Nanny State Watch, Ctd

Jun 1 2012 @ 12:35pm

Alex Koppelman's uninspired defense of Bloomberg's soda ban:

[T]he ban doesn’t have to work that well, or really at all, to be a success. Even if the ban does nothing but shift the discussion about what the government can do to protect the health of its citizens in his favor, Nanny Bloomberg will have won, and we’ll be better off for it.

Shorter Koppelman: Bloomberg's ineffective government nannying will be a success if it leads to more ineffective government nannying. John Cole, like so many others, is against the ban:

Stupid, paternalistic, and completely unenforceable. My old platoon sergeant once told me that when it comes to keeping the guys in line, you never make a rule you won’t enforce, you never make a rule you can’t enforce, and you never make a rule you shouldn’t enforce. This new ban fails on at least the first two.

Bettina Elias Siegel, no fan of the soda industry, also disagrees with the ban:

[W]hile it's true that Bloomberg's other, similarly coercive health measure – the banning of smoking in restaurants – was controversial when announced but is now widely accepted, one key difference is that smoking in restaurants not only adversely affects the smoker, but also the non-smokers around him. With soda, though, there is no immediate harm to bystanders that might otherwise justify the proposal in the minds of many New Yorkers.