Where will it end? OCD_OCD: NEW YORK (AP) -- Just how far would a government go to protect us from ourselves? In New York City - which already bans smoking in public parks in the name of public health and bars artificial trans fats from food served in restaurants - Mayor Michael Bloomberg now wants to stop sales of large sodas and other sugary drinks, in a bid to battle obesity. But in a country where fries have been equated with freedom, Bloomberg's proposal begs super-sized questions about government's role in shaping and restricting individual choices. What's next, a Twinkie purge? "The idea of the state stepping in and treating adults essentially as children and trying to protect them for their own good, as opposed to the good of others, that's been with us for as long as we've been around, as long as we've had governments," says Glen Whitman, an economist at California State University-Northridge who is a critic of paternalistic public policy. The most famous example was Prohibition, which barred the manufacture and sale of alcohol from 1919 to 1933. But Whitman and others see a new wave of intervention afoot, based on behavioral economics rather than religious moralism, and symbolized by moves like Bloomberg's. Allow it to continue, they say, and who knows where it could lead? If government officials can limit the size of sodas, why couldn't they next decide to restrict portion sizes of food served in restaurants or the size of pre-made meals sold at supermarkets? Why wouldn't a government determined to curb obesity restrict sales of doughnuts or pastries or - perish the thought, New Yorkers - ban bagels with a schmeer of cream cheese? OCD_OCD: If government is within its right to restrict behavior to protect health, then why wouldn't a mayor or other official ban risky sexual conduct or dangerous sports like skydiving? What's to stop a mayor from requiring people to wear a certain type of sunscreen or limit the amount of time they can spend on the beach, to protect them from skin cancer? The more ho-hum reality is that many of the policies restricting individual choice in the name of public health seem almost benign, like curbs on fireworks sales or enforcement of motorcycle helmet laws. But such moves represent a "constant creep until all of a sudden its extremely obvious," said Mattie Duppler of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax lobbying group that regularly spotlights examples of what it considers overreaching "Nanny State" public policy. She points to moves by governments, like the city of Richmond, Calif., to impose taxes on sugary sodas and moves by states like Utah, which widened a ban on indoor smoking in public places to include electronic cigarettes that don't emit smoke. OCD_OCD: "What we're seeing is government trying to put its fingers around the throat of anything that claims public health impetus," Duppler says. Others, though, have their doubts. Richard Thaler, co-author of "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness," which argues for policies that encourage rather than mandate changes in consumer behavior, calls Bloomberg's soda proposal "inartful and probably ineffective and too heavy-handed for my taste." But for him, most of the questions it raises are about practicality, rather than red flags. Would a Bloomberg curb on big drinks ban free refills, asks Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago? Would it ban special offers to buy one drink and get the second at half-price? Thaler, who says he is against government mandates or bans, argues that governments will get the most mileage from policies that nudge behavior, like placing fruit more prominently in school cafeterias. But he dismisses warnings that government efforts to improve public health risks sending the country down a slippery slope of more control and less individual choice. "Any time people do something that people don't like, they predict it will lead to something awful," Thaler said. "I have not seen a big trend of governments becoming more intrusive." Even Duppler has her doubts about what Bloomberg's soda proposal represents. It may be so politically iffy that it fizzles before it even gets off the ground. Then again, you never know what to expect from the city that never sleeps - and no longer smokes in bars, in airports or in the park.  dave3974: i think they are doing people a favour if they monitor some of the bad practices of the fast food industry , obesity is killing people and draining our taxes, it is cynical and wrong of these manufacturers to put so much sugar and fats in their food , particaularly when they target children or pretend that their product is not harmful OCD_OCD: What they are trying to do seems to be to control others. It would be like me going into someone's house and taking away anything in their refrigerator that I deem bad or unfit to eat. I have no right to tell anyone what to eat. Vegans can stand and rant and rave about meat eaters, but NEVER should a vegan be allowed to control the eating habits of another, and vice versa. We can't control other people's behaviors, but what we CAN do is make it important enough to them if they are obese, or alcoholic, or drug addicts, or whatever, by not rewarding them for their behavior. If you are obese and expect taxpayers to pony up for your healthcare, forget it. But people have the right to be fat if they want to be. If they can afford the downside, then let them. Just don't tell me that I can't have a coke whenever I want because other people are fat. It's not my problem, it's theirs. If I want to eat potato chips all day long, I can do that too. I wouldn't because it's not healthy, but don't punish me for what someone else does. dave3974: If companys manufacture food it should be to a certian standard, not rubbish that clogs the arterys , causes obesity and other vile health issues , this is not about freedom , it is about cynical exploitation and misinformation from big busines. OCD_OCD: My problem with that is it takes away a person's choice. If they can ban sweet drinks or whatever from stores, then what will keep them from coming into our homes and telling us we can't make a birthday cake because it's suddenly illegal to use butter or sugar or chocolate? The government seems to want to micromanage every aspect of our lives like we are ignorant children.  StuckInTheSixties: A correction: The law doesn't ban any sweet drinks. It only bans the sale of those drinks in sizes larger than 16 oz, and only in certain venues (it's aimed at fast food restaurants). "what will keep them from coming into our homes and telling us we can't make a birthday cake because it's suddenly illegal to use butter or sugar or chocolate?" Um ... the 4th Amendment? That's an absurd leap of the imagination, OCD. By that hyperbolic "logic," any law whatsoever could lead to any repressive act by government whatsoever. You're complaining about "the government" as if it's all one big entity. It's not. That sugary drink ordinance (which I personally don't agree with) only applies in New York City. (Edited by StuckInTheSixties)  davidk14: . The next law...No Steakhouses will be able to serve any steak larger than 8 oz. Ribeye steaks will not be able to be served in any size because they are too fatty, The next law after that...no more cheesecake. The next law after that.... Where does it end? . davidk14: . How's that? For the government to tell a business not to sell a soda larger than 16oz....where does it end? It doesn't. . StuckInTheSixties: Again, you could say that about any regulation. Whatdaya want? Anarchy? ** ** hyperbole davidk14: . Sixties, You realize the same governor (New York) has also already regulated salt being served in businesses in the state, the same state that wants to regulate businesses selling soda. If it has happened once, it will continue and next it just might be steaks or cheesecake, or donuts. . Sarcastic Dots: I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it's placing regulatory policies on things that aren't inherently unhealthy (food and drink); on the other hand, people are clearly unable to control their own dietary habits--if they even have any--so somebody has to sort out this problem. If people are unwilling to control themselves, then it is within the realm of the fast-food industry and/or government to, at the very least, pretend they care. I mean, seriously, people are quick to criticize, but I haven't heard of a viable alternative that would seriously lower the levels of obesity. I mean realistic solutions to obesity, not just telling people to lose weight, but a way to actually get people motivated about physical fitness. (Edited by Sarcastic Dots) franklin1950: some day implanted chips may collect your financial as well as comsumption data.. compiled analyzed and put to proper use by those that know best. any one can have an idea thank goodness that those that can enforce their ideas are the wisest among us Sarcastic Dots: I hate this kind on nonsense. Every smartphone tracks your location, and people are honestly worried about the government controlling them? People are kind of lucky that Google have a moral compass, because they probably have more information on you than any government. Sarcastic Dots: "It's not governments job to determine what anyone should eat or not eat" Okay, so its the peoples fault. So you, as a citizen, can tell us how you'd fix the levels of obesity. Please. franklin1950: whats the old retort ? ....... " you can always vote them out " the problem as i see it ... they are all interchangable parts of the same thing two sides of the same coin davidk14: . It's not my job to fix the levels of obesity. It's not yours either. It's none of your business. Your business is to take care of yourself. . OCD_OCD: http://now.msn.com/now/0518-school-fined.aspx?ocid=xnetr2-5 School fined thousands for selling sodas at lunch 5/18/2012 ​Selling sodas during lunch has cost one high school thousands of dollars, and cut off an important source of revenue. Davis High School in Kaysville, Utah, has paid nearly $17,000 in fines this year for violating federal nutritional guidelines. The school's transgression? Allowing students to buy sodas during lunch. Federal rules prohibit the sale of carbonated beverages during lunch, and the school was fined twice in recent months, including a $15,000 hit for repeated violations over a two-month period from late December to early February. As a result, the school has unplugged its vending machines -- a big revenue producer -- for the remainder of the school year. Sarcastic Dots: That's not true. At all. If you have an alcoholic in the family, you stigmatize them and launch an intervention. Why is obesity any different?
StuckInTheSixties: Anything that restricts people's personal behavior always has drawbacks. But at the same time, any pragmatist has to admit that there are cases where the result is clearly better. Anytime something like this happens, there are those that will howl loud objections. Whether those objections are "valid" or not is a matter of opinion. I'll use auto safety belts as an example. There was a LOT of reluctance to pass those laws that have become accepted by all but the most fundamentalist libertarians. People made the same sort of objections. "THE GOVERNMENT" (cue scary music) is forcing us to use these damn seat belts for our own good. Why can't I drive without my seatbelt if I want to? It's infringing on my personal liberty!! My new car costs more money now! AARRRRGGGGHHHHH !!!!! Of course, those laws wound up saving countless lives, the extra costs are more than made up for in the cost society pays for those who would otherwise be killed or maimed, etc. etc. etc. But at the time, it was a HUGE issue, with massive amounts of money being spent by lobbyists to persuade politicians, big arguments on the floors of Congress, and between regular folks like us. It took a LONG TIME and a huge struggle to finally get those laws implemented Now, no one even gives it the slightest thought. Jump in the car, buckle up ... Is there anyone here who seriously wants to return to the days of no safety belts in autos? | Politics Chat Room 71 People Chatting Similar Conversations |