New soda wars

PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS We have problems with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban large-size sugary sodas. But like our beef with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter’s attempt to tax sugary drinks back in 2010, our objection is mostly based on practical considerations.

But most of the objections to Bloomberg’s proposal are not based on logistics; they’re based on “freedoms” and the “nanny state.”

It’s fun to pretend that we live in a time unequaled in government interference, and even more fun to pretend that we remember a time the government was far less intrusive. To that, we have two words: Oliver Cromwell.

The 17th Century Lord Protector of the British Commonwealth, Cromwell was said to have banned mincemeat pies because they were, essentially, too tasty and led to louche lifestyles. That’s not the earliest incident of a “nanny state,” but only one point on a long timeline of government banning things it thinks are dangerous—like cigarettes, or cocaine, or beef from mad cows. The rationale is that government must bear the cost of the bad effects of these things. And in the case of sugar, that cost is huge, in obesity and its many related illnesses. In fact, earlier this year, a team of scientists argued that sugar is so toxic it should be considered a controlled substance.

Those fretting about the “nanny state” claim that the government has no right to tell us how to behave, and those who must have their 32-ounce big gulps are exercising their personal freedom. Really? We believe otherwise.