This is not an argument about personal freedoms for me. It is a question about efficiency, which this law isn't. What's the point of limiting the amount of soda one can serve if they don't limit everyone? I mean, they exempt convenience stores like 7-Eleven - and keep in mind, this is New York. THERE IS A 7-ELEVEN ON VIRTUALLY EVERY STREET CORNER. The fact that it only limits its influence to certain areas already neuters any viability it has right out the gate. This will not stop obesity. It will not force people who have unhealthy lifestyles to suddenly have healthy lifestyles. It will not magically make them drink less soda, only make it harder for them to do so.
To me, this law is no better than the one that makes it illegal for women to carry condoms, in the hopes it might curb prostitution. Oh look! You just increased the spread of STDs! Congratulations, American lawmakers. You guys are truly the pinnacle of mental acuity.
Well, law by its nature isn't efficient. In fact more law is the exact opposite of efficient. So I must admit I'm a little confused about the "efficiency" argument.
The point about convenience stores being exempt - well that's a consistency issue right, not an efficiency one? I totally agree I find that puzzling, seems if you're going to do this, you want to do it across the board.
But the prevailing studies on this topic seem to suggest exactly the opposite of what you are arguing - that people will in fact magically drink less soda if they don't have the option to drink more at maximum possible convenience. There are an awful lot of reproducable experiments that say you are wrong about that - that suggest when presented with a series of options, people tend to stay within those presented options.
And the comparison to women carrying condoms is... well tenuous at best for me really. That one requires more explanation for me.
I dunno, I guess I just don't see what the big deal is. I actually am starting to think it may just be worth a shot.
Author
