Reply With QuoteToo much government micromanaging. The government has no business telling anyone what size soda to sell, or telling anyone they have to list calorie totals on menus etc.
Sugared drinks limited to 16 ounces or less, per container
Full ban on smoking in restaurants and bars
Nutritional info required on chain restaurant menus
Motorcycle helmet laws
Car seatbelt laws
55 mph interstate highway speed limit
"Fat tax" on packaged and/or other candies, snacks, soft drinks
High cigarette taxes (>= $2 pack)
Alcohol - illegal
Tobacco - illegal
Marijuana - illegal
Cocaine - illegal
Heroin - illegal
Pseudoephedrine by prescription only
NOTE - The poll choices are framed such that in each case, checking the box indicates support for the restrictive option (the government should ban/tax/restrict as indicated).
In some cases, the status quo is that the restriction is in place (but some might advocate relaxing/eliminating it) and in some cases, the restriction is not in place. Of course, the status quo also depends on your political jurisdiction.
===
Some other notes:
WRT a "fat tax", I'm talking about a specific tax on these items beyond the taxes that normal food products carry.
WRT pseudoephedrine - it can be used (always is used?) in the production of meth. The public policy question basically boils down to trading off the cost and inconvenience of prescription requirements vs. the reduction in meth production from making it harder to get.
Cigarette taxes discourage use and raise revenue, but, well, they're taxes, and they have disproportionate impact on relatively lower income folks.
===
So, there's been a bit of hubbub about Bloomberg's idea of banning sweetened drinks in sizes larger than 16 ounces.
More generally, there are many instances where the government (at various levels) is involved in public health, or where some folks advocate for it to be involved in public health. I'm not talking ObamaCare and the like, but rather, more narrowly targeted measures to address some public health measure.
So, whaddaya think?
===
EDIT - clarification - WRT whether some substances should be (or should not be) "illegal", I'm referring to roughly the policy regime that already is in place in the U.S. around the latter 3 substances, and was in place for alcohol during Prohibition. For tobacco - I guess assume something roughly like Prohibition or current marijuana laws.
Last edited by Phil_Stein; 06-06-2012 at 03:25 PM.
Too much government micromanaging. The government has no business telling anyone what size soda to sell, or telling anyone they have to list calorie totals on menus etc.
By illegal, do you mean that use is criminalized?
To be fair, this was really helpful for us on a recent trip to San Francisco. We were in a Starbucks having coffee one morning and I decided I'd like one of those lemon bars - just for the hell of it. I walked over to it, saw it was 400 calories and quietly walked back to my table. :) It actually MIGHT do some good if listing that stuff was required by everyone.or telling anyone they have to list calorie totals on menus etc.
I'm definitely in favor of smoking bans everywhere indoors and anyplace there are gatherings of people. Even when I smoked I was in favor of smoking bans. So much nicer to be able to go to a restaurant or to see a band and not have to choke down a bunch of smoke. And putting calorie content on menus just makes sense. Once I know I'm gonna be snarfing 1100 calories at a sitting I'm far less likely to do it.
I'm a little less in favor using the tax code to force health habits, but in the case of cigarettes anything that prices them too high for kids is alright with me.
Aaron - I edited my OP - see the last paragraph.
In general, for bans/regulations etc. that already are in place (or have been in place), I'm assuming roughly the status quo (or restoration of what used to be in place). For proposed stuff, assume implementation and enforcement roughly along the lines of other similar/related measures in the U.S..
I believe informing the public and allowing them to make an informed decision should be mandatory. Calorie information, MPG, electric usage for appliances, etc... I'm all for these being required. I don't support limiting or taxing things like large sodas or 2000 calorie cheeseburgers. As long as the vendor is providing the proper information, people should be allowed to make their own poor choices.
I'm also all for public health. Outlawing smoking in indoor public areas is a no brainer to me. I understand a smoker's point that you're taking away his/her "choice" to smoke in public. But a smoker is taking away my choice to breath air not laden in cigarette smoke.
I'm on the fence over helmet and seatbelt laws. On the one hand, I'm all for letting people do stupid stuff that only puts themselves at risk. On the other hand, their idiocy leads to higher insurance rates for me due to the increased medical expenses that need to be covered.
This insurance argument could be extended to the high calorie food/drink discussion. However, insurance companies are already adjusting rates based on the weight of their customer. If you're pricing policies based on the habits of the policy holder, I'm fine with that.
...following my own train of thought. If an insurance company allowed you to declare you won't be wearing a seatbelt or helmet, and insure you are a different rate that doesn't affect me, that would help. Then, if you declared you are a seatbelt wearer, but have an accident in which you did not wear a seatbelt, your injuries would not be covered. That would put me firmly in the "no need for a seatbelt or helmet law" group. (with the exception of children - I'm fine forcing parents to put their children in car seats)
I wouldn't have even voted for motorcyle helmet laws if I didn't know as a certainty that the public would be the ultmate guarantor of treatment/disability benefits for the inevitable head injuries that would result. Collective burdens demand collective restrictions.
I see I'm the only one so far who has voted against smoking bans in restaurants and bars.
That's a bit odd. I'm not a full-on libertarian - I supported a number of the restrictive choices. I'm not a smoker, have a disdain for tobacco, and frankly, a modest disdain for those who choose to smoke (sorry smokers).
That said, if some bars or restaurants want to create an environment supportive of those who smoke, I think they should be allowed to. If the bar owner smokes, the bartender smokes, and the patrons smoke, what's so wrong with that? I assume that in, say, NYC, in the absence of such a ban, there would be a mixture of bars and restaurants that would allow and would not allow smoking. Folks who feel strongly one way or the other could choose which to patronize, or even work at.
I marked the seatbelt and motorcycle ones, but that's with a caveat. I think they should only be mandatory for children. Once you're an adult, I have no problem with you making stupid decisions that could kill you.
There also needs to be much stronger anti-fraud enforcement of nutritional information. A vector for individuals or groups (I know of a non-profit or too, myes) to bring complaints in a strong fashion would be excellent; bomb calorimeters aren't that expensive.
You buy a 36 oz coke at a fast food place and get ice....how much soda do you end up with anyway, maybe 20oz? I do have to laugh at how the 36oz soda is now a medium and not a large. The large in most places are 48oz and are huge.
Generally speaking, I'm for government regulation/intervention when there's a) large information disparity, or b) potential collateral damage. I believe I should be free to be an idiot, including doing things grossly harmful to myself. However, that stops when my actions are grossly harmful to others, not just myself.
Against, though not strongly. There's a large information disparity here about the health consequences. Seems pretty heavy handed nanny-state for the benefits actually achieved, but I'm not an expert in health policy, so I could be convinced otherwise."Sugared drinks limited to 16 ounces or less, per container
For. Second hand smoke makes this an easy one for me. The damage to others outweighs my personal right to be an idiot.Full ban on smoking in restaurants and bars
Support. Information disparity fixed by information disclosure. Big fan of this one.Nutritional info required on chain restaurant menus
Mixed feelings. Square in the "my right to be an idiot" area. However, the benefits (especially for helmet laws) so far outweigh the costs, I lean towards it being a worthwhile thing. Pragmatism wins over idealism for me here.Motorcycle helmet laws
Car seatbelt laws
Against. With modern cars, the maximum safe speed is very different than it was when '55' was enacted. What that speed should be is going to be highly situationally dependent, and we should use science to find the sweet spots for traffic efficiency and safety.55 mph interstate highway speed limit
Generally opposed, so long as nutritional information is accurately provided."Fat tax" on packaged and/or other candies, snacks, soft drinks
Support. Ordinarily, I would oppose this, but the cigarette companies have misbehaved so egregiously that punitive measures are called for.High cigarette taxes (>= $2 pack)
Legalize 'em. No-brainer to me. Regulate and tax.Alcohol - illegal
Tobacco - illegal
Marijuana - illegal
Unsure. I want to say "legalize these, too," but I don't know enough about them to be able to intelligently weigh the costs.Cocaine - illegal
Heroin - illegal
You mean behind the counter at the pharmacy, not prescription, right? Or maybe I'm just behind the times.Pseudoephedrine by prescription only
As I understand it, this isn't a public health question, at least directly. It's to restrict access to it for meth labs. As such, assuming it works (does it? I haven't seen numbers.), I can see this being a worthwhile restriction on individual convenience to enable a larger societal good.
Just in the interest of accuracy, I accidentally marked the Pseudoephedrine one yes. I just glanced at it and I was thinking of the law that makes pharmacies keep that behind the counter and keep count of it. That law is fine. As a hay fever sufferer, making in prescription-only would suck.
Originally Posted by billt721
Society has to shoulder the cost of peoples' health treatment. My taxes pay for the treatment of people who idiotically bike, drive, or w/e without a seatbelt.
Fundamentally, the government - and therefore the taxpayers - have an interest in the matter because the alternative is to permit people to bleed out and die on the street, and that's ethically unacceptable.
Treat smoking in bars as a workplace safety issue instead of a public health issue. You can't allow workers to operate in an environment that is unsafe or unhealthy. Put OSHA in charge.
Ideally, insurance companies would treat those people differently. That doesn't really solve the problem of people without insurance costing the taxpayers money, but I wouldn't complain one bit if the free emergency treatment was revoked.
Just to level set on the 55 mph law. It was actually enacted due to the gas shortages of the 70's. 55 was found to be the optimal speed to balance getting someone where they were going and maximizing their MPH. The reduction in accidents and deaths was a happy byproduct.
At the time the law made sense. Now? I don't know that 55 is still the optimal speed for MPH, especially given hybrids whose electrics kick in only at highway speed. From a safety standpoint, I would have to see studies with accident rate to speed limit ratios.
Pseudoephedrine by prescription is a real thing. I *think* it's the law in a few places, and proposed in others. This is different, and more severe, than behind the counter laws, or laws that require you (but not your doctor) to sign off on purchases (and that track things to target abuse).
WRT the 55 mph speed limit. It was originally passed, IIUC, as a fuel savings measure, but my memories of the proponents of the 55 mph limit circa the late 80s were that they were then mainly advocating for it on safety reasons.
===
Edit - I hadn't seen JFrazer's post before I posted the above. Again, while the original rationale may have been fuel economy, later advocacy centered, to my recollection, on safety.
I might add that you forgot one important one that we've all since accepted as normal: iodized salt.
Mark Bittman, NY Times food writer, had an opinion piece about the drinks in NYC today:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...at-is-food/?hp
Finally, my opinion mostly is in line with this line from his piece:
To (loosely) paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, your right to harm yourself stops when I have to pay for it.
Clay, that argument can be extended to support virtually any proposed public health measure.
Ban/ration/portion control for virtually any food with relatively high levels of fat, salt, sugar or the like.
Ban activities with elevated risks (including various sports and adventurous activities).
Absolutely. And that's why we get to fight about it. :)
So long as folks' agree that there is a role for government in the process, it's absolutely reasonable to have fights about how to draw the line.
Yeah, that's why I set a fairly high bar for government bans. IMO, motorcycle helmet laws probably clear that bar. 20 ounce sodas do not.
I'm a bit surprised that support for the smoking ban in restaurants is higher than, say, support for keeping heroin illegal.
I just wanted to post in order to thank all the cigarette smokers in my area for the stadium they bought me, and in which you are now prohibited from lighting up (hey, it's the law). You guys are awesome fans!
Principle is nice, but it usually takes a backseat to experience. Most people hate to have to breathe in other people's smoke if it's avoidable. Heroin users are relatively rare and pretty docile. I doubt very many people would be in favor of making, say, methamphetamine legal even if they're in favor of making pot legal.
I would think a lot more people have eaten in a restaurant than used heroin. ; )
As far as the smoking ban goes, I understand the libertarian perspective of your property, your right to use it as you see fit. Were it possible to have an establishment run by smokers for smokers, I would have no issue with that. Actually I think it's called Las Vegas. (My advice: if you don't smoke, NEVER accept a smoking room at a hotel. My eyes never stopped watering.)
But business owners will always err on the side of not turning away business, especially if they are afraid the other guy down the street will benefit. This leads to a state where no one is willing to offend the smoking customer base by breaking ranks (never mind the non-smoking guy who has to put up with it). Inertia applies to people, too. Right or wrong, smoking bans at the municipal level take away both competitive issues and individualized pressure on the business owner. And likely represent the wishes of the general population as well, especially given changing attitutdes.
Well, I think there is a fair amount of "if I don't like it, we should ban it for everyone" thinking that goes on not only with regard to restaurant and bar smoking bans, but also a lot of public health and other issues.
I think that's why marijuana is still mostly illegal after all these years. A relatively small percentage of the voting public smokes marijuana. They don't like it, think it's bad, so why should they legalize it?
(FWIW, I don't smoke marijuana, but from my relatively shallow understanding of the medical and other issues, it's not particularly harmful, and so, unless and until I see further data that changes my opinion, I cautiously support legalizing it.)
Why? Banning smoking in restaurants was both successful and mostly bereft of bad ramifications, with huge benefits.
On the other hand, the War On Drugs has been totally unsuccessful and almost completely bereft of benefits, with huge negative ramifications.
Seems like a pretty rational position to me.
It's somewhat odd that the government requires us to carry automobile insurance in order to have a driver's license but doesn't require us to carry health insurance in order to drive. Either way you look at it, if you're going over 35, all the helmet does is prevent your brain from spattering all over the road when you crash.
Nevertheless, seatbelt laws and helmet laws serve the same purpose: reducing the financial burden on the state of caring for (health) uninsured people who are in bad accidents and end up in the hospital.
the 20 oz soda law is silly, in my opinion, because people can just buy two sodas if they want more. Buy your 60 oz cup and then buy "three" 20 oz servings of soda, all of which are dispensed into the cup, etc....
Obesity and diabetes are huge problems and need to be addressed in some sort of systematic manner, in my opinion, because the public have shown the inability to address it as individuals. I have absolutely no idea how that would happen, though. I don't think that the "educate people and leave it up to them to make the right choice" argument is going to work in this case.
p.s. remember when smoking was allowed on airplanes? ugh. I flew to China on a smoking flight a long time ago and it was a horrid horrid experience.
Posting Permissions