Talk-Polywell.org

Well there is a precedent.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/20 ... ts-at.html

One professor at George Washington University has just come up with the brilliant idea of forcing his students to lobby for a Bloomberg-style soda ban across the Nation.

RedAlertPolitics reports, "Prof forces students to lobby government to ban soda":

“Some 200 undergrads will be asked to contact legislators in their home cities, counties, or states asking them to adopt legislation similar to that already adopted in New York City … banning restaurants, delis, movie theaters and many other businesses from selling high-sugar drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces.”

To appease students who may not wish to advocate the specific policy in place in New York City, Banzhaf supplied a list of substitute activities, which include:

Ban the sale of sugary soft drinks entirely Ban the sale of sugary soft drinks to children Put a special tax on sugary soft drinks; e.g., to reduce consumption and/or to fund counterads Don’t exempt sugary soft drinks from the ordinary sales tax Prohibit the sale of sugary soft drinks in vending machines Mandate per-oz. pricing of sugary soft drinks in venues like fast food restaurants and movie theaters (i.e., a 32 oz. serving must cost at least twice as much as a 16 oz. serving) Limit the maximum size for sugary soft drinks in venues like fast food restaurants and movie theaters (e.g., a single serving can be no more than 16 oz.).

As Walter Olson at Cato points out:

All the other examples given, however, involve alternative ways of extending regulation and taxation in the food and beverage realm. Presumably any student that believes that the government should stay out of this area has had the foresight to drop the course.

===

Links at the above link.

The Food Nazis are on the march.

If one believes that sugar is the single most dangerous ingredient in food today, one that causes billions of dollars of physical, emotional and financial damage, one can not be blamed for trying to lessen or remove its influence.

However forcing someone to help your cause is reprehensible. One should be able to convince through evidence.

HFCS the scourge of the western diet.

Stubby wrote:If one believes that sugar is the single most dangerous ingredient in food today, one that causes billions of dollars of physical, emotional and financial damage, one can not be blamed for trying to lessen or remove its influence.

However forcing someone to help your cause is reprehensible. One should be able to convince through evidence.

HFCS the scourge of the western diet.

I seem to tolerate HFCS quite well. I eat excessive amounts of it and my weight is not too bad, I don't exercise, and my health is good for my age - 68. I really don't like the idea of government prohibitions. If you assume a lack of self control there is no limit to the good government can do by banning things. Guns say. Or drugs.

I can't tolerate salt the way I used to. So I avoid very high salt foods. I also can't tolerate greasy foods. Potato chips are thus very bad for me. Or alcohol. I have one beer every few weeks.

Think of all the bans I could instigate due to MY body chemistry.

Umm, what optional course has 200 students in it.