Posted on

New York Times Says: When It Comes To Limiting Sugar In Our Food, Coercive Action Is Okay

Sometimes you have to see it to believe it.

The following Op-Ed, which appeared in yesterday’s New York Times, was written by one Daniel E. Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard — a fact I mention only because you, like me, might be tempted to think that someone with those sort of Ivy League credentials wouldn’t be capable of something so misbegotten. But you and I would both be wrong.

It just goes to show: the human capacity for rationalization is limitless. In this case, what’s being rationalized is the leftist justification of government force.

Here’s an excerpt:

OF all the indignant responses to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of giant servings of soft drinks in New York City, libertarian objections seem the most worthy of serious attention. People have certain rights, this argument goes, including the right to drink lots of soda, to eat junk food, to gain weight and to avoid exercise. If Mr. Bloomberg can ban the sale of sugar-laden soda of more than 16 ounces, will he next ban triple scoops of ice cream and large portions of French fries and limit sales of Big Macs to one per order? Why not ban obesity itself?

The obesity epidemic has many dimensions, but at heart it’s a biological problem. An evolutionary perspective helps explain why two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, and what to do about it. Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.

Read the full article here.



Posted on

Obama Administration to Ban Asthma Inhalers Over Environmental Concerns

As you may recall, the White House recently waived EPA ozone regulation because those regulations proved too costly (this despite the fact that you can’t put a price tag on mother earth), but now the Obama administration is looking to make asthmatics pay a steep price — a measure, let it be noted, which will have absolutely no effect on the ozone or the environment:

Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government’s latest attempt to protect the Earth’s atmosphere.

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.

The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.

But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.

Unlike these fatuous environmental regulations, asthma is no joke. Thus even left-wingers like the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle (an asthma sufferer herself) are campaigning against them. As McArdle correctly notes: “when consumers are forced to use environmentally friendly products they’re are almost always worse:

Er, industry also knew how to make low-flow toilets, which is why every toilet in my recently renovated rental house clogs at least once a week. They knew how to make more energy efficient dryers, which is why even on high, I have to run every load through the dryer in said house twice. And they knew how to make inexpensive compact flourescent bulbs, which is why my head hurts from the glare emitting from my bedroom lamp. They also knew how to make asthma inhalers without CFCs, which is why I am hoarding old albuterol inhalers that, unlike the new ones, a) significantly improve my breathing and b) do not make me gag. Etc.

(Link)

Cough it up, asthmatics, cough it up.