ABC News Video: Taxing all sugar beverages

[atprm]

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7293802&nwltr=WN_topvideos_position2hed

[jasmine]

can't watch it, wish I could, no speed internet........

maybe someone that watches it can kinda translate it for me ??

[janelle]

LOL, "soft drinks are a good place to start." Did you hrear that at the end? Yes, then they will go to pizza, ice cream, etc, etc. Like the woman said at the end these products do not cause obesity, it's consuming to much of them that causes it. Eating too much of anything will made a person fat.

Just another example of Big Brother, Nanny State government and the Dems are more for that kind of government than Reps are.

I would like to see food companies take out the corn syrup in every product and go back to sugar. It's cheaper than sugar but people have been gaining more weight since they started with the corn syrup. But that would be up to the food companies, I don't think government should make them, just inform the consumer and let us make up our own mind. We don't need a nanny, thank you.

[atprm]

I think that it is an issue of poor food choices that leads to obeisity and the genetics in your family.

I don't believe that drinking pop leads to obeisity... I am 123 pounds (have been pretty much my whole life), have 3 kids and drink 2 12packs of coke a week.

[speedygirl]

I drink a ton of soda and am a tiny one too. I don't like the idea of taxing foods and beverages that the government deems unhealthy. people should be held accountable for their own consumption and not have the food police penalizing them.

[atprm]

OMG ....

I am ....



a


COKE


addict.

LOL

[gmyers]

Maybe there should be a special tax for people that don't pay their taxes. Think of the money they can make alone in Washington. Don't you just love these people that want to tax us more but don't even bother to pay theirs. At least we pay ours.

[janelle]

Yep, I thought I was always going to stay little as well but around menopause ones metabolism likes to go crazy. You can eat the same things you ate all your life and the same amounts but still gain weight. It comes on slowly but you will feel it in your clothes. Suddenly too tight. It sucks.

[meltodd69]

Uhhhh, I already pay taxes on soda. It's the people paying with food stamps that don't have to pay that tax. My money is taxed but not the governments. I'm seeing a pattern here.
I think you shouldn't be able to buy soda with food stamps! Lets change that first.

[atprm]

I noticed that too, when I bought pop in Ohio -- it gets taxed (weird).

We aren't taxed for pop up here ... we do, however, have bottle deposit on most (not all) bottles, so I am thinking I would rather pay Ohio's tax. At least with Ohio's tax, it doesn't equate to 10 cents a can or bottle. LOL

[Jolie Rouge]

Feds oppose ban on food stamps for sodas in NYC
AP – 57 mins ago

NEW YORK (AP) — A plan by New York City to combat obesity by restricting the purchase of sugary drinks with foods stamps would be too large and complex, federal officials said Friday. The U.S. Department of Agriculture rejected a waiver request that would have allowed the city to implement the plan, which would have barred food stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy sodas, teas, sports drinks and other sugar-sweetened drinks.

The ban would have applied to any sweetened beverage that contains more than 10 calories per 8 ounces.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson announced in October that they would seek a waiver from the USDA to start up a temporary program that would be evaluated before becoming permanent. In a statement released Friday, Bloomberg said his administration was disappointed by the USDA's decision. "We think our innovative pilot would have done more to protect people from the crippling effects of preventable illnesses like diabetes and obesity than anything being proposed anywhere else in this country — and at little or no cost to taxpayers," he said.

While sharing the goal of reducing obesity, an official with the nation's food stamp program said in a letter Friday addressed to the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance that the USDA had concerns about the plan's "potential viability and effectiveness."

Jessica Shahin, associate administrator of the program, wrote that the proposal lacked clear product eligibility guidelines, didn't take into account the burden that might be placed on city food retailers and failed to put forward a credible design for evaluating the effect on obesity and health.

The food stamp program was launched in the 1960s and serves more than 40 million Americans each month. The city has been actively working to shape diet choices by New Yorkers, including with a public advertising campaign called "Pouring on the Pounds" that targets the excessive consumption of sugary drinks by linking it to obesity and diabetes.

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-oppose-ban-food-stamps-sodas-nyc-023623987.html

comments

How about banning it on the grounds that people sponging off others don't need expensive luxuries like soda?

~~~

I see the lobbyists from Coke and Pepsi have been busy taking out people to golf lunches.

[Jolie Rouge]

NYC Mayor Bloomberg set to ban sale of sweetened drinks larger than 16 ounces;
Update: Bloomberg supports ‘National Donut Day’ tomorrow
By Doug Powers • May 31, 2012 10:23 AM


Conversation coming soon to a prison near you:



“What’cha in for?”

“Armed robbery. You?”

“Sold a 24 ounce Mountain Dew.”

From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


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.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.


Word is that the Mayor canceled a scheduled press conference after a member of his security detail informed him a street vendor had been spotted selling large cups of Barq’s outside a heroin needle exchange. To the Nanny-Mobile!

Did it ever occur to Bloomberg that the only exercise some of us get on a regular basis is lugging our giant soft drinks around?

It’s ironic that some feel the only way to save Americans from getting fat is to make the government nanny morbidly obese

Update: Go figure. Tomorrow, Bloomberg will recognize and support Mixed Message Day National Donut Day in NYC:

At Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s press conference touting his efforts to stop the sale of large soft drinks in restaurants, one reporter in attendance brought up the interesting fact that his administration also supporting “National Donut Day” tomorrow and inquired as to whether that muddled the mayor’s message on the issue.

Indeed, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Entenmann’s will be unveiling “Custom-made Entenmann’s large donuts, 1-foot in diameter” at Madison Square Park at the same time they unveil a “Proclamation Letter by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”



**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/31/bloomberg-sweetened-drinks/


comments

Yeah, because you can’t walk into a grocery store and walk out with a 2-liter, or anything like that…..

Well, this is the natural conclusion when goobermint has any part of paying for health care. If they write the checks, they get to tell you how to live. Bloomie complains that NYC pays too much for health problems stemming from poor lifestyle choices. Perhaps if the goobermint had no part in it, they wouldn’t be banning cokes.

...

Wait a minute — not apply to dairy-based drinks such as milkshakes?

So, I can’t get a 20 oz coke, but I can go into McDonald’s and get one of those monster shakes full of more fat and sugar than a 20 oz coke ever thought about, and that’s okay? Did the NYC cow farmer’s association threaten to withhold campaign contributions or something?

..

This is exactly what we can expect when we get socialized medicine and a nanny state country. We lose our freedom of choices! No surprise here!

One point being made on the Glenn Beck show this a.m. is, if the regressives are so adamant about “the right to control my own body”, in the abortion argument, then why aren’t they out in the streets protesting all the bans going on all over the country? Seriously, we are being told all the time what we can and can’t put into our bodies…salt, sugar, smoke, pot, on and on and on. Yet, it is o.k. to kill your baby because that is your FREE CHOICE. Does anyone else see the unbelievable hypocrisy and downright stupidity in this argument? Just another example of how delusional these people are! They really are starting to scare me, as they are not rational beings and who knows what they are going to come up with next?

[hblueeyes]

Yet the FDA does not require genetically modified food be labeled, allows coal ash be added to food etc. If healthy foods were more affordable, it would not be an issue. hypocrites.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

See also : http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/659131-regulating-sugar.html


New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is asking state legislators to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana that are in public view. According to data released by the governor's office, 2,000 arrests for small amounts of marijuana were made in 1990. In 2011, over 50,000 arrests were made. What do you think?

N.Y. governor proposes decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana

NEW YORK, NY (CNN) — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is asking state legislators to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana that are in public view.

Saying the aim was to avoid unnecessary misdemeanor charges against thousands of New Yorkers -- "disproportionately black and Hispanic youth," according to a statement from the governor's office -- the legislation "brings consistency and fairness" to New York's marijuana laws. "There is a blatant inconsistency. If you possess marijuana privately it is a violation, if you show it in public it's a crime. It's incongruous. It's inconsistent the way it has been enforced," Cuomo told reporters at a press conference in Albany on Monday.

In 1977, New York's legislature reduced the penalty for possessing 25 grams or less of marijuana to a non-criminal violation carrying a fine of no more than $100 for first-time offenders -- as long as the marijuana was in private possession and not in public view. If the marijuana is out and viewable in public -- as it might be when someone is asked to empty his or her pockets during a so-called police "stop and frisk" -- it becomes a Class B misdemeanor.

Selling and smoking or burning marijuana is still a crime, and Cuomo is not suggesting changing that. "The statute as currently written unnecessarily subjects tens of thousands of people to criminal arrest and prosecution for very small quantities of marijuana," said New York State Assembly member Hakeem Jeffries. "The overwhelming majority of people who have been arrested as a result of the way that the statute is currently written come from the black and Latino community," Jeffries said, adding that statistics and studies show that marijuana possession and use "is far more racially diverse."

According to data released by the governor's office, 2,000 arrests for small amounts of marijuana were made in 1990. In 2011, over 50,000 arrests were made. Fifty percent of those arrested were under 25 years old, and 82% were black or Latino. Less than 10% were ever convicted of a crime. "The human costs to each defendant charged with a misdemeanor are serious," said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., supporting Cuomo's proposal. "The simple and fair change proposed by Gov. Cuomo will help us redirect significant resources to the most violent criminals and serious crime problems, and, frankly, it is the right thing to do."

According to the governor's office, 94% of arrests for small amounts of marijuana in the state are in New York City, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York Police Department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have come under fire in recent years for the department's much-criticized "stop and frisk" policy. "Overly punitive charges have a harmful effect on our justice system. They can ruin lives, waste taxpayer money on unneeded trials, and breed distrust between communities and law enforcement," said Gabriel Sayegh, New York state director for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Last year Kelly issued a policy order directing officers to issue violations, rather than misdemeanors, for small amounts of marijuana discovered during street searches, and Monday, Bloomberg issued a statement in support of Cuomo's comments. "The governor's proposal today is consistent with the commissioner's directive, and strikes the right balance by ensuring that the NYPD will continue to have the tools it needs to maintain public safety -- including making arrests for selling or smoking marijuana," he said. "Thanks to the NYPD, our city has come a long way from the days when marijuana was routinely sold and smoked on our streets without repercussions."

At the press conference Monday, Kelly said, "I was asked to respond to criticism by some members of the (City) Council that the Police Department was making, quote, 'too many' arrests for small amounts of marijuana. And my response to them, was, 'Well, your option is to go to Albany and get the law changed' -- better that than having New York City police officers turn a blind eye to the law as it was written, and as it is still written."

http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/national-news/ny-governor-proposes-decriminalization-of-small-amounts-of-marijuana

[ryan_les]

there is nothing word to say

OMG

[pepperpot]

This country has lost it's mind.:stupid:

[Jolie Rouge]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv060612dAPR20120606044521.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

'Two Thumbs Down' for Movie Popcorn
Medium popcorn and soda = 3 Quarter Pounders and 12 pats of butter.
By Center for Science in the Public Interest

It's hard to picture someone mindlessly ingesting three McDonald's Quarter Pounders with 12 pats of butter while watching a movie. But according to new laboratory analyses commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, that food is nutritionally comparable to what you’d find in a medium popcorn and soda combo at Regal, the country’s biggest movie theater chain: 1,610 calories and three days’ worth—60 grams—of saturated fat. (Nutrition aside, that combo costs $12—for raw ingredients that must cost Regal pennies.)

"Regal and AMC are our nominees for Best Supporting Actor in the Obesity Epidemic," said CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley. "Who expects about 1,500 calories and three days’ worth of heart-stopping fat in a popcorn and soda combo? That’s the saturated fat of a stick of butter and the calories of two sticks of butter. You might think you’re getting Bambi, but you’re really getting Godzilla."

Regal says that its medium popcorn has 720 calories and that its large has 960. But CSPI's lab tests found that those numbers were understated. Regal’s medium and large sizes each had 1,200 calories and, thanks to being popped in coconut oil, 60 grams of saturated fat. (The large size looks bigger, thanks to its titanic tub, but it costs a dollar more and comes with a free refill.) A "small" at Regal has 670 calories and 34 grams of saturated fat. That’s about as many calories as a Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pepperoni Pizza—except the popcorn has three times the saturated fat. Even shared with another person, that size provides nearly an entire day’s worth of the kind of fat that clogs arteries and promotes heart disease. And every tablespoon of "buttery" oil topping adds another 130 calories. Asking for topping is like asking for oil on french fries or potato chips, according to CSPI.

AMC, the second largest theater chain, also pops in coconut oil but has smaller serving sizes. Its large popcorn has 1,030 calories and 57 grams of saturated fat. That's like eating a pound of baby back ribs topped with a scoop of Häagen-Dazs ice cream—except that the popcorn has an additional day’s worth of saturated fat. A medium has 590 calories and 33 grams of saturated fat; and a small has 370 calories and a day’s worth—20 grams—of saturated fat. (Like Regal, AMC reports calorie counts lower than those returned in CSPI's lab tests.)

Third-largest Cinemark pops in heart-healthy canola oil. A large has 910 calories with 4 grams of saturated fat; a medium has 760 calories and 3 grams of saturated fat; and a small has 420 calories and 2 grams of saturated fat. Though popping in canola gives this chain’s popcorn far less saturated fat than its competitors, it's almost as high in calories and has the most sodium—about twice as much as Regal or AMC. With 1,500 milligrams of sodium—a day's worth of sodium for most people—a large popcorn without topping from Cinemark will be less likely to clog your arteries but more likely to elevate your blood pressure. And while Cinemark uses a "buttery" oil topping similar to the toppings used at Regal and AMC, at some outlets, particularly in the West, it uses a topping made with real butter. That version has 9 grams—half a day’s worth—of saturated fat per tablespoon.

CSPI also took a look at the sodas and candies sold at the movies. A small non-diet soda ranges from 150 calories at Cinemark to 300 calories at Regal. Mediums have 300 calories at AMC and Cinemark and 400 calories at Regal. With 33 teaspoons of sugar in nearly 2 quarts—54 ounces—Regal has the most outsized large soda, with 500 empty calories.

The oversized boxes and bags (4 to 5 ounces) of candy sold at movie chains are universally high in calories. A 5-ounce bag of Twizzlers has 460 calories and 15 teaspoons of sugar. A 7-ounce box of Nerds has 790 calories and 46 teaspoons of sugar. Chocolate candies like Butterfinger Minis, Raisinets, Sno-Caps or M&M's have between 400 and 500 calories and at least a half day’s worth of saturated fat. An 8-ounce bag of Reese's Pieces is just a cup of candy. But with 1,160 calories and 35 grams of saturated fat, it's like eating a 16-ounce T-bone steak plus a buttered baked potato.

"Sitting through a two-hour movie isn't exactly like climbing Mt. Everest," Hurley said. "Why do theaters think they need to feed us like it is?"

The study, published as the cover story in the December issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter, updates a famous exposé the group conducted 15 years ago. For Regal and AMC, CSPI tested samples from theaters in the Washington, D.C., area. For Cinemark, samples came from Texas, Illinois and Maryland.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100249578



NYC snack police lead attack against large popcorns, lattes
2 hrs ago

Already PO'd about the upcoming soft-drink size regulations in NYC? Mayor Mike Bloomberg's health police are now considering limiting the size of movie popcorn buckets and such milk-based drinks as lattes. Sure, 1,200 calories and more than 60 grams of fat in that ginormous popcorn tub may be over the top, but even if we're forced to buy smaller sizes, who's going to prevent us from going back for seconds (other than our inner cheapskate)? "There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," insisted one member at a New York City Board of Health meeting Tuesday. We just think messing with New Yorkers' caffeine intake could be dangerous -- and when did milk become unhealthy?

http://now.msn.com/living/0613-bloomberg-attacks-popcorn.aspx

[janelle]

How about banning those huge steaks politicians eat for lunch and don't forget the alcoholic drinks so many on the hill seem to need all the time. Guess we can't do anything about marijuana though, they can smoke those. Roll eyes.

[Jolie Rouge]

Mayor Bloomberg solution to obeying NY idling restriction while still keeping his SUV cool
gets ‘thumbs up’ from Larry the Cable Guy
By Doug Powers • June 27, 2012 10:44 AM

In the summer of 2009, New York City’s Nanny-in-Chief and global warming crusader Michael Bloomberg was embroiled in an eco scandal after his SUVs were discovered to be routinely left idling for hours at a time to keep the interior cooled to the mayor’s liking. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-07-26/news/17927483_1_new-yorkers-mayor-mike-bloomberg-city-hall

Bloomberg subsequently pledged to adhere to the City’s three minute idle law, but there are ways to keep the interior of a vehicle cool without starting the engine: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hizzoner_cold_feat_lYxDIMuat7x4PL7nUbdBEM


Mayor Bloomberg wants to maintain his politically correct credentials on global warming — but hates to get into a hot car when he leaves an air conditioned building.

The solution his aides came up with could easily have doubled as a stunt on David Letterman’s show.

In full view of bemused tourists and other passers-by, workers yesterday performed what looked like a comedy routine: They hoisted a standard room air conditioner to a side window of one of the mayor’s SUVs parked in the City Hall lot to see if it would fit.

If the strange plan gets a green light, the units would be plugged into electrical outlets and cause less pollution than running the vehicles’ own A/Cs on an idling engine. “Even with the vehicles parked in the shade, the temperatures inside can quickly rise to more than 100 degrees.”

Planet saved!

The idea is nothing new, but for now it’s only in the testing phase on the mayoral fleet:
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bloombercac1.jpg

Just last week Bloomberg had a reminder for elderly people not to get too overzealous about summer comfort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSgD6uoioc http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hizzoner_cold_feat_lYxDIMuat7x4PL7nUbdBEM


When temperatures hit the high 90s a week ago, Bloomberg visited the Bronx Works senior center and called on New Yorkers to turn off “all non-essential appliances.”

“It only takes a couple of minutes to cool off a room,” he said at the time.


Plus your air conditioner could be draining power from the mayor’s air conditioner, and if Bloomberg should get sweaty and distracted during a Big Gulp stakeout, people could die.

Word is that if this experiment is a success, this coming winter, coal fired furnaces will replace the window air conditioners, allowing the mayor to keep the fleet warm without starting the engines, thus slowing the rise of the Atlantic ocean or something.

All phases of design, construction and implementation will be filmed for a special eco-hypocrite episode of the upcoming reality show “Hillbilly Car-coolin’”: http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016&sitesection=nypost&VID=23648688


http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/27/mayor-bloomberg-idling/

comments

Wow – every time I think this clown has outdone himself he outdoes himself again! Colorado Springs is burning and this elitist must have his car properly cooled prior to his grand entrance.

Here’s an eco-friendly idea – fill plastic tubs (made of recycled plastic, natch) with block ice, which will cool the interior, and the only by-product is water, but that would be too smart.

..




I wonder where they got that idea?

http://www.zenwaiter.com/photos/Zenwaiter%20Front/hillbillyairconditioning.jpg

...

Okay, I don’t even know where to start with this one.

A walk through nearly any Wal-Mart parking lot will demonstrate the efficacy of this idea already, so there’s really no excuse for the “experiment” phase to begin with. Ergo, Bloomie is wasting taxpayer dollars on something Bubba Clinton could probably do for him in 5 minutes.

But then, I guess if he brought Slick into the project he’d wind up with astro-turf in the back of the mayoral suburban, and in NY that might not be classy enough. Bloomie likes orange shag.

In the mean time, instead of getting on the feds to allow energy companies to bring more energy supply to market, Bloomie is telling everyone to turn stuff off. I wonder if the stuff is all turned off in Bloomie’s house?

...

Is that hillbilly or ghetto? Hillto? Ghettbilly?

Whatever it is, a solar-powered mini-windmill blowing over an open cooler full of ice in the back seat would have been the more responsible solution.


..

Nanny, here are a couple of eco-friendly, lower the sea level suggestions. Most people who still practice the art of common sense know that black and dark colors in general attract the heat, so get a white or light colored car for the hotter months.
If you just simply have to have that black car, have the chauffeur park it in the garage out of direct sunlight. When you are ready to go somewhere, give him or her, about 10 minutes’ notice. He/she can go start the car, let it idle for a couple of minutes, then go pick you up in your nice, taxpayer funded cool car.



**Written by Doug Powers

[Jolie Rouge]

Bloomberg’s blind spot for beer
JOSEPH A. CALIFANO Thursday, July 19, 2012

Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to improve the health of New Yorkers should be commended, but how much more it would mean if he devoted his enormous leadership talents and influence to combatting alcohol abuse instead of trying to limit the size of the soda you buy at a ballgame. Can you believe that soon spectators at sports events at Yankee Stadium and Madison Square Garden will probably be limited to sugary sodas of 16 ounces or less while they can continue to buy beer in 24-ounce containers? New Yorkers deserve a more sensible and coherent public health policy than that. The mayor’s concern about obesity is understandable, but investing political capital in stopping people from drinking sodas larger than 16 ounces at restaurants, movie theaters and sports arenas seems likely to have little impact on the problem. Seriously dealing with obesity involves all sorts of food, from pizzas and bacon cheeseburgers to loads of stuff that families buy in grocery stores every day.

It requires increasing, not cutting, physical education programs in city schools. It involves a major cultural shift away from the couch-potato society we have become, where parents sit at home watching TV and kids sit in another room playing video games. (In Brooklyn’s Crown Heights, where I grew up, we played stickball and punchball, kick the can and ringolevio until it got dark.)

On the other hand, the mayor could mount an effective program of public education, higher taxes and product size restrictions on alcohol — one that would do far more to protect health and safety. Here, ammunition fired at a single target — excessive and underage drinking — will result in palpable improvement in people’s lives.

The societal costs of alcohol abuse are orders of magnitude larger than any caused by drinking a few more ounces of soda. Alcohol is implicated in many of the violent crimes committed in the city — including the assaults, rapes and murders that have savaged so many families. Indeed, research at the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), which I founded, has discovered that more than half of all inmates in America have alcohol problems of one kind or another.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-19/news/32751282_1_alcohol-problems-substance-abuse-sugary-sodas

Nanny Mike’s next target a real boozy
By CARL CAMPANILE July 25, 2012

The next city health-care crackdown: alcohol abuse. Having attacked smoking, trans fats and sugary drinks, the Bloomberg administration is ramping up its campaign against alcohol abuse, The Post has learned.

The city Health Department will be conducting a massive, 50-question telephone survey of New Yorkers to get a better handle on the level of alcohol abuse in the city. “We routinely conduct surveys about important health issues to learn more about them, and underage and excessive drinking are serious health issues,” said Health Department spokesman Sam Miller.

Typically, the department asks a handful of questions about drinking and drugs as part of an annual survey that queries residents about many other medical issues. But this poll will put a heavy emphasis on booze, along with some questions on drug use, indicating the city is delving deeper into the drinking problem. “Issues to be explored include behavior patterns around unhealthy alcohol consumption and awareness of existing alcohol-related laws and standards,’’ the department told bidders hoping to conduct the poll.

The poll, which should be completed by the end of September, will “oversample” young adults to make comparisons between 18- to 20-year-olds and 21- to 29-year-olds, health officials said. The department declined to divulge questions, saying the survey is still in the drafting stages. But it has been engaged in a media-education campaign to warn against dangerous binge drinking.

Research from 2010 shows about half of New Yorkers 21 and older drink alcohol. More than one in 10 young adults say they are heavy drinkers, and 42 percent are binge drinkers. Meanwhile, one in four underage drinkers, ages 12 to 20, have reported drinking booze. And 52 percent of those youngsters who do imbibe reported binge-drinking, while 10 percent described themselves as heavy drinkers.

The Health Department insisted the new polling research is aimed at improving its public-education campaign, not any new Prohibition-type edict to ban drinking.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nanny_mike_next_target_real_boozy_6khvdPpGlJlwVgaz ASV5lJ#ixzz21eS7TM42

[Jolie Rouge]

Tales of the Nanny State: Bloomberg commands breastfeeding!
Phineas on July 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm

Call me crazy, but isn’t the choice whether to breastfeed one’s baby one the mother should make, perhaps in consultation with her doctor?

Not when Mayor Mike is in charge! http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mayor_knows_breast_WqU1iYRQvwbEkDuvn0vb1H


The nanny state is going after moms.

Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.

Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.

Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.

While breast-feeding activists applaud the move, bottle-feeding moms are bristling at the latest lactation lecture. “If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed,” said Lynn Sidnam, a Staten Island mother of two formula-fed girls, ages 4 months and 9 years. “It’s for me to choose.”

Under Latch On NYC, new mothers who want formula won’t be denied it, but hospitals will keep infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications. With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead. “It’s the patient’s choice,” said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. “But it’s our job to educate them on the best option.”

Lisa Paladino, of Staten Island University Hospital, said: “The key to getting more moms to breast-feed is making the formula less accessible. This way, the RN has to sign out the formula like any other medication. The nurse’s aide can’t just go grab another bottle.”

Some of the hospitals already operate under the formula lockdown. “New York City is definitely ahead of the curve,” said Eileen DiFrisco, of NYU Langone Medical Center, where the breast-feeding rate has surged from 39 to 68 percent under the program.

Breast-feeding in the first weeks gives a baby a critical healthy start, many medical experts say. It helps the digestive system develop and protects the baby with the mother’s immunities. Nursing also helps the mother recover from childbirth.

But not everyone is convinced. “They make formula for a reason, and the FDA makes sure it’s safe,” said Roxanne Schmidt, whose 14-month-old twins were fed with formula from birth. “Locking it up is just wrong.”

Lovely. So not only will Mike Bloomberg and his merry band of statists play hide-the-bottle to force one to breastfeed, but those who don’t get with the program will be nagged until they do — “We know what’s best for your baby. You don’t. Why do you insist on a bottle? WHY DO YOU HATE YOUR BABY??”

That’s the essence of liberal fascism, of the nanny-state, of arrogant would-be Czars like Mike Bloomberg: there is no limit, no point at which they say they control enough. Every minute aspect of your life –how much salt you use, how much soda you drink, how you feed your baby– is subject to the state’s direction.

Every. Single. Bit.

via David Freddoso https://twitter.com/freddoso/statuses/229649397946908672


What happened to “It’s my body”?? So they can mandate breastfeeding, but not have a law against late term abortions?? These Stalinists will do anything to hold power over the American people.

**Posted by Phineas http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2012/07/29/tales-of-the-nanny-state-bloomberg-commands-breastfeeding/


With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.

I nursed all three of my children ... but I think it is wrong to harrass a new mother in this fashion.

comments

Baby formula as a controlled substance?!?!? What next.....

...

Let's see, killing your baby is good, but bottle feeding is bad. Go figure. Maybe the left shoulld practice some consistency. If I should have a choice as to whether or not to have an abortion, I should certainly have the same unempeded choice as to whether I breast or bottle feed my baby. Get out of people's lives Mr. Bloomberg, you are an A$$.

..

And to put a finer point on your comment: Liberals scream 'foul' over proposals that women have ultrasounds to fully illustrate the profound, life-altering choice to abort their unborn child yet they embrace embarrassing them and impeding a woman's right NOT to bottle-feed.

..

I was pro-choice. Until the pro-choice supporters fought against having billboards showing aborted fetuses. Because they looked too much like babies. Because they are babies. I finally realized what was going on here.

..

The first time some lady wants formula, and they inform her she can have it but must first listen to someone drone on about her being wrong in wanting formula, there is going to be fireworks. I have 4 sons and I can tell you from experience that you run a risk when you mess with a new mom. I walked on egg shells around my wife, so I want to see what the hospital does when a woman requesting formula says she doesn't want to hear the lecture before getting the formula. Good luck, administrators.

...

Excuse me MR Mayor but isn't this a violation of our basic liberties granted by the US Constitution?

..

Who does he think he is? Funny how abortion is a "woman's choice" but bottle feeding your baby is his. He is out of control. No nurse or any one else better give me a lecture on feeding my baby. They will bite off more than they can chew. NYers better wake up and get rid of this parasite.

..

This is ridiculous! I breast fed 4 children and was a La Leche Leader for several years. Yes, we believe breastfeeding is best for the child and the mother in so many, many ways, but FORCED breastfeeding won't work. First, you can't just keep the mom and baby away from formula for a day or two and hope breastfeeding takes! Support it, encourage it, yes. But in the end, the mother has to want and choose to do it.

I am getting tired of politicians (and Bloomberg is one of many) telling the rest of us what to do (even good things). If you support the liberal position that the government knows best just wait until they decide that you must do or not do something that YOU believe in or simply make the choice to do.

..

Hey! Why stop here? No more c-sections! They're not natural! Let the mother and baby die! It's what they get for not aborting! Government controlled healthcare, government controlled eating, government controlled living! Yeah! Because I can't think for myself or don't want to!

..


what IF you have triplets? what if you do not make enough breast milk for 1? what if you have a medical condition? Is it even such a good idea with all the junkies giving birth in this city and those that have diseases like HIV and AIDS?

[Jolie Rouge]

NYC Hospitals' Baby Formula Plan Rankles Mommy Bloggers
By Dan Childs | ABC News Blogs – 7 hours ago

Breastfeeding experts are applauding New York City's "Latch On NYC" initiative, which aims to encourage breastfeeding and curb baby formula use in hospitals, but some mommy bloggers are not happy, and they are taking their grievances online.

One of these bloggers is Katherine Stone, a 42-year-old mother who lives in Atlanta. In her Babble blog post on Monday - titled "Back Off of the Mamas, Mayor Bloomberg!" - she criticizes the additional monitoring of formula use in hospitals.

"It's a thin line," she said. "I think it's a little bit scary because it begins to infer that it's a bad, bad thing to feed your child formula."

Meredith Carroll is a 39-year-old mother and Babble blogger who lives in Aspen, Colo., and she, too, takes issue with the impending New York City policy.

"This isn't morphine," Carroll said. "I'm not a drug addict that needs to be kept away from a drug. I just want to feed my baby."

Both bloggers said they realized that the initiative would not affect them directly, as they do not live in New York. But the plan will see 27 of New York City's hospitals implementing its policies on Labor Day, which include keeping formula in locked storage rooms and monitoring its use.

The initiative will also discontinue the practice of hospitals distributing free infant formula at the time of discharge, prohibit the display of formula promotional materials in hospitals, and encourage greater enforcement of existing regulations prohibiting the use of formula for breastfeeding infants unless medically indicated.

It is not the first time the availability of baby formula in hospitals has been put under the spotlight. An August 2011 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lambasted hospitals for not adhering to steps designed to encourage breastfeeding in hospitals spelled out by the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative.

The initiative, sponsored by UNICEF and the World Health Organization, suggests that hospitals "[h]ave a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff" and "[g]ive no pacifiers of artificial nipples to breastfeeding infants."

At the time of its report, the CDC noted that only 4 percent of hospitals had adopted at least nine out of 10 of the steps included in the initiative, and that 9 percent of hospitals had adopted two or fewer of the steps.

Breastfeeding experts said that in light of this dismal situation, the New York City plan is sorely needed - and they say such policies will not restrict mothers' choices in feeding their infants.

"Locking the formula up and paying for it does NOT mean it won't be available for mothers who choose to exclusively formula feed or for mothers who want to supplement or for medically necessary formula supplementation," wrote Dr. Lori Feldman-Winter, a pediatrician at Children's Regional Hospital at Cooper in Camden, N.J. "It simply helps keep track of usage and cuts down on indiscriminate use."

Feldman-Winter, who is a published researcher on the topic of infant formula use in hospitals, said closer monitoring of formula has been demonstrated to make a difference.

"We have shown that once the formula is kept in a locked cabinet ("locked up") and used only when medically necessary, then the usage is cut in half, resulting in more infants exclusively breastfeeding, an outcome good for the infant, family and our society as a whole," she said.

Dr. Miriam Labbock, director of the Center for Infant & Young Child Feeding & Care, also agrees with Bloomberg's move to institute the plan.

"It is amazing to me that so many papers have somehow headlined that this deprives folks in some manner," said Labbock, who was previously in charge of UNICEF's efforts to encourage breastfeeding, in an email to ABCNews.com. "All other nutraceuticals and drugs have been controlled under lock and key in all hospitals for ages - formula had been the only unfortunate exception."

The point on which everyone seems to agree is that breastfeeding is the ideal approach. Blogger Stone said most of the discussion she has seen online recognizes the fact regardless of position on Bloomberg's plan.

"People who can have a reasoned discussion about this really do understand the importance of breastfeeding," Stone said. "It's important we promote breastfeeding… I support the idea of promoting breastfeeding and increasing the percentage of women who do it. It is crucial thing."

And according to the Latch On NYC website, there is no requirement for new mothers to breastfeed while in the hospital. "While breastfeeding is healthier for both mothers and babies, staff must respect a mother's infant feeding choice," the website states.

But the site does encourage hospital staff to remind mothers of the health benefits of breastfeeding when they request formula. Among the recommendations offered on the website for hospital staff is advice that they can "[a]ssess if breastfeeding is going well and encourage the mother to keep trying" and "[p]rovide education and support to mothers who are experiencing difficulties."

Stone said that for women who can't breastfeed, the policy would represent another hoop through which these new mothers would have to jump - possibly adding to their guilt at the worst possible time.

"I hear from moms who have all sorts of problems related to breastfeeding, whether it is the inability to produce enough milk, or medical conditions they have, or their baby having problems breastfeeding," Stone said. "There are a lot of things that lead a mother to not being able to breastfeed.

"Many of them do go through the experience of having people judge them for that. People saying they are selfish, or that they don't care about the baby."

Carroll said she knows firsthand the guilt that comes with not being able to breastfeed as a new mother. She writes in her blog that, at the time her older child was a baby, she had tried unsuccessfully to breastfeed her.

"It's not up to me or Mayor Bloomberg to pass judgment on any mother who makes a choice about how to feed her baby," Carroll told ABCNews.com. "It's embarrassing for a new mother to go out of her way to ask for something she may need or may want. Maybe someone who hasn't been in that situation is not aware."

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/nyc-hospitals-baby-formula-plan-rankles-mommy-bloggers-212928162--abc-news-health.html

[Jolie Rouge]

NYC bans big, sugary drinks at eateries, theaters
Sep 13, 2012 10:21 AM

NEW YORK - New York City's health board has passed a rule banning super-sized, sugary drinks at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries.

The regulation passed Thursday puts a 16-ounce size limit on cups and bottles of non-diet soda, sweetened teas and other calorie-packed beverages.

The ban will apply in fast-food joints, movie houses and Broadway theaters, workplace cafeterias and most other places selling prepared food.

It doesn't cover supermarkets or most convenience stores.

City health officials say the ban is necessary to combat a deadly obesity epidemic.

The restaurant and beverage industries have assailed the plan as misguided. They say the city's health experts are exaggerating the role sugary beverages have played in making Americans fat.

Some New Yorkers have also ridiculed the rule as a gross government intrusion.

http://www.wbrz.com/news/nyc-bans-big-sugary-drinks-at-eateries-theaters/

[Jolie Rouge]

Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless
Has The Mayor Totally Eaten Away At The Public's Desire To Do Good?

March 19, 2012 8:33 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer. Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

It’s the “no bagels for you” edict.

“I can’t give you something that’s a supplement to the food you already have? Sorry that’s wrong,” Richter said.

Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a “cholent” or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless. Richter said he was stunned. He said his family has eaten the same food forever and flourished. “My father lived to 97; my grandfather lived to 97, and they all enjoyed it and somehow we’re being told that this is no good and I think there is a degree of management that becomes micromanagement and when you cross that line simply what you’re doing is wrong,” Richter said.

But Mayor Bloomberg, a salt-aholic himself, was unapologetic. “For the things that we run because of all sorts of safety reasons, we just have a policy it is my understanding of not taking donations,” Bloomberg said.

Told that his administration recently enacted the policy, the mayor was Grinch-like. “If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

Richter said that over the years he’s delivered more than two tons of food to the homeless. He said Mayor Bloomberg is eating away at his ability to do good. The ban on food donations was made by an inter-agency task force that includes the departments of Health and Homeless Services.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/

comments

The health issue seems like a smoke screen. I think the mayor would like to see homeless people leave the city.

..

The Mayor needs to stop telling people what to do. I have a neighbor who like myself has a salt deficiency so we have to eat salt. Every now and then He (neighbor) has to have something sweet or he becomes ill. Why is this idiot mayor always imposing his will on others? Why doesn't he find something constructive to do.

..

Talk about "out of touch" politicians. Perhaps he needs to be homeless for a while. I guess what I find so distressing about this is not that he wanted to enact this ban, but that he COULD enact it.

..

I am speechless. Stupidity has reached a whole new level. So what if the food has too much salt or fat and not enough fiber-IT'S FOOD YOU IDIOT! I wish society would stop OVERTHINKING EVERYTHING!!!

..

Wow. I'm not from New York, was directed here off of Fox News. 15 years ago I earned my Eagle Scout by starting a vegetable garden that grew over a 1,000 lbs in the first year for a local homeless shelter. After that my scout troop maintained the garden provided a ton of food each year (literally 2,000 lbs / year). Shocked to see such an effort is not possible elsewhere. I'd hate to see my yellow squash contribute to the obesity of homeless people.

..

Amazing that in this tough economy when food pantries are seeing more and more people and are running out of food, that Bloomberg's policy is such that there is less food available for pantries. .. . just AWFUL. Bloomberg, wake up!!!

..

What the heck is wrong with people. You want to starve the homeless? The men, Women CHILDREN and VETERANS that served this country. You want them to go hungry, why? Because you feel the need to control every aspect of everyone's lives! These are human beings, they know if they cant have something, if they cant they wont eat it! Quit trying to dictate what everyone can do! Jesus said feed the people for whoever feeds the hungry in turn has fed him. Grow up and stop acting like two year olds that think they own everything!

..

I was arrested in Oakland for running a kitchen. The only thing I was guilty of was cooking food for nearly 3,000 of the 8,000 homeless people in Oakland who were not eating more than 1 meal a day, and many who had not eaten in many days before we started. I am a college graduate and despite my degree I have been homeless many times in my life. Free food is ALWAYS welcome, regardless of fat, fiber, and salt content. I agree with what someone said about forcing him to be homeless, jobless, and moneyless for at least a month. Then we will see how he feels about stopping donations.

..

He would rather they starve to death rather than MAYBE get too much salt, fat, or fiber. And here I thoght he was more intelligent than most polaticions.

..

Maybe the problem is deeper. Maybe Mayor Bloomberg should not have a say over what is given to homeless shelters because homeless shelters should not be run by city government. Maybe the majority of New Yorkers want Father-knows-best Bloomberg telling them what to eat, what to drink, and perhaps making them put on their galoshes before going out in the rain. If so, keep voting for him and like-minded council members. Within 10 years he will propose that no one be allowed to go outside for a walk without their city-approved helmet and reflective vest.

Gee, put big government socialists in charge of your life and the next thing you know, they want to run your life.

..

Next they will ban the donation of lodging as well since they can't test for black mold, lead-based paint and environmental hazards in shelters and other housing.

..

I hope Bloomberg bans everything that tastes good, and after that, I hope he bans air conditioning. Liberals need to suffer in order to realize what they've been voting for.

..

This is political correctness gone amok to the detriment of the people who need it...FREE FOOD! We throw away more food than can be consumed - and yet, when attempting to feed the hungry...the donors are now stopped by misguided rules. Let the people eat!! Let the food continue to be donated...This is absolutely ridiculous and mean! And stupid...and very very sad

...

I simply do not believe most of the comments. Do you really think a homeless person who got free food for years gives a hoot whether Bloomberg is an independent, democrat or republican? I think not!!!! He wants food which he is now not getting anymore, because Bloomberg is more interested in the fibre content then in the homeless being fed. If this wasn't so sad, he would be funny.

[Jolie Rouge]

Denmark seriously rethinking the world’s first “fat tax”
posted at 3:31 pm on November 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Last year, Denmark levied the first-ever national “fat tax” on food products containing saturated fats in an effort to both exert some sway over what the goverment deemed were members of the Danish population’s unhealthy eating habits, and perhaps bring in some extra revenue at the same time. Two bird, one stone — easy, right?

No, not really. The government’s effort to socially engineer the behavior of its populace actually came with a whole host of unintended consequences that negatively impacted the economy and largely failed to slim down Danes’ waistlines anyway. Who could’ve seen this coming? Via the AFP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3exgRYcjub3JqFh8NqZULcowKfw?docId=CNG.21e9b 6c39551266eec2b615c33bd28bf.71


Denmark said Saturday it would scrap a fat tax it introduced a little over a year ago in a world first, saying the measure was costly and failed to change Danes’ eating habits.

“The fat tax and the extension of the chocolate tax — the so-called sugar tax — has been criticised for increasing prices for consumers, increasing companies’ administrative costs and putting Danish jobs at risk,” the Danish tax ministry said in a statement.

“At the same time it is believed that the fat tax has, to a lesser extent, contributed to Danes travelling across the border to make purchases,” it added.

“Against this background, the government and the (far-left) Red Green Party have agreed to abolish the fat tax and cancel the planned sugar tax,” the ministry said.



Thus run such statist attempts impose top-down virtue upon the masses — but at least Denmark had the good sense to scrap the effort instead of doubling down on stupid, as big-government proponents are wont to do. There are plenty of people and groups who have proposed the idea of a fat tax in the United States as a viable method of dealing with the obesity crisis, but one would hope this will serve as a useful indicator of the negative effects that these kinds of propositions inevitably end up having.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/11/denmark-seriously-rethinking-the-worlds-first-fat-tax/

comments

It’s like the foie gras ban in Cali. Restaurants skirt the law by selling 30 dollar brioche with complimentary foie gras on the side and individuals cross the border and buy it in Nevada. Did no one learn anything from Prohibition?

..

Maybe the Danes should talk to the Chicago City Council. They raised cigaret taxes by a dollar. People started smuggling. Revenue fell. So now there’s talk of raising taxes another dollar.

..

Social Engineers meet Reality

[Jolie Rouge]

NYC businesses begin receiving brochures about how to comply with Bloomberg’s soda ban
By Doug Powers • February 24, 2013 03:26 PM

http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bloomberg.jpg

New York City Mayor Michael “I have a responsibility not to force anybody to do anything” http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/17/michael-bloomberg-2/ Bloomberg is forcing people to do something again. City officials will start enforcing the “large sugary drink” ban on March 12 http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/31/bloomberg-sweetened-drinks/ (violators will be fined $200 and sent to health nanny sensitivity training). Affected city businesses are receiving information on compliance. Among the rules: No two-liter sodas with pizza deliveries: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L


The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including restaurants, bars and any “food service” establishment subject to letter grades.

And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.

“It’s not fair. If you’re gonna tell me what to do, it’s no good,” said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso’s in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. “It’s gonna cost a lot more.”

And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for smaller bottles.

Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.

Bloomberg is still going to allow pizzas to be delivered? Unbelievable. It seems like the obesity from the pizza combined with the global warming from the delivery vehicle would be enough to convince The Nanny to put a stop to it. Maybe that’s next.

Here’s more, to be filed under “how come Mayor Bloomberg hates the environment?” http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L


“We’re getting in 16-ounce bottles — and that’s all we’re going to sell,” a worker said.

He said the smaller bottles will generate more revenue for the restaurant but cost consumers more.

It will also trash more plastic into the environment.

The New York Post’s picture accompanying the story is worth a look. http://twitchy.com/2013/02/24/soda-jerk-ny-post-slams-nanny-bloombergs-sweeping-soda-ban-surprises-no-2-liters-for-you/


Candice Choi @candicechoi

NYPost calls Bloomberg a 'soda jerk' for 16 oz limit. Photo illustration pic.twitter.com/IvusjcyoQy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BD30ENJCUAAj3_I.jpg

And for good reason. Family pizza night? No 2-liter bottles of soda for you!


Kevin Scott @

@foxnews so now you can't get a 2 ltr soda with your pizza order in NYC cause of Nanny Bloomberg

1:39 PM - 24 Feb 13


Matthew Schulman MD @nycplasticsurg

Won't be able to order a 2 L bottle of soda for the family with my pizza or get juice w my bottle service at club? Bad Bloomberg

1:54 PM - 24 Feb 13

Nanny Bloomberg knows best, you see. You poor dears can’t be trusted to make your own beverage decisions, for goodness sake! Nanny Bloomberg unveiled his plans to further deprive New Yorkers of some yummy eats (or drinks) last year. Twitter users were, of course, outraged. Now comes news that the soda ban has quite a few surprises.


EDM_Bunny @EDM_Bunny

“@NYNightlife: Bloomberg's soda ban is going to ban bottle service mixers over 16oz; only water and 100% juice will be unlimited" WTF

1:36 PM - 24 Feb 13


Rory Cooper @rorycooper


Mayor Bloomberg's insane soda ban taking effect and it'll cost hardworking families a lot of money. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L …

12:47 PM - 24 Feb 13

Birthday party for your child? No pitchers allowed.

More from The New York Post:http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L


And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for smaller bottles.

Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda. “I really feel bad for the customers,” said Lupe Balbuena of World Pie in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.

Priorities! During a time when many families are suffering and pinching pennies, let’s make things harder and more expensive for them, says Nanny Bloomberg.


ryan @ReealRy

Mayor Bloomberg telling people they can't drink 2 liters of soda. Smh

11:45 AM - 24 Feb 13


CTIronman @CTIronman

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L … The consequences of Nanny Bloomberg's soda tirade are expensive & bizarre

1:33 PM - 24 Feb 13

A super-sized Nanny State. We’ve said it before: New York is no longer the Big Apple; it’s the Big Brother.

Now with more pain in your wallet.


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/02/24/businesses-compliance-bloomberg/

[Jolie Rouge]

Judge Overturns NYC’s Soda Ban
Mar. 11, 2013 3:16pm Becket Adams

A state judge has overturned New York City’s proposed ban all sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, ruling the new regulations illegal. New York City is “enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations,” New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided Monday, adding that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempts at “portion control” were both “arbitrary” and “capricious.”

“The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole … the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule,” the decision reads.

Judge Tingling in his ruling explains that the Board of Health’s duty is to protect city residents by “providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseases,” as the Wall Street Journal notes. It does not, he argues, have the authority to “limit or ban a legal item under the guise of ‘controlling chronic disease.’”

“The board may supervise and regulate the city’s food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken,” the WSJ adds.

In order for city officials to impose something along the lines of Mayor Bloomberg’s sugary drinks ban, the city must face “imminent danger due to disease,” according to Tingling’s decision. “That has not been demonstrated,” he notes.

The judge also said Mayor Bloomberg stepped outside the boundaries of his authority when he presented the Board of Health — “which is solely appointed by him” – with the ban.

The City Council, the decision explains, is the legislative body “and it alone has the authority to legislate as the board seeks to do here.”

Unsurprisingly, Mayor Bloomberg has vowed to fight Monday’s ruling:


Mayor's Office ✔ @NYCMayorsOffice

We plan to appeal the sugary drinks decision as soon as possible, and we are confident the measure will ultimately be upheld.

7:42 PM - 11 Mar 13

Here’s Judge Tingling’s decision:

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/74yvt0sqbk27l2xq/images/1-93f7b6a5fe.jpg

Scheduled to take effect March 12, the new law would have affected theaters, cart vendors, coffee shops, restaurants, and sports venues, TheBlaze noted earlier today. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/nyc-sugary-drinks-ban-hits-tuesday-but-starbucks-others-wont-comply-until-court-decision-made/

The regulations would not have affected grocery or convenience stores that don’t serve prepared food, CBS New York points out. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/last-day-for-new-yorkers-to-buy-super-sized-sugary-drinks-in-nyc/ The ban also wouldn’t have applied to non-sugary drinks, diet soda, “or anything that has at least 50 percent milk or milk substitute.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/report-judge-overturns-nycs-soda-ban/

[Jolie Rouge]

New York also has an 80% high school illiteracy rate, http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/mike-bloombergs-new-york-80-percent-of-recent-nyc-high-school-graduates-cannot-read/ but that doesn’t seem to faze him.

And in what’s sure to be an amusing showdown, Starbucks is basically telling the tiny tyrant to pound sand. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/last-day-for-new-yorkers-to-buy-super-sized-sugary-drinks-in-nyc/

[Jolie Rouge]

How I learned to love the nanny state
March 11, 2013, at 4:12 PM

A federal judge has blocked the implementation of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ban on big-sized sugar drinks, limiting, for the moment, the reach of Mr. Bloomberg's concern for our intimate drinking habits. As a rule, I'm skeptical of interventions like these for two reasons. One: There is little evidence that they work, especially when they are touted as remedies for a complex multicausal problem like obesity. Generally, restricting access to sugary drinks in one place will simply move the offending behavior out of that place, and since sugar is rather addictive, kids will find somewhere else to make up for their deprivation. The second reason is that I don't feel comfortable being judged by the government for my food choices. Implicit in that feeling is a worry that poorer people would be disproportionately burdened by the new rules.

So my initial reaction to Bloomberg's desire to prevent people from purchasing more than 16 ounces of certain drinks at one time was not favorable. Bloomberg's reputation as a mayor who takes the social welfare of his citizens seriously is very important and ought to be a model. If, in his desire to reduce obesity, he goes over the line, he'll lose luster. And I thought that this imposition crossed the line.

After thinking it over, though, I became less and less uncomfortable with the idea. For one thing, social experimentation on this level, on this scale, has not been tried in the United States. It's not a off-one stab into the heart of the problem; it embeds into a framework of other interventions that Bloomberg has pursued. It is transparent: It seeks to change behavior and draw attention to a source of empty calories. It does not, at least to me, unreasonably restrict the purchase of soda itself. And obesity is not an individual problem that calls for individualized solutions. To reduce obesity in New York City, large-scale interventions now may pay off in decades, when habits are changed. Bloomberg is absolutely making a moral judgment about the consumption of certain drinks, and people might be hurt by the government's sudden disapproval of their choices. They won't be harmed by it, though, and if over-consumption of sugary drinks is indeed a major contributor to a problem that has widespread, distributed social effects, even the "hurt" might be mitigated by the benefit.

The judge who blocked the law today called it "capricious" and arbitrary. This is true: The ban omits certain categories of drinks with higher sugar content and won't be enforced in the 7-Eleven next to the movie theater that can't sell non-diet sodas above 16 ounces anymore. A "legal Leviathan" ought not be created to enforce health laws in New York City, the judge says. There is something to that. Just because the government CAN do something positive to help improve the health of citizens does not mean that it ought to. Bloomberg's ban was carefully crafted precisely because there are different laws servicing different establishments, and certain businesses would be disproportionately effected by certain provisions of the law.

The beverage industry does not want to go down the road of choice restrictions, and they're prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars to prevent what would be the largest field trial of an anti-obesity intervention in history. Maybe that money ought to be saved as a contingency fund to help small business owners who might see some declines in their revenue.

http://theweek.com/article/index/241197/how-i-learned-to-love-the-nanny-state

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/71487_520674454663272_1479337647_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Bloomberg Refused Second Slice of Pizza at Local Restaurant
May. 02, 2013

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was denied a second slice of pizza today at an Italian eatery in Brooklyn.

The owners of Collegno's Pizzeria say they refused to serve him more than one piece to protest Bloomberg's proposed soda ban,which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city. Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.

Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered. "Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?" Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.

"I'm sorry sir," he replied, "we can't do that. You've reached your personal slice limit."

Mayor Bloomberg, not accustomed to being challenged, assumed that the owner was joking. "OK, that's funny," he remarked, "because of the soda thing ... No come on. I'm not kidding. I haven't eaten all morning, just send over another pepperoni."

"I'm sorry sir. We're serious," Benito insisted. "We've decided that eating more than one piece isn't healthy for you, and so we're forbidding you from doing it."

"Look j-ck-ss," Bloomberg retorted, his anger boiling, "I f-cking skipped breakfast this morning just so I could eat four slices of your pizza. Don't be a schmuck, just get back to the kitchen and bring out some f-cking pizza, okay."

"I'm sorry sir, there's nothing I can do," the owner repeated. "Maybe you could go to several restaurants and get one slice at each. At least that way you're walking. You know, burning calories."

Witnesses say a fuming Bloomberg and a bemused Liu did indeed walk down the street to a rival pizzeria , ordered another slice and finished their meeting.

New York's so-called "soda ban" would have limited the size of sweetened beverages served in restaurants to 16 oz (0.5 liters). The plan, backed by Mayor Bloomberg, is currently being held up by a U.S. district court.

Bloomberg has been the mayor of New York City since 2002. Theretofore he was the CEO of Bloomberg LP, the world's leading financial data firm. His personal fortune is estimated at around $27 billion.

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/02/bloomberg-refused-second-slice-of-pizza-at-local-restaurant/

[hblueeyes]

Everyone who visits new York should have dinner there. The owner was spot on.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

Appeals court strikes down NYC's big-soda banFont size
July 30, 2013 11:01 AM

NEW YORK - New York City's crackdown on big, sugary sodas is staying on ice.

An appeals court ruled Tuesday that New York City's Board of Health exceeded its legal authority and acted unconstitutionally when it tried to put a size limit on soft drinks served in city restaurants.

The state Supreme Court Appellate Division panel upheld a lower court decision that had delayed the measure before it took effect in March.

The rule would stop many eateries from selling non-diet soda and other sugar-laden beverages in containers bigger than 16 ounces.

The beverage industry and other opponents say the measure is riddled with exceptions, unfair and ineffective.

The city's law department has promised an appeal.

http://www.wbrz.com/news/appeals-court-strikes-down-nyc-s-big-soda-ban/

[Jolie Rouge]

Next ???

https://sphotos-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p320x320/59543_10151811855069993_333133260_n.jpg