state or federal governments. As a result of the confiscation, he said as many as 3,200 meals were lost.

    “It seems like this was a senseless act,” he said. “I don’t think hungry people who come to our mission appreciate the fact they could have been eating some really good venison and as it is now – no one can eat it.”

    The Health Dept. defended their actions and said they had to pour Clorox on the meat as an “extra precaution so that animals would not eat it from the dumpster and become sick or die.”

    “This is a process called ‘denaturing,’” they stated. Campbell said the venison comes from deer management programs – where hunters have to kill a lot of deer.

    “We ask our hunters once they fill up their own freezers to give the extra to the needy,” he said.

    Once the deer is donated, a local processing plant prepares the meat for the shelters. And hunters in the Sportsman’s Paradise have always responded to the call – including State Rep. Jeff Thompson.

    “As a hunter and somebody who has personally donated deer to this program, I’m outraged and very concerned,” he told me. “You hear about these stories anywhere and it’s a concern – but when it happens in your own backyard it’s insulting.”

    Thompson said he is meeting with the heads of state agencies as well as state lawmakers to make sure the rules are changed.

    “We take pride in helping our neighbors and to see thousands of dollars worth of meat that would help the hungry go to waste is absolutely disturbing to me,” he said.

    I suppose in Louisiana beggars can be choosers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    And what was that Tea Party slogan – about socialist Obamacare?

    ” If Americans think that Healthcare is expensive………then wait till it is ‘free’ ! ” :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. willtruth (243 comments) says:

    This particular policy might be misguided, but that doesn’t mean all paternalistic policies are misguided. Most of us agree with having a degree of paternalism. For example we support infant clothing safety laws that “trample” on the right of manufacturers and consumers to make their own deals and agreements on a case by case basis. For some thoughtful analysis on the pros and cons of paternalistic policies, here’s an interesting review from the author of “Nudge”.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/07/its-your-own-good/?pagination=false

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote