Free Markets, Free People

State court says no to Bloomberg’s large soda ban

As it should:

A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s administration frombanning the sale of large sugary drinks at New York City restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for a mayor who has made public-health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure.

The city is “enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations,” wrote New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling, blocking the rules one day before they would have taken effect. The city’s chief counsel, Michael Cardozo, pledged to “appeal the ruling as soon as possible.”

In halting the drink rules, Judge Tingling noted that the incoming sugary drink regime was “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences” that would be difficult to enforce with consistency “even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole.”

“The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the rule,” the judge wrote. (Read the full text of the ruling.)

Under a first-of-its-kind prohibition approved by the city Board of Health last year, establishments from restaurants to mobile food carts would have been prohibited from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 oz. After a three-month grace period, the city would have started fining violators $200 per sale.

So the nanny gets told “no”.

Does anyone really believe this will stop him?


13 Responses to State court says no to Bloomberg’s large soda ban

  • Word is already out that Nanny Bloomers will appeal.
    On what grounds, I have no idea, since the stupid ban IS both arbitrary and capricious.

  • It’s not a ban … “it’s called portion control”

    • The problem with this is that it could be simply be sloppily written.  After a little clean up, it passes.

      • Hmmm.  I was going to make a reply to Neo, but then I reloaded the page and decided to leave a different comment.  I was no longer indented under Neo, but the reply went under him anyway.

  • I read that Bloomy had to buy his inspectors “special” 17 ounce cups for them to use when checking. I bet with a teeny amount of digging we’d find who got paid for that, and thus the source of this ban in the first place….

    • heh….because it wouldn’t be sanitary to use the same cup over and over…..even if the inspector doesn’t drink out of it.

    • Does the 16-ounce measure include any allowance for ice? Have you ever bought a soft drink in a cup that did NOT have ice? It fills half the cup at least, so a 16-ounce cup likely holds less than 8 ounces of actual drink.
      Did they think of that?
      When the inspectors pour the contents of a 16-ounce cup into their magic 17-ounce Cup of Doom, will they pour through a strainer that removes the ice?

      • I go one even better….I demand to measure those cups to be sure they’re legit 17-ouncers.  Wouldn’t put it past any of them to “accidentally” use faulty measuring tools to increase the fines handed out

  • Pity.I was looking forward to someday reading about ‘carrying a loaded 32 oz. beverage container’ as being reasonable cause to stop and frisk.

    • Do you want a jury trial with that?

      • Make a deal with us kid, they’ll go easier on you.   My partner wants to see you doing hard time for this, but I want to help you out ya see?   All you have to do is tell us the names of some of your friends who might be drinking from big cups.