‘Nanny’ Sam wages legitimate fight against the fats
What used to be known as the “War on Tobaccoâ€Â is starting to look more like a massacre. Smokers from California to Italy to Japan have been forced deep underground, feeding their nasty habit only in their cars, their houses, and anywhere outside, so long as it’s at least 3,000 feet from a public building.
Having safely secured the world̢۪s lungs, it appears the nanny state̢۪s next target is the stomach.
New York City̢۪s health commissioner Thomas Frieden, who orchestrated one of the first bans on indoor smoking in 2002, is leading a new war on trans fats and salt, and is even trying to impose a tax on soda in order to curb the consumer appetite for it.
Would you buy a can of Coke if it cost three or four dollars? How about five bucks for a two liter bottle?
And it̢۪s probably only a matter of time before California joins this movement.
People who get a hankering for “the fizzâ€Â may soon feel the pain that smokers do. The question is, do they deserve it?
The smoking battle was won largely on the grounds of secondhand smoke, which causes harm to people who are around smokers. The Coke battle will be waged on another premise: that soda (and other junk food) isn̢۪t actually food because you don̢۪t need it to survive.
The libertarians will rail, “Personal choice! The nanny state is trying to save us from ourselves again!â€Â
Photo illustration by Bryan Cole
They are exactly right, but it̢۪s still a good idea. The truth is, there is considerable evidence that we really do need saving from ourselves. As we all know, obesity and diabetes are huge problems in the central San Joaquin Valley, and there is no reason to believe that people will wake up one day and suddenly change their ways.
And no one is going to make you quit consuming anything, they will just make it more inconvenient to do so. Think of the old imaginary devil on your left shoulder arguing with the angel on your right. The angel says, “That’s bad for you.â€Â and the devil responds, “Yea, but it tastes so good.â€Â Apparently the devil is winning most of these battles in the Valley, and with good reason.
Isn̢۪t it frustrating that junk food is both cheaper and better tasting than health food? Don̢۪t lie, you know there̢۪s nothing better than a grease-drenched dollar menu double cheeseburger.
But if soda and junk food go up in price, the angel will have more in her arsenal. She can then say, “That’s bad for you, and look how much it costs! You can’t afford it and you don’t need it anyway.â€Â
Like it or not, some form of food policing is probably coming to a restaurant near you, so be positive.
Don̢۪t think of it as big brother, think of it as reinforcements for that lovely angel on your shoulder, the one you wish won more often.
Who can argue with that?
Garth Clifton • Apr 22, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I cannot disagree more with the political views expressed in the Collegian. Such a tax on sodas and sweets would sink the poor and is just another form of draconian control that is immoral and abusive. Thank god your editors do not run this country because you would run it into the ground.
Garth Clifton • Apr 23, 2009 at 4:35 am
I cannot disagree more with the political views expressed in the Collegian. Such a tax on sodas and sweets would sink the poor and is just another form of draconian control that is immoral and abusive. Thank god your editors do not run this country because you would run it into the ground.
casas vizcaya • Apr 21, 2009 at 3:41 am
Why not just go whole hog and tax all foods according to their nutritional content? Apples, no tax. Twinkies, high tax. It seems to be the way they are headed. Would it be a good idea?
casas vizcaya • Apr 21, 2009 at 10:41 am
Why not just go whole hog and tax all foods according to their nutritional content? Apples, no tax. Twinkies, high tax. It seems to be the way they are headed. Would it be a good idea?
whatever • Apr 20, 2009 at 11:42 am
Yeah but the logic is a little flawed. What if I want to buy ice cream, which I do maybe once every four months, but it’s $10 a scoop just because too many fatties overindulged? That’s not fair.
That’s like if my car insurance goes up every time someone else crashes. That’s probably what happens on some level, but you get my drift.
However, this obesity thing is a real problem because of the strain it puts on the healthcare system.
But who says something needs to be necessary to be good? We sure wouldn’t need college newspapers if that was the logic for other things! Or TV, or music.
whatever • Apr 20, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Yeah but the logic is a little flawed. What if I want to buy ice cream, which I do maybe once every four months, but it’s $10 a scoop just because too many fatties overindulged? That’s not fair.
That’s like if my car insurance goes up every time someone else crashes. That’s probably what happens on some level, but you get my drift.
However, this obesity thing is a real problem because of the strain it puts on the healthcare system.
But who says something needs to be necessary to be good? We sure wouldn’t need college newspapers if that was the logic for other things! Or TV, or music.