If You Cant Stand the Fat, Stay out of the Restaurant Term Paper

If You Cant Stand the Fat, Stay out of the Restaurant - Term Paper Example Bloomberg has created a nanny state in an attempt to eradicate his city of what he calls â€Å"beasts,† (overweight people). This is by no means the first measure taken by the state to control consumption, but many believe it is justified since two-thirds of American adults and 25 percent of children are obese, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that obesity is the number one health problem in the United States. Is there research confirming that the government regulation of consumption results curbs obesity ─ and even if it did, should it have the right to enforce taxes, bans, and penalties in an attempt to bring about a healthier society? It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability ─ values that have been traded in for victimization and reliance on government. Individuals ─ not restaurants ─ make the decisions to purchase and consume food, so the ones ultimately responsibility for obesity are the consume rs, not the purveyors of food. Those ascribing to a smaller government and less intervention in citizens’ daily lives argue that personal freedoms are taken away when responsibility for one’s health is projected onto others. Regulations such as the one recently enforced in New York City, that do not allow restaurants and other businesses to serve fountain drinks over 16 ounces, raise major objections from citizens, who contend that the â€Å"government cannot legislate eating less or exercising more,†. To stop this tide of over-regulation that mandates restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus and requires stores to charge increased taxes on junk food, legislation such as â€Å"The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Bill† and â€Å"The Commonsense Consumption Act†.... sed taxes on junk food, legislation such as â€Å"The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Bill† and â€Å"The Commonsense Consumption Act† have been presented to statehouses so that lawsuits - waged against restaurants for â€Å"making† their patrons fat - will be prohibited by law. Those advocating personal accountability point to the failing premises behind socialized healthcare to prove their point, noting that such big government programs make Americans â€Å"troublingly tolerant of government trespasses on our freedom,† (Balko, Brownell, and Nestle 2004). Punishing restaurants for consumers’ obesity does not motivate customers to make healthy dietary choices, just as citizens are less likely to stay physically fit when others are forced to pay for their healthcare. Whether it is President Barack Obama pouring what will become trillions of dollars into Obamacare or former President George W. Bush designating $125 million of his budget in 2004 to encourage healthy lifestyles, using taxpayer money to bring about a fit America is by no stretch a panacea for an overweight America. On the same note, blaming and punishing restaurant owners for fattening their customers will not lean-down their clientele. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence supporting that exorbitant government programs and intrusive regulations result in a slimmer America, advocates of such measures maintain that they are necessary. They believe that restaurants and other purveyors of food are the problem that must be put under government control in order to bring citizens’ weight down. This was the exact reasoning behind the San Francisco City Council voting to ban fast food restaurants from giving kids’ toys with their meals - if they did not measure up to a certain health criteria.