Should Gov. Protect You From Yourself?

[WinePusher]

The New York City ban on large soda drinks was overruled in court. First, let me say that I agree with the premise put forth by people like Bloomberg. Intaking a large amount of sugary soda isn't healthy. In fact it's quite unhealthy, and obesity is a problem. I doubt anybody would disagree. With that having been established, should the government enact laws that it perceives to be in the best interest of the people?

Fact: Large amounts of sugar and salt aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

Fact: Drugs and alcohol aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

[Alchemy]

The New York City ban on large soda drinks was overruled in court. First, let me say that I agree with the premise put forth by people like Bloomberg. Intaking a large amount of sugary soda isn't healthy. In fact it's quite unhealthy, and obesity is a problem. I doubt anybody would disagree. With that having been established, should the government enact laws that it perceives to be in the best interest of the people?

Fact: Large amounts of sugar and salt aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

Fact: Drugs and alcohol aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

A government would usually ban a product or activity when using that product or engaging in that activity causes a problem for society. This is as it should be and is easy to demonstrate. For example, there is a ban on skeet shooting in Times Square as it is deemed to be a problem for society. Since we can show that the government has to place some restrictions on what we consume or use and how we consume or use it, what remains is how we decide what is restricted.

Guns in public places is a no brainer since obviously we can’t have people letting off a 12 gauge in a crowd. Deciding how to treat products or activities that do not have a direct effect on other people is a lot harder. Take heroin for example. It is obviously bad for you with little to no redeeming qualities but someone shooting up in Times Square does not directly affect anyone. On top of this, if it were legal to take it, we might actually be removing the a lot of the other associated criminal problems that come with heroin. It would be free to the open market, making it far cheaper thus removing the need for people to commit break end enters and bag snatches etc.... Similar to current status of smoking.

The problem of course is that taking heroin quickly destroys a person. It can’t be taken on a recreational basis and will kill you with persistent use. Persistent use is almost guaranteed because of the incredible addictive qualities of the drug. Due to what heroin does to a person, wide spread use because of legal commercialisation, would lead to such an enormous drain on the health system as to bring it to its knees. That would be a big problem for society. In addition to this would be the fact we’re making freely available, a substance that we knew would kill almost every single person who used it.

You might say, ‘too bad for that person who chose to take it. It was their choice to make. They knew the risks when they injected, it was their fault.’ That is true but what of the people who were not of sound mind when they made the decision? What of the vulnerable people who were not educated on the risks? What of the children who took it with a fake ID? What of the totally overwhelmed medical system that now can’t properly support the people who did not take heroin but are now unable to get treatment for a heart condition because a junkie has their hospital bed and all their doctors time?

Heroin is an example of a free choice that needs to be taken away from the people to save them from themselves as a whole and I believe shows that the government should enact laws that it perceives to be in the best interest of the people even when there is no direct affect on other people. Where giant cups of soda comes on the scale with smoking, heroin and Times Square target shooting is a different matter.

[WinePusher]

The New York City ban on large soda drinks was overruled in court. First, let me say that I agree with the premise put forth by people like Bloomberg. Intaking a large amount of sugary soda isn't healthy. In fact it's quite unhealthy, and obesity is a problem. I doubt anybody would disagree. With that having been established, should the government enact laws that it perceives to be in the best interest of the people?

Fact: Large amounts of sugar and salt aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

Fact: Drugs and alcohol aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

A government would usually ban a product or activity when using that product or engaging in that activity causes a problem for society. This is as it should be and is easy to demonstrate. For example, there is a ban on skeet shooting in Times Square as it is deemed to be a problem for society. Since we can show that the government has to place some restrictions on what we consume or use and how we consume or use it, what remains is how we decide what is restricted.

Guns in public places is a no brainer since obviously we can’t have people letting off a 12 gauge in a crowd. Deciding how to treat products or activities that do not have a direct effect on other people is a lot harder. Take heroin for example. It is obviously bad for you with little to no redeeming qualities but someone shooting up in Times Square does not directly affect anyone. On top of this, if it were legal to take it, we might actually be removing the a lot of the other associated criminal problems that come with heroin. It would be free to the open market, making it far cheaper thus removing the need for people to commit break end enters and bag snatches etc.... Similar to current status of smoking.

The problem of course is that taking heroin quickly destroys a person. It can’t be taken on a recreational basis and will kill you with persistent use. Persistent use is almost guaranteed because of the incredible addictive qualities of the drug. Due to what heroin does to a person, wide spread use because of legal commercialisation, would lead to such an enormous drain on the health system as to bring it to its knees. That would be a big problem for society. In addition to this would be the fact we’re making freely available, a substance that we knew would kill almost every single person who used it.

You might say, ‘too bad for that person who chose to take it. It was their choice to make. They knew the risks when they injected, it was their fault.’ That is true but what of the people who were not of sound mind when they made the decision? What of the vulnerable people who were not educated on the risks? What of the children who took it with a fake ID? What of the totally overwhelmed medical system that now can’t properly support the people who did not take heroin but are now unable to get treatment for a heart condition because a junkie has their hospital bed and all their doctors time?

Heroin is an example of a free choice that needs to be taken away from the people to save them from themselves as a whole and I believe shows that the government should enact laws that it perceives to be in the best interest of the people even when there is no direct affect on other people. Where giant cups of soda comes on the scale with smoking, heroin and Times Square target shooting is a different matter.

This is a great post, I never thought about it in these terms. However, I think you're missing a key point. Obesity and drugs do cause negative externalities. If you are obese, you're more likely to incur health costs that will be footed to other people. If you do drugs, you're more likely to ruin your life and also incur health related costs or be unable to hold down a job, which forces others to subsidize you due to the bloated welfare state. Other than that minor disagreement, I think your idea is correct regarding the role of government.

[micatala]

The New York City ban on large soda drinks was overruled in court. First, let me say that I agree with the premise put forth by people like Bloomberg. Intaking a large amount of sugary soda isn't healthy. In fact it's quite unhealthy, and obesity is a problem. I doubt anybody would disagree. With that having been established, should the government enact laws that it perceives to be in the best interest of the people?

Fact: Large amounts of sugar and salt aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

Fact: Drugs and alcohol aren't good for you, so should the government ban it?

Where to draw the line on these kinds of things is difficult.

It is certainly true we place restrictions or regulations on lots of things for the good of the populace. In addition, there is the cost factor. Things I can think of that we regulate are:


Seat-belt use
Helmet use by motorcyclists
Drugs of various kinds and in various ways. Some are outright banned. Others are taxes and or discouraged. Others require a prescription.
Gun use.
There are more restrictive licenses for some kinds of vehicles.


The case for helmets involves not only protecting the motorcyclists, but also the cost to the public in dealing with the results of the accident, including the injuries.

To me, if there is a high enough cost involved, and it can be reduced with a minimal cost to freedom, that is the ideal. The greater the cost, the more freedom might be curtailed.

In the present case, no one is actually prevented from drinking or eating as much of anything they want, as I understand. You can still by 64 ounces of pop. You just have to buy it in four cups. That seems to me to be a pretty minimal restriction on freedom.


My question would be is there good data to support that simply reducing portions will reduce consumption. If empirical studies support their is an actual benefit, than I am more likely to be supportive.


I am ambiguous on some drugs. I am not sure "the war on drugs" has done much good. I think we should consider de-criminalizing most drugs, but regulating and taxing them, and then addressing addiction and abuse through treatment.

[chris_brown207]

It has been a while since I have been on here - lot of travel this year. I just wanted to post a thought, although I don't know if I will be able to respond to any replies.

My thought on the matter is that it is not the governments job to protect us from ourselves. However it is the governments job to help enable a functional society.

Right now the number 1-3 causes of death in America are related to food, and life style. These are also the largest share of the burden to the health industry. While I don't necessarily agree with banning large drinks, I would fully support creating a "health" tax to offset the increases in health care cost and the burden on insurance that obesity causes everyone in this country. There is no reason why the foods that are the worst for us are also the cheapest to buy.

If you look at the food pyramid that has been exemplified by our government and education system, and contrast that with which food groups that government subsidies have supported over the last 20 years - you will see priorities that are wildly offline from what we are encouraged to follow. These subsidies are one big reason why snacks and sodas are cheaper then orange juice, or fresh vegetables.

The extra revenue created by this health offset could go towards programs like diabetes treatment, cardiovascular health, Medicare, etc.

Don't ban - Regulate and tax-ate! I think we could apply this to a lot of sticking point issues on the news today.