Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times There was drinking of large sugary beverages in the streets of New York City after a judge threw out the mayor’s portion-control regulations.The New York Times article on a judge’s ruling on Monday striking down the city’s impending limits on large sugary drinks drew more than 1,300 comments from readers representing a wide range of regulatory philosophies. Here are some of them. A few have been condensed slightly.
This is one time when common sense won out. Yes, too mch sugar is bad, but the law was dumb. Anyone who wanted more soda could just refill their cup, especially in all those fast-food restaurants with self-service soda machines, which is most of them. The law also created a maze of rules and applied only to specific places serving specific kinds of choices, but not the choice to drink as much soda or have as much sugar as you wanted.
â€" Carmela Sanford, Niagara Falls, N.Y.
What’s arbitrary and capricious is this judge’s decision. I would not back a ban of soda or other unhealthy foods, because that would be governmental overstep. However, this regulation doesn’t ban anything â€" it institutes a nudge toward portion control.
â€" Joseph, bklyn
Hooray for freedom. Now reduce the portion of my tax that covers medical insurance, pro-rated on the percentage of expense that goes toward sugar-related illnesses, and don’t use any public money to treat its sufferers.
Consumers get to hurt thems! elves freely, and the rest of us get free from paying for their foolishness.
If we must, I guess we could tax sugar content and have it go into a special portion of the revenue that will treat sugar-related illnesses at “public†expense, but that “public†money will have been paid for almost entirely by those who consume the product. There’s precedent for that kind of arrangement, isn’t there
â€" Alan, N.Y.C.
I happen to believe that if the government doesn’t belong in the bedroom, that it does not belong in the kitchen either.
â€" Otto Von Bismarck, Koenigsberg, Prussia
The ruling makes sense, even though the motive behind the law makes more sense. In the end, if the limits of size are knocked down, perhaps all the publicity will make folks think twice about the choices they make. I think the message about the corrosive impact of bad food choices is beginning to sink in, thanks to public-minded folks like the mayor and the first lady.
â€" SNA, Westfield, ..J.
This decision just shook up the mayoral campaign. Candidates will have to say whether they will continue appealing this idiotic legal decision up to the Court of Appeals. I will vote for the candidate who promises to continue the appeals.
Apparently for some, freedom means the freedom to get Type-2 at 28, lose both legs at 44, then stick your hand in other people’s wallets to pay for the self-inflicted chronic diseases you got because big food jerks you around like a marionette.
If we can’t accept the tiniest, most voluntary steps like this one, there is no hope this stupid country will ever save itself. Laugh, world, laugh at us. We deserve it.
â€" Bill U., New York
I say put a nice 25 percent tax on sugary drinks. Sin taxes are always much more effective than bans. And they’re generally always upheld by courts.
â€" HSG9000, Earth
Agreed that obesity is a problem. And encouraging healthier eating is a good thing.
That said, I buy those larg! e drinks.! Why Because I share with my husband and my son, and one large is cheaper than three small.
Hmmm … between that and the two-cup solution in the article, I begin to suspect it isn’t about public health at all. It’s about getting people to spend more money.
â€" Stephanie Chernoff, CT
You have to love it when Big Brother Government is put back in its place by the very bureaucracy it lives by. Take that, Mayor Bloomberg.
â€" Paul, White Plains
