Economics-Entry 4

'Anti-Bloomberg' bill stops overregulation
 

March 14th, 2013, CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/13/opinion/smith-anti-bloomberg-bill/index.html?hpt=ibu_c2

Summary

Anti-bloomberg Act, an act of regulating the selling of high-caloric beverages in restaurants, is facing a great opposition from consumers and producers. Government's stance is that such food is threatening health of American, so it is necessary for government to intervene selling of health-threatening foods. However, there are many alternative ways of promoting healthy life of people instead of limiting people's rights to pursuit happiness and market. Because of this act, many stores are closing their business, and this indiscrete intervention is delaying economic development. For the most part, government can make better and more reasonable agenda, including renovation of sidewalks or encouraging consumption of vegetable and healthy food. Government's regulation on selling fo high-caloric beverage is only provoking opposition of people and not producing any beneficial result.

My Opinion

Approving Anti-bloomberg Act is a huge dillema for Congress. Nobody can deny that high-caloric beverages are catalyzing obesity of American population. However, is it reasonable for government to harshly regulate selling of drinks, like cigarettes? The significant difference between cigarette and drinks is their popularity. Sodas and coke are one of the most popular beverages that American has loved for a long time; therefore, dramatic reduction of drink would cause (and actually is causing) significant oppositions among soda consumers and producers. For the most part, such a radical change is not a good method, but it would be better for the society to refrain from such drinks step by step, such as exhortaion or campaigning. Regulation would not only be disproductive in health issue but also in economy as well.