Thursday, June 5th, 2014
2

Consequences Unintended

"'Why is it such a great, terrible government intrusion to make regulations on how to package food?' Judge Lippman asked, his chin perched on his hand. The industry’s lawyer, Richard Bress, said the case raised 'the question of what makes us American, the right to choose.'" —Here is a strangely dark story about how the New York soda ban will be used as a tool in the effort to declaw health regulations across the country.

Tags:

2 Comments / Post A Comment

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

It's basically the same argument that facilitated the legalization of gay marriage. Government action must be, at minimum, rational, not arbitrary and capricious. The Nanny State is not banning carbonated sugar water out right, it is attempting to ban the size of the container that carbonated sugar water is sold in, but only in certain retail establishments. Under the regulation, some establishments would be barred from selling 20oz containers while Costco down the block can sell the exact same beverage in 3 liter bottles. Is this rational? Could a health board ban cheeseburgers or perhaps French Mustard next? Why the hell not if there is no limitation on state power?

There is nothing remotely "strangely dark" about this. Also, your last sentence is not a sentence.

CTD (#233,611)

@Lockheed Ventura

Here is the strangely dark part for me:

>“This case is presented as about individual liberty,” said Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia who filed a brief supporting the city. “In many ways, it’s much more about the ability of administrative agencies to use modern regulatory techniques, which include trying to shape consumer behavior in healthier ways.”

One one hand, individual liberty, on the other, word soup of the sort Orwell decried 68 years ago: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Post a Comment