By Kevin Rogers
Opinion Assignment Editor
In last week’s Bona Venture, Opinion Editor Deirdre Spilman bemoaned a New York Supreme Court judge’s ruling to halt New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of large sugary drinks in the city.
She shouldn’t be so distraught— the judge struck down an over-reaching policy that infringes on both businesses and citizens.
In my younger days, my mother put limits on when my brother and I could have soda. We could indulge at movies, restaurants and sporting events and have an occasional can on the weekend. I didn’t question my mother, because she was my mother. It was her job to keep us healthy.
Likewise, Spilman argued Bloomberg acted in the best health interests of citizens. That’s true. Excessive soda consumption is clearly a poor health choice. If we abide by that logic, banning sodas larger than 16 ounces seems like a good policy.
But Bloomberg can’t pretend he’s the mother of the nearly 20 million citizens of New York City. He shouldn’t have the authority to walk up to me at a movie and tell me to siphon off half of my Coca-Cola. Adults have the ability to make their own decisions about how much of a legal substance they consume.
If Bloomberg thinks I can get through three hours of “The Hobbit” on a can-and-a-third of soda, he’s got another thing coming. Additionally, paying $5.50 for 32 ounces rather than $4.75 for 16 ounces is just smart economics.
Besides its infringement on individual freedom, the law would have also hurt the businesses singled out in the law. The judge correctly ruled that the law was “arbitrary and capricious” in its proposed enactment. According to a Sept. 13 Yahoo story, the bill doesn’t affect convenience and grocery stores. If that’s the case, why should eateries and entertainment venues be subject to it?
If a policymaker decides that 16 ounces is the law of the land, the glasses and bottles don’t magically transform to meet standards. The ban put the necessary changes on the businesses’ bill. For example, on March 3 The Wall Street Journal reported Brother Jimmy’s Barbecue in New York had to replace its 1,000 glasses to meet standards. An independent movie theater had to develop a strategy to find soda bottles smaller than 20 ounces.
Take a trip to the Applebee’s down the road. Their sodas come in 20-ounce glasses. Go to a vending machine on campus and buy a drink. You’ll see a 20-ounce marking on the bottle’s label. By reasonable standards, these aren’t the “ridiculous quantities of soda” Spilman mentions. But these paltry sodas would not pass Bloomberg’s test.
I don’t usually drink much more than 20 ounces in a sitting. But if I want to buy a larger size and a business wants to sell me that larger size, the transaction should be free from Mama Bloomberg breathing down my neck.
New York City is preparing an appeal to this judge’s ruling, but I can only hope the appeals court finds the law as foolish as the first judge. Yes, the rule would have been limited to New York City, but why give policies like this a petri dish to fester in? If upheld, intrusive laws like this could become the norm.
People know excess sugar is unhealthy. However, if I want to risk obesity and guzzle down 32 ounces of Coke, that’s my choice. Spilman makes the troubling assertion that allowing a government official to oversee how much we drink constitutes “progress.”
If progress means allowing any government arbitrary rule over how much soda can be sold, I’ll pass.
