Shall we have a Nanny State or an Unrestrained Corporate Empire?
As Michael Bloomberg leaves the mayoralty his health legacy is bitterly contested. During his three terms in office he sought to remake the city, shaping decisions on diet, tobacco, physical activity, and firearms (see Table). Many of his policies have served as models nationally (and even internationally) such as posting calories (adopted in the Affordable Care Act), the trans fat ban (proposed by the FDA), and smoke-free public places (now in most major cities). Over 20 food companies adopted his voluntary salt-reduction guidelines. But, Bloombergs policies have also drawn the ire of vocal critics and sometimes the rebuke of judges.
Two controversial moves came just as he was leaving officea portion limit on sugary drinks and a tobacco purchase age of 21 years (the highest in the nation). The courts struck down the portion limit, but the case is now on appeal to New Yorks highest court. And critics expressed amazement that an 18 year-old can drink alcohol, drive a car, and enlist in the military, but now cannot buy cigarettes in New York City. (See my essay in the Hastings Center Report http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/HCR/Detail.aspx?id=6536).
The public broadly accepts the exercise of infectious disease control powers, for example, to stop the spread tuberculosis, SARS, or novel influenzas. But they often bristle at the new public health, aimed at the growing obesity epidemiccausing diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Critics frame their arguments in intellectual terms, claiming that chronic disease policies are unproven scientifically, inconsistently applied, unfair to minorities, and undemocratic. I want to dispel these intellectual arguments, and then get to what is really bothering a vocal segment of the publicthe belief that government has absolutely no justification for reaching into the lives of adults, who are perfectly capable of making choices for themselves.
. . .
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/12/bloombergs-nanny-state-refuting-opposition-to-the-new-public-health/
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)People in close proximity, like in cities, will always have authoritarians.
The problem is they usually miss the big picture and end up focusing just past the ends of their noses. And who is that just past the end of their nose?
Not the rich of the 1% who are stealing the environment, the future, and the media, but rather someone they can wield power over; Poor working People.
I see these measly little laws as an attack on the weak all-the-while allowing people like bush/cheney to fly away. It does, from this mountain, look like insanity run amok in the cities.
Addison
(299 posts)You might recall that the 1% includes those who own Coke, McDonalds, and Big Tobacco. And they vastly prefer having no laws stand in their way of making a buck polluting the bodies of the Poor working People.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But misguided. It does what I say; puts authority on the weak while skipping over the real causes of the calamities; The Cokes etc. Laws are not being wrapped around those corps. They are still allowed to prey.
elleng
(130,952 posts)'they (we) often bristle at the new public health, aimed at the growing obesity epidemiccausing diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.'
Lucky Luciano
(11,257 posts)As the article states, many of his ideas have become models elsewhere.
The sugary drink rule us no big deal either. If you want 32 oz. of syrupy goop in your system, then just buy 2 16 oz. drinks.