Saturday, February 24, 2018
Obesity and Paternalism
Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U.S. adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers are as well. Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health condition such as heart disease and diabetes. Some governments have attempted or considered paternalist interventions to stem the tide of obesity. For example, New York City attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sizes greater than 16 oz. Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax. In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 sells today for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax. These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far? Are these laws and taxes justified? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Considering the paternalism argument, I believe that paternalism is an effective way to make people abide by the laws of the government; however, if the paternalistic laws are too severe, then the government can be portrayed as tyrannical. For example, if the government passes a law that controls what you buy and when you are allowed to buy it, then it will help prevent people from wasting their money on items they do not need, such as tobacco or an unnecessarily expensive vase. It could then help improve the overall quality of life of these people, but it restricts their freedom of spending their money how they desire. This sense of paternalism is extremely restrictive and enslaves people to the law. Considering the soda pop example, this is a more reasonable case in which paternalism prevents the individual from becoming obese; however, this type of law does not affect wealthy individual in the same way as it affects an impoverished individual. To an impoverished person, the difference of one dollar is a major deficit to their monthly income, but to a wealthy person it is only a minor annoyance. This type of paternalism does not prevent the top 1% from buying the soda, but will affect the bottom 30%, almost discriminating the type of people who are allowed to buy these types of drinks. This means that the law is not as effective as it could be in dissuading individuals from buying these drinks. The only way for this type of taxation to work is if the taxation accounts for the economic status of the individual who is trying to buy the soda. This form of equity would then pass the intended affect to every individual. However, this type of taxation is not practical since it would create ambiguity in how to distribute the taxation to every individual. Also, I feel that this form of paternalism is essential to help curb people’s desire to have soft drinks. Most people want to have a Coke because it makes them feel good or because it tastes good to them. However, if you were to ask that same person if they wanted to become obese, they would immediately say no. This means that that individual is not well informed about the effects that soda has on their body, or does not think that soda will affect the body. Therefore, in order for these people to avoid obesity, the government needs to enforce these paternalistic laws. Without these laws, many people would continue to buy soft drinks, increasing their risk of obesity.
ReplyDeleteAlthough paternalistic, a sin tax on products or items that cause harm to self should be implemented. Rather than completely banning a particular substance from the public a sin tax utilizes the “nudge affect” in which individuals are discouraged from consuming or purchasing particular substances. Complete paternalism would be defined as the restriction/prohibition of a substance and this would take liberties away from induvial in a society. Paternalism, when seen through a different lens, can serve as guidance and give suggestion. Instead of laws that take away civil liberties, which I am not in accord with, educating the public on particular substances’ harms and even implementing a sin tax would be justified. On every product that can possibly cause harm to an individual, it should be the law that the company producing said product should advertise all of the products harmful effects in written language and pictures. For example, the consumption of tobacco products is proven to cause harmful effects with frequent or even moderate use. All of these products have warnings and some have pictures which graphically illustrate tobacco’s harmful effects to the human body. For a product to require this sort of warning I think that there should be extensive scientific research to justify why the warning would be placed there. In conclusion, I think the complete restriction of substances shouldn’t be banned but by utilizing the “nudge affect” individuals will retain their civil liberties even if they are discouraged from consuming a product.
ReplyDelete