“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?” http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120601/US.Soda.Ban.What.Next_/?cid=hero_media
The government attempts once again to protect us from ourselves. I know that many of us need protecting, but as the above paragraph suggests, where do we draw the line?
Obesity is a serious problem and we must take it seriously. Shouldn’t there be some personal responsibility. Human nature is we gravitate toward decay if left alone. Imaginations tend to the negative and many people just don’t care what they eat or drink.
We all have to wear seatbelts. There is plenty of precedence for legislating our protection whether we want protecting or not. Obesity costs. The total cost attributable to obesity amounted to $99.2 billion dollars in 1995. The healthcare industry certainly isn’t going to object to the high costs. They would object to banning soda.
The soda industry isn’t going to stand still for proposals like this. Look what happened during prohibition. Do you want the government to decide what you should eat? The government has never been very good at it because there are too many industries involved. Plus the fact that no one can agree on what is good for you and what is not.
I’m personally against restrictions like this, but on the other hand we have to look at ways to curb the obesity epidemic in America. I don’t drink soda and sugary drinks, so it won’t be any change for me. Yet somehow the slow erosion of our personal freedom continues.