Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
Where there are societal costs, we as a collectively responsible nation, have a right if not an obligation to our fellow citizens to encourage and even to legislate responsibility. The mayor's proposal I believe only applied to the on site sale of supersized drinks. There was no prohibition on a consumer buying two of them, or ten of them. There was no prohibition on grocery stores selling you a 2 Liter.
We already have laws regarding what some might consider "personal liberties". While you can consume alcohol, you cannot be served over a certain amount per glass. You cannot drive any speed you desire, even on a deserted road where you would endanger only yourself. Many states require you to wear a helmet if you ride a bike or a motorcycle. All states require you wear your seat belt. These are all examples of what people like to call the "nanny state". And they are all good laws. We have as a society laws not only to protect the individual from others but laws to protect the individual from him/her self when making poor choices may impose a burden on the society even without the intention of doing so. If Bloomberg is correct that obesity is a real public health danger and that there are ways to mitigate that danger why wouldn't he, and why wouldn't all of us, be trying to reduce the damage both present and future of that disease? It is a legitimate if not essential function of govenment to promote the common welfare and public health.
|
Ah yes, you are right Blueash, and a very good scientist too. However, in Ohio where we both are from, no one so far has told us how much pop we can buy or drink at a time...so far.
When a law is passed, there is also a great expense to enforce it.
I think this may be political.
Say Goodnight Gracie.