Thursday, October 7, 2010
DOES SUGAR DRINK LAW DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POOR?
There is something profoundly uncomfortable about watching billionaire New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson waxing on about the evils of sugar soft drinks and people accepting public assistance. There's not much dispute that these drinks, consumed in excess, can contribute to childhood obesity. But so can too many banana splits or french fries. There are two questions. One, shouldn't it be the responsibility of parents to monitor their kids caloric intake? If junior is hoovering burgers and milkshakes and not exercising, how is it Mike Bloomberg's business? But here's where it gets tricky. The proposed legislation would only apply to poor people on food stamps and other government welfare. The implication is 'THESE PEOPLE" have no family structure or dietary filter, so the government has to become their parent. Bloomberg argues these sodas will have these children in the health care system if we don't stop them. I get it but it just doesn't feel right on so many levels. I don't want the government telling me what I can eat, drink or smoke. If I want to weigh 400 lbs. what's it to Mike Bloomberg or David Paterson? The fact that these regulations would only apply to poor people is offensive. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
why is it the government's business? because the government (red: taxpayers) are PAYING for the food stamps. Should we allow food stamp recipients to buy alcohol with food stamps? that's a drink too. but that is already barred from the food stamp program. Food stamp participants can buy all the unhealthy items they want, just not with taxpayer money.
So by your reasoning, the government should be able to regulate Grandma and Grandpop's booze intake or choice of restaurant if they're on Social Security?
Post a Comment