What to look for when Nanny Bloomberg’s large soda ban goes into effect

The New York Post provides a rundown– complete with a humorous graphic of Mayor Michael Bloomberg as “Mayor Poppins” – of how Nanny Bloomberg’s large soda ban, which goes into effect on March 12, will impact not just businesses and consumers:

Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.

Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.

They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Bloomberg’s soda smackdown follows his attacks on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking and even baby formula.

The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including restaurants, bars and any “food service” establishment subject to letter grades.

And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.

“It’s not fair. If you’re gonna tell me what to do, it’s no good,” said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso’s in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. “It’s gonna cost a lot more.”

And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for smaller bottles.

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.

“I really feel bad for the customers,” said Lupe Balbuena of World Pie in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.

Domino’s on First Avenue and 74th Street on the Upper East Side is doing away with its most popular drink sizes: the 20-ounce and 2-liter bottles.

“We’re getting in 16-ounce bottles — and that’s all we’re going to sell,” a worker said.

He said the smaller bottles will generate more revenue for the restaurant but cost consumers more.

It will also trash more plastic into the environment.

So, I guess when it comes right down to it, it’s more important for BloombergCo. to force consumers to live by government-mandated “health rules” than it is to reduce the city’s carbon footprint or something. #Priorities

Basically what it sounds like is that if you’re “eating in” at a restaurant – whether it’s a fast food place or a “fine dining establishment”, even though you have to buy a smaller sized drink you can still get your refills and not be out any extra money. But if you order out – whether you’re picking up or having it delivered, it’s a different story and, frankly, that sucks, especially in an economy where everyone’s pinching their pennies.

This is nanny state liberalism for you, though. What sounds good in theory (“it will help the people, especially the cheeeldren!”) in actuality is not, especially if you are truly a believer in personal responsibility and individual liberty. Then again, this IS NYC we’re talking about here, one of the nation’s leading bastions of far left liberalism (right next to San Francisco), so no one should be surprised at all by the actions of the Mayor nor the seeming acquiescence of its people when it comes to slippery slope actions by those in positions of power.

Comments are closed.