Perhaps you’ve noticed the latest, looming crisis…
Via the Board of Health, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned the sale of sugary drinks over the size of 16 oz. No pitchers. No Ventis. No accompanying 2 liter bottles. But alas, on Monday — one day prior to the law going into effect — a state Supreme Court justice overturned the ban, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” As Huffington Post host, Mike Sacks, inferred the ruling, such is “law-speak for too stupid to be legal.”
(Talk about a new sugar high.)
First are the facts:
- In September of 2012, NYC’s Board of Health voted unanimously in favor of the proposed regulations.
- The restrictions were passionately supported by Mayor Bloomberg.
- A 16-ounce limit was placed on sweetened bottled drinks and fountain beverages sold at NYC restaurants, bars, movie theaters, sports venues, and street carts.
- The limit applied to beverages with more than 25 calories per 8 ounces.
- Included in the regulations were sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, juice drinks, slushies and smoothies, among other beverages.
- Excluded were alcohol and milk-based drinks.
- The judge declared that the NYC’s Board of Health was only meant to intervene “when the City is facing eminent danger due to disease.”
Reacting to the ruling, Mayor Bloomberg said he disagreed with the court decision and cited his intent to appeal. With a rising number of overweight and obese people, he said, “It is reasonable and responsible to draw a line.”
Ok, sorry, but the Intramuralist must pause and take a deep breath (… those deep breaths, uh, assist in articulating a respectful response…).
When I look at this sequence — and I do believe that the Mayor was attempting to do what he sincerely believes is honorable and right — I see one huge, glaring bottom line that makes this semi-humble current events observer cringe. Follow me here; perhaps the discomfort will dissipate (… although I highly doubt it).
Bloomberg wants to ban large sugary drinks. Understandable. Excess sugar puts excess weight on excess people. Excess isn’t all good. Granted, pizza, chips, candy bars, milkshakes, etc. also contribute to “excess,” but none of the above were covered under New York’s regulations (hence, the “arbitrary” distinction).
But besides the arbitrary and thus inconsistent application of the regulations, there is a more significant cause for my discomfort.
Bloomberg wants to help the obese among us, yet in order to assist the obese, the assumption must also be made that people are incapable of controlling their consumption. People are incapable of wise decision-making.
In other words, according to Bloomberg: people cannot control their own choices. Therefore, our ever-more-caring government will control their choices for them… We’ll take the big drinks away. Under this line of thinking, if citizens are left to their own decision-making, they may make poor choices; thus, it’s government’s duty to protect citizens from themselves. Government must keep the negative, “excess” consequences from ever occuring. Government, my friends — according to Bloomberg — knows best. Government knows better than the people. Excuse me, but has government not realized that negative consequences are often the most effective actual deterrent to negative decision-making?
True, this regulation only regarded plus size soft drinks… but what will be next? That’s the concern: what will be next? There is no way soft drinks are the end of the extent of government interference. There is no way soft drinks are the end of the extent of government arrogance, believing they somehow know best.
What’s next? Something bigger. Something more. Something more intrusive. Something far more than 16 ounces.
Respectfully,
AR