 |
| Photo from http://www.breitbart.com |
Judge Tingling wrote the ban was "arbitrary and capricious', which is exactly what was discussed here on this blog. He went on to say the ban would pose uneven burdens across different business owners, even on the same block. The judge added "the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of this rule", a point argued by yours truly last year;
"The short-sided, narrow-minded 'ruling' of the appointed NYC Board of Health does nothing to address the obesity epidemic but certainly means I can still drink a 200 calorie soda with my meal. Like most other intrusive, far-reaching over-regulation, this resolution is born from the liberal mindset of government can cure all ills, including obesity." - from @DrinkPro, 9/18/2012
Do I feel vindicated? Not really. I was one of many voices of reason who argued for the pro-choice side about the ill-advised attempt by Bloomberg to dictate personal behavior. I was called names and my blog was inundated with hate email. I expect the very same thing again, but I don't mind. As long as you remain civil in discourse, you can win any argument. Just stick to the facts, remain professional and don't get personal, as I demonstrated here;
"Mayor Bloomberg has adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate, with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being passionate about obesity isn't enough [reason] to slap a ban on those who aren't obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary drinks." - from @DrinkPro, 6/20/2012
In closing, I am not trying to toot my own horn because of my accurate, dead on predictions of the judge's ruling. Ok, yes I am... I pretty much nailed his decision! But, I'll leave the prediction business to Nostradamus. Instead, I prefer to simply educate through fact-based convincing. A novel approach nowadays. However, I will leave you with a quote... one that, once you see who wrote it, you wont be surprised it rings as true today as it did back then;
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
"The short-sided, narrow-minded 'ruling' of the appointed NYC Board of Health does nothing to address the obesity epidemic but certainly means I can still drink a 200 calorie soda with my meal. Like most other intrusive, far-reaching over-regulation, this resolution is born from the liberal mindset of government can cure all ills, including obesity." - from @DrinkPro, 9/18/2012
Do I feel vindicated? Not really. I was one of many voices of reason who argued for the pro-choice side about the ill-advised attempt by Bloomberg to dictate personal behavior. I was called names and my blog was inundated with hate email. I expect the very same thing again, but I don't mind. As long as you remain civil in discourse, you can win any argument. Just stick to the facts, remain professional and don't get personal, as I demonstrated here;
"Mayor Bloomberg has adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate, with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being passionate about obesity isn't enough [reason] to slap a ban on those who aren't obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary drinks." - from @DrinkPro, 6/20/2012
Professional and courteous is how I argued and the so many others who felt the Bloomberg ban was far-intrusive into the personal choices of free people. At the front and center of the debate was the American Beverage Association, a trade association that represents the non-alcoholic beverage industry. They helped the beverage companies speak with one voice and one message. Also, New Yorkers for Beverage Choices led a massive grassroots effort to bring attention to the ban. They formed a coalition of over 3,700 businesses, individuals and community organizations along with over a half-million supporters who signed up online (me included). Oftentimes, the unorganized side to a debate will most certainly lose the PR fight against a well-spoken machine. This PR fight is where this battle was won and lost. As misguided as the proposed ban was, I feel it was the city of New York and the appointed, not elected, Board of Health who was ill-prepared for the fight. It's as if they assumed New Yorkers were just going to lay down and take it just like the trans fat ban, the salt ban and the smoking ban. Well, I guess they were wrong. New Yorkers... people... Americans... are tired of being told what to do by their government. After recent legislation both locally and nationally that has gone against the will of the majority, Americans are tired and fed up with their voices not being heard by their elected officials. This time, it happened to be sugary drinks. Next time, it will be something else, but the message has been sent, loud and clear; the government can't push people around and not expect a fight.
In closing, I am not trying to toot my own horn because of my accurate, dead on predictions of the judge's ruling. Ok, yes I am... I pretty much nailed his decision! But, I'll leave the prediction business to Nostradamus. Instead, I prefer to simply educate through fact-based convincing. A novel approach nowadays. However, I will leave you with a quote... one that, once you see who wrote it, you wont be surprised it rings as true today as it did back then;
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
-James Madison, a Founding Father in a speech at the Constitutional Convention,
July 11, 1787
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the individuals or companies mentioned have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 27 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
