What I want to know is why was this implemented in the first place? It is completely none of the mayor’s business as to whether or not someone wants to get a 32oz Big Gulp. Yes, it’s unhealthy. Yes, soda is effectively a sugar bomb, worse if it’s made with HFCS or aspartame (as most of these actually are). But again: it isn’t his damn business. If the city’s not had a reasonable train fare since 2000, why in the hell is a soda ban a good idea? Or is Bloomberg, like most politicians, more concerned with shoehorning people into his own box of a viewpoint than he is with, I don’t know, his job?
When this got put into place to begin with, one of the things I heard primarily was fat-shaming. As in, “if all those fat people wouldn’t be so fat, then I could have my soda in peace!” To which I say, shut the hell up. Fat isn’t created equal. Not all of it comes from bad eating. And banning large soda is not going to resolve the “obesity epidemic” – which, by the by, has to be one of the most over-sensationalized, manufactured pieces of body-policing tripe I’ve heard to date.
Really: there’s no epidemic. You can’t catch fat. You don’t get infected by fat. You don’t become fat just because someone other than yourself is of a bigger size. And you certainly don’t become fat because someone other than yourself is drinking a large soda. No one is obligating them to do so, it’s their choice.
So why in the hell does legislative money and time have to get wasted by instituting this in the first place?
If you want to ban something, try banning HFCS. It’ll do a lot more good.
And the judge put it very, very well: Bloomberg had overstepped his bounds in attempting to ban or limit a perfectly legal substance under the guise of health risks. Yeah, there is a health risk to drinking large amounts of very sugary drinks. I will be the last person to deny it. But until sugary drinks are a controlled substance, you don’t get the right to ban them. Mayor or no mayor, if it’s legal, paws off.