Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
spartan max2

NY highest court rules against Soda Ban

12 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Have been pleased with the courts lately(im sure most people have, the only one that seems to be highly controversial has been the Hobby Lobby one), .

So yeah the soda ban was a fairly dense thing to do in the first place. Im glad the court saw reason and got rid of it :tu:

http://reason.com/ar...rk-city-soda-ba

""While the lower courts had ruled unanimously against the ban—first in a one-judge decision, and later in a three-judge appellate decision—the state high court ruling was a 4-2 decision (with one judge abstaining)."

"Like the lower courts before it, the high court held that the city's health department, an unelected board appointed by then-mayor Michael Bloomberg, violated the state constitution by exercising legislative powers it does not possess in order to enact the soda ban. That's important, because it means that the city's health department, which previously banned trans fats, for example, may no longer make law and policy choices without prior legislative guidance. The court also ruled that the soda ban was discriminatory in its impact, since many places that sell large sodas, including 7-Eleven, were exempt."

Edited by spartan max2
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That shows some integrity. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad "over reach" Bloomberg got it thrown back at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now if we could only get rid of stupid bike lanes, another bloomberg creation that made most roads loose 1 car lane. it only made city more congested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We want leaders, not day care providers.

I hope this sends a message back to politicians that try to push this sort of nonsense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did not want to open another thread, since this is somewhat related.

just when you thought bloomberg left, and idiocy like soda cup size is gone, this comes alons, lol.

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City will move to the forefront of a growing environmental trend by banning food establishments from using plastic foam containers starting this summer, Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration announced Thursday.

De Blasio's mayoral ban will fulfill an initiative begun by his predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, who first suggested banning the material in his final State of the City address, in 2013. New York will now be the largest city in the country — following San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon — to prohibit the foam containers, which environmental groups have long decried as a hazard that clogs the nation's landfills.

"These products cause real environmental harm and have no place in New York City," said de Blasio in a statement announcing the ban. "We have better options, better alternatives, and if more cities across the country follow our lead and institute similar bans, those alternatives will soon become more plentiful and will cost less."

The ban will go into effect July 1. Beginning that day, food establishments — from food carts to Chinese takeout — will not be allowed to use plastic foam cups or containers. Packing peanuts will also not be allowed to be sold within the city, though peanuts can still be placed within packages that are shipped to New York from elsewhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-begin-banning-restaurant-plastic-foam-july-152512970.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did not want to open another thread, since this is somewhat related.

just when you thought bloomberg left, and idiocy like soda cup size is gone, this comes alons, lol.

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City will move to the forefront of a growing environmental trend by banning food establishments from using plastic foam containers starting this summer, Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration announced Thursday.

De Blasio's mayoral ban will fulfill an initiative begun by his predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, who first suggested banning the material in his final State of the City address, in 2013. New York will now be the largest city in the country — following San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon — to prohibit the foam containers, which environmental groups have long decried as a hazard that clogs the nation's landfills.

"These products cause real environmental harm and have no place in New York City," said de Blasio in a statement announcing the ban. "We have better options, better alternatives, and if more cities across the country follow our lead and institute similar bans, those alternatives will soon become more plentiful and will cost less."

The ban will go into effect July 1. Beginning that day, food establishments — from food carts to Chinese takeout — will not be allowed to use plastic foam cups or containers. Packing peanuts will also not be allowed to be sold within the city, though peanuts can still be placed within packages that are shipped to New York from elsewhere.

http://news.yahoo.co...-152512970.html

I actually don't have a problem with that. It's a bit different than the soda ban because it's not about forcing choices on individuals - unless, of course, you're someone that has a real hard on for Styrofoam I guess.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"These products cause real environmental harm and have no place in New York City," said de Blasio in a statement announcing the ban. "We

have better options, better alternatives, and if more cities across the country follow our lead and institute similar bans, those alternatives will

soon become more plentiful andwill cost less."

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I actually don't have a problem with that. It's a bit different than the soda ban because it's not about forcing choices on individuals - unless, of course, you're someone that has a real hard on for Styrofoam I guess.

well it does sound legit doesn't it? i have no problem with foam containers too, actually places that i order food from, do not use those for a while now, have no idea what made them switch. cups are mostly paper, even for hot stuff.

however, this is how i see it, small buissneses may get a waver and still use foam, as article states, and it is mostly small take out stores that use foam anyway, and street vendors. so what wil this law actually do usefull, if most buissneses will be still using foam stuff.

Nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual revenue could qualify for an exemption from the plastic foam ban, but they would have to prove that using nonfoam materials would create financial hardship.

most of those small buissnes are cash buissnes, you can not see how much they really make, only what they declare, so they will all be making 500g or less, if it gets them to use cheaper stuff.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm well I have been to San fran many times. Last time I checked the dim sum still comes in styrafoam containers. :( im not sure how enforceable all this is. Ca is banning plastic bags as well. We will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it does sound legit doesn't it? i have no problem with foam containers too, actually places that i order food from, do not use those for a while now, have no idea what made them switch. cups are mostly paper, even for hot stuff.

however, this is how i see it, small buissneses may get a waver and still use foam, as article states, and it is mostly small take out stores that use foam anyway, and street vendors. so what wil this law actually do usefull, if most buissneses will be still using foam stuff.

Nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual revenue could qualify for an exemption from the plastic foam ban, but they would have to prove that using nonfoam materials would create financial hardship.

most of those small buissnes are cash buissnes, you can not see how much they really make, only what they declare, so they will all be making 500g or less, if it gets them to use cheaper stuff.

So this really is just legislative trickery, something to point to and say "see, look what we did, progress guys we get things done" when all they're really doing is creating a loophole that any savvy business type will gladly and easily exploit. Damn lame asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we make this a general "gripe against stupid government regulations" thread? If not, please excuse the intrusion.

My two big gripes are light bulbs and washing machines.

I'm sure there will be posters who disagree with me and who will come armed with arguments. We'll wind up having to disagree.

Light bulbs. You used to be able to walk into WalMart and in 20 seconds select the right light bulb for your lighting needs, usually an incandescent bulb of 60, 75, or 100 watts. These bulbs gave off a pleasant light and were bright enough for various tasks around the home. Enter the new energy saving light bulb, touted as better for the environment. Okay, I've got nothing against doing good things for the environment.

Except....now you need a freaking PhD in Lightbulbology to select a light bulb. What used to be a 20 second task is as major a decision as buying a car. (And it's not that I'm dumb or uneducated in the whole range of new light bulb options.....). I've got some special vision considerations, pretty much okay with the good old incandescent bulb, but a constant day-to-day challenge with these new bulbs. None of them get bright enough to give me good general or good task lighting, well it seems not any without warning labels about potential for overheating, burns, mercury....And speaking of mercury. Those spiral bulbs that replace our good old incandescent bulbs, the ones that are more expensive, are supposed to have a longer life, and are supposed to be good for the environment. Yeah. They seem to burn out pretty frequently for bulbs touted as having long life. I recently had one go in a wicker drop lamp over a leather couch, took a dish towel and **gently** started to unscrew it, and the thing just shattered into a million pieces all over the couch and the rug below. This happens to be a couch the dogs love to lie on, so I'm panicking. Why? Because if one of these suckers breaks, you're supposed TO CUT OUT AND DISPOSE OF ANY SECTION OF CARPET the bulb falls on since the thing is full of mercury. So now I have to worry not only about shattered glass but also mercury? Now I'm supposed to cut up my carpet and my leather couch or worry about the effect on my dogs' health?

Please give me back my incandescent bulbs. I turn them off when I leave the room to save energy, and I never had one shatter spreading mercury. I so appreciate the government watching out for me.

I guess I'll save the new "energy saving washers" for another rant! :-)

Edited by 2-B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.