Bloomberg and Soda: The Prevailing Nanny-State Cultures in America's Largest Cities

Mayor Mike Bloomberg recently hit headlines, not for his continuing fight against tobacco use, but this time against soda consumption in New York City's restaurants and eateries. To those who follow politics, this really isn't much of a surprise since New York has banned many things in its recent history, such has handguns, cigarette smoking in restaurants (Bloomberg has banned smoking in parks and beaches, too), and trans fats. Now Bloomberg is pursuing banning baby formula in hospitals and limiting the size of sodas that can be served in restaurants and eateries. I have long said the worst thing about such laws is that, while they are made with good intentions, once afforded the opportunity the people in power rarely stop at passing just one law. Just as New York and cigarettes, they were banned in just bars and now the parks and beaches all around the city. Trans fats have since been banned, drawing the ire of gourmet cooking establishments in the city.  Now soda consumption is on the chopping block. Where does it end? After this cap on serving size, will it stop there? A look at Bloomberg's dogged attack on tobacco products says no. That is the fine line you walk when you invite the government into your personal lives (the act of inviting it might not even be due to activism, but due to inaction as well), and as we will see with Chicago and Los Angeles, it seemingly doesn't end with just New York.

The City of Chicago frequently gets cited in this debate due to its gun ban, which was struck down by the nation's highest court in 2010. The Supreme Court had analyzed the near ten year long ban, as noted in the Huffington Post:

Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City's handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.

Mayor Daley of Chicago remained defiant following the ban removal and vowed to restrict handgun ownership in the city. The actual success of such bans notwithstanding, this isn't the first time Chicago has flirted with such "nanny state" laws.  In 2005, they passed a law banning smoking in nearly everywhere indoors in the city, and have had a long standing window tint law that has been very frustrating for commuters and tourists. The window tint law in itself stemmed from good intentions, it was a result of a police officer being killed by gunmen inside a heavily tinted car. But there are so many things wrong with such a mentality of completely banning something just because of one violent act. Chicago too, joined the call of some animal rights groups by banning Foie Gras. After being constantly lampooned and defiantly called-out on the law however, it was repealed in 2008 and subsequently replaced with a ban on plastic bags that same year. Also in 2008, the city absurdly dabbled with the idea of banning tiny plastic bags frequently used by drug dealers for pushing their wares.  You get the point. I think when, as a city council, you actually believe that not allowing drug dealers access to smaller plastic bags will have any affect on the drug trade, you really need to take a step back and not only re-evaluate your policies, but also your sanity and understanding of human nature and markets. But, there is more. As we move westward across the United States, we can see what our friends in Los Angeles have enacted in recent years.

California has a long history of being a first-mover on perceived health and safety issues, so it is no surprise that Los Angeles willingly passes a host of its own laws to that goal as well. The State of California jumped on the trans-fats ban bandwagon and Los Angeles took this fight against unhealthy food one step further, actually placing a moratorium on fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. Now you can say that, the New York Soda Ban impacts all businesses equally so it isn't that invasive, but now we have a ban in place that the local government is openly controlling the market and pushing towards one type of business, with favoritism in this case to eateries that are deemed "healthy." This is dangerous as, what is considered healthy now? What is the next edict going to touch upon? No more red meat? Death to carbs? Lawmakers will abuse their power and force their will so long as you let them and I think that is a sound observation to take from this post. But LA isn't only about healthy food, they are tinkering with the idea of banning pet sales in pet stores (what?) and plastic bags and styrofoam cups too, were earlier bans.

A major gripe I have with some of these bans isn't that every single one is chipping away at the foundation of our dear republic or anything dramatic like that, but that these cities are dealing with a host of other issues already.  NYC is still conducting a stop-and-frisk law which is largely unpopular, blatantly unconstitutional, and currently allows any police officer to literally stop-and-frisk anyone they deem suspicious. As we know the NYPD has had its fare share of scandals and as well as the CPD and LAPD.  Point is, these cities have better things to do than to be playing nanny to their denizens. Real problems that require sound oversight, like the budgetary concerns they all face, not dictating where you can smoke or what you can eat or how much soda you can drink.

In closing, I feel a large amount of Americans are now stuck in the middle between two segments of the population, card carrying Republicans and Democrats, who both argue for large government, in just different ways (and in some cases, completely unbeknownst to them). On the left, we have the aforementioned cities as great examples, which feature bans on foie gras, handguns, cigarettes, plastic bags, fast food, soda, and much more. But on the right, as I have mentioned in my previous two posts, we are now being pushed to large government, but on the issues of gay rights, abortion, religion in school, and further prohibition of drugs on state and federal levels. Regardless of the rhetoric one may spin in regards to defending either of these platforms, we are essentially being told how to live and what to do with our lives to an absurd extent when we have much more dire issues to tackle. What happened to freedom in America?  Essentially we have two groups on far ends of the political spectrum, each pushing for mandates based on their moral views, leaving us in the middle standing on ground that is quickly eroding beneath us, like a sand castle stubbornly resisting the rising tide.

The problem is that we see many of these issues, such as soda restrictions or smoking as issues that do not necessarily affect everyone, so one might think it is just fine to support a ban on such things since you aren't the one directly affected by it, but I think the facts in this post show that sooner or later, they will ban something that will affect you and one will ask, how did it come to this? Any affront to personal freedoms should be resisted fiercely, just on principal, regardless of our personal opinion of the act in question. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in her biography of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  In the face of such big-brother mentality, I think it is best to cite the wisdom of one of our favorite Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, as noted on his famous Fugio Cent:

Let's stop telling people how to live their lives,  hold ourselves accountable for our own problems, and get back to what makes America great, freedom and more importantly, freedom of choice. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that.


References:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57478622-10391704/research-finds-nyc-soda-ban-would-cut-63-calories-per-fast-food-trip-would-that-have-any-impact/
http://www.khou.com/news/health/NYCs-plan-to-ban-baby-formula-in-hospitals-164420306.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-usa-newyork-bloomberg-idUSBRE87F0CP20120816
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/02/03/nyc_smoking_ban_extended_to_parks/
http://gothamist.com/2006/12/05/health_departme.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/nyregion/03smoking.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-28/justice/us.scotus.handgun.ban_1_justices-two-years-gun-control-justices-john-paul-stevens?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0701/Chicago-to-allow-handgun-ownership-under-revised-gun-law
http://www.wbez.org/story/news/local/chicago-smoking-ban-takes-effect-january-16
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/04/04/court-battle-brews-over-tinted-car-window-laws/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras_controversy
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d5_1343348937&comments=1
http://www.chitowndailynews.org/2008/05/07/Recycling-advocates-pan-city-s-plastic-bag-law-14602.html
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/drugs/TV4SF4HJ4BG22H30P
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16fastfood.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/09/03/us-fastfood-losangeles-idUKN0343855220080903
http://www.examiner.com/article/los-angeles-ordinance-proposes-banning-pet-sales-at-pet-stores
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2461615/Los-Angeles-bans-new-fast-food-outlets-and-California-outlaws-trans-fats.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department_corruption_and_misconduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_Cent