Nobody's arguing for mandatory guns, Link, you're creating strawmen again.
The humor deficit in you curriculum is showing again.Me curriculum has a humor deficit
Nobody's arguing for mandatory guns, Link, you're creating strawmen again.
The problem with removing excess sugar from the American diet is that diet is, inherently, a personal choice. While it may be a bad choice, once you allow the government to interfere in personal decisions (which don't affect anyone else), you open the door for a system that can easily be abused to interfere with your life. We've seen time and time again (in Prohibition, in the War on Drugs) how interference in personal choices has always been a costly and ultimately unsuccessful endeavor.
The government intervenes in personal choices all the time. You just happened to cherry pick two examples and give your interpretation. Wearing seatbelts is a personal choice and the government interventions have been a success.I agree with you that this is not a policy which the government has a right to pursue, but in any case it's a comparison between two things which are not all that similar. Soda is mildly addictive (not nearly as much as alcohol, but still) and is quite significant in American culture in many places. There's no closer analogy than Prohibition in the 1920s, though obviously it's still imperfect.
I really doubt if you ban big gulps Colombian cartels, Chicago mobsters, and LA Street gangs are going to take over distribution and murder each other for turf...you are still permitted to buy multiple drinks if you really want that volume of sugar water.
If you ban soda entirely, you will see criminals take up the selling of sodas, like they did alcohol in the 1920s. If you just ban high sizes, like Mayor Bloomberg attempted, you hurt the free market and the consumer to no foreseeable gain on anyone's part except for the merchants and corporations lucky enough to sell smaller sizes of soda.
I personally don't know what effect the ban would have if allowed to go forward.
Why would you support a policy if you don't know what it's result would be?
I think the point is the creep of empty calories is very insidious in the American diet. If you travel you will realize that other countries are not full of crazy gym fanatics and dieters. They just aren't trained to get huge drinks and servings at restaurants. It never occurs to them to gorge themselves.
Coming from a family that is not from the US and is fairly well-off, I have traveled more extensively than the average American (I was in Vienna 2 weeks ago), and, yes, this is true. But it isn't the government's role to legislate culture, because then it becomes tyrannical.
You speak of choice but the average person is not making a conscious choice.
...yes, they are.
Through psychology, marketing, and ignorance they are being trained to engage in unhealthy and harmful behavior.
Psychology is the study of human behavior -- you're saying people are motivated by studying human behavior to engage in behavior which is unhealthy and harmful? I know it's a dreary subject but certainly that's an exaggeration. Marketing and ignorance (for instance, your ignorance admitted to above of the effect such a law would have) can affect personal decisions but ultimately they remain yours to make.
I don't think if you inject someone with heroin for five year in year six if they crave heroin it can be argued to be a "personal choice."
If somebody begins to inject themselves with heroin, then certainly it is a personal choice. If you inject someone with heroin, then certainly once you're caught you'll go to jail.