[QUOTE=Ziks;39878221]What was wrong with the law?[/QUOTE]
You won't get obese because a 40oz chug exists. You'll get obese if you drink four of those daily, and don't burn off some energy by doing work or exercising. As long as you have deficit of your normal intake of carbs, you'll start losing weight over time, so long as your active.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html]Doctor does Twinkee, Oreo, and Soda diet[/url].
[QUOTE=Ziks;39878221]What was wrong with the law?[/QUOTE]
Seeing as just about everyone here's stated a moral reason why:
You can't create laws if you're not the legislative branch. He's the mayor, and that falls under the executive branch. The executive branches of government are in place to ensure that laws created by the legislature are executed to their fullest extents. He has no legal authority to write a law or "ban" in the first place - because he's not the legislative branch.
It's the same reason why the president of the United States can't 'solve' the government's debt problem - because the budget is created by congress and then signed into law by him. The Mayor could ask the legislature to consider writing a law, and similarly the president can ask for a budget to be created. They can even negotiate on terms - but principally, they can't write legislation and introduce it themselves.
The soda must flow....
Law was bullshit anyway. It didn't ban Snapple drinks and those have just as much if not more sugar than soda.
[QUOTE=nicatronTg;39883711]Seeing as just about everyone here's stated a moral reason why:
You can't create laws if you're not the legislative branch. He's the mayor, and that falls under the executive branch. The executive branches of government are in place to ensure that laws created by the legislature are executed to their fullest extents. He has no legal authority to write a law or "ban" in the first place - because he's not the legislative branch.
It's the same reason why the president of the United States can't 'solve' the government's debt problem - because the budget is created by congress and then signed into law by him. The Mayor could ask the legislature to consider writing a law, and similarly the president can ask for a budget to be created. They can even negotiate on terms - but principally, they can't write legislation and introduce it themselves.[/QUOTE]
dude its all about the executive prerogative, man
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
it owns
Prohibition never works.
It would only create opportunities to sugary drink mafia.
if this was a thread on cigarettes people would be calling for a ban as always
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;39884668]if this was a thread on cigarettes people would be calling for a ban as always[/QUOTE]
Yeah every time a smoking ban thread comes up it has winners flying out the ass, but when it's a ban on something facepunchers like they throw a fit.
I don't smoke or drink soda and I think outright bans for either is stupid btw
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;39884668]if this was a thread on cigarettes people would be calling for a ban as always[/QUOTE]
It's a wee bit different as a kid slurping an oversized cola next to me has no possibility of giving me cancer.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
I am against cigarette ban as well, I just want to point out the issues are quite different.
I found Bloombergs response quite funny.
[quote]“We're not banning anything. It's called portion control,”[/quote]
[url]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mayor-bloomberg-were-not-banning-anything-its-called-portion-control[/url]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39884851]It's a wee bit different as a kid slurping an oversized cola next to me has no possibility of giving me cancer.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
I am against cigarette ban as well, I just want to point out the issues are quite different.[/QUOTE]
i mean understand the differences too but its extremely hypocritical regardless
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39884729]Yeah every time a smoking ban thread comes up it has winners flying out the ass, but when it's a ban on something facepunchers like they throw a fit.
I don't smoke or drink soda and I think outright bans for either is stupid btw[/QUOTE]
I'd assume it to be different because of secondhand smoke, smokers pose a potential cancer risk whereas fat people are just an inconvenience when they slowly waddle in front of you when you're trying to walk somewhere.
[QUOTE=Furnost;39878478]thank christ, bloomberg was retarded for even thinking this shit up, if i wanna drown myself in sweet sugary death thats my decision.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=legolover122;39878810]Governing bodies shouldn't tell us what we can and can't get. If I want a giantass drink then by fucking god I will go out and get a giantass drink and no-one will stop me because it only effects me.[/QUOTE]
Except you will still be sucking up healthcare resources when you get diabetes and you're heart start failing. This is in large why dangerous drugs are illegal as well.
I don't agree with this ban and I'm glad it didn't pass, but it's hardly an absurd idea.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39884851]It's a wee bit different as a kid slurping an oversized cola next to me has no possibility of giving me cancer.
[/QUOTE]
neither does a cigarette
I think it's quite ironic that NYC, one of the biggest icons of America, is getting told what they're allowed to drink
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.