1. You can look at it from a technical/legal point of view. Color commentary aside, that's what the judge did here, ruling that the way he enacted the ban was illegal.
2. You can look at it from an ideological standpoint, which varies from "SUGAR IS TEH EEEEVIL!" to "NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE!"
3. You can look at it from a practical standpoint in terms of what the ban actually did and what it didn't do — which was where it was a real mess, since it only limited some outlets from serving larger drinks, it only affected sodas (vs. the equally over-sugared fruit juices), and it did nothing about refills.
The last is where it really fell apart for me. I'm of a mixed mind on the whole thing (I think people would be healthier if there were fewer Thirsty-Two Ouncers of sugared soda being gulped, but I'm unconvinced that's behavior that it's up to the city to try to force), but this particular proposal was so poorly constructed that it comes off as laughable at best, posturing at worse.
Judge Cans Soda Ban
A state judge stopped the Bloomberg administration from banning the sale of large sugary drinks at restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for the mayor.
This post has been reshared 3 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
Another problem that falls into the third category is the fact that the ban was limited to New York City. Residents of the city have been known to travel outside of the city, and even move outside the city; likewise, people from other parts of the world have been known to visit and/or move to New York. This limits the health benefits of the initiative.
An effective law has a scary sound to it – a national ban on soft drinks, and strict regulations (similar to those implemented for Sudafed and similar products) limiting people to buying a certain amount of regulated drinks per day – and, as you mention, this would also apply to fruit juices. Oh – and, of course, it would apply to all sales of the regulated drinks. (Ironically, if I recall correctly, products sold at 7 Eleven were not covered by the ban.)
This whole issue falls somewhere between a joke and a travesty for me. It was so poorly executed it makes me laugh, and it's such a gross overstepping of governmental boundaries that I want to vomit.
+John E. Bredehoft – The locality of it is less of a concern to me in that area; this is less like gun control (easily available guns flood illegally back into a regulated area) than smoking restrictions (every little bit theoretically helps).
Your description (echoed in +James D. 's comment) of an effective law of this sort is precisely why this sort of thing overreaches so much — not only would you need to restrict restaurants/bars (far beyond what they were doing), but, yes, convenience stores (as the article notes, those are regulated by the state and thus not controlled by the city) and grocery stores (can't let you buy a 12-pack, son). All for something that is far less identifiably toxic than cigarettes (or french fries).
+James D. – I'm sure that proponents would argue that an ineffective law is better than no law at all. "If only one child's life can be saved," they would passionately proclaim, "all of this will be worth it…"
That argument, +John E. Bredehoft, is not without some merit. It's all about costs and benefits. I think it fails on that test, but that's a separate discussion.
It could be looked at in two ways, "thanks for looking out for me" and "don't tell me what I can/can't do"
Personally, I think that companies should have the decency to look at their menus and see that they are unhealthy.
But it's all relative, +Tiffany Ahnert — the sliding scale of what's unhealthy, and for whom, and in what quantities, makes that a difficult call for a restaurant except in perhaps hedge cases ("Try our Triple Patty Bacon Mayo and Cheese Gut-Buster!" is perhaps indecent, but does that mean the alternative is munching on sprouts, tofu, and bran? What about french fries? Or pasta carbonara?).
Ultimately, businesses will try to meet demand. The demand side of the equation is where the difference will be made.(That's one reason why I support mandatory calorie counts on menus.)
All true. I think the way that the food is cooked also plays into how healthy something could be.
What's the point of a law that simply inconveniences a person? I can't buy a 64-oz fountain drink? Fine. I'll buy a 2-liter bottle and pour it into the plastic 64-oz cup I saved. This law would change behavior, but probably not in the intended manner .
I think this why all laws are difficult. Personally I would be fine without this law. But can we ban advertising/marketing to children? Maybe not as limits here hit gray areas too. But certainly advertising created for the sole purpose of hitting minors seems akin to smoking adverts of only a few years back.