New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s decision to ban supersized sugary sodas has resurrected the age-old debate over the role of the state in protecting the public health. In recent years, this debate involved bicycle helmets, car seat belts, tobacco, trans fats, saturated fats in meat and dairy products, and sugar (or more aptly, high-fructose corn syrup). Public subsidies for tobacco, meat and dairy, and corn production added fuel to the debate.
I would argue that society has a right to regulate activities that impose a heavy burden on the public treasury.
National medical costs of dealing with our obesity epidemic, associated with consumption of meat, dairy, and sugars, are estimated at $190 billion.
Eliminating subsidies for these products, as well as judicious taxation to reduce their use and recoup public costs should be supported by health advocates and fiscal conservatives alike.
Benjamin Franklin claimed that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Ironically, death can be deferred substantially by taxing products that make us sick.
David Rich
Mesa
mesateacher posted at 9:17 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
There are actvities that as you say "impose a heavy burden on the public treasury", and diabetes and obesity are surely near the top of the list. But, if you want to look at the facts, there are other causes of obesity other than sugar in soft drinks. Wheat, and in general all grains, are not good things for people to eat. Read the research if you don't believe it. Ask Dr. Fitness (Lance Dreher) on KFYI. The evidence is clear and unequivocal: grains make us fat. Humans should not be eating bread, rice, corn, oatmeal -- are you ready to go down that road and have the government control or even ban all products containing grains? The same with milk. Cows milk is a great food...if you're a baby cow. But humans should never consume cows milk or products made from it: ice cream, yogurt, cheese. If you believe that government should regulate food to protect us from ourselves, then the discussion must include these ideas. No, I'd rather live in a free society where we as indiduals can make our own decisions as to what we consume, and with it, the expectation that we will take care of ourselves and not be a drain on the public treasury. And if we get fat or diabetic, that we pay for the treatment ourselves rather than expecting the government to pay the bills.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 10:21 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE POLITICIAN.
ALL PROCESSED FOOD HAS SOMETHING IN IT THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO GOOD HEALTH = JUST LOOK AT THE ....."SODIUM CONTENT" IN FROZEN CHICKEN PIES, HOT DOGS, MAC & CHEESE, CANNED SOUPS, SPAGHETTI SAUCE, AND ON AND ON AND ON.
DO WE CHERRY-PICK WHICH "BAD FOR YOU" FOOD WE GO AFTER ???
LET'S TRY AND SHOW SOME COMMONSENSE AND HONESTY. GO AFTER DRUGS AND DRUNK DRIVERS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO STEAL JOBS FROM "REAL AMERICANS"...........POLITICIANS CAN BE GOOD CITIZENS TOO.............SOME OF OUR FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL POLITICIANS NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR....NOT THE LATEST ...."APPROVAL RATING POLL"....OR ..."RE-ELECTABLITY QUOTIENT".
commonsenseaintcommon posted at 10:31 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
The problem with regulating things that aren't good for us is who decides what is and isn't good for us. We have so many jerks like Bloomberg running around trying to protect us from ourselves that we need protection for them. I'm 58 years old and am height weight proportionate. In fact I am in better shape than most men that are half my age. I eat whatever I want as long as it is in moderation. Those who say you shouldn't eat this or that or the other thing, think they are experts because somebody told them that if they talk loud enough and long enough somebody will think that they are an expert. Education about nutrition and wellness takes longer than legislation but like morality you can't legislate good habits.
ProFreedom Gal posted at 1:11 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
I totally agree with Leon. And I totally agree with commonsenseaintcommon.
Government has no business trying to regulate every aspect of our lives. Look what a mess the government has made of just about everything they start 'regulating'.
ProFreedom Gal posted at 1:26 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
"National medical costs of dealing with our obesity epidemic, associated with consumption of meat, dairy, and sugars, are estimated at $190 billion."
I am wondering where this figure comes from? What National program - medicaid?
Sounds like a conspiracy to turn us all into vegetarians while giving a few way too much MORE power over us.
mesateacher has it right....
"I'd rather live in a free society where we as indiduals can make our own decisions as to what we consume, and with it, the expectation that we will take care of ourselves"
truth posted at 3:18 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
Leon. for once would you make some sense. Leon doesn't want government telling people that they should eat healthy, Leon doesn't want the 50 million non insured to be forced to pay for some of their own health care, costing Americans tax payers $265,000,000,000.00 every year. Leon you sound like DR. Phill he can solve all our problems in a half hour. Leon I have a friend who has a Doctorate in nutrition and another friend who is a biochemist the problem is much more complicated. Everything interacts with everything we eat or don't eat or do. Your body can get confused when dieting and store energy as fat. One action of a single drug can act the opposite on diferent people. We are heading toward 45% obesity in this country, we need all the help we can get. Leon what do you think obeisity cost in this country, heart attacks, cancer, stroke just to name a few .Leon i was a student at the lipid clinic for my own personal well being.
ProFreedom Gal posted at 3:32 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
Telling us how to eat healthy or educating us is one thing. Regulating you out of your choices is not the same and not good.
FactsJustTheFacts posted at 3:34 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
The United States is founded of two basic tenets. "Do all you agree to do" the basis for contract law today and "Do not encroach on other persons or their property". Liberty is the path to prosperity not intrusive government. Politicians can't control the urge to dictate to others their personal opinions on whats good for you, as if one size fits all. If you understand that government generates nothing but debt, you also understand the how and why our public treasury is depleted.
truth posted at 4:17 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
Profreedom Gal, are you saying all regulations should be eliminated and we should be able to do what we want but only if you agree.? Would that include contraception?
ej posted at 5:53 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
I'm not for more regulation on personal choices. If I were I would be implementing exercise requirements. Lack of exercise is a much larger reason for the problem.
mrconservative posted at 10:10 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
David, you sicken me. Society has NO right to tell us what we can and cannot eat. If we follow that argument, we might as well ban cars, horses, trains, airplanes, coffee, dogs, cats, alcoholic drinks, and a million more things which are "bad" for us or "dangerous", and yet we use them anyway. Stay out of our lives, government!
(By the way, I do NOT drink coffee, or ANYTHING that has an ounce of alcohol in it, and NO ONE can say that alcoholic drinks are good for you, because they aren't. And neither is coffee. I won't stop others from drinking it, but I flatly refuse to)
Cubs1908 posted at 7:36 am on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
This question is for those who disagree with David: Is the government correct in making the drugs cocaine and marijuana illegal? If so, why?
This is for ej - When I started working with a trainer he told me that he would help me with the exercise, but 80% of my success or failure would be tied to what I ate. He has a Bachelors degree in Nutrition Science, so we can assume he knows what he's talking about.
mrconservative posted at 9:04 am on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
There's plenty of calcium in milk, and calcium is good for you. Meat is also something, believe it or not, that is essential for our diet. True, too much meat can hurt us, but as long as we eat it sparingly, there is no reason to stop others from enjoying meat.
Engaged Voter posted at 12:09 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
"This question is for those who disagree with David: Is the government correct in making the drugs cocaine and marijuana illegal? If so, why?"
The government is incorrect. As for the "why" - why are they illegal in the first place?
If you're going to claim they're illegal because they are dangerous, does that mean you are also for banning cars, planes, alcohol and about 4 or 5 DOZEN other potentially harmful things in our lives?
If not, why?
VofReason posted at 1:36 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
Yes, anyone can see that soda limitation and cocaine limitation are basically the same thing. I mean people get shot up, OD, or steal from their parents all the time to get more Mt Dew. But seriously, how many little fat kids have lean healthy parents. Bingo, this is a parenting problem, generation to generation, not a too few laws problem.
chuckles3 posted at 4:57 pm on Tue, Jun 12, 2012.
"National medical costs of dealing with our obesity epidemic, associated with consumption of meat, dairy, and sugars, are estimated at $190 billion."
Pay for your own health insurance. I will pay for mine. If I turn into a fatty and a diabetic, I paid the freight. Not the taxpayers. No burden on the Treasury. Just the insurance companies to set proper risk rates.
As to his idiotic assertion, I would argue welfare-receiving druggies impose a burden on the treasury, how about we drug test them?
Or welfare moms having multiple babies form different daddies also represent a burden..how about we sterilize them?
No? Not the same things?