On the NYC ban on big sugary drinks

A few people have asked me what I think about Bloomberg's city-wide ban on sugary drinks above 16 oz.

When it comes to rule-making, I subscribe to a view that looks at "exit" and "voice".

  • Voice is influence on how the rules are made (e.g., voting).
  • Exit is being able to leave and go somewhere else if you don't like the rules (e.g., emigration).

When the power of exit is high (city-level), I have fewer problems with more restrictive rules. If you don't like them, just leave.

When the power of voice is high, people have control over the actual rules - so it's more or less self-governance.

The big problem is when there are weak powers of voice AND exit. This is the case with federal legislation, since my vote has a negligible effect on the rules that get made (no voice) and moving to another country bears substantial costs (no exit).

So that said, here's how I think about the recent ban.

Politics

  • I have far greater tolerance for these types of decisions when they are made at the local level.
  • For a city-level decision, it's easy enough to move to another city if it is that important to someone.
  • I like that Singapore exists as a possibility in the world, even if I'm not going to live there myself.
  • I would be strongly opposed to anything like this at the state level, and vehemently opposed to this at the national level.
  • There are certain fundamental rights, like owning a firearm, that American cities should not be able to ban.

Health

  • Soda and sweetened drinks probably are the single most important factor contributing to obesity.
  • My big concern is that Bloomberg doesn't know what's actually healthy, even though he has the over-confidence typical of technocrats.
  • For example, his war on salt is totally misguided and not even supported by the existing scientific evidence.
  • I'm afraid Bloomberg is going to go after cholesterol, fat content, and stuff like that -- which is totally bogus, and may even result in more deaths.

So I'm not really up in arms about this specific ban, but I'm not excited about where this is all headed.

Comments

Oh my god, I cant believe I

Submitted by Jonathan on Sat, 10/06/2012 - 18:18.

Oh my god, I cant believe I actually thought u were a good guy once. But from what I read about your ideas on gun control, you seem like a republican nut! You'd rather the right to bear arms remains than all the lives that could be spared by not allowing guns. 

You betcha!   Your  "not

Submitted by Elenor on Sat, 10/06/2012 - 19:23.
  • You betcha!   Your  "not allowing guns"  just means only the criminals have them -- and ALL the rest of us become victims (instead of just those folks who wish to pretend the cops can come when needed)!   "All the lives that could be spared" won't be spared!  Are you even aware that the vast majority of "child gun deaths" are young males between the ages of 14 and 24 (a 24-yr-old child?!  but that's how they record it)  -- and nearly all of them are involved in drugs and gang warfare?!   (Dyah think outlawing my guns will stop them?! I guess you do.)

 

  •  How many of those lives do you think will be "spared" if MY guns are taken away?  And why should MY safety be jeopardized because you hate guns?  The Supreme Court has ruled that the police haved NO legal duty to any single person to protect them from violence.  (Police are mostly a mop-up squad, a report-taking squad, an investigation squad -- for AFTER the crime occurs!  And nowadays, they're mostly the enforcers of a police state!)  Do you truly feel safe relying on people who have no stake WHATSOEVER in your protection or -- more important -- the protection of your wife and children?

 

  •  And a Republican?!? You make me laugh. They're just as complete sell-outs as the Democrats!  No, I'm something much more terrifying (to you, apparently, anyway):  I'm a far,  far right (totally non-religious) reactionary!  I believe I cannot and should rely on "powers" whose interests either aren't mine or run contrary to mine.   To be a successful politician in this society, you have to be a pathological liar, willing to do anything to get elected -- and so they are!  Their interests do not align with mine, and I don't expect them to.  And if you think they align with yours?  Well... good luck with that.

 

  •  Still, there's no point in trying to convince the uneducated.  You believe whatever you choose to believe about the "horror" of guns, and keep your child-like innocence about the world.  If you think owning a gun makes me likely to go out and commit mayhem -- or anyone ELSE who isn't already predisposed to commit mayhem -- then you're ... well, child-like will have to do. I don't mean to particularly insult you... but adult knowledge requires adult decisions. The decision to defend yourself and your family -- and not to rely on people who are fundamentally unreliable -- is an adult decision. One which, apparently you're uninterested in making.  (And yes, I'm saying the cops are unreliable -- not because I'm saying anything about THEM -- but because when you need help within seconds? They're only minutes (or more!) away!

"There are certain

Submitted by Elenor on Fri, 09/14/2012 - 13:49.

"There are certain fundamental rights, like owning a firearm, that American cities should not be able to ban."Ah but -- if you let him/them do it to one object (that they should not be able to control / ban), then they WILL do it to other objects.   I disagree strongly with:  it's okay if they ban drinks, but not guns.  What's the difference?  Hell, they've already registered the guns -- they're not going to be able to confiscate larger cups, but guns?! Sure.  And they WILL make the (wrong, but emotionally powerful) case (because they already do) that guns cause more harm than sodas.I like your "voice and exit" concept -- but I don't think it's sufficient, or maybe even do-able.   The brainwashing that has made so many people (and the majority in NYC)  anti-gun will not allow for a reasonable 'voice' in the next decision to ban guns. (Beyond, of course, that NYC has, for all intents and purposes already banned guns!)  (And how does "exit" fit with that poor dying document, the Constitution?)It's not even a slippery slope: it's the old:  when they came for the sodas, I wasn't a soda drinker, so I said nothing.... Then they came for raw milk (already illegal in GA, where I am) and I didn't drink milk, so I said nothing... EITHER the govt can ban stuff at their whim, or they can't. There's no halfway! 

 Bolomberg goes after

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 08:28.

 Bolomberg goes after cigarrettes, metal bats, cellphones, salt and sugar in large drinks while he also develops a city spomsored program, delayed due to software problems, for renting bicycles with no helmet requirment.    So he is really about health?  How many children will be injured from falling from a bke while navigating NYC?  Meanwhile city employees are studying the techniques of starbucks baristas to ascertain which vente frappucinos are too sugary. The ban on sugary drinks will likely lead to a shift from large sodas to other equally bad sugary items without any discernable net health benefit.  Unfortunately the voice is quashed in NYC because Bloomberg just does this as an adminstrative act and he is not subject to re-election (unless he causes a waiver in the term limit law again).  Exit does not work because the costs of exit are always high compared to the loss in personal liberty.  Would you really sell your house, paying big brokerage charges, becasue of a sugary substance ban?  Not too likley.  So you die of a 1000 small cuts.  We need a systematic change where the Bloombergs of the world can not override personal choice.#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }  

They should also make a rule

Submitted by tim_lebsack on Wed, 06/13/2012 - 17:24.

They should also make a rule that cigarettes cannot be sold more than ten to a pack.

 John - I like that you're

Submitted by Chris Butterworth on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 16:40.

 John - I like that you're willing to tackle the political aspects of this topic, as well as the health side. And your Voice and Exit concepts are terrific; I'll keep those in mind going forward.I wrote a couple of years ago about the Big Gulp introducing the era of big drinks, which has spilled over into bigger portions of everything. I called it the most expensive product in history, basically blaming it for the obesity epidemic.  I republished that post this morning, in honor of New York: http://www.fitnessgazette.net/2012/06/big-gulp-most-expensive-product-in.htmlYour writing is very though provoking - keep it up!

"I'm afraid Bloomberg is

Submitted by Steve on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 16:39.

"I'm afraid Bloomberg is going to go after cholesterol, fat content, and stuff like that -- which is totally bogus, and may even result in more deaths."

When we sit back and allow something that appears innocuous , it only emboldens them to take the next step. Our voices instead of saying 'it not going to solve any problems, but isn't inherently bad' should be shouting to focus on the real issue, not symptoms that it has created. None of the problems Bloomberg is attempting to solve can be solved with out revisiting 1977 and McGovern's Dietary Guidelines for the United States.

If we sit on our hands now because its not horrible, we'll have no right to complain when the next step is taken.

I really like the voice and

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 15:57.

I really like the voice and exit model.  Decentralized rule making, especially in a country as socially and economically diverse as the United States, has much better potential for maximizing happiness for all as opposed to centralized, federal rule making.  Few barriers to geographic relocation aid this model as well.

This is a little bit off

Submitted by Madalyn on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:37.

This is a little bit off topic, but NPR had a story about the Paleo Diet moving more into the Physicians world.  Physicians are having success with treating Diabetes, Depression, and other problems.  I've been using the Paleo Diet for severe acne.  It has been three weeks.  So far so good.  It is going away.  MA