Big Ban: Mayor Wants to Ban Super-Sized Sugary Drinks

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended his proposed super-size sugary drink ban Thursday, saying the government has an “obligation” to warn New Yorkers about potential dangers of consuming beverages with lots of sugar.

The administration is planning an amendment to the city’s health code that would prohibit restaurants, food carts, movie theaters and stadiums – any establishment that gets a letter grade from the health department – from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.

A can of soda is 12 ounces.

Speaking on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on Thursday, Bloomberg said the proposal does not prohibit consumers from drinking soda – but it forces consumers to make a conscience decision about portions.

“We have an obligation to warn you when things aren’t good for your health,” he said. “I don’t think we have an obligation or even the right to take them away from you.”

He said the plan was not “perfect,” but “we’ve got to do something” to help combat obesity.

The city’s health commissioner, Thomas Farley, told the Brian Lehrer Show on Thursday that there is “strong evidence” of a link between sugary drinks and weight gain and health problems.

“We tried to limit our proposal to what we considered to be the biggest aspect of the problem, which are the huge portion sizes of the sugary drinks,” he said.

Drinks with nutritional value like juice and milk were exempted. He said the proposal isn’t a mandate -- it provides a guide for what an “appropriate” beverage size is.

“This proposal doesn’t prohibit anybody from drinking as much as they want,” he said.

But City Council Christine Quinn said that fighting obesity is about personal choices and limiting those choices does not empower them.

"It seems punitive," she said in a statement, "and I worry that in the end this proposal won't yield a positive result."

The idea immediately sparked renewed accusations that the Bloomberg administration is sticking its nose into matters best left to individuals.

"New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase," Coca-Cola Co. said in a statement. "We hope New Yorkers loudly voice their disapproval about this arbitrary mandate."

A sugary drink is being defined as any sweetened drink that has more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces and contains less than 51 percent milk or milk substitute as an ingredient. In other words, diet sodas, milk shakes and a venti latte won’t fall under the ban.

The administration is expected to submit amendment to the Board of Health on June 12, where it will enter into a three-month comment period. If it passes, which it is likely to, the ban could go into effect as early as March.

The proposal, however, will not be putting an end to free refills.

Listen to The Takeaway's analysis: Joining us is Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at New York University and author of "Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety." Also with us is Jay Cowit, Takeaway Technical Director and Chief Soda


More in:

Comments [49]


If it's that serious just go buy a 2 liter and stick a straw in it then call it a day lol XD

Aug. 19 2012 12:22 AM
Audrey Silk from Brooklyn

To Rosey from Norwalk Ct

You're reply is the proof to my point. Do you really think that smoking bans are about "protecting others" from exposure to smoke? And you glossed right over increased taxes on cigarettes that only affects the smoker as a punitive measure. How does the TACTIC of taxing cigarettes in order to force people to quit by pricing them out of reach have anything to do with a health effect on YOU? Did you miss Bloomberg when he said some time ago that "This city is not walking away from our commitment to make it as difficult and as expensive to smoke as we possibly can"? Ergo about socially engineering PEOPLE, not "protecting" YOU. Have you read the anti-food zealot's material where they say they are following the anti-tobacco blueprint?? Do you know they've already manufactured studies on "secondhand food" whereby what YOU eat within sight of others sends a bad message and entices others to eat the same bad food or drink? Or that if you hang out with fat friends then you're likely to be fat too? Get ready to hear that your soda drinking DOES in fact impact others people's health! That's straight out of that tobacco control blueprint. Did you hear Bloomberg, "who compared sugary drinks to asbestos and cigarettes" and "Bloomberg compared his war against giant sugary beverages with his successful campaign to limit smoking -- describing both as bad habits that exploit the poor and less-educated."

That you don't get that the war on smoking is about control and that when you allow government to control one thing ("because I like THAT one") they will seek to control the next thing then please reap what you sow from either ignorance or personal whims rather than a consistently applied principle.

Jun. 02 2012 01:52 AM

The same "good" Mayor® has $old our city schools to HIGH-FRUCTOSE-CORN-SYRUP Snapple™!!!!


Jun. 01 2012 10:53 AM
420 from the heart

This ridiculous assertion made me puke in my mouth:

“We have an obligation to warn you when things aren’t good for your health,” he said. “I don’t think we have an obligation or even the right to take them away from you.”

So warn me about the health risks of smoking marijuana (laugh!) rather than imprisoning me, fining me, and taking it away from me. Take your "stop and frisk" and shove it just right back up your ass, Furor Bluumensteiner

May. 31 2012 08:20 PM
Cathy from Yantai, China

I believe that regulating eating habits is not the way to solve the problem of obesity in children. I think we need to allow time in the school days for PE classes everyday that gives the students the excercise they need and will add to their productivity in the classroom setting. I have taught in the public schools for 25 years and am now teaching English in China. Everyone feels better when they have had a daily dose of physical activity.

May. 31 2012 07:51 PM
Joel from Irvington NY

If the purpose is to sensitize people to portion size, perhaps the Mayor should impose a portion size limitation in restaurants...? You could still eat as much if you wished to, you would just have to order multiple portions. How about banning all-you-can-eat buffets?

May. 31 2012 07:43 PM
Jack Larsen from New Jersey

I love it. I'm a smoker, but not overweight and actually in great physical condition. I never eat junk food, and the things that I do eat would never be banned as unhealthy. Now all those leading the marches with burning torches against smokers can feel the effect of the nanny state banning things that they enjoy. The Liberal State has the right answers for all of us, until they come after you.

May. 31 2012 06:40 PM
Joseph from Brooklyn

I agree with the Mayer 100%. People are stupid. They get themselves fat and sick by drinking and eating all this garbage stuff and than lay in a hospital room for God knows how long...and who's paying the bill? yes right, us , taxpayers. They should ban tobacco, Sugary drinks, and trans-fat because obviously,our citizens aren't smart enough to take care of their own damn health.

May. 31 2012 06:03 PM
Loera from NY

There is too much government in everything. I am hearing a tremendous amount of talk about obesity and the powers that be who are stepping up using our tax dollars to save the unknowing population from their careless, unhealthy ways. Very little information is being shared about the quality of foods that people are eating and where the food is coming from. Food is shipped, from very far away, it is irradiated, GMO'd, dead, devoid of many vital enzmes and nutrients to enable the body to feel satiated and nourished. Labels are being manipulated to represent politically correct versions of ORGANIC and there is all that marketing to sell us on the newer improved versions of everything we are eating drinking and thinking. Last time I looked, I am still paying the 5 cent bottle & can deposits. Most of the soda we are buying is water and then we add ice (Frozen water), even in those larger cups. Unfortunately, the agenda is more monetary than altruistic.

May. 31 2012 05:30 PM
Doris Perlman from Manhattan

It's the old "nanny state" problem again. I'm against smoking and sugary drinks/snacks, but I don't think you can legislate them out of existence. People will always find a way to abuse their bodies. While other people's smoking does annoy others and therefore can be banned in specific places, other people's consumption of empty calories affects us only when we have to sit next to them on buses, trains, and planes. It's true that we all live in dread of having a fat person squeeze in next to us, but that's one of the prices we pay for travel and for enjoying life in the Big City. Maybe we can ban fat people from sitting in any but the single seats on buses, while we're at it. And, to digress, I recently saw a fat woman who already took up two seats, filling the remaining space with her packages, which is supposed to be illegal!

May. 31 2012 05:13 PM
LL from UWS

I find WNYC's reporting on this to be getting worse as the day goes by.......Can we please reason through the pros and cons rather than give off-the-cuff reactions?

Meanwhile, I'd love to be able to pay a normal price for normal size portions of real food and drink. In 'the good old days' that's what we had. "Junk food" was reserved for occasional indulgences such as picnics and parties.

May. 31 2012 04:50 PM
Jason D from New York

Although everyone has a right to eat and drink what they want, due to the obesity in America being the worse in the world, I believe mayor Bloomberg is only trying to do what's best for the people of New York. It doesn't benifit anyone but us. This is a step to help Americans eat less and hopefully in time reduce the amount of obesity and amount of unpaid medical bills which is yet another problem in America. America needs someone with sense to stop companies that endorse products that contain addictive and unhealthy properties and the abuse of them. -Jason

May. 31 2012 04:45 PM

This has nothing to do with anyone's rights being infringed. Anyone who insists on drinking 32 ounces can just order two 16-ounce drinks. It has to do with changing the default. Corporations' best interests are served when they serve us twice as much empty calories. Consumers' best interests are not.

I'm not a Bloomberg fan but he's right on this one.

May. 31 2012 03:11 PM
NABNYC from SoCal

Most people who are educated on the subject of obesity and sugar would probably agree that everyone should limit their intake of sugar, which includes sodas and fruit juice. I'm unclear why fruit juice would be exempt, since it is very high in sugar, and provides no nutritional benefit compared to simply eating a piece of fruit.

But the question is not whether people should limit their sugar intake. If it was, there would be a ban on candy, cookies, ice cream and cake. The question really is whether the government has the right to prevent people from buying a 16 ounce soda. I assume the government would claim that it is authorized to pass this law because soda is a key part of obesity and diabetes, limiting the quantity of soda might limit obesity and diabetes, and the city has an interest in doing that because the city ends up paying for healthcare for the uninsured who get obesity related diseases including diabetes.

The proposed law is both overinclusive and underinclusive. It is overinclusive because it applies to adults who are competent to make their own decisions, and to people who are thin and will never have weight problems. It is underinclusive because it does not affect the quantity of candy, cake, ice cream and other sugary foods people can consume. Even the rational basis for the law is unclear since there is no evidence that if a person drinks only 12 ounces instead of 16 ounces of soda, that will avoid obesity or diabetes.

On the other side, it is obvious that this is a fairly severe intrusion into people's private lives. We now know that cured meats are associated with strokes. Can the city ban bacon and salami? Salt and alcohol are associated with high blood pressure. Should the city ban beer and popcorn? A sedentary job is associated with heart disease. Should the city require all businesses provide their employees with 15 minute exercise programs four times a day? (Yes, I would say yes to that one).

I'm all in favor of people getting off of sugar. I just don't think this is the way to do it. It is a serious overreach into the right of individual adults to make decisions about their own lives.

Encouraging people to eat healthy, have community gardens. Local community-based cooking and nutrition groups would be helpful as well as community-based exercise programs led by local politicians: take a walk with the mayor, for example. Move towards locally-produced foods. Educate people to get them to give up packaged and canned foods, and start eating fresh. Create food centers in the poorer neighborhoods where people can buy fresh healthy food for less than they would pay for cheap take-out. That's the way to address this problem.

May. 31 2012 01:21 PM

I do not drink sugary sodas, however big brother belongs to dictatorships. Personal consumption is naturally a personal choice. Educate and create programs to promote health and free people from addictions of all kind including all drugs. 34,000 people died in Mexico in the drugs war. In the US 430,000 people died from tobacco related causes in the year 2000 and about the same number died from FDA approved drugs, 31,000 died from firearms, 23,000 from alcohol and 0 from marijuana. The human and monetary cost of incarcerating generations of minority men in jail for drug offenses is known to be enormous.

So help people and stop playing god, politically choosing what consumption to criminalize.

Government, out of our privet lives!

May. 31 2012 01:14 PM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

First of all, you have numbers: 1, 2, 3, 3. I think you need to fix that.

Second, while I think that sodas larger than 12 or 16 ounces are not healthful, I don't think people should be prohibited from purchasing them. While I do not drink soda at home, I occasionally buy a 48 or 64 ounce drink when I have a long distance to drive. It's not a habit, but it is helpful on the road.

How about if they post warnings in the same way calorie information is posted at fast food restaurants and warning labels are included on cigarette packs? That way, people are advised of what they may be planning to consume and have an opportunity to select something else.

Be advised that fruit juices, such as apple juice and orange juice and carrot juice, while more healthful than soda, do have plenty of calories, so there should also be warnings on them, and grapefruit juice is contraindicated with certain beta blockers. In addition, overconsumption of carrot juice can cause Vitamin A poisoning and too much water can cause hydrotoxicity, which can cause brain damage, so, really, anything consumed to excess can have adverse effects.

I think perspective is important in this issue.

May. 31 2012 12:17 PM

If fat slobs can consume whatever and however much they want then, I can choose to NOT pay for the inevitable healthcare costs that will result!

I'm SICK of paying for it in the the form of higher insurance premiums, higher taxer and higher health care costs.

Making a fat slob out of your kids is the same as child abuse...

We're sick of paying for your gluttony!!!


May. 31 2012 12:08 PM
Inquisigal from Brooklyn

ladyjay114, I have to respectfully disagree with your take on the eating habits of people in poorer neighborhoods. I hear this argument frequently - people in lower-income neighborhoods don't have the same food choices in grocery stores as those in high-income neighborhoods, so they are "forced" to eat poorly. This is simply untrue.

I live in Bed Stuy in Brooklyn, where the grocery stores were as low-end as they could be - up until about the past 2 years. I would agree the grocery stores in neighborhoods like Bed Stuy aren't as comprehensive as those in wealthier neighborhoods - most smaller grocery stores in Bed Stuy don't stock organic veggies, or any number of the higher-end boutique brands that are now sold at nicer grocery stores. But there are plenty of options for "healthy eating" at these grocery stores, at the local bodegas that sell fresh fruits and vegetables, and at the small meat markets and fish stores. Fresh fruits, vegetables and meats cost FAR LESS than frozen, boxed or canned food does, and it's also MUCH cheaper than the organic and artisinal products you'll find in wealthier neighborhoods. All people have to do is choose FRESH FOOD and cook it themselves. Large family packs of fresh chicken costs $7; a bunch of fresh collard greens costs $2.00. I've got a fish place near me where you can buy a pound of fish for $5.00.

People don't need more hand-holding by the government; they have to take responsibility for their own health and start cooking real food. And don't say it's a time issue takes 10 minutes to saute a fresh steak and steam some broccoli.

May. 31 2012 12:05 PM

Ray, I find your last comment to be highly offensive.

Obesity is a health risk, but even if every obese person in the US lost all of the extra weight tomorrow they may not be "thin".

Calling a group of people an eyesore only increases the stigma of being overweight/obese and signals that it's alright to continue to discriminate.

May. 31 2012 11:36 AM
NYC resident from NYC

The mayor and his agencies need to priortize the problems this city has. Is it more important that numerous residents have bought into housing/coops & condo which have leaks and other bad construction issues caused by bad oversight by city agencies (buildings dept & HPD) and have leaky roofs, mold and other issues which are costing residents millions of dollars and no one in the city will address this. Is having a solid roof over residents heads a better use of policy making decisions than drinking a gallon of soda.

May. 31 2012 11:32 AM
Clay Enos from Manhattan

Adults drink soda? That's funny. Grow up folks. You're not helping yourself and you know it. Deep down, you know that sugar-packed disaster isn't helping your overall health in the least. Children who drink the stuff shouldn't be capable of drinking more than 12oz and even that will have them bouncing off the walls and setting themselves up for any number of metabolic challenges.

While its hard to see our city propose rules that "limit rights" I think it's more important for staggering healthcare costs be reduced by this simple preventative measure. There will always be loopholes for the sugar-addicted but for the increasingly unhealthy majority, it'll be an insignificant annoyance with real, and potentially long-lasting benefits.

May. 31 2012 11:05 AM
Ray Mills from Brooklyn

People who want to consume more food than they should will always find a way to do so. If the drinks are smaller a person can always go to several places and buy several drinks. Those of us who aren't obese will often have to sit next to obese people on airplanes and buses and have to look at them at in public.
Thing might change if it stops being politically incorrect to criticize the obese. Being obese is a health hazard. In some cases a safety hazard to others. And in all cases an eye sore.

May. 31 2012 10:46 AM

Lucy from Brooklyn,

The reason why people north of Lex/96 are much bigger than people south of that intersection is because of the quality and content of food choices in poorer neighborhoods. People with larger incomes have greater access and ability to afford healthier food options. Poorer people just don't. If you compare the supermarkets between those two neighborhoods, the contrast of prices and items offered is startling.

May. 31 2012 10:43 AM
Ellen from Brooklyn

I would love to see smaller portions available. I don't drink a lot of soda, but I do occasionally want one when I'm at the movies. The "small" is HUGE. Once I start drinking it, it's easy enough to finish it off over the course of the movie (especially because it feels wasteful to throw it away). If a true small was available, I would have opted for it and felt satisfied. I wouldn't have gone out to buy a second one. I'm hoping this move will recalibrates sizes. You can always buy more than one drink, but you can't buy a half!

May. 31 2012 10:31 AM
lucy from Brooklyn

To stop obesity and excess sugar and fat consumption there needs to be a BIG education movement that begins before birth of the baby with the mother. There is so much class and race involved in this issue. Did you ever notice how the look of people change as you travel down Lexinton Ave at 96th Street. Not only the race of the people but the size of the people. Instead of spending all that time in school teaching to the test, teachers need to teach about nutrition, health and even how to raise a child in a healthy way starting with birth choices and breastfeeding.

May. 31 2012 10:31 AM
Alexandra Dickson from New York, NY

I was basically for this (though I am nervous about where we draw the line on this kind of thing) until I heard that bodegas and 7/11 are exempt from the rule. This is where most kids buy these kinds of beverages, not to mention lower income individuals. Has the mayor ever been north of 96th Street? Up here, the place you buy your huge sugary drinks is ONLY at non-restaurants. This won't make a difference if these places are not part of the rule.

May. 31 2012 10:30 AM
Shelly from NJ

Maybe the sale of these drinks should be like for alcoholic drinks, for over 21 only, sending the message that they should be drunk with caution, and in moderation.

May. 31 2012 10:28 AM
Saskia from NYC

Of course we have other problems. But we're talking about this one now. I love the debate, can argue both sides, am against the rule "politically" but in favor emotionally. See how it gets us talking? In repsonse to the "lets educate the children:" they are often not the ones making the decision. And rules like this, if enforced, need to be accompanied with information.

May. 31 2012 10:27 AM

This only promotes the game...

Buy One get One Free!
Buy One get the 2nd one 1/2 Off!

May. 31 2012 10:26 AM
susanna from NY

I think this is great!
Having moved here from Europe years ago, I always found the portion sizes in the US way too big. From sodas, sugary water and juices, ice teas to huge "coffe drinks" and even sandwiches being served with chips, fries, etc. Forcing a portion guideline would only help people get used to drinking regular size sodas/drinks and more healthy serving sizse. Even 16oz. is basically 2 servings. It's absurd to see the supersize contaniners at fast food chains, movie theater, etc. People end us sipping a liter of sugary soda just because it's there while watching a movie or a sporting event!

May. 31 2012 10:24 AM
Sara from Bushwick

Love it - and I wish they'd ban styrofoam cups and take out containers while they're at it.
I read years ago that diabetes was virtually nonexistent before refined sugar.

May. 31 2012 10:21 AM
Rosey from Norwalk, CT

to Audrey Silk from Brooklyn.

As a society we make a distinction between the govt controlling where you can smoke and how much sugar you drink because how much soda YOU drink doesn't affect my health. The smoking band was designed to protect the non-smoker; in a democracy, the rights of one group often becomes subordinate to that of another. The soda ban is silly but if it prevent me from inhaling your second hand smoke I am totally OK with it.

May. 31 2012 10:21 AM
HipHopSays from Fort Greene/Clinton Hill

Once again Bloomie thinks being mayor is synonymous with being our dad. I hope history doesn't give him the revision treatment for his mayoral 'reign'. So, Bloomie's policy prescriptive is punitive on arguably a negligible policy issue...outside of affordable housing for families, increased homelessness among families, a fractured educational system (big policy leadership spaces that warrant 12 years of a mayorship)...there's the lack of real food options for working/middle class families....but hey now Bloomie can give himself a reach around (pat on the back).

May. 31 2012 10:19 AM
Doris from Bronx NY

I wish people would stop bitching that we still have OTHER PROBLEMS like homelessness and the economy when the mayor brings up a proposal review like this. Baby steps, people. Quality of life, people! I live in the zip code 10457. I've lived in the Bronx since 1981. I am 40. I go to the big grocery store every week to pay for my groceries in cash, with my own earned money, not food stamps. Every week, I see people buying 5 or 10 (I AM NOT EXAGGERATING) liter bottle of soda with food stamps. I see their kids; they all have rotting teeth and/or are fat. PLEASE BAN ALL DRINKS WITH HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP.
For Memorial Day weekend I had two women in front of me paying for 20 bottles of soda for their weekend BBQ with food stamps. Soda, Little Debbie cakes, that’s what people in my neighborhood buy. I grew up here with parents on no assistance and we always bought fruit and vegetables and non-sugar cereal at the market. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES ANYMORE. You can shop at Western Beef market in the South Bronx and buy affordable fruits and vegetables and real fruit juice with NO SUGAR (Motts sells an apple juice with no sugar for example). I wish they would ban all soda period. High fructose corn syrup is what creates these problems in the inner city. Just come live here. I am here. I see it. I am Hispanic and I am sick of watching my neighborhood become fat city.

May. 31 2012 10:19 AM
Tina from Queens

Why not just steeply increase the health insurance premiums to the people with a BMI above the healty line. They will self regulate themselves very quickly !
They will have to chose between money to buy the big gulps, or pay the premiums :)

May. 31 2012 10:19 AM
Cesar from Manhattan

This is an Opt-In/Opt-Out situation, not an infringement of personal liberty. Currently, consumers have to opt out of unhealthy portion sizes and opt in to healthier choices. This is exactly backward and what the mayor is rightly trying to reverse.

May. 31 2012 10:19 AM
Larry from Brooklyn

Research on human behavior shows definitely that people consume more food and drink when portions are larger (often without being aware of it). If people have to go back even for a free refill, they will likely consume less. Their freedom to consume will not be curtailed... so why not?

May. 31 2012 10:16 AM

I think this is pretty smart, when you go to other countries the portion sizes for drinks are much smaller. Yes a person can purchase more than one, but the simple economics of purchasing the same item again would make someone think twice before doing it.

It doesn't eliminate the freedom of the choice, it just changes the context of how a consumer buys an item.

May. 31 2012 10:15 AM
Rosey from Norwalk CT

This seems like a silly stretch of a law with good intentions. Why is Beer exempt? Last time I checked it had plenty of empty calories.

May. 31 2012 10:13 AM
Jeff Geller

The Mayor may have forgotten this, but nearly a century ago, a similar ban occurred that not only affected the city but the country as well. It was called Prohibition and you know what happened with that.

May. 31 2012 10:13 AM
debra from montclair

Fruit juices - lots of sugar
Diet Drinks - lots of salt

starbucks - Venti - YIKES!

May. 31 2012 10:12 AM
eod from New Jersey

Outlawing and regulations are no substitute for education and resources to purchase more nutritiuous food.

May. 31 2012 09:32 AM
Randi from Coney Island

Where do I begin....

Where are the priorities of this man?? The unemployment rate is still 10%, the city schools are still a mess, the homeless population is at an all time high and the city is still facing a massive budget deficit. Yet what's the Mayor's agenda? To stop soda.

Also, its obvious the Mayor doesn't understand the obesity problem. First, soda isn't the issue, ITS THE FOOD!!! When will these anti-soda thumpers get that through their heads? Second, doesn't the Mayor understand that fruit juice and diet soda are also part of the obesity problem? Diabetics can't eat fruit or drink fruit juice because of their high sugar and glycemic index. Too much diet soda and fruit juice can pack on pounds. And I still don't understand how diet soda a pass when it contains aspartame! Do a Google search on the health dangers of aspartame.

May. 31 2012 09:28 AM
Michael Finegan from Clifton, NJ 07011

The food police are at it again; where does it end? I'm all in favor of a good diet and exercise program to stay healthy; but you cannot dictate policy, it won't work.

May. 31 2012 09:24 AM
Elisa from NYC

If only public policy were as simple as's profound how much this man drinks his own coolaid.

May. 31 2012 09:10 AM
the_hme from Jersey City, NJ

This is great! Although I do not think it will help people change their bad eating habits and I wish it did. It is ridiculous that these drinks have to be banned, but even more so that people buy them.

May. 31 2012 08:47 AM
Brenda from New York City

So did the beverage industry get someone in a headlock? Why develop a complicated and confusing system when we could just tax the sugared beverages? How is forcing people to buy more of something a solution?

May. 31 2012 07:43 AM
Audrey Silk from Brooklyn

When you (collective "you") all jumped for joy at the banning of smoking and the increased taxes on tobacco you all jumped for joy for control. What self-serving fools all. I can't tell you how great the equal disgust is that I feel for this new dictate and for all who cheered the anti-smoker policies. Principles, not personal whims people, lest you sign your own inevitable incarceration papers into the jail of the likes of Bloomberg.

Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)

May. 31 2012 05:33 AM
History Buff from NY

Good old Bloomey! I guess people could always buy two. In my case, he gets no sales tax from me, that meaning I no longer shop in NY, my rebellion to the dictatorship.

May. 31 2012 01:58 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


Latest Newscast




WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public


Supported by