Protecting You From Yourself: Part 1 - People are Dumb

As I've read some of the events going on throughout the world today, I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Men in Black. Tommy Lee Jones' character, Kay, speaking to Will Smith's character says, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

This idea of the individual being intelligent, but once grouped with the masses, becoming ignorant, irrational, and fearful appears to be evident throughout the world. A person of average intelligence (which by definition should be the majority of the population) knows that wearing a seatbelt can save their lives in an automobile accident. Yet in 2008, in 55% of all automobile fatalities the victim was not wearing a seatbelt1. If you asked the average individual whether regularly smoking cigarettes was harmful to their health, they would say, “Yes.” Yet each year nearly 490,000 people in the US die from tobacco related deaths2. Heck, the individual even knows not to walk in the middle of the street, but for some reason we forget that rule whenever we get in proximity of a Wal-Mart.

In an effort lower the fatality rate in these examples, our elected leaders and those whom they appoint have enacted laws from ticketing motorists who don't wear their seat belts to Surgeon General Warnings on tobacco products.

It all seems like a good idea. The problem is that somewhere along the way, the idea of, “If people are informed, they will make different choices” became, “If people will not protect themselves, somebody must do it for them”.

Case in point, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is planning on introducing legislation this fall that will impose an added tax on retailers on all sugary beverages3. Under California law, he would need voter approval to impose a tax on individual cans of soda and other kinds of sugary juice, but he only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to tax the retailers, an approval he is expected to get.

And what is the Mayor's reason for the tax levy? A UCLA study has recently been released showing a link between soda and obesity in California. The researchers found that adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27% more likely to be obese than those who don't. The study also showed that soda consumption is one of the causes of the state's $41 billion annual obesity problem.

Of course, such a tax is not going to simply be paid by the soda/sugary drink retailers. They will pass their additional costs onto the consumer, a move Mayor Newsom not only has to know, but is most likely counting on, the hope being that if the consumer has to pay more for the product, their consumption of it will change. A small rise in price, consumption might go down a little, a high rise in price, consumption may cease altogether.

The city attorney's office has warned Mayor Newsom that he will most likely be sued if he does push through such a tax.

"We know we'll be sued," Mayor Newsom said. "But I really believe this is important to do."

Director of San Francisco's Department of Public Health, Mitch Katz, said a study conducted over the past nine months showed a clear link between soda consumption and an increased burden on the public health system. Mr. Katz did not, however, give a dollar amount to the burden. He went on to say he considers a soda fee an incremental step, and that other sugary foods could someday have a surcharge as well.

"It makes sense for the government to help people to make the right choices...," he said.

I ask, “make the right choices” according to whose barometer? And let’s not be naive and assume this is going to end with a small tax and therefore a small increase in prices. Mayor Newsom has implied this “war on sugar” is the new “war on tobacco”, and the anti-sugar movement is not going to rest until they have demonized the behavior to the point that they can remove sugary drinks from shelves.

Now, I’m not an avid soda/sugary drink consumer. I might have one soda a week at the most, and that’s only if I go out to eat, so in all reality a jump in the cost of sodas and other sugary beverages is not really going to affect me. However, the premise that something like this sets does affect me, directly. This notion, that if I don’t make the “right choice” then it will be made for me, I find to be appalling. How long will it take before something I do enjoy is attacked, taxed, and ultimately removed as an option? All under the guise of being “for the greater good” or that “the end justifies the means” or any other facade we use to placate our conscious from doing something which is wrong.

One of the defining characteristics that citizens of the US cling to is the idea of a “freedom of choice”. We are free to choose our religion, our politics, and professions; to voice our opinions both verbally and through writing; to think and to feel according to the dictates of our own conscious. There may be consequences, good or bad, attached to our decisions, but isn’t that the beauty of our system? We have been given the opportunity to fail! We have the inalienable right to be wrong! If drinking sugary drinks makes me obese and I decide that I am going to continue to drink them, then haven’t I made my decision? Haven’t I accepted my consequence of never having the physique of an underwear model? Haven’t I exercised my “freedom of choice”? But because my choice isn’t what another might choose I’m no longer going to be given the option?

Eating a pound of bacon a day probably isn’t the greatest thing for my heart and health in general, so is my bacon consumption going to be attacked one day? Am I going to be rationed to a pound a week? a month? a year? It sounds ridiculous, and it should, unfortunately in a world where you are too dumb to govern yourself, there will always be others willing to do it for you.



1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment. There are around 200 million vehicles on US roads today and around 6 million accidents each year. Your chances of having an automobile accident sometime in your life is fairly high and 1 in 150 chances that your accident will be a fatality accident, and of those unfortunate fatality accidents, over half of those involved could have been saved if they had only wore their seatbelt.
2 Institute of Medicine, 2007
3 Heather Knight, Newsom wants to charge stores that sell sodas, SFGate, Sept. 18, 2009