Fizz is not so sweet

THERE are people out there who need help from above.

There are people who drive so recklessly they pose a risk to others. There are people who gamble so much they can’t feed the kids. There are people who get into a debt bubble maxing out credit cards to buy nonessentials. And there are people who very regularly over consume fast food and become morbidly obese as a result.

These people can benefit from state intervention in how they run their lives.

But they are exceptions and not the mainstream of society.

As a general rule the public aren’t as wayward or as stupid as some self-regarding elites would have us believe.

The general public usually get it right at elections (and postal plebiscites) and we regularly run our lives and manage our finances better than if officials interfered on our behalf.

Where it gets tricky is when officials try to create policy to reach the exceptions but that effects everyone. This can lead to directives that are offensive to those of us who believe in individuals taking personal responsibility for themselves.

At their worst and most meddling such directives are derided as ‘nanny state’ measures.

There is a broader risk of such approaches that if you treat adults like children, for instance insisting that takeaway coffee cups are labeled with a warning that the hot coffee inside is, well ... hot - they will come to act like children.

If a giant warning and safety net is always expected, people won’t keep their wits about them or watch where they step.

A good rule of thumb is how onerous the interference is for everyone measured against the benefit achieved.

Geelong has been a pioneer in banning sugary drinks in some public venues. This does seem vaguely offensive to the liberty of adults to choose for themselves.

But today’s revelations of links between syrupy beverages and cancer may indicate that our city has fallen on the right side of the benefit-versus-nanny-state divide.