Printable View
That's the title of this opinion piece from CNN about Mayor Bloomberg working to ban soft drinks in servings larger than 16 oz. in New York.
First NY under Bloomberg banned smoking, then trans fats, now soda. Personal choices are being dictated in the name of the greater good (holding down the cost of the safety nets). Does the end justify the means? Is it worth it? I vote no. What say you?
Well, I know what you mean. But one of the interesting things I once read about change of habit is that a change in behavior PRECEDES a change in attitude. I always assumed your attitude changes first, and then your behavior changes as a result.
The implications in this case? Well, if personal behavior is forced to change because of a change in legislation then it can help to change the overall "collective consciousness" which can help society as a whole. Case in point is the seat belt law. There were tons of people who cried out against it in the name of personal liberty, but now, people feel safer when they buckle up--and they ARE more safe. But that feeling of "oh, I have to buckle up because I want to be safe" evolved AFTER months of feeling "uh-oh, I don't want to get a ticket."
Another case is smoking in public places. It amazes me that just a few years ago all of us non-smokers just tolerated horrible smoke-filled restaurants and even airplanes. Now, people can sniff out one puff of a cigarette in a large room like a bloodhound after a fox. People are forced to go outside to smoke / Awareness rises / Attitudes change / Cancer rates are dropping.
I am a strong proponent of awareness and transparency, and if it takes a law to uncover the truth and give people incentives to change their attitudes and behaviors, well, I'm not completely opposed, frankly. I'd rather be a victim of legislation of a paltry law that doesn't REALLY impact my personal liberty than be a victim of hidden truths.
All this sugar ingestion impacts our pocketbooks with the cost of rising insurance and medical care for diabetes, etc. I think there are other ways to make people aware though; it seems like by now even the brain dead would know that excessive soda consumption is not a good thing...but they don't seem to. It doesn't make sense to me that we give huge subsidies to corn growers so they can make oodles off of the end product that sweetens soda and then we tell the consumer he can't have it. Seems like the laws or lack of incentive should be on the other end.
Government trying to make Americans smaller strikes me as a good argument for Americans trying to make government smaller.
Whatever happened to the idea of "My body, my choice"?
Good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
That's fine, but can I choose not to pay for the healthcare costs of people who develop chronic disease as a result of their choices? As a taxpayer funding Medicare/Medicaid, not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
OMG, funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
You need to write for National Review's "Week in Review" column."
I guess that begs the question. How far do you want to take that?Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine