Michigan Governor Jennifer "I can't be president, darn it. I was born in Canada." Granholm, a Democrat, recently vetoed an attempt by the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature to overturn the state's 30-year-old mandatory motorcycle helmet law. The bill included a requirement for more insurance to ride without a helmet, so why the veto? Because it's good for us.
Almost every adult here in Michigan wears a seat belt while driving because not wearing one invites a $65 ticket. Police officers, when they are not chasing felons or eating donuts, pull over the foolish few, write a ticket, and remind us all that we should wear our seat belts because it's good for us.
I'm sure the donut thing is just a stereotype. Cops have a reputation for eating them, but the truth seems more likely to be that the stress and irregular hours involved in being a police officer lead to poor eating habits. I understand. I sometimes eat badly due to stress, and I'm not even in law enforcement. But I see in high cholesterol and the other results of a poor diet an opportunity to give something back to law enforcement, or to anyone who has trouble eating well. Like the seat belt law, we should have a law that motivates us to eat better. Eating better will be good for us as individuals and as a society!
I have in mind a law -- heck, a whole plethora of laws -- that will help police officers and everyone else do what's good for them. I think we should start ticketing people whose cholesterol, or blood pressure, or blood sugar, or any other measure of good health, is not within a normal range.
It's the same basic logic as the seat belt law. Most people know what's good for them, but can't seem to do it without the threat of punishment. The same is true for institutions. Most states probably wouldn't have a seat belt law except for the fact that federal highway funds are tied to them.
Enforcing the Cholesterol Act of 2006 would be easy. Want a Big Mac? Great. Just slide your updated health ID through the card reader. Oops! Your LDL is too high. Trying to buy fatty beef with a bad cholesterol reading gets you a $50 fine and a mandatory salad with a diet cola and lite dressing on the side.
I can see the development of a whole new industry: fast food blood testing/individualized menu marketing. The first stop in the drive-thru will be the blood test. The results will flash on the computerized menu screen along with all of the allowable foods personalized for the driver and each passenger. Go ahead and order a Big Mac. Your heart can take a burger, but... no fries with that.
Of course, high end restaurants will provide a more refined experience. Patrons will inhabit private drawing rooms and discuss food preferences with personal chefs before being served individually designed meals in privacy-protected serving dishes. Privacy is important because no one needs to know a wealthy person's blood pressure, or what they eat because of it.
Family restaurants will likely provide various menu levels for different cholesterol, blood pressure, or glucose ranges. The more creative establishments will give discounts for parties with the best overall numbers. "Johnson, party of five, average cholesterol 161!" Get an even deeper discount if every member of your party orders from the lower-fat menu, even though they don't have to.
Monitoring home-cooked meals may be more problematic. The effect of some foods on health depends on how they are prepared and the quantities eaten. No doubt a few scofflaws will try to circumvent the good intentions of the Cholesterol Act by deep frying pounds of julienned potatoes in beef tallow rather than serving a small baked potato with a single pat of low-fat margarine.
The solution to such illegal activity will be at the grocery checkout counter. Bad numbers on the instant blood test will lead to fines, buying restrictions (Twinkies? I don't think so. Buy some apples instead.), and nutrition education (sort of like traffic school).
I'm sure someone will suggest that the Cholesterol Act infringes on the freedom of choice enjoyed by responsible adults. Nonsense on two counts! Responsible adults don't make poor food choices, and people certainly will enjoy good health more than they would enjoy eating mass quantities of so-called comfort food.
The result of the Cholesterol Act will be healthier Americans, particularly when the deterrent effect kicks in. Knowing that your neighbor has racked up $1,000 in fines due to his obsession with Double-Stuft Oreos will help you follow the recommendations on the food pyramid very closely.
Providing motivation for good behavior is what laws are all about. We should take better advantage of statutory strategies to encourage health. Of course, we also need to be careful not to lose the benefit of laws already on the books, such as the seat belt law.
We need to pass the Cholesterol Act to protect law enforcement officers so that they can protect us. The police have the incredibly difficult job of protecting us from our own bad behavior. We need to return the favor.
More later,
Russ
No comments:
Post a Comment