Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The never-ending cycle of nanny government

The never-ending cycle of nanny government

comes together in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to ban large sugared drinks in New York City:

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

So buy two smaller sugared drinks.

Or will Bloomberg then ban the sale of multiple small sugared drinks?

So give the guy in line next to you money to buy an extra one for you.

Or will Bloomberg then ban the purchase of a sugered drink for someone else?

So vendors will offer buy one, get one free deals on small sugared drinks.

Or will Bloomberg then ban buy one, get one free promotions.

So vendors will offer free or discounted refills of small sugared drinks.

Or will Bloomber then ban free or discounted refills of small sugared drinks.

So vendors will allow customers to bring their own larger cups to fill themselves with sugared drinks.

Or will Bloomberg then ban the sale of sugared drinks unless accompanied by a vendor-provided cup?

(Sorry I suggested any of the above, but it’s not as if nanny has not thought of it already.)

And what will the next Mayor do when it turns out this all was wrong and made the problem worse, not better, like cheap mortgages and easy student loans:

Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight

People who drink diet soft drinks don’t lose weight. In fact, they gain  weight, a new study shows.

The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler,  MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San  Antonio. Fowler reported the data at this week’s annual meeting of the American  Diabetes Association in San Diego.

“What didn’t surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to  overweight and obesity,” Fowler tells WebMD. “What was surprising was when we  looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even  higher.”

In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found  that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.

“There was a 41 percent increase in risk of being overweight for every can or  bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day,” Fowler says.

Another government-created bubble grows in Brooklyn.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What they really ought to do is require the theaters to allow patrons to bring in their own drinks and snacks.

Of course, the price of tickets will then go up.

    OcTEApi in reply to Valerie. | May 31, 2012 at 11:39 am

    A) theater ticket revenue goes directly to film distributors
    Additionally, if you like your local theater then you shouldn’t complain about prices of concession items, its how they keep the doors open and pay workers.

    B) don’t need a requirement, just do it, theaters are unlikely to risk alienating customers by strictly enforcing the notion you must buy their stuff.

    I’ve brought bbq ribs, chicken and pizza into the theater without a peep, except for fellow patrons stomach growling.

    also brought a 12 pack into a Chinese restaurant that didn’t sell alcohol and they didn’t have a prob with it.

The sad thing is that Bloombergistan is going to have a new mayor who, in all likelihood will be as intrusive into day to day living as he is.

Glad I live out on the Island but wish I could move out of New York totally.

So will customers buy whatever size drink and add their own sugar.
Or, will Bloomberg attempt to make it a crime to do so. I say attempt,
because by this time is arse ought to be thrown in the Hudson!

It’s ok for Bloomberg to spout silly platitudes about religious freedom when talking about building a mosque near Ground Zero but the heck with giving actual citizens of NYC the freedom to pick what soft drink they want.

My theory on the diet soda=fat is that people who have no weight problem drink better tasting sugared soda when they want a soda, while it is fatties who order giant meals and add a Diet Coke as a gesture to weight control. It would be easy to prove or disprove this: ask overweight and trim people what type of soda, if any, they drink, and compare. Of course, neither Bloomie’s Health Department nor any other anti-sugar crusaders seem to have thought of this.

Frank Scarn | May 31, 2012 at 10:32 am

If memory serves me correctly, the Framers set out a plan whereby certain matters, carefully circumscribed, were given to government, but for all other matters the people would enjoy freedom FROM government.

Leave us alone!

Lets hear what the man-in-the-street thinks of all this. You there, please state your name and then give us your opinion.
“Gladly. Justice Louis Brandeis. The framers of the Constitution sought “to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations.” It is for this reason that they established, as against the government, the right to be let alone as “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.”

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (while Brandeis wrote in dissent his words have become a rallying cry for freedom FROM government).

    Milhouse in reply to Frank Scarn. | June 1, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Your memory does not serve you correctly. The framers created the federal government and decided that it should have only limited powers. They did not create the states or cities, and therefore said nothing about what powers they should have — and had they expressed an opinion it would have been no more authoritative than yours or mine.

And people think it’s only extortionate taxes that are driving people out of New York. Rubes!

9thDistrictNeighbor | May 31, 2012 at 10:39 am

The nanny-staters don’t seem to be able to help themselves. Aramark foodservice nearly lost their contract with New Trier HS (famous alum–Rahm Emmanuel) because they actually followed the school’s “wellness policy” and served kids whole-wheat everything, no fried foods, etc. Kids didn’t buy their lunches; parents rebelled at having to actually pack a lunch. (No news on whether the “wellness” police were inspecting the brown bag lunches…oh wait, no brown bags, reusable bags only please.) Of course, New Trier township went heavily for The One in 2008, and has just been re-districted into Jan Schakowsky’s 9th District, so no matter what happens in November, the Nanny State will be alive and well on Chicago’s north shore.

Doubting Thomas | May 31, 2012 at 10:43 am

The good thing is that by restricting the large soft drinks we will save a large amount on food stamps and wic cards. Can’t telly you how many times I have been in a Circle K behind someone buying large soft drink big bag of chips and Ding Dongs then paying with government progam money.

Realistically there is nothing in one of those stores that should be sold on stamps.

    ohiochili in reply to Doubting Thomas. | May 31, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Wow-I don’t know where you live, but in Ohio, you can only use WIC in an approved grocery store and you can only get what is on your voucher, such as eggs, milk, cheese, etc.
    Fountain drinks are considered a non-food item, therefore not eligible for purchase with food stamps. (my survival job was in a large grocery store chain)

    We can dibble over fat people or skinny people and what they drink all night, but it boils down to this. If I weighed 700 lbs and wanted a giant sugary drink, then pour eight packets of sugar in it before I guzzle it down, I live in the United States and I have the right to do so.

Why the next thing you know, Mikey will figure out how to handle snow disasters

Hey 44, want to assure an election victory? Replace Joey, with Mikey.

And then when people buy more cups, they will create more trash. What bozos! (Sorry to the real (not deceased0 Bozo for using his name to describe such fools.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | May 31, 2012 at 10:52 am

This man’s obsession with abusing his power to socially engeineer how others live their life is scary. I am ashamed he was ever associated with the Republican Party.

I meant “(now deceased)”

Just wait. Bloomberg will probably install truck weigh scales into the sidewalks of New York so that he can fine those with more than their “fair share” of weight.

It would be better if Bloomberg decided to do nothing while in office than to bloat government while chopping off people’s liberties.

Get rid of 99.9% of the food stamps in NY and keep the soda.

To follow it’s logical conclusion, the complete ban of all soda pop is inevitable.

Utopia cannot be achieved unless all evils that plague humankind are banned

And, nothing can be banned unless there is in place a forceful, merciless, enforcement mechanism.


Remember when New York was fun?

Mr. Mayor, here’s a better idea to fight obesity in your citizens:
Restrict all elevators to only go from the 5th floor up. That will require those to walk up to the 5th floor to catch their elevator. Those who work on floors 2-5, will have to use the stairs also.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anyone has the RIGHT to an elevator!

    SDN in reply to texasron. | May 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    But the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act does.

    Milhouse in reply to texasron. | June 1, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    I doubt that the NY Buildings Department has the power to do that. But the Board of Health undoubtedly does have the power to impose the restriction the Mayor is proposing, on all businesses that it supervises. (It has no power over non-supervised businesses, which will remain free to serve whatever they like.)

NC Mountain Girl | May 31, 2012 at 11:53 am

Technology has constantly chipped away at out need to exercise. The professional who twenty five years ago might cover half a mile a day with all the necessary trips to and from the office’s library, the typing pool and the computer room now does it all without ever leaving the cubicle. So will Bloomberg insist the New York transit system be curtailed to force such people to walk more? It would probably be more effective against obesity as a ban on certain soft drinks. Of course the burden would fall on public employees rather than private business owners.

[…] This kind of insanity just leads to more insanity.  Prof. Jacobsen lays out the myriad ways that people will simply work around this ass-hattery. […]

What’s scary in all this nanny state nonsense is that we get so far from seeing practical solutions to spiraling health costs. The bottom line is to put the cost back on the individual and force him to be responsible. We have to get rid of the middlemen, the HMOs, the employer-provided “insurance” that hides the real cost of seeing a doctor and adds exorbitant overhead.

Imagine if you could decide for yourself your out-of-pocket, your deductibles and insurance options, and that insurers could provide you with whatever plan you wanted, e.g., catastrophic only, with no govt interference and no state boundaries. Also, free up insurers set their rates according to actuarial data and to be competitive. Then obese folks will inevitably pay more. But I will pay a lot less, as my family and I don’t go to the doctor very often.

“…to combat rising obesity.”

Its a smoke screen, Bloomberg is obviously trying to drive up prices and profits for fat cat soft drink manufacturers and distributors…
a/k/a unions

buy-n-large excuse the pun, soft drinks served in retail establishments get a deal based on bulk sales .. they sell so much (receive low wholesale price) that when you buy a stand alone drink its probably 100% profit (minus the cup) for the retailer.

banning large drinks blows up that business model driving up the cost across the board on all pre-sweetened drinks…

How many will low income kids will suffer from this blooming juice jihad?

They were wrong about alcohol. They are truly wrong about sugar. Both are potentially an issue in excess; but, then again, so is water, oxygen, etc. They are all natural products with healthful benefits. The latter in particular is indispensable to the normal function of cellular processes.

The War on Drugs is a progressive campaign. It has now been extended to sugar. Yet, the concentrated and modified grain substitutes receive a pass. Their selective concern for our wellbeing is underwhelming. Their advocacy for less self-moderated behavior is frightening and a cause of progressive corruption.

It seems a large minority of people want liberty and submission, too. The eternal paradox that plagues humankind.

pilgrim1949 | May 31, 2012 at 12:31 pm

The lack of critical self-awareness and inability of the typical Nanny-State Liberal to think through a government fiat to its likely implementation was on full display on a morning TV news show wherein Mika B’ski, one of the hosts, was proclaiming her hearty approval for Blooming-Idiot’s ban on soft drinks larger than 20 ounces while she herself was sipping on a larger-than-20-ounce Starbucks beverage.

Uh yup, uh yup, uh yup….

“All is proceeding as I have foreseen.”
– Friederich Hayek

– – – – –

For those in a hurry, take three minutes and read the 18-page version, “The Road to Serfdom (in Cartoons)” at

We’re somewhere on Page 10 for those keeping track. Bloomberg has New York City somewhere near the final pages.

LukeHandCool | May 31, 2012 at 1:17 pm

“So buy two smaller sugared drinks.

So give the guy in line next to you money to buy an extra one for you.

So vendors will offer buy one, get one free deals on small sugared drinks.

So vendors will offer free or discounted refills of small sugared drinks.

So vendors will allow customers to bring their own larger cups to fill themselves with sugared drinks.”

Oh … you’re a sneaky one.

So you’ll have to be on a special watch list.

LukeHandCool (who can personally attest to the failure of diet soda … and who now drinks sparkling water with a splash of grape juice at work … the benefits of wine without the alcohol (stupid workplace rules) … and just a splash … a lot of calories in juice).

Presidential Debate: Gentlemen, what size? Mr. Romney – each person should choose their own size. Mr. Obama – I have met with my advisors, and to be fair to all, people should be allocated size based on the information provided by my trusted advisor, Kathleen Sebelius, for she and her staff are in the best position to determine the proper size. In fact, please refer to my recent executive order on this.

I wonder if this will lead to being our contemporary version of Prohibition?
Then, there might be after-hours clubs serving your favorite sugary beverage in the size you want, not what “nanny state” dictates.

They tried it with booze and it didn’t work. Maybe, they think they’re so superior they can make this ban last.

Personally, I think it’s wonderful that New York City is such an idyllic place to live and work that the most pressing matter they have is making sure restaurants cannot legally serve a half liter of non-diet soda.

Movie theaters will have to raise ticket prices to cover the lost revenue from soft drinks. Same thing applies to most other affected businesses. Soft drinks are big profit-margin items with bigger sizes providing bigger margins. Take that away, and they’ll have to make it up somewhere else. Of course, that’s not a problem for the people who pass this kind of law.

You have no idea how arrogant Bloomberg is: changed the term limits law (adopted originally by voter referendum) through City Council vote (no conflict there for Council members who benefited!) so he could seek 3rd term. The indispensable man (a legend in his own mind). Why not also ban the buttered popcorn! And the candy!

BannedbytheGuardian | May 31, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Many of the drinks are owned bu Coca Cola. Previous posts & todays Alec topics complain about WalMart caving in . Coca Cola acted similarly.

So take this chance to pay Coca Cola less . Also why are you so big on supporting movies anyhow – It is Hollywood & Conservatives are always complaining.

Go with the flow here. Improve your wasteline & deny Coca Cola & Hollywood money.

Looks like a winner to me.

irwinchusid | May 31, 2012 at 10:59 pm

What about obesity in GOVERNMENT, Mayor Killjoy?