Expanding Waistlines: Shrinking Sodas is a Start (Guest Voice)
Expanding Waistlines: Shrinking Sodas is a Start
by Tina Dupuy
Freedom is under attack! In the largest city of our giant country—the liberty to drink over 16 ounces of sugar syrup is in the crosshairs of the “gubmint.” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed (and will most likely implement) the nation’s first prohibition on over-sized soda at public venues.
Now the AstroTurf outrage over this alleged ban (in reality, a size reduction) is bubbling up! This week a rally brimming with dozens of soda jerks calling themselves the Million Big Gulp March, shook their high-fructose fists at the mayor. The polling reveals a polarizing 50/50 split in support/opposition to the ordinance. Throw in a couple of commercials by the beverage industry saying they’re offering more fewer-calorie choices—and you have pandemonium!
In 1908, New York City was also the first in the country to have an ordinance against public smoking. Sure it only applied to women and was quickly thrown out, but still, a hundred years later eliminating smoking tobacco just about everywhere has cut down American smokers to only 20 percent of adults (most of whom live in West Virginia). When compared to the 45 percent who smoked cigarettes in the 1950s—it’s a success. Was it a knock to the liberties of smokers? Yes. Do we care? Nope.
Because we are not islands and we live in what is referred to as civilization, laws for the greater good while inconveniencing a couple of people are part of the deal. We do this with traffic: Just because stopping for 90 seconds will make some individuals late doesn’t mean we should ditch all stop lights. So unless you’re cutting your own firewood and living off the grid in a Ted Kaczynski-style cabin somewhere—what you do more than likely affects the rest of us. And in the case of smoking cigarettes—fumigates the rest of us. (Full disclosure: I’m an ex-smoker and now I’m unapologetically militant. A cliché I know. Cough. Gag.)
“It’s not the role of government to save us from ourselves,” soda pop libertarians will say. That’s just not true. The government prohibits all kinds of things to “save us from ourselves”: lead paint, toxic children’s toys, asbestos, open sewers, terrorists, Occupy protesters, and swear words without a subscription.
In 1890s New York City, carbolic acid, a nasty neurotoxin with the ability to melt the skin off your face was—inexplicably—the go-to means of suicide in Lower Manhattan. It was easily available over-the-counter at drugstores, “a dime’s worth could kill several people” and it was the most gruesome death imaginable. The city’s coroner at the time, George P. LeBrun, reported 238 suicides in 1899 from carbolic acid. The following year the city’s health department (the same department that will more than likely ban giant sodas at New York movie theaters) made the organic compound frequently used as paint stripper require a doctor’s certificate for purchase. According to LeBrun’s autobiography, the following year the deaths by drinking carbolic acid plummeted to only a “handful of suicides.”
Did it eradicate suicide? Of course not. But was it sensible policy that arguably eased some suffering? Yes. Did it make us “less free?” Hardly.
And when it comes to obesity—we are the fattest generation of one of the fattest countries in the world. If obesity were a virus we’d have fundraisers and celebrity spokespeople drumming up panic. We’d have marches and vigils and Dateline specials. “Will you or your loved ones be next?!” We’d have a death toll counter on CNN. “Fifteen more victims claimed today!” But since it’s just our consuming too much (way too much) and economic forces encourage consuming too much (way too much) we waddle along not half as alarmed as we should be.
Here’s the thing with the obesity epidemic: Doing nothing is not fixing the problem.
Is a soda size ban a cure-all? No. Is it the best policy ever introduced? No. Will it make us all thinner? No. But it is a good start. Or really, a start.
© Copyright 2012 TinaDupuy.com, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the managing editor of Crooks and Liars. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com.
LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: This copyrighted cartoon by Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune, is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com
Share This
It is a very stupid start that is bound to make the next and hopefully smarter start much more difficult.
thirst… is enough to make even the fattest and laziness person stand up and go back for seconds.
If you are 50+ lbs over weight and want to continue getting fatter, banning larger drinks will not stop someone. They will just buy another drink and pay the extra for two drinks.
Why the problem with fat people, especially kids?
Lack of exercise. Mobil devices. TV. Schools. Parents
Schools???? Yep, how many now have PE where you at least had to move around for an hour?
Parents?? How many make their kids go out and play instead of plopping on the bed or in front of the TV using a cell phone or other toy?
Fat=too many intake calories less too few calories used.
People can drink soft drinks… and even have a big one occasionally… and not be overweight. Too much sugar can contribute to a big waste…. but foods such as oranges, blueberries, strawberries, etc. also have sugar and can lead to expanding waste sizes. Is Bloomberg suggesting that people only have one serving of orange juice, too?
Personally I don’t drink soft drinks (well, I had one on Thursday…. probably the first time in two years)… but I don’t like the idea of having government step in and regulate soft drinks.
Though I can see how it will get people to take notice and reduce their consumption. But I think those who are most in need of reducing their consumption of soft drinks will just buy another.
Buying two drinks is more expensive than buying one larger drink… so all this will do is increase the profits of people who sell soft drinks. Good for business! Perhaps that’s one way to get people back to work. According to Republican economic theory when businesses make money they will hire more people. So in fact what Bloomberg is doing is creating jobs (and I’m being sarcastic with this whole last paragraph).