I wrote an article for EmpowHER recently about Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants.
He wanted these super-sized behemoths to be taken off menus. A person would still be able to get a pretty large drink and have free refills.
His attempt failed due to the ban being blocked by a New York judge, at least for now.
Many in New York are upset. They think that legally curbing certain food choices (much like was done with trans fats) will lead to better health in general and lessen medical costs for the growing epidemic of obesity.
But others, including the state of Mississippi, vehemently disagree.
Citing personal choice and a distaste for government or legal interference with individual rights, this attempted ban on large sugary drinks caused an uproar. Commentators talked about their choice to eat or drink anything (in any amount) without any kind of interference.
Some compared these choices to the abortion debate.
Commentators wonder when the government will stop trying to run the lives of private citizens while others wonder why obese people who make poor nutritional choices should get free health care for their obesity-related illnesses, causing higher taxes or insurance hikes.
Sarah Palin showed up at a GOP conference, sipping a huge soda, telling the crowd that it's "just pop, with low-cal ice cubes in it." She received thunderous applause. Read more here: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sarah_pops_off_at_mike_eimIanq47kg...
Mississippi has taken it a little further, passing what some call the "Anti-Bloomberg Bill" (not the official name of the law), stating that no government entity other than State legislation can pass a bill like this.
Governor Phil Bryant signed this bill stating that "It simply is not the role of the government to micro-regulate citizens' dietary decisions," the governor wrote about his decision, "...the responsibility for one's personal health depends on individual choices about a proper diet and appropriate exercise."