Critics dismiss the ban as yet another expression of Bloomberg’s nanny-state mentality and as a “feel-good placebo” that’s doomed to fail. They’re right that the ban is blatantly paternalist. But that doesn’t mean it won’t work.
It’s true that the ban will be easy to circumvent: if you want to drink thirty-two ounces, you can just buy two sixteen-ounce servings. But Bloomberg’s proposal makes clever use of what economists call “default bias.” If you offer a choice in which one option is seen as a default, most people go for that default option.
My point being we KNOW tobacco kills, and yet I don't recall any limits on its sale, in NY or anywhere.
The possibility that high, long-term intake of carbohydrates that are rapidly absorbed as glucose may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes has been a long-standing controversy. Two main mechanisms have been hypothesized, one mediated by increases in insulin resistance and the other by pancreatic exhaustion as a result of the increased demand for insulin. During the past decade, several lines of evidence have collectively provided strong support for a relation between such diets and diabetes incidence. In animals and in short-term human studies, a high intake of carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (a relative measure of the incremental glucose response per gram of carbohydrate) produced greater insulin resistance than did the intake of low-glycemic-index carbohydrates. In large prospective epidemiologic studies, both the glycemic index and the glycemic load (the glycemic index multiplied by the amount of carbohydrate) of the overall diet have been associated with a greater risk of type 2 diabetes in both men and women. Conversely, a higher intake of cereal fiber has been consistently associated with lower diabetes risk. In diabetic patients, evidence from medium-term studies suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index carbohydrates with a low-glycemic-index forms will improve glycemic control and, among persons treated with insulin, will reduce hypoglycemic episodes. These dietary changes, which can be made by replacing products made with white flour and potatoes with whole-grain, minimally refined cereal products, have also been associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and can be an appropriate component of recommendations for an overall healthy diet.
One of the weirdest things about On Liberty is how hard Mill argues to ban alcohol.
I was reading along this thread more or less undecided until I actually converted the sizes. These complaints are about not being able to buy drinks in 2-pint and 3.5-pint glasses? How on earth did these sizes become standard in America?
A lot of it, also crime, etc. but if I recall correctly he also mentions the health and dissolution of the drunk.
« Older 80s Muscle!... | According to the Guardian, Goo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt