Considering my position, it is obvious that I see the cons of Government intervention more prominently than the pros, but I'll see what I can do to give both of the pending arguments justice.
Let me step out of my mindset and first present the reasons for Government intervention. There is the obvious goal of slimming down the nation. As obesity rates have risen some incredible amount in the past 20 years, the Government is concerned for their citizens. (Mind you that they'd also like to decrease the $90 billion spent a year on obesity related medical complications.) I am with them in their concern; if these rates continue to rise we are in big trouble. There has been no other successful measure in lessening obesity in America: the rates are still rising. If the Government takes control of this situation, they will establish themselves as a savior, regaining the footing of the country through this terrible fall full of calories from McDonald's and Taco Bell.
Another aspect of the pro-government intervention arguement is the enhancement it would provide to the economy; food has become a cheap and accessible commody. Today, all a mother has to do after a busy day is take five minutes to go through the drive-thru for a $20 meal that will feed the whole family. However, with government officals requiring the purchase of nutritious or organic products, households will be putting more of their paychecks into the purchase of food, contributing to the economy, which has recently been declining.
Ah finally, the cons. Beside the simple fact that the Government would be intervening for all the wrong reasons (those of lowering the amount of Government funds spend on obesity complications, and improving the economy), the Government will be erasing all traces of the laissez faire democracy that was once in effect. Instead of allowing individuals to decide what goes into their mouths, the Government has begun monitoring that as well. It is also important to recognize the effects that might arise. For one, the Eating Disorder idea that I explained in my overview. These laws would instill a completely wrong mindset in children, to fear food. As they grow into teens and adults, they will not have an emotionally healthy relationship with food. Also, although this is far from my main concern, the result in having to purchase more healthy and expensive food could be devistating for many middle and lower class families.
3 comments:
Hey Alyssa, it's Jenn May, one of your blog buddies.
Your topic is really interesting, I wouldn't have thought about it but it does seem relevant with the presidential election that will soon be taking place.
I tend to agree with you in favor of the government not intefering in America's food choices, for the same reasons that you mentioned. I would be really curious to know if you know of any precedents set in the past over any similar issues. Also, in what ways do you believe that the government can intervene in the sale of tobacco but not on fatty foods?
Good Luck and Good Job!
Hello, I got your question and I figured I'd write a quick summary. I'm not sure whether or not you read my 'pro-con' post but if you did not that may help further explain the act.
It's a little difficult to describe whats in the Patriot Act because, to begin with, I am neither a lawyer nor have I had to time to read the over four hundred pages of legislation. Based on Congressional summaries, however, the major aspects are:
~A three teired system to allow federal officials to gather intelligence (a culmination of laws that had previously been used in drug trafficing)
~an easing on some of the restrictions on forgein intelligence gathering in the US
~harsher penalties for money laundering and supporting terrorist organizations
~previsions designed to prevent alien terrorists from entering the US
~the creation of new crimes and penalties for terrorist activity
If you are feeling really motivated, or are bored, here is an attachment for a short congrssional summary of the Patriot Act:http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf
Sorry you had to read my blog when you did, it was a little unclear. I'm going to edit it. But your topic is actually really interesting, considering the recent CWCBOE ban on sugary foods (I think it's the foods with the first ingredient as sugar). Another thing you could possibly mention in your argument is the ban of trans-fats, which sort of ties in. I also thing it was clever to tie in your own experience to your argument, with the little anecdote about the cupcakes with the red hearts. I definitely agree with your point, and I think Leanne D is doing the ban on trans-fats if you need another viewpoint on that. Good work so far! You seem to be on top of thigns
Post a Comment