Let me start today's column by asking a question: "What kinds of issues arise in the mind of a political scientist when the mayor of a large city decides to ban sugary drinks that come in containers larger than 16 ounces?" If you answered: the separation of power, the balance between liberty and order, and the slippery slope of the state you would be right.
In case you have not been following this story, it is a real case. Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, declared such a ban on drinks sold in movie theatres, from street carts and in restaurants. He made the move because he is concerned about the high rates of obesity in the United States. This ban raised a number of eyebrows and also a number of cheers. It also offers students of political science lots of fodder for debate.
First, it is critical to think about some of the facts. A New York Times article published on May 30, 2012 says that "...more than half of [New York City] adults are either obese or overweight." The same article cites "Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, [who] blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years."
Presumably there are other causes but it does appear as though sugary drinks are a real cause of weight gain. With this in mind, Mayor Bloomberg decided that it would be a good idea to ban these drinks or, at least, limit the cup size so as to force an individual to reduce their consumption. Now, again as the NYT article points out, Bloomberg's decision is not without broader precedent, there have been restrictions in other jurisdictions on "smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices." As a matter of common sense it seems reasonable that I do not need to drink a bucket of soda pop but the fact is, there are bigger questions at hand here.
The first issue that arises is the state's reach into personal freedom. Should the state decide to take a large cup of soda pop off of my "table of choices?" Civil libertarians would argue that the state should not be able to restrict my choices and that I should be the only one who can decides if I choose the large drink or not.
But, let's frame the question a bit differently. Should that state decide to ban the large cup if I cannot make the correct choice for myself? The use of the word "correct" changes the whole meaning of the question. Who decides what "the correct choice" is? If the only person I am harming is me then why should the state care? Potentially, of course, I am harming other people because my choice means that I am likely to get sick and thus become dependent on the larger community for my care. As Americans move into the world of state funded health care, this question becomes more salient.
These issues are interesting but I think there is one more pressing factor that needs to be considered. The context of consumer pressure and capitalism makes the decision to refuse the larger cup hard to resist. We exist in culture that is driven by the need to consume. So, when I go to a movie theatre or restaurant there is always an assumption that larger is better. If I ask for a small drink, the vendor appears incredulous when I say I don't want a larger size even though I could get it for the bargain price of just a few more cents. I don't want it because I don't want to drink it. I am not trying to save money. Yet, in every opportunity someone has to sell me something more - something larger - it is taken for granted that the economic bargain is better than the health benefit. In this case, shouldn't the state try to help me to resist that consumer push?
In case you are wondering how this turned out, the New York State Supreme Court said that for a number of reasons the ban was "arbitrary and capricious" and would be struck down. This may have ended this particular ban, but I don't think it has ended the debate.
