Nanny Nanny, Poo Poo

The recent debate over banning sugary drinks in New York City has predictably turned into name-calling on both sides. I was sucked in to this tactic in a recent article in which a reader replied by calling me an idiot and so on. No big deal, I've been called worse, as they say. I always remain civil during debate until the other side fires their salvo, leaving me with no option but to unleash a fierce, fact-based assault. I'm like the Hulk. Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry. Actually, I have fun at their expense and I enjoy reading their insults. At least their fingers are getting exercise, if nothing else.

NYC has proved to be an intense battle ground over the quintessential right of choice. The choice, being able to purchase a sugary drink in excess of 16 oz, is being taken away by Mayor Bloomberg in a far-reaching, autocratic move based on the notion that government knows best. Bloomberg said last week on CBS This Morning "if government's purpose isn't to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don't know what its purpose is." That sentiment, right there, is what has long concerned people that government has lost it's sense of purpose. And that has led to average citizens voicing their opinions on things such as the soda ban, because they fear the slippery slope effect. And, it is those opinions that have brought out the other side, convinced it is in fact the government's role to protect us, cradle to grave.

There have been many comparisons made to the restrictions on the sale and use of tobacco. My rebuttal to that argument is tobacco will harm the user, but some science suggests that it can also harm non-users through second-hand smoke. I don't know all the science about second-hand smoke, but, if smoking is proven to cause cancer, then I don't think it's a good idea to blow your smoke in my child's face. If science has already said is toxic to you, then it could potentially be harmful to others? Irrational, self-proclaimed subject matter experts, however, will get nasty and personal when data disproves or shoots holes in their defense. It's simple; my contention is the act of me drinking soda can not physically harm a child sitting in the same room. It's not the same as cigarettes, so don't go there. For that belief, I have been accused of being fat, lazy, an idiot, a moron, stupid, not caring about fat people and, last but not least, racist.

I was wondering about that last tag until I read a comment by someone about how "poor people" and "low-income" folks are basically forced to purchase large unhealthy drinks such as soda because they can't afford the "more expensive, healthier" drinks. That idea is just one step away from turning the debate on it's ear by claiming a higher percentage of blacks are poorer than whites, therefore, being against a large soda ban makes you likely to be "against" blacks. That is where the debate has shifted, unfortunately.

There are groups that are trying to defeat the soda ban because of it's broad and not very well thought out approach. Mayor Bloomberg has adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate, with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being passionate about obesity isn't enough to slap a ban on those who aren't obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary drinks. The unintended consequences of the ban are merely collateral damage, as they always are, for the feel-gooders in our society who claim to know better than we do about what to put into our bodies. One group, New Yorkers for Beverage Choice, has taken up the fight against the ban. They claim to lay out what the ban will and will not do. They also place an emphasis on moderation, diet and exercise. How about that? Three seemingly forgotten pillars of personal responsibility when it comes to health. Other groups, such as The American Beverage Association (ABA), have also spoken out against the ban. Groups like this will be demonized for having companies such as Coke and Pepsi show their support. What would you expect Coke and Pepsi to do? Apparently, there are those who feel an industry under attack should just sit back and take it. A recent tweet by @MicheleRSimon warned her followers by tweeting "Big Bev astro-turf alert" seeming to infer that Coke and Pepsi's support for New Yorkers for Beverage Choice somehow makes the group a non-organic effort. Michele has an affinity for the use of the term "big" on her blog. That's a code word meant to identify a company as "greedy polluters". You know, big sugar, big tobacco, big oil, big agriculture. Pretty much any big industry that prefers to make a big profit. Michele, who holds a JD, says on her Twitter profile "I am a public health lawyer, writer, and advocate for food justice. My book, Appetite for Profit, exposes food industry marketing and lobbying." Bam! What catches my attention are "advocate", "justice", "profit" and "exposes". That's all I need to hear to understand Michele's position. Call me short-sided, but I just read a book by it's cover. And you know what, I don't have a problem with her. She is using her experiences, education, knowledge and, presumably her money (I don't know for sure), to advance her agenda. I see nothing wrong with that. But, don't demonize corporations for defending their industry. In the spirit of full disclosure, Michele and I are now dating on Twitter.

However, the efforts of groups like New Yorkers for Beverage Choice and the ABA need to go beyond the ban's current theater of operations and fight an urban, house to house assault. We are fighting a much larger scale effort, brought on by those interested in simply penalizing a specific group at the behest of another by using class warfare as part of the debate. I ask the Bloomberg supporters this; Rather than making sure I can't buy a 32oz ice cold soda at a movie, why not focus on making sure the morbidly obese person in front of me gets a little exercise once in a while? Wouldn't that do more to combat obesity? Or, is that too mean of me to ask?