NY Soda Ban

We live in an age of government overreach. We have made certain topics of speech criminal. We have decided that crimes with certain motivations (rather than simply a motive), thoughts to you and I, are worthy of extra prosecution because that thought makes some group happy.

We have a president that has decided that the government can kill anybody over the age of 16 if they are deemed a terrorist by "someone with authority". An obvious expansion from a previous president who was of the opinion that Americans have not rights that the executive need respect (10 points for those who recognize the reference).

Whistleblowers are in jail because the state has been embarrassed. The same state that want's to declare National Security in regards to widely known information and decided what defense a defendant may or may not claim in a criminal proceeding.

All kinds of blatantly unconstitutional laws are proposed by folks who apparently don't even understand the job duties.

Children are killed in a school by a kid who was clearly mentally disturbed and apparently it's "common sense" to restrict the rights of those persons who do not commit crimes. Because as we all know criminals are known for observing laws passed to make them more civilized.

With all of this going on it was not surprising that NY Mayor Bloomberg proposed that sugary drinks over a certain size would be illegal to sell in some establishments in NYC.

To me it was a clear cut case of governmental overreach. Who could seriously think that the government could actually legislate how much of a legally produced and sold product one could sell with the argument that people need to drink said product less? It was ridiculous on it's face.

The entire argument by Bloomberg was thus: Sugary drinks directly contribute to obesity. Obesity is epidemic in the population causing x amount of deaths every year and costing the city and state y amount of dollars every year. Therefore the city has an obligation to protect the city from the epidemic of obesity by tackling the "epidemic" of 20 oz sodas.

Of late the entire "safety" and "save lives" rationale has been trotted out for all manner of unconstitutional laws, the Patriot Act being a prime example. There is an obvious question to ask of Bloomberg's argument: Why not Alcohol?

If the consumption of any product poses an immediate threat to the population it would be alcohol. Drunk drivers caused the deaths of 409 people in NY State for2008.

In addition a number of crimes including rape, domestic violence, murder, assaults have alcohol as contributing factors.

Lastly Liver Cirrhosis is often a result of alcohol use.

Having established that alcohol poses a danger to the public why didn't the state decide to limit the amount of alcohol allowed to be served by establishments? Why not ban the sale of 6-packs of beer to one pack per customer and outlaw the sale of kegs altogether? I mean WHO needs to drink THAT much alcohol?

As of now you should be saying to yourself that my suggestion is silly. That's exactly the point. You don't go limiting what responsible people may decide to purchase because 16 million people in the US are incapable of controlling their intake and subsequent behavior. And this is what this rule comes down to: Control.

Does the government have the power to control how much food and drink you may consume? Yes, the rule was on "sales" but the intent of the law was at consumption, not sales. No it does not have that power.

The problem with obesity is one of culture. Most obese people that I have met are obese because they want to be. Yes, Want to be. They do not care about what they are eating or what amount they are eating. They do not want to know how many calories are in a food or drink. They do not care how many cubes of sugar are in a soda. They want to eat and drink what they please, when they please. Whether I agree with it or not, they have a total and complete right to do so.

Anyone who decides that they care what they eat will look at labels. They will drop soda from their diets. They will drop a lot of foods from their diets. They will work out. Most importantly they can and will do so even while they pass aisles in the supermarket with rows and rows of 2 litre sodas, cookies, cakes, bread, bread, bread.

People who care about their bodies do not need the government to tell them what they can and cannot eat and drink.

It's good that the decision laid out the legal basis for the smack down, but I think it is high time for blatantly unconstitutional laws be simply thrown out as "blatantly unconstitutional". It shouldn't require 37 pages to explain why the state cannot tell an establishment or a citizen how much of whatever food they can eat. That clearly is an issue of privacy just like a woman's right to what she will allow to grow in her body.