Bloomberg would ban 2-liter sodas with pizza delivery

“Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.”

Read more at the New York Post.

About these ads

13 responses to “Bloomberg would ban 2-liter sodas with pizza delivery

  1. Time for home grocery delivery.

  2. Might as well regulate the dimensions of pizzas as well. Those pizzas will also make you fat if you eat enormous gobs of them.

    Disclaimer: I don’t have a dog in this fight. I bought a SodaStream (R) (TM) and make all the soda I can drink for way cheap. Buy one before they become illegal!

  3. Friend of John Galt

    Personally, I tend to spend around $1.25 to $1.75 for 2-liter soda bottles at the grocery store. Then I don’t need to order one (for $3) with the occasional pizza order.

    The point, however, is that this is none of the Food Nannies business and it hurts the pizza restaurants (who make a big profit on the $3 sodas) and the pizza delivery kids (who generally get tips based somewhat on the price of the delivery).

    Yet another hit on job producers and low-wage workers.

  4. There are two key questions here:
    1. Where does the city of New York get the authority for these rules?
    2. Why do New Yorkers re-elect leaders who think they have this authority and will use it?

    • 1. ‘General welfare’ clause
      2. Voters feel warm fuzzies knowing that the government is looking out for them.

      • Howdy bestruger1022
        Ah, yes, “general welfare”. Like “more perfect union”, that phrase needs to be viewed in light of the Founders’ words — then altered if there’s enough reason and support.
        “General welfare” refers to the common good rather than to good conditions for most people. That is, a moral society is a common good because honest trading promotes everyone’s well-being. But your health is not part of the general welfare, nor is mine. Similarly, a public fire service promotes public safety by preventing the kind of runaway fires that used to destroy entire cities. My safety and yours are linked in this case.
        In the Constitutional case, “general welfare” meant the common good of the thirteen constituent states and the residents of those states.
        The term “more perfect union” refers to a stronger bond among the constituent states, the new central government and a higher sense of shared identity as “the United States”.
        We could spend an hour on the Commerce Clause too.
        And I think you’re right: NY’s voters are mostly split between those who like goodies and those who like spending other people’s money to give out goodies. Most of NY’s voters have somehow missed, or maybe welcomed, the smothering nanny state required for those goodies.

        • I disagree with both. General Welfare Clause doesn’t relate to actions by the city government of New York.

          Cities and states have far more leeway in their actions than does the Federal government.

          • Howdy Gamecock
            You’re right that the Constitution is more controlling of the federal government than it is of state and local government and that this was the design of the founders.
            I doubt the founders intended for cities or states to get anywhere near this level of “nanny” but I ‘m sure you doubt it also.
            The term “general welfare” can be used in a lot of ways. I was expounding on its meaning in 1787 and years thereafter, in response to br1022 alluding to it as the nannies’ favorite way of explaining their latest grab at your shower nob and my guns (or vice versa).

            • I know what you mean. I have asked my Libtard little brother why they bothered to write the rest of the Constitution if the General Welfare Clause authorizes them to do anything they want.

  5. Why do New Yorkers re-elect these politicians?
    1. Over one-halef of the voting public actually likes the nanny state so far.
    2. Over half of the voting public disliked the other choice in the election or there was no other choice.

    New York has not yet closed its borders. Some will leave that do not like it.

    The only “up” side is the nanny state thinks the last election was a carte blanche for nanny regulations. We now have racism being claimed in the sugar wars due to the regulations hitting some races harder than others. A sign of overstepping one’s boundaries as a nanny. Eventually, the nanny puts enough of a stranglehold on that even the most dedicated cannot take it any more. The acceleration toward this end seems much faster now that it is a “mandate” and “everyone” wants it.

  6. Taxes?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s