For every action, an equal and opposite overreaction

[Craig234]

Also, the average American consumes almost three times as much soda yearly as beer. It is simply a far larger contributor to obesity.

Regardless, the argument is silly anyway. Saying we shouldn't do one thing to combat obesity because we aren't doing other things as well is an absurd position to hold.

I've long ago reached the opinion that the obsessive demand for consistency causes far more harm than good in public policy. Inconsistency is often ok.

Demand for consistency leads to argument like 'because we don't treat EVEYRTHING exactly the same that's a health issue, there should be no special treatment for tobacco'.

I disagree. I prefer an inconsistent treatment of tobacco to 'consistency'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've long ago reached the opinion that the obsessive demand for consistency causes far more harm than good in public policy. Inconsistency is often ok.

Demand for consistency leads to argument like 'because we don't treat EVEYRTHING exactly the same that's a health issue, there should be no special treatment for tobacco'.

I disagree. I prefer an inconsistent treatment of tobacco to 'consistency'.

Thing is that there is no safe limit for smoking and no "second hand" soda drinking problems. There's also no evidence that Bloomberg is doing anything other than setting up arbitrary limits for any reason than he had power. That's bad medicine.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Demand for consistency leads to argument like 'because we don't treat EVEYRTHING exactly the same that's a health issue, there should be no special treatment for tobacco'.

I disagree. I prefer an inconsistent treatment of tobacco to 'consistency'.

Inconsistency isn't a good basis for making laws that limit people's freedoms. There really is very little distance between "inconsistent" and "arbitrary". It leaves too much room open for subjective judgment on the part of authorities, which is far too easy to abuse.

And tobacco, as HR mentioned, is a poor example. It affects other people directly -- sodas do not.

The other problem with tobacco is not that it gets special more stringent treatment because of its health issues, but rather that it gets special lenient treatment because of its historical status. If tobacco was unknown and someone discovered it today, it would probably end up on Schedule I. It is the very inconsistency of it being even today largely unregulated that makes it dangerous.