• Let’s Toast

    There are still heroes out there:

    Today a judge blocked New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s big beverage ban, which was scheduled to take effect tomorrow. New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling issued a permanent injunction barring the city from enforcing its drink regulations, which he said are “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences.”

    Why is any state going to tell me how to live my life. As long as I don’t endanger anyone else’s life, I can do with mine whatever I see fit. And yes – some people would rather drink large beverages every day than living long-lasting lives. Why is their preference somehow less legitimate? I fail to understand people who don’t get it!

    By the way, I won’t buy, not for a second, the lie that the state cares for us. I’ll start believing it when Bloomberg or whoever starts opposing the religious recruitment of children (ie. baptisms, First Communions, Bar Mitzvahs, FGM, circumcision, etc).

    Category: Uncategorized

    Tags:

    Article by: Ðavid A. Osorio S

    Skeptic | Blogger | Fact-checker
    • rg57

      It seems as though the proper body to implement this law (across the board to avoid “capriciousness”) would be the NY legislature. The court is right, in that it does seem bizarre that there were exemptions given for alcoholic drinks, and drinks containing milk. These would seem to be two of the biggest problem categories, the former because of reduced judgment, and the latter because it appears “healthy”.

      Rather than banning anything outright, why not some sort of calorie tax on all food and drink, which would appear on the bill? (Various implementations could be imagined…) This would have the added benefit that people would actually know how many calories they are consuming, and businesses would be less likely to get away with lying about calories (or portion size, for that matter).

      • Ok, I like the anti-fraud take, but I still don’t like the Government telling me living a lasting life is more important for me (and they know better!! Ain’t that self-righteous?!?) than my actual desires, wishes and wants.

        So what if I like the intake of more calories? Why tax me more over that than the guys who rather a super-healthy life? Why would I be taxed more onerously for my tastes?

        • qbsmd

          Especially because the rational course at this point would be to encourage Baby Boomers to do unhealthy things and die earlier to try to prevent the country from going into a debt crisis trying to pay for their retirements.

          To answer your question, my guess would be that it’s a form of puritanism that the left prefers. As opposed to the right’s puritan legislation attempting to ban alchohol, contraception, unmarried people living together, etc. The point is that anyone in power is presents a danger of attempting to force their preferences on everyone else, regardless of what ideology they represent.

          • I agree with you. They all try to make their opinion into the law, but that’s what this fight is about: not letting them.