![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
essentialsaltesMayor Bloomberg's move to criminalize the Big Gulp is just D-U-M dumb. Not only would it be ineffective, but it falls afoul of the Edgar Friendly Theory of Freedom:
"I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?"
It's sad that the government standard on nutrition are observed even less religiously than freeway speed limits, but I really don't see using the power of law to (allegedly) prevent people from making poor decisions.
[Of course, the flip-side of nannyism is, 'to what extent are we the people responsible for treating or insuring the diabetics and lung cancer patients, who are choosing themselves to an early grave?']
The challenger in this corner is the state of Louisiana, which has moved forward to privatize education with a voucher system. Now many of the public schools in Louisiana suck, but I'm not too confident about the quality of the private schools that have been approved for the vouchers:
Now I'm not so much a nanny-statist that I want to prevent parents from sending their kids to private religious schools on their own dime, but I think the low bar for accreditation in the great state of Louisiana may need some beefing up. Our children are supposed to be introduced to knowledge, not protected from it. And I do get itchy when the government proposes to use tax moneys to support these institutions. The state has a legitimate interest in having an educated electorate, not an electorate that has been protected from 'confusion'. Here's an authentic example of confusion:
"I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?"
It's sad that the government standard on nutrition are observed even less religiously than freeway speed limits, but I really don't see using the power of law to (allegedly) prevent people from making poor decisions.
[Of course, the flip-side of nannyism is, 'to what extent are we the people responsible for treating or insuring the diabetics and lung cancer patients, who are choosing themselves to an early grave?']
The challenger in this corner is the state of Louisiana, which has moved forward to privatize education with a voucher system. Now many of the public schools in Louisiana suck, but I'm not too confident about the quality of the private schools that have been approved for the vouchers:
The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.
...
At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.
"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said.
Now I'm not so much a nanny-statist that I want to prevent parents from sending their kids to private religious schools on their own dime, but I think the low bar for accreditation in the great state of Louisiana may need some beefing up. Our children are supposed to be introduced to knowledge, not protected from it. And I do get itchy when the government proposes to use tax moneys to support these institutions. The state has a legitimate interest in having an educated electorate, not an electorate that has been protected from 'confusion'. Here's an authentic example of confusion:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
the line
Date: 2012-06-06 06:33 pm (UTC)The state also has an interest in not allowing you to "choose" poison, right? Even if that's what I want to sell you, and I've cleverly marketed it so that you will think it isn't poison. But the fine print, protecting me, says that of course it's poison.
Alcohol: allowed.
Marijuana: Nope.
pharmaceuticals: Some.
Smoking: mostly.
Hi-Fat, low-nutrition foods: Allowed.
As a society, we experiment with what to allow, how much of it at a time, to whom, etc. I think it's fine - good, even - to experiment with this and see if it makes New York any healthier.
If it does, what does that say about us, though?
-Chun
Re: the line
Date: 2012-06-06 10:20 pm (UTC)Poison is a descriptor not a label. Alcohol is poisonous. It's effects are pretty mild compared to the above I just mentioned, but it'll make you a bit loose and loopy and at concentrated and large enough doses it can kill you.
The difference isn't when the law allows you a certain poison, but how much you know about it. If you know how to use it and are wise enough to use it without causing lasting or tragic damage.
so why are there laws to keep us from deciding for ourselves? It's getting harder and harder not to agree with libertarians on at least this point - It's because the government doesn't trust you.
Who do we know who doesn't have wisdom? A child. I'm fine with age laws on use of recreational toxins. I'm fine with medicines known to have toxic effects to be regulated by doctors. As for recreational substances or even foods that can add up to more detriment for the body than nutrient - that's for the owner of the body to decide.
Re: the line
Date: 2012-06-07 12:24 am (UTC)Re: the line
Date: 2012-06-07 11:30 am (UTC)People also use steroids semi recreationally, just meaning they choose to have its effects whether a doctor will tell them the proper way to take it to achieve those effects or not. It's dangerous and stupid and all in all I wish there were more legitimate avenues to the intelligent ways to use steroids to bulk up than just trusting the guy at the gym.
My opthalmologist only recommends pred to me. I could say no. It's hard to not let the patient have her way when it comes to drugs the doctor recommends; conversely it's hard for the patient to get useful and thorough information on drugs the doctor dislikes.
(it's 430am, an unwise time to try to lay this out so I don't know if it makes sense. But I swear my point is in there somewhere.)
no subject
Date: 2012-06-07 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-08 03:06 am (UTC)It comes in pints?
Date: 2012-06-08 03:35 am (UTC)well... 'laissez-faire' if you prefer.
people given large cups
As far as I know, the status quo does not involve mandatory Big Gulps. They are just one of the sizes on the menu for people to select.