Mayor Bloomberg’s Sweet Sugary Nanny State

“A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down,” sang a legendary nanny. But today’s most powerful nanny, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, won’t tolerate that. He plans to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters, and even street carts, the New York Times reports.

Mayor Bloomberg has lots of facts at his fingertips: Many Americans are overweight. Consumption of sugar can cause weight gain. All true, and a good reason for Mike Bloomberg to watch his diet.

But why should he watch MY diet? And the diets of 8 million New Yorkers, most of them adults? If he thinks New Yorkers should consume less sugar, let him hold a press conference. But giving people information isn’t good enough for him. Sometimes he gives people information, and they still don’t act the way he thinks they should. So what’s a billionaire mayor to do? He could bribe them, I suppose. But as Otter said, that could take years and cost millions of lives. Well, millions of dollars anyway. So, like Otter, he’s decided to go with “a really futile and stupid gesture” instead.

When he’s in the mood, Mayor Bloomberg can give eloquent testimony to the virtue of freedom when it comes to Muslims  –

America is a beacon of freedom, and no place defends those freedoms more fervently, or has been attacked for those freedoms more ferociously, than New York City.

– or gay people:

I have no doubt that in your lifetime, liberty’s light will allow us to see more clearly the truth of our nation’s founding principles, and allow us to see all people, and all couples, as full and equal members of the American family….If government can deny freedom to one, it can deny freedom to all.

But somehow when it’s the mayor’s own sensibilities that are offended, he forgets his eloquent defense of freedom. Suddenly, as White House chief of staff Andrew Card said of President Bush, Bloomberg

You can read the rest of this article at:

One thought on “Mayor Bloomberg’s Sweet Sugary Nanny State”

  1. I’m not fond of purely ideological reasons for or against something, and I didn’t see much else in the above piece.

    Here’s a non-ideological argument in support of the ban: the NYC community currently pays untold millions every year for certain people to make bad decisions when it comes to their health. Shouldn’t that community then have the right to put limits on those choices?

    If you could somehow decouple those choices from their public impact, then you’d be on to something.


Comments are closed.