Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
NewsCut
Bob Collins

A win for big slurpies

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

At least in New York City, you still have the right to buy a sugary drink larger than 16 ounces, even if it kills you.

A Manhattan judge this afternoon tossed the city's ban on selling large drinks, a day before it went into effect.

Here's the full opinion.

Non-New Yorkers probably want to know if this decision carries any legal weight with other cities and states interesting in regulating soft drinks to reduce what many consider to be a epidemic of obesity.

It doesn't.

The decision isn't made on constitutional grounds -- that is: do you have the right to buy a big slurpie, even if it might end up killing you.

Instead, it was made on rules in New York first put in place in the 1600s delegating who's got the power to do what in the city.

But aside from the question of powers of elected officials, the underlying question in the decision is still a good one worth answering: Is obesity a disease that calls upon health officials to take drastic steps?