A new report blames sugary soda for the deaths of 6,000 Americans in the last decade, saying it contributes to obesity, heart disease and diabetes. The analysis from researchers at the University of California at San Francisco has renewed debate over a proposed tax on soft drinks to help reduce obesity. However, should the federal government be legislating moality?
New York state has considered a penny-per-ounce tax on sodas, excluding diet sodas that don't contain sugar. The plan got a big boost from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said in
his radio address that a soda tax "makes sense because it could save lives and cut health care costs, and generate revenue for the state's schools and other programs”
Advocates who support the idea say it's similar to a tax on cigarettes and alcohol, and could improve the public's health, but not all critics are convinced the government should be making
that choice for consumers.
The fundamental issue with government getting involved with, legislating, or creating policy that encourages and/or mandates "Morals" is that it is impossible to make a law on this issue
that represents all of America. Since our society is so diverse, and "Morals" are subjective.Who is to say what you, I, or any governing body think, is morally correct, or in fact, "Right." Since
it is subjective, we may only claim that what we think is morally, true, correct and right; Is so, only for ourselves.
This country was founded on the premiss that I can not tell you what is right for you and you can not tell me,what is right for me. 51% of the population does not get to tell 49% how to live, what
they should believe, and how they should go about their daily lives. 99% of the population can not take away the rights of 1%. Because, if the rights of 1 person are not respected and
preserved, than the rights of us all, are subject to restrictions.
Legislating morality is not about right and wrong! It's about our government/politicians belief that their version or idea of whats right, is worth more and should carry more weight -in our lives, than our own moral codes. As if to say that we are not responsible enough to decide what we should or should not put, In our bodies, teach our children, and live our day to day lives.
It is not the role of government to adjust my moral compass simply because it lies in a position that is not deemed to be appropriate or popular, or “in-line” with the current idea's that are propagated by any political affiliation. I have the right as a individual soul, to hold true in my heart what i see fit. ( even if my morals are
such that they cause me harm, as long as exercising my moral prerogative does not infringe upon, or harm anyone else)
This is the very fiber of what true freedom is. I have the inherent right to be free of policy, law, and coercion, in any form that creates an imperative that i change my, or conform to your, beliefs.
And exercising this right should NOT incur a penalty! No person should find it anymore taxing to exercise a right, than it is to NOT exercise them. The thing that makes this kind of "liberty restriction" so hard to swallow is the fact that abroad, our government is involved in and is the main offender in some the worst human rights violations to occur in history. To date, over 1,000,000 Iraq civilians have been brutally murdered as a direct result of our governments moral imperative to “liberate the citizens of Iraq”. (Opinion Business
Research, an independent research firm from London, England puts the estimate at 1,200,000 +/-2.5%) The number of Iraqi's thathave lost their homes, possessions, and Jobs? *4,000,000* Yes,
that's four million people who have nothing to do with terrorism, or the 9/11 attacks. That is equal to all the people in Philadelphia, Dallas, and San Diego put together!
The government that has caused all this suffering and death; Our government! The same institution that here at home, try to tell us what we can and can not eat, drink or smoke. Are they morally correct? I have heard the argument that there is a basic standard of morals that a society must adhere to, lest it break down into chaos. This is of course is common sense. But should it be dictated to us under threat of penalty?
When we believe the propaganda that it is anyone's business what you do in or with, your home, bedroom, or your body (especialy in the name of security) than we are usurping the very principles on which we profess to be trying to secure. This country was founded as a republic. Where the rights of one person are just as important
as the rights of every person. We have lapsed in our responsibilities as citizens. We have become lazy in our oversight of our government. "All government is meant only to serve the people. If the structure and process of governing becomes polluted, then it is the perogitive of the people to redress their grievences and restore a governing body of their choosing"
Our society has become accustomed to the coddling of citizens in the form of government funded welfare programs and social aid which intercedes in just about every aspect of the persons life.
Our government should (according to the framers of the constitution) only have the power to which the people have agreed to allow it. If we allow our governments to dictate our choices, we no longer a free, independent, sovereign individual. We will have become as a slave.
By: Joeseph Spencer
The Weekly Stash