Is this true? NYC wants to initiate a ban on large sodas, those in excess of 16 ounces? C'mon....
No one decries our obesity epidemic more than I. But it's none of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's business what I drink or how much of it! (If I consume too many alcoholic beverages and then break law, that's a different matter.) It's my choice to make--that, I think, is freedom.
In attacking obesity, how about some other approaches? Since the NYC gov't seems inclined to ban things (weren't transfats banned there a few years ago, ruining my favorite fried chicken?), I have some other things, rather than large sodas, to ban. How about computer and video games for kids? For that matter, how about a ban on the number of hours of television they can watch?
More seriously (or not), why not mandate at least an hour of physical education/exercise each day for kids in public schools?
Most disturbing is that these arrogant elitists won't stop. They are smarter than we are--just ask them. They may or may not be smarter than we are (although I suspect they aren't). That's not the point, a point that eludes them.
Televisions, light bulbs, transfats, fast food, automobiles, toilets, sodas.... What's next?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
About Me
- Ron Marinucci
- I have been married to Karen for 47 of my 73 years. I have two sons, Mike and Matt, both adults (at least in chronological age), and three grandchildren. I am retired, I suppose. I continue to teach college history, part-time; I still enjoy it, although the increasing amount of silly paperwork is grating and will likely be what drives me to fully retire. I have a BA in history from Amherst College and three graduate degrees. I do a little writing, too, some of which actually brings in some money.
3 comments:
Don't get me wrong, I am totally with you on the 'big' soda ban. I would really prefer that governments stay out of the business of banning things. Although I do think governments have a role in encouraging healthier behavior, I think banning things rarely does any good.
However, it seems to me the same argument could be used against the banning of drugs. Is there some nuance to the argument I am missing?
I feel like I should elaborate after I reread my post.
I am not for legalization of drugs. But when I argue "it's my choice to make--that I think is freedom," I often get asked why I don't then believe in legalization. I don't have a good answer. Who draws the line between freedom and 'danger to society?'
Yep, Grant, that thought has crossed my mind numerous times, too. It's almost as if we are "picking and choosing." That's dangerous, I think. I was talking to a guy this AM who said, "It's not what kids eat that makes them fat. It's that they just sit around and play the 'thumb games,'" as he called them. "If they play outside, kids can burn all those calories." Hmmmm...I wonder.
Post a Comment