Live Q&As

You raise 3 points -- all good, but not necesarilly correct or related.

1. How do you know that it will not change the health and consumption habits of of consumers?  In fact, there are studies which show that people consume more when offered a large container and less when offered a small container.  So, shrinking containers may well contribute to the change you are certain will not happen.

2. Who says, other than you, that the government has no right to to determine what we eat or drink?  Maybe they shouldn't, but clearly they do e.g. alcohol.  Why should that be the exception (as if it were the only one)?  Because of the health risks associated with it?  Let's face it, obesity is far more likely than alcohol, to wipe us out, both health-wise and financially.

3. And yes, people may order two or more drinks, as they should have the right to do, which is why this is not a "ban" on the drinks, but on a particular delivery system.  If were an all on ban on the drinks, it would be far more difficult to defend from a personal liberty and civil rights perspective.

Great question!  Of course nobody should get a free pass when it comes to endangering the public.  The issue here is that there is not a shred of evidence that moderate consumption of  sugary drinks has any bad health effects.  To be clear, they are not beneficial, but unless you really believe that the government which governs best, governs like gulag, then we have to allow people the option of not maximizing their health through diet.

What's interesting about Bloomberg's proposal, even though I have some real reservations about it's wisdom, is that it recognizes that size does matter, and attempts to deal with that issue.  He knows what we all know, or should know, soda doesn't kill people, but the overconsumption of it may be truly harmful.  The key there is OVERconsumption, not ANY consumption, which is what seems to bother you.

You are totally correct.  In fact, were the larger public health, and therefore public purse, issues not in play, there would no grounds whatsoever for considering this.

As it stand though, there is really very little evidence that this approach will work, at least in any direct way.  I still that the changing of cultural expectations which comes with changing packaging sizes, which has been shown to have an impact, makes this worth considering.  Let's be clear though, this is NOT going to cure us of obesity.

Also, give yourself a little credit -- I would hope that if you saw an obese person, and knowing what we do about the health risks that come with that obesity, you would care about that person at least a little.  Not that you would seek to legislate them down to a healthy weight, but at least care!  :)

So it's your choice to not care about how much burden your choices lay off on the rest of us?  So much for your respect for personal choice and responsibility!  Oh wait, you believe in choice w/o responsibility.  And you want a gun?  I don't think so!!

Bloomberg's proposal may be wrong, but your argument actually supports it.  If people are so unable and unwilling to take any serious level of personal responsibility for their actions, as indicated by your comment, then the state sometimes does need to step in.  That's not the way things should ideally be, but with arguments like yours in play, that is what we get.

As a big believer in personal responsibility, I appreciate the "soap box" on which you stand.  I also appreciate that you know and ackowledge when you are on it because in doing so so make it ethical and safe to stand up there, but that's another topic.

Here's the thing though: self-control does not simply emerge from the inside out or in a vacuum.  Our sense of appropriate limits is also shaped by the context and culture in which we live.  If we have a culture whcih rewards buying bigger, we are more likely to see that as the "normal" and even responsible choice, even if we are overweight.  So, it turns out that while you and your wife have mastered the economic efficiency of sharing, alot of other folks simply see that bathtub of soda as a single serving -- which is how it is marketed.

You are sooo right!  A, it is NOT a ban on the soda, but on a particualr deleivery system.  B, it does seem like a rather haphazard approach.  Why can I get a huge milkshake but not a huge Coke?  Because the former has milk?  Who are we kidding?  C, while it may be necessary to fill the bucket one drop at a time, this is an odd first drop.

Two points:

Public policy, even good public policy, will almost always cause some collateral damage to outliers.  It's not that I am uncaring, but surely you undertand that yours is a fairly unique situation, and should not be the basis for a decison which will effect millions of people.

That said, I am comfortable having told you that because the frappuccinos you need to stay healthy, a surely hope that you do so, would still be available in Venti (the huge size) because they are milk-based.

There may be a class issue here, but that may actually be appropriate as there is a high degree of corelation between socio-economic status and obesity.  The lower the former, the higher the latter -- at least in the US where we have so much food, that poor people are more likely to be sick from too much of a bad thing than from too little food altogether.

So unless one advocates a state-mandated diet for all Americans, then the inequality about which you are concerned is going to be there no matter what.  Given that one can eat healthy food, often more cheaply than "junk food" though, the issue is more cultural than econmic, so put your fears about inequity to rest, and start worrying about how to get poor folks to eat healthy. 

Assuming that you don't want to simply be smarmy, and are also done playing human dictionary, ethics has everything to do with it, especially if you look at teh definiton you supplied!  What are the principles by which we organize our conduct-- as citizens, as individuals, as leaders?  How do we balance our hsitoric committment to individual liberty and freedom of choice with the obligations we have to each other as members of one city, state or nation?

If you are more comfortable calling that politics, fine.  but to imagine that we should make public policy without some thought given to the larger issues which make that policy either legitmate or otherwise, is pretty silly, if not outright dangerous.

You are certainly right to point out the severe irony of those who defend a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, while questioning their right to have a large soda!  But to be fair, if the public impact of the latter (when muliplied by the millions) when translated back into public cost is much more profound than the former, it is not crazy to preserve one choice while limiting the other. 

We all believe in government regulations, just some like yourself, are more honest about it.  There is debate about how much, under what circumstances, etc. but even anarchists with whom I have spoken admit that if things got REALLY scary, they too would yearn for an outside authority that could make life safe.

You are also correct about the appropriateness of greater regulation for minor, especially when their parents or guardians are not around.

And yes, this move does feel a bit like an overstep, unless it is explained on teh basis of trying to shape public expectation of what counts as a serving.  But if that is the case, then why start with soda?  Why 16 oz as the cut off?  And a million other issues which need to be addressed. 

So, as you will have already noted, I am sympathetic to the distinction you are making -- that it is about regulating a specific delivery system and NOt actually curtailing anybody's right to drink what they want, or even as much as they want.  But why this item?  Why not equally unhealthy drinks that happen to have milk as their base?  Why not fruit juice which is just as high in sugar?  Until we have reasonable answers to those questions, this feels like a good idea that has not been thought out enough to turn into policy, at least not yet.

And another part of our American cultural myth is that of the self-made person who pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps and gets rewarded for having done so.  Would that it were that simple, especially when it comes to health in general and weight control in particular.

Let me be clear, as this will be the last response for the day:  You are 100% right that we all have a real role to play in taking care of ourselves -- not the government, not the soda makers, not anyone but us.  Unfortunately, the one-to-one corespondance to which you refer, just isn't the truth.

Personal and public health are both a partnership.  That is the part abut which Mayor Bloomberg is 100% correct.  People exist in communities and communities must have laws which shape and reward our public health.  This proposal, especially as layed out, may not be the best idea, but it does speak to the fact that we need to begin changing our collective relationship to what and how we eat, if not for the sake of our individual health, then for the sake of our collectivly shouldered health care costs.