Large-sized soda ban as an alternative to soda tax.

Q2 Social Sciences Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Pub Date : 2013-01-01
Hery Michelle Min
{"title":"Large-sized soda ban as an alternative to soda tax.","authors":"Hery Michelle Min","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Note examines New York City's Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule (Soda Ban), which was originally set to become effective March 12, 2013. The New York County Supreme Court's decision in New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene suspended the Soda Ban on March 11, 2013. The First Department of the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court affirmed the suspension on July 30, 2013. However, the complex economic policy and constitutional issues arising from the proposed Soda Ban deserve as much attention as the ultimate result of the legal challenge to the ban. Both courts struck down the Soda Ban on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers doctrine. The lower court further held that the Soda Ban was arbitrary and capricious. This Note does not focus solely on the holdings of the two courts, but takes a broader approach in analyzing the issues involved in the Soda Ban. By comparing and contrasting tobacco products with sugary beverages, this Note explains why the public seems to find the Soda Ban less appealing than tobacco regulations. Specifically, this Note addresses how the failed attempts of numerous states and cities to implement soda taxes demonstrate the complexity of policies geared toward curbing obesity; how fundamental values, such as health, fairness, efficiency, and autonomy factor into obesity policies; and the fact that legislatures and courts are struggling to determine the scope of public health law intervention. The Note explores how the Soda Ban, despite its judicial suspension, could represent a stepping-stone in combating the obesity epidemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":39833,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"187-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Note examines New York City's Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule (Soda Ban), which was originally set to become effective March 12, 2013. The New York County Supreme Court's decision in New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene suspended the Soda Ban on March 11, 2013. The First Department of the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court affirmed the suspension on July 30, 2013. However, the complex economic policy and constitutional issues arising from the proposed Soda Ban deserve as much attention as the ultimate result of the legal challenge to the ban. Both courts struck down the Soda Ban on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers doctrine. The lower court further held that the Soda Ban was arbitrary and capricious. This Note does not focus solely on the holdings of the two courts, but takes a broader approach in analyzing the issues involved in the Soda Ban. By comparing and contrasting tobacco products with sugary beverages, this Note explains why the public seems to find the Soda Ban less appealing than tobacco regulations. Specifically, this Note addresses how the failed attempts of numerous states and cities to implement soda taxes demonstrate the complexity of policies geared toward curbing obesity; how fundamental values, such as health, fairness, efficiency, and autonomy factor into obesity policies; and the fact that legislatures and courts are struggling to determine the scope of public health law intervention. The Note explores how the Soda Ban, despite its judicial suspension, could represent a stepping-stone in combating the obesity epidemic.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大规模禁止苏打水作为苏打税的替代方案。
本文考察了纽约市的含糖饮料限量规定(苏打禁令),该规定原定于2013年3月12日生效。2013年3月11日,纽约县最高法院在纽约州西班牙裔商会联盟诉纽约市卫生和精神卫生部门一案中暂停了苏打禁令。2013年7月30日,纽约州最高法院上诉部第一部门确认了暂停执行的决定。然而,拟议的苏打禁令所引起的复杂经济政策和宪法问题,与对禁令提出法律挑战的最终结果一样值得关注。两个法院都以违反三权分立原则为由,驳回了汽水禁令。下级法院进一步认为,苏打禁令是武断和反复无常的。本说明并不仅仅侧重于两个法院的判决,而是采用更广泛的方法来分析苏打禁令所涉及的问题。通过比较和对比烟草产品和含糖饮料,本报告解释了为什么公众似乎认为苏打禁令不如烟草法规吸引人。具体来说,本文论述了许多州和城市实施汽水税的失败尝试如何表明了旨在遏制肥胖的政策的复杂性;健康、公平、效率和自主性等基本价值观如何影响肥胖政策;事实上,立法机构和法院正在努力确定公共卫生法干预的范围。该报告探讨了苏打禁令,尽管它是司法暂停,但如何成为对抗肥胖流行病的踏脚石。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1991, the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy (JLPP) has quickly risen to become one of the leading public policy journals in the nation. A fixture among the top 10 policy journals, JLPP has consistently been among the top 100 student-edited law journals. JLPP publishes articles, student notes, essays, book reviews, and other scholarly works that examine the intersections of compelling public or social policy issues and the law. As a journal of law and policy, we are a publication that not only analyzes the law but also seeks to impact its development.
期刊最新文献
Environmental Law and Policy Civil Rights Law and Policy A Historic Introduction to Law and Public Policy Security Law and Policy Institutions and Power—Congress, the Courts, and the President
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1