I agree with monstro****. It does seem nanny-state-ish, but obesity is a serious public health problem and NYC has been engaging in a number of initiatives to combat it. There are ads all over the place encouraging a healthy diet, exercise, programs to educate people about nutrition, etc. One ad on the subways shows a map of New York and the distance you’d have to walk to burn off all the calories from a giant smoothie (according to the ad it’s from somewhere out in Queens to the middle of Manhattan).
At the bottom of this CDC article is the economic cost (from 2008) of obesity. While this law may be a little over the top, from looking at those numbers it’s understandable why a local government would take as much action as they’re legally allowed to to reduce that. And apparently Bloomberg’s legally allowed to restrict drink sizes in an attempt to encourage healthy choices.
I mentioned alcohol restrictions and the ABC up above. Consuming alcohol in public places like restaurants is a special case. They need to keep a family atmosphere and there is the concern of drunk driving or even drunk walking afterwards.
CNN has a interesting podcast on the NY sugary drink restrictions. It’s already costing money in new glasses and retraining staff.
HIV is a massive public health issue that has caused billions in public spending and has taken countless lives. The City of New York has a compelling interest in banning sodomy.
I don’t think that’s a reasonable comparison, especially since sugary drinks aren’t outright banned. The City of New York actually does have campaigns to raise awareness of AIDs, remove the stigma, provide free testing, free condoms, assistance with treatment, and so on. Nothing is being banned in this instance, but I’d say what the city does in terms of AIDs awareness is actually comparable to what they’re doing for obesity awareness.
At least it does target the sugar, albeit inconsistently. The schools in my community decided to stop selling pop a few years ago. They went after the carbonation rather than the sugar. You can’t buy Diet Mountain Dew in a school vending machine but you can buy sugary [del]flat pop[/del] “fruit” drinks. :rolleyes:
This is the reason I preferred that government stay out of health care.
It has begun. First NYC then the People’s Republic of California then the rest of the country will be infected with these sorts of laws. Finally, all power to regulate everything we do will simply be dictated by the glorious leader in DC, whomever that may be (otherwise it will cost too much, you see). Anyone who thinks we live in a regulatory nightmare now will be thinking back to these days as when we lived in a libertarian paradise.
Monstro makes some serious and valid points that those who sneer at this rarely address. If I’m going to have to pay for your medical treatment (the situation today if you don’t have insurance, or, to a lesser extend, even if you have), then it’s in my best interest for you to be kept healthy.
There’s also science behind this: people will buy whatever size drink (or other food) is available. If the large is 16 ounces, most people will be happy with that. If the large is 24 ounces, then people will drink all that, too. Yes, people can order two drinks, but most will take what’s offered and thus get fewer calories.
Restaurants in the US serve portions that are far too big. Cutting them down had two major advantages: fewer calories and the restaurant can charge less for an entree (or, from their POV, make more money from one). But big portions are what Americans like, and no restaurant is going to succeed if they don’t give you too much (there are some exceptions now – Applebee’s has some nice small entrees – but far too few).
But since I can end up paying for the results of your own bad habits, I – though the government – should have some say in preventing them.
Do you have any citations that it actually increases health costs? This is an argument often drug out in regards to smoking, despite it being shown smokers actually end up costing less due to the fact they die earlier. Wouldn’t be surprised if this is a similar case.
But besides that, there are thousands of things the government could be doing to make us healthier. Should they?
Well, since we’re talking about local government – cities & counties – that ship sailed when city- or county-owned public hospitals of last resort for the poor were established. Which for New York City was in 1736. :smack:
