This is a comment by wellokaythen on the post “Should Bloomberg Ban Sugary Drinks?“.
Banning large-size sodas may indeed make a difference in obesity rates. Let’s say that it would. We’re still talking about laws restricting individual choice in the name of public health, as if my body belongs to society and not to me. I can’t give anyone second-hand obesity because of the soda that I drink. This is one of times where I say “keep your laws off my body.”
I’ll go straight to the totally extreme slippery slope argument. You know who else was obsessive about the health of their nation and willing to use government agencies to restrict individual choices? The Nazis. In their own twisted way, they were perhaps the most obsessed about public health of any government that ever existed. Totalitarianism is very appealing when it’s presented in the name of a healthy society. Who would be in favor of individual choice when such a choice could be bad for you?
I haven’t read the details of the Bloomberg proposal. What’s to prevent you from buying two smaller drinks instead of one larger one?
Photo credit: Flickr / fimoculous
About the Editors
I’m anti-authoritarian all the way. I support same-sex marriages. I support reproductive rights. This is just that that whole issue from a few months ago, when that one city wanted to ban wearing PJs in public – even if they cover all the essential areas. So this whole restriction of sugary-drinks is another issue that I oppose.
I think, as long as people are not hurting anyone else, their freedom of choice should not be curtailed. Yeah, it maybe be good for people to eat healthy – but it’s not something that we can make people do.
The other article argues that people’s choices tend to influenced by the media, anyway – so, therefore, they shouldn’t mind the law restricting those choice. Neglecting to realize that these two things are not equal.
Now, yeah, a lot of music elitists may be happy if the government was to ban Justin Bieber – or other teen pop music. But the fact is, even if we may not agree with a person’s choice to listen to Justin Bieber – that person still has a right to listen to whatever makes them happy.
I’m sure that most of you have heard the phrase “freedom is slavery”. That comes from George Orwell’s book, 1984 – which takes place in the dystopian, totalitarian world. “Freedom is slavery” was one of three tautologies commonly uttered, along as “war is peace” is “ignorance is strength”.
If anyone values the freedoms and rights that we are entitled to in the western society, then we should be against any law that curtails a person’s freedom of choice. It’s in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s in the US Bill of Rights. And I’m sure most other western countries also have that in their constitutions.
The moment we start allowing the government to restrict freedom of choice is the moment that we start allowing authoritarian law to overtake civil rights and freedoms – and then start on the path to totalitarianism. This is something that all freedom-loving people should consider.
Here’s the problem. Your choice to be obese costs ME money. I have to pay more for health insurance because YOU decide it is perfectly okay to be 150 pounds overweight and cost significantly more money to insure. Health insurance is a collective market and if your actions are causing me problems (taking money out of my pocket) then you should be subject to regulation. I should not be forced to subsidize your poor life choices.
For one thing, that is highly unsympathetic. For another thing, that’s not exactly how health insurance works. Finally, if you want to use the cost of health insurance as a reason to regulate everyone’s life to the n’th degree…then you could argue for pretty much everything. Regulate everyone’s lives so that no one is at risk for anything, because that’ll keep health insurance costs down. Outlaw smoking, drinking, driving, guns, knives, and physical contact of any kind…all to keep health insurance costs down. Yeah, doesn’t quite work that way.
It isn’t highly unsympathetic. Being obese is a result of a choice. It isn’t some inherent flaw based on genetics or anything else. Some things we can’t control and some things we can. I am essentially paying more than double what I should be paying for health insurance because of people who cannot put the fork down. Also, please don’t tell me about people with slow metabolisms as I have an INCREDIBLY slow metabolism.
I support laws banning smoking too! The simple fact is that sometimes you need to protect people from themselves. Do you think people who drive drunk should be punished? Same thing. Their CHOICE to drive drunk has a negative impact on other people. Your (I’m not using the you personally but the general you) choice to become obese has a negative impact on me.
To be completely honest, I think we should have a single payer system like every forward-thinking country in the world which would alleviate much of the cost issues (or at least the cost-to-consumer issues) but we have a broken system.
I have far too much experience with and knowledge of the healthcare system. I understand that I am generalizing a bit, but that is generally how it works. If collective costs rise as a result of obesity (they do) then those costs need to be spread out among policy holders in order to cover them.
Also, I AM unsympathetic to people who are obese. Completely and totally unsympathetic. It is a problem they can change, and I resent that they think I should be happy to allow them to make my life worse. I am NOT happy to be inconvenienced by them.
Health insurance is all about subsidizing other customers’ lifestyle choices. If you don’t like the concept of subsidizing other people’s healthcare through health insurance, self-pay. That’s what I do, by the way.
You subsidize other people’s lifestyle choices if they need medical care because they
-get in a car accident (ban cars!),
-are injured in a bike accident (ban bikes!),
-have an accident during recreational activity (ban football! swimming! diving! skiing! and every other sport!)
-contract an infection through sex (ban sex!)
-work long hours at stressful jobs (ban stressful work and overtime!)
-have complications during pregnancies (ban childbirth!)
Unless you want to get on board with banning all these other lifestyle choices, I am unsympathetic to your lack of sympathy for those whose lifestyle choices you are whining about.
And thank you for making a most excellent case AGAINST single-payer healthcare. Once everyone is forced to subsidize everyone else through mandatory tax-paid programs, this buttinsky “you can’t do things I don’t approve of because I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT AND THAT’S NOT FAAAAAIIIIIIRRRRRRR!!!!” attitude will have busybodies demanding government micromanage people’s lifestyle choices exponentially more and more.
“And thank you for making a most excellent case AGAINST single-payer healthcare. Once everyone is forced to subsidize everyone else through mandatory tax-paid programs, this buttinsky “you can’t do things I don’t approve of because I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT AND THAT’S NOT FAAAAAIIIIIIRRRRRRR!!!!” attitude will have busybodies demanding government micromanage people’s lifestyle choices exponentially more and more.”
The U.K.’s got a single-payer system, and they don’t have quite the complaint about paying for other people’s lifestyle choices that we might. Mind, we couldn’t really use a system exactly like the U.K.’s as the U.S. is way too big a country. We’d go bankrupt way too quickly.
Invoking Godwin’s law, shame, shame on you.
HAH! I was just thinking that!
Collin, I think often times people that are obese have an addiction to fat or an addiction to food, yes it is kind of dumb for them to get that way in this first place, just like it is pretty dumb for people to start using drugs, but both are going to be safer if they’re legal, a great part of what makes illegal drugs so dangerous is the fact they’re illegal, and there would be far fewer deaths resulting from them if they were legal, though I doubt things are going to work out quite that way if proposed public health risks like extra large soda are banned, it may have detrimental effects we don’t know of yet, I also believe people have a right to do what they want with their body, yes it costs us money, that’s an annoying fact of our society caring for those that can’t afford healthcare, but people have a right to their bodies and a right to healthcare regardless of little money they have and how much bad stuff they do.
Yes, I think it’s wrong for people to put a strain on the system like that, but it’s one of those things that can’t be policed.
Not always. Sometimes people just have really sedentary lifestyles and don’t watch it. We live in an office-work, computer age, after all. Sometimes people do, actually, have metabolism or thyroid problems. Sometimes they just have other issues that contribute to their weight issues. Sometimes they’re self-medicating, also known as “eating your emotions.” Not really addicted to food, but rather that’s the thing they use to make themselves feel better. And in all those cases, sympathy is warranted.
I do not know a single obese or overweight person who actually doesn’t care and it just too lazy to do anything about it. Most of the time they care a great deal and are painfully aware of how often they’ve failed to lose the weight. And of course that failure just contributes to feeling worthless, and then they eat to feel better. So it’s like addiction, but not quite.
Also, the idea that large people are just lazy is absolute bullshit. (And I know that’s not what you were saying, Missy. I just wanted to point out it’s not necessarily addiction either).
This “ban” on soft drinks would have more validity if the ban was on the use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The products being banned are primarily sweetened with HFCS – which is heavily subsidized by law and heavily subsidizes Congress. HFCS has been show in numerous studies to be addictive because it is far sweeter than sugar and it has also been shown to have other health risks because of how it is made.
Instead of targeting the source the companies that use HFCS to make larger and larger profits – the target is on the small end the consumer. If Mayor Bloomberg had the spine to actually stand up to the profit at all cost companies and stop the funding to them and tell the truth – but that would cost him and his corporate donors money and profit is all that matters.
What’s to prevent you from buying two smaller drinks instead of one larger one?
Nothing. In fact, he is very straightforward that people will be able to do so. Same amount of garbage consumed, but now twice the garbage going into the landfill.
In honor of soda ban people who really are just trying to disguise their hatred of or disdain for chubby people, I’m having a Coke on the way home tonight. A BIG one. Maybe like a 4000 ounce Coke! I might have to buy that in two 2000 ounce cups, though, just to make sure they’ll fit in my cup holders.
“I haven’t read the details of the Bloomberg proposal.”