Is it about Health, or Class?

One of the arguments made by Bloomberg's benign fascist army is that we've already bowed our heads in submission to all kinds of safety ordinances, laws, and regulations.   For example, regulations covering seat belts, child seats, motorcycle helmets, texting while driving, smoking, guns, etc.  So what's the problem with limiting soda portions?  Such a small thing...

As an argument, this argument is flawed (tut quo toe, or something like that).  As a persuasive appeal to our logic in a risk averse, complex regulatory environment, it's pretty good.  We can all find regulations and laws we agree with.  Some regulations, like child car seats, would be difficult to make a case against without sounding heartless -- yes, but it's my child's risk to take.  Helmets save lives, those who text while driving are idiots, bazookas in town homes are risky, etc. Most of us accept these limitations to our choices.

So should we accept any regulation or law our State deems for our own good because most of us buckle up?  Of course not. Each proffered regulatory limitation needs to be judged on its own particular merits.  We need to balance individual and public safety with the ideals of personal responsibility and individual freedom.  We all know this.  Which is why those who've decided they need to rescue us have to ratchet up their warnings: 

“Obesity is one of America’s most deadly problems, and sugary beverages are a leading cause of it,” Bloomberg said Sept. 4 in Queens,

“To not act would be criminal,” said board member Susan Klitzman, a professor and director of the Urban Public Health Program at Hunter College in Manhattan.

One could argue that after tobacco, sodas might just be the biggest killers via preventable disease in the country. Yet just as 32 ounces seems to be the new normal, so does death by preventable disease. - Mark Bittman

Again, I chose random, cherry-picked quotes, sort of like the way our self-selected superiors choose the health threat of the moment.  Why soda and not snack foods?  Why soda and not alcohol? Why soda?? Maybe because it's the kind of people who like to drink huge sodas.  Maybe because our leaders are actually convinced that our greatest national threat are sugary soft drinks.

 What if sugar is really responsible for so many of our current health problems?  Would I be for limitations then?  Probably, if I thought it could actually be enforced.  But I'd have to be pretty convinced that sugar was a health hazard all on its own and that its restriction outweighed our right to choose to consume it -- like crack.  And all sugary products would have to be included.

 What a nightmare trying to enforce a sugar ban!  We could go after the producers straight off, demonize and tax them.  And then we'd have to regulate or ban or tax cocoa, sweet chocolate, cakes, ice creams, cereals, sweetened teas and coffees, cocktails, and other sweetened products.  Or we could just stick with sodas - simple, obvious, and self satisfying in a since you can't control your behaviour I'm going to do it for you kind of way.

Comments

[Buddy]

I don't have a problem with sugar, but i do with HFCS. And, while I don't agree with the type of control B wants to place on his constituents, it would be nice if the manufacturers would come up with some other sweetener that didn't have the harmful effects of HFCS.

I liken Bs inability to identify the real problem the same way O - not Oprah - wants to burden everyone who pays taxes for those who can't afford health care rather than tackling the real problem created by the holy trinity of Insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.

[MTheads]

Buddy

I posted a response but I guess it never got published! I'll try again:

I agree about HFCS. The best action would be if consumers demanded that food manufacturers stop using HFCS. I fear government regulation is too likely to be knee-jerk, lobbyist-led, and faddish. We'll end up restricting good products and subsidizing bad ones and skewing the whole system with the winners being those able to play the system.

Let the State better prioritize what it goes after and let the rest of us alone to choose what we eat and drink.